Timeline as prepared by the group between 3rd and 10th May.
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
In my opinion no-one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near 5A with all that activity going on.
is most of this taken from the twice translated non verbatim statements...if so we cannot be sure of the accuracy
It’s from the timelines written on the night and the one handed in on the 10th, both in english.
is most of this taken from the twice translated non verbatim statements...if so we cannot be sure of the accuracy
Clicking on the link provided will tell you what you need to know.
Timeline as prepared by the group between 3rd and 10th May.Perhaps she was taken by someone not “in their right mind”?
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
In my opinion no-one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near 5A with all that activity going on.
is most of this taken from the twice translated non verbatim statements...if so we cannot be sure of the accuracy
Perhaps she was taken by someone not “in their right mind”?
But thanks for illustrating the clear window of opportunity between 9.45 and 10pm. .
Perhaps she was taken by someone not “in their right mind”?Taken by someone not 'in their right mind', but wily and aware as a fox and a criminal mastermind.
But thanks for illustrating the clear window of opportunity between 9.45 and 10pm. .
I don't believe translating something twice or thrice will confuse any numerical detail. Good try tho. @)(++(*
Perhaps she was taken by someone not “in their right mind”?You guys should have a meeting. Davros has just reiterated that these timelines are unreliable.
But thanks for illustrating the clear window of opportunity between 9.45 and 10pm. .
Taken by someone not 'in their right mind', but wily and aware as a fox and a criminal mastermind.Sure, why not. It’s either that or the parents fitting the same description, which seems more likely?
You guys should have a meeting. Davros has just reiterated that these timelines are unreliable.Oh dear, HQ will probably dock our pay now 8(8-))
Personally I prefer to look at possible scenarios which have evidence to support them and that is why I do not believe she was taken from her bedroom by any stranger. Saying she was abducted is a classic 'get out of jail quick' card imo.
ive clicked ...
so no one checked 5a between 9.30 and 10...thats 30 mins...ample time for an abduction
5A didn't exist in isolation. All the group had to be out of the way imo. There was a 5 minute window between Marr disappearing into the Tapas and Jane appearing to relieve Russell. Five minutes later he emerges and goes to the Tapas. There's a 10 minute window then until Kate appears, but no guarantee that Jane will remain in 5D.
what makes your dog evidence any more reliable than the cadaver dogs...its full of holes
A whole world of difference actually. Cadaver dogs find substances which they were trained to find but none of this relates directly to Maddie. The tracker dogs on the other hand are trained to track scent taken from fabric or garments directly related to the missing person and that is why I am 99% certain that both dogs tracked Maddie's fresh scent the night she disappeared. The evidence of these dogs strongly suggests Maddie walked out the unlocked front door the night she went missing and ended up in the road across from the mini reception. What happened to her next is anyone's guess.
The forensics in ruling out any intruder gives support to woke and wandered.
As you know, a child was abducted from a bath whilst her mother was in another room... Ten minutes is more than enough
The dog handler doesn't agree with you.. He says
The second dog may have, simply followed the trail laud down by the first
And the, scent may have been from a previous, day...
I haven't seen any forensics ruling out an intruder...
The dog handler doesn't agree with you.. He says
The second dog may have, simply followed the trail laud down by the first
And the, scent may have been from a previous, day...
I haven't seen any forensics ruling out an intruder...
The dog handler doesn't agree with you.. He saysOr ruling it in.
The second dog may have, simply followed the trail laud down by the first
And the, scent may have been from a previous, day...
I haven't seen any forensics ruling out an intruder...
The dog handler doesn't agree with you.. He says
The second dog may have, simply followed the trail laud down by the first
And the, scent may have been from a previous, day...
I haven't seen any forensics ruling out an intruder...
What kind of forensics would you expect ?
Timeline as prepared by the group between 3rd and 10th May.
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
In my opinion no-one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near 5A with all that activity going on.
Even if the second dog did mirror the route taken by the first dog we still have the principal route as evidence. There's no way of getting away from it as dogs don't lie.
The dog handler doesn't agree with you.. He says
The second dog may have, simply followed the trail laud down by the first
And the, scent may have been from a previous, day...
I haven't seen any forensics ruling out an intruder...
Are you being obtuse on purpose? The forensic investigation was very clear in respect of any forced entry or of someone climbing in and out of the children's bedroom window.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? The forensic investigation was very clear in respect of any forced entry or of someone climbing in and out of the children's bedroom window...it just didn't happen. The only fingerprints on the window belonged to Kate McCann and a GNR officer.
The handler said the event could have been laid down on a previous day
The only *identifiable* prints on the bedroom window were Kate's and a palm-print (?) of a GNR officer on the patio door.
I'm being factual... There are other portals of entry... The patio door was open
You continue to promote this so-called abduction from the apartment theory despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support it. I find that very odd?
You continue to promote this so-called abduction from the apartment theory despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support it. I find that very odd?I think.. Based on the evidence.. It's the most probable..
I think.. Based on the evidence.. It's the most probable..
Nothing odd about it
Start a new thread then,giving the time you think it happened, not ignoring the timeline thread,you may not agree with the times but they are there to be seen.
I've already had a thread... Evidence if abduction... No one agrees on anything... If an abductor was found and confessed... Do you think there would be no one claiming he hadn't done it
I'm just wondering where your evidence is found,is not your default position on the files "the accuracy cannot be trusted",ergo nor can your thinking on the abduction theory.
I'm just wondering where your evidence is found,is not your default position on the files "the accuracy cannot be trusted",ergo nor can your thinking on the abduction theory.
Your thinking is what?
I stand corrected, thank you Carana. The only identified fingerprints on the window belonged to Kate McCann so she had to have opened the window at some point.
The dog handler doesn't agree with you.. He saysWhere are the forensics ruling an intruder in?
The second dog may have, simply followed the trail laud down by the first
And the, scent may have been from a previous, day...
I haven't seen any forensics ruling out an intruder...
Where are the forensics ruling an intruder in?
- Unidentifiable prints? Possibly, unless they were Gerry's or Dianne's.That is a disappointing list in the end.
- Hairs? Hardly any were suitable for nuclear DNA testing, so no one knows whether they could have led to a suspect or not.
- Hairs weren't collected from the parents' bedroom (IIRC), so something could have been missed there.
- To date, no one seems to have located the hairs found on her bed that somehow got lost.
- Too many footprints, paw prints and fingerprint powder to be able to recover anything potentially useful.
- There were loads of fag ends in the vicinity, but they don't appear to have been bagged for testing.
If someone had been lurking in the shadows near the 5A entrance, would any of the group have noticed (except for Matt's window check)? They would have been focused on their entrance further to the right, wouldn't they?Matt's window check??? OK it was 8:55 - 9:00 PM
If someone had been lurking in the shadows near the 5A entrance, would any of the group have noticed (except for Matt's window check)? They would have been focused on their entrance further to the right, wouldn't they?
Can we keep on topic, the timeline.
Why would anyone be lurking? They would surely bold as brass enter and close the side gate from the car park side, up the steps, slide the patio door open just enough to enter and re-slide, into the bedroom, tape over MM's mouth, pull back covers, place in her a sports holdall or small suitcase, open the shutter and window and away up the alley between pool and apartment, up side alley between the 2 blocks and into a car.
I don't believe it was possible for T9 to observe any part of 5a during dusk/darkness.
Of course any one supposedly watching,knew just knew that window of opportunity would occur. Redwood shifted it on to that time,Smithman is the key,always as been imo of course.
The reason he is key is because he had the best opportunity to do it. All he had to do was make sure everyone was at the table when he made his move 8(>((When were all of them at the table?
I think.. Based on the evidence.. It's the most probable..
Nothing odd about it
When were all of them at the table?
In the half hour between 9:30 and 10:00 either Jane or Russell are not at the table.
It seems the timline is the last thing people want to discuss. Perhaps because it leaves little or no opportunity for an abduction?
That is from their table at the Tapas Restaurant, is it? I think I disagree with you for up to 9:00 PM there was enough light to see movement on the patios.
I stand corrected, thank you Carana. The only identified fingerprints on the window belonged to Kate McCann so she had to have opened the window at some point.
The problem with a timeline is that it can only ever be approximate in this case. If for example the apartments operated a key card system with times digitally recorded somewhere as to when someone entered and exited this would give us something concrete. Or for example cctv was available somewhere en route from Tapas to apartment 5a. In the absence of this sort of info we're relying on a bunch of people who were on hol and had been drinking and are unlikely to have had any reason to watch the time in any great detail.
It's also worth noting that GM and JW did not see JT although she saw them.
Kate said she had never opened the window during her stay. I believe that to be correct as she would not have left prints on the glass had she done so ... they would have been on the handle.
5 prints on the glass ("vidro") are consistent with leaning on an already-open window to look out IMO.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg118208#msg118208
I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if this has already been addressed but why did the tapas group feel the need to get together and scribble down such an accurate timeline? Surely the fact that the child was seen by her father at about 9.15pm but was then found to be missing half an hour later was the important consideration for the police?It s how doctors think... Some might find it strange but it's, a perfectly logical thing to do
Who if anyone asked for the timeline in the first instance?
I find that very interesting Brietta since the window couldn't be opened from the outside.
I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if this has already been addressed but why did the tapas group feel the need to get together and scribble down such an accurate timeline? Surely the fact that the child was seen by her father at about 9.15pm but was then found to be missing half an hour later was the important consideration for the police?
Who if anyone asked for the timeline in the first instance?
The timeline was produced to defend the adults from accusations of neglect in my opinion. They were so keen to show lots of checking that they inadvertently left very little room for the alleged abduction.
The timeline was produced to defend the adults from accusations of neglect in my opinion. They were so keen to show lots of checking that they inadvertently left very little room for the alleged abduction.
Or it was produced in an attempt to help the investigation
But surely at that point they were looking for an absconding infant and not an abductor?
Which makes my second question all the more pertinent. Were they asked to do it or did so voluntarily?
If Kate found the window open they were looking for an abductor
The villagers, the Mark Warner staff and the GNR spent almost all night searching for a child who had wandered off.
Which makes my second question all the more pertinent. Were they asked to do it or did so voluntarily?The fact that it was produced on the fly, with a torn sheet from MM's colouring book, suggests they were getting their **** straight.
The villagers, the Mark Warner staff and the GNR spent almost all night searching for a child who had wandered off.
The fact that it was produced on the fly, with a torn sheet from MM's colouring book, suggests they were getting their **** straight.
It seems the timline is the last thing people want to discuss. Perhaps because it leaves little or no opportunity for an abduction?
not at all ...brainstorming...its what intelligent poeple do...surely youve heard of itNo, us idiots, the proles, we can't do that. Just don't have the mental wherewithal.
No, us idiots, the proles, we can't do that. Just don't have the mental wherewithal.
Brainstorming is for the middle classes. Even on holiday.
it is....imo.....its exactly the sort of thing a bunch of doctors would do ...its part of the trainingYou make them sound like some crack special forces unit, who swung straight into standard OP's post a contact.
The fact that it was produced on the fly, with a torn sheet from MM's colouring book, suggests they were getting their **** straight.
The timeline was produced to defend the adults from accusations of neglect in my opinion. They were so keen to show lots of checking that they inadvertently left very little room for the alleged abduction.
I don't see the problem.Of course you don't see the problem.
Seems quite a sensible thing to do while memories are fresh.
Or it was produced in an attempt to help the investigation
You make them sound like some crack special forces unit, who swung straight into standard OP's post a contact.
They were getting their story straight; call it whatever bull**** bingo you want.
Of course you don't see the problem.
But what prompted it? What were they trying to demonstrate? It can't be for a window of opportunity because, as far as they were all concerned, that had actually happened and didn't need re-affirming at that point.
That's a good point.
We know the table was booked in advance for 8.30pm. This is the time T9 were due to meet but it seems the Payne's and DW were always running late. It sounds reasonable T9 had a pre-dinner drink whilst ordering the starters. Over the course of the 5 nights they may have checked just before or just after starters and then I would suggest just before or after the main course. I haven't heard them mention desserts. Then depending on how long the drinking sess went on for say 30 mins or so thereafter. It would seem pretty weird just to down cutlery and then announce 'hey just off to check the kids' half-way through a course and restaurants endevour to serve diners at the same time. The last eve was slightly different in that a child of JT's/ROB's was unwell.
Which makes my second question all the more pertinent. Were they asked to do it or did so voluntarily?
Of course you don't see the problem.
But what prompted it? What were they trying to demonstrate? It can't be for a window of opportunity because, as far as they were all concerned, that had actually happened and didn't need re-affirming at that point.
Not sure what you mean.I'm not particularly interested in their perceived efficacy or accuracy; I'm more interested in the motivation to conduct the act. What necessitated it? Who instigated it? Why? If it was an official request it would have been as a statement or a jot in a coppers note book. It was a collusive act, but for what purpose?
The first draft seems to be Russ's initiative, just to jot down the basics, then they got together later in the week to cross-check recollections.
They wouldn't have known that there weren't any CCTVs working, so I don't see the point of exaggerating the frequency of checks.
Memories fade with time. Best UK police advice for witnesses (somewhere in the numerous cites I've provided on the OU/BBC/GMP collaboration) is to write down what you remember before memories get contaminated.
Maybe they were wondering if she'd woken up and wandered, at what time could that have been? Or if she'd been taken... when were the windows of opportunity?
There were also communication issues due to language in the beginning.
I'm not particularly interested in their perceived efficacy or accuracy; I'm more interested in the motivation to conduct the act. What necessitated it? Who instigated it? Why? If it was an official request it would have been as a statement or a jot in a coppers note book. It was a collusive act, but for what purpose?
Or simply trying to find something potentially helpful to do?Being more helpful may have been, I don't know, 18 eyes and 18 legs (assuming they all had the full complement) walking around looking in places.
It seems the timline is the last thing people want to discuss. Perhaps because it leaves little or no opportunity for an abduction?There’s plenty of opportunity, and the Met agrees.
Being more helpful may have been, I don't know, 18 eyes and 18 legs (assuming they all had the full complement) walking around looking in places.Are you suggesting they all got together to do a timeline before looking for Madeleine? It was a long night. What else would you have had them do, once they’d established Madeleine was not in the neighbourhood and all the signs pointed to abduction as far as they were concerned?
I don't believe establishing this 'checking verification' was helping anyone. Except perhaps themselves. Which provides us with a glimpse into the mind set at that moment. Very telling.
Are you suggesting they all got together to do a timeline before looking for Madeleine? It was a long night. What else would you have had them do, once they’d established Madeleine was not in the neighbourhood and all the signs pointed to abduction as far as they were concerned?....and still nibbling around the edges. Pop back a few posts and see if you can address the matter in hand.
....and still nibbling around the edges. Pop back a few posts and see if you can address the matter in hand.What matter at hand?
But some were also checking rubbish containers...
Not sure if that was that night or the next day.
No, us idiots, the proles, we can't do that. Just don't have the mental wherewithal.
Brainstorming is for the middle classes. Even on holiday.
Brainstorming is a method of problem solving. So what was the problem? How the heck are we going to explain this? Well, let's start by tearing up the missing child's book and writing on it. Which highly intelligent doctor thought that was acceptable I wonder?
Brainstorming is a method of problem solving. So what was the problem? How the heck are we going to explain this? Well, let's start by tearing up the missing child's book and writing on it. Which highly intelligent doctor thought that was acceptable I wonder?
Only two people mentioned rubbish containers to my knowledge. One was Kate McCann in her book and the other was Charlotte Pennington in one of her many media stories.
When they ordered. All there except one.It was just after 9:00 PM when they ordered?
Brainstorming is a method of problem solving. So what was the problem? How the heck are we going to explain this? Well, let's start by tearing up the missing child's book and writing on it. Which highly intelligent doctor thought that was acceptable I wonder?I though you dealt in facts, not speculation?
I remember early video footage and at least one short interview with some staff member about checking bins. No idea where to find that now. I don't think it was Charlotte.
Ive given my view which im sure is correct......with no real evidence you have to manufacture some somewhere is how I see it
You've given your opinion without any evidence, just your opinion of how and why a group of doctors would behave. The evidence is three timelines setting out their story which they 'all agreed on' and then promptly forgot.
Their first two attempts, remember, had them all at the Tapas at 8:45! David Payne was involved in producing those and the day after he said his family didn't arrive until 8:55. His memory was already deserting him.
I very much doubt T9 were able to view any detail of 5a even during daylight and this is borne out by the experts in the following vid clip at 12 mins in:They weren't allowed in. They looked at Len Port's photos. The eye/brain has the ability to focus on a particular region which doesn't happen in a photograph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khP0dEsZaug
Maybe they forgot to pack their flip charts so used the only paper they had available to them?
Getting the timeline down in writing was so urgent then?So urgent that they had to improvise with the colouring book; the first bit of paper to hand. This was a rush job to facilitate a pressing need.
Getting the timeline down in writing was so urgent then?Why do you consider writing down a timeline to be not all that important in this case?
So urgent that they had to improvise with the colouring book; the first bit of paper to hand. This was a rush job to facilitate a pressing need.What do you perceive to be the primary pressing need? Is it your contention that some, most or all of the checks that night did not happen?
The fact that it was produced on the fly, with a torn sheet from MM's colouring book, suggests they were getting their **** straight.
What do you perceive to be the primary pressing need? Is it your contention that some, most or all of the checks that night did not happen?
Hang on, I've had posts deleted here.......what the...? I nip out and.....which posts were deleted and why?
Anyway, dunno.
I'd like to know. What's the real point?
Is it my contention? No, I contend that, as I discussed earlier, and it may have been deleted, I'm more interested in the motive to create as opposed to the content. More frequent or fewer checks will give us what, the motive? Maybe.
Hang on, I've had posts deleted here.......what the...? I nip out and.....which posts were deleted and why?There are two checks we can be 99.9% certain happened, Gerry’s at 9 O’clock, and Kate’s at 10pm. All that is required is a check to have happened at approx 9.30 for the checks to have been half-hourly as stated.. Is there any reason to suppose that no one left the table between 9am and 10pm? I believe the Tapas Staff said someone was absent during this time period. I can think of no reason why the McCanns’s friends would have needed to fabricate any checks, as it wasn’t their kid that went missing., and if the McCanns were checking at least hourly, why wouldn’t their friends also be checking regularly?
Anyway, dunno.
I'd like to know. What's the real point?
Is it my contention? No, I contend that, as I discussed earlier, and it may have been deleted, I'm more interested in the motive to create as opposed to the content. More frequent or fewer checks will give us what, the motive? Maybe.
There are two checks we can be 99.9% certain happened, Gerry’s at 9 O’clock, and Kate’s at 10pm. All that is required is a check to have happened at approx 9.30 for the checks to have been half-hourly as stated.. Is there any reason to suppose that no one left the table between 9am and 10pm? I believe the Tapas Staff said someone was absent during this time period. I can think of no reason why the McCanns’s friends would have needed to fabricate any checks, as it wasn’t their kid that went missing., and if the McCanns were checking at least hourly, why wouldn’t their friends also be checking regularly?
There are no independent witnesses that verify Gerry’s check. Jez puts it anywhere between 8.45 and 9.15 and there is no corroboration from the waiters. Kate’s check cannot be verified as it would appear the timings given by the waiters, the only witnesses who were not in danger of being charged with neglect, were all over the place.
If sitting down writing a timeline is a sensible route to take after your child goes missing why didn’t Holly and Jessica’s, Jamie Bulger’s or Sarah Payne’s parents do the same thing ?
There are no independent witnesses that verify Gerry’s check. Jez puts it anywhere between 8.45 and 9.15 and there is no corroboration from the waiters. Kate’s check cannot be verified as it would appear the timings given by the waiters, the only witnesses who were not in danger of being charged with neglect, were all over the place.Gerry arrived at the restaurant at 8.30pm. It makes no sense to suppose he did the first check 15 minutes later. Logic dictates his first check would be at least half an hour later and Gez’s statement fits this. Kate’s raised the alarm at around 10pm according to the PJ’s report so give or take a few minutes for both checks we have checks roughly an hour apart. Why would the rest of the Tapas Group not also be doing checks with similar frequency?
If sitting down writing a timeline is a sensible route to take after your child goes missing why didn’t Holly and Jessica’s, Jamie Bulger’s or Sarah Payne’s parents do the same thing ?
because unlike doctors they are not trained in how to react in a crisis
...and not in CYA mode.
There are no independent witnesses that verify Gerry’s check. Jez puts it anywhere between 8.45 and 9.15 and there is no corroboration from the waiters. Kate’s check cannot be verified as it would appear the timings given by the waiters, the only witnesses who were not in danger of being charged with neglect, were all over the place.
If sitting down writing a timeline is a sensible route to take after your child goes missing why didn’t Holly and Jessica’s, Jamie Bulger’s or Sarah Payne’s parents do the same thing ?
because unlike doctors they are not trained in how to react in a crisis
Having experienced the reaction when medics clearly missed something they all seem to be trained to present a united front.
Having experienced the reaction when medics clearly missed something they all seem to be trained to present a united front.This must be a dilemma for you. Either the timeline is as they described making things hard for an abductor as the window of opportunity was narrow, or they lied and checked far less frequently meaning a much larger window of opportunity for an abductor to strike. Which scenario do you favour?
This must be a dilemma for you. Either the timeline is as they described making things hard for an abductor as the window of opportunity was narrow, or they lied and checked far less frequently meaning a much larger window of opportunity for an abductor to strike. Which scenario do you favour?
It's not a dilemma for me. I wasn''t the one who wrote a timeline leaving so little room for the abduction I alleged took place. I don't know what happened to MBM. All I can do is remind those who think they do of the evidence that exists.It exists and there is still opportunity for abduction... Nothing you have produced has made a scrap of difference
It's not a dilemma for me. I wasn''t the one who wrote a timeline leaving so little room for the abduction I alleged took place. I don't know what happened to MBM. All I can do is remind those who think they do of the evidence that exists.It’s kind of you to remind us but let me remind you that the Met forensically examined the timeline and concluded there was a window of opportunity for an abductor to strike. You may refuse to accept that but no one really cares what you think, hard though it may be for you to accept.
Gerry arrived at the restaurant at 8.30pm. It makes no sense to suppose he did the first check 15 minutes later. Logic dictates his first check would be at least half an hour later and Gez’s statement fits this. Kate’s raised the alarm at around 10pm according to the PJ’s report so give or take a few minutes for both checks we have checks roughly an hour apart. Why would the rest of the Tapas Group not also be doing checks with similar frequency?
As for your second point, as there weren’t numerous protagonists coming and going within very close proximity to the child at the time of disappearance I’m not sure how useful a timeline in those two cases would have been.
How do you know that they didn't. You have never had sight of statements or interviews they gave to the police, have you?
It made no sense that Gerry did a check five minutes after Matt told him all was well but that’s what we are lead to believe happened.It makes sense if Gerry needed the toilet and we know he was in the vicinity of the apartment around nine and we know he went after Matt got back so what’s the big mystery?
Didn’t what ?
Needed the toilet? He only left the apartment at 8:35 lol.So what time did Gerry go back to the apartment?
So what time did Gerry go back to the apartment?
You asked the question. I answered it. Obviously not to your liking perhaps, but there we are.
Not at all, your answer simply isn’t clear.If you read it in conjunction with your post (to which it was the response) it is perfectly clear.
If you read it in conjunction with your post (to which it was the response) it is perfectly clear.
It’s kind of you to remind us but let me remind you that the Met forensically examined the timeline and concluded there was a window of opportunity for an abductor to strike. You may refuse to accept that but no one really cares what you think, hard though it may be for you to accept.
In my opinion it makes no difference whether the timeline is examined forensicaly or not, the details remain the same. Let's not forget that the Met were hired to find an abductor. They would have come to a grinding halt if they weren't able to find a 'window of opportunity' wouldn't they?What is the whole story then?
I revisited the timeline to remind people that the 30 minute gaps between the checks on 5A aren't the whole story.
In my opinion it makes no difference whether the timeline is examined forensicaly or not, the details remain the same. Let's not forget that the Met were hired to find an abductor. They would have come to a grinding halt if they weren't able to find a 'window of opportunity' wouldn't they?
I revisited the timeline to remind people that the 30 minute gaps between the checks on 5A aren't the whole story.
You are misrepresenting the facts... The remit was to investigate the abduction and by saying Maddie may not have left the apt alive shows they are not limited to the remit
However she left the apartment, it was an abduction, according to Rowley.How can that be resolved? It really needs Rowley to explain himself TBH.
That includes body snatching imo.
In my opinion it makes no difference whether the timeline is examined forensicaly or not, the details remain the same. Let's not forget that the Met were hired to find an abductor. They would have come to a grinding halt if they weren't able to find a 'window of opportunity' wouldn't they?No one has claimed there were clear 30 minute gaps between checks have they? You seem intent on portraying the police as tied up in some giant conspiracy to absolve the parents of blame unless I’m misunderstanding you.
I revisited the timeline to remind people that the 30 minute gaps between the checks on 5A aren't the whole story.
However she left the apartment, it was an abduction, according to Rowley.
That includes body snatching imo.
Not it isn’t. Are the ‘they’ the waiters or the parents of the abducted children mentioned. It’s not clear.It is to me. What do you know of the statements and information given to the police by parents of other missing children?
How can that be resolved? It really needs Rowley to explain himself TBH.Yeh, he's tending his rose bushes at present.
Yeh, he's tending his rose bushes at present.LOL. Make that last bit your new sig line. It’s so good it deserves repeated airings.
Until Netflix make a sequel, then he may pop his head up and provide some banal soundbites for a few quid*.
All in my misguided opinion of course. No offence was meant by the creation of this post. all rights reserved. Your home is at risk if you let a family of bears live in it. Terms and conditions apply. Apply dressing directly over the wound. Do not pass go.
What is the whole story then?
The Timeline provided by the T9.
I think that timeline is a concoction to hide deficiencies in the individual statements.What, all of it?
No one has claimed there were clear 30 minute gaps between checks have they? You seem intent on portraying the police as tied up in some giant conspiracy to absolve the parents of blame unless I’m misunderstanding you.
How long would it take to open window/shutter? He/she would know they had some 30 mins based on the pattern of McCann visits.So this whole thread is in answer to some newbie (to the case)’s claim? I see. Still, you’ve demonstrated there was ample time for Madeleine to have been taken by an abductor so no harm done. 8((()*/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10827.msg539142#msg539142
I have never suggested that the police are involved in any conspiracy. Their restrictive renit is a fact. Why it was restricted isn't known.
Timeline as prepared by the group between 3rd and 10th May.In your opinion, would anybody in their right mind carry their own daughter’s uncovered dead body into the heart of the town before closing time, shortly before or after the alarm was raised that she was missing ?
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
In my opinion no-one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near 5A with all that activity going on.
In your opinion, would anybody in their right mind carry their own daughter’s uncovered dead body into the heart of the town before closing time?
How would anyone know she was dead?The perpetrator would know. Is this something you could imagine yourself doing - brazenly carrying a corpse through the heart of the town, shortly before (or even after) your other half screamed that she had been taken? You'd think that was a sane thing to do would you?
Timeline as prepared by the group between 3rd and 10th May.According to you opinions and beliefs are different. Opinions are based on facts you say. So, what facts lead you to conclude that "no one in their right mind" would take the risk to enter an apartment to steal a child when there were other people milling about?
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
In my opinion no-one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near 5A with all that activity going on.
The perpetrator would know. Is this something you could imagine yourself doing - brazenly carrying a corpse through the heart of the town, shortly before (or even after) your other half screamed that she had been taken? You'd think that was a sane thing to do would you?
No one would know the child was dead, so there'd be no issue for me in carrying the small corpse down dark streets & depositing it in a large dumpster type bin, whilst all the commotion of a staged abduction was happening elsewhere. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.Well ....... thanks for sharing. 8((()*/
Well I think that says more about you than perhaps was wise, but thanks for sharing. 8((()*/
My pleasure.Now for a reply from someone else. Step aside!
It is to me. What do you know of the statements and information given to the police by parents of other missing children?
Not a lot but from programmes I’ve watched about the cases no one has mentioned sitting down and writing timelines, instead they were out searching.
So this whole thread is in answer to some newbie (to the case)’s claim? I see. Still, you’ve demonstrated there was ample time for Madeleine to have been taken by an abductor so no harm done. 8((()*/
Or deleting their call history.
Or deleting their call history.Indeed.
You stated that no-one said there were 30 minute gaps between checks. Thet wasn't true. Now you're assuming this thread was in answer to one person's misconception. That's not true either. Please could you explain your other statement? Where exactly is this 'ample time' in your opinion?Check the timeline. I've already pointed it out once. How many more times do I need to do so?
No one would know the child was dead, so there'd be no issue for me in carrying the small corpse down dark streets & depositing it in a large dumpster type bin, whilst all the commotion of a staged abduction was happening elsewhere. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Not a lot but from programmes I’ve watched about the cases no one has mentioned sitting down and writing timelines, instead they were out searching.As I have pointed out how would Denise Bulger writing a timeline help in any way to establish when Ben might have been taken? One minute he was with her, then he wasn't - that was the end of the timeline. Sarah Payne's parents were nowhere near the scene when she was taken. How would a timeline of their movements help find Sarah? That said, I'm sure they were asked to account for their whereabouts that day, which may well have involved writing out the sequence of events that happened. You just don't know, so don't presume.
No one would know the child was dead, so there'd be no issue for me in carrying the small corpse down dark streets & depositing it in a large dumpster type bin, whilst all the commotion of a staged abduction was happening elsewhere. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
It all depends on what the carrier thought the alternatives were in my opinion.So in your opinion this course of action was the only one available to the perpetrator, who was in his right mind?
Are you speaking from experience or in WUM mode again?
Was a child's body found in a dumpster?
No, it wasn't, but then, was every dumpster searched? We'll never know the answer to that.Can I ask why someone in their right mind would pick a bin on the other side of town, choosing to walk through town to get to it, rather than walking away from town, to somewhere a little less likely to be frequented by holiday makers coming out of restaurants and bars?
...................
Deputies End 8-Week Search for Missing 6-Year-Old in Victorville Landfill
'For eight weeks, the Apple Valley Police Department continued to comb refuse at the Victorville landfill located at 18600 Stoddard Wells Rd., using search dogs, volunteers and employees.
The department said they had to pore over an estimated 7,000 tons of garbage in the hopes of finding him, but were not successful.'
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Duke-Flores-Apple-Valley-Missing-Boy-Landfill-Search-Ends-511807031.html
Can I ask why someone in their right mind would pick a bin on the other side of town, choosing to walk through town to get to it, rather than walking away from town, to somewhere a little less likely to be frequented by holiday makers coming out of restaurants and bars?
Check the timeline. I've already pointed it out once. How many more times do I need to do so?
I would want to use a bin located away from the scene of the abduction & possibly large enough that the body could be concealed there in beneath a layer of trash. Perhaps I had spotted a suitable bin previously & considered it the best option, as oppose to me wandering around with the cadaver merely in the hope of finding a suitable one.
So I have to suppose that you would climb in The Bin and move the rubbish about so you could bury the corpse underneath.
So in your opinion this course of action was the only one available to the perpetrator, who was in his right mind?
Not necessarily.
I would want to use a bin located away from the scene of the abduction & possibly large enough that the body could be concealed there in beneath a layer of trash. Perhaps I had spotted a suitable bin previously & considered it the best option, as oppose to me wandering around with the cadaver merely in the hope of finding a suitable one.Ah right, this was a carefully planned in advance disposal was it? So when was the bin recce carried out then, in your view? Do they only have large bins on the other side of town, not in the residential apartment blocks?
OK, so between 9:45 and 10:00 in your opinion.You can pick and choose which of the individuals' innacurate to the last minute timelines to ridicule the idea of abduction but that STILL leaves you with TEN WHOLE MINUTES to enter the apartment and take the child. You could have taken a classroom of kids in that time.
According to the first two timelines Kaie left the Tapas at 9:55, so we now have a ten minute 'window' with Jane in the vicinity and liable to appear at eny momenr, as far as any perp knew.
How else are you going to bury it under rubbish?Have you not noticed Gerry's massively elongated Mr Tickle like arms?
What, all of it?Well the contentious bit between 9:30 and 10:10 PM. I had looked into this period before and it is un-resolvable when I looked at the individual statements, so it astounds me that they came to a consensus at a group meeting.
Ah right, this was a carefully planned in advance disposal was it? So when was the bin recce carried out then, in your view? Do they only have large bins on the other side of town, not in the residential apartment blocks?
Well the contentious bit between 9:30 and 10:10 PM. I had looked into this period before and it is un-resolvable when I looked at the individual statements, so it astounds me that they came to a consensus at a group meeting.So all fabricated between 9.30 and 10.10pm you say...interesting - who does that make the key liars then in your view? All of them presumably.
How else are you going to bury it under rubbish?
Maybe I saw a suitable bin in days previous but didn't give it any thought at the time, then, when the need for the disposal arose, I thought "I know where".@)(++(* Yeah right, like you walk around on holiday noticing suitable bins for body disposal should the need ever arise. *%87
Have you not noticed Gerry's massively elongated Mr Tickle like arms?
It depends how tall/deep the bin was, & how full.If it was quite full you'd have to take some rubbish out presumably. I thought these bins got emptied daily....?
If he had elongated legs as well I could suspect him of climbing through the window & avoiding stepping on the bed.Why would Gerry have wanted to do that?
Have you not noticed Gerry's massively elongated Mr Tickle like arms?
The perpetrator would know. Is this something you could imagine yourself doing - brazenly carrying a corpse through the heart of the town, shortly before (or even after) your other half screamed that she had been taken? You'd think that was a sane thing to do would you?How would you do it? What time would you do it?
@)(++(* Yeah right, like you walk around on holiday noticing suitable bins for body disposal should the need ever arise. *%87
@)(++(* Yeah right, like you walk around on holiday noticing suitable bins for body disposal should the need ever arise. *%87
And checking to see how full they are. But I don't suppose that would attract much attention.
That wouldn't be the thought at the time would it.Really? You think he'd made a mental note of some bins on the other side of town? Ooookay then... *%87
Thought: I need a bin to dispose of this body?
Now where have I seen some bins? Oh, I know!
So all fabricated between 9.30 and 10.10pm you say...interesting - who does that make the key liars then in your view? All of them presumably.The problem is you can't actually tell. All you see is one half making the alarm raised earlier and the other half later. Some sort of division in the T9.
Really? You think he'd made a mental note of some bins on the other side of town? Ooookay then... *%87
So he heads off to these bins, in the dark carrying an uncovered corpse, not knowing who he might bump into. Where are these bins? What are they adjacent to? Are they down a secluded little alley that no one ever ventures down or are they next to a restaurant or holiday apartment? You think this is a perfectly risk free endeavour that everyone in their right mind would probably choose as the best option for body disposal, far less risky than coming home, finding your child dead and phoning up the emergency services and taking your chances with them? After all, you might get away with it in the latter scenario, you definitely wouldn't if caught in the former.
I never said it was risk free.So the risk of walking through town for several long minutes with the uncovered dead body of your child, past pubs and restaurants at a time when people are still out and about, in order to throw her in a bin (that you think you remember seeing down some alley somewhere) is in your opinion not as big a risk as entering an unlocked apartment when you know the coast is clear to take a child that you wish to abuse or sell on, an action which can in theory be carried out in under a minute?
You take a big risk just getting up in the morning, crossing the street or sticking your face in a fan.
The problem is you can't actually tell. All you see is one half making the alarm raised earlier and the other half later. Some sort of division in the T9.Did they not arrive at a consensus in the timeline submitted a few days later?
Did they not arrive at a consensus in the timeline submitted a few days later?You call it a consensus but I called it a concoction. It was a while back that I did the study, I can't even remember the thread name any more sorry.
You call it a consensus but I called it a concoction. It was a while back that I did the study, I can't even remember the thread name any more sorry.Then you believe them ALL guilty of collusion? Over a practical joke that went wrong? Wow.
You can pick and choose which of the individuals' innacurate to the last minute timelines to ridicule the idea of abduction but that STILL leaves you with TEN WHOLE MINUTES to enter the apartment and take the child. You could have taken a classroom of kids in that time.
So the risk of walking through town for several long minutes with the uncovered dead body of your child, past pubs and restaurants at a time when people are still out and about, in order to throw her in a bin (that you think you remember seeing down some alley somewhere) is in your opinion not as big a risk as entering an unlocked apartment when you know the coast is clear to take a child that you wish to abuse or sell on, an action which can in theory be carried out in under a minute?
Then you believe them ALL guilty of collusion? Over a practical joke that went wrong? Wow.Well for the consensus timeline to work it was Russell and Matt that make the biggest change. Gerry and Kate make a smaller degree of change in their timelines.
I note from KM's book the following:
- 4th May @ 2am 2 x patrol dogs were deployed
- 4th May @ 8am 4 x search and rescue dogs were deployed having sniffed MM's pink princess blanket for her scent.
Nothing about areas searched but one would assume the bins were checked? Does anyone know when the bins were due to be emptied?
I note from KM's book the following:
- 4th May @ 2am 2 x patrol dogs were deployed
- 4th May @ 8am 4 x search and rescue dogs were deployed having sniffed MM's pink princess blanket for her scent.
Nothing about areas searched but one would assume the bins were checked? Does anyone know when the bins were due to be emptied?
I note from KM's book the following:
- 4th May @ 2am 2 x patrol dogs were deployed
- 4th May @ 8am 4 x search and rescue dogs were deployed having sniffed MM's pink princess blanket for her scent.
Nothing about areas searched but one would assume the bins were checked? Does anyone know when the bins were due to be emptied?
Maybe I saw a suitable bin in days previous but didn't give it any thought at the time, then, when the need for the disposal arose, I thought "I know where".
I note from KM's book the following:
- 4th May @ 2am 2 x patrol dogs were deployed
- 4th May @ 8am 4 x search and rescue dogs were deployed having sniffed MM's pink princess blanket for her scent.
Nothing about areas searched but one would assume the bins were checked? Does anyone know when the bins were due to be emptied?
It's not how long he actually had, it's how long he THOUGHT he had that's significant. Unlke you. he just didn't know.As you must be aware, anyone contemplating a crime of this nature is unable to see into the future but based on the patterns of checks on the kids on Apartment 5a he would have assumed directly after the last check that another one wasn't due for around thirty minutes. You seem happy to entertain the idea that the child's father would walk off into the streets of PdL with a corpse, with the intention of hiding it, not knowing who he might encounter or who might see him chucking a body in a bin, but inexplicably baulk at the idea of a more calculated abduction claiming only someone not in their right mind would contemplate it. The truth of the matter is - you have no idea what such a person would consider worth the risk. Indeed the risk element may well have been part of the thril.
I'd like to see a re enactment of someone entering the apartment and taking the child being carried out in under a minute.Why not?
How would you gain entry for starters? Not through the patio doors that's for sure IMO
Why not?
Because the gate, child gate, patio door & curtains were all found undisturbed.so not out of the question then.
If the abductor entered or exited that way then he had to have closed everything behind him.
The fastidious abductor.
so not out of the question then.
So I have to suppose that you would climb in The Bin and move the rubbish about so you could bury the corpse underneath.
No of course not, the abductor entered through the gate, closed it behind him, passed through the child gate, closing that behind him, opened the patio doors, closing that behind him, then went into the childrens bedroom where he opened the shutters & window, then picked Maddie up off the bed before carrying her out of said window & into obscurity. All in under one minute. Simple.Ascribe realistic numbers of seconds to each of the actions you describe.
ETA,
If Smithman is your chosen abductor then he changed Maddies pyjamas in said process.
Ah right, this was a carefully planned in advance disposal was it? So when was the bin recce carried out then, in your view? Do they only have large bins on the other side of town, not in the residential apartment blocks?
I'd like to see a re enactment of someone entering the apartment and taking the child being carried out in under a minute.
How would you gain entry for starters? Not through the patio doors that's for sure IMO
Ascribe realistic numbers of seconds to each of the actions you describe.
But where to start the clock from exactly?how about just answering my question first?
Does our abductor just spontaneously materialise outside the rear gate?
And at what time does he do so?
how about just answering my question first?
Can't be sure really, how fiddly was that child lock on the child gate for example.Unlike you to be so unsure of yourself. Imagine the perp was already familiar with the child lock on the gate and then have a go. How many seconds to open and close it?
Maybe a reconstruction would help.
Besides, supposing the patio door was the point of entry, why waste time closing it & then go leaving the window & shutter wide open?
Unlike you to be so unsure of yourself. Imagine the perp was already familiar with the child lock on the gate and then have a go. How many seconds to open and close it?
That blanket also disappeared 8(0(*
Can't be sure really, how fiddly was that child lock on the child gate for example.
Maybe a reconstruction would help.
Besides, supposing the patio door was the point of entry, why waste time closing it & then go leaving the window & shutter wide open?
The child gate wasn't definitely closed when Kate got there;
The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Why bother if you're going to leave the window open?If you can’t or won’t answer my question just say so and I won’t ask again.
It's in the cat basket at Portimao Police Station.
It's not a dilemma for me. I wasn''t the one who wrote a timeline leaving so little room for the abduction I alleged took place. I don't know what happened to MBM. All I can do is remind those who think they do of the evidence that exists.
If you can’t or won’t answer my question just say so and I won’t ask again.
The child gate wasn't definitely closed when Kate got there;Looking at the wording in that timeline:
The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
The timeline, if accurate, provides virtually no realistic opportunity for abduction, it does however portray a stringent, if not ott, checking routine.
We don't know how fiddly the child lock was.I asked you to imagine you had already familiarised yourself with the lock, now are you going to answer or not?
Why don't you tell us how long it would take, then explain why you'd bother closing it behind you anyway.
The timeline, if accurate, provides virtually no realistic opportunity for abduction, it does however portray a stringent, if not ott, checking routine.That is blatantly untrue and should come with an IMO IMO.
I asked you to imagine you had already familiarised yourself with the lock, now are you going to answer or not?
So I did a practice run for the abduction did I?Kate thought that there was practice run the night before.
When should I imagine I did that?
So I did a practice run for the abduction did I?So you won’t answer the question. Not hard to work out why not. @)(++(*
When should I imagine I did that?
So you won’t answer the question. Not hard to work out why not. @)(++(*
Kate thought that there was practice run the night before.
Ok so I'm familiar with the workings of the child lock because I done a dry run the night before, like most abductors do,Five seconds to swing a gate to? Have you been shot with a tranquilizer gun? As it would take about a second to close a gate I’d suggest it was closed by force of habit. If I opened a gate I would always close it behind me.
Let's say it takes me 5 seconds to open it & a further 5 to close.
Why am I bothering to close it, yet I'm leaving the window & shutters open?
Five seconds to swing a gate to? Have you been shot with a tranquilizer gun? As it would take about a second to close a gate I’d suggest it was closed by force of habit. If I opened a gate I would always close it behind me.
Is it the type of gate that swings closed, or do you have to operate a latch?I’ve already given you a reason. Why wouldn’t you close the gate? Who claimed the child was taken back through the child gate? But let’s stick with your estimate. 10 seconds to open and walk through and close a gate. Next step the walk to the unlocked sliding door, opening and closing it. How long?
And supposing you're carrying an inert toddler, or even one that's awake & struggling, can the gate latch be operated one handed?
And again, why would you bother to close the gate anyway?
I’ve already given you a reason. Why wouldn’t you close the gate? Who claimed the child was taken back through the child gate? But let’s stick with your estimate. 10 seconds to open and walk through and close a gate. Next step the walk to the unlocked sliding door, opening and closing it. How long?
Yes, a very convincing reason it was too.Tell me why he wouldn’t close the gate or door, and then tell me how long to enter then apartment after walking through the gate.
Force of habit, that's why the abductor closed everything behind him, brilliant! @)(++(*
Tell me why he wouldn’t close the gate or door, and then tell me how long to enter then apartment after walking through the gate.
Because what would be the point?What would be the point of leaving it open? Please tell me why closing the child gate is an absurd proposition. And then please answer my next question which you continually avoid answering, unless of course you tell me you don’t want to answer in which case I shall stop asking.
....and we haven't accounted for the gate at the bottom of the stairs yet, or explained where the abductor appeared from & at what time.
What would be the point of leaving it open? Please tell me why closing the child gate is an absurd proposition. And then please answer my next question which you continually avoid answering, unless of course you tell me you don’t want to answer in which case I shall stop asking.
Because you're there to abduct a child, not faff around tidying up after yourself.Closing a child gate and a sliding door are hardly onerous tasks that require huge amounts of time, effort and faff. When my flat was burgled, the burglar left the front door plus the door to my flat shut. Now do you think that’s because he was very tidy? Not judging by the stat he left my flat in, he was not.
You'd be straight in & straight out, after playing around with a window & shutters for some reason.
Now, what was your next question?
Closing a child gate and a sliding door are hardly onerous tasks that require huge amounts of time, effort and faff. When my flat was burgled, the burglar left the front door plus the door to my flat shut. Now do you think that’s because he was very tidy? Not judging by the stat he left my flat in, he was not.
Next question was how long to enter the flat via the patio doors? How many seconds in total to perform this action?
We are talking about a fictitious child abductor here, not a burglar.
How long to enter the sliding door & close it behind? let's say 5 seconds, then a few more seconds to reach the children's bedroom door.
Then how long to open the window & shutters? Who knows? And why bother anyway, the front door is unlocked.
We are talking about a fictitious child abductor here, not a burglar.As I said in the other thread "The front door IMO after my study, requires a key to close it from the outside too.
How long to enter the sliding door & close it behind? let's say 5 seconds, then a few more seconds to reach the children's bedroom door.
Then how long to open the window & shutters? Who knows? And why bother anyway, the front door is unlocked.
We are talking about a fictitious child abductor here, not a burglar.So burglars close doors after them but abductors don’t - is that a generally accepted rule?
How long to enter the sliding door & close it behind? let's say 5 seconds, then a few more seconds to reach the children's bedroom door.
Then how long to open the window & shutters? Who knows? And why bother anyway, the front door is unlocked.
So burglars close doors after them but abductors don’t - is that a generally accepted rule?
So we’re up to twenty seconds from opening the child gate to the children ‘s bedroom. Now how long to walk across to the window, open it and pull up the shutter?
I've no idea.
How long to squeeze between the cots then open the window & pull up the shutter?
As I said in the other thread "The front door IMO after my study, requires a key to close it from the outside too.
In my theory Madeleine left by the front door, problem that means the front door should have been found open by someone. Kate thought the patio door was open when she heard the bedroom door slam? Was it really the front door that was open?
She doesn't say she found the door open so I tend to think she found it closed.
IMO this means there had to have been someone else in the apartment between when Matt checked 9:35 and Kate did her 10:00 PM check, who shut the front door from the inside, leaving via the patio door."
There is the unlocked front door but if the abductor left by the front door it would have been found ajar (not properly latched).
If the abductor has a conscience and doesn't like leaving doors unlocked he would have closed the front door and had to go back through the patio door and gates closing them just like he found them.
Then why leave the window open? Maybe it wasn't him who opened that.
Being fair to Misty, if the abductor had an accomplice Madeleine could be handed to an accomplice through the front door, then the perpetrator closes the front door and leaves via the patio door.
About the same length of time it took Kate or Gerry?
Agreed, [removed opinion given as fact]
So what drastic time difference would there have been in what you think Kate or Gerry may have done & what an abductor may have done when removing Madeleine from the apartment & creating a crime scene? Are both scenarios not equally possible?When would Gerry have set up the room as a crime scene?
When would Gerry have set up the room as a crime scene?Hypothetically:-
Would Gerry set up a crime scene and then let Matt do a check of the kids?
If he had set up the room as a crime scene, did Gerry let Kate know he had set up the room as a crime scene?
I don't think they are equally as possible.
I've no idea.Shall we say 15 seconds (being generous there)?
How long to squeeze between the cots then open the window & pull up the shutter?
Shall we say 15 seconds (being generous there)?Spreading cadaverine scent in specific areas might take another minute or two.
Spreading cadaverine scent in specific areas might take another minute or two.Nah, that came later.
I find that very interesting Brietta since the window couldn't be opened from the outside.Del
Timeline as prepared by the group between 3rd and 10th May.
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
In my opinion no-one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near 5A with all that activity going on.
I don't know whether contributors here have looked at other cases or just interested in this one. I've looked at some others: Bamber, Bain, Lundy, Rettendon murders aka Essex Boys, Jill Dando/Barry George and they all feature highly contentious timelines.I suggest you keep ploughing this furrow, it's a worthwhile exercise.
Anyway back to this one and the timeline above:
- It can only ever be approximate and windows of opportunities may have been much longer. For it to have been shorter windows of opportunities you would need more checks.
- It would take perp no more than 2 mins to get in and out with MM leaving soc as he/she wanted to leave it ie window/shutters open, patio doors shut etc.
- If MM was abducted from 5a the crime may have involved others who acted as lookouts.
- Perp may have entered 5a over alley wall and into garden. Did anyone check the shrub area for footrpints? How does the back garden connect with balcony?
I don't know whether contributors here have looked at other cases or just interested in this one. I've looked at some others: Bamber, Bain, Lundy, Rettendon murders aka Essex Boys, Jill Dando/Barry George and they all feature highly contentious timelines.
Anyway back to this one and the timeline above:
- It can only ever be approximate and windows of opportunities may have been much longer. For it to have been shorter windows of opportunities you would need more checks.
- It would take perp no more than 2 mins to get in and out with MM leaving soc as he/she wanted to leave it ie window/shutters open, patio doors shut etc.
- If MM was abducted from 5a the crime may have involved others who acted as lookouts.
- Perp may have entered 5a over alley wall and into garden. Did anyone check the shrub area for footrpints? How does the back garden connect with balcony?
I suggest you keep ploughing this furrow, it's a worthwhile exercise.
You will, however, come to 'The Dogs Paradox' at some point.
I published the timeline in part to dispel any notions that the perp(s) had 30 minutes in which to act. The amount of traffic passing the apartment is just as relevant as the actual checks.Yes passing traffic is relevant but it seems to me the only passing traffic amounted to T9, JW and the Tanner sighting which seems to have amounted to Dr T. No one mentions any other traffic by way of humans and/or vehicles, do they?
Looking at it from the perp's point of view s/he had no way of knowing which of them might enter 5A.According to GM he last observed MM circa 9pm and KM raised the alarm at circa 10pm so perp may have struck between 9pm and 9.30pm. Perp may have had a lookout.
Once 5D was occupied (9:30 onwards) there was no way of knowing when an occupant would emerge.
In my opinion the only safe times to enter 5A were when all 9 diners were at the Tapas, rather than someone being at the apartments.
Yes passing traffic is relevant but it seems to me the only passing traffic amounted to T9, JW and the Tanner sighting which seems to have amounted to Dr T. No one mentions any other traffic by way of humans and/or vehicles, do they?
According to GM he last observed MM circa 9pm and KM raised the alarm at circa 10pm so perp may have struck between 9pm and 9.30pm. Perp may have had a lookout.
Is there anything that precludes this scenario? If not you're probaly right perp struck when T9 were tucking into their tapas.
You seem very keen to find a space for an abductor to strike, but have no interest in the possibility of parental/friend involvement.What about friend involvement without the knowledge of the parents? Does it have to be "parental/friend involvement" whatever that really means.
Yes passing traffic is relevant but it seems to me the only passing traffic amounted to T9, JW and the Tanner sighting which seems to have amounted to Dr T. No one mentions any other traffic by way of humans and/or vehicles, do they?
According to GM he last observed MM circa 9pm and KM raised the alarm at circa 10pm so perp may have struck between 9pm and 9.30pm. Perp may have had a lookout.
Is there anything that precludes this scenario? If not you're probaly right perp struck when T9 were tucking into their tapas.
What about friend involvement without the knowledge of the parents? Does it have to be "parental/friend involvement" whatever that really means.
Because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't there. No-one mentioned Mr and Mrs Moyes who walked a very relevant way home, nor did the Moyes mention seeing any one else.
No-one mentioned the young man and his girlfriend driving the route past the tapas and they mentioned not seeing anyone either ... but people were out and about. The Smith family for example, but no-one mentioned seeing them specifically.
Hypothetically:-
1. On his check at 9.05pm (see Pathfinder's theory).
2. It would look better if someone else discovered the disappearance.
3. If pre-planned, then maybe a just a nod or a code-word.
4. Why not? IMO it would have taken Gerry longer to stage the scene & remove a body than any pre-planned stranger abduction.
What was staged? Dianne Webster found the shutter down not raised. A neat tidy bed is bad staging so are finger prints on the window and the sofa in the living room is all telling.
What was staged? Dianne Webster found the shutter down not raised. A neat tidy bed is bad staging so are finger prints on the window and the sofa in the living room is all telling.
According to Dianne Kate was in the twin's bedroom 5 minutes after the alarm was raised. No one else was in the apartment. During the ten minutes she stayed there, no one came back either. . She doesn't mention seeing anyone when she went out and tried to raise the shutters either. Where were they all?Out looking of course.
I published the timeline in part to dispel any notions that the perp(s) had 30 minutes in which to act. The amount of traffic passing the apartment is just as relevant as the actual checks.You seem to be under the impression that abductor types are highly cautious and risk averse, which I think is a strange idea when there are so many examples of abductors taking kids pretty much from right under their parents noses or in broad daylight when anyone could have witnessed it.
Looking at it from the perp's point of view s/he had no way of knowing which of them might enter 5A.
Once 5D was occupied (9:30 onwards) there was no way of knowing when an occupant would emerge.
In my opinion the only safe times to enter 5A were when all 9 diners were at the Tapas, rather than someone being at the apartments.
Out looking of course.
You seem very keen to find a space for an abductor to strike, but have no interest in the possibility of parental/friend involvement.That’s because your thread is about the parents/friends timeline which you have drawn our attention to, inviting us to consider whether there was an opportunity for an abduction to take place. You have previously claimed abduction to be almost impossible, but the timeline as you have written it up shows this is poppycock.
That would take the best part of 30 seconds once they were all over at the block. If you read their statements they seem to gather out the front where their front doors and stairways meet.
Checking on your own children making sure "they haven't taken her" would be more logical.
That would take the best part of 30 seconds once they were all over at the block. If you read their statements they seem to gather out the front where their front doors and stairways meet.
Sure?
Matt Oldfield.
At around 10pm, Kate, Madeleine's mother, went to her apartment to check on her children. She came back totally shocked, shouting, saying that Madeleine was no longer in her bedroom. At that time all the adults were in the restaurant. Then, the whole group went to Madeleine's bedroom and checked that the twins were sleeping OK. That there was no sign of a burglary in the apartment. Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter [external blinds].
That would take the best part of 30 seconds once they were all over at the block. If you read their statements they seem to gather out the front where their front doors and stairways meet.I should have pointed out this was Jane Rachael and Fiona. The men were out looking and came back from time to time.
So are you saying Matt was aware that the window was open and the shutter was up? That doesn't read like Matt would talk so it is definitely a summary of what he might have said. Which statement was that from please?I'm not saying anything just replaying statements.
I'm not saying anything just replaying statements.
4/5/2007,when every thing would be fresh in the memory.
Did you read that bit by Russell? They looked for Madeleine: ".... and in their own apartments, to see if they could find Madeleine." How would Madeleine end up in one of the other apartments when their doors were all locked?
Now you understand the confusion surrounding statements and the sceptical view of them.I wouldn't say "I understand it".
I wouldn't say "I understand it".
Do you acknowledge it though.I acknowledge that "They looked for Madeleine: ".... and in their own apartments, to see if they could find Madeleine." could only mean that one of the Tapas 7 put her in there (in their own apartments) if that was ever going to be the case.
I acknowledge that "They looked for Madeleine: ".... and in their own apartments, to see if they could find Madeleine." could only mean that one of the Tapas 7 put her in there (in their own apartments) if that was ever going to be the case.
In your opinion.
They looked for Madeliene? why? The story goes according to Kate. MBM was abducted and she knew straight away because a door had moved and shutters were up and whooshing and other dead give-away signs were enough to convince her.
No one had mentioned that Gerry had a 'proud dad' moment and saw a physical alive Maddie.
There was no abductor stealing children from 5a- that is why they were looking for a child who dissapeared AND they never knew what time this would have been, because there was no physical checks.
Jane pops up with the 'I saw a man carrying a child'= must be na abductor and Gerry having a proud dad moment just minutes before.
It is too farcical to take seriously.
I acknowledge that "They looked for Madeleine: ".... and in their own apartments, to see if they could find Madeleine." could only mean that one of the Tapas 7 put her in there (in their own apartments) if that was ever going to be the case.Or staff who had keys. How else was Madeleine going to get into one of the other apartments? A key was a definite requirement.
They looked for Madeliene? why? The story goes according to Kate. MBM was abducted and she knew straight away because a door had moved and shutters were up and whooshing and other dead give-away signs were enough to convince her.
No one had mentioned that Gerry had a 'proud dad' moment and saw a physical alive Maddie.
There was no abductor stealing children from 5a- that is why they were looking for a child who dissapeared AND they never knew what time this would have been, because there was no physical checks.
Jane pops up with the 'I saw a man carrying a child'= must be na abductor and Gerry having a proud dad moment just minutes before.
It is too farcical to take seriously.
I think the quote from your post "It is too farcical to take seriously." sums up the content of your post precisely.
No-one knew of Gerry's 'proud dad moment'.
No-one knew of Jane's sighting.
No-one knew of the door being moved.
Instead of ridicule ... perhaps if the PJ had analysed the crime scene as it was presented to the witnesses ... Madeleine's story might have been different and she might have retained her identity and not been reduced to initials over twelve years down the line.
Her own mother couldn't even afford her a capital letter on the book.
This is a very pathetic comment.8((()*/
This is a very pathetic comment.
The truth is strange at times.So are some of the people who spend a disproportionate amount of their spare time dreaming up new things to criticise the McCanns for. IMO.
That’s because your thread is about the parents/friends timeline which you have drawn our attention to, inviting us to consider whether there was an opportunity for an abduction to take place. You have previously claimed abduction to be almost impossible, but the timeline as you have written it up shows this is poppycock.
Anyone who thinks there were clear opportunities in that timeline is talking poppycock in my opinion.
That is blatantly false, and the Met agree with me.
Anyone who thinks there were clear opportunities in that timeline is talking poppycock in my opinion.
all it had to be was an opportunity...was it possible,,,the answer has to be yesThe problem is people like G-Unit can only view an abduction through the lens of what they would consider sensible or too risky themselves, completely failing to understand it seems that people who commit crimes like this are prepared to take far bigger risks than they themselves would deem sensible or possible.
Because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't there. No-one mentioned Mr and Mrs Moyes who walked a very relevant way home, nor did the Moyes mention seeing any one else.
No-one mentioned the young man and his girlfriend driving the route past the tapas and they mentioned not seeing anyone either ... but people were out and about. The Smith family for example, but no-one mentioned seeing them specifically.
You seem very keen to find a space for an abductor to strike, but have no interest in the possibility of parental/friend involvement.
So other that TP9, JW and JT sighting who else was in the vicinity of 5a?
TP9 say they saw no one during their checking other than JW and JT sighting. Perhaps unsurprising given it was low season.
No idea what you mean by "a very relevant way home"
Rasta man was at OC. I thought the Smith family were round Kelly's bar/beach?
If Madeleine woke and wandered she isn't really operating to anyone's timeline but her own.
Anyone who thinks there were clear opportunities in that timeline is talking poppycock in my opinion.
That is blatantly false, and the Met agree with me.Doesn't make it so though.
all it had to be was an opportunity...was it possible,,,the answer has to be yes
Doesn't make it so though.I think I’ll take he Met’s opinion over yours and G-Unit’s thanks. Plus - any fool can see that there was ample opportunity to enter the apartment and take a child even if they refuse to admit it. Let’s not forget the McCanns still to this day get it in the neck for leaving the kids in an unlocked apartment. Why should it concern people if the apartment was locked or not if there was no opportunity for an abduction to take place?
I think I’ll take he Met’s opinion over yours and G-Unit’s thanks. Plus - any fool can see that there was ample opportunity to enter the apartment and take a child even if they refuse to admit it. Let’s not forget the McCanns still to this day get it in the neck for leaving the kids in an unlocked apartment. Why should it concern people if the apartment was locked or not if there was no opportunity for an abduction to take place?
You seem to think abduction is the only danger parents need to worry about when leaving children home alone. It's not, there are many dangers which make it unacceptable. Dangers which passers by wouldn't prevent.No, I know that, if you read my post carefully you will see I was referring to the unlocked element of the leaving the kids. This decision seems to be the “cherry on the cake” of the neglect accusation, in fact some people (eg Cheeky Monkey) find iit so hard to believe that they don’t believe the McCanns left the apartment unlocked at all. So leaving an apartment unlocked with your kids in it obviously exposes them to perceived dangers other than choking, falling off a sofa, od’ing on Calpol, etc.
I think I’ll take he Met’s opinion over yours and G-Unit’s thanks. Plus - any fool can see that there was ample opportunity to enter the apartment and take a child even if they refuse to admit it. Let’s not forget the McCanns still to this day get it in the neck for leaving the kids in an unlocked apartment. Why should it concern people if the apartment was locked or not if there was no opportunity for an abduction to take place?
Just because there was ample opportunity in your book doesn't mean to say it happened,recently(speaking on LBC radio) even the met commissioner is feeling rather pessimistic on the outcome,which what ever you want to cut it they can't find no abductor.This thread is all about trying to disprove the notion that there was opportunity for an abductor to strike. It has singularly failed to do so, in fact has achieved the reverse.
This thread is all about trying to disprove the notion that there was opportunity for an abductor to strike. It has singularly failed to do so, in fact has achieved the reverse.
12yrs and counting suggest's it's awfully difficult to see how.The length of time it takes to solve a case has no bearing whatsoever on whether it was possible to abduct the child from the apartment. You may as well claim that because no abductor or murderer has been identified in the Claudia Lawrence case in so many years that it’s hard to see how she could have been abducted and/or murdered.
No, I know that, if you read my post carefully you will see I was referring to the unlocked element of the leaving the kids. This decision seems to be the “cherry on the cake” of the neglect accusation, in fact some people (eg Cheeky Monkey) find iit so hard to believe that they don’t believe the McCanns left the apartment unlocked at all. So leaving an apartment unlocked with your kids in it obviously exposes them to perceived dangers other than choking, falling off a sofa, od’ing on Calpol, etc.
Although you refuse to believe it, parental involvement is also possible.
Woman and man who visited 605 and left close to 10 pm to go home.
I think the quote from your post "It is too farcical to take seriously." sums up the content of your post precisely.
No-one knew of Gerry's 'proud dad moment'.
No-one knew of Jane's sighting.
No-one knew of the door being moved.
Instead of ridicule ... perhaps if the PJ had analysed the crime scene as it was presented to the witnesses ... Madeleine's story might have been different and she might have retained her identity and not been reduced to initials over twelve years down the line.[/b]
Leaving small chidren home alone is stupid. Not locking them in is even more stupid. Yet the McCanns say that;s what they did. They also say that someone opened the shutter and window for no apparent reason. In my opinion they should have been surprised if no one commented, not surprised that people dud. I've never heard such a load of rubbish in my life. Claiming that MBM was abducted is just more of the same imo.
But what motive did the parents have to do whatever it is they are supposed to have done and then attempt to conceal it and MM from the world and his dog, ok 2 cadaver dogs !?
Crimes usually feature the following:
-Means
-Motive
-Opportunity
I'm struggling with the last two.
An expert has given a reason for the shutter and window found opened. Its called 'staging' and is a well known phenomenon whereby the perps of crime alter soc in an attempt to throw investigators.Such pointless and futile staging. Why go to the trouble, in the midst of an apparent abduction, to 'stage' the scene to make it look a different access and egress route was taken? Why not make it look like she wandered out, thereby throwing the them off the scent altogether?
An expert has given a reason for the shutter and window found opened. Its called 'staging' and is a well known phenomenon whereby the perps of crime alter soc in an attempt to throw investigators.
Accidental, unexpected or intentional death before 8:30.
Decision to cover it ip.
Some kind of disposal after it got dark.
Whatever the intention of those who opened the shutter and window the evidence was interfered with.I can't comprehend the point of the purported blind (pun intended). It's a pointless elaboration. We hear of disturbed criminals leaving their calling card, or violating the scene in some gratuitous manner, but a subtle act of misdirection with no real purpose?
Such pointless and futile staging. Why go to the trouble, in the midst of an apparent abduction, to 'stage' the scene to make it look a different access and egress route was taken? Why not make it look like she wandered out, thereby throwing the them off the scent altogether?
Why make the sleeping twins even more vulnerable, as an abductor, by opening up an additional access point?
So other that TP9, JW and JT sighting who else was in the vicinity of 5a?
TP9 say they saw no one during their checking other than JW and JT sighting. Perhaps unsurprising given it was low season.
No idea what you mean by "a very relevant way home"
Rasta man was at OC. I thought the Smith family were round Kelly's bar/beach?
Instead it casts doubt on woke and wandered. So if it was staged who might want to do that?
Instead it casts doubt on woke and wandered. So if it was staged who might want to do that?On the other side of that coin, if this person(s) had the opportunity and wherewithal to conduct staging, surely they could come up with something better? Break and enter the front door perhaps? Trample some foliage outside?
And as the parents, are clearly not being treated as, suspects it supports the presence if a stranger third partyYour inability to consider the hypothetical hamstrings your analysis.
On the other side of that coin, if this person(s) had the opportunity and wherewithal to conduct staging, surely they could come up with something better? Break and enter the front door perhaps? Trample some foliage outside?
Or credit where credit is do,its confuddled any investigation for 12 yrs.True. Whatever the perpetrator or whomever did, it's frickin effective.
Such pointless and futile staging. Why go to the trouble, in the midst of an apparent abduction, to 'stage' the scene to make it look a different access and egress route was taken? Why not make it look like she wandered out, thereby throwing the them off the scent altogether?
Why make the sleeping twins even more vulnerable, as an abductor, by opening up an additional access point?
According to an interview given to Stoke radio Mrs Moyes recounted walking home about nine, past the church and past the supermarket.
When home she and her husband sat out on the balcony from about 9.15pm.
If that route isn't relevant ... what is?
A highly qualified expert of long experience did not think it was pointless and futile staging nor do I. Most parents in the developed world do not go out during the hours of darkness and leave 3 children < 4yoa in an unlocked holiday apartment. The mere fact the McCanns entered and exited through the patio doors night after night allowed anyone with a 'room with a view' to know what was going on and by definition MM was 'home alone' and accessible. Had the window/shutter not been staged the McCanns, investigators, media etc would have looked at soc very differently.This extremely dangerous deviant was also a master criminal, leaving literally no trace, without the predisposition to perpetrate the 'fox in the hen house', but, conversely, has no apparent consideration for the welfare of the twins post his acts, yet has no compulsion to harm them either? And is able to modify the scene is such a subtle, ingenious and successful manner. Quite the unique recidivist.
How would the perp make the soc look like MM woke and wondered?
I doubt any abductor capable of removing a sleeping child from her bed would worry about leaving the twins vulnerable. This is potentially someone with a criminal mind and extremely dangerous and deviant.
True. Whatever the perpetrator or whomever did, it's frickin effective.
605? Is that a neighboring property or another apartment within the complex?
So if it was an accident or unexpected why cover it up? By intentional I assume you mean they wanted to murder MM? If so does this relate to both parents or one? Why would one or both want to murder her?
Well if MM died accidentally or her death was unexpected then why cover it up? If MM was murdered by her parents then yes that would be a reason for covering it up but I can't see the motive for murder?
But what kind of disposal after it got dark? Afaik they were constantly with others?
MM's story might have been different had her parents not been so feckless in providing adequate supervision. Had they even locked the patio door and carried out checks via the front door MM's story might have been different.
Using initials on an internet forum has it advantages not just in terms of speed of typing but it reduces the chances of our posts being retrieved by anyone carrying out a name based search.
This extremely dangerous deviant was also a master criminal, leaving literally no trace, without the predisposition to perpetrate the 'fox in the hen house', but, conversely, has no apparent consideration for the welfare of the twins post his acts, yet has no compulsion to harm them either? And is able to modify the scene is such a subtle, ingenious and successful manner. Quite the unique recidivist.
I can't comprehend the point of the purported blind (pun intended). It's a pointless elaboration. We hear of disturbed criminals leaving their calling card, or violating the scene in some gratuitous manner, but a subtle act of misdirection with no real purpose?
On the other side of that coin, if this person(s) had the opportunity and wherewithal to conduct staging, surely they could come up with something better? Break and enter the front door perhaps? Trample some foliage outside?
Or credit where credit is do,its confuddled any investigation for 12 yrs.
Sedation has been a feature of the case. As far as I can gather this idea was driven by MBM's mother. I am therefore led to wonder why? One possible explanation is that an autopsy would have found sedatives in the body had it been found.
The time of the alarm isn't confirmed by any independent witnesses. DW's evidence tells us that one of the parents was unaccounted for until 15 minutes after the alarm was raised.
Did they observe others?
It may very well have 'confuddled' the denizens of internet fora for twelve years ... I do not think the same can be said for investigators. Rebelo got it out of the way very quickly when he took on the case by checking it out thoroughly for himself.
He tried it out, but did he get it out of the way? I'm not sure what conclusions he came to, if any, regarding the roller blind and window.
I can't comprehend the point of the purported blind (pun intended). It's a pointless elaboration. We hear of disturbed criminals leaving their calling card, or violating the scene in some gratuitous manner, but a subtle act of misdirection with no real purpose?
Eatly reports suggested breaking and entering, but there was no evidence tp support those reports. Nothing was either broken or entered.
Instead it casts doubt on woke and wandered. So if it was staged who might want to do that?
Yes sedation has been a feature of the case for some including KM believing her children might have been sedated. I do not believe this to be the case for the following reasons:
- The science of sleep, stages 3 and 4, explain how all of us, especially young children, enter very deep periods of sleep during the course of the night which are difficult to wake from.
- I uploaded a vid clip showing GM removing a fast asleep SM from their return flight back to UK. SM is fast asleep across GM's shoulder oblivious to GM speaking into a microphone and the whirring of the aircraft engines in the background:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pepDNi7WSYs
No charges were brought against Madeleine's parents as a result of his investigation and the 'evidence' used to make them arguidos in the first place was found to be non-existent resulting in theirs and Robert Murat's against whom there was no evidence either, arguido status being removed.
A highly qualified expert of long experience did not think it was pointless and futile staging nor do I. Most parents in the developed world do not go out during the hours of darkness and leave 3 children < 4yoa in an unlocked holiday apartment. The mere fact the McCanns entered and exited through the patio doors night after night allowed anyone with a 'room with a view' to know what was going on and by definition MM was 'home alone' and accessible. Had the window/shutter not been staged the McCanns, investigators, media etc would have looked at soc very differently.
How would the perp make the soc look like MM woke and wondered?
I doubt any abductor capable of removing a sleeping child from her bed would worry about leaving the twins vulnerable. This is potentially someone with a criminal mind and extremely dangerous and deviant.
This extremely dangerous deviant was also a master criminal, leaving literally no trace, without the predisposition to perpetrate the 'fox in the hen house', but, conversely, has no apparent consideration for the welfare of the twins post his acts, yet has no compulsion to harm them either? And is able to modify the scene is such a subtle, ingenious and successful manner. Quite the unique recidivist.
And still out there. But not even a criminal deviant is going to try that again in the proximity.I bet that little slogan made the criminal fraternity's kecks roll up.
This to me is what Operation Grange is all about. Don't chance your arm because we will hunt you.
Recidivist aren't unique. This is why they are termed recidivists.Thanks for that.
I bet that little slogan made the criminal fraternity's kecks roll up.
Your opinions or those of a doctor, anaesthetist and a person with intimate knowledge of the children involved?
Such a pity that the rwins were never tested. Why? Because despite KM's cllaims that she raised the matter with the police there's no evidence which confirms her claim.
I bet it did.No, I'm originally from Liverpool, so obviously I know a thing or two about recidivism (and self-deprecation / stereotype prolongation)
Are you a Glaswegian, by the way? No need to answer that if you don't want to.
No, I'm originally from Liverpool, so obviously I know a thing or two about recidivism (and self-deprecation / stereotype prolongation)
Someone who entered via the patio door.
Obviously not enough.Indeed, I'm a crap, would-be recidivist.
I can think of no reason why they would want to hide that.
No charges were brought against Madeleine's parents as a result of his investigation and the 'evidence' used to make them arguidos in the first place was found to be non-existent resulting in theirs and Robert Murat's against whom there was no evidence either, arguido status being removed.
Indeed, I'm a crap, would-be recidivist.
Wearing my policeman's thinking cap, that would suggest to me the possibility that they had been observing the McCann's (& T7's) schedule for some time.
Wearing my policeman's thinking cap, that would suggest to me the possibility that they had been observing the McCann's (& T7's) schedule for some time.
Would it lead you to conclude that these warchers were local?
How would locals know the patio door was unlocked?
I assume you mean by locals those living/working in PDL as opposed to holiday makers?
Unless these individuals could observe the unlocked patio doors how would they know they were unlocked?
Would it lead you to conclude that these warchers were local?
I believe so. I think the following article by BOD is excellent as it shows how the T9 inadvertently attracted attention by the size and noise of the group. All that was required was someone who had some sort of unhealthy interest in children and away you go.
They booked a large table every night in the Tapas. We called them "the Doctors". Sometimes we would sit out on our balcony and their laughter would float up around us. One man was the joker. He had a loud Glaswegian accent. He was Gerry McCann.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
This case is far simpler than other cases I have looked at.
It is simple as Smithman's identity will prove.
It is simple as Smithman's identity will prove.
Observation.
Whilst going through one line of interest for my blog, some years ago, I pondered this question.
The chances that an alleged abductor fastened on to 5A by merely passing by seems nonsense.
One needs to see both the children and the McCanns leave by the unlocked patio door in the evening, and those events were roughly 3 hours apart. Highly unlikely, IMO.
The next approach was to think through if there is some sort of 'magnet' attracting attention to 5A.
There is more than one, but the most likely culprit is Sammy Snake. Sammy Snake is a device by which the children were walked to and from the beach, and possibly from Madeleine's playgroup to High Tea.
I have seen it in action only once, but it is highly eye-catching. It groups 6 or 8 small children of the same age together. Possibly a selection menu.
If this is how it happened, the order is ... See and select Madeleine first. Follow Madeleine to High Tea. Follow Madeleine to 5A. Observe the parents leave the children alone every night. Observe the checking via the unlocked patio doors. Game over.
I have to commend you on the fact that you are so very rarely unpleasant.
If you can do this while making your feelings known, then so can everyone else.
Thank you. You are an asset to this Forum.
Suffering the heat? take it in the manner its intended.
I never suffer from the heat. But perhaps you could take a leaf from Pathfinder.
Nope,I'm happy to have you declare a post of mine pathetic,no where one stands with out the pretence.
Ah, I see. I had forgotten that, and who made the post to which I replied.
Nope,I'm happy to have you declare a post of mine pathetic,no where one stands with out the pretence.
It seems from KM's book they rarely left the complex. I don't know whether MM's kids club involved any trips to the beach or elsewhere but according to KM as a family they only visited the beach once.
After kids club it seems T9 and C8 all hang out in the kids play park for some time. Anyone with a 'room with a view' could no doubt observe the children in play around the park, pool etc and then home in on the fact T9 met @ tapas @ 8.30 every night with the McCanns exiting and entering via the unlocked patio door unlike T7 who exited and entered via the front door which was locked.
Game over indeed.
What trace evidence would you expect the perp to leave behind?
We don't know what the motive would have been for abduction or anything about the perp eg previous or post offending.
If the perp entered with the intention of abducting MM then I don't see why he/she would want to harm the twins in the apartment or be concerned they were now in a room with a window/shutter open? If the person had a conscience and sense of morality he/she would not have entered 5a let alone abduct a child.
Leaving small chidren home alone is stupid. Not locking them in is even more stupid. Yet the McCanns say that;s what they did. They also say that someone opened the shutter and window for no apparent reason. In my opinion they should have been surprised if no one commented, not surprised that people dud. I've never heard such a load of rubbish in my life. Claiming that MBM was abducted is just more of the same imo.You seem to be putting emotion ahead of reason in this post, I thought you were above that tbh. What is “a load of rubbish” and why is it “a load of rubbish”?
Instead it casts doubt on woke and wandered. So if it was staged who might want to do that?Obviously not the McCanns as they “un-staged” it before the police arrived which I think even you have acknowledged makes no sense at all.
Sedation has been a feature of the case. As far as I can gather this idea was driven by MBM's mother. I am therefore led to wonder why? One possible explanation is that an autopsy would have found sedatives in the body had it been found.DW? Were both McCanns absent from the table when the alarm was raised?
The time of the alarm isn't confirmed by any independent witnesses. DW's evidence tells us that one of the parents was unaccounted for until 15 minutes after the alarm was raised.
You seem to think abduction is the only danger parents need to worry about when leaving children home alone. It's not, there are many dangers which make it unacceptable. Dangers which passers by wouldn't prevent.Such as?
I bet that little slogan made the criminal fraternity's kecks roll up.Kecks??/ WTF is that?
Please explain.Answers from Pathfinder are rare indeed. "It is simple as Smithman's identity will prove".
Sedation has been a feature of the case. As far as I can gather this idea was driven by MBM's mother. I am therefore led to wonder why? One possible explanation is that an autopsy would have found sedatives in the body had it been found.
The time of the alarm isn't confirmed by any independent witnesses. DW's evidence tells us that one of the parents was unaccounted for until 15 minutes after the alarm was raised.
Yes indeed. Post mortems reveal many things- hence reasons why bodies are disposed of.
People now getting upset about using Initials . Oh boy. Many interviews by the loving parents we were told about a 'little girl' is missing- and Gerry spelling his daughters name wrong and Kate with her Capital missing... whatever next!
I think it is kinder to use the name Madeleine than MM or MBM. The later two depersonalize her.
As a matter of courtesy to her, I think her correct name should be used.
Sorry this is late.
Regardless of their claimed best intentions, the checking didn't always happen every 30 minutes as evidenced by Mrs Fenn's account of what occurred on the night of the 1st May.
I might have gone for that one had there been any proof given of the phone call made to her friend Edna Glynn if the phone records backed it up ... but they don't do they?Do you know Mrs Fenn's and Edna's phone numbers?
I might have gone for that one had there been any proof given of the phone call made to her friend Edna Glynn if the phone records backed it up ... but they don't do they?
What phone records for 1st May?
I might have gone for that one had there been any proof given of the phone call made to her friend Edna Glynn if the phone records backed it up ... but they don't do they?
What proof do you need other than Mrs Fenn’s word ? Did she have any reason not to be honest about the incident?
What proof do you need other than Mrs Fenn’s word ? Did she have any reason not to be honest about the incident?
The same phone records which enabled scrutiny of Malinka, Murat and uncle Tom Cobley n'all phone calls which have concentrated the minds of the denizens of internet fora for the past twelve years.
Amaral would have had that all checked out at the time. Why some people still think that the files relate everything in this case never ceases to amaze me.
OK, understood.
Certain persons of interest had judicial applications applied for phone records over a period of time, which the PJ Files show were granted, applied, and discontinued at the expiration.
Neither Uncle Tom Cobley nor Mrs Fenn was one of those.
I am not privy to "Mrs Fenn's word" and neither are you for the numerous reasons rehearsed ad nauseam on this forum.
He didn't bother too much with the Smith sighting ... until Martin did a McCluskey with it. What was the value added by Mrs Fenn's statement? In my opinion absolutely nothing except as a convenient instrument to denigrate Madeleine's parents by suggestion that they were less than punctilious in their checking of the children.
It showed that the group could lie when it suited them. If they could lie about the checking, what else did they lie about?
Answers from Pathfinder are rare indeed. "It is simple as Smithman's identity will prove".
I make reference to those records retrieved after Madeleine's disappearance as part of the investigation ... was it by British engineers brought in for the job?
I suggest Mrs Fenn's call to Edna Glynn will be recorded therein along with all the other traffic over that period.
Yes we are. It’s in her statement. A statement that she signed as being true. Even in a bad google translation it is clear that she claimed to have talked to her friend that night.
It's an interesting thought.
If I could lay my paws on all of the phone records from 1 May then I will treat you to a drinky-poo at Clive's Cocktails, close by the Smith sighting, Mr Malinka's residence, the OG dig, and all of the July 2014 arguidos.
Unfortunately, there's nothing to suggest a public sweep of phones on 1 May. I wish there was.
I'll still be happy to take you to Clive's, should you fancy one of his famous cocktails.
I'm fine with that as long as the trust you advocate for unsubstantiated witness statements is universally applied by you 100% to all other witness statements corroborated or otherwise.
Fine when posting hypothetically on the internet. But not so good if applied by investigators I would imagine ... quite a novel concept indeed.
Unsubstantiated? It is included in the official case files, it can be viewed in both Portuguese and English and was signed by Mrs Fenn as a true representation of her recollections. It is only unsubstantiated in the minds of those who would rather believe that it isn’t true.Do check the dictionary to understand what 'unsubstantiated' means ... and do read Mrs Fenn's statement and remind yourself she said she heard a child crying ... Why do you think Rachel who was at home at that time didn't hear that child crying if the crying was coming from the room next door to her?
Do check the dictionary to understand what 'unsubstantiated' means ... and do read Mrs Fenn's statement and remind yourself she said she heard a child crying ... Why do you think Rachel who was at home at that time didn't hear that child crying if the crying was coming from the room next door to her?
Do check the dictionary to understand what 'unsubstantiated' means ... and do read Mrs Fenn's statement and remind yourself she said she heard a child crying ... Why do you think Rachel who was at home at that time didn't hear that child crying if the crying was coming from the room next door to her?
That old chestnut. When you don’t want to address a point, pretend the opposing side doesn’t understand your meaning. Davel uses that a lot too.
Anyhoooo not sure why what she hear crying has to do with whether she called her friend but to clarify:
‘she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger.’
As to calling her friend, we have Mrs Fenn’s word for it in a statement which she signed and as she has no dog in the fight there is no cause to doubt it or substantiate it.
As to Rachel, no idea.
The McCann's family and friends said THEY TOLD THEM that the shutters were smashed, brokun or jemmied. Supporters of the McCanns have refused to believe them. I see no reason why they would believe Mrs Fenn's friend if they didn't want to.
Even watching this short video cannot convince them...
Everybody had it in for them according to the Team McCann and fellow supporters.
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/05/mcminutes-mccanns-changed-story-because.html
Talk about translation errors... (&^&
Even watching this short video cannot convince them...
Everybody had it in for them according to the Team McCann and fellow supporters.
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/05/mcminutes-mccanns-changed-story-because.html
Talk about translation errors... (&^&
Even watching this short video cannot convince them...
Everybody had it in for them according to the Team McCann and fellow supporters.
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/05/mcminutes-mccanns-changed-story-because.html
Talk about translation errors... (&^&
Ah, Hi De Ho again.
Ah, Hi De Ho again.
That old chestnut. When you don’t want to address a point, pretend the opposing side doesn’t understand your meaning. Davel uses that a lot too.Nor is there cause to doubt or substantiate Rachel's statement that she heard no child crying on that night in the apartment through the wall from her 😊
Anyhoooo not sure why what she hear crying has to do with whether she called her friend but to clarify:
‘she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger.’
As to calling her friend, we have Mrs Fenn’s word for it in a statement which she signed and as she has no dog in the fight there is no cause to doubt it or substantiate it.
As to Rachel, no idea.
Nor is there cause to doubt or substantiate Rachel's statement that she heard no child crying on that night in the apartment through the wall from her 😊
Nor is there cause to doubt or substantiate Rachel's statement that she heard no child crying on that night in the apartment through the wall from her 😊
Rachael made no such statement about Tuesday night because she was at the Tapas with the others,
How did I miss that. It was Wednesday, wasn’t it ?
How did I miss that. It was Wednesday, wasn’t it ?
Yes on Wednesday Rachel stayed in and heard no noises on the night the McCanns claimed Madeleine was crying. Pamela Fenn also heard no sounds on Wednesday night because she said the crying was on Tuesday (Tapas Quiz Night).
"She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night." https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
Thanks PF.Please could you explain your criticism of Brietta's post please?
So Brietta’s comment was a red herring.
Please could you explain your criticism of Brietta's post please?
Of course. Brietta said that if Madeleine was crying on Tuesday night as Mrs Fenn said why didn’t Rachel, who was in her apartment, hear it. She didn’t hear it because she was in her apartment on Wednesday night not Tuesday.
Cite please
But of course, though I’m not sure if Brietta will thank you for making me repeat her little....ahem...mistake.
“Do check the dictionary to understand what 'unsubstantiated' means ... and do read Mrs Fenn's statement and remind yourself she said she heard a child crying ... Why do you think Rachel who was at home at that time didn't hear that child crying if the crying was coming from the room next door to her?”
Of course. Brietta said that if Madeleine was crying on Tuesday night as Mrs Fenn said why didn’t Rachel, who was in her apartment, hear it. She didn’t hear it because she was in her apartment on Wednesday night not Tuesday.
Cite for her not being in her apt TuesdayWho are you talking about? who is "her".
Who are you talking about? who is "her".
Cite for her not being in her apt Tuesday
She says Matt was in the apartment sick on Sunday and that she was on Wednesday...so no checks on Monday but checks on Wednesday.... how odd if she was already in the apartment.
“1578 'And when you say we, you're referring to yourself and Matthew''
Reply 'Yes, yeah, erm so yeah Wednesday was slightly different I suppose cos it rained and things were off, although by the afternoon it had cleared up, erm and so on Wednesday night I didnt go to dinner cos I'd thrown up the night before, you know it was just another weird thing about holiday cos I'm never ill, neither is Matt, as long as I've known him I've never known him be sick, erm'.
1578 'So you, on the Wednesday evening then, you stayed in the apartment with Grace''
But then this.
“1578 'So there was this rigorous checking procedure''
Reply 'Yes, yeah every night'.
1578 'Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday evening''
Reply 'Mmm yeah'.
Obviously Rachel.It could have also been Mrs Fenn, or potentially for some real conspiracy advocates Madeleine McCann.
Didn't really mean to ask for a cite... It was predictive text..Yeah right!
You continue to promote this so-called abduction from the apartment theory despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support it. I find that very odd?
The tracker dogs had everything going for them the night Maddie disappeared. They got there very quickly, there was no rain and the ground was completely dry. Add to this the fact that on that one occasion, the missing child was barefoot.
But given the unlocked patio door what evidence would you expect to find?
Given the unlocked patio door why did Gerry use the front door to enter his apartment at 9:05? He withdrew that statement later but Jane's evidence upholds his first statement in my opinion.I mean, it's pretty important, the door, which door Gerry? Come on now, this is important.
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Given the unlocked patio door why did Gerry use the front door to enter his apartment at 9:05? He withdrew that statement later but Jane's evidence upholds his first statement in my opinion.
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
If you recall when I first started posting I suggested he may have used the front door instead of patio door and this was before I was aware of his conflicting accounts.He may have been going to have a p*** outside in the bushes. I would.
Maybe he wanted to pee urgently and the front door was quicker rather than going through 2 sets of gates. It seems he had also ordered his meal and was in a hurry to get back. Did he speak with JW before or after entering 5A? If the latter he might well have felt time pressured.
Timeline as prepared by the group between 3rd and 10th May.
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
In my opinion no-one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near 5A with all that activity going on.
But you can look at many child abductions and see that others have operated in a tiny window of opportunity. In this case potentially the window of opportunity was greater than in other cases and the perp could plan ahead to some degree. Consider other cases:ITV played the Lesley Ann Downey tapes on a program several years ago, quite why they did, I have no idea.
Jennifer Klein - Body undiscovered
Sarah Payne - Body found
James Bulger - Body found
Lesley Molseed - Body found
Lesley Ann Downey - Body undiscovered
Azaria Chamberlain - ?
ITV played the Lesley Ann Downey tapes on a program several years ago, quite why they did, I have no idea.
It has literally haunted me since. Possibly the worst piece of audio I have ever heard.
He may have been going to have a p*** outside in the bushes. I would.
ITV played the Lesley Ann Downey tapes on a program several years ago, quite why they did, I have no idea.
It has literally haunted me since. Possibly the worst piece of audio I have ever heard.
I would avoid listening to them. I'm surprised ITV got away with broadcasting them.
For clarification Lesley Ann Downey’s body was found.
If you recall when I first started posting I suggested he may have used the front door instead of patio door and this was before I was aware of his conflicting accounts.
Maybe he wanted to pee urgently and the front door was quicker rather than going through 2 sets of gates. It seems he had also ordered his meal and was in a hurry to get back. Did he speak with JW before or after entering 5A? If the latter he might well have felt time pressured.
Or maybe the patio doors were never left open?
On Sunday I recall I checked Kate and Gerry’s apartment as well as Rachael and Matt’s. I had taken Matt’s keys and I believe that their door was deadlocked the same as ours and that I would have needed to turn the key two times... I recall that Kate and Gerry’s apartment was accessed by the patios door which was left closed and unlocked.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Contradicted by Gerry;
----- That they left the house by the main door, that he was sure he locked, it being that the rear door was also closed and locked.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
And by Rachael;
on that Sunday night, I dont, Matt didnt come to dinner on the Sunday with being sick the night before, so he didnt, he just stayed in the apartment, so I didnt actually have to go back and check at all on the Sunday'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Yes you're right. It is Keith Bennett's body that remain undiscovered.
I know this might sound far-fetched but it is possible an abductor (male/female or both) woke MM and was very kind and reassuring eg 'We're from Kids Club (or whatever they called it at MW) and we're going to take you to Mummy and Daddy as a surprise! We've bought you some new shoes'. Females can act as bait eg Hindley.Good tracker dogs track direction as well as route.
Is it possible the search and rescue dogs picked up MM's scent from walking along that route earlier in the day?
ITV played the Lesley Ann Downey tapes on a program several years ago, quite why they did, I have no idea.
It has literally haunted me since. Possibly the worst piece of audio I have ever heard.
I thought that quote from GM related to how they left the apartment during the day?
If you look at other cases eg Bamber you will see the same sort of inconsistencies. These people are on hol not some military training exercise. They have no reason to have perfect recall and on hol any given day is difficult to distinguish from another. It is after all what hols are mostly about is it not ie switching off, r and r?
Timeline as prepared by the group between 3rd and 10th May.When I lived in London, my first flat was on the top floor of a three storey building above a busy newsagents close to the railways station. I got home from work one early evening to discover that my flat had been robbed, as had the one below mine. At some time during the day, in broad daylight, a burglar had managed to unlock the front door and had the balls (if you want to call it that) to go upstairs and break into two flats, presumably not 100% certain that there wasn’t a resident the other side of each flat’s front door. Were they in their right mind or not, in your opinion?
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
In my opinion no-one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near 5A with all that activity going on.
When I lived in London, my first flat was on the top floor of a three storey building above a busy newsagents close to the railways station. I got home from work one early evening to discover that my flat had been robbed, as had the one below mine. At some time during the day, in broad daylight, a burglar had managed to unlock the front door and had the balls (if you want to call it that) to go upstairs and break into two flats, presumably not 100% certain that there wasn’t a resident the other side of each flat’s front door. Were they in their right mind or not, in your opinion?
No comparison is my reply.Why not? The comparison is breaking and entering an apartment and the risks involve of doing so and whether or not anyone in their right mind would take them.
I remember that and it affected me the same. I can still hear it in my head. Disgraceful imo.
I never heard the tape. Reading about it was harrowing enough. sickening that it was used as a form of 'entertainment' and the sick paedos would get off on that. Her poor mother, having to live knowing that happened to her beautiful daughter.
From the interviews she gave subsequently she was a broken woman, surviving only because of the anti-depressants that dampened her emotions.
Hearing your child wanting her Mum isn't something you can ever forget, I imagine. I've never forgotten it, it was like a knife in my heart. I avoided crime documentaries for years and I utterly refused to delve into the details of the Bulger case.
Indeed. Which makes the story Kate gave about Madeliene challenging her parents abuot being left alone with crying baby more horrifying. they hear than and did nothing?
I actually had tears in my eyes thinking about that situation when I first encountered it.
staff were subjected to the baby P case as part of traning for child protection. What they did to that beautiful baby, left the whole place reaching for the hankies.
I became interested in the Jo benet case due to one of my (ex) friends who's daughter was a 'glamour queen @ 3years old'. Some of the outfits were totally inappropriate and those pushy mothers! They encouraged their children to 'be nice' to the middle aged male judges.. ew
There are many assumptions made about parents. In reality not all parents fit these assumptions. Not all parents bond, empathise or put their children first even if they say they do.
This is veru true G.
there is also the mental health issues- post natal depression of a very serious nature ,if untreated or recognised can cause a mother to kill her child to'protect them' from what ever evil she percieves there is.
Like diminished responsibility.
Then we have :Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) is a mental health problem in which a caregiver makes up or causes an illness or injury in a person under his or her care, such as a child, an elderly adult, or a person who has a disability. Because vulnerable people are the victims, MSBP is a form of child abuse or elder abuse.
AND some of these people work in hospitals/community as care givers.
And no doubt in other professions, occupations, even teachers and lawyers and police officers.
Speaking of the police, I recall my brother in law, a retired police officer telling me of the worst case of neglected children he had ever have to help remove from their home.
The baby was in a urine soaked cot, a nappy that hasn't been changed for days and all the children left hungry for days.
Dreadful!
"They have no reason to have perfect recall and on hol any given day is difficult to distinguish from another. It is after all what hols are mostly about is it not ie switching off, r and r?"
On a nomal holiday yes that would be the case. However, if your child has been abducted, as claimed, you should recall very important details. They recall a lot of mindless details like buying 5 icecreams earlier in the week,but can't recall what door they used that night
If I lose or misplace something what i do is retrace my steps. where was I when I saw/used it last. And then most people I know have the ability to discuss the day their loved one died in great detail. because it was sush am important event. Some people do it for celebrities.
I agree with you. I can remember if I had a bath or a shower the day before even when I'm not at work. If someone knocks on the door I can remember whether or not they have come inside.Can you recall it a year later?
Can you recall it a year later?
Of course not. KM is never asked to.
She says a bath in May... and a shower in September. She would of course remember the shower, IMO, because it’s when DP calls round and she goes to answer his call dressed only in a towel.
Have any of your friends ever answered the door dressed only in a towel? You’d remember, right?
You are relying on transcripts of her statements that Kate has said are not accurateWell that just about covers everything we can read in the public domain apart from her book!! In the book she says it was a shower and at a time when Gerry was playing tennis.
Of course not. KM is never asked to.Depends on the circumstances. I might if I crossed the road now and knocked on my neighbour’s door. On a beach holiday where people aren’t wearing much, or using towels at the pool, or taking frequent showers after swimming, sport etc probably not so much. It seems some people find the idea of Kate wearing a towel to be somewhat saucy and titillating, I think they’ve been watching too many Confessions of A Windowcleaner type film
She says a bath in May... and a shower in September. She would of course remember the shower, IMO, because it’s when DP calls round and she goes to answer his call dressed only in a towel.
Have any of your friends ever answered the door dressed only in a towel? You’d remember, right?
Depends on the circumstances. I might if I crossed the road now and knocked on my neighbour’s door. On a beach holiday where people aren’t wearing much, or using towels at the pool, or taking frequent showers after swimming, sport etc probably not so much. It seems some people find the idea of Kate wearing a towel to be somewhat saucy and titillating, I think they’ve been watching too many Confessions of A Windowcleaner type film
Nope it’s okay, I’ve managed to keep my dinner down!What a stupid comment. Which bit of what I wrote did you find so nauseating?
Depends on the circumstances. I might if I crossed the road now and knocked on my neighbour’s door. On a beach holiday where people aren’t wearing much, or using towels at the pool, or taking frequent showers after swimming, sport etc probably not so much. It seems some people find the idea of Kate wearing a towel to be somewhat saucy and titillating, I think they’ve been watching too many Confessions of A Windowcleaner type film
What a stupid comment. Which bit of what I wrote did you find so nauseating?
Right. Is there any member of the Tapas group that wasn’t lying their heads off about the events of that evening / night, in your view?
I don't think that is the case at all. He is claiming he went to see Kate, he was asked about it and he replied he went inside saw three happy children wearing 'white' looking like angels but could not recall what Kate was wearing at all.
which leaves the situation open to did he really see Kate that eveing as claimed. That is a story within a story IMO. too many errors.
The bit where you suggest anyone here would think that Kate in a towel was somehow was a saucy, titillating prospect....or perhaps you do ?Then why the constant banging on about the towel? What is it about the towel that means DP HAD to have noticed it?
Then why the constant banging on about the towel? What is it about the towel that means DP HAD to have noticed it?
Then why the constant banging on about the towel? What is it about the towel that means DP HAD to have noticed it?
I see you didn’t answer my question...no matter.Perhaps he’s long sighted and couldn’t see what she as wearing cos she was all out of focus. Or maybe his glasses steamed up momentarily. . And yes, the thought of Kate in a towel gives me the total horn, even though I am a middle aged married woman.
Even if you found Kate repulsive it would still be odd that Payne didn’t notice the towel someone close to him was wearing but did notice the children’s pyjamas, who were further away.
Perhaps he’s long sighted and couldn’t see what she as wearing cos she was all out of focus. Or maybe his glasses steamed up momentarily. .
Then why the constant banging on about the towel? What is it about the towel that means DP HAD to have noticed it?
The friend insisted: "Kate was never alone with Madeleine that afternoon. There were always other witnesses present. These details were all given to detectives during police interviews, so they know what Kate and Gerry said happened that day."
Clutching at straws there. Let's be realistic - IMO he probably would remember that she answered the door dressed only in a towel.It was a joke.
It was a joke.
So you can’t really explain the flaws in their timeline. That’s significant because it was Mitchell who claimed that the information they gave to the PJ would demonstrate that the missing six hours are accounted for. Yet when the PJ investigate this they find contradictory timelines.
Do you believe the two current investigations have
a) noted these contradictory timelines and have investigated them?
b) noted these contradictory timelines and have ignored them?
c haven't noted these contradictory timelines at all?
Which would be the most likely?
As far as OG is concerned, it could be C, as they openly admitted that they accepted early PJ work without further investigation
Surely the early PJ work had noted these discrepancies?
Indeed, but OG may have decided to take it no further.
We really have no idea what OG have & have not done - its all guess work and supposition
Why would they "take it no further"?
You seem to suggest that OG would ignore any evidence which would indicate that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
I appreciate that we have no idea of what has or has not been done but surely any such evidence would not be ignored.
I have given my opinion.
I cannot second guess OG and don't intend to try
Fair enough!
I just do wonder why some posters find these " inaccuracies" in the statements to be of great importance but seem unwilling to speculate as to why these glaring inaccuracies may or may not have been investigated.
I did give three options and you thought option c.
I don't find it likely that OG haven't noted the inaccuracies.
Could you accept that it has been explained, and they agreed to keep it confidential?
Why would they "take it no further"?
You seem to suggest that OG would ignore any evidence which would indicate that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
I appreciate that we have no idea of what has or has not been done but surely any such evidence would not be ignored.
So you can’t really explain the flaws in their timeline. That’s significant because it was Mitchell who claimed that the information they gave to the PJ would demonstrate that the missing six hours are accounted for. Yet when the PJ investigate this they find contradictory timelines.Yes I can easily explain the flaws in their timeline, you won’t accept it, so no point repeating it. You think discrepancies between witness statements is indicative of a cover up and dishonesty, I think discrepancies between witness statements is to be expected and would be more notable if everyone’s recollection was identical.
Yes I can easily explain the flaws in their timeline, you won’t accept it, so no point repeating it. You think discrepancies between witness statements is indicative of a cover up and dishonesty, I think discrepancies between witness statements is to be expected and would be more notable if everyone’s recollection was identical.
To a degree you are quite correct but on some recollection of certain things you would expect better memory, IMO.
Test yourself -?did you have a bath or shower last night? Who else was there at the time?
They do recollect unimportant silly things like; buying 5 icecreams and Gerry buying sunglasses...
To a degree you are quite correct but on some recollection of certain things you would expect better memory, IMO.I had neither and I was alone. Did I pass?
Test yourself -?did you have a bath or shower last night? Who else was there at the time?
But apparently not whether it was a bath or shower and who else was there at the time. Who here can't remember if they had a bath or shower last night?Do you seriously believe Kate said she had a bath and then changed it to shower? Really?
I had neither and I was alone. Did I pass?
Do you seriously believe Kate said she had a bath and then changed it to shower? Really?
No! (Well actually she may have).... I'm asking why she couldn't remember which, and when, and who else was there? All things that are easy to remember.
No! (Well actually she may have).... I'm asking why she couldn't remember which, and when, and who else was there? All things that are easy to remember.Why do you assume she couldn’t remember which she had? Is that the true explanation for the discrepancies?
Yes well done. Very easy isn't it!!Thing is if I told some bloke about it down the cop shop, he then translated it into Portuguese, someone else typed it up and then someone else again translated it back into English it would probably translate as I never have baths or showers and live the life of a hermit.
Now what sort of thing could you expect inaccuracies for? Today you passed someone walking a dog... what colour top did they have on?
Thing is if I told some bloke about it down the cop shop, he then translated it into Portuguese, someone else typed it up and then someone else again translated it back into English it would probably translate as I never have baths or showers and live the life of a hermit.And are you saying that impression we got is not true?
Do you seriously believe Kate said she had a bath and then changed it to shower? Really?What I think is, she was having a shower and when she heard David she came out to see him wearing a towel.
Why do you assume she couldn’t remember which she had? Is that the true explanation for the discrepancies?
I don't think the bath / shower discrepancy is a big deal anymore and it could be an interchangeable translation anyway. I believe the time it was taken and who else was there is more significant, IMO.
I don't think the bath / shower discrepancy is a big deal anymore and it could be an interchangeable translation anyway. I believe the time it was taken and who else was there is more significant, IMO.You mean you’ve actually conceded a translation error? OMG, that’s quite incredible IMO.
In what way do you think the latter issues are significant, given that the Paynes & McCanns remained close friends after Madeleine's disappearance?
It shows Mitchell was wrong about KM never being alone with the kids on Thursday afternoon.Is that what Mitchell claimed?
Is that what Mitchell claimed?
So it was reported. Though he would no doubt claim he wasn’t the only person “close to the family”Well I believe he wasn't at Praia da Luz at the time. So he must be working off secondhand knowledge.
Well I believe he wasn't at Praia da Luz at the time. So he must be working off secondhand knowledge.
Timeline as prepared by the group between 3rd and 10th May.
20:35 McCanns leave 5A and go to Tapas
20:40 Jane Tanner arrives followed by the Oldfields.
20:45 Russell O'Brien arrives
20:55 Matthew Oldfield back to apartments, meets the Payne/Webster on their way down.
21:00 Matt returns to Tapas
21:05 Gerry goes to the apartments.
21:15 Jane goes to the apartments; Gerry is chatting to Jez.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
21:30 Matt checks 5A.
21:35 Matt to Tapas.
21:40 Jane goes to her apartment.
21:45 Russelll to Tapas.
22.00 Kate McCann to apartment.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
In my opinion no-one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near 5A with all that activity going on.
There isn't a wit stat from the Moyes in PJ files:Were they not able to look across to the Tapas area?
I'm not sure how reliable the following is:
https://closeronline.co.uk/real-life/news/witnesses-kate-gerry-mccann-madeleine-holiday-paul-susan-moyes-jenny-murat/
Paul and Susan described how they were sat on the balcony sharing a few glasses of whiskey and "didn't see a soul" between 9pm and 9:30pm.
There isn't a wit stat from the Moyes in PJ files:
I'm not sure how reliable the following is:
https://closeronline.co.uk/real-life/news/witnesses-kate-gerry-mccann-madeleine-holiday-paul-susan-moyes-jenny-murat/
Paul and Susan described how they were sat on the balcony sharing a few glasses of whiskey and "didn't see a soul" between 9pm and 9:30pm.
Didn't persevere with your link as it was a horrible shade of pink, which to me means avoid like the plague, but what is your problem with their statement ?
Were they not able to look across to the Tapas area?
Me neither. The Moyes have spoken to the media a couple of times, but if the above is true they really should have spoken to the PJ. I remember Mrs Moyes telling Radio Stoke that Madeleine's disappearance was a tragic accident, which seemed a strange way to describe it.
They were above Mrs Fenn so I would have thought had a birds eye view of Tapas and T9's comings and goings.So how do they say they saw no one?
So how do they say they saw no one?
This is a quote from Heriberto. I have always regarded his opinion and expertise as professional and transparent.
“In my opinion, she (Jane Tanner) did not leave the table at 21:15. He (the partner) saw their daugthers at 21:05, and then he went at 21:30, discovering that one of them had vomited. She went at 21:45-21:50.
After the abduction, not knowing Portuguese laws, they were worried about that half an hour, with their daughters alone, and one of them vomiting, and the police questioning.
So he decided to make timelines clearly showing he was at 21:00, she was at 21:15, he was at 21:30, she was at 21:45. And show them to the rest of the group, implanting false memories.
She did not see Gerry and Jez at 21:15, she heard Gerry saying "I met Jez".
So how do they say they saw no one?
Tragic accident!?
To me, the timeline and versions thereof, is the one aspect that has been highly detrimental in Madeleine’s disappearance and the investigation. In the chaos and crisis, nine people would be scrambling to have their own narrative of the event as to not be implicated in their own actions. Even more so, in a foreign country.
She seemed to be referring to the leaving of the children actually, looking at the actual trannscript;
REPORTER How do you feel about the criticism of the McCann family for leaving their children?
SUSAN MOYES Harsh, very, very harsh. Hand on heart, we’ve all done something like that, I think. And erm, no, its just unfortunate. Just a sad, unfortunate accident.
http://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t1913-susan-moyes-transcript-radio-stoke-in-2007\\
Well, the obvious reason would be because they didn'tDidn't look.
Didn't look.
Weren't there, therefore didn't see them.
The last . The simplest and most obvious explanation - IMOWhat no meeting between Gerry and Jez, and no Jane Tanner coming and going? That is hard to imagine.
What no meeting between Gerry and Jez, and no Jane Tanner coming and going? That is hard to imagine.
They don't say that. They say they didn't see anyone.OK so you're not saying Gerry and Jez weren't there.
OK so you're not saying Gerry and Jez weren't there.
It could have been one of the things you know that we don't.
How can I possibly know that ?
It could have been one of the things you know that we don't.
As Manuel said in Faulty Towers, "I know nothing" 8)--))Well at least you learnt something.
With regards to the two versions of the checking sequence written on the torn out cover of the sticker book does anyone here have any strong belief that Matt Oldfield did two checks as per one timeline or just the one as per the other account scribbled down by O’Brien?
I strongly believe Matt did 2 checks, as per his statements. There is no reason to think otherwise without first considering how foolish he would have been to admit to being the last known person in 5A whilst, at the same time, hypothetically being aware Madeleine was already dead.
A hypothetical scenario is one check (the earlier one). And then he returns to the Tapas Bar to say he’s checked the kids bedroom but didn’t see Madeleine This would explain why Gerry then leaves immediately to do another check. However I have no reason to doubt his rogatory statement. The statement that confirms that the shutters are probably down, the curtains drawn and not moving due to wind a draught through the open window sounds plausible.
If he only did the earlier check, by what means did he enter the apartment iyo?
He didn't enter the appartment on the first check. He just listened at the window. This was just before 9pm.
It was before 9pm according to some of Matthew's statements, after 9pm according to others.
If he only did the earlier check, by what means did he enter the apartment iyo?
I strongly believe Matt did 2 checks, as per his statements. There is no reason to think otherwise without first considering how foolish he would have been to admit to being the last known person in 5A whilst, at the same time, hypothetically being aware Madeleine was already dead.
In this hypothetical scenario he wouldn’t necessarily know Madeleine was dead. Just that she wasn’t in either of the bedrooms. I very much doubt in this hypothetical scenario that he would, at that stage, have searched any further to ascertain if she had hidden in a cupboard or fallen behind a sofa etc etc. Surely in this hypothetical scenario he would just have checked the bedrooms then reported back to the parents.
Wot? While Gerry was checking himself? Gerry went to check because Matthew didn't enter the appartment. Or do you think that Gerry didn't check at around 9pm?
This is getting so silly now. Desperation, probably.
Wot? While Gerry was checking himself? Gerry went to check because Matthew didn't enter the appartment. Or do you think that Gerry didn't check at around 9pm?
This is getting so silly now. Desperation, probably.
So you think Madeleine had already been removed before 9pm?
Wot? While Gerry was checking himself? Gerry went to check because Matthew didn't enter the appartment. Or do you think that Gerry didn't check at around 9pm?
This is getting so silly now. Desperation, probably.
What is silly, imo, is making a statement about the time of Matthews check ("This was just before 9pm") as if it's an accepted fact. It's clear from his own testimony that he's not sure of the exact time.
he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a 'listening check' at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
At 21H00, MATHEW stood up from the table saying that he would go to see the children. But he did not say that he would go to see the children of the deponent, only after the disappearance of MADELEINE he [MO] having told him [GM] that at 21h00 the external blinds of the children's bedroom window were shut. At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
So not desperation, not silliness, just evidence.
The evidence shows that the mccanns are not being investigated... They have been ruled out
I have no idea what time she was no longer in the apartment. Hypothetically speaking the scenario I was suggesting was that Matt only did one check but this check was done inside the apartment and was before Gerry’s check. Matt didn’t see Madeleine in either bedroom and went back to report this which then explains why Gerry left straight away. Madeleine might still have been inside the apartment in this purely hypothetical situation and she may have been found by Gerry behind the sofa. Hypothetically after this the body could have been moved to the bedroom cupboard and taken out of the apartment around 10pm at which point whoever, hypothetically, was carrying her was seen by the Smith family. I have absolutely no idea if this hypothetical scenario mirrors any actual events. It does fit one version of the timeline written on the torn out cover of the sticker book.
Not according to the Portuguese Supreme Court they haven't despite their best attempts to claim the contrary. I'm afraid all options are still on the table and will be as long as the missing child remains missing.Including Murat's involvement too then?
Only the person or persons involved know the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann and until that changes there will always be a question mark over those already declared suspects for one reason or another.
Not according to the Portuguese Supreme Court they haven't despite their best attempts to claim the contrary. I'm afraid all options are still on the table and will be as long as the missing child remains missing.
Only the person or persons involved know the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann and until that changes there will always be a question mark over those already declared suspects for one reason or another.
Not according to the Portuguese Supreme Court they haven't despite their best attempts to claim the contrary. I'm afraid all options are still on the table and will be as long as the missing child remains missing.
Only the person or persons involved know the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann and until that changes there will always be a question mark over those already declared suspects for one reason or another.
Don't you think there has been sufficient hypothesis carried out in Madeleine's case. Amaral was all about many different premises none of which had any chance of being proved because he was just so wrong.
If as he tells us the Judicial Police had gone knocking at Brueckner's door - they must have had a reason for that.
Could it have been because somebody in his team had worked out that as a sex offender Brueckner was worth a visit and if he had been in when the police called he would have had his phone with him.
Work it out from there.
In Amaral’s book he talks about the need to check in known local paedophiles. That suggests he was not closed minded about any of the PJ’s speculative hypotheses. All very normal in an investigation of this nature. Operation Grange obviously accepted the PJ’s methodology as they use this to justify NOT looking at the possibility of parental involvement. IMO OG should not have ruled anything out without re-investigating it again themselves.
In Amaral’s book he talks about the need to check in known local paedophiles. That suggests he was not closed minded about any of the PJ’s speculative hypotheses. All very normal in an investigation of this nature. Operation Grange obviously accepted the PJ’s methodology as they use this to justify NOT looking at the possibility of parental involvement. IMO OG should not have ruled anything out without re-investigating it again themselves.What did these checks on paedos actually involve apart from knocking on their doors and ticking them off a list even if they were out at the time?
What did these checks on paedos actually involve apart from knocking on their doors and ticking them off a list even if they were out at the time?
Did The PJ even have a list? And how did they know who should be on it? No one ever told me that The PJ were checking on Paedophiles. Portugal didn't have Paedophiles in those days.Good point - how DID they know who were the local paedos? Word of mouth? Anyone who looked a bit dodgy?
Sorry John but you are wrong. The SC said they hadnt been clesred by the archiving despatch not thst they havent been cleared.
Then we have the point that the SC may be forced to reopen the cade as they imo messed it up
What you are saying is than the Needham family are still suspects... If thats the case
Good point - how DID they know who were the local paedos? Word of mouth? Anyone who looked a bit dodgy?
The SC judges said the McCanns hadn't been cleared by the archiving dispatch only because the McCann's lawyer claimed that it did clear them. If it didn't then they can no longer claim to have been cleared by the Portuguese authorities.
The Supreme Court cannot be forced to reopen the libel case. It can be requested, but the request can be refused.
In Amaral’s book he talks about the need to check in known local paedophiles. That suggests he was not closed minded about any of the PJ’s speculative hypotheses. All very normal in an investigation of this nature. Operation Grange obviously accepted the PJ’s methodology as they use this to justify NOT looking at the possibility of parental involvement. IMO OG should not have ruled anything out without re-investigating it again themselves.
Itd all in the files.. The only people who don't accept the mccanns innocence sre those who have misunderstood the alerts snd the DNA... That includes amaral
Did The PJ even have a list? And how did they know who should be on it? No one ever told me that The PJ were checking on Paedophiles. Portugal didn't have Paedophiles in those days.
Does any McCann Supporter care anymore?
You are going to have a very long wait if you think The Portuguese Supreme Court is of any importance.
May I recommend reading the case files? They contain a wealth of information about the PJ's investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/
In one of the most discussed documents included in them can be found;
Apart from the already mentioned identifications and door-to-door house searches, the listing, contact and interview with known local suspects with previous connections to sexual criminality against minors, was performed.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Some people seem keen to move on from anything they don't agree with, but they still support a hypothesis offered by Madeleine McCann's parents immediately following her disappearance, despite there being very little evidence to support it. In actual fact the only evidence offered to support it was supplied by those who suggested it imo.Some people seem keen to keep the focus on the McCanns, even years after the rest of the world moved on. What do these people think their constant harping on about parental involvement is actually going to achieve? It won't result in an arrest or conviction of their preferred suspects, they will never be proven correct, so what then? Isn't it time after 14 years plus to just let it go?
Unlike you I was involved in this Case from the start.
But if you could give me a Cite to known local suspect with previous connections to sexual criminality against minors then I will be grateful.
Perhaps you could include whoever was breaking into appartments when the parents were asleep and who raced to protect these children.
Some people seem keen to keep the focus on the McCanns, even years after the rest of the world moved on. What do these people think their constant harping on about parental involvement is actually going to achieve? It won't result in an arrest or conviction of their preferred suspects, they will never be proven correct, so what then? Isn't it time after 14 years plus to just let it go?
I don't care how long anyone's been involved, just how much knowledge they can demonstrate.
The details of those with a history of sexual crimes were withdrawn from the files;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
I have seen nothing concrete relating to the break-ins reported to British police by British holidaymakers. I don't know if they were reported to the Portuguese police, and if they were, whether they were reported to the PJ or the GNR.
Unlike you I was involved in this Case from the start.
But if you could give me a Cite to known local suspect with previous connections to sexual criminality against minors then I will be grateful.
Perhaps you could include whoever was breaking into appartments when the parents were asleep and who raced to protect these children.
Who are the 'rest of the world'? That's a big claim imo. Those who have moved on, particularly the Met and the BKA will imo be aware that their evidence against any suspect will need to cross every t and dot every i, so if nothing else the sceptics of the world are encouraging law enforcement to ensure they present a water tight case.
In Amaral’s book he talks about the need to check in known local paedophiles. That suggests he was not closed minded about any of the PJ’s speculative hypotheses. All very normal in an investigation of this nature. Operation Grange obviously accepted the PJ’s methodology as they use this to justify NOT looking at the possibility of parental involvement. IMO OG should not have ruled anything out without re-investigating it again themselves.
G-Unit gave you the link. Amaral in his book and the files show that the investigation, from the start, acted upon various possibilities including the involvement of known local paedophiles.
I don't have to demonstrate anything.
Of course not, but your posts demonstrate the extent of your knowledge whether you intend them to or not imo.
Who are the 'rest of the world'? That's a big claim imo. Those who have moved on, particularly the Met and the BKA will imo be aware that their evidence against any suspect will need to cross every t and dot every i, so if nothing else the sceptics of the world are encouraging law enforcement to ensure they present a water tight case.I don't think it's far fetched to claiming that the vast majority of the world's population have moved on from any interest whatsoever in this case, let alone in pursuing "Justice 4 Maddie" at the McCanns' expense. Of course, if you think the majority of the world's population still thinks the parents dunnit and is clamouring for them to be locked up, by all means present your evidence.
I don't care how long anyone's been involved, just how much knowledge they can demonstrate.
The details of those with a history of sexual crimes were withdrawn from the files;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
I have seen nothing concrete relating to the break-ins reported to British police by British holidaymakers. I don't know if they were reported to the Portuguese police, and if they were, whether they were reported to the PJ or the GNR.
G-Unit gave you the link. Amaral in his book and the files show that the investigation, from the start, acted upon various possibilities including the involvement of known local paedophiles.
I don't think it's far fetched to claiming that the vast majority of the world's population have moved on from any interest whatsoever in this case, let alone in pursuing "Justice 4 Maddie" at the McCanns' expense. Of course, if you think the majority of the world's population still thinks the parents dunnit and is clamouring for them to be locked up, by all means present your evidence.
Of course not, but your posts demonstrate the extent of your knowledge whether you intend them to or not imo.
No they don't, not even in your opinion. But I at least know what is relevant and what isn't.
Most of this shite was done to death years ago, so why should I feel any need to keep on about it? Only the likes of you do that.
That era is done and dusted but it means so much to some people they cannot bear to let go and move on. Sad really.
No they don't, not even in your opinion. But I at least know what is relevant and what isn't.
Most of this shite was done to death years ago, so why should I feel any need to keep on about it? Only the likes of you do that.
Despite your claims you do comment and sometimes your comments don't take account of the facts imo.
Unlike you I was involved in this Case from the start.Redwood said in 2013 that there were four burglaries in the four months prior to Madeleine’s disappearance and in all four cases access was gained through a window. Brückner was released from prison in December 2006.🤔
But if you could give me a Cite to known local suspect with previous connections to sexual criminality against minors then I will be grateful.
Perhaps you could include whoever was breaking into appartments when the parents were asleep and who raced to protect these children.
Redwood said in 2013 that there were four burglaries in the four months prior to Madeleine’s disappearance and in all four cases access was gained through a window. Brückner was released from prison in December 2006.🤔
https://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y
I think Amaral had picked up a smattering of procedures to be applied in missing child cases to make his book look good. Unfortunately there is no evidence he actually used them at a time when they would have been of most use.
We know that British police offered assistance re British paedophiles resident in the Algarve. The Portuguese investigation did move itself a little in this direction but never really took their focus off the McCanns and their friends.
We know that a phone dump was arranged and it certainly was used to analyse the McCann phone traffic. But it seems scant attention was paid to anyone else.
We know that the Porto Judicial Police paid attention to former employee Euclides Monteiro and his phone in 2013. Which was a trail of evidence infamously rounded upon by Amaral and led to his sacking from the case.
It was also left to Scotland Yard to investigate the assaults on children and the burglars whose phones were red hot on the night after Madeleine's disappearance ~ just as it seems the rape crime in 2005 practically on Madeleine's doorstep had to wait for German action for the perpetrator to face justice.
All in all a pretty inept showing by the Policia Judiciaria particularly those who could not differentiate between distraught victims of crime and possible likely perpetrators with profiles and criminal records which made them possible contenders.
On the subject of monitoring phone traffic surely questions would need to be asked about deleted call logs and texts? Any investigation into a missing child would need to rule out parental involvement. So on what basis did the PJ do so?The McCanns were ruled out on the basis there was no real evidence against them....
On the subject of monitoring phone traffic surely questions would need to be asked about deleted call logs and texts? Any investigation into a missing child would need to rule out parental involvement. So on what basis did the PJ do so?
The McCanns were ruled out on the basis there was no real evidence against them....Precisely!
The McCanns were ruled out on the basis there was no real evidence against them....
But if the PJ were so inept maybe they missed evidence???? Did they find a satisfactory answer to account for deleted call logs, the statements from the Smith family, the inconsistencies in the T9 accounts, the dog alerts and subsequent forensic evidence collected?
There is a difference: the burglaries were recorded and regarded as fact while the other is Redwood’s assumption.
Redwood was also quoted as saying abduction may not follow our line of thinking. If it was CB they were looking at its been some time that they can't nail him.
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.
"These offences are very serious and no one has been charged in connection with them. We also need to eliminate this man from our inquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine's disappearance," he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
I think you really don't care how inane repetitive posts like that one are as you slavishly follow whatever agenda it is you are pursuing.
It certainly doesn't bring much of interest to the forum. So maybe that sums it up in a nutshell.
But if the PJ were so inept maybe they missed evidence???? Did they find a satisfactory answer to account for deleted call logs, the statements from the Smith family, the inconsistencies in the T9 accounts, the dog alerts and subsequent forensic evidence collected?
In which case why do you feel the need to post about it ?
Why do you feel the need to ask?
But if the PJ were so inept maybe they missed evidence???? Did they find a satisfactory answer to account for deleted call logs, the statements from the Smith family, the inconsistencies in the T9 accounts, the dog alerts and subsequent forensic evidence collected?They satisfied themelves that all the things you mention equalled a lack of evidence of any criminal act. You may not like that conclusion but there it is, in black and white in the archiving report. Is it your opinion that the PJ came to the wrong conclusion because they were inept?
In which case why do you feel the need to post about it ?
You seem to have got that the wrong way round. I make the attempt to keep the forum out of the cess pit some would like to see it wallow in with the banality of their posts. Calling them out on it does no harm as far as my agenda is concerned.
I believe to be a member of this forum is a very precious and valuable privilege ... I know there are some who get the boak (ie to retch or vomit) at the mere thought ... but it takes all kinds.
Im sorry but imo.. Anyone who regards the dog alerts as relevant hasnt got a clue
There is a difference: the burglaries were recorded and regarded as fact while the other is Redwood’s assumption.
You seem to have got that the wrong way round. I make the attempt to keep the forum out of the cess pit some would like to see it wallow in with the banality of their posts. Calling them out on it does no harm as far as my agenda is concerned.
Curiosity. What's your reason for asking?
You've dragged down it to that level with the constant banality about Amaral.
That’s what some people said about the Zapata case! Also, surely you would want an answer to why there were deleted texts and call logs. Any investigation into a missing child would want to know the reason for this and / or who was called and what was said and why delete a record of these calls. That would be normal to “clear the ground from under their feet”.It’s all been done to death and you are seriously in danger of flogging a dead horse that has already been flooged many times before. Time to get over the deleted texts. No one who matters (Operation Grange, BKA) cares about them so why not give it a rest would you? Hey, isn’t it time to discuss the undisturbed lichen on the windowsill again…? @)(++(*
You've dragged down it to that level with the constant banality about Amaral.
It’s all been done to death and you are seriously in danger of flogging a dead horse that has already been flooged many times before. Time to get over the deleted texts. No one who matters (Operation Grange, BKA) cares about them so why not give it a rest would you? Hey, isn’t it time to discuss the undisturbed lichen on the windowsill again…? @)(++(*
Nothing banal about Amaral. He is a convicted liar and a thief. Along with being an adulterer.
None of which has any relevance today.
IMO
None of which has any relevance today.
IMO
Your role as a moderator is to ensure that posters comply with the rules.
Perhaps you have forgotten.
Amaral has no relevance today.
It’s all been done to death and you are seriously in danger of flogging a dead horse that has already been flooged many times before. Time to get over the deleted texts. No one who matters (Operation Grange, BKA) cares about them so why not give it a rest would you? Hey, isn’t it time to discuss the undisturbed lichen on the windowsill again…? @)(++(*
Amaral has no relevance today.
It’s all been done to death and you are seriously in danger of flogging a dead horse that has already been flooged many times before. Time to get over the deleted texts. No one who matters (Operation Grange, BKA) cares about them so why not give it a rest would you? Hey, isn’t it time to discuss the undisturbed lichen on the windowsill again…? @)(++(*
Seems we've hit a consensus with that one.
Excuse me for not having read everything on the forum in great detail. I was only suggesting that it would be normal for an investigation to ask about deleted call logs and texts. I’m not aware of what explanation was offered for these actions.
I quite agree, which makes constant reference to him rather strange - IMO.
Do Operation Grange and the BKA matter? Only if they do their jobs and get results, because results are what count not suspicions or theories.
Do Operation Grange and the BKA matter? Only if they do their jobs and get results, because results are what count not suspicions or theories.They matter a whole lot more than you or Billy Whizz Kid.
Do Operation Grange and the BKA matter? Only if they do their jobs and get results, because results are what count not suspicions or theories.
I quite agree, which makes constant reference to him rather strange - IMO.
Grange and the BKA are on different pages, one is looking for a child with nothing to suggest either way dead or alive ,the other has supposed concrete evidence the girl is dead, never the twain shall meet.
Not true
Could it be a useful source for deflection? If posters continually discredit Amaral they don’t have to look at awkward issues such as deleted call logs and texts.
Which part.
Grange and the BKA are on different pages, one is looking for a child with nothing to suggest either way dead or alive ,the other has supposed concrete evidence the girl is dead, never the twain shall meet.
The whole post is a distortion of tha facts.. Sy and the Germans are working closely together
Could it be a useful source for deflection? If posters continually discredit Amaral they don’t have to look at awkward issues such as deleted call logs and texts.Oh please. Why not start a thread about the vitally important deleted texts?
The whole post is a distortion of tha facts.. Sy and the Germans are working closely together
The words may say so, but one is saying its a missing persons case, ergo no evidence to suggest she is dead, the other their suspect killed the girl, there is a disconnect.
Oh please. Why not start a thread about the vitally important deleted texts?
I take it there wasn’t an explanation offered for the deleted call log and texts? Surely you agree that it would generate valid questions in an investigation?
Oh please. Why not start a thread about the vitally important deleted texts?I take it there wasn’t an explanation offered for the deleted call log and texts? Surely you agree that it would generate valid questions in an investigation? Furthermore calls and texts would help establish a more accurate timeline.
I take it there wasn’t an explanation offered for the deleted call log and texts? Surely you agree that it would generate valid questions in an investigation? Furthermore calls and texts would help establish a more accurate timeline.Start a thread about it, you might uncover something pertinent that could change the whole direction of the case.
I don't believe the Germans have proof of death either so I don't really see the alleged dichotomy. Wishful thinking doesn't count.So at last after 14 months you're in agreement with me the legend that CB did for Madeleine is just that, a legend.
So at last after 14 months you're in agreement with me the legend that CB did for Madeleine is just that, a legend.
So at last after 14 months you're in agreement with me the legend that CB did for Madeleine is just that, a legend.
Some people find it hard to acknowledge that Madeleine might be dead. Wolters was a bit blunt for some sensitive souls.
Your goading post is entirely unintelligible.
Please make the attempt to at least disguise your efforts at forum disruption which doesn't work when as transparent as that and run the very real risk of being of being deleted as a result.
Some people find it hard to acknowledge that Madeleine might be dead. Wolters was a bit blunt for some sensitive souls.
Strangely or not, Wolters has been quiet since CB's rant.
Some people find it hard to acknowledge that Madeleine might be dead. Wolters was a bit blunt for some sensitive souls.
Maybe realises he's nowt new to say.
He doesn't have to say anything. All he has to do is study the evidence along with his colleagues ... and I believe there is enough there to keep him busy for some time. Bearing in mind that Madeleine's is not the only crime being investigated.
Strangely or not, Wolters has been quiet since CB's rant.It looks like he's just recorded an interview with MWT so don't count your chickens that CB's "rant" has had any effect on his behaviour.
It looks like he's just recorded an interview with MWT so don't count your chickens that CB's "rant" has had any effect on his behaviour.
Brueckner & his fan club are going to be looking pretty darn foolish when Wolters presents his irrefutable abduction evidence.
Brueckner & his fan club are going to be looking pretty darn foolish when Wolters presents his irrefutable abduction evidence.Mate, you already do without the need for HCW to open his mouth ever again.
Shouldn't be long now.
It’s going to be interesting to see if they can make a CB abduction fit with one of the versions of the T9 timeline!!!
It’s going to be interesting to see if they can make a CB abduction fit with one of the versions of the T9 timeline!!!Why would they need to do that if they have concrete evidence he committed the crime?
You really had to work to get that one in I think. There is something distressing I think about your lust to have innocent people tied in with the horrible crime against Madeleine and her family.
In the here and now it is the turn of Luz resident Brueckner to be put under the investigative spotlight and slurring innocent people - all have been thoroughly investigated - is just not tolerable on this forum.
How is it slurring anyone? A CB abduction would have to fit in with one of the timelines. Also as this is an on-going investigation and unsolved everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.no it wouldn’t, if there was strong evidence of his involvement.
no it wouldn’t, if there was strong evidence of his involvement.
You really had to work to get that one in I think. There is something distressing I think about your lust to have innocent people tied in with the horrible crime against Madeleine and her family.
In the here and now it is the turn of Luz resident Brueckner to be put under the investigative spotlight and slurring innocent people - all have been thoroughly investigated - is just not tolerable on this forum.
Of course it would. For example we know he couldn’t have abducted Madeleine at 8:25 nor during one of the checks.Yes he could, if the McCanns or any of their friends got their times wrong.
If Brueckner is charged and tried the events of 3rd May 2007 will need to be demonstrated. That will involve a well told story which takes into account how and when he laid hands on Madeleine, how and when he left the immediate area and what happened after that. It will all need to fit with the existing evidence, part of which is the timeline provided by the witnesses.It really won’t. Say they dig up Madeleine’s body on the property of his ex girlfriend with other personal effects or forensic evidence that can be linked to Bruckener- why would the Tapas Group’s timeline need to be taken into consideration?
Moving on from the past to the present doesn't mean the evidence gathered fourteen years ago can be forgotten because it's still relevant. .
It really won’t. Say they dig up Madeleine’s body on the property of his ex girlfriend with other personal effects or forensic evidence that can be linked to Bruckener- why would the Tapas Group’s timeline need to be taken into consideration?
Then it couldn't be assumed that he took her from 5A. Someone else might have done it, or he might have taken her from the street.
If Brueckner is charged and tried the events of 3rd May 2007 will need to be demonstrated. That will involve a well told story which takes into account how and when he laid hands on Madeleine, how and when he left the immediate area and what happened after that. It will all need to fit with the existing evidence, part of which is the timeline provided by the witnesses.
Moving on from the past to the present doesn't mean the evidence gathered fourteen years ago can be forgotten because it's still relevant. .
Then it couldn't be assumed that he took her from 5A. Someone else might have done it, or he might have taken her from the street.
What matters is what happened to Madeleine and who is responsible - the rest is irrelevance.
The evidence from almost fifteen years ago is that Madeleine was last seen sleeping in her bed. If the Germans have evidence from which it can be proved that they have the right prime suspect in custody - and Wolters seems to be confident that they are almost there with that - I rather think that will be their focus.I think Mr Wolters has extensive information from Brückner’s darkweb internet chats with others. We have only been shown one snippet … ‘catching something small’. My opinion.
I think you will find that the only people who are clinging to the shibboleths of the past are sceptics who can't quite find it in themselves to let go and move on.
I think it doesn't matter what time it was when Madeleine was abducted.
I don't even think it is important that Brueckner did it and not another or Brueckner + others or any permutation of that which takes your fancy.
What is important is what ultimately happened to Madeleine - and that is what Wolters says he has evidence of.
So if Brueckner killed her you think it's irrelevant how he got hold of her?
Then it couldn't be assumed that he took her from 5A. Someone else might have done it, or he might have taken her from the street.It could be assumed that the timeline as compiled by the friends was an imperfect timeline allowing for a window of opportunity for an abductor to strike, in fact the Met has already established that.
So if Brueckner killed her you think it's irrelevant how he got hold of her?We don’t know how Sarah Everard was abducted, whether she got into the car willingly or was physically manhandled into it, it’s a detail which does not need to be confirmed before a conclusion can be drawn about the involvement of the suspect.
So if Brueckner killed her you think it's irrelevant how he got hold of her?No I did not say that - but if you like to think I did, I'm not bothered.
We don’t know how Sarah Everard was abducted, whether she got into the car willingly or was physically manhandled into it, it’s a detail which does not need to be confirmed before a conclusion can be drawn about the involvement of the suspect.
Sad but true. I've seen speculation that he might have used his warrant card to lure her into his vehicle but the only person who could have told us exactly what happened is dead and the other is the person who killed her.
I'm trusting nothing such a creature says about anything.
Brueckner is the prime suspect. The Germans say they have concrete evidence. They have said absolutely nothing about the tapas timeline - and why on earth would they - Scotland Yard interviewed many witnesses including ones not interviewed at the time. Who knows what corroboration there might have been and who knows what has been found regarding Brueckner's timeline from interviews with those who knew him.
The police don't have to prove Brueckner was the lifter - indeed he might not have been - I think the evidence to which they refer concerns a later timeline of events and it is that which requires proof.
Wolters has walked back on his concrete evidence claim.
"At the moment our evidence is not so strong we are sure he will be sentenced by the court."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8877537/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-NEVER-questioned.html
Stop spreading myths,
He hasn't walked back on anything..
Stop spreading myths
Wolters has walked back on his concrete evidence claim.
"At the moment our evidence is not so strong we are sure he will be sentenced by the court."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8877537/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-NEVER-questioned.html
Stop spreading myths,
Wolters has walked back on his concrete evidence claim.Another one who doesn’t understand the difference between evidence and proof.
"At the moment our evidence is not so strong we are sure he will be sentenced by the court."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8877537/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-NEVER-questioned.html
Stop spreading myths,
Another one who doesn’t understand the difference between evidence and proof.
I agree with the 'family friend';
A family friend of the McCann's said comments from Mr Wolters were heartbreaking.
They told The Mirror: 'It feels like he is trying to lower expectations after coming out all guns blazing.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8877537/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-NEVER-questioned.html#comments
He has, he claimed concrete evidence Maddie is dead & Brueckner killed her before,
"At the moment our evidence is not so strong we are sure he will be sentenced by the court."
So, not concrete.
"Mr Wolters confirmed that there is no forensic evidence to show Maddie is dead.
And despite previously saying he believes suspect Christian Bruckner killed her quickly, he said: “It was only personal opinion and speculation.”
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-could-still-alive-22189487
So, no concrete evidence Brueckner killed her either.
Oh I see, so 'Concrete evidence' isn't irrefutable then?Exactly. It’s concrete evidence, not concrete proof. Concrete evidence that Person A killed missing Person B might be a CCTV showing Person A and Person B standing in close proximity to person A’s car, then footage showing person A’s car driving away and no further footage of Person B walking along the path they were taking home. Concrete proof that Person A killed Person B could be Person B’s body found burnt on Person A’s property But even that might be argued as not concrete proof. Get it now?
Wolters is so confident in the strength of the concrete evidence that he's concerned it could be blown out of the water by a simple change of mind from a witness.Evidence without proof can always be refuted by the accused, you still don’t seem to understand this.
“We don’t try to speak because it’s not the right time. We don’t believe he will say he did it, so we have to tell him all our evidences.
“Then it’s a possibility he can speak with witnesses and say, ‘Tell the police it’s not true.’ We think we have 90 per cent evidence. If he knows what this is, he can try to change his story.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-could-still-alive-22189487
Exactly. It’s concrete evidence, not concrete proof. Concrete evidence that Person A killed missing Person B might be a CCTV showing Person A and Person B standing in close proximity to person A’s car, then footage showing person A’s car driving away and no further footage of Person B walking along the path they were taking home. Concrete proof that Person A killed Person B could be Person B’s body found burnt on Person A’s property But even that might be argued as not concrete proof. Get it now?
Evidence without proof can always be refuted by the accused, you still don’t seem to understand this.
Yes, what I understand is concrete evidence lacks entirely the solid & unmalleable properties of the concrete from which it gained it's name.And now you’re just reverting to type (ie: dumb WUM).
(Unless Wolters meant wet concrete)
So it's fair to say he has nothing concrete.See my previous post which you chose to ridicule.
So it's fair to say he has nothing concrete.Out of interest what concrete evidence would you cite re: parental involvement? Or do you agree there is none?
Out of interest what concrete evidence would you cite re: parental involvement? Or do you agree there is none?
Well, obviously, if there was concrete evidence then they'd have faced charges, in much the same way Brueckner isn't.So there’s no concrete evidence of McCann involvement yet you have no doubts they did it. Care to explain?
It seem thst you think just because its in the papers its true
I share that opinion whether it was said or not.Isn’t it time you gave us an update on how Team GB is doing at the Olympics?
I share that opinion whether it was said or not.
if it wasnt said you cant share it
It was written, so I can.
so who are you sharing it with
No-one, it doesn't mean share in the way you think;
to share an opinion: to have the same point of view, to agree
Let me get this right - "Well, obviously, if there was concrete evidence then they'd have faced charges, in much the same way Brueckner isn't." Is that the opinion you are sharing which was posted by a member no-one posting here needs to fill in the gaps for?
Not only was there no concrete evidence against "them" - there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever. You obviously seem to think there is something amiss with the timeline but you have totally ignored my posts regarding the tapas timeline in relation to the ignorance of the prime suspect's timeline.
Wee bit of cat got your tongue perhaps in the retreat to find more familiar ground. 😁
No. I posted the words I agreed with if you look back.Z
According to the holiday group it was very quiet and not many people were around in the evenings. That didn't apply to the route between the Tapas complex and Block 5, however, it was busy according to their timeline. They weren't the only ones around either. The Moyes and the Totmans were out and about and who knows who else was coming and going. We only know what two of those staying in Block 4 were doing; same with Block 6.
Perhaps the Germans will be able to convict their suspect without having to address how he met up with Madeleine, but although convicting him of murder may be seen as enough, it leaves the abduction theory from 5A as an unproved thesis.
Z
It will prove abduction...
No. I posted the words I agreed with if you look back.
According to the holiday group it was very quiet and not many people were around in the evenings. That didn't apply to the route between the Tapas complex and Block 5, however, it was busy according to their timeline. They weren't the only ones around either. The Moyes and the Totmans were out and about and who knows who else was coming and going. We only know what two of those staying in Block 4 were doing; same with Block 6.
Perhaps the Germans will be able to convict their suspect without having to address how he met up with Madeleine, but although convicting him of murder may be seen as enough, it leaves the abduction theory from 5A as an unproved thesis.
Which by necessity will involve confirming entry and exit method from 5A by a means and at a time that fits with a version of the T9 timeline. For example, via the window or patio doors and a time when no check was taking place.
Z
It will prove abduction...
I did look back - but obviously not far enough and obviously not as far as you and whoever it is you agree with.
OK then let's have a look at your hypothetical scenario re "the abduction theory" in the event of Brueckner being convicted of Madeleine's murder.
Such an event would confirm that Madeleine had been abducted. By Brueckner if he acted alone or by another had he acted with others.
Forgive me but I have to say seldom have I encountered such an an insane assertion as yours or one which reveals such an unshakeable mindset.
What nonsense.
Which by necessity will involve confirming entry and exit method from 5A by a means and at a time that fits with a version of the T9 timeline. For example, via the window or patio doors and a time when no check was taking place.
Remember David Gilroy? The CCTV images of Suzanne Pilley placed her 20 metres from her workplace, but not entering. Gilroy argues that she didn't enter and he didn't kill her. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence, which included dog alerts suggesting that she did enter and that he removed her body in the boot of his car.It took the police a long time to build a case against Gilroy. It will take even longer for the Germans to quantify the evidence they have against Bruekner. There is absolutely no connection between Suzanne's case and Madeleine's and I think you are quite clearly clutching at straws.
If there's no body and no forensic evidence then the case against CB would also be circumstantial, and it may need to be shown how he and Madeleine came together. Either he entered 5A or she emerged, and it had to be at a time when no-one was around to see.
It took the police a long time to build a case against Gilroy. It will take even longer for the Germans to quantify the evidence they have against Bruekner. There is absolutely no connection between Suzanne's case and Madeleine's and I think you are quite clearly clutching at straws.
Brueckner is the prime suspect in whatever happened to Madeleine; if there is evidence of sufficient quality to allow charges to be laid against him that in itself will prove that Madeleine was abducted either by him or by someone else.
How so? Let me give you a hypothetical scenario: How could CB have abducted Madeleine and taken her out of the window at a time when T9 witnesses state the shutters were closed? Witness testimony in this example would create reasonable doubt. Any concrete case has to fit forensic evidence and witness testimony. If , for another example, the German case is that CB abducted Madeleine on the Tuesday then the crèche records or T9 witness statements would cast reasonable doubt as to this proving the case if that is how it was presented. So please tell me why it’s nonsense to suggest any case against CB has to fit with a version of the T9 timeline.
Ah, but from where - 5A or the street ?
The very fact Maddie was with CB proves abduction... How else could Maddie have got there.
By involvement of a third party would be one possibility.
You seem to be stuck with obsessing about times long past. In the here and now the prime suspect Brueckner is having a case built against him which will have one of three repercussions -
( i ) there will be enough evidence to charge him
( ii) there won't be enough evidence to charge him
(iii) the evidence they have exonerates him ~ so back to the drawing board in that case
Whatever happens will be based on the evidence the Germans have on Brueckner and relates to what happened to Madeleine after she was taken from the apartment.
Or even just walking out onto the street on her own
Or even just walking out onto the street on her own
I’m not stuck with anything. There is witness testimony which relates directly to the last days and hours of Madeleine’s known whereabouts. A case against CB will have to be built around this testimony or it will lead to reasonable doubt.
Indeed. I seem to recall testimony that the patio doors were left unlocked so that Madeleine could leave the apartment to find her parents if she woke.
If charges are laid against Brueckner - they will have nothing at all to do with the last days and hours of Madeleine's happy holiday - they will be all to do with whatever evidence the Germans hold against Brueckner and what happened to Madeleine after she was removed from the apartment.
Remember David Gilroy? The CCTV images of Suzanne Pilley placed her 20 metres from her workplace, but not entering. Gilroy argues that she didn't enter and he didn't kill her. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence, which included dog alerts suggesting that she did enter and that he removed her body in the boot of his car.
If there's no body and no forensic evidence then the case against CB would also be circumstantial, and it may need to be shown how he and Madeleine came together. Either he entered 5A or she emerged, and it had to be at a time when no-one was around to see.
Imo it's insane to imagine that abduction can be assumed, which is what you're suggesting.You do realise your scenario is still abduction right?
How about this then. Brueckner says he was parked in the car park opposite the Tapas reception and a little girl came down the road. The door into the Tapas complex was closed, so he moved his van/car near to the street light opposite, called her over and off he went. Maybe the S & R dog evidence got it right. A little girl was not stolen from her bed, a window was not opened by an abductor and a child used the open patio doors to find her parents, as her mother suggested as a possibiity.
I’m not stuck with anything. There is witness testimony which relates directly to the last days and hours of Madeleine’s known whereabouts. A case against CB will have to be built around this testimony or it will lead to reasonable doubt.
Remember David Gilroy? The CCTV images of Suzanne Pilley placed her 20 metres from her workplace, but not entering. Gilroy argues that she didn't enter and he didn't kill her. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence, which included dog alerts suggesting that she did enter and that he removed her body in the boot of his car.
If there's no body and no forensic evidence then the case against CB would also be circumstantial, and it may need to be shown how he and Madeleine came together. Either he entered 5A or she emerged, and it had to be at a time when no-one was around to see.
So if they find Madeleine’s body on property belonging to Brückner, photos of her being abused on his phone, can place him via his phone records in the near vicinity, they wouldn’t be able to charge him unless they could prove how he entered and exited the apartment? Gimme a break.
Which by necessity will involve confirming entry and exit method from 5A by a means and at a time that fits with a version of the T9 timeline. For example, via the window or patio doors and a time when no check was taking place.
By definition they would be directly centred on Madeleine’s last known hours.
You do realise your scenario is still abduction right?
I am astounded that anyone can advocate that it isn't abduction.
That's because you can't accept anything else. IMOWhat else could you call it if Madeleine was enticed into a car by a stranger? Going for a joyride?
I seem to recall testimony about an individual walking briskly away from the apartment block carrying a child - apparently the Irish teenager out for a smoke missed it all though 😁
Only if the evidence confirms that ~ but whatever - it will have nothing to do with the tapas timeline which some seem so eternally caught up in.
So if they find Madeleine’s body on property belonging to Brückner, photos of her being abused on his phone, can place him via his phone records in the near vicinity, they wouldn’t be able to charge him unless they could prove how he entered and exited the apartment? Gimme a break.
It depends what charge you are talking about. Also if they had found her body on CB’s property I think he would have been charged already. Any case against him must either involve woke and wondered, third party abductor or CB as abductor. All these scenarios would by necessity be built around existing facts as have been testified to.Did you not realise I was suggesting a scenario rather than making a claim that they had found a body in Brückner’s proerty? All scenarios that involve Bruckner involve him being an abductor and if all the evidence pointed to him being the abductor, then examining whether Gerry took four or six minutes chstting to Jes Wilkins or whether Kate raised the alarm at five to 10 or 5 past ten will be supremely irrelevant IMO.
Did you not realise I was suggesting a scenario rather than making a claim that they had found a body in Brückner’s proerty? All scenarios that involve Bruckner involve him being an abductor and if all the evidence pointed to him being the abductor, then examining whether Gerry took four or six minutes chstting to Jes Wilkins or whether Kate raised the alarm at five to 10 or 5 past ten will be supremely irrelevant IMO.
Yes I know you were just offering a hypothetical scenario.Who said anything about ruling out a third party? One doesn’t need to establish the identity of a possible accomplice before bringing charges, and I’m glad you agree that five minute discrepancies either way are irrelevant which is why if there is strong evidence against him, ruling out the suspect on the basis of slight discrepancies in the Tapas Group’s statements is unlikely to happen. IMO.
How do you rule out third party involvement in the “abduction”?
And yes minor discrepancies of 5 minutes either way are almost certainly irrelevant but any charges of abduction would probably need to establish the time and the entry method or whether CB just found Madeleine wandering.
Who said anything about ruling out a third party? One doesn’t need to establish the identity of a possible accomplice before bringing charges, and I’m glad you agree that five minute discrepancies either way are irrelevant which is why if there is strong evidence against him, ruling out the suspect on the basis of slight discrepancies in the Tapas Group’s statements is unlikely to happen. IMO.
Yes, wasn’t that the chap who looked like Gerry McCann according to at least one of the Smith family? If my memory serves me correctly it was a “sighting” ignored for many months by Clarence Mitchell and the e-fit didn’t even feature on the Find Madeleine website, reportedly.
Can you clarify what charges you are talking about?Abduction, murder, concealing a corpse, will that do?
You never miss a trick do you pity it hasn't yet dawned on you that posts such as that demean no-one but yourself 😁
Perhaps you would care to comment on the points I raised? Ad hominem points, in my humble opinion, and with all due respect don’t help with a discussion with regards to the points made. You pointed out that a man was seen carrying a child away from 5A. I pointed out it was reported that this man looked like Gerry McCann. Clarence Mitchell ignored the sighting for months as I recall and the e-fit never featured on the Find Madeleine website. I fail to see why pointing these facts out is “demeaning” in any way.
Abduction, murder, concealing a corpse, will that do?
Thank you. Abduction, as I stated, to be proved beyond reasonable doubt will have to fit in with existing testimony. Unless the testimony was to change, and then the change would have to be explained. Can you think of a proven abduction charge has just rested on “the person was with you so you abducted them”? A murder charge could rest on evidence outside of an abduction possibly. Concealment of a corpse would also not necessarily rely on being responsible for either abduction or murder. All this is pure speculation though as we know that to date there doesn’t seem to be enough evidence for any of those charges to be made against anyone.
As you say - "pure speculation". Which in the light of the fact that there is a prime suspect and there is evidence supporting that makes such speculation quite extraordinary and unnecessary.
This is supposed to be a fact based forum and not a playground for unsupported whimsy. I'm not too sure whether or not you are going outwith forum protocols with posts of this nature. I will mull it over but I think you may be taking advantage of the tolerant ethos here which is unfair on other members or even the unsuspecting visitor.
Thank you. Abduction, as I stated, to be proved beyond reasonable doubt will have to fit in with existing testimony. Unless the testimony was to change, and then the change would have to be explained. Can you think of a proven abduction charge has just rested on “the person was with you so you abducted them”? A murder charge could rest on evidence outside of an abduction possibly. Concealment of a corpse would also not necessarily rely on being responsible for either abduction or murder. All this is pure speculation though as we know that to date there doesn’t seem to be enough evidence for any of those charges to be made against anyone.I can’t think of a single abduction charge where a defendant was found not guilty because there were slight disrepancies in the victim’s friends’ and family’s timeline, no.
What else could you call it if Madeleine was enticed into a car by a stranger? Going for a joyride?
Abduction. From a place where she most definitely shouldn't have been.So you’re talking nonsense by putting forward this scenario and suggesting that abduction in such a scenario can’t be assumed.
Abduction. From a place where she most definitely shouldn't have been.So abduction
Maybe it depends if the whimsy has libellous connotations as to whether or not it should be tolerated, eh? IMO there appears to be an undercurrent of "well it's all the parents fault if Madeleine was abducted anyway" to some of the more recent posts on this forum, correct me if I'm wrong?
Seems to be? Not from where I am watching.
Maybe it depends if the whimsy has libellous connotations as to whether or not it should be tolerated, eh? IMO there appears to be an undercurrent of "well it's all the parents fault if Madeleine was abducted anyway" to some of the more recent posts on this forum, correct me if I'm wrong?
Libellous connotations was not the reason given for the objection raised. A post was criticised for being 'whimsy' on what was claimed to be a 'fact based' forum. My objection was that the forum is not fact based, and to prove my point I quoted what I see as an extremely whimsical theory which has been repeatedly posted here.
And will continue to be so if the member so chooses.
Then you shouldn't object if it gets ridiculed.
Ok. Is mocking a theory not a person.
And will continue to be so if the member so chooses.
One of the reasons I joined the forum was the amount of speculation and opinion which was being posted as fact. I have endeavoured ever since to encourage members to post cites to support their 'factual' posts.
Unlike supporters, sceptics have a wide range of opinions and uncertainties. IMO@)(++(*
One of the reasons I joined the forum was the amount of speculation and opinion which was being posted as fact. I have endeavoured ever since to encourage members to post cites to support their 'factual' posts.@)(++(*
But not Billy Whizz Kid it seems. Or Spammy.This is true. Every time I ask the Whizz Kid for a cite I am ordered to go and find it myself. Don't see much intervention from g-Unit on those occasions.
I’m here to discuss facts. If CB abducted Madeleine McCann then he did so at a specific time and he either broke into the apartment or he found Madeleine wandering. I’m not sure why you believe then that existing testimony of her last known hours is not important to the case. It’s actually central to what happened, isn’t it?
A fact based forum? Nonsense! Unless you think that it's a fact that Madeleine McCann had a very special bloodline which led to her being abducted!!Hmmm ... "A fact based forum? Nonsense!"
Where has it been suggested this is a fact?
It has been repeated many times on this so-called fact based forum. I would describe it as unsupported whimsy which has been tolerated. If one person's whimsy is tolerated then another's can't be sanctioned imo. That's double standards.
Sadie has put it forward as a theory and it is rather below the belt to ridicule her for it particularly as she seems to be unable to post let alone post a reply.As far as I recall Sadie has always been at pains to say that it is just her theory, never has she claimed it is a fact, and I don't suppose for one minute anyone reading this forum would have seen Sadie's posts on the subject and assumed it was a fact. There is another "whimsical" theory doing the rounds on this forum and it involves the abduction of Madeleine by two middle-aged British holiday makers who were unable to have their own child but strangely G-Unit doesn't seem to have a problem with that one, despite the fact that it doesn't take Einstein to work out which two British holidaymakers are "whimsically" being slurred with such an accusation.
It may be central to those who have got hung up on Amaral's storytelling but to the rest of the world having left 2007 and moved into the reality of the present day, much less so.
Anyway - you seem to be operating from the premise that the present day investigation doesn't know chapter and verse what Brueckner was up to in Praia da Luz in the run up to and in the aftermath of Madeleine's abduction.
They have evidence; you just don't know what it is.
Just as you are obviously unable to differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction. Above you claim only to deal in facts but you post of your post content "All this is pure speculation".
This is true. Every time I ask the Whizz Kid for a cite I am ordered to go and find it myself. Don't see much intervention from g-Unit on those occasions.
Those investigating Brueckner have to gather evidence of wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt in order to charge him. I don't think they have that, because he hasn't been charged.
There has been speculation about what evidence they do have, but no-one really knows.
If they decide to charge using circumstantial evidence then it seems to me that a believable narrative of how an abduction occured would need to be part of it.
WOW!!! you really don't think much of this forum do you.
I think the forum is fine, but I'm honest enough to admit that it's member's posts are not unfailingly fact based.Im sure you realise that applies to you too
There is sufficient evidence in place to make Brueckner the prime suspect in Madeleine's case. That is all you or anyone else needs to know.
To be fair you were claiming that I’d said something that I actually hadn’t, and then I told you where you could find a description of the immediate reaction to the dogs in Kate’s book.If you didn't actually say it why did you concede the point initially?
He is Wolter's prime suspect, but not necessarily Operation Grange's or the Policia Judiciaria's. According to Martin Brunt;
In fact, one source told me that Christian B may be no better a suspect for Madeleine's abduction than two other principle targets.
They are the unnamed suspect, who may still be the subject of an undercover operation, and Euclides Monteiro, a sacked Ocean club waiter and thief who died two years after Madeleine vanished and was later eliminated from the inquiry.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-have-they-got-the-right-man-this-time-12068118
He is Wolter's prime suspect, but not necessarily Operation Grange's or the Policia Judiciaria's. According to Martin Brunt;You mean no one is investigating the McCanns again??! How galling that must be for you.
In fact, one source told me that Christian B may be no better a suspect for Madeleine's abduction than two other principle targets.
They are the unnamed suspect, who may still be the subject of an undercover operation, and Euclides Monteiro, a sacked Ocean club waiter and thief who died two years after Madeleine vanished and was later eliminated from the inquiry.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-have-they-got-the-right-man-this-time-12068118
I think the forum is fine, but I'm honest enough to admit that it's member's posts are not unfailingly fact based.nor unfailingly grammatically correct.
You mean no one is investigating the McCanns again??! How galling that must be for you.
In my opinion that’s a big flaw in Operation Grange’s approach to the case. Normal Police procedure would be to clear the ground.I suggest you give them the benefit of your undoubted expertise in these matters then, it might not have occurred to them to "clear the ground". Operation Grange can be contacted here... https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
In my opinion that’s a big flaw in Operation Grange’s approach to the case. Normal Police procedure would be to clear the ground.
Imo they have
Of course they did. And when you consider the lengths to which The PJ went to nail The McCanns there won't have been all that much to look at;
But Operation Grange did have The PJ Files professionally translated and no doubt read them all.
Including the timeline no doubt. Redwood said;
"Our work to date has significantly changed the timeline and the accepted version of events that has been in the public domain to date.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24509235
Police build new McCann disappearance timeline
Among the revelations in the BBC Crimewatch program: that the dark-haired man long believed to be the prime suspect was a false lead; that 3-year-old Maddy could have been snatched 45 minutes later than thought; and that evidence previously discounted is now considered strong enough to release a police sketch.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/10/15/madeleine_mccann_disappearance_revelation_moment_sparks_new_suspect_sketch_new_leads.html
Including the timeline no doubt. Redwood said;
"Our work to date has significantly changed the timeline and the accepted version of events that has been in the public domain to date.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24509235
Police build new McCann disappearance timeline
Among the revelations in the BBC Crimewatch program: that the dark-haired man long believed to be the prime suspect was a false lead; that 3-year-old Maddy could have been snatched 45 minutes later than thought; and that evidence previously discounted is now considered strong enough to release a police sketch.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/10/15/madeleine_mccann_disappearance_revelation_moment_sparks_new_suspect_sketch_new_leads.html
Ah Yes, The one that reminded me of Cristovao.
Imo they have
That looks like Gerry McCann to me. That’s also what at least one of the Smith family saw as a strong possibility.Why do you suppose Smith gave a photofit at all if he was so convinced the person he saw was Gerry McCann? Why didn’t he just do a google search of Gerry, print it out and say “copy that” because one of those photofits looks more like Piers Morgan and the other doesn’t look like McCann at all.
So Redwood was ahppy that an abduction was possible
Ah Yes, The one that reminded me of Cristovao.
There was a 15 minute window between 9.45 and 10pm, which tied in with the man carrying a child who was seen by the Smith family.
What are you basing that opinion on?
Are you saying thete werent any other windows... The case has moved on from Redwoods time
Looking at the timeline produced by the group it was the only realistic window of opportunity in my opinion. Redwood moved the case on after six years by taking the focus off Jane Tanner's man and an abduction at 9.15pm. There may be other changes to come, but, like Redwood's, they will need to take account of that timeline imo.
On several points.
First the initial investigation are on record as saying the main evidence against the McCanns was the dog alerts... Which are not evidence.
Pedro da Carmo said in 2017 that the mccanns were not suspects and there was no evidence against them
So there is no real evidence against the McCanns.. Why should anyone consider them still suspects.
The mccanns are ruled out because theres no evidence against them..
Looking at the timeline produced by the group it was the only realistic window of opportunity in my opinion. Redwood moved the case on after six years by taking the focus off Jane Tanner's man and an abduction at 9.15pm. There may be other changes to come, but, like Redwood's, they will need to take account of that timeline imo.15 minutes is an awful long time for an abductor to take his victim, I thought you claimed abduction was practically impossible in this case?
This is true. Every time I ask the Whizz Kid for a cite I am ordered to go and find it myself. Don't see much intervention from g-Unit on those occasions.
15 minutes is an awful long time for an abductor to take his victim, I thought you claimed abduction was practically impossible in this case?
The 15 minute window could, of course, be a mistake;So do you think it’s possible they were all up checking for most of the time between 9.30pm and 10pm, and that there was virtually no window of opportunity for abduction at all during these 30 minutes?
Although the group timeline has Russell O'Brien returning to the restaurant at 9.45pm, in his own evidence he said it was 9.55pm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
Matthew Oldfield in his evidence said Kate went to check her children at 9.50pm
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
So do you think it’s possible they were all up checking for most of the time between 9.30pm and 10pm, and that there was virtually no window of opportunity for abduction at all during these 30 minutes?
I have no idea what they were doing, I can only look at what they said they were doing. Judging by that, anything they said about time can't be taken as correct, they didn't seem at all precise about that.
Are you saying thete werent any other windows... The case has moved on from Redwoods time
15 minutes is an awful long time for an abductor to take his victim, I thought you claimed abduction was practically impossible in this case?
Are you saying thete werent any other windows... The case has moved on from Redwoods time
In my opinion there would have been cause for concern if each and every one agreed precisely and were word perfect about times and events.
I have no idea what they were doing, I can only look at what they said they were doing. Judging by that, anything they said about time can't be taken as correct, they didn't seem at all precise about that.But does it seem likely to you that the checks in and around Apt 5a were almost continuous between 9.30 and 10pm?
Isn't the point that abduction is impractical in the extreme if the window was the entry and exit point for a lone abductor?I have never said that it was, who has?
Would you expect Gerry remembered how he entered the apartment for his check though? That seems more than reasonable to me.
It also seems reasonable to assume that three people would remember and agree on where two of them were standing during a conversation.Never assume everyone remembers events exactly as they happened.
But does it seem likely to you that the checks in and around Apt 5a were almost continuous between 9.30 and 10pm?
I can only go on what people said, and their inability to give exact times to events makes it impossible imo to form an opinion. If Gerry McCann is correct, Kate left to check the children at 10.03pm and raised the alarm at 10.13pm.Between them though they agreed that the alarm was raised around 10pm, which makes sense if you think about it, given they were supposedly doing checks every 30 minutes or so. Anyway, even if Kate left the table at 9.50pm I think there’s still plenty of opportunity to take thr child between 9.35pm and then isn’t there, or do you think there were members of the group in or near Apt 5a then as well?
Matthew Oldfield, on the other hand, says Kate left to do a check at 9.50pm. Ten minutes is not a huge difference, but it becomes important in this case because the witnesses gave such importance to the timeline.
Never assume everyone remembers events exactly as they happened.
I have never said that it was, who has?
That looks like Gerry McCann to me. That’s also what at least one of the Smith family saw as a strong possibility.
We know it's after 9pm if you believe Gerry. If it's before 9:40 then it's inexplicably odd how Oldfield remembers the shutters being down but at 10pm Kate remembers them being up.
Never assume everyone remembers events exactly as they happened.
Did Oldfield remember the shutters being down? I thought he debated whether the light in the room came from the shutters being up or from behind him? He remembers Green and Yellow, if the street light was shining through the curtains the light from that street light would have turned the blue curtains a Green colour [Sadie mentioned this]. Also the wind didn't blow the curtains so he would have been unable to see if the shutters were up or not. Weren't there net curtains under the blue checked ones? It could have been these curtains that Kate said were open. IMO
I'm sure it's not just me that sees the resemblance between Gerry McCann and the Smithman e-fit? If you look at comments on the Crimewatch special 2013 several people comment on it in fact.
If you read his rogatory he clears up all these issues, imo. He's as sure as you can be that the shutters are down and the curtains closed. He uses terminology along the lines of "almost definite". I've quoted it earlier in this thread.
It also seems reasonable to assume that three people would remember and agree on where two of them were standing during a conversation.
Almost definite is not definitely. He wouldn't have been able to tell with the curtains closed.
Would you expect Gerry remembered how he entered the apartment for his check though? That seems more than reasonable to me.
He says he would though... he says if the shutters had been open the curtains wouldn't have been still.
Mr Smith said Gerry McCann resembled the man he saw by the way he carried his son off the aeroplane, so stop changing facts.
I don't think we know which members of the Smith family were involved in the production of the efits. Mr Smith may not have been one of them.
Doesn't matter they don't resemble Gerry McCann IMO
If two accounts agree and a third doesn't the odds are that the two who agree are correct.Oh really? What if two of the three are engaged in illegal activity and the third is an innocent passerby?
Dave thought it possible as far as I recall. Apologies Dave, If I'm wrong.We;ve been through all this before and recently as well. Do we have to go through it all again or can I ask you to go off and search for my previous responses?
Also, VS, accepting the "abductor" didn't enter or exit via the shuttered window then why does Oldfield report the shutters down at 09:35 - 09:40 and Kate finds them up, reportedly, at 09:50 - 10:03?
That isn't even an opinion. They don't.
I totally get that - but surely you'd remember how you got in the apartment to check and whether the window in the children's bedroom was wide open or not!!? Hardly minor detail, imo.I have been known to lock a door on leaving the house and then having to return minutes later to check that I did in fact lock it, so memory is not always reliable. I can't see that it matters one way or the other if he got mixed up about which way he entered the apartment, unless you can explain why it should? Gerry corrected himself later, so what nefarious motive can you dream up for this change of story? Surely there must be one if you think his statments on this matter are suspicious? Did anyone claim they saw him entering via the patio doors at that time and that's why he needed to change his statement? I don't think even Amaral wasted a paragraph of his book worrying about this inconsistency, so why are you concerned about this "hardly minor detail"? AS for the window who claimed they could not remember if the window was open or not?
I don't think we know which members of the Smith family were involved in the production of the efits. Mr Smith may not have been one of them.Which members of the Smith family claimed to have got a good look of this man's face?
Which members of the Smith family claimed to have got a good look of this man's face?
Not if he had been using the front door to enter the apartment and then changed to the patio door. He entered through the front door when they went out during the day and opened the patio door for Kate and the twins to enter.
Which is surprising, considering this man was 'parading' with child through the bustling streets.What is surprising is that only Smith Senior thought it was Gerry based on the manner of carrying a child, not on any physical attributes the man had. If you'd been parading a child's corpse through town that night in the same way he'd probably have thought you were Gerry too.
What is surprising is that only Smith Senior thought it was Gerry based on the manner of carrying a child, not on any physical attributes the man had. If you'd been parading a child's corpse through town that night in the same way he'd probably have thought you were Gerry too.
That's what he said on 10th May;Gosh - a husband and wife disagree on who did what, when, quelle surprise. I doubt you can give any plausible, logical reason why any of this should be suspcious, but do give it a go....
Returning to Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.
Kate, 6th Spetember;
After breakfast they got dressed and left the apartment by the main door.
Gerry 10th May;
At 12H00, he combined with KATE, as he recalls it, that she would make lunch and he would collect MADELEINE. He thinks that it was KATE who took the twins home.
Kate 6th September;
close to 12:15 when she went to Madeleine's creche to pick her up, together with Fiona Payne.
Gerry 10th May;
After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
Kate 6th September;
They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM...They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door.
It seems they had totally different recollections of how they used to enter the apartment, so what Gerry thought he did and what he actually did may differ.
Mrs Smith also thought it could be Gerry.According to who?
According to who?
Well, Mr & Mrs Smith.Then kindly supply Mrs Smith's statement where she says she thought it was Gerry. Oh wait, you can't because it doesn't exist, and we only have her husband's word for it. I suppose good little wives should be seen not heard anyway...
I'd have thought that was obvious.
Then kindly supply Mrs Smith's statement where she says she thought it was Gerry. Oh wait, you can't because it doesn't exist, and we only have her husband's word for it. I suppose good little wives should be seen not heard anyway...
It also seems reasonable to assume that three people would remember and agree on where two of them were standing during a conversation.
If two accounts agree and a third doesn't the odds are that the two who agree are correct.
Almost definite is not definitely. He wouldn't have been able to tell with the curtains closed.
He says he would though... he says if the shutters had been open the curtains wouldn't have been still.
Obviously the wind wasn't blowing.Generally from the west, but add the wind which blows towards land in the day and towards sea at night, and here is wind direction at 10pm 3rd May which Anna posted
Gosh - a husband and wife disagree on who did what, when, quelle surprise. I doubt you can give any plausible, logical reason why any of this should be suspcious, but do give it a go....
I don't think we know which members of the Smith family were involved in the production of the efits. Mr Smith may not have been one of them.
And the blue and white? patterned curtains would not have been any other colour but blue and white had there not been amber lighting backlighting them.
The witness reported exactly what he saw. He did not see the raised shutter. But he saw the effect in the room and on the curtains as a result of the shutter being raised.
Generally from the west, but add the wind which blows towards land in the day and towards sea at night, and here is wind direction at 10pm 3rd May which Anna posted
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1868.0;attach=5717;image
Therefore during the 10pm check the draught was in through the window and out through the bedroom doorway.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1868.msg275405#msg275405
When Kate checked it was; and closing the door as she described caused the effect she described.
Why would an efit have been required from the Smiths. Everyone knew what Gerry McCann looked like - why would Smith be asked for one and why was the finshed article one which is a ringer for Cristovao.
If two accounts agree and a third doesn't the odds are that the two who agree are correct.
Smithman's child was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas/light clothing.
Dr. Totman's daughter was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas.
Madeleine was last seen wearing short-sleeved pyjamas.
What are the odds either of the claimed sightings were Madeleine?
Smithman's child was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas/light clothing.
Dr. Totman's daughter was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas.
Madeleine was last seen wearing short-sleeved pyjamas.
What are the odds either of the claimed sightings were Madeleine?
It is claimed Maddie was wearing short sleeve pyjamas, by her parents & no one else.
It is an accepted fact by PJ & SY.
That's what he said on 10th May;
Returning to Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.
Kate, 6th Spetember;
After breakfast they got dressed and left the apartment by the main door.
Gerry 10th May;
At 12H00, he combined with KATE, as he recalls it, that she would make lunch and he would collect MADELEINE. He thinks that it was KATE who took the twins home.
Kate 6th September;
close to 12:15 when she went to Madeleine's creche to pick her up, together with Fiona Payne.
Gerry 10th May;
After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
Kate 6th September;
They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM...They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door.
It seems they had totally different recollections of how they used to enter the apartment, so what Gerry thought he did and what he actually did may differ.
And the blue and white? patterned curtains would not have been any other colour but blue and white had there not been amber lighting backlighting them.
The witness reported exactly what he saw. He did not see the raised shutter. But he saw the effect in the room and on the curtains as a result of the shutter being raised.
Kate was rushing around the car park, fear shearing through her body as bizarrely she wished she'd dressed Maddie in her long sleeve pyjamas because her arms would be cold.
How very, very convenient.
Gosh - a husband and wife disagree on who did what, when, quelle surprise. I doubt you can give any plausible, logical reason why any of this should be suspcious, but do give it a go....
I can remember which door I came in last night and which one I left through this morning!!
Is that because you're at home and doing what you normally do? Most UK homeowners try to restrict access to rear doors for security purposes. The McCanns weren't at home & had just as much reason to exit via the patio doors as the front door (no car parked out front either).
More undeclared opinion dressed up as fact.
IMO
Are you unable to present a credible counter-argument?
Why should I want to? I'm not desperate to convince anyone of anything.
You appear to be desperate to discredit everything the McCanns have stated about Madeleine's disappearance imo. That appears to be a course of action designed to convince others.
You seem to think it's normal for husbands and wives to disagree, and maybe in your experience it is. My example isn't intended to highlight marital disagreements, however, it's about whether a person's recollections can be relied on as facts.I don’t know why you’re trying to teach me to suck eggs, I have always said human memory is fallible and inexact. It doesn’t mean it’s always suspicious though does it?
A poster stated " He entered through the front door when they went out during the day and opened the patio door for Kate and the twins to enter." as if it were a fact. It's a fact that he said that's what they did, but not that he was remembering correctly. His wife's recollections cast doubt upon his, and no-one knows which one of them remembered correctly.
We know that his memory of collecting Madeleine from the Mini Club at lunchtime on Thursday 3rd was wrong; his wife signed the sheet when she was collected and Fiona agreed because she went with Kate that day.
A rather generalised and exaggerated statement . IMOI thought it was a fair comment.
Is that because you're at home and doing what you normally do? Most UK homeowners try to restrict access to rear doors for security purposes. The McCanns weren't at home & had just as much reason to exit via the patio doors as the front door (no car parked out front either).
I don’t know why you’re trying to teach me to suck eggs, I have always said human memory is fallible and inexact. It doesn’t mean it’s always suspicious though does it?
Mr Smith said Gerry McCann resembled the man he saw by the way he carried his son off the aeroplane, so stop changing facts.
Smithman's child was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas/light clothing.
Dr. Totman's daughter was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas.
Madeleine was last seen wearing short-sleeved pyjamas.
What are the odds either of the claimed sightings were Madeleine?
Yes as I said Martin Smith testified that the man he saw resembled Gerry McCann:
"I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child."
It's certainly not damning nor conclusive - but why did Clarence Mitchell and the Find Madeleine website ignore this sighting for so long? If it clearly wasn't Gerry then it clearly might very well have been the abductor.
I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child?s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.
I have watched a good deal of news coverage about the McCanns over the past week or so. Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal.
Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child?s weight.
(signed).......R McCluskey
___________________________________________________________________________________
When asked why there had been such a time lapse in him making this "identification" he explained it as follows:
Mr. McCluskey states the thought had never crossed his mind that a child's parents could be implicated in such a matter. Media coverage over the past week or so has cased him to take a renewed interest in the case. The only thing which prevents Mr. McCluskey from stating he in 100% certain in his "identification" is the fact that he would, in his words, " hate to incriminate and innocent person."
Mr McCluskey appears to be a credible person and is not recorded on local intelligence systems.
Email from Stephen Robinson, Northumbria police to Leicestershire police
13th September 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
No, but it does mean that someone's recollections can't be used as facts, which is the point I was making.And yet you could think of no reason to doubt the recollection of the member of Tapas staff who claimed the party had vacated the table at 9.25 pm
Obviously the wind wasn't blowing.
So do you think Clarence Mitchell was also agonising over incriminating an innocent person so he held back on the Smithman sighting?I didn't post a word - I posted only a link. So you have absolutely no excuse for paraphrasing or putting words into my mouth in a technique which amounts to fabrication. I suggest it would be advisable you desist from this dishonest practice and stop trying to disrupt this forum with your antics.
Almost definite is not definitely. He wouldn't have been able to tell with the curtains closed.
And yet you could think of no reason to doubt the recollection of the member of Tapas staff who claimed the party had vacated the table at 9.25 pm
I didn't post a word - I posted only a link. So you have absolutely no excuse for paraphrasing or putting words into my mouth in a technique which amounts to fabrication. I suggest it would be advisable you desist from this dishonest practice and stop trying to disrupt this forum with your antics.
With all due respect I asked you an honest question.... I'm not putting words into your mouth. I'm genuinely asking you why do you think Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long.... even more so if it clearly wasn't Gerry. It is an honest question. It has baffled me for years!!
Your question was answered by my post reminding the forum of Mr McCluskey's addition to his original statement which was made before before Mr Smith amended his using almost identical wording.
In my opinion your posts are quite often at odds with the standards expected on the forum, and putting words into my mouth when I have said literally nothing which could possibly be misconstrued is but one example.
I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean there. I do not understand the point you are trying to make but I'm certainly not putting words into your mouth nor attempting to disrupt the flow of the forum.
I don't see how either statement either before or after they were amended has any impact on Clarence Mitchell using his influence to call for public information into a potential "sighting".
It's not about what you have posted or linked to.... I'm asking a question regarding the fact there was a sighting of a man carrying a child on the evening in question.
More gobbldy gook.
Really? I was just wondering why Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long. Ignored as in he didn't use his influence to appeal to the public for information with regards to the Smithman sighting.
Really? I was just wondering why Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long. Ignored as in he didn't use his influence to appeal to the public for information with regards to the Smithman sighting.
Why should he?
Why did no-one publicise Mr McClusky's sighting.
His original statement was made at the time and I believe he had all sorts of problems getting the police to hear it.
Mr Smith's original statement was not made until a fortnight after the event.
Why did the police ignore one amended statement and why did they think the other almost identically amended one was a game changer according to Amaral.
Since the van registration was recorded and given to the Police you must assume this was followed up and investigated. The outcome of that investigation does not seem to be public (happy for someone to provide further information though). But yes, is this another one missed by Clarence Mitchell for no apparent reason? Mitchell claimed at the LSE event that he was getting "inside information" so perhaps he knew the McCluskey sighting was investigated and ruled out? Perhaps there's another explanation?
Don't you think that it is possible that the sightings both of which referred to exactly the same reasons for amending the original statements have been investigated and ruled out.
Only sceptic fora mention Mr Smith's amendment these days it seems. What do you think the police are currently doing about it not forgetting the Portuguese police ruled out both a very long time ago.
Why did no-one publicise Mr McClusky's sighting.
His original statement was made at the time and I believe he had all sorts of problems getting the police to hear it.
Mr Smith's original statement was not made until a fortnight after the event.
Why did the police ignore one amended statement and why did they think the other almost identically amended one was a game changer according to Amaral.
Don't you think that it is possible that the sightings both of which referred to exactly the same reasons for amending the original statements have been investigated and ruled out.
Only sceptic fora mention Mr Smith's amendment these days it seems. What do you think the police are currently doing about it not forgetting the Portuguese police ruled out both a very long time ago.
Apparently Mr McClusky reported the van details to the police in Portugal. He made a statement when he got home after Northumbria Police contacted him. When the statement arrived at Portimao a handwritten comment was added to it;
"It has already been checked! They are Ukrainians from Alvor with a blonde daughter who attends the “A Flor” crèche in Portimao."
I assume the police had checked the van reg. number and identified the owners.
So his later statement in September in which he identified the woman as Kate McCann and the man as Gerry had already been investigated and answered.
The PJ didn't publicise any sightings and the McCanns wouldn't have seen the McClusky statements until they received the Files. As the matter had been dealt with, why would they publicise it?
Mr McClusky fingered both Kate and Gerry, unlike Mr Smith. The PJ ruled out the McClusky sighting very quickly, but they never ruled out the Smith one, imo, unless you have a cite?You know I have a cite - how tiresome of you to demand one 😁
You know I have a cite - how tiresome of you to demand one 😁
Reference to the sighting in the PJ's 57-page report summary
'Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated.
Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following.
It was established that at the time that was being mentioned,
GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.'
Does security not matter on holiday then? I've always taken the same care with holiday accomodation as with my own. I also took as much care of my children on holiday as I did at home. I was actually amazed to learn that so many people seemingly educated and intelligent were prepared to say they would have done the same as the McCanns. A lot of others agree with me too imo.You need to contextualise your statement. Spatial perception varies depending on one’s lifestyle.
Who was that then?The chef? I can’t remember his name but I do remember you saying he yad no reason to lie and you seemed to consider his statement relaible when we last discussed it.
So they decided it wasn't Gerry McCann and didn't wonder further who the man was and what he was doing? Somewhat remiss of Rebelo perhaps.
Who was that then?
“ Pelega was the head chef, with responsibility for five kitchens around the site. They were, I think, the Millenium, the Tapas, two snack bars related to swimming pools and one other. As head chef he worked in the Millenium kitchen but organised and oversaw the others, which is why he visited the Tapas on 3rd. It's highly unlikely that he made a mistake with the times, imo, given his seniority and his responsibilities.”
Pelaga stated that the clamour at the table was at around 9.20pm, and you think it’s highly unlikely he made a mistake with the times. But then you also think that
“ someone's recollections can't be used as facts”.
If you're quoting me above, you may have noticed that I didn't post his recollections as if they were facts. I made it quite plain that I was expressing my opinion.It was your (contradictory) opinion I was highlighting.
Why would anyone wish to publicise Mr Smith's erroneous identification - the matter had been dealt with.
DCI Redwood appealed for Smithman information because he has never been accounted for. What’s odd in my mind is why Clarence Mitchell never appealed for information in public.
You really are obsessing about Clarence Mitchell. What makes you think that a civilian would have any locus interfering in an active police investigation by taking it upon himself to make public appeals?
The very notion is quite ridiculous.
You really are obsessing about Clarence Mitchell. What makes you think that a civilian would have any locus interfering in an active police investigation by taking it upon himself to make public appeals?
The very notion is quite ridiculous.
It was your (contradictory) opinion I was highlighting.
Why would anyone wish to publicise Mr Smith's erroneous identification - the matter had been dealt with.
Two men were seen carrying a child. Neither one was Gerry. Why did the McCanns publicise one of them far and wide and not the other one? Maybe because they were doctors, not detectives and followed the wrong lead for six years. When SY took over they corrected the error.I would suggest that they didn’t publicise it because the photofit was generated by someone claiming the person they saw was Gerry. If you were Gerry and you knew it wasn’t you why would you wish to publicise something that was based on a false assumption and not on what the mystery bloke actually looked like but on the witness’s imprefect recall of what you look like? How much faith would you have in such a photofit? I mean if any of the witnesses to strange men lurking in the area were now to produce a photofit of the person they saw and it looked like Christian Bruckner how much faith would you have in it?
I would suggest that they didn’t publicise it because the photofit was generated by someone claiming the person they saw was Gerry. If you were Gerry and you knew it wasn’t you why would you wish to publicise something that was based on a false assumption and not on what the mystery bloke actually looked like but on the witness’s imprefect recall of what you look like? How much faith would you have in such a photofit? I mean if any of the witnesses to strange men lurking in the area were now to produce a photofit of the person they saw and it looked like Christian Bruckner how much faith would you have in it?
That is way too simple for the muck rakers who have been digging for fourteen years and getting nowhere.
I would be worried about their mental health if I could be bothered.
If you think so.I do think so, unless you can explain how you can both rely and not rely on the chef’s statement to be accurate?
All anyone needs to do is ask themselves, When, How and Why. Logic and common sense will tell you that it wasn't possible for The McCanns to have been involved in the disappearance of their daughter.
You can mess with the facts all you like. It isn't going to wash.
I have asked myself when, how and why in respect of both abduction and parental involvement. My logic and common sense tell me that neither are impossible. In both cases exactly when how and why are unknown. If one is possible (even probable, some think) I can see no reason why the other isn't possible.Previously you have claimed abduction is neither plausible nor logical in this case. Have you revised your opinion recently?
I do think so, unless you can explain how you can both rely and not rely on the chef’s statement to be accurate?
Previously you have claimed abduction is neither plausible nor logical in this case. Have you revised your opinion recently?
Compare and contrast;So you hold an opinion that 1) it’s highly unlikely the chef made a mistake given his seniority and 2) we can’t use as facts any of the chef’s recollections because memories are unreliable.
"He entered through the front door when they went out during the day and opened the patio door for Kate and the twins to enter." POSTED AS A FACT
"It's highly unlikely that he made a mistake with the times, imo, given his seniority and his responsibilities.” IMO MEANS POSTED AS AN OPINION
No.Yet you refuse to say why, when clearly abduction is by far the more simple, plausible and logical explanation.
Going back to the events of 2007 and the introduction of a completely new timeline which is new to us but which is not new to the person using Brueckner's phone in the vicinity of the McCann apartment.
The situation at the moment really doesn't concern well worn slurs centring on innocent people it is aimed more at actually finding out what happened to Madeleine.
Which is why Brueckner is the prime suspect in the police investigation and why certain dyed in the wool sceptics are having apoplexy over it.
I have asked myself when, how and why in respect of both abduction and parental involvement. My logic and common sense tell me that neither are impossible. In both cases exactly when how and why are unknown. If one is possible (even probable, some think) I can see no reason why the other isn't possible.
Nothing much New then. Another Suspect, although I don't know about him yet.It’s because for some reason some people hate middle class, successful, attractive parents who “abandoned their babies” far more than they hate common or garden child abusers and rapists. I’m sure there’s a deep rooted psychological reason for this.
What metaphorically kills me is how rapidly the Sceptics dived in to defend a Convicted Paedophile and Rapist and his right to Innocent Until Proven Guilty while persistently denying The McCanns to the same right for fourteen years.
This is bordering on obscene mental malfaisanse for which there is no excuse.
I have asked myself when, how and why in respect of both abduction and parental involvement. My logic and common sense tell me that neither are impossible. In both cases exactly when how and why are unknown. If one is possible (even probable, some think) I can see no reason why the other isn't possible.
So you hold an opinion that 1) it’s highly unlikely the chef made a mistake given his seniority and 2) we can’t use as facts any of the chef’s recollections because memories are unreliable.
Yes! You've got it! 8@??)(OK so when I say you hold a contradictory viewpoint (that the chef's statement can both be relied upon and not relied upon) you agree then? Cool. 8@??)(
All anyone needs to do is ask themselves, When, How and Why. Logic and common sense will tell you that it wasn't possible for The McCanns to have been involved in the disappearance of their daughter.
You can mess with the facts all you like. It isn't going to wash.
It’s because for some reason some people hate middle class, successful, attractive parents who “abandoned their babies” far more than they hate common or garden child abusers and rapists. I’m sure there’s a deep rooted psychological reason for this.
You often state this as if it were fact when it's nothing more than opinion.
I would like to feel sorry for you, but I'm finding it a bit hard at the moment.
Nothing much New then. Another Suspect, although I don't know about him yet.
What metaphorically kills me is how rapidly the Sceptics dived in to defend a Convicted Paedophile and Rapist and his right to Innocent Until Proven Guilty while persistently denying The McCanns to the same right for fourteen years.
This is bordering on obscene mental malfaisanse for which there is no excuse.
OK so when I say you hold a contradictory viewpoint (that the chef's statement can both be relied upon and not relied upon) you agree then? Cool. 8@??)(
Honouring a person's right to the presumption of innocence doesn't mean that opinions and information about the details of the evidence in their case can't be discussed. That would be breaching people's right to freedom of speech.is he allowed to say in his opinion he is guilty?
What is not allowed is a prosecutor saying publicly that his suspect is guilty.
is he allowed to say in his opinion he is guilty?
Here it is in Oldfield's own words:
" they're similar curtains to the ones you've got in there, and you just get an impression of just like green and yellow, but they were closed, they weren't sort of blowing about, because I'm sure I'd have noticed if there was sort of movement like that. But the room seemed light, and we spent a lot of time talking about this, whether it could be light coming in from the street outside, but there was a light behind us in the room and for some reason I thought, I got the impression of light coming through the doorway from behind me, which his why I said that I thought perhaps the moon was out, erm, but there as no sort of, you know, it's a questions of whether, there was no sort of slats of light coming through the back that particularly caught my eye. So I didn't specifically see the shutters and I couldn't say that they were definitely open, but certainly the curtains were shut and everything was quiet'.......................................................... the room was lighter than I expected but I definitely didn't see the shutters up, the curtains were definitely not disturbed and the shutters would have had to have been completely up, I presume, not to get that sort of, because they were shutters that went solid but when you lifted them they had gaps of light, and I wasn't aware of that and it may well be that the light was just the source from behind'."
Oh dear, I was too hasty, you still haven't grasped the concept.I have completely grasped that you hold contrary opinions when it comes to witness statements and whose you accept as a factual account (eg: the chef's) and whose you don't (the entire Tapas group).
No.Cite.
So why would the abductor close the curtains then open them again before Kate's check?
Also why did Gerry change his checking method the one time all week? Furthermore it takes him six days to remember the different checking method for that one night only (i.e. he changes his testimony on the 10th). I completely accept that small discrepancies with timings are not going to be too important - but I don't find it plausible that you can forget how you last came in and out of an apartment. There must be an explanation for this, and of course it could well be entirely innocent.
You know I have a cite - how tiresome of you to demand one 😁
Reference to the sighting in the PJ's 57-page report summary
'Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated.
Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following.
It was established that at the time that was being mentioned,
GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.'
The PJ Report put it as "around 10pm". I would say that gives us a ten minute margin of between 9.55 and 10.05. Seems perfectly reasonable to me based on the fact that checks were done on a half hourly basis, so one at 9-ish, one at 9.30-ish, one at 10-ish.
No one is saying Gerry wasn't at the table when Kate returned.
The question is, what time was that PRECISELY?
It's impossible to be certain.
The PJ Report put it as "around 10pm". I would say that gives us a ten minute margin of between 9.55 and 10.05. Seems perfectly reasonable to me based on the fact that checks were done on a half hourly basis, so one at 9-ish, one at 9.30-ish, one at 10-ish.
I would suggest that they didn’t publicise it because the photofit was generated by someone claiming the person they saw was Gerry. If you were Gerry and you knew it wasn’t you why would you wish to publicise something that was based on a false assumption and not on what the mystery bloke actually looked like but on the witness’s imprefect recall of what you look like? How much faith would you have in such a photofit? I mean if any of the witnesses to strange men lurking in the area were now to produce a photofit of the person they saw and it looked like Christian Bruckner how much faith would you have in it?
Thanks for your imprecision.How could you possibly expect precision to the minute from anyone at this point? A bit bloody unreasonable that.
That does not stand up to scrutiny. If [SY and] the McCann PR team believe the Smithman e-fits are flawed and based on "false assumption" why do they publicise them now?
That does not stand up to scrutiny. If [SY and] the McCann PR team believe the Smithman e-fits are flawed and based on "false assumption" why do they publicise them now?They are not being publicised now afaik. But if you mean why were they publicised at all, then I would imagine it was not the McCanns' decision, but The Met's who decided to focus their attention on this particular suspect rather than Tannerman.
Going back to the events of 2007 and the introduction of a completely new timeline which is new to us but which is not new to the person using Brueckner's phone in the vicinity of the McCann apartment.
The situation at the moment really doesn't concern well worn slurs centring on innocent people it is aimed more at actually finding out what happened to Madeleine.
Which is why Brueckner is the prime suspect in the police investigation and why certain dyed in the wool sceptics are having apoplexy over it.
Previously you have claimed abduction is neither plausible nor logical in this case. Have you revised your opinion recently?
In actual fact people stated that the plausibility and logic depends on the time and the method. Of course child abduction in this case is a possibility within certain time frames. What we do not know of is if there is any concrete evidence to support the theory.In which case the plausibility and logic of parental involvement depends on the time and the method too - so if we can't say one is plausible and logical then we can't say any theory is plausible or logical, is that your belief?
I am a poverty stricken working class woman without even an "O" Level to my name. Why am I not so affected? Why do I not loath people who have done better than I ever managed?
And my childhood wasn't that good either. But for some odd reason I have never passed judgement on anyone.
Perhaps it's genetic. In which case there is nothing to be done.
I don't "loath" the McCanns. I did think they were initially treated differently than if they had been working class people leaving their kids home alone every night whilst they enjoyed nights out. Their treatment isn't their own fault though and I thought losing a child is punishment enough for the mistake of leaving the children home alone. This case should never be about the personality or social class of the McCann's . It will centre on the evidence which proves what happened to their daughter.
The PJ Report put it as "around 10pm". I would say that gives us a ten minute margin of between 9.55 and 10.05. Seems perfectly reasonable to me based on the fact that checks were done on a half hourly basis, so one at 9-ish, one at 9.30-ish, one at 10-ish.
The curtains that Kate said were open could have been the net curtains under the checked ones, if he left the checked curtains closed it wouldn't have been obvious to whoever was checking on the children that the window was open. If it hadn't been for the fact that the abductor left the door more open than the McCann's had left it, Kate wouldn't have closed it to where they left it and it wouldn't have slammed. If that hadn't happened Kate wouldn't have known Madeleine was missing and it would have given the abductor more time to get away. IMO
It is not a "well worn slur" to question why Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long. Initially you described the idea of Mitchell holding up images of suspects and appealing for public information as a "ridiculous notion". We know that isn't a ridiculous notion as it was exactly what he did. Yet for some inexplicable reason one key sighting is ignored for months (maybe years).
Who said the did or do? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
So let's attack Clarence Mitchell now, shall we. A Child Murder Enabler. Clarence Mitchell helped The McCanns to cover up the death of Madeleine.
You are heading for some serious problems if you pursue this.
But other testimony states the alarm was raised slightly earlier. We can't be precisely sure of the time imo. Only one person gave a precise time for Kate's alert - is that reliable?Who has claimed to be able to give a precise time? No one ever. One has to use common sense as well and common sense dictates that if the aim was to do checks roughly half an hour apart with the first one at around 9pm that the last check was at "around 10pm" as agreed by the PJ in their report. It's obvious why sceptics refuse to accept 10pm as the time but it has been accepted even by the police department who were trying to build a case against the McCanns.
It is not a "well worn slur" to question why Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long. Initially you described the idea of Mitchell holding up images of suspects and appealing for public information as a "ridiculous notion". We know that isn't a ridiculous notion as it was exactly what he did. Yet for some inexplicable reason one key sighting is ignored for months (maybe years).
Vertigo Swirl did. VS said they were "based on a false assumption".
I asked why he ignored the Smith sighting for years. That's neither attacking him nor calling him a "child murder enabler". It is a perfectly valid question.
In actual fact people stated that the plausibility and logic depends on the time and the method. Of course child abduction in this case is a possibility within certain time frames. What we do not know of is if there is any concrete evidence to support the theory.
I followed the sceptic furore at the time --- did you?
I think the problem you may be having at the moment is that your tack is so transparent it is a bit of an embarrassment for you.
I don't think you are capable of straying too far from the sceptic lexicon 😉one of which is bogeyman Mitchell🙄😁
Did no-one tell you that the investigation have not the slightest interest in the McCanns - the focus of their attention being their prime suspect - Brueckner.
Times have moved on with a vengeance and its still not too late to catch up with them.
Just re-reading the 1st post of this thread. According to G-Unit "no one in their right mind would risk going anywhere near Apartment 5 A" with all the comings and goings (even though by her own timeline there is a clear 15 minute window of opportunity).
Would anyone in their right mind carry a corpse through a holiday village uncovered, one that had allegedly sprayed blood all over the place from a head wound? Is it more plausible that the child's father disposed of the body in this manner after the alarm had been raised, and knowing he had been seen by a least half a dozen people then boldly stood in front of the TV cameras the following evening to appeal for help than it is plausible that an abductor entered the unlocked ground floor apartment during a 15 minute window of opportunity and stole the child, taking it to a nearby parked car and driven off? Are sceptics of the view that the child's father was deranged at the time he took this action? Or do they think it was a perfectly plausible and logical thing to make a big fuss that your kid was missing and immediately retrieve the child's bloodied corpse and carry it through town to a suitable bin?
Nothing much New then. Another Suspect, although I don't know about him yet.
What metaphorically kills me is how rapidly the Sceptics dived in to defend a Convicted Paedophile and Rapist and his right to Innocent Until Proven Guilty while persistently denying The McCanns to the same right for fourteen years.
This is bordering on obscene mental malfaisanse for which there is no excuse.
Of course it's too late. Do or die. The McCanns done it.
We aren't dealing with normal people. Although I must say that John never said that when I signed up for this. But then perhaps John didn't know either. Who'd a thought it?
What if the child didn't have bloody head wound?How do you explain all the blood and spatter and gore that the dogs alerted to then? What was the cause of death?
Do you know that I no longer care all that much? But then I don't have to. The McCanns will never be found guilty of the disappearance of their daughter, which was all that mattered to me. Apart from Madeleine herself.
I came into this in complete ignorance of human nature which still appals me to this day. I never even knew that such sick nastiness even existed.
I did hope that some of you didn't know what you were doing. But I can no longer hope for that.
And that is really sad.
I will never understand the motivation behind all of this. But I certainly know a lot more about it now than I did when I started posting with what I thought was to be a one off post to wish Scotland Yard well when the case was opened. That was sufficient to have the gates of Hell opened against me and sceptic bile and ire spat with fury into my face.
There is a story to be told about all of this. The University of Huddersfield have made a start and I'm sure others will be doing so too.
As the poet said when seeing a louse creeping through finery ~ “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!" ~ I wonder if it would make any difference to them even if they did.
How do you explain all the blood and spatter and gore that the dogs alerted to then? What was the cause of death?
Would you care to define 'normal' ?
Didn't Mr Gordon have a near fatal shaving accident?Stop making excuses for all the evidence of Madeleine's bloody death at the hands of her wicked parents.
So supposing they did do it, All that matters to you is that they never face justice?
Strange.
Me. I never judge. I don't have a right to do this.
Well, you already have - in claiming that they are not normal.
You must therefore have a concept of what you consider normal
People who don't judge without true cause. Or even if they do have. That is my normal.
And strangely enough you have never said anything truly unpleasant. You might think that I haven't noticed. But I have.
People who don't judge without true cause. Or even if they do have. That is my normal.Erm...seriously??! Oh well, everything is a matter of opinion after all....
And strangely enough you have never said anything truly unpleasant. You might think that I haven't noticed. But I have.
Oh I'm sure I have. ?
I can think of 1 poster who is regularly incensed by my posts ?{)(**
Erm...seriously??! Oh well, everything is a matter of opinion after all....
I never have been incensed by your posts. But then you have never been interested in what I think of you.Apart from when she's suggesting that an elderly rape victim actually invited her attacker into the house for a bit of "company". That wasn't very nice IMO.
I read every word of what is posted and then I get some idea of who these people are. I decide if they are worth listing to.
I am a very smart cookie and you are not a bad one.
Apart from when she's suggesting that an elderly rape victim actually invited her attacker into the house for a bit of "company". That wasn't very nice IMO.
Oh God. She didn't, did she?
I don't suppose I could have a Cite for that.
Oh God. She didn't, did she?Here you go - Jassi wondering if the rape came about because there was a suggestion that CB used to be paid for sex by older women
I don't suppose I could have a Cite for that.
It’s clear some sceptics get off on victim blaming as can be evidenced by members such as Jassi and Spam IMO.
I did say something to that effect, but I didn't suggest that she invited being violently raped at knife-point.
I happen to think many victims of crime are in some part to blame for what happens to them.Yes, and women are to be blamed for being raped because they are women and how are men supposed to resist their feminine charms, even the really old ones? Poor men.
Take burglary victims for example, everyone knows burglars exist so there really is no excuse for feeble home security.
What can one say? But that was rather my point.
What amuses me is the faux outrage which such comments engender.It’s not faux and it’s not outrage, it’s simply commenting on some imo pretty unpleasant opinions and remarks. I’m glad you make them though, it only serves to prove a point, and that is McCann bashers are a bit warped imo.
Well, as a Muslim, I happen to believe that western women who expose flesh are inviting male attention, so yes it shouldn't be surprising some men give them too much.The funny thing is, apart from not actually being a Muslim I do believe some of your views probably do chime quite well with theirs.
When I'm supreme leader, & the black flag of Islam is flying over downing street, women will adhere to the strict rule of Purdah & will only see & be seen through a letterbox.
The funny thing is, apart from not actually being a Muslim I do believe some of your views probably do chime quite well with theirs.
Here you go - Jassi wondering if the rape came about because there was a suggestion that CB used to be paid for sex by older women
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11834.120
I followed the sceptic furore at the time --- did you?
I think the problem you may be having at the moment is that your tack is so transparent it is a bit of an embarrassment for you.
I don't think you are capable of straying too far from the sceptic lexicon 😉one of which is bogeyman Mitchell🙄😁
I thought that was gross the first time I saw it ☹
I’m not goading you in any way, but I would like to point out that your response is just an ad hominem point and makes no attempt to address the issue I raised.
Perhaps you are just too sensitive.Or perhaps the problem is your insensitivity? Just a thought....
I’m not goading you in any way, but I would like to point out that your response is just an ad hominem attack and makes no attempt to address the issue I raised.
Ditto.
There are issues to which I don't think speculative musings should be legitimised by meriting a response. One of which is why a private individual should be expected to stick his oar into the middle of a police investigation.
I'm not goading you in any way ~ but if you can't recognise that your post received a response, not my problem. The fact you didn't like it ~ again not my problem.
But you do concede that Clarence Mitchell spoke at press conferences and media interviews where he appealed for public information on various “suspects”. Your initial reaction was to call that notion “ridiculous” implying therefore that it did not happen.
Not only did Clarence Mitchell do that, he did it as the official spokesman for the McCann couple, so with their full approval. Unfortunately it wasn't always plain sailing, as with the 'Victoria Becham' look a like fiasco. The lead came, it seems, from a British citizen (an executive even) who came forward after two years to tell his story.
That significantly beats the Smith's delay doesn't it? Still, worth a go it seems.
Thank you. I’m glad you’ve retracted the statement that the idea of Mitchell doing public appeals for information was “a ridiculous notion”. There wasn’t a delay with a lead coming forward with regards to Smithman. What is striking is Clarence Mitchell never did a Smithman information request even after the sighting was known about.
Thank you. I’m glad you’ve retracted the statement that the idea of Mitchell doing public appeals for information was “a ridiculous notion”. There wasn’t a delay with a lead coming forward with regards to Smithman. What is striking is Clarence Mitchell never did a Smithman information request even after the sighting was known about.Are you mistaking G-Unit for Brietta by any chance?
But you do concede that Clarence Mitchell spoke at press conferences and media interviews where he appealed for public information on various “suspects”. Your initial reaction was to call that notion “ridiculous” implying therefore that it did not happen.
Not only did Clarence Mitchell do that, he did it as the official spokesman for the McCann couple, so with their full approval. Unfortunately it wasn't always plain sailing, as with the 'Victoria Becham' look a like fiasco. The lead came, it seems, from a British citizen (an executive even) who came forward after two years to tell his story.Tell us more about the “Victoria Beckham Look-A-Like Fiasco. Was it an actual fiasco (what disastrous repercussions followed on from it for example?) or is that simply your opinion of it?
That significantly beats the Smith's delay doesn't it? Still, worth a go it seems.
Not only did Clarence Mitchell do that, he did it as the official spokesman for the McCann couple, so with their full approval. Unfortunately it wasn't always plain sailing, as with the 'Victoria Becham' look a like fiasco. The lead came, it seems, from a British citizen (an executive even) who came forward after two years to tell his story.
That significantly beats the Smith's delay doesn't it? Still, worth a go it seems.
Are you mistaking G-Unit for Brietta by any chance?
There was a time when there was no official police search for Madeleine. The McCanns were having to do it for themselves from the time when Madeleine was written off by the Portuguese until Scotland Yard belatedly took on the task.
Which alone was enough to cause uproar amongst a group of people who objected to Madeleine's case being investigated at al ~ no matter by whom.
The McCanns did not make any "suspects" - as you say they were seeking information about what happened to their little girl and at the time THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES doing anything for her.
What on earth is your objection to that !!!!!!
There was still an on-going Police investigation taking place in January 2008 (when the London Mitchell/McCann press conference took place). The case wasn't archived in Portugal until July.I’ve already given you a valid reason which you have rejected. i
I can sympathise with parents who feel the Police investigation is flawed so they appeal for public information themselves. I do feel this approach could potentially hamper an official investigation though. Furthermore, in the case of abduction it could possibly lead to an abductor panicking with unknown consequences.
But what I find totally inexplicable is if we accept the situation I describe above but the parents (and their PR man) feel no choice but to appeal for information themselves why would they ignore a sighting of a man carrying a child a short distance from 5A at around the same time the alarm was raised allegedly following Kate's check?
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/8/6/1249558087504/McCann-family-spokesman-C-001.jpg?width=605&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=a615589074abd96b2491f194bc7dd05f)Clarence Mitchell holds up a photofit of the woman sought by investigators working for the McCanns. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty ImagesThu 6 Aug 2009 13.50 BST
There was no police investigation being carried out in 2009 - Madeleine's parents were the only ones looking for her.
Exactly what causes your visceral objection to having this little girl looked for. If she wasn't looked for by definition she would never have a chance of being found and it seems that is fine by you.
I’ve already given you a valid reason which you have rejected. i
There was still an on-going Police investigation taking place in January 2008 (when the London Mitchell/McCann press conference took place). The case wasn't archived in Portugal until July.
I can sympathise with parents who feel the Police investigation is flawed so they appeal for public information themselves. I do feel this approach could potentially hamper an official investigation though. Furthermore, in the case of abduction it could possibly lead to an abductor panicking with unknown consequences.
But what I find totally inexplicable is if we accept the situation I describe above but the parents (and their PR man) feel no choice but to appeal for information themselves why would they ignore a sighting of a man carrying a child a short distance from 5A at around the same time the alarm was raised allegedly following Kate's check?
Your reason didn't stand up to scrutiny, for me. If they thought the sighting and subsequent e-fit was "based on a flawed assumption" (I think that is how you worded it), then they wouldn't years later decide to suddenly use the e-fit on the Find Madeleine website.
I don't care what they did, but I reserve the right to question why such remote stones were being turned when in my opinion there were others which could have yielded important information.
In my opinion the Portuguese gave up looking for Madeleine shortly after she disappeared. Check Amaral's book for that.
Thereafter the focus of the Portuguse investigation focused on her parents - not Madeleine.
Until the files were released the McCanns knew nothing of the Smiths. If this guy was as important as you seem to think why didn't the Portuguese publicise him - they did have copies of the drawings.
Could they have been influenced by the fact that none of the Smiths were able to provide a detailed description of him weeks after the alleged event.
"— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
On the contrary, I think you care very much about the efforts they made to search for their daughter. They did a marvellous job despite all the actions taken to prevent them doing so. And they did it on their own without assistance from any official police assistance despite having every spurious bad word sceptics could dream up to direct against them.
Something along the lines in which you have continued as illustrated by the content of your posts.
Speculating about my motives and suggesting I'm untruthful is not just boring, it's against the rules of the forum;
Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg4#msg4
In my opinion the Portuguese gave up looking for Madeleine shortly after she disappeared. Check Amaral's book for that.
Thereafter the focus of the Portuguse investigation focused on her parents - not Madeleine.
Until the files were released the McCanns knew nothing of the Smiths. If this guy was as important as you seem to think why didn't the Portuguese publicise him - they did have copies of the drawings.
Could they have been influenced by the fact that none of the Smiths were able to provide a detailed description of him weeks after the alleged event.
"— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Your reason didn't stand up to scrutiny, for me. If they thought the sighting and subsequent e-fit was "based on a flawed assumption" (I think that is how you worded it), then they wouldn't years later decide to suddenly use the e-fit on the Find Madeleine website.I gave you a plausible reason for that too which I believe you ignored.
Tell us more about the “Victoria Beckham Look-A-Like Fiasco. Was it an actual fiasco (what disastrous repercussions followed on from it for example?) or is that simply your opinion of it?Bumping for G-Unit.
Why do you think it is the the victims of a crime who should be responsible for the investigation because no-one else is bothering.
And why do you feel it is within your remit to carry out a prolonged criticism of the way they did it over so many years and right up to the time when the official police investigation, which they worked so hard to instigate has a prime suspect under investigation.
Might I be so bold as to recommend the following to you http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12132.0
I find it impossible to believe that "until the files were released the McCanns knew nothing of the Smiths". The sighting had been reported in the media including the UK. G-Unit gives you a cite. I first read of the sighting in a UK newspaper well before the Mitchell/McCann London press conference and I have seen online reports from Irish news media. There was more than enough detailed information in the statements from family members for the sighting to be used by Mitchell/McCanns in a public appeal for information such as the London press conference (January 2008). It is at least as credible, reliable and significant as Tanner's sighting. Everyone here can surely see the importance of a sighting (by several people) of a man carrying a child around 10pm on Thursday May 3rd.
Criticising others for the contents of their posts does not answer those contents.
Jane Tanner's sighting was reported to the first responding police immediately she was able to.
The Smiths reported theirs a fortnight later questioning whether or not they had dreamed it.
Jane Tanner was called a liar by sceptics for many years until Dr Topman confirmed he was carrying his child home from nursery about that time.
The fact that you continue in that vein says a lot more about you than it does about an honest witness who had to live with the thought that she might have been able to stop Madeleine's abduction for as many years as she was traduced by sceptics.
Appealing for information to eliminate a man who wasn't seen anywhere near 5A, who wasn't seen carrying a child, and who was suspected only because a holidaymaker found him 'creepy'.
BBC
Last Updated: Sunday, 20 January 2008, 12:41 GMT
Madeleine 'suspect' images issued
Sketches of the man the McCanns believe may have abducted Madeleine
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the description came from British holidaymaker Gail Cooper, who was staying with her family 600 yards from the McCann's apartment in Praia da Luz at the same time...Mr Mitchell said: "We want to know who he is and we want to know where he is. We want to know that as soon as we can. We are asking for people's help today..."If he isn't connected with Madeleine's abduction, at the very least he now needs to come forward himself so that he can be eliminated from both the police and the private investigations that are under way into Madeleine's disappearance."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/madeleine-suspect-images-issued-bbc-20-01-08-t4001.html
Didn't you read the link I provided in my last post? I ask the question because it seems if you did you have decided to ignore the content.
The man who was approached in Barcelona by a woman didn't report it for two years, which makes your time lapse argument about the Smith sighting null and void imo.
The man who was approached in Barcelona by a woman didn't report it for two years, which makes your time lapse argument about the Smith sighting null and void imo.Was this the so-called fiasco you referred to yesterday?
It is disgraceful that Madeleine was abandoned by the police who had given up on her and her parents were left to their own devices to continue the investigation into her disappearance in the attempt to find her.
Sceptics have always abhorred the fact that Madelaine's parents never gave up on her and continued the search.
Obviously that sceptic resentment continues until the present day. Despite the fact that over fourteen years later the German police are investigating a prime suspect presently in jail for other heinous offences.
Was this the so-called fiasco you referred to yesterday?
Your reasoning is fatally flawed.
Partly. Also;
members of Mr Edgar’s team who had visited Barcelona:
Failed to speak to anyone working at the seafood restaurant near where the agitated woman was seen at 2am.
Failed to ask the port authority about movement of boats around the time Madeleine disappeared.
Failed to ask if the mystery woman had been filmed on CCTV.
Knew nothing about the arrival of an Australian luxury yacht just after Madeleine vanished until told by British journalists, who gave them the captain’s mobile phone number.
Failed to interview anyone at a nearby dockside bar where, according to Mr Edgar, the mystery woman was later seen drinking.
Failed to ask British diplomats in Spain for advice before or during the visit.
Also, Spanish police could not confirm that they had been contacted by the British investigators.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/so-why-did-madeleine-mccann-detectives-ask-so-few--t5733.html
I've been wondering when this was going to come up.
Let's trash The McCann's Private Detectives.
How dare Tom Worden, Martin Delgado and Andrew Chapman do that!! The accusation was not denied by Dave Edgar and Clarence Mitchell, by the way. I reported it here because it's relevant to the debate.
I seem to remember that Tony Bennett had quite a bit to say about it as well.
Did he also think the McCann detectives failed to investigate the Barcelona story?
How dare Tom Worden, Martin Delgado and Andrew Chapman do that!! The accusation was not denied by Dave Edgar and Clarence Mitchell, by the way. I reported it here because it's relevant to the debate.How does it relate to the timeline debate?
How dare Tom Worden, Martin Delgado and Andrew Chapman do that!! The accusation was not denied by Dave Edgar and Clarence Mitchell, by the way. I reported it here because it's relevant to the debate.There is a full rebuttal of the Mail On Sunday's claims (all of which appear to be anecdotal and based on interviews with bar staff and a jewelry designer who lived on a yacht) at the end of the article from Edgar's assistant and Clarence Mitchell.
Jane Tanner's sighting was reported to the first responding police immediately she was able to.
The Smiths reported theirs a fortnight later questioning whether or not they had dreamed it.
Jane Tanner was called a liar by sceptics for many years until Dr Topman confirmed he was carrying his child home from nursery about that time.
The fact that you continue in that vein says a lot more about you than it does about an honest witness who had to live with the thought that she might have been able to stop Madeleine's abduction for as many years as she was traduced by sceptics.
Are you equally scathing of DCI Redwood’s realisation of the importance of the Smith family sighting? The McCanns and their team of PIs knew of the sighting before the London press conference in January 2008 - whilst there was still an on-going Police investigation. They failed to even mention it. This is a man seen carrying a child arund 10pm on Thursday May 3rd. Despite your attempts to down play the reliability of the testimony, reading it in the PJ Files clearly demonstrates there is enough information of interest for this sighting to be further investigated. Amaral was making plans to do so. Mitchell on the other hand doesn’t even mention it in the London press conference. That to me is totally inexplicable. If they believed it was useless, unreliable testimony why is it now on the Find Madeleine website and why does Operation Grange see it as highly important?I’ve already offered an explanation to this which you have ignored (repeatedly).
Are you equally scathing of DCI Redwood’s realisation of the importance of the Smith family sighting? The McCanns and their team of PIs knew of the sighting before the London press conference in January 2008 - whilst there was still an on-going Police investigation. They failed to even mention it. This is a man seen carrying a child arund 10pm on Thursday May 3rd. Despite your attempts to down play the reliability of the testimony, reading it in the PJ Files clearly demonstrates there is enough information of interest for this sighting to be further investigated. Amaral was making plans to do so. Mitchell on the other hand doesn’t even mention it in the London press conference. That to me is totally inexplicable. If they believed it was useless, unreliable testimony why is it now on the Find Madeleine website and why does Operation Grange see it as highly important?
There is a full rebuttal of the Mail On Sunday's claims (all of which appear to be anecdotal and based on interviews with bar staff and a jewelry designer who lived on a yacht) at the end of the article from Edgar's assistant and Clarence Mitchell.
It read more like a string of excuses than a rebuttal to me.Of course it does - to you. But you claimed they never denied the findings of the report and you were wrong.
Of course it does - to you. But you claimed they never denied the findings of the report and you were wrong.
If you expect to receive a reply from me you will amend your unnecessarily aggressive style of posting forthwith.
I’ve already offered an explanation to this which you have ignored (repeatedly).
It is disgraceful that Madeleine was abandoned by the police who had given up on her and her parents were left to their own devices to continue the investigation into her disappearance in the attempt to find her.
Sceptics have always abhorred the fact that Madelaine's parents never gave up on her and continued the search.
Obviously that sceptic resentment continues until the present day. Despite the fact that over fourteen years later the German police are investigating a prime suspect presently in jail for other heinous offences.
I’m pretty sure I responded twice to your explanations.I don’t think you acknowledged my proffered explanation for the reason why the photofits were eventually used. I can’t be arsed to check back though because whatever I say you will reject anyway.
They didn't deny the findings, just gave excuses why they didn't find the info first.in your opinion.
Of course it does - to you. But you claimed they never denied the findings of the report and you were wrong.
Who has claimed to be able to give a precise time? No one ever. One has to use common sense as well and common sense dictates that if the aim was to do checks roughly half an hour apart with the first one at around 9pm that the last check was at "around 10pm" as agreed by the PJ in their report. It's obvious why sceptics refuse to accept 10pm as the time but it has been accepted even by the police department who were trying to build a case against the McCanns.
The curtains that Kate said were open could have been the net curtains under the checked ones, if he left the checked curtains closed it wouldn't have been obvious to whoever was checking on the children that the window was open. If it hadn't been for the fact that the abductor left the door more open than the McCann's had left it, Kate wouldn't have closed it to where they left it and it wouldn't have slammed. If that hadn't happened Kate wouldn't have known Madeleine was missing and it would have given the abductor more time to get away. IMO
They are not being publicised now afaik. But if you mean why were they publicised at all, then I would imagine it was not the McCanns' decision, but The Met's who decided to focus their attention on this particular suspect rather than Tannerman.
Whichever way you look at it the journalists proved better at detecting than the detectives did.Amazing how tabloid journos have suddenly risen in your estimation….
Gerry gave a precise time of 22:03 - I think this was in his second interview but apologies if it is in another one.In my opinion that is likely to be a typo, and imo he almost certainly said 22.00. Was his statement hand written first? *stands by for the scoffing and jeering*
Phew finally found your post!!If you know that the person giving the e-fit thinks you did the crime and has based their e-fit on what they think you look like but you know you didn’t do the crime how much credibility are you going to give that e-fit? Honestly?
The e-fits of Smithman are now on the Find Madeleine website.... you still have to click on Totman / Tannerman first to view them. Surely in January 2008 and in an effort to leave "no stone unturned" you don't ignore a sighting of a man carrying a child around 10pm on Thursday May 3rd? You might believe the descriptions to be slightly inaccurate (but that could be said for all the pictures Clarence Mitchell held up at various times). The sighting was by more than one person. It included a time and some good description of the clothes being worn by both the man and the girl. Inexplicably however it was ignored at the London press conference and beyond.
If you know that the person giving the e-fit thinks you did the crime and has based their e-fit on what they think you look like but you know you didn’t do the crime how much credibility are you going to give that e-fit? Honestly?
Well they give the e-fit enough credibility to now include it on the Find Madeleine website.Oh wrll I gurss they must have done it then, obviously you can’t accept any other explanation.
But leave the e-fit aside then... just tell everyone that the London press conference reached about the other sighting and describe the clothes of the man you want to account for.... Just look at the language used in that press conference..... there's no holding back from making it sound like a Police appeal for information..... it's inexplicable not to mention the sighting. The McCann's are trying to find their daughter> They had vowed to leave no stone unturned.
In my opinion that is likely to be a typo, and imo he almost certainly said 22.00. Was his statement hand written first? *stands by for the scoffing and jeering*
Oh wrll I gurss they must have done it then, obviously you can’t accept any other explanation.
Good night.
Amazing how tabloid journos have suddenly risen in your estimation….
They didn't have to be outstanding to out perform a certain ex detectove sergeant it seems. All it took was opening their mouths and asking questions.Were they asking the right people and did they neglect to include any information in their article thst showed the detectives had made enquiries? Valid questions I’m sure you’d agree. Accept nothing, Believe no one, Confirm everything.
No scoffing and jeering..... you're entitled to your opinion. The 22:03 time is also mentioned in a note at the top of the page. I'm not sure if this is just in the English Translation.... but 22:03 would be an odd typo (especially twice).... though you do see "teh" quite a lot on here!!. Once you've hit that zero key once hitting three by mistake is quite a movement!... But yeah you're entitled to your opinion and it's a reasonable one.Nit-picking IMO. You are surely not suggesting that these people lied about the checks they said they did so there must be another explanation. How about the fact that Madeleine had complained about waking and crying during the night, so when one of the friends went to do a check they stopped by to ensure there was no crying thst night?
Reading all those statements again showed up some other issues of note....
Matt's first and second check seems odd because as a rule they only checked on their own kids.
Matt's second check is not recorded on one of the sticker book timelines
Gerry has David Payne checking inside 5A via the patio doors on the Wednesday.
David Payne is adamant that he never checked on anyone's kids as he had the baby monitor
This then makes Matt's check the only one all week inside someone else's apartment and only the second one where someone else's kids are checked (Matt checks the McCann kids twice on Thursday)
Odd that Thursday doesn't fit the normal pattern of checks - you'd think any lurking abductor who has been watching for days would be totally confused by the sudden change of routine on Thursday!
I’m open to any possibility as long as it fits with the evidence. I’m yet to be convinced about an abduction. I’m yet to be convinced that Eddie and Keela would only give false positive alerts to one particular family and the idea that Grime has deliberately encouraged false alerts is without foundation imo. I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to why Smithman was ignored. I find this inexplicable. I have no idea what happened to Madeleine McCann. I don’t pretend otherwise. I do find it slightly unpleasant how attempts are made to shut down valid questions and debate (that’s not aimed at you VS - you seem to be able to answer points raised without unpleasantness and with a rational, logical approach. I don’t often agree with you but I respect your valid opinion). Having an opinion that differs from the McCann narrative does not necessarily make someone a troll, a trouble maker or a Tony Bennett supporter.Afaiac the evidence points to abduction being by a mile the most likely reason for the disappearance. Then we have the fact that both the Germans and SY agree with me.
If you know that the person giving the e-fit thinks you did the crime and has based their e-fit on what they think you look like but you know you didn’t do the crime how much credibility are you going to give that e-fit? Honestly?
Nit-picking IMO. You are surely not suggesting that these people lied about the checks they said they did so there must be another explanation. How about the fact that Madeleine had complained about waking and crying during the night, so when one of the friends went to do a check they stopped by to ensure there was no crying thst night?
Afaiac the evidence points to abduction being by a mile the most likely reason for the disappearance. Then we have the fact that both the Germans and SY agree with me.
I've given my reasons for doubting and not accepting thr alerts. Agsin both the current investigation teams seem happy to ignore them.
The accuracy of the statements you rely on is in the most questionable.
All you ideas and conclusions are ill founded imo
In Jabuary 2008 the press seemed unaware of Mr Smith's second statement. So the Smith sighting wasn't ignored then because of that.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/irish-family-s-maddie-quiz-the-sun-03-01-08-t2737.html
Nit-picking IMO. You are surely not suggesting that these people lied about the checks they said they did so there must be another explanation. How about the fact that Madeleine had complained about waking and crying during the night, so when one of the friends went to do a check they stopped by to ensure there was no crying thst night?
Imagine that!
If the press knew nothing of Mr Smith's mistaken amendment to his original statement ~ what makes you think the McCanns did until they read all about it in the officially released files?
There were quite a few shocks for people, including Sandra Felguieras who found evidence that she had been lied to when that happened.
I don't think Matthew was aware of Madeleine's complaint. Certainly not when he did his listening check around 9pm.
Imagine that!
If the press knew nothing of Mr Smith's mistaken amendment to his original statement ~ what makes you think the McCanns did until they read all about it in the officially released files?
There were quite a few shocks for people, including Sandra Felguieras who found evidence that she had been lied to when that happened.
I don't think Matthew was aware of Madeleine's complaint. Certainly not when he did his listening check around 9pm.
Nit picking is essential to establish if and when an abduction took place. I don’t think OG called it nit picking but rather a “forensic examination”.I don't think it's necessary to create an "incredibly complicated abduction" because people remembered the position of the bedroom door slightly differently. On the other hand it would be necessary to create a fiendishly complicated narrative of parental involvement IMO, none has ever been put forward that wasn't that, plus also incredibly implausible and illogical, again IMO.
An accusation of lying would centre on intent. It’s probable that people remember things differently.
But coupled with a number of deleted phone call and text logs also for that night it’s easy to see why the PJ might see red flags and pursue a staged abduction theory as opposed to a real abduction. It’s important to note however that the PJ did seriously consider a real abduction and went as far as investigating call logs between two employees at the OC to try to establish suspicious activity. They were not blinkered IMO from the start and if anything they favoured abduction over parental involvement as the central tenet of investigation.
Lying (with intent) is a strong accusation and not one I have made.
Do we discount the different position of the door on account of the wind or do we have an incredibly complicated abduction where the curtains and shutters are opened for no apparent reason????
I don't think Matthew was aware of Madeleine's complaint. Certainly not when he did his listening check around 9pm.Unless you can show evidence that he categorically did not know about the restless McCann children and Madeleine's complaint, I'm afraid you are speculating. No one has recorded everything that was said between the McCanns and their friends in the 24 hours leading up to the disappearance as far as I'm aware.
This then makes his second check bizarre. If Payne is correct it is the only check all week done inside someone else’s apartment. Why the sudden change in the checking procedure? Could it be he went inside to check if Gerry was delayed “watching the footy?”. That Gerry might be taking longer than normal is alluded to in the witness statements, afaiaa.Wouldn't it have been better for the fake abduction plot to have had fewer checks that night rather than more, allowing a greater window of opportunity for a fake abductor to strike?
Wouldn't it have been better for the fake abduction plot to have had fewer checks that night rather than more, allowing a greater window of opportunity for a fake abductor to strike?
Do you think the T9 had any suspicion that leaving small children home alone might be frowned upon? Kate McCann's mother was the first to express her feelings;Can you just answer my question without asking one of your own? If the McCanns were in a state of such desperation that they needed to fake an abduction surely they would want it to appear easier for an abductor to access their kids rather than more difficult? If you think they collectively invented checks to make themselves seem less neglectful that to me points more towards their being an actual abduction rather than the opposite.
She revealed that her first words to the couple in the frantic phone call informing her of Madeleine's disappearance were: 'Where were you?'...'You find yourself over and over again in your head thinking, "Why did they think it would be all right? Why did they think – all of them – it was OK to do this?"'
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/where-were-you-that-night-kate-what-grandmother-said-after-she-was-told-that-madeleine-had-been-snatched-6661215.html
Unless you can show evidence that he categorically did not know about the restless McCann children and Madeleine's complaint, I'm afraid you are speculating. No one has recorded everything that was said between the McCanns and their friends in the 24 hours leading up to the disappearance as far as I'm aware.
Can you just answer my question without asking one of your own? If the McCanns were in a state of such desperation that they needed to fake an abduction surely they would want it to appear easier for an abductor to access their kids rather than more difficult? If you think they collectively invented checks to make themselves seem less neglectful that to me points more towards their being an actual abduction rather than the opposite.
Wouldn't it have been better for the fake abduction plot to have had fewer checks that night rather than more, allowing a greater window of opportunity for a fake abductor to strike?
The 30 minute gap between checks by the McCanns offered ample opportunity for an abduction. The movements of other members of the group, however, lessened those opportunities.So do you believe the movements of the other members of the group actually happened as described by them or not?
Absolutely. I believe some of the testimony has Gerry back before Matt sets off…. Then if you accept that as fact we have another difference to all the other nights! We’ve now started 15 minute interval checks!Totally disagree, I think this is an example of how conspiracy theorists fixate on a minor discrepancy or detail and blow it up out of all proportion to its actual relevance. Have you seen any police force or documentary or news report anywhere in the world examining the supposed relative angles of the open door in various statements as a significant clue? No, and there's a good reason for that IMO. The only people who assign it any significance are people on forums like this. Says it all to me...
It’s the position of the door and the times it’s put back to it’s original position and then the open shutters that leave you looking at an incredibly protracted abduction involving the totally unnecessary opening of the window and shutters.
So do you believe the movements of the other members of the group actually happened as described by them or not?
I try not to form beliefs. I believe they said they happened, because I've read their evidence.But you do form beliefs, you can't help it. You believe something fishy went on and that at the very least the McCanns are covering up for something. Please don't try to insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.
Totally disagree, I think this is an example of how conspiracy theorists fixate on a minor discrepancy or detail and blow it up out of all proportion to its actual relevance. Have you seen any police force or documentary or news report anywhere in the world examining the supposed relative angles of the open door in various statements as a significant clue? No, and there's a good reason for that IMO. The only people who assign it any significance are people on forums like this. Says it all to me...
But you do form beliefs, you can't help it. You believe something fishy went on and that at the very least the McCanns are covering up for something. Please don't try to insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.
Of course “something fishy went on”! A child disappeared from a holiday apartment because she had been left without adult supervision. That in itself is a terrible event.My comment was addressed to G-Unit who believes that the fishiness had nothing whatsoever to do with abduction and everything to do with parental cover up, though she denies having any beliefs at all (which IMO is absolute nonsense).
It’s actually the McCanns who draw significance to the position of the door not me. So what does that tell us?That they see it as evidence that someone had been in the apartment. So you don't see the position of the door as significant now?
That they see it as evidence that someone had been in the apartment. So you don't see the position of the door as significant now?
On topic but a tangential thought - if Kate hadn't been alerted by the slamming door, how long might it have been until Madeleine's absence was noticed ?
It is what it is. Part of their witness testimony and something they held up as evidence of abduction along with the open window. If they are correct then the alleged abduction was quite a protracted affair.
Possibly on the next check whenever that would have been.
But you do form beliefs, you can't help it. You believe something fishy went on and that at the very least the McCanns are covering up for something. Please don't try to insult my intelligence by claiming otherwise.
That they see it as evidence that someone had been in the apartment. So you don't see the position of the door as significant now?
I think you may be overestimating your ability to deduce what other people think and believe. Particularly in this instance.So am I wrong to think you believe the McCanns were not telling the truth about events of that evening? Answer "yes" and I will never bring it up again.
On topic but a tangential thought - if Kate hadn't been alerted by the slamming door, how long might it have been until Madeleine's absence was noticed ?
It is possible that Madeleine's disappearance might not have been noticed until early the next morning.
Were I actually 'staging' anything I think I would have gone for that option rather than running around like a headless chicken on discovering that Madeleine was missing as happened.
There would have been lots of time to arrange the scene ~ maybe even to jemmy the points of entry and exit ~ and as we have seen, there were few people abroad at 4.00am to witness comings and goings.
Obviously a much more sensible time to choose.
It is possible that Madeleine's disappearance might not have been noticed until early the next morning.
Were I actually 'staging' anything I think I would have gone for that option rather than running around like a headless chicken on discovering that Madeleine was missing as happened.
There would have been lots of time to arrange the scene ~ maybe even to jemmy the points of entry and exit ~ and as we have seen, there were few people abroad at 4.00am to witness comings and goings.
Obviously a much more sensible time to choose.
I have always thought the moving door was significant. But nowadays you know why it is significant or you don't want to know why it is significant.
They would have had no alibi if that had been the case. As it was they could claim to be elsewhere, even if the timings were a little vague.
Why on earth would they require an alibi if they were lying as some would have it in a drunken stupor in their beds.
Why on earth would they require an alibi if they were lying as some would have it in a drunken stupor in their beds.
One one would have been able to vouch for them if they were alone and they would have had all night to dispose of Madeleine.
Better for it to happen earlier when their friends were about.
Hypothetically.
So am I wrong to think you believe the McCanns were not telling the truth about events of that evening? Answer "yes" and I will never bring it up again.
I neither believe nor disbelieve the McCanns. I would need more information to reach a conclusion.So you're not sceptical of the McCanns or their version of events? What additional information do you require to form a firm conclusion?
I neither believe nor disbelieve the McCanns. I would need more information to reach a conclusion.Can I ask what's changed for you since you joined the forum and made this post?
I neither believe nor disbelieve the McCanns. I would need more information to reach a conclusion.You have repeatedly said on this forum that you "doubt" the McCanns. What are you doubting exactly?
It is possible that Madeleine's disappearance might not have been noticed until early the next morning.
Were I actually 'staging' anything I think I would have gone for that option rather than running around like a headless chicken on discovering that Madeleine was missing as happened.
There would have been lots of time to arrange the scene ~ maybe even to jemmy the points of entry and exit ~ and as we have seen, there were few people abroad at 4.00am to witness comings and goings.
Obviously a much more sensible time to choose.
Who knows. Any staging is likely to have flaws.When the McCanns were plotting the abduction scam why did they concoct stories with all these supposed anomalies and discrepancies in your view?
If that leaves you believing in an actual abduction then it has to fit the timeline. We have a scenario where an abductor enters before 9pm either through the front door or the patio doors. They enter the children’s bedroom moving the door, then somehow avoid detection by Gerry during his check inside the apartment. They then open the bedroom door again and don’t actually attempt an abduction but hang around for 15 minutes after which they then manage to also avoid detection during Matt’s check inside the apartment. Then they snatch Madeleine out of her bed and instead of leaving by the unlocked door that they initially came in they instead open the curtains and the noisy shutters and perform a nigh impossible feat of escaping without waking any of the kids whilst climbing through a window with a child in their arms! Or If that’s not plausible they open the curtains, windows and shutters for no reason before leaving via one of the doors.
Who knows. Any staging is likely to have flaws.
If that leaves you believing in an actual abduction then it has to fit the timeline. We have a scenario where an abductor enters before 9pm either through the front door or the patio doors. They enter the children’s bedroom moving the door, then somehow avoid detection by Gerry during his check inside the apartment. They then open the bedroom door again and don’t actually attempt an abduction but hang around for 15 minutes after which they then manage to also avoid detection during Matt’s check inside the apartment. Then they snatch Madeleine out of her bed and instead of leaving by the unlocked door that they initially came in they instead open the curtains and the noisy shutters and perform a nigh impossible feat of escaping without waking any of the kids whilst climbing through a window with a child in their arms! Or If that’s not plausible they open the curtains, windows and shutters for no reason before leaving via one of the doors.
Can I ask what's changed for you since you joined the forum and made this post?
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8490.msg224198#msg224198
Their stories changed as has been demonstrated many times. According to Kate McCann her journal enabled her to be precise about events when writing her book.
"After the first couple of days we barely used the front door, coming and going through the patio doors and
up and down the steps."
Except on 3rd May, it seems;
Statement 6th September 2007
About Thursday 3rd May
After breakfast they got dressed and left the apartment by the main door... They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door.
You have no proof that the statement recorded by the translator is accurate
Their stories changed as has been demonstrated many times. According to Kate McCann her journal enabled her to be precise about events when writing her book.My point was more about your giddy excitement applauding Stephen referring to the McCanns' "myths" and changing stories. And yet you say you don't disbelieve them?? This does not compute.
"After the first couple of days we barely used the front door, coming and going through the patio doors and
up and down the steps."
Except on 3rd May, it seems;
Statement 6th September 2007
About Thursday 3rd May
After breakfast they got dressed and left the apartment by the main door... They entered the apartment by the main door, with the key. She does not know if it was locked, and presumes it was Gerry who opened it. At lunch time they also entered by the same door.
Why do you continue to see the window as the exit point
I don't think her Attorney wouldn't have countersigned it if it differed from what the witness said.Thinking something doesnt make it a fact.
I don't think it was. Neither do I see how it can be the entry point.
When the McCanns were plotting the abduction scam why did they concoct stories with all these supposed anomalies and discrepancies in your view?
You have no proof that the statement recorded by the translator is accurate
Hypothetically speaking, if this is one possible scenario and in no way is there any proof of it: They probably didn't have much time to concoct an elaborate story. They stuck to a very simple one. Our daughter has been kidnapped by paedophiles.... someone has broken in through the window and kidnapped her. That's what they first told the Police. That is also what they told friends and family.
However when questioned more closely this simple story quickly fell apart.
Hypothetically speaking, if this is one possible scenario and in no way is there any proof of it: They probably didn't have much time to concoct an elaborate story. They stuck to a very simple one. Our daughter has been kidnapped by paedophiles.... someone has broken in through the window and kidnapped her. That's what they first told the Police. That is also what they told friends and family.Except - it really didn’t otherwise they would have been languishing in prison ever since.
However when questioned more closely this simple story quickly fell apart.
Could be an entry point or opened from the inside to provide a quick exit if needed
How did it fall apart?
It was quickly established that the shuttered window wasn't the entry point. So the story changed to the window being the exit point.
It was quickly established that the shuttered window wasn't the entry point. So the story changed to the window being the exit point.I don’t think anyone has ever claimed to know what went on with the window, not even the McCanns so what are you on about?
Thinking something doesnt make it a fact.
Except - it really didn’t otherwise they would have been languishing in prison ever since.
The story that someone had broken in through the shuttered window fell apart very quickly.It really didn’t, I don’t think anyone can say for certain what did and didn’t happen with the window to this day.
Are they not allowed to have an opinion on the matter then?
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/mccann-family-reverse-story-over-break-in-evidence-26327114.html
Are they not allowed to have an opinion on the matter then?
It was quickly established by whom?
You can cross check it against Kate's account in her book.
The Police and Mark Warner staff. Even Clarence Mitchell conceded that there were no sign of a break in and he reported that the parents believed the shuttered window was used as the exit route and not the point of entry.
As I pointed out the original story fell apart very quickly.
It's evidence though. Where's the evidence supporting your speculations?
Im talking about the statements given in english then translated intto Portuguese
Whatever you believe about signed statements the fact is that the T9 timeline makes the abduction last 50 minutes.... and it either ends with a nigh impossible exit through a window..... or opening a noisy shutter just before an abductor leaves via the door. For some reason slowing themselves down in case they want a quick exit???This is simply nonsense. The abduction does not have to last 50 minutes. It is not impossible to exit through a window. There are other scenarios which you seem determined to ignore.
Whatever you believe about signed statements the fact is that the T9 timeline makes the abduction last 50 minutes.... and it either ends with a nigh impossible exit through a window..... or opening a noisy shutter just before an abductor leaves via the door. For some reason slowing themselves down in case they want a quick exit???
Are you suggesting that The McCanns made this up?
I was making the point to VS that their original account of events was not elaborate. It was very simple. Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile who broke in through the shuttered window. It was quickly established that this was not what happened.
I was making the point to VS that their original account of events was not elaborate. It was very simple. Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile who broke in through the shuttered window. It was quickly established that this was not what happened.No it hasn’t.
Kates statement.. And the fact that translations can often be innaccurate. You speculate they are 100 per cent accurate...it isnt a fact.that they are. You think they are accurate... You believe they are accurate
It hasnt been established as not happening
It was quickly accepted that this did not happen. Even by Clarence Mitchell. It was quickly found that there was no evidence to support the shuttered window being the entry point.
Not true...its totally credible it was the entry point
It was quickly accepted that this did not happen. Even by Clarence Mitchell. It was quickly found that there was no evidence to support the shuttered window being the entry point.
There's a big difference between 'didn't happen' and 'no evidence' for heaven's sake.
So do you in all honesty believe this was the entry point for the abductor? As far as I am aware not even the McCanns think this and certainly not Clarence Mitchell. Aside from the complete absence of evidence it leaves you with the implausible idea that the shutters were closed again during Gerry’s check and Matt’s second check!!
So do you in all honesty believe this was the entry point for the abductor? As far as I am aware not even the McCanns think this and certainly not Clarence Mitchell. Aside from the complete absence of evidence it leaves you with the implausible idea that the shutters were closed again during Gerry’s check and Matt’s second check!!That’s your idea, no one has ever suggested that is what happened.
That’s your idea, no one has ever suggested that is what happened.
That’s your idea, no one has ever suggested that is what happened.
That’s your idea, no one has ever suggested that is what happened.
Patricia Cameron 4th May;Where did she mention all that stuff about the abductor spending 50 minutes in the apartment and closing the shutters after opening them?
“They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.”
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/where-s-our-maddie-the-sun-04-05-07-t2908.html
Patricia Cameron 4th May;
“They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.”
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/where-s-our-maddie-the-sun-04-05-07-t2908.html
Are you being serious?
About what?
We are now into Rebuttal, Again. Constant accusations from Sceptics when in fact no one knows and never has done. Just Opinions stated as Fact.
I can't even be bothered to explain my thoughts anymore. I don't care of what anyone thinks. A child is still missing and The McCanns have still not even been arrested.
My one and only serious thought is, "Thank God that didn't happen to me, or any of my children."
Are you being serious?
Hearsay. And stress at the time. We don't even know what Gerry actually said.
As long as there are evil people about it will happen to someone's child. Which is why when it does happen it is essential the perpetrator is caught.
Other children were sexually assaulted in their beds within the very small confines of the Algarve. Which might have proved inconvenient for the tourist industry of the Algarve so it wasn't unheard of for entry to be made to tourist properties.
And yes - the majority were reported to the police - and if these outrages weren't on the police radar when Madeleine went missing from her bed - they most certainly should have been.
As is shown by Scotland Yard's interest in them when they took up the case.
Unfortunately I think so.
Kate confirmed what they thought in her book.
But it has been such a long time, Brietta. Fourteen years of not knowing what happened to Madeleine.
Not my problem of course. I escaped that one. But it could have happened to me. So on occasions it gets a bit personal.
I am now past The PJ Cock Up. But I can't quite get my head around Brueckner. My mind goes blank. Perhaps too many years of trashing The McCanns.
For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children’s bedroom (madeleine)Where did she mention all that stuff about the abductor spending 50 minutes in the apartment and closing the shutters after opening them as per Billy's facetious scenario?
Could we have a Cite for that please? And then I will be able to evaluate the words.
But did you ever hear such a spurious comment?
Where did she mention all that stuff about the abductor spending 50 minutes in the apartment and closing the shutters after opening them as per Billy's facetious scenario?
In my opinion the whole concept of "revisiting the timeline" has only one one aim and that is to trash the McCanns over events which happened over fourteen years ago.
I've heard so many spurious comments supporting that objective that they tend to sweep right over me now.
It really doesn't matter how often legitimate rebuttals are made to their spurious comments - they will be back shamelessly making exactly the same accusations sometimes veiled sometimes right out in the open in every fora they infect.
Seriously - I think they are on a mission of sorts - and I think they really have problems. Living in groundhog day probably does that to people.
Where did she mention all that stuff about the abductor spending 50 minutes in the apartment and closing the shutters after opening them as per Billy's facetious scenario?
It's based on the T9 and T7 timeline - confirmed in their rogatory interviews:
Times are a rough estimate:
9;05pm - Door to children's bedroom has been opened wider by persons unknown. Shutters down.
9:10pm - Door placed back to how it was left by Gerry McCann. Shutters down. Madeleine in apartment.
9:20pm - Shutters still down. Tanner has spotted a possible abductor with a child that may be Madeleine (Now this person has been accounted for by SY)
9:35 - 9:40pm - Shuuters down, curtains closed, window closed. Bedroom door has been opened wider again by persons unknown..
9:50 - 10:10 - Shutters raised, curtains open, window open. Draught blowing through room. Madeleine definitely not in the apartment.
It's not my scenario. It is the one described by the T9.
Kate McCann thought the 'abductor' may have entered 5A more than once;
He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits. That would explain the movement of the door to the children’s bedroom (madeleine page 141)
There's more than one way to cling to the events of May 2007. Some were very attached to the Jane Tanner sighting and were very reluctant to let it go, despite Operation Grange moving the search on to Smithman in 2013;
April 2016
"Madeleine's father saw her in bed on his last check ... from thereon-in we do not know what may have happened to her.
Whether she was the child described by Jane Tanner or whether she was the child seen by the Smiths is a matter of conjecture.
It is possible she was the child seen by both. We don't know."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2817.msg323943;topicseen#msg323943
Kate McCann thought the 'abductor' may have entered 5A more than once;
He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits. That would explain the movement of the door to the children’s bedroom (madeleine page 141)
Why do you continue to see the window as the exit point
According to Clarence Mitchell that is what the McCann's believed was the exit point. This was described in the media as them reversing their story.
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/mccann-family-reverse-story-over-break-in-evidence-26327114.html (https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/mccann-family-reverse-story-over-break-in-evidence-26327114.html)
THE spokesman for the family of Madeleine McCann has reversed a statement made in the early days of the search for the missing child.
Speaking to RTE's 'Prime Time', Clarence Mitchell said she could "easily" have been kidnapped by an abductor who did not leave the trail of a break-in.
However, in the early part of the hunt, friends and family members told journalists that the shutter on the apartment where the McCanns were staying had been broken.
Mr Mitchell made his comments when questioned by a 'Prime Time' team in a report on the disappearance to be screened tomorrow. "There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell.
It's based on the T9 and T7 timeline - confirmed in their rogatory interviews:Shutters definitely down at 9.20 and 9.35, no room for any doubt in your view?
Times are a rough estimate:
9;05pm - Door to children's bedroom has been opened wider by persons unknown. Shutters down.
9:10pm - Door placed back to how it was left by Gerry McCann. Shutters down. Madeleine in apartment.
9:20pm - Shutters still down. Tanner has spotted a possible abductor with a child that may be Madeleine (Now this person has been accounted for by SY)
9:35 - 9:40pm - Shuuters down, curtains closed, window closed. Bedroom door has been opened wider again by persons unknown..
9:50 - 10:10 - Shutters raised, curtains open, window open. Draught blowing through room. Madeleine definitely not in the apartment.
It's not my scenario. It is the one described by the T9.
Kate McCann thought the 'abductor' may have entered 5A more than once;
He could have been in and out of the apartment more than once between our visits. That would explain the movement of the door to the children’s bedroom (madeleine page 141)
I think if you combine all this with the fact that Gerry scratched his nose when asked if he had killed Maddie... You may well be on to something
You really do not know what investigative avenues Scotland Yard have followed.
You really do not know what evidence has been checked and discarded for good or perhaps to be followed on another day.
You really have no idea what investigative leads have been and continue to be followed.
You really had no idea that Brueckner was in the frame following the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
You really have no idea where appeals to witnesses might have led since we first heard of him.
Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other persons, apart from the suspect, who have concrete knowledge of the course of the crime and maybe also of the place where the body was left. We explicitly ask these persons to contact us and provide information.
Bundeskriminalamt | Öffentlichkeitsfahndung | Juni 2020
Being obsessive using dated and flawed data is the path to nowhere as real investigators have demonstrated as they knit the really important evidence into what might very well prove to be the solution as to what happened to Madeleine.
The real arrogance is that sceptics like you have placed your faith in it - which is fine if it damages only yourselves - but the interference over the years in the active search for Madeleine is unforgivable.
Dating from when the parents were doing it on their own until when the police took it on in 2013 - that's a long time when fora detectives have left no stone unturned to thwart every move to find Madeleine every step of the way.
Time has moved on. The majority of people have moved with it. Only true cultists are stuck in the assumptions of the past.
Brueckner I think fits the profile of what the police should have been investigating since day one. Someone said that it is possible the answer to what happened to Madeleine could very well be recorded in the police files. Was it Edgar who said that? I'm not sure and I'm not looking for it.
But whoever said it - I think they were absolutely spot on - Brueckner's phone number has been in police possession since the beginning.
There has been no rebuttal to Amaral's claim that the police tried to interview him. They must have had a reason for doing that - phone dump info? following through on witness statements? etc..
What a shame they didn't keep digging till they found him at a time when he could have been eliminated or became a person of interest.
Apparently they played a bit of a long game with Murat and then the McCanns ~ why not do the same with a real criminal whose DNA was already in their possession from a heinous crime carried out a hop skip and jump from the McCann apartment.
You really do not know what investigative avenues Scotland Yard have followed.
You really do not know what evidence has been checked and discarded for good or perhaps to be followed on another day.
You really have no idea what investigative leads have been and continue to be followed.
You really had no idea that Brueckner was in the frame following the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.
You really have no idea where appeals to witnesses might have led since we first heard of him.
Furthermore, there is reason to assume that there are other persons, apart from the suspect, who have concrete knowledge of the course of the crime and maybe also of the place where the body was left. We explicitly ask these persons to contact us and provide information.
Bundeskriminalamt | Öffentlichkeitsfahndung | Juni 2020
Being obsessive using dated and flawed data is the path to nowhere as real investigators have demonstrated as they knit the really important evidence into what might very well prove to be the solution as to what happened to Madeleine.
The real arrogance is that sceptics like you have placed your faith in it - which is fine if it damages only yourselves - but the interference over the years in the active search for Madeleine is unforgivable.
Dating from when the parents were doing it on their own until when the police took it on in 2013 - that's a long time when fora detectives have left no stone unturned to thwart every move to find Madeleine every step of the way.
Time has moved on. The majority of people have moved with it. Only true cultists are stuck in the assumptions of the past.
Page 141 madeleine
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10830.msg662064#msg662064
In my opinion the whole concept of "revisiting the timeline" has only one one aim and that is to trash the McCanns over events which happened over fourteen years ago.
I've heard so many spurious comments supporting that objective that they tend to sweep right over me now.
It really doesn't matter how often legitimate rebuttals are made to their spurious comments - they will be back shamelessly making exactly the same accusations sometimes veiled sometimes right out in the open in every fora they infect.
Seriously - I think they are on a mission of sorts - and I think they really have problems. Living in groundhog day probably does that to people.
Shutters definitely down at 9.20 and 9.35, no room for any doubt in your view?
There's always room for some doubt. On the basis of Matt's rogatory statement I believe, like him, that the shutters were down and the curtains drawn at 9:35 - 9:40pm. Put it this way - He certainly didn't see them up... and he did look directly at that window.When he was in doing his check did it cross his mind that the window and/ or shutters needed to be checked, or was it only after the event that he had to interrogate his memory to recall whether or not they were open?
Have people truly moved on from the Tanner sighting? I am aware that Operation Grange abandoned the idea that Madeleine was abducted at 9.15pm (ish) and moved the time on to after 9.30pm (ish).
I don't know and I am tired of saying that The PJ made a mess of it because Amaral needed The McCanns to be guilty.
You see, I have never thought that Amaral is a truly bad man. Just self serving and ignorant. But The World in general has a fair few of those. And I am one of The World's appeasers in balance of that.
Please may I ask which bit of the timeline posted above is based on flawed data (or an assumption) and what evidence do you have to make the claim that the data is flawed?
When he was in doing his check did it cross his mind that the window and/ or shutters needed to be checked, or was it only after the event that he had to interrogate his memory to recall whether or not they were open?
I honestly believe it is fanciful to think he wouldn't have noticed the scene that Kate describes!!! Just read his rogatory statement... he directly describes what he saw when looking towards the window. It's clear the curtains are drawn, the window is closed and the shutters are down (he even describes that the light in the room is coming from behind him - the lamp - and not from street lighting outside.... and no through draught!!But we've seen in other statements in which individuals' recollections of the same scene are widely at variance with each other - such as Jane Tanner's statement re: Gerry and Jez - how do you explain this, assuming you think it is too fanciful to suggest that she wouldn't describe the scene exactly as the two men describe it?
As I pointed out - you are aware of nothing.
Unless the present investigation has included you on their mailing list for 2021 ~ you are aware only of that which they think it is appropriate for members of the public to be aware of now that the leak from the Portuguese side of the investigation has been plugged.
If you are content with amateur translations of only part of the story to harden your opinions on ... that is entirely your privilege.
Pointing out the inherent inadequacies of the files as we know them but not as real investigators do is entirely mine.
As discussed ad nauseam ~ just a reminder ~
Slamming of doors by a drafthttps://www.tec-science.com/mechanics/gases-and-liquids/examples-of-applications-of-the-bernoulli-effect/#Slamming_of_doors_by_a_draft
- The slamming of doors due to a draft, is also due to the Venturi effect.
- The door gap is a constricted cross-section through which the air flows very quickly.
- The air pressure in the gap between the door and the frame drops.
- Around the door leaf, the air usually flows at a much lower speed.
- The higher pressure on the door leaf compared to the air pressure in the gap, therefore slams the door with great force, even if the air stream flows with the opening direction of the door.
What Kate McCann described was the VENTURI EFFECT which is a known scientific phenomenon - even down to her description of "slams with great force" being due to changes in air pressure when she was in the process of closing the door.
Are you aware that in his very first statement, ie: the one given within one day of the event it says:
Which bit of Matt's rogatory interview in the UK are you disputing exactly? No-one can seriously believe the shutters were open during Matt's check.
Are you aware that in his very first statement, ie: the one given within one day of the event it says:
That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open
I watched Crimewatch in 2013 and have no reason to believe that the police lied. They moved on from the Tanner sighting to the Smith sighting and those who still think the Tanner sighting is off any interest are clinging to the past imo.
Yes of course.... but perhaps we can't accept that first statement..... all those translations etc etc etc..... I believe he is telling the truth in his rogatory statement.I believe he is telling his truth in both statements, but events were fresher in his mind on the 4th May and while I accept that there may be translation errors I don’t believe they would be of such a magnitude as to translate a whole paragraph to more or less the complete opposite of what he actually said.
Listen very carefully to what was said. I did.
I believe he is telling his truth in both statements, but events were fresher in his mind on the 4th May and while I accept that there may be translation errors I don’t believe they would be of such a magnitude as to translate a whole paragraph to more or less the complete opposite of what he actually said.
The second statement is clearer, far less vague, when questioned for more detail on the shutters, curtains and window.. He is also clearer in the rogatory statement about where the light is coming from and that the curtains are closed and that there are no draughts through the room. Both statements can't be an accurate description of the objective reality with regards to the light in the room.. I believe he is telling the truth in the second one. That is my honest opinion. Yes, agree it's much much later.... but he will have thought about the details of that check almost every day.
If he had found the scene that Kate described there would be no vagueness at all. It would have been obvious that the window was open and the shutters raised and there was a draught through the room. Even his first statement does not describe this with any degree of certainty... he just "seems to think the light might be coming from outside".
Unlike Tanner, he was being less than helpful - IMO
The second statement is clearer, far less vague, when questioned for more detail on the shutters, curtains and window.. He is also clearer in the rogatory statement about where the light is coming from and that the curtains are closed and that there are no draughts through the room. Both statements can't be an accurate description of the objective reality with regards to the light in the room.. I believe he is telling the truth in the second one. That is my honest opinion. Yes, agree it's much much later.... but he will have thought about the details of that check almost every day.
If he had found the scene that Kate described there would be no vagueness at all. It would have been obvious that the window was open and the shutters raised and there was a draught through the room. Even his first statement does not describe this with any degree of certainty... he just "seems to think the light might be coming from outside".
I honestly believe it is fanciful to think he wouldn't have noticed the scene that Kate describes!!! Just read his rogatory statement... he directly describes what he saw when looking towards the window. It's clear the curtains are drawn, the window is closed and the shutters are down (he even describes that the light in the room is coming from behind him - the lamp - and not from street lighting outside.... and no through draught!!
I believe he is telling his truth in both statements, but events were fresher in his mind on the 4th May and while I accept that there may be translation errors I don’t believe they would be of such a magnitude as to translate a whole paragraph to more or less the complete opposite of what he actually said.
The second statement is clearer, far less vague, when questioned for more detail on the shutters, curtains and window.. He is also clearer in the rogatory statement about where the light is coming from and that the curtains are closed and that there are no draughts through the room. Both statements can't be an accurate description of the objective reality with regards to the light in the room.. I believe he is telling the truth in the second one. That is my honest opinion. Yes, agree it's much much later.... but he will have thought about the details of that check almost every day.You are just picking and choosing what to believe to fit with your prejudices and beliefs I hope you’re aware of that.
If he had found the scene that Kate described there would be no vagueness at all. It would have been obvious that the window was open and the shutters raised and there was a draught through the room. Even his first statement does not describe this with any degree of certainty... he just "seems to think the light might be coming from outside".
I don't understand why anyone would think he was lying. Why would he lie?
You are just picking and choosing what to believe to fit with your prejudices and beliefs I hope you’re aware of that.
You are just picking and choosing what to believe to fit with your prejudices and beliefs I hope you’re aware of that.
I’m applying common sense. If Matt finds the room as Kate described it’s common sense to recognise that he would notice the open window and fully raised shutters.
I’m applying common sense. If Matt finds the room as Kate described it’s common sense to recognise that he would notice the open window and fully raised shutters.No, you’re deciding to disregard completely his first and freshest recollection to suit your own beliefs.
How would he notice the open window and fully raised shutters if the curtains were closed?
There were lace curtains under the checked ones, these are the ones that were open IMO
I re-read Kate’s statements and her book when you mentioned that earlier and I found nothing to suggest she meant the net curtains and not the check ones.
No, your deciding to disregard completely his first and freshest recollection to suit your own beliefs.
That’s priceless when posters have often sought to completely devalue and disregard the earliest statements that relate to how 5A was accessed for Gerry’s check. I bet it’s actually on this thread where someone says the earliest PJ statements are completely worthless!!! Matt is much clearer in his rogatory statement when we can see exactly how he is questioned in English by UK officers. He accounts for where the light is coming from in detail. He drops the “it seemed like” language on the specific questions on the curtains, window and shutters.I have never said the earliest statements are completely worthless, so you must be mistaking me for someone else.
I have never said the earliest statements are completely worthless, so you must be mistaking me for someone else.
That’s priceless when posters have often sought to completely devalue and disregard the earliest statements that relate to how 5A was accessed for Gerry’s check. I bet it’s actually on this thread where someone says the earliest PJ statements are completely worthless!!! Matt is much clearer in his rogatory statement when we can see exactly how he is questioned in English by UK officers. He accounts for where the light is coming from in detail. He drops the “it seemed like” language on the specific questions on the curtains, window and shutters.
I didn’t say you… I said “posters here” and “someone”. It’s perfectly valid to point out that one statement is made when things are fresher in Matt’s mind. However it’s also valid to say his rogatory is clearer when pressed for the specific detail.You mocked my previous post as priceless as if I was somehow contradicting myself, which I wasn’t. Memories evolve and develop over time, you can read up about it. They don’t necessarily become more accurate with the passing of time.
Are you aware that in his very first statement, ie: the one given within one day of the event it says:
That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open
The parents slept in the master bedroom, and the shutters were raised. According to Rachael hr lookrf in there;” At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.”
"he said he did wonder where she slept, erm poked his head, well you know kind of looked into Gerry and Kates room, just saw there was a double bed there,"
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_22.jpg)
” At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the Master' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.”
“but perhaps” and “it seemed”…. all very vague …… he clears this vague points up in his rogatory interview when he is questioned in more detail. His language is much clearer.. The curtains are drawn. There is no draught. The window is closed and he strongly implies the shutter is down. I definitely didn’t see raised shutters he states. Common sense tells us that if he found the scene described by Kate he would have been unequivocal about that fact from the start.Yes he makes it all much neater and tidier a year later, a year in which his memory has had plenty of time to try and make sense of the whole nightmarish event but unfortunately in so doing it does not necessarily make his recall more accurate. Read up on it, it’s fascinating how memories evolve over time.
No she just said the curtains were open. Kate would have noticed if the check curtains were open when she went into the room, she was only alerted to the window open when the curtains blew up with the wind. Then she says the window was open the curtains were open and the blind was open.
Anyway I'll have to resume another time. bye
If the check curtains were closed she wouldn't have known whether the net curtains behind them were open or closed.
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
According to the group timeline it was Kate who opened the curtain (s) and only then realised there was an open window and shutters.
At this point, she notices the curtains blowing forward with a gust of wind. She runs over, pulls open the curtain and notices the shutter was completely raised, and the window pushed open to the left as far as possible.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Can you explain ~ does it reeeeeeeeeeeeally matter 🙄 in the face of the fact that Madeleine was missing from her bed.
To whom?Once Rebelo checked windows and curtains out and Scotland Yard carried out a forensic check on the solid blue coloured ones ~ curtains don't seem to be a priority for anyone other than your good self and other sceptics.
Once Rebelo checked windows and curtains out and Scotland Yard carried out a forensic check on the solid blue coloured ones ~ curtains don't seem to be a priority for anyone other than your good self and other sceptics.
I think the trick is ~ once an inspection has been carried out ~ proper investigators move on to the next step. For some obscure reason they don't seem to be stuck in a time warp of 2007.
The evidence for that being that now in 2021 their priority appears to be their prime suspect- Brueckner.
You seem very keen to make the point that 'proper' investigators 'move on' as time passes. I'm sure they do, but in this case there were two distinct investigations, and the second one didn't continue from where the first one ended.
The first one ended with the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to identify the crime which had been committed. The only fact they were able to identify was that Madeleine McCann disappeared some time after 5.30pm and 10pm.
The second investigation, however, appeared to concentrate solely on the crime of abduction by a stranger. No-one knows how or why they discarded other possible crimes.
So there's a change in the focus of the investigation rather than a smooth progression; there's a gap. Can that be explained as 'moving on' or as an unexplained change of direction?
In my opinion it's an unexplained change of direction and therefore I'm interested in evidence which the first investigation uncovered and which, imo, justifies their conclusion that certain witness testimonies needed clarifying.
You seem very keen to make the point that 'proper' investigators 'move on' as time passes. I'm sure they do, but in this case there were two distinct investigations, and the second one didn't continue from where the first one ended.How many questions about curtains and doors were The McCanns asked during their arguido interviews?
The first one ended with the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to identify the crime which had been committed. The only fact they were able to identify was that Madeleine McCann disappeared some time after 5.30pm and 10pm.
The second investigation, however, appeared to concentrate solely on the crime of abduction by a stranger. No-one knows how or why they discarded other possible crimes.
So there's a change in the focus of the investigation rather than a smooth progression; there's a gap. Can that be explained as 'moving on' or as an unexplained change of direction?
In my opinion it's an unexplained change of direction and therefore I'm interested in evidence which the first investigation uncovered and which, imo, justifies their conclusion that certain witness testimonies needed clarifying.
Its a change in direction because for the first investigation the main evidence against the mccanns were the alerts... Which are not evidence. The initial investigation also misunderstood the forensics.... Hence a difference path taken by a police force who understood both
How many questions about curtains and doors were The McCanns asked during their arguido interviews?
How many questions about curtains and doors were The McCanns asked during their arguido interviews?
Thank you for your opinion of why the second investigation changed direction by concentrating only on the hypothesis of stranger abduction. Only when and if they explain it themselves will your opinion be proved right or wrong. Until then it remains unexplained imo.
Kate McCann was asked to elaborate;
On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
https://thetab.com/uk/2019/03/15/48-questions-kate-mccann-95757
Her answer, I believe, was 'No comment'.
Kate McCann was asked to elaborate;So no questions specifically about door angles or check curtains? How about Gerry?
On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
https://thetab.com/uk/2019/03/15/48-questions-kate-mccann-95757
Her answer, I believe, was 'No comment'.
So no questions specifically about door angles or check curtains? How about Gerry?
I guess more detailed questions could have followed that general one had it been answered. If the reconstitution had happened a decision would have had to be made before Kate entered 5A at 10pm. Curtains open as in her first statement or opened by her as in the group statement?
None of this would have helped find what had happened to Maddie... The PJ
were simply looking for a reason to arrest the mccanns... Same goes for the recon
If the check curtains were closed she wouldn't have known whether the net curtains behind them were open or closed.
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
According to the group timeline it was Kate who opened the curtain (s) and only then realised there was an open window and shutters.
At this point, she notices the curtains blowing forward with a gust of wind. She runs over, pulls open the curtain and notices the shutter was completely raised, and the window pushed open to the left as far as possible.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
No she wouldn't have and neither would Matt. As I said when Kate says the curtains were open she was talking about the lace curtains underneath the checked ones. She pulled the check curtains open to find the net curtains open the shutters pulled up and the window open. IMO
I guess more detailed questions could have followed that general one had it been answered. If the reconstitution had happened a decision would have had to be made before Kate entered 5A at 10pm. Curtains open as in her first statement or opened by her as in the group statement?Who would have made that decision and based on what and what would it have proven either way?
I guess more detailed questions could have followed that general one had it been answered. If the reconstitution had happened a decision would have had to be made before Kate entered 5A at 10pm. Curtains open as in her first statement or opened by her as in the group statement?
Thank you for your opinion.
I simply cannot believe that people are still so limited that we are discussing forty eight questions and a botched investigation that failed Madeleine McCann from start to finish which failed included the inability even to categorise the crime committed against her.
Particularly sad considering the direction the German investigation has taken which leaves little room to doubt.
You mocked my previous post as priceless as if I was somehow contradicting myself, which I wasn’t. Memories evolve and develop over time, you can read up about it. They don’t necessarily become more accurate with the passing of time.
Where it could be reasonably argued that the PJ investigation was "botched" and "failed Madeleine" is it miserably failed to "clear the ground" of the possibility of parental involvement which statistically is more common than rare stranger abduction. The inconsistencies in the T9 timelines, the lack of evidence of a break in, the statements of Starikova Vitorino & Joaquim Baptista and the Smith sighting should all have been rigorously pursued and discrepancies accounted for or investigated with total focus. The problem wasn't that the PJ set out to blame the parents but was actually the opposite... they didn't eliminate them straight away (as would be normal practice in the UK) because they initially prioritised looking at an abduction scenario, imo.
I agree. We know they didn't clear the ground because British police officers have told us so. What we don't know is why.
I agree. We know they didn't clear the ground because British police officers have told us so. What we don't know is why.
That really is an absolutely weird assumption to make and I think a rather insulting one.
Not me, m'lud, Jim Gamble;Despite that Jim Gamble appears always to be quite certain the parents were not involved.
"And that was one of the huge flaws in this – people didn't focus on clearing the ground beneath their feet in those chaotic first few hours that led into the haphazard first few weeks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/01/british-police-competition-harmed-madeleine-mccann-investigation-home-office-report
Despite that Jim Gamble appears always to be quite certain the parents were not involved.
Not me, m'lud, Jim Gamble;
"And that was one of the huge flaws in this – people didn't focus on clearing the ground beneath their feet in those chaotic first few hours that led into the haphazard first few weeks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/01/british-police-competition-harmed-madeleine-mccann-investigation-home-office-report
Your cite is really a rather strange one particularly as it refers to relationships in the early stages of the Portuguese investigation.
Please explain - because I really don't have a clue what you are on about.
Gamble explained that the Portuguese police's initial response to the case was chaotic and haphazard. He said this was "alien to the more structured police you would expect here in the UK. There was not a sense of order".
"In the first instance, the parents should be your number one suspects," he told Sky.
"In most cases, in the first few golden hours, as you collect evidence, you can then rule them in or out.
"And that was one of the huge flaws in this – people didn't focus on clearing the ground beneath their feet in those chaotic first few hours that led into the haphazard first few weeks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/01/british-police-competition-harmed-madeleine-mccann-investigation-home-office-report
He reached that conclusion eventually, yes.But he is now, and that’s what counts.
"So of course the first people you suspect are the parents, because they are there, they are in proximity, it is their child.
"Did I believe at the beginning that the parents could possibly have done it? Yes. As time went on, did I see evidence that supported that hypothesis? No, I did not."
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-jim-gamble-gerry-kate-nothing-to-do-daughter-disappearance-maddie-podcast/e0b090ea-e44f-4172-9820-41cdde075377
Gamble suggested a blog post for Gerry McCann to make;
He said: "If you have done something you regret, if you find yourself in a situation you never intended, it is not too late to do the right thing."
Jim, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, said he had suggested the wording as a way to suss out if Gerry knew more than he was letting on.
He said: "In shaping that, I was actually talking to Gerry.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4055161/madeleine-mccann-dad-gerry-investigator-messages-disappearance-netflix/
That blog post was posted on 28th August 2007, so Gamble was still not convinced of the McCann's innocence four months after Madeleine's disappearance, it seems.
But he is now, and that’s what counts.
Particularly as he was instrumental in "clearing the ground beneath the feet" for Scotland Yard who were then able to advise the Home Secretary that there was sufficient evidence to open Madeleine's case.
You have no evidence on which to base the bolded opinion.
Well obviously if the checked curtains were closed and Kate was only alerted to them when they blew up, the only curtains which were open were the lace ones underneath IMO
Have you any evidence that shows that Kate said the checked curtains were open?
Have you any evidence that Kate called nets 'curtains'? I don't. Curtains are the main curtains at a window. Net curtains or 'nets' are an additional extra and are usually indentified in speech.
Which window coverings do you think she meant here?
"As they left by the veranda door, this door remained closed but not locked, as this is only possible from the inside. The curtains were closed."
"Veranda window closed but not locked, curtains closed. "
"The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
They are all curtains as far as I'm concerned.
So when someone says they have new curtains you don't know if they have purchased opaque curtains which are usually closed after dark or transparent net curtains which usually remain 'closed' all the time? You have to ask? OK....What's Portuguese for net curtains?
What's Portuguese for net curtains?
We were discussing this on the Wandering Off thread but it's more relevant here.Svetlana made two statements apparently ~ and I think it might be pertinent to consider both
Going back to clearing the ground from under the feet of the parents and in relation to the timeline we have two Tapas Bar employees who talk about someone (possibly, they state, Gerry) who is away from the table for 30 minutes:
SVETLANA
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm (https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm)
It's also worth considering this alongside Mr Carpenter's statement:
"Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment,........................ My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm)
We were discussing this on the Wandering Off thread but it's more relevant here.OK, now make that fit into a workable scenario of parental involvement , remembering it must also match with Jes Wilkins statement.
Going back to clearing the ground from under the feet of the parents and in relation to the timeline we have two Tapas Bar employees who talk about someone (possibly, they state, Gerry) who is away from the table for 30 minutes:
SVETLANA
------- STARIKOVA VITORINO (Russian citizen, with the telephone No "96635 ####) - kitchen assistant:
- Said that, yesterday, one individual, purportedly the father of the missing, left the dinner table where a group of friends (in number 8 or 9), for about 30 minutes. After having returned, a woman whom she believed to be his wife, also left the table, there having passed a few moments, all the guests left the table in question, except one elderly lady, who told her [Svetlana's] colleagues that that child had disappeared.
JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm (https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm)
It's also worth considering this alongside Mr Carpenter's statement:
"Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment,........................ My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm)
OK, now make that fit into a workable scenario of parental involvement , remembering it must also match with Jes Wilkins statement.
Jes Wilkins met up with Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm. He never ever confirmed the time given by Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann for the meeting.Can you now assign some common sense to your observations and work out when Gerry discovered the body and what he did next and when? No, that’s right, you can’t.
If Svetlana was correct, Gerry left the table for 30 minutes and his wife immediately after he returned. We are now at approx. 10pm. So Gerry left the table at approx. 9.30pm therefore, after Russell returned and had his meal reheated. (Joaquim)
Ricardo, who took the group's orders, agreed with the sticker book timeline; the group were all present at 8.45pm and that's when they ordered their food. The main course was typically served 25-30 minutes later. That means 9.15pm, and Russell was absent at that time.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Steve Carpenter agreed that the group were all present earlier rather than later;
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
This alternative timeline allows Gerry to check around 9.05 and meet with Jes. It also allows for Jane to relieve Russell after eating her meal, but at 9.25-30pm rather than 9.40-45pm.
Can you now assign some common sense to your observations and work out when Gerry discovered the body and what he did next and when? No, that’s right, you can’t.
Please all feel free to make it up as you go along.
This is making thing up imo;
when Kate says the curtains were open she was talking about the lace curtains underneath the checked ones. She pulled the check curtains open to find the net curtains open the shutters pulled up and the window open. IMO
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10830.msg662293#msg662293
That's nothing but an opinion, as acknowleged. The statement is based on absolutely no evidence.
The 'alternative timeline' may be wrong, but it is based on evidence which can be found in the PJ files.
Can you now assign some common sense to your observations and work out when Gerry discovered the body and what he did next and when? No, that’s right, you can’t.
Jes Wilkins met up with Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm. He never ever confirmed the time given by Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann for the meeting.
If Svetlana was correct, Gerry left the table for 30 minutes and his wife immediately after he returned. We are now at approx. 10pm. So Gerry left the table at approx. 9.30pm therefore, after Russell returned and had his meal reheated. (Joaquim)
Ricardo, who took the group's orders, agreed with the sticker book timeline; the group were all present at 8.45pm and that's when they ordered their food. The main course was typically served 25-30 minutes later. That means 9.15pm, and Russell was absent at that time.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Steve Carpenter agreed that the group were all present earlier rather than later;
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
This alternative timeline allows Gerry to check around 9.05 and meet with Jes. It also allows for Jane to relieve Russell after eating her meal, but at 9.25-30pm rather than 9.40-45pm.
I have never claimed that Gerry McCann discovered a body that evening. I do claim that the timeline was never properly verified and this thread, imo, demonstrates that certain aspects of it are open to question.No, you have never claimed Gerry discovered a body because IMO you know it would be impossible to make such a claim stick based on any of the timelines you choose to follow.
I have never claimed that Gerry McCann discovered a body that evening. I do claim that the timeline was never properly verified and this thread, imo, demonstrates that certain aspects of it are open to question.
Jes Wilkins met up with Gerry between 8.45 and 9.15pm. He never ever confirmed the time given by Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann for the meeting.
If Svetlana was correct, Gerry left the table for 30 minutes and his wife immediately after he returned. We are now at approx. 10pm. So Gerry left the table at approx. 9.30pm therefore, after Russell returned and had his meal reheated. (Joaquim)
Ricardo, who took the group's orders, agreed with the sticker book timeline; the group were all present at 8.45pm and that's when they ordered their food. The main course was typically served 25-30 minutes later. That means 9.15pm, and Russell was absent at that time.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Steve Carpenter agreed that the group were all present earlier rather than later;
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
This alternative timeline allows Gerry to check around 9.05 and meet with Jes. It also allows for Jane to relieve Russell after eating her meal, but at 9.25-30pm rather than 9.40-45pm.
This is making thing up imo;
when Kate says the curtains were open she was talking about the lace curtains underneath the checked ones. She pulled the check curtains open to find the net curtains open the shutters pulled up and the window open. IMO
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10830.msg662293#msg662293
That's nothing but an opinion, as acknowleged. The statement is based on absolutely no evidence.
The 'alternative timeline' may be wrong, but it is based on evidence which can be found in the PJ files.
Instead of posting the vague recollections of other people, why don't you read and listen to the waiter who actually served them?
I would say that could probably be a truism. I don't think you can claim anything else with certainty about the supposed verification of the timeline or even what qualifies your assumptions about it.
We know for a fact that DCI Redwood took a great deal of interest in it which enabled him to reach certain conclusions.
Then again he had the assistance of professionally translated files which if fed into HOLMES probably allowed him accurate data to work from.
In my opinion the data on which you have built your obviously entrenched opinions is fatally flawed. So if you are working from rubbish it is only to be expected rubbish will be spewed out.
The really sad thing as far as you are concerned is I think, your inability to recognise that.
This one?
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Or this one?
On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
DCI Redwood took years to rule out Totman when in fact we know, from his wife, that he had come forward in the early days of the PJ investigation!!!
It was about five to ten or ten o'clock when the alarm was raised, I don't know why it is argued it was earlier. The statements of the nannies and others say they received the call that a child was missing later than ten o'clock so why the argument?In order to accomodate Gerry as Smithman presumably.
From Dianne Websters statement -
- Prompted to report the events that had unfolded in period between 19H00 and 22H40 of that day, the deponent states that around 19:00 she had gone together with the Payne couple and their children to the apartment in order to prepare them for bed. Then, as usual, the adults prepared themselves for dinner. In this matter, she recalled that they had been late with these preparations because they only managed to get to Restaurant around 21.00.
So they arrived at nine o'clock, they would then order starters. Gerry must have left the table before his starter arrived then came back ate his starter then they ordered dinner.
So because Dianne Webster said 9pm, the waiter, Steve Carpenter and, initially, Russell O'Brien were all wrong?
They ordered starters and mains at the same time, I thought. The orders were given to Ricardo at around 8.45pm;
When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters.
He states that on that night, after having received the orders, he went into the bar...The appetiser/starters were served by one of his colleagues. After 25 to 30 minutes, it was the witness who served the main dishes.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm#p11p2941
Doesn't it occur to you that investigators do not rely on any one witness statement. They refer to them all and collate the information to see the bigger picture.
The police are privy to many more witness statements and intelligence than we have ever seen and are therefore capable of making evaluations it is risible for you to attempt.
For example Mrs Carpenter isn't the only person to have given a statement which does not appear in the files and she was actually present in the restaurant and in the street at very relevant times. But we don't know what she said.
So because Dianne Webster said 9pm, the waiter, Steve Carpenter and, initially, Russell O'Brien were all wrong?So you have amply proven that everyone remembers events from that evening slightly differently, specifically with regard to the precise time of events. Now what?
They ordered starters and mains at the same time, I thought. The orders were given to Ricardo at around 8.45pm;
When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters.
He states that on that night, after having received the orders, he went into the bar...The appetiser/starters were served by one of his colleagues. After 25 to 30 minutes, it was the witness who served the main dishes.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm#p11p2941
So because Dianne Webster said 9pm, the waiter, Steve Carpenter and, initially, Russell O'Brien were all wrong?
They ordered starters and mains at the same time, I thought. The orders were given to Ricardo at around 8.45pm;
When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters.
He states that on that night, after having received the orders, he went into the bar...The appetiser/starters were served by one of his colleagues. After 25 to 30 minutes, it was the witness who served the main dishes.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm#p11p2941
Doesn't it occur to you that investigators do not rely on any one witness statement. They refer to them all and collate the information to see the bigger picture.
The police are privy to many more witness statements and intelligence than we have ever seen and are therefore capable of making evaluations it is risible for you to attempt.
For example Mrs Carpenter isn't the only person to have given a statement which does not appear in the files and she was actually present in the restaurant and in the street at very relevant times. But we don't know what she said.
You are quite correct. The first statements of Neil Berry and Raj Balu don't appear in the files either. Analyst 7792 Eaton of Operation Task seems to have read them though;
Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
So coincidentally the statements of three people who allegedly heard Madeleine's name being called that night are unavailable. Allegedly one of those witnesses heard that before 10pm.
You are quite correct. The first statements of Neil Berry and Raj Balu don't appear in the files either. Analyst 7792 Eaton of Operation Task seems to have read them though;
Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
So coincidentally the statements of three people who allegedly heard Madeleine's name being called that night are unavailable. Allegedly one of those witnesses heard that before 10pm.
You are quite correct. The first statements of Neil Berry and Raj Balu don't appear in the files either. Analyst 7792 Eaton of Operation Task seems to have read them though;Gerry was calling out for his missing daughter?? I thought he was too busy elsewhere dumping her in a bin, or was he calling out her name whilst carrying her body through PdL?
Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
So coincidentally the statements of three people who allegedly heard Madeleine's name being called that night are unavailable. Allegedly one of those witnesses heard that before 10pm.
Did you notice Ricardo said that the guest [the one whose steak was served]. came back around 9.45? ABOUT 9.45 so he starts to eat his meal and then Kate comes back. About the same as what Dianne Webster said in her statement.
So according to Ricardo on 3rd it took 45 minutes from taking the order to serving the main courses, rather than the usual 30 minutes. Also, he states that the table was empty 'a few minutes' after 9.45pm. To whom then, did he serve the freshly cooked meal which Dianne Webster said was cooked for Russell?Please tell us what is the point of flitting from discrepancy to discrepancy in the statements without attempting to draw any conclusions from them?
Please tell us what is the point of flitting from discrepancy to discrepancy in the statements without attempting to draw any conclusions from them?
So according to Ricardo on 3rd it took 45 minutes from taking the order to serving the main courses, rather than the usual 30 minutes. Also, he states that the table was empty 'a few minutes' after 9.45pm. To whom then, did he serve the freshly cooked meal which Dianne Webster said was cooked for Russell?
Strangely this was also the reckoning of the PJ, but that just ain’t good enough for the sceptics because they know it can only mean one thing: Gerry was not Smithman.
The waiter observed all plates were empty apart from one which had a partly eater steak. You can go around in circles if you want, but my reckoning is the alert was raised about 10ish.
Strangely this was also the reckoning of the PJ, but that just ain’t good enough for the sceptics because they know it can only mean one thing: Gerry was not Smithman.
Everyone emphasises that the alarm was raised at 10pm, by Kate, calling to Gerry. Does anyone testify that Gerry was seated at the table between 9.30pm and 9.55pm, or must we assume he's there even though his last reported words are at 9.30pm?
It's all beautifully vague. I wonder if anyone was asked that specific question.
It's all beautifully vague. I wonder if anyone was asked that specific question.
Ah well, that's your problem not mine. ?{)(**
Everyone emphasises that the alarm was raised at 10pm, by Kate, calling to Gerry. Does anyone testify that Gerry was seated at the table between 9.30pm and 9.55pm, or must we assume he's there even though his last reported words are at 9.30pm?Yes I really think we must unless you think they all neglected to mention that shortly after he returned from his first check that he left the table again for another 25 minutes, making him absent for pretty much the entire evening!!
What is beautifully vague is the sceptic idea of parental involvement. They don't know how, when or why they dunnit, only that they did!
It's all beautifully vague. I wonder if anyone was asked that specific question.
Did you miss the fact that Dr. Totman would have been walking in the wrong direction?
I have no desire to trash DCI Redwood, but he doesn't seem to have known very much about the layout of Praia da Luz or where The Creche actually was in relation to the appartment of Dr. Totman.
What is beautifully vague is the sceptic idea of parental involvement. They don't know how, when or why they dunnit, only that they did!
The problem here is that most ordinary people despite not being stupid do not realise what is relevant and what isn't. But presuming that they might have an inkling they then just chuck in any old thing to deflect from what is relevant.
7) what sort of absolute idiot murderer raises the alarm and then immediately puts themselves in close proximity to their victim’s body by parading it through the streets?
I don't believe Madeleine was murdered.... but have you ever watched Quest Red - Caught on CCTV.... you'd be surprised at the audacity!! Smithman, whoever he was, walked hurriedly with his head down carrying a child that could have been sleeping or appeared to be. After all PDL is known for men in biege trousers carrying children about at night!! There was two on trhe night in question!! Also "paraded" is a very poor choice of word. It does not accurately describe the actions of Smithman.”Paraded” suggests audacity, a word you yourself use to describe such actions. I will continue to use “paraded” as a word to describe the alleged audacious actions of a man who carries the uncovered corpse of his daughter through town, having just raised the alarm about her disappearance.
You forgot to mention the abductor opening the children's bedroom twice between 8:30 and 9:40pm.... and evading being caught during two checks, and only opening the shutters after 9:40pm.. And inexplicably opening the shutters but not the curtains according to opinion here.. The accomplice on the other side must have been well annoyed having to wait 45 minutes to an hour after the first abductor went inside! Where did the accomplice wait all that time? Why did no-one on the checks see them? How did they know to be the other side of the window at precisely the correct time? It's not plausible or logical either imo. No wonder SY haven't found this abductor and their accomplice.I think you are clinging on to a few inches of door movement as remembered by different individuals to cast ridicule on the notion of an abductor. It’s a red herring imo that can be explained as movement caused by a draught when entering the apartment during checks.
Yet when Eddie sets foot in the entrance to 5A his behaviour changes immediately.
”Paraded” suggests audacity, a word you yourself use to describe such actions. I will continue to use “paraded” as a word to describe the alleged audacious actions of a man who carries the uncovered corpse of his daughter through town, having just raised the alarm about her disappearance.
I think you are clinging on to a few inches of door movement as remembered by different individuals to cast ridicule on the notion of an abductor. It’s a red herring imo that can be explained as movement caused by a draught when entering the apartment during checks.
The same applies to your abductor... The man DCI Redwood needs help from the public to identify!! The man it took DCI Redwood six years to realise the significance of!! Your abductor walked through the streets with a sleeping or dead child.... far less audacious for a parent to carry their own child imo.... who would bat an eye lid at a dad carrying his sleeping child?You’re forgetting the fact that the father would in theory be easily identifiable by dint of the fact that he was the father of the missing girl. An abductor with hitherto no connection to the child not so much. In any case I don’t think Smithman was the abductor.
A red herring that is brought up by Gerry, Kate and Matt imo. It's used to cement an abductor entering a child's bedroom. They say so themselves!! I'd like to offer another explanation it is possible Madeloeine woke and opened the door to look for her missing parents.... you can't refuse to believe that scenario is a very real possibility. Madeleine was known to wake and wonder. She'd been left without adult supervision in a holiday apartment. How frightening might that have been for her? Not to mention a situation fraught with risk imo as events later demonstrated.I really don’t think it’s likely if she was left fast asleep at 8.30pm. In my experience young children who are very tired in the evening rarely wake up in the first few hours after bedtime as they are in deep sleep. Wakefulness usually comes later in the night imo.
You’re forgetting the fact that the father would in theory be easily identifiable by dint of the fact that he was the father of the missing girl. An abductor with hitherto no connection to the child not so much. In any case I don’t think Smithman was the abductor.
I’ve not forgotten that . I believe he was indeed identified by Mr Smith.
I’ve not forgotten that . I believe he was indeed identified by Mr Smith.Had Gerry not appeared all over thr media following the disappearance would Smith have been able to make his 60%-80% id assessment?
Had Gerry not appeared all over thr media following the disappearance would Smith have been able to make his 60%-80% id assessment?
Had Gerry not appeared all over thr media following the disappearance would Smith have been able to make his 60%-80% id assessment?
No he wasn't. Would you please stop doing this. Otherwise I am going to get cross.
Gerry McCann was identified by Martin Smith, so there's no point in denying it;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
60 to 80% sure when he didn't even see Smithman's face. Are you kidding me? This is ridiculous and you are encouraging Libel.
I'm quoting a fact, which is that Martin Smith said that. It's no more libellous than this is;
Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
I shall be deleting any further comments that do not mention the percentages that Martin Smith quoted and the fact that he didn't see Smithman's face.
No he wasn't. Would you please stop doing this. Otherwise I am going to get cross.
I'm quoting a fact, which is that Martin Smith said that. It's no more libellous than this is;
Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
I said “I believe” clearly indicating this is my opinion. You don’t need to get cross. It’s OK for people to hold different beliefs. Thanks El.
You’re forgetting the fact that the father would in theory be easily identifiable by dint of the fact that he was the father of the missing girl. An abductor with hitherto no connection to the child not so much. In any case I don’t think Smithman was the abductor.
”Paraded” suggests audacity, a word you yourself use to describe such actions. I will continue to use “paraded” as a word to describe the alleged audacious actions of a man who carries the uncovered corpse of his daughter through town, having just raised the alarm about her disappearance.
So more reason for an abductor not to walk through the streets. IMO if CB was the abductor he would have driven away from the car park outside the window. A father carrying a sleeping kid at that time doesn’t look that suspicious . If this was a man carrying Madeleine he hardly took the best route to “parade” her anyway. So much for this parade - it seems like only one group saw him walk briskly by with his head down.I neither think the abductor paraded his quarry through the streets nor do I think the child’s father carried her body though the streets either.
Where did you read “uncovered corpse”? The Smith’s who gave statements all said the girl had pyjamas on and appeared to be sleeping.Uncovered, as in not in a blue sports bag, foe example.
I neither think the abductor paraded his quarry through the streets nor do I think the child’s father carried her body though the streets either.
An opinion you’re quite entitled to. Was DCI Redwood barking up the wrong tree?
It is not acceptable to distort the facts. End of.
I have not distorted any facts. I stated my opinion which I am entitled to do. I believe the revelation that Mr Smith experienced and how it left him feeling, as described on public record by UK Police sums up perfectly how the human brain works when it comes to 60-80% sure recognition. You might not agree with my opinion but it is not libellous to say I find Martin Smith's words credible and honest. He was 60-80% sure the man he saw was Gerry McCann. So it was obviously so wrong and it was so easy to prove it, then why didn't Mitchell want to know who Smithman was? Why no mention of him at the London press conference? This was a man seen carrying a child similar in appearance to Madeleine at 10pm. It's essential to rule him out.... but instead not a word!!
One could infer from that, that you think OG to be of the same, strange considering Redwood said the child being carried matched a description close to that of Madeleine ,the only one that night.
And of course, Mr. Smith's 60 to 80% sure would have been laughed out of Court should it ever have gone that far. But then The PJ aren't completely stupid, much as they sometimes appeared to be so, which is why they didn't pursue this particular facet of the investigation.
An opinion you’re quite entitled to. Was DCI Redwood barking up the wrong tree?I think he was right to try and find this man so he could either be eliminated or implicated.
Uncovered, as in not in a blue sports bag, foe example.
The one that David Payne said you "couldn't hide a tennis raquet in" by any chance?yep that’s the one that many sceptics have claimed was missing…
1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them''
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that, it would have been just purely, if they had anything''
I have not distorted any facts. I stated my opinion which I am entitled to do. I believe the revelation that Mr Smith experienced and how it left him feeling, as described on public record by UK Police sums up perfectly how the human brain works when it comes to 60-80% sure recognition. You might not agree with my opinion but it is not libellous to say I find Martin Smith's words credible and honest. He was 60-80% sure the man he saw was Gerry McCann. So it was obviously so wrong and it was so easy to prove it, then why didn't Mitchell want to know who Smithman was? Why no mention of him at the London press conference? This was a man seen carrying a child similar in appearance to Madeleine at 10pm. It's essential to rule him out.... but instead not a word!!
yep that’s the one that many sceptics have claimed was missing…
One could infer from that, that you think OG to be of the same, strange considering Redwood said the child being carried matched a description close to that of Madeleine ,the only one that night.
FGS he recognised the way Gerry carried Sean off the plane the way he put his head down. Millions of men carry their child off the plane like that and put their head down to see where they are going. Amaral just wanted anything to pin it on Gerry it's disgusting.
My thought too. This is the way most people carry sleeping children. Nothing strange about that.
It was Martin Smith who said who he thought he saw (with 60-80% certainty) not Amaral.
Did I mention Amaral?
Lace did, and you said "my thoughts too".
Thank you for interpreting My Thoughts. You are wrong on this one, of course.
So you didn't think Amaral just wanted to pin it on Gerry?
I'm not sure what that means but DCI Redwood didn't seem to know where the night creche was in relation to Dr. Totman's appartment.
But some of us have been doing this for a very long time, while I'm not sure if DCI Redwood was ever in Praia Da Luz.
That some how makes you superior, don't answer, its obvious from your post's you think you're better than a DCI, Now if you were to think yourself better than that Dick(Cressida), you'd have my support.
That wouldn't be difficult, would it.
I'm not sure what that means but DCI Redwood didn't seem to know where the night creche was in relation to Dr. Totman's appartment.
But some of us have been doing this for a very long time, while I'm not sure if DCI Redwood was ever in Praia Da Luz.
That's because Grange has never been anything other than an expensive charade - IMO
That's because Grange has never been anything other than an expensive charade - IMOTo whose benefit?
To whose benefit?
Obviously not The Police. They were going to get paid anyway. Just from a different source. So nothing actually wasted.
Nothing ventured nothing gained, but the only gain was, according to Rowley, a better understanding of the events that night.
I'm not sure what that means but DCI Redwood didn't seem to know where the night creche was in relation to Dr. Totman's appartment.
But some of us have been doing this for a very long time, while I'm not sure if DCI Redwood was ever in Praia Da Luz.
Lace did, and you said "my thoughts too".
The Truth of the Lie Chapter 20
This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance. It's as if the scene is repeating itself ....Mr Smith thinking he's hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt. Upset by the implications of this discovery, he alerts the police and waits to be called back by those in charge of the investigation.
So, Amaral says Mr Smith is sure the man he saw was Gerald McCann, of that there is very little doubt.
So you see why I think Amaral wanted everyone to think it was Gerry?
Someone should have noticed the anomaly, but they didn't. I don't know if it was DCI Redwood's job to know about the geography of the site, but it was part of Operation Grange's job.
Someone should have noticed the anomaly, but they didn't. I don't know if it was DCI Redwood's job to know about the geography of the site, but it was part of Operation Grange's job.
Mr McCluskey reported the exact same incident before Mr Smith did and almost word for word. Yet he didn't get a mention.
Ex-DCI Redwood was very clever with his use of words imo. Whatever evidence was uncovered after speaking to the Totmans allowed Redwood to say that the clock could be moved forward to other events.
Something to ponder:-
The long-sleeved clothing + bare feet link the Totmans (or Tannerman) to the Smith sighting. Murat was linked to both sightings but for different reasons.
Who, other than the Totmans themselves, knew that their daughter was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas when she was being carried back to the family apartment?
Someone should have noticed the anomaly, but they didn't. I don't know if it was DCI Redwood's job to know about the geography of the site, but it was part of Operation Grange's job.
I'm quite sure it was noticed, reported and ignored in order to move the narrative on. Hence my opinion of it all being a charade.To whose benefit?
I'm quite sure it was noticed, reported and ignored in order to move the narrative on. Hence my opinion of it all being a charade.
Perhaps the range of public knowledge about the case was underestimated, or there was a need for an eye catching revelation or the efits were seen as so important that they had to be included. Maybe all of the above.99.99% of the public don't have a clue where the creche was in relation to the OC. IMO.
Perhaps the range of public knowledge about the case was underestimated, or there was a need for an eye catching revelation or the efits were seen as so important that they had to be included. Maybe all of the above.
I am now utterly confused. I trust Brie's opinion, but we don't agree about this, although what she says does make sense.
So what was DCI Redwood up to that I might have missed?
I think at the time information was put into the public domain for police purposes. I'm sure they knew exactly what those were and I don't think we need to know.
Obviously it served its purpose because it hasn't been revisited since.
99.99% of the public don't have a clue where the creche was in relation to the OC. IMO.
In relation to the OC? Where's that?Praia Da Luz - the resort from where Madeleine disappeared.
Indeed, it disposed of Tannerman and moved the time slot forward - not that it has seemed to achieve much - IMO.
Gerry McCann was identified by Martin Smith, so there's no point in denying it;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Praia Da Luz - the resort from where Madeleine disappeared.
I neither think the abductor paraded his quarry through the streets nor do I think the child’s father carried her body though the streets either.
Just my opinion Eleanor and we are not clones. So disagreement for the right reasons is healthy I think. Maybe I'm just a greater conspiracy theorist than you and I really do have very firm theories none of which concerns the McCanns or their friends.
The night creche is there too, but I don't understand what you mean when you mention the relationship between their locations?Being an intelligent woman I'm sure you can work out what I meant, but if you genuinely can't then just let me know and I'll explain in full.
Pleased to have disagreed with you on what I think is probably only a minor discrepancy.
I have had several theories over the years, most of which involve Madeleine still being alive, but none of which have been disproved yet and all actually possible, although not going my way at the moment.
Perhaps this is why I don't want to believe that Breuckner murdered Madeleine. I am however capable of believing that Breuckner stole Madeleine for someone else. Hence his alleged statement that he had something horrible to do. Stealing her for himself would hardly have been horrible given his previous record.
But so far he has never been found guilty of Murder.
Given his perversions, why would he have considered it a horrible job? I'd have thought he'd have relished the idea.
Given his perversions, why would he have considered it a horrible job? I'd have thought he'd have relished the idea.Perhaps he was just being sarky.
Exactly. So he could have stolen Madeleine for someone else. That wouldn't have been much fun for him.
Or he may have nothing to do with it. Nobody has yet demonstrated responsibility for Madeleine's disappearance.
I don't believe he has ever retracted that observation which means that Smithman was a Gerry lookalike if the sum of all the other evidence is taken into consideration.Which takes us back to the timeline and that two or more independent witnesses do not place Gerry at the Tapas Bar at the time of the Smith sighting imo and to draw no inference anyway.
I believe physics prevents someone from being in two places at the same time.
Which takes us back to the timeline and that two or more independent witnesses do not place Gerry at the Tapas Bar at the time of the Smith sighting imo and to draw no inference anyway.The question to ask is - if Gerry left the table a second time that night before the alarm was raised why does not one member of the Tapas group mention it? Either they are all lying by omission or he didn’t. Simple as.
One issue as is often pointed out here is that if Gerry wasn't at the Tapas Bar between 9:30 and 10pm then how many of the T7 have, hypothetically speaking, given him an alibi? The higher the number the less likely it is that Gerry is in fact Smithman imo.
What last question... a genuine one.... why didn't the parents do rogatory interviews in the UK?
To Billy and anyone else who reckons the changing angles of the children’s bedroom door signifies a cover up, please can you explain what happened to me just now on returning to my house. It is a very still aftenoon here today. I walked home and entered my house via the external kitchen door. When I entered the kitchen I noticed that the door to the dining / living room was ajar. But I know I had closed it because I didn’t want the cat in the kitchen while I was out. There has been no one else in the house all day and all the doors and windows are closed and locked. Explain.
To Billy and anyone else who reckons the changing angles of the children’s bedroom door signifies a cover up, please can you explain what happened to me just now on returning to my house. It is a very still aftenoon here today. I walked home and entered my house via the external kitchen door. When I entered the kitchen I noticed that the door to the dining / living room was ajar. But I know I had closed it because I didn’t want the cat in the kitchen while I was out. There has been no one else in the house all day and all the doors and windows are closed and locked. Explain.
Which takes us back to the timeline and that two or more independent witnesses do not place Gerry at the Tapas Bar at the time of the Smith sighting imo and to draw no inference anyway.
One issue as is often pointed out here is that if Gerry wasn't at the Tapas Bar between 9:30 and 10pm then how many of the T7 have, hypothetically speaking, given him an alibi? The higher the number the less likely it is that Gerry is in fact Smithman imo.
What last question... a genuine one.... why didn't the parents do rogatory interviews in the UK?
To Billy and anyone else who reckons the changing angles of the children’s bedroom door signifies a cover up, please can you explain what happened to me just now on returning to my house. It is a very still aftenoon here today. I walked home and entered my house via the external kitchen door. When I entered the kitchen I noticed that the door to the dining / living room was ajar. But I know I had closed it because I didn’t want the cat in the kitchen while I was out. There has been no one else in the house all day and all the doors and windows are closed and locked. Explain.Either your memory's failing or a vertiginous swirling poltergeist has taken up residence.
Either your memory's failing or a vertiginous swirling poltergeist has taken up residence.Or... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFIV5NV7m4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFIV5NV7m4)
Has the cat been abducted?No, thank god. Still on the sofa where he was this morning when I left. And to think he might have fallen off and banged his head, I am so neglectful.
Either your memory's failing or a vertiginous swirling poltergeist has taken up residence.Actually the truth is more prosaic. Opening the external door caused the internal door to move as the door catch hadn’t properly engaged when I left, so it popped open. I guess this is something to do with air currents or whatever, but IMO the same phenomenon probably explains at least one of the door moves in the kids’ bedroom if not all of them.
Or... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFIV5NV7m4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFIV5NV7m4)I better not show this to my cat, he’ll get ideas…
FGS he recognised the way Gerry carried Sean off the plane the way he put his head down. Millions of men carry their child off the plane like that and put their head down to see where they are going. Amaral just wanted anything to pin it on Gerry it's disgusting.
Which takes us back to the timeline and that two or more independent witnesses do not place Gerry at the Tapas Bar at the time of the Smith sighting imo and to draw no inference anyway.
One issue as is often pointed out here is that if Gerry wasn't at the Tapas Bar between 9:30 and 10pm then how many of the T7 have, hypothetically speaking, given him an alibi? The higher the number the less likely it is that Gerry is in fact Smithman imo.
What last question... a genuine one.... why didn't the parents do rogatory interviews in the UK?
You are missing the point. It wasn't Amaral who made the statement. The Irish Police initially acted on the statement and quite right to:
From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family
Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland
Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.
Rec by: TPHONE Serial: 241 Ident:BC19-8286 1055 20/09/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident linked to 209 26/06/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Result ODI: ADMIN DUPLICATE INCIDENT
QNG: QUALIFIER NOT REQUIRED
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Closed
Lindsay Long
Holmes Indexer
Major Crime
Braunstone Police Station
No, thank god. Still on the sofa where he was this morning when I left. And to think he might have fallen off and banged his head, I am so neglectful.
The PJ didn't ask for the McCanns to be reinterviewed, probably because they were no longer witnesses like the others.
I think you are missing the point every time you post this information with the intention of traducing Gerry McCann.
The Policia Judiciaria established that Gerry could not have been the man seen by Mr Smith.
In very much the same way they had established that Mr McCluskey could not have seen Gerry.
Why is it that sceptics ignore Mr McCluskey while idolising Mr Smith. The PJ PROVED that both men were mistaken in their identification.
With the McClusky sighting, using the registration of the couple's vehicle, the PJ identified them and proved that they weren't the McCanns and the child was their daughter.
With the Smith sighting the PJ didn't prove that Gerry McCann was seated at the restaurant table at the time, because neither the time of the sighting or of the alarm being raised were absolutely pinpointed imo.
With the McClusky sighting, using the registration of the couple's vehicle, the PJ identified them and proved that they weren't the McCanns and the child was their daughter.The PJ report dismisses the Smith sighting as being Gerry does it not?
With the Smith sighting the PJ didn't prove that Gerry McCann was seated at the restaurant table at the time, because neither the time of the sighting or of the alarm being raised were absolutely pinpointed imo.
You are missing the point. It wasn't Amaral who made the statement. The Irish Police initially acted on the statement and quite right to:
From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family
Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland
Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.
Rec by: TPHONE Serial: 241 Ident:BC19-8286 1055 20/09/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident linked to 209 26/06/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Result ODI: ADMIN DUPLICATE INCIDENT
QNG: QUALIFIER NOT REQUIRED
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Closed
Lindsay Long
Holmes Indexer
Major Crime
Braunstone Police Station
You are missing the point. It wasn't Amaral who made the statement. The Irish Police initially acted on the statement and quite right to:
From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family
Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland
Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.
Rec by: TPHONE Serial: 241 Ident:BC19-8286 1055 20/09/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident linked to 209 26/06/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Result ODI: ADMIN DUPLICATE INCIDENT
QNG: QUALIFIER NOT REQUIRED
1101 8286-BC19 Incident Closed
Lindsay Long
Holmes Indexer
Major Crime
Braunstone Police Station
With the McClusky sighting, using the registration of the couple's vehicle, the PJ identified them and proved that they weren't the McCanns and the child was their daughter.
With the Smith sighting the PJ didn't prove that Gerry McCann was seated at the restaurant table at the time, because neither the time of the sighting or of the alarm being raised were absolutely pinpointed imo.
What is it you fail to comprehend about how a police investigation works.
( i) Mr McCluskey's identification was investigated and found groundless
(ii) Mr Smith's identification was investigated and found to be groundless.
Both witnesses allegedly got their information from watching a news report of the family's return to Britain.
Not even the most dyed in the wool sceptic can legitimately accept one and ignore the other because it suits their narrative; In my opinion the constant revisiting and promotion of Mr Smith's sighting with more than a nudge and a wink which the police had dismissed - exactly as they had Mr McCluskey's - most definitely amounts to a deliberate slur.
Now explain why you think it isn't.
Obviously you think the PJ were correct to accept that Gerry McCann was seated in the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.Perhaps because they realised that the idea that all 7 Tapas guests were covering up for Gerry was ridiculous in the extreme.
I wonder why the PJ relied on evidence which they had previously questioned and wanted to confirm by holding a reconstitution.
Obviously you think the PJ were correct to accept that Gerry McCann was seated in the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
I wonder why the PJ relied on evidence which they had previously questioned and wanted to confirm by holding a reconstitution.
With the McClusky sighting, using the registration of the couple's vehicle, the PJ identified them and proved that they weren't the McCanns and the child was their daughter.
With the Smith sighting the PJ didn't prove that Gerry McCann was seated at the restaurant table at the time, because neither the time of the sighting or of the alarm being raised were absolutely pinpointed imo.
Do you think thr Smith ID is considered reliableIt added to a body of evidence. The PJ were making plans to look again at timelines and were interested in certain apartments.
From the Guardian...
It has taken several legal committee reports and a mountain of scientific research to bring miscarriages of justice based on visual and voice identification to light, and for appropriate rules to be drawn up on their admissibility. How long will it be before identification based on canine scent is subject to such rigorous analysis?
Absolutely correct. They then wanted to look closely at a reconstruction of the timeline(s).Tell me how a reconstruction would have helped, unless you think Gerry, to be helpful to the PJ, decides re-enact leaving the table for the half an hour that no one else at the tapas table happened to mention in their statements?
Obviously you think the PJ were correct to accept that Gerry McCann was seated in the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.A reconstruction that they could further exploit and distort?
I wonder why the PJ relied on evidence which they had previously questioned and wanted to confirm by holding a reconstitution.
A reconstruction that they could further exploit and distort?
The reconstitution would have been carried out as per the statements of the participants covering the time between 5.30pm and 11pm.And which version would have revealed Gerry wasn’t at the table when The Smiths saw him, allegedly?
With the McClusky sighting, using the registration of the couple's vehicle, the PJ identified them and proved that they weren't the McCanns and the child was their daughter.
With the Smith sighting the PJ didn't prove that Gerry McCann was seated at the restaurant table at the time, because neither the time of the sighting or of the alarm being raised were absolutely pinpointed imo.
With respect, that is an idiotic response.
You are missing the point. It wasn't Amaral who made the statement. The Irish Police initially acted on the statement and quite right to:
Oh STOP PRESS a man is seen carrying his child the same way as millions of others do, putting his head down to see where he is walking incase he falls down the b....y steps.
Perhaps because they realised that the idea that all 7 Tapas guests were covering up for Gerry was ridiculous in the extreme.
How many of them actually place Gerry in the Tapas Bar from 9:30 to 10:10pm? Is it really all seven? Furthermore. imo, they may have been worried (with possibly the exception of the Payne's) about the serious consequences of possible neglect charges arising from leaving very young children alone in their apartments.If Gerry’s presence at the table between 9.30pm and 10pm was so utterly critical to the investigation why wasn’t each Tapas member asked this question specifically by the police? Possible neglect charges would have depended on them being at the tapas table themselves which none of them denied so it can’t have been that which potentially drove them all collectively to cover for Gerry, so have another think.
Admins note: Posted as OPINION not fact!
If Gerry’s presence at the table between 9.30pm and 10pm was so utterly critical to the investigation why wasn’t each Tapas member asked this question specifically by the police?
Possible neglect charges would have depended on them being at the tapas table themselves which none of them denied so it can’t have been that which potentially drove them all collectively to cover for Gerry, so have another think.
With respect, that is an idiotic response.
Speculation of course…. But maybe the collective number of checks were deemed to make their unsafe (imo) childcare arrangements seem a little less negligent if the number increased. For some reason the checking arrangement was allegedly different on the night in question. Maybe there was some other reason. To suppose that friends don’t cover for criminal activity is not a given imo. I do agree that if they do all know something isn’t quite right then the chances of one couple breaking any “pact” is quite considerable. As Gamble said, “relationships change”.So what you seem to be saying is - the Tapas Group failed to mention an additional check because they feared negligence charges for not doing enough checks? How does that make any sense at all?
Well indeed. We know that Amaral was planning to scrutinise the timeline after Martin Smith’s shocking revelation moment.
Well indeed. We know that Amaral was planning to scrutinise the timeline after Martin Smith’s shocking revelation moment.
Yes, Mr Smith was contacted on 27th September;
On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.
Portimao, 27th September 2007
Signed
Inspector Paiva
On October 2nd Amaral was taken off the case.
Mr Smith wasn't brought back to Portugal.
So what happened to that great idea?I bet the British got to Rebelo and prevented it. Or something.
I bet the British got to Rebelo and prevented it. Or something.
So what you seem to be saying is - the Tapas Group failed to mention an additional check because they feared negligence charges for not doing enough checks? How does that make any sense at all?
Well hypothetically speaking if this “extra check” resulted in finding the tragic result of a terrible accident then I would imagine they all probably felt that there listening from the outside method was going to be heavily criticised imo. More so if, hypothetically speaking, it came to light that two nights prior they had ventured further away than the Tapas Bar and a child was heard crying for an hour and a half. Cue Kate’s phone records to disprove this scenario (maybe!!) .
Can anyone answer my question on when ROB got knowledge of Tannerman?
Well hypothetically speaking if this “extra check” resulted in finding the tragic result of a terrible accident then I would imagine they all probably felt that there listening from the outside method was going to be heavily criticised imo. More so if, hypothetically speaking, it came to light that two nights prior they had ventured further away than the Tapas Bar and a child was heard crying for an hour and a half. Cue Kate’s phone records to disprove this scenario (maybe!!) .I’m sorry but the idea that they would all cover for the McCanns because they feared they might get done for child neglect is highly implausible. Surely whatever Madeleine’s actual fate (woke and wandered, died in an accident, abducted) nothing changes the fact that she likely came to harm and the entire group left the kids to go to dinner.
Can anyone answer my question on when ROB got knowledge of Tannerman?
Really interesting. But sorry, I can't help with ROB.
Who is ROB by the way?
Really interesting. But sorry, I can't help with ROB.
Who is ROB by the way?
The reconstitution would have been carried out as per the statements of the participants covering the time between 5.30pm and 11pm.
I’m sorry but the idea that they would all cover for the McCanns because they feared they might get done for child neglect is highly implausible. Surely whatever Madeleine’s actual fate (woke and wandered, died in an accident, abducted) nothing changes the fact that she likely came to harm and the entire group left the kids to go to dinner.
They could have used actors for the reconstruction. When have parents of a missing child ever had to take part in a reconstruction? That is just cruel and unnecessary.
Well the idea they all covered for the McCanns because they feared they might get done for child neglect went out the window when they all give statements saying they dined at the Tapas bar when their children slept in their apartments.
Yes I accept that. Maybe by then they had been informed that judicial sanctions for child neglect in Portugal were less serious than they are in the UK. I do accept though that in a group of seven you would normally expect someone to break any pact of secrecy.
No I doubt they were informed of any Judicial sanctions for child neglect. They were all taken in for questioning, do you think the Police would say 'its ok, our sanctions for child neglect is not the same as the UK'. They just give their statements and told the truth IMO
They could have used actors for the reconstruction. When have parents of a missing child ever had to take part in a reconstruction? That is just cruel and unnecessary.
There is absolutely no question that anyone would have been "done" for neglect. This suggestion is merely another vehicle for slurring the McCanns.
Sceptics tie themselves into this supposition but never for a second do they bother with the word of the public prosecutors public prosecutor Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joao Melchior Gomes who made it perfectly clear in the Archiving Dispatch that the children had not been neglected.
Common decency requires these truths to be mentioned now and again.
An attempt to have Madeleine's parents prosecuted in Britain also fell flat on its face.
Do you believe it is safe to leave toddlers home alone or in an unusual holiday apartment whilst just listening outside (or perhaps inside) for crying every half an hour?
Do you believe it is sane for individuals to take it upon themselves to fixate on this incident every day for over fourteen years, even going to the extent of organising into active hate campaigns directed at her family and as a result of direct interference in their efforts to find her, ultimately on the child herself.
I’m not fixated on it. I asked you the question because if your earlier post which implied to me that you felt it was fine to leave toddlers home alone. I have already stated that accident or abduction the parents have suffered a terrible and tragic loss.
I’m not fixated on it. I asked you the question because if your earlier post which implied to me that you felt it was fine to leave toddlers home alone. I have already stated that accident or abduction the parents have suffered a terrible and tragic loss.
I’m not fixated on it. I asked you the question because if your earlier post which implied to me that you felt it was fine to leave toddlers home alone. I have already stated that accident or abduction the parents have suffered a terrible and tragic loss.
Be assured of one thing ~ I am certain that child abuse equates with getting behind the wheel of a vehicle when pissed up to the eyeballs and driving off with a four year old beside me.
Do you have an opinion on that one. If so ~ let's hear it.
I implied no such thing as it happens. One thing which I will state touching on that is when I voice an opinion you will know about it for certain.
I do not do implications ~ and I will not tolerate having words put into my mouth by you or anyone else ~ so make that the last time you ever attempt to do so to me or any other member.
He didn't crash, so no harm done.
Who are you referring to?Amaral. If you’re a WUM you support any position contrary to that of a McCann supporter which is why Spam makes pathetically childish remarks like the one you commented on.
Amaral. If you’re a WUM you support any position contrary to that of a McCann supporter which is why Spam makes pathetically childish remarks like the one you commented on.
Sceptics tie themselves into this supposition but never for a second do they bother with the word of the public prosecutors public prosecutor Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joao Melchior Gomes who made it perfectly clear in the Archiving Dispatch that the children had not been neglected.
Sceptics tie themselves into this supposition but never for a second do they bother with the word of the public prosecutors public prosecutor Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joao Melchior Gomes who made it perfectly clear in the Archiving Dispatch that the children had not been neglected.
Heartfelt I was sure ... but then I paused for thought. And I remembered your posting history and thought to myself ... "talk is cheap, by their actions shall ye know them".
I accept that my opinion has shifted this way and that over time - but what in my "posting history" leads you to conclude that I don't sincerely believe; "that accident or abduction the parents have suffered a terrible and tragic loss"?
Apparently it's not possible to sympathise with them unless you believe wholeheartedly in abduction by a stranger. Anyone who questions that hates the parents and wants only to hurt them in any way they can.
I don't know what happened to Madeleine, but I too sympathise with her parents. Whatever happened that night they lost their daughter and their lives were turned upside down.
Apparently it's not possible to sympathise with them unless you believe wholeheartedly in abduction by a stranger. Anyone who questions that hates the parents and wants only to hurt them in any way they can.Would you sympathise with parents who left their kids alone night after night, who over sedated them, who on discovering one of their kids dead decided to cover it up by disposing of its body in a bin or handy nook denying the child’s family a decent funeral, who knowingly extorted millions from an innocent public to “look” for her? Seriously?? Why?
I don't know what happened to Madeleine, but I too sympathise with her parents. Whatever happened that night they lost their daughter and their lives were turned upside down.
Would you sympathise with parents who left their kids alone night after night, who over sedated them, who on discovering one of their kids dead decided to cover it up by disposing of its body in a bin or handy nook denying the child’s family a decent funeral, who knowingly extorted millions from an innocent public to “look” for her? Seriously?? Why?
Yes, because I'm sure they have suffered. Suffering is suffering regardless of the reasons for it.Wow, Jesus Lives.
This how G-Unit expresses her sympathy for Kate in her situation
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11064.915
"She was simply doing what she did from day one. Undermining the PJ, putting her version of events out there and looking for sympathy and donations".
Is that being unsympathetic or is it a description of Kate McCann's actions?
Is that being unsympathetic or is it a description of Kate McCann's actions?I think it shows 1) you've made up your mind Kate is deceitful and underhand and money-grabbing and sympathy seeking and 2) an inability to understand why Kate did what she did from the perspective of someone who believes their child has been abducted, so yes I do think it's being entirely unsympathetic.
Is that being unsympathetic or is it a description of Kate McCann's actions?Day One is 4th May.
Sounds reasonable to me, but then I'm not one of the McCann fan-club.
I think it shows 1) you've made up your mind Kate is deceitful and underhand and money-grabbing and sympathy seeking and 2) an inability to understand why Kate did what she did from the perspective of someone who believes their child has been abducted, so yes I do think it's being entirely unsympathetic.
It's possible to sympathise with someone whilst simultaneaously disapproving of their actions. Many people make stupid choices at the age of 15, for example, but few pay as high a price as Shamima Begum.Not a comparable example imo.
I don't care what you think, tbh.I'm sure you don't. In fact I'm sure my observations of your posts and on the (shall we say) inconsistency of your position and opinions over the years is a right pain in the butt. Sorry (not sorry).
I'm sure you don't. In fact I'm sure my observations of your posts and on the (shall we say) inconsistency of your position and opinions over the years is a right pain in the butt. Sorry (not sorry).
Not a comparable example imo.
Why would your observations trouble me?If they don’t, then I’m very glad, and shall continue making them safe in the knowledge that you are completely untroubled by me doing so. Now, when are you going to supply the cites I asked for, in your contemptuous description of Kate’s behaviour “from day one”?
If they don’t, then I’m very glad, and shall continue making them safe in the knowledge that you are completely untroubled by me doing so. Now, when are you going to supply the cites I asked for, in your contemptuous description of Kate’s behaviour “from day one”?
Quote1)Undermining the PJFirstly, these are second hand accounts. Secondly how does expressing a personal opinion to a friend undermine the police from Day One? Thirdly, surely you have sympathy for a woman who feels the police are not doing enough to help her?
She was worried by the fact that there were only two police officers in the place and thought that the police were not helping her with anything.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/L-R-MCQUEEN.htm
She said that judging from the action of the local police, one would think that she "had lost a dog".
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htmQuote2)Putting her version of events "out there"
ill Renwick, a family friend, told GMTV that the distraught parents were certain that Madeline had been abducted. "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/toddler-s-parents-fear-algarve-abduction-guardian--t548.html#p10616
Is Kate not entitled to tell a family friend that she was certain Madeleine was abducted? Perhaps you can provide a proper cite of Kate telling her friend to spread the word about that Madeleine was abducted, or better still of "putting it out there" from Day One herself.Quote3)Looking For sympathy
"I spoke to them this morning and they said the police had done nothing overnight and they felt as if they'd been left on their own. They just don't know where to turn."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/toddler-s-parents-fear-algarve-abduction-guardian--t548.html#p10616
Your interpretation. Again, private conversations with friends, no evidence that they were publicly "looking for sympathy"Quote4) Soliciting donations.
(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/mccanncollectionbox.jpg)
1)Undermining the PJ
She was worried by the fact that there were only two police officers in the place and thought that the police were not helping her with anything.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/L-R-MCQUEEN.htm
She said that judging from the action of the local police, one would think that she "had lost a dog".
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm
2)Putting her version of events "out there"
ill Renwick, a family friend, told GMTV that the distraught parents were certain that Madeline had been abducted. "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/toddler-s-parents-fear-algarve-abduction-guardian--t548.html#p10616
3)Looking For sympathy
"I spoke to them this morning and they said the police had done nothing overnight and they felt as if they'd been left on their own. They just don't know where to turn."
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/toddler-s-parents-fear-algarve-abduction-guardian--t548.html#p10616
4) Soliciting donations.
(https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/mccanncollectionbox.jpg)
She’s just expressing her sympathy - lol.
I'm sorry but the words you are quoting are from a distraught mother who has lost her daughter. If it was me I would be screaming at the top of my voice for the Police to do more than they were. You think you would be sitting calmly while things didn't seem to be getting anywhere? Mothers have had to be sedated due to hysterical behaviour. I am sure there are many many other mothers who have said and behaved as Kate did. Why are you singling out the McCanns?
Firstly, these are second hand accounts. Secondly how does expressing a personal opinion to a friend undermine the police from Day One? Thirdly, surely you have sympathy for a woman who feels the police are not doing enough to help her?
Is Kate not entitled to tell a family friend that she was certain Madeleine was abducted? Perhaps you can provide a proper cite of Kate telling her friend to spread the word about that Madeleine was abducted, or better still of "putting it out there" from Day One herself.
Your interpretation. Again, private conversations with friends, no evidence that they were publicly "looking for sympathy"
Are you saying this Donation Box was put out by Kate on the 4th May 2007? Evidence please.
She’s just expressing her sympathy - lol.
Of course they didn’t, it’s just G-Unit peddling myths.
I doubt very much if the McCann's put that bucket outside for donations. They were being questioned by the Police most of the 4th of May.
Sympathy? They are unable to imagine what the parents were going through, all they are fixated with are they are lying they hid their Childs body and Amaral is right.Apparently G-Unit is so sympathetic that she felt moved to point out all Kate’s alleged deplorable behaviour from Day 1.
Sympathy? They are unable to imagine what the parents were going through, all they are fixated with are they are lying they hid their Childs body and Amaral is right.
She’s just expressing her sympathy - lol.
No I'm not. LOLNo, we know you’re not, you never do. You say you’re sympathetic but you don’t demonstrate it. Ever. LOL.
Sympathy? They are unable to imagine what the parents were going through, all they are fixated with are they are lying they hid their Childs body and Amaral is right.
Even I can imagine the pain of losing a child.Exactly. At least you don’t pretend you do.
I still don't have any sympathy for the McCanns though.
Exactly. At least you don’t pretend you do.
Sympathy? They are unable to imagine what the parents were going through, all they are fixated with are they are lying they hid their Childs body and Amaral is right.
I don't see any good reason why I should have any sympathy for them.Don’t worry, G-Unit will explain.
Don’t worry, G-Unit will explain.
Isn't it fairly obvious that they made a mistake whatever scenario you believe?
Sceptics tie themselves into this supposition but never for a second do they bother with the word of the public prosecutors public prosecutor Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes and Joao Melchior Gomes who made it perfectly clear in the Archiving Dispatch that the children had not been neglected.
Isn't it fairly obvious that they made a mistake whatever scenario you believe?
I believe you may have missed my question on your assertion here. Which part of the Archiving Dispatches "made it perfectly clear [-] that the children had not been neglected"? I certainly did not take that thought away after reading them.
Me neither;
"the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
8.15. It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range: '1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger, a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
8.16. This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
Portimão 21.07.08
The Republic's Prosecutor
José de Magalhaes e Menezes
The Joint General Prosecutor
Joao Melchior Gomes
https://madeleinemccannfiles.blogspot.com/2012/10/PV17-p4592-4649-Attorney-General-Case-Archiving-Report-21-07-08.html
So the McCanns did neglect their children, but not with the intention of harming them. Therefore they would not be prosecuted under Article 138 of the Penal Code.
Isn't it fairly obvious that they made a mistake whatever scenario you believe?What are you talking about?
So the McCanns did neglect their children, but not with the intention of harming them. Therefore they would not be prosecuted under Article 138 of the Penal Code.
What are you talking about?
I don't see any good reason why I should have any sympathy for them.
I know you have read the Attorney General's archiving report which is not the link you provided. You really do manage to twist even the recorded words of the Portuguese prosecutors to suit your own agenda.
Such dedication to the cause must be getting you brownie points somewhere but I think your post merely emphasises your poor interpretation of the English language.
You want me to use your link?
8.9. This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
https://madeleinemccannfiles.blogspot.com/2012/10/PV17-p4592-4649-Attorney-General-Case-Archiving-Report-21-07-08.html
What a hate filled blogspot that is imo.
You don't have to have sympathy for them to understand how they were feeling when it seemed nothing was being done to find their child. Every parent would be going out of their minds, wanting everything to be rushing forward to find her.
I really cannot see the point in going over incidents which are now history but of which there was distortion and complete misunderstanding coupled with complete misinterpretation at the time.
"Revisiting the timeline" is just one example of a sceptic dogma which never presumes to think about other timelines being enacted at the time and place.
For example - that of the arguidos the PJ questioned on behalf of Scotland Yard.
For example - that of Dr Totman who was out and about but whose importance wasn't recognised until Scotland Yard did.
For example - that of Brueckner who wasn't in when the police called.
Give that last example some serious thought: at the same time that a little girl went missing a known paedophile the police were trying to interview went missing too. Yet no-one bothered with that timeline.
No acknowledgement of the fact that I was quoting from exactly the same report that you were, I notice. The only difference being that they were stored in different locations. My source was the PJ files, yours an anonymous blogspot.
The PJ's proposed reconstitution was going to cover 5.30pm to 11pm. I propose to examine the various statements covering 5.30pm to 8.30pm next. No agreed timeline was produced covering this period so it might enlighten us as to the powers of recollection of those involved.
Welcome back to more ridiculous flogging of the dead horse of yet more incomplete data in the attempt to slur the McCanns.
What is of relevance in the present day is the current investigation into Brueckner's timeline which I am sure the current investigation are addressing to fill in the gaps.
We already know his phone has been identified as being there
His phones being used somewhere in PDL is just circumstantial.
Welcome back to more ridiculous flogging of the dead horse of yet more incomplete data in the attempt to slur the McCanns.
What is of relevance in the present day is the current investigation into Brueckner's timeline which I am sure the current investigation are addressing to fill in the gaps.
We already know his phone has been identified as being there
The timeline presented by the T9 seems to have been accepted by some as a factual account of what occured between 8.30pm and 10pm on 3rd May 2007. As such, it relies upon their powers of recall and of the times that the events occured. We know that there are discrepencies between the mutually agreed timeline and individual memories. So how reliable are the recollections of the group? I'm interested in how individual memories vary about a period of time where no agreed team timeline was attempted or produced.
I thought the timelines produced in the colouring book were a joint effort
Well yes, at least 40 precious minutes of the golden hour were lost when neither parent bothered calling the police.
From Matthew Oldfields statement -
asked me to go and phone the Police, so I actually went down the route to where she would have gone for Nursery drop off, which his back to the, to the main reception essentially, so I went down that route looking for her at that time and I asked the reception to phone the Police, and that must have been about five past, it's difficult to know what time it was at that time, but maybe about ten past ten, five past ten, ten past ten
So where was everyone at 5.30pm?Wowsers, how suspicious!!!
Fiona Payne, Dianne Webster and Jane Tanner are in the Paraiso Restaurant. Gradually all the party except the McCann family appear and at 6.13pm the three men are seen preparing to leave. The four women prepare to leave at 6.36pm, around 20 minutes later.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PARAISO.htm
Dianne says on 4th May that she left the Paraiso at 6.15pm, and Fiona agrees in her statement, as does Jane Tanner.
So less than 24 hours after the event three of the women are out by 20 minutes in their recall of when they left the beach cafe.
So where was everyone at 5.30pm?
Fiona Payne, Dianne Webster and Jane Tanner are in the Paraiso Restaurant. Gradually all the party except the McCann family appear and at 6.13pm the three men are seen preparing to leave. The four women prepare to leave at 6.36pm, around 20 minutes later.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PARAISO.htm
Dianne says on 4th May that she left the Paraiso at 6.15pm, and Fiona agrees in her statement, as does Jane Tanner.
So less than 24 hours after the event three of the women are out by 20 minutes in their recall of when they left the beach cafe.
The timeline presented by the T9 seems to have been accepted by some as a factual account of what occured between 8.30pm and 10pm on 3rd May 2007. As such, it relies upon their powers of recall and of the times that the events occured. We know that there are discrepencies between the mutually agreed timeline and individual memories. So how reliable are the recollections of the group? I'm interested in how individual memories vary about a period of time where no agreed team timeline was attempted or produced.
I thought the timelines produced in the colouring book were a joint effort
Wowsers, how suspicious!!!
Well it isn't.... it is normal to have a rough idea but not know the exact time that you did something.... unless you can relate it to something you know happened at a certain time (football kick off 3pm, for example).... but it shows that the given time of any event described may be 20 minutes either side of it actually happening.
So where was everyone at 5.30pm?
Fiona Payne, Dianne Webster and Jane Tanner are in the Paraiso Restaurant. Gradually all the party except the McCann family appear and at 6.13pm the three men are seen preparing to leave. The four women prepare to leave at 6.36pm, around 20 minutes later.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PARAISO.htm
Dianne says on 4th May that she left the Paraiso at 6.15pm, and Fiona agrees in her statement, as does Jane Tanner.
So less than 24 hours after the event three of the women are out by 20 minutes in their recall of when they left the beach cafe.
By 10th May Jane has decided the women left the beach cafe at 6.20pm. Rachael said 'by 6.30pm' but it's not clear whether that's when they left or when they arrived at the tennis courts. It's immaterial anyway as they were still in the Paraiso at 6.36pm. Therefore they were unlikely to have arrived at the tennis courts before 6.45pm.people eating tapas possibly.
In Fiona's rog she says the men left between 5.55 and 6pm and she and the other women left at 6.10pm. Rachael has a very different memory. She says the men left between 6.30 and 6.45pm, with the women leaving 10-15 minutes later, arriving at the tennis courts about 7pm or just after.
I'm not a bit surprised that they mostly get the times so wrong. There was no reason for them to take notice of the times they did things. I wonder what a CCTV camera in the Tapas restaurant would have revealed?
And I would watch your cotton socks if I were you.
The elements of the group had a meeting where they agreed on certain rules that sustained the version that they accompanied continuously the children, while they dined.
It is annexed a manuscript of an element of the group that gives consistence to this thesis.
These principles that, in this way, were shared by all the group makes that all the GROUP is always exculpated in the eyes of the British public opinion, making it impossible that any abnormal occurrence that occurred could take more than 30 minutes, once they all agreed to be that the timing they used to look for the children.
The version that someone in the group that every 15 minutes or every 30 minutes went to the apartments to check if everything was alright falls down!
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Does anyone know who CI Tavares de Almeida is referring to when he says “an element of the group that gives consistence to this thesis”?
I think he's referring to the fact that they worked together to produce a timeline. He also points out;
Although the entire group was at the table and starting the meal, they began the 'visits' to the children in a way that is neither coherent nor acceptable; that could not be confirmed and only the group defends it, in a sort of 'unique version'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
In other words the timeline was produced by the group and wasn't confirmed by the statements of anyone outside the group.
For information ~
Tavares de Almeida who wrote the report of the botched investigation co-ordinated by Amaral was convicted of torturing a prisoner by beating his feet with a plank of wood.
I do not believe he was required to give up his job in the police despite his criminal conviction.
Are you suggesting that he was therefore incapable of noticing that the timeline was a group effort rather than the sum of individual recollections? Or that it was not confirmed by any independent witnesses? Because those are the facts.Out of interest how would you propose writing a timeline from the recollections of numerous individuals that wasn’t a group effort?
Out of interest how would you propose writing a timeline from the recollections of numerous individuals that wasn’t a group effort?
First I would need to understand why they were writing it.Let’s imagine they were writing it to present as accurate a record of events leading up to the disappearance as possible . Now how would you envisage a group of individuals coming together to write a timeline without doing so as a group effort?
Let’s imagine they were writing it to present as accurate a record of events leading up to the disappearance as possible . Now how would you envisage a group of individuals coming together to write a timeline without doing so as a group effort?
How does it help the search for an abducted child to have a group version and individual versions of events? How could that change an investigation? The obvious answer is it defines the available time for the abduction to take place. With hindsight has this led to the error of concentrating on Tannerman rather than Smithman?you might like to ask the same question of a reconstitution. Are you suggesting that putting doen a timeline of events was done for underhand reasons? And why on earth would the timeline have included such trifling detail such as where Gerry was standing on the road? i
I wonder why the group version never agrees on which side of the road Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins were standing when Tanner walked past them? Or did the group version account for one scenario and Tanner gets upset on the TV reconstruction because her own version is different? These are genuine questions. I hadn’t realised it was an established fact that there had been a group meeting to agree on a group timeline . Does anyone know exactly when this took place?
How does it help the search for an abducted child to have a group version and individual versions of events? How could that change an investigation? The obvious answer is it defines the available time for the abduction to take place. With hindsight has this led to the error of concentrating on Tannerman rather than Smithman?
I wonder why the group version never agrees on which side of the road Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins were standing when Tanner walked past them? Or did the group version account for one scenario and Tanner gets upset on the TV reconstruction because her own version is different? These are genuine questions. I hadn’t realised it was an established fact that there had been a group meeting to agree on a group timeline . Does anyone know exactly when this took place?
How does it help the search for an abducted child to have a group version and individual versions of events? How could that change an investigation? The obvious answer is it defines the available time for the abduction to take place. With hindsight has this led to the error of concentrating on Tannerman rather than Smithman?
I wonder why the group version never agrees on which side of the road Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins were standing when Tanner walked past them? Or did the group version account for one scenario and Tanner gets upset on the TV reconstruction because her own version is different? These are genuine questions. I hadn’t realised it was an established fact that there had been a group meeting to agree on a group timeline . Does anyone know exactly when this took place?
you might like to ask the same question of a reconstitution. Are you suggesting that putting doen a timeline of events was done for underhand reasons? And why on earth would the timeline have included such trifling detail such as where Gerry was standing on the road? i
I can think of no reason why they thought it was important and urgent to document every movement from the table that evening. Jane Tanner said;
“Erm, I can’t remember when we decided, but I think it was a couple of days afterwards, we were just, we were all coming up with different bits of what had happened when and, et cetera, and we were just worried that over time that would, you know, we would lose, we wouldn’t be able to remember what was, what happened when, so we just thought we’d put it down on paper. I think different people had put like little bits down on bits of paper for their own memory, so we just thought we’d get together, put it all down and just, I suppose in a way, do a bit of our own, not investigative work, but, you know, put it together and see if anything stood out to us really”.
“I think it was Dave’s initial idea or I think, I don’t know whether, well I think Dave sort of said and then we borrowed a computer from the tennis coach, just so that we had something to, to write it down on. But we all did it together, we sort of all sat, we sat together and did, did it”...
we sort of, banded stuff around as well if we thought wasn’t, until we were all agreed on”.
4078 “Were there any sticking points?”
Reply “Phew, oh, I can’t remember now, erm, nothing major, nothing major that I can think at all, I think there was probably, you know, times, timings, there was probably ‘Oh I thought it was a bit later’ or ‘I thought it was a bit earlier’, but nothing, in terms of the actual sort of sequence of events, there was nothing that (inaudible) many times”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
So after the 4th May statements they discovered that they agreed on the sequence of events, but not so much on the times. I beg to differ. On 4th Matthew said;
"That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.
That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments."
Russell said;
"he went there at around 8.45pm. When he arrived at the restaurant, nearly all the adults were present, without children, with the exception of David, Fiona and Diane. They arrived more or less 5 minutes later.
He recalls that Matthew Oldfield left the restaurant at shortly after 9pm to check the children.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
Which became, in the group timeline;
"2055: MO returns to apartments to check on ground floor flats, passing David Payne (DP), Fiona Payne (FP) and her mother Dianne Webster (DW) on their way down to the table."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
I can’t see either why they thought such detail was important to help find Madeleine.
Isn’t it the case though that in those two May 4th statements, you quote above, the sequence of events are consistent but not the times (as Tanner states)???
The group timeline ends up with the sequence of events and the times being inconsistent!?? Excuse me if I’m missing anything obvious!!
The dog handler doesn't agree with you.. He says
The second dog may have, simply followed the trail laud down by the first
And the, scent may have been from a previous, day...
I haven't seen any forensics ruling out an intruder...
I was going to ask that. Do you think that in terms of helping find an abducted child the only relevant information would be when was the last time she was seen? Wouldn’t the shutters being open or closed be immaterial? Is it going to help the search for a child knowing the abductor’s entry or exit point?In the grand scheme of things no, but maybe to those that insist that the girl was abducted from 5a it matters, Wolters makes no mention of his suspect taking the girl out of 5a.
I was going to ask that. Do you think that in terms of helping find an abducted child the only relevant information would be when was the last time she was seen? Wouldn’t the shutters being open or closed be immaterial? Is it going to help the search for a child knowing the abductor’s entry or exit point?A timeline is about the time certain things happened. In this case when the checks occurred. Why the big mystery?
It was a bit long winded to be fair. Jane said they agreed on the sequence of events, but they didn't. Matt and Russell both said the Paynes arrived before Matthew went to check at the windows. In the group timeline he leaves before they arrive.Help me out here - what’s the significant and potentially suspicious difference between the two statements you quoted?
Was this something that Rachael Oldfield caused? On 4th May she said;
"Her husband Matthew, went to look for David Payne and Fiona Payne. At around 9pm, the couple arrived followed by Matthew two or three minutes later."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
It seems Rachael's version of events became the 'official' version. Matthew changed his 10th May statement to match Rachael's;
"The deponent added that DP, FP and DW were still not present - and as he could see their apartment lights burning - he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
Unfortunately when stories change people wonder why.
Help me out here - what’s the significant and potentially suspicious difference between the two statements you quoted?
I wonder if it everyone occurred to the Portuguese that the reason the narrative seemed confused to them was because their witnesses were having to rely on the accuracy of translations into Portuguese? Did they ever make allowances for this? It would have been reasonable surely on Day One to put some if not all of the confusion down to this rather than something suspicious about the entire group, but I don’t see that acknowledged anywhere by the PT authorities.
Help me out here - what’s the significant and potentially suspicious difference between the two statements you quoted?
A timeline is about the time certain things happened. In this case when the checks occurred. Why the big mystery?
According to Rachael and Jane Matthew went to 'chivvy' the Paynes along. According to Matthew and Russell the Paynes arrived before he left. According to Kate, Russell went to check on his children at 9pm, when Gerry went to check on his. According to Dianne and Fiona, they left their apartment at 8.45, so are we to believe they still hadn't arrived at 8.55, as Rachael says? It only took ten minutes to walk to the beach, according to Fiona.
"And then it was getting quite late again and Dave, Fi and Dianne were nowhere to be seen, so Matt actually, I think it had got to the point when it was like ‘Oh Matt go and’ and Matt said he’d go back and chivvy them along.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
at about five to nine, Matt said just he'd go up and get them and hurry them along, so he went back, yeah up the road and in through the car park
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
These may be unimportant details, but they highlight the fact that the group's memories are not reliable at all. No wonder they felt the need to gather together and try to create a coherent account.
Some posters here were saying that the reason they tried to put together a group account of what happened and when was to help the search for Madeleine. Isn’t it the case that this explanation doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t really help? Can you see how some thought the group were motivated by proving their checks were frequent?
In addition the checks became so frequent that the PJ (and others) wondered if there was actually enough of a gap to allow time for an abduction. Op Grange found a gap just before 10pm and went with that.
One wonders where Brueckner's timeline fits into all of this; should he ever be of a mind to provide one if investigators choose to ask him.
According to Rachael and Jane Matthew went to 'chivvy' the Paynes along. According to Matthew and Russell the Paynes arrived before he left. According to Kate, Russell went to check on his children at 9pm, when Gerry went to check on his. According to Dianne and Fiona, they left their apartment at 8.45, so are we to believe they still hadn't arrived at 8.55, as Rachael says? It only took ten minutes to walk to the beach, according to Fiona.Human memories of the same events are often wildly at variance, it’s really very normal.
"And then it was getting quite late again and Dave, Fi and Dianne were nowhere to be seen, so Matt actually, I think it had got to the point when it was like ‘Oh Matt go and’ and Matt said he’d go back and chivvy them along.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
at about five to nine, Matt said just he'd go up and get them and hurry them along, so he went back, yeah up the road and in through the car park
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
These may be unimportant details, but they highlight the fact that the group's memories are not reliable at all. No wonder they felt the need to gather together and try to create a coherent account.
But in order to do that, they had to demolish Tannerman, hence producing Trotman even though he was travelling in the opposite direction.She was probably gagged. By the High Ups. Or offed. Anyone seen her alive since Tannerman was binned off?
Don't think Tanner made any public protest about that -strange, seeing how she was so sure about what she saw.
IMO
Some posters here were saying that the reason they tried to put together a group account of what happened and when was to help the search for Madeleine. Isn’t it the case that this explanation doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t really help? Can you see how some thought the group were motivated by proving their checks were frequent?Trying to be helpful and actually being helpful are two different things. I think the checks that night make perfect sense interms of the intervals between
And it isn't reasonable to expect someone to remember exactly what they were doing one night 14 years ago.
Human memories of the same events are often wildly at variance, it’s really very normal.
In addition the checks became so frequent that the PJ (and others) wondered if there was actually enough of a gap to allow time for an abduction. Op Grange found a gap just before 10pm and went with that.
Human memories of the same events are often wildly at variance, it’s really very normal.
This group weren't content with varying memories though, were they. They attempted, as a group, to produce a very detailed account with times attached. It didn't help them or the investigation, however, because it raises suspicion when stories change.
What’s perhaps more puzzling is why they felt such an urgent need to provide this information.
It’s also puzzling that the press were reporting on jemmied shutters the next morning, imo.
Didn't seem to have the same effect on Murat then did it. I don't think I have seen more changes or contradictions in statements than his. But for some strange reason that doesn't appear to excite the same interest.
Neither is puzzzling
Didn't seem to have the same effect on Murat then did it. I don't think I have seen more changes or contradictions in statements than his. But for some strange reason that doesn't appear to excite the same interest.
What’s perhaps more puzzling is why they felt such an urgent need to provide this information.Erm…a child had just gone missing and you question the urgency of providing a timeline to the police? When would it have been more appropriate to do so in your view? A few weeks later maybe?
It’s also puzzling that the press were reporting on jemmied shutters the next morning, imo.
This group weren't content with varying memories though, were they. They attempted, as a group, to produce a very detailed account with times attached. It didn't help them or the investigation, however, because it raises suspicion when stories change.How very evil of them to attempt to put together a timeline of events, what WERE they thinking? There should really be a law against it IMO.
Really? Do you have cites?
How tiresome and predictable 😁 You of course know that my cite is in the PJ files posted on the internet by Levy.
As are a lot of mine, but I supply them when asked. Please have the courtesy to do the same and comply with forum protocols.
How very evil of them to attempt to put together a timeline of events, what WERE they thinking? There should really be a law against it IMO.
It’s utterly bizarre though in my opinion. In an imaginary scenario where a child is missing the comings and goings are far less important than the time the child was last seen. We can see from the PJ files and Amaral’s book that the group timeline and the individual timelines, rightly or wrongly, arrouse suspicion.What is utterly bizarre in my opinion is your opinion that writing a timeline (which included times of checks on the children) is utterly bizarre.
It’s utterly bizarre though in my opinion. In an imaginary scenario where a child is missing the comings and goings are far less important than the time the child was last seen. We can see from the PJ files and Amaral’s book that the group timeline and the individual timelines, rightly or wrongly, arrouse suspicion.
Basically constructing a defence for McCann against neglect. Good to know they could see where their priority lay.
IMO
What absolute nonsense! After fruitlessly searching for Madeleine the best way the material witnesses could think of to assist the police was to produce a timeline of their movements.
Do you think they shouldn't have done that?
With hindsight maybe not. They could individually relate the facts as they remember them to the Police as and when requested. The Police are capable of realising that a small discrepancy in a time is normal. The important point (if it's an abduction) is to establish the last time the missing child was seen. What the collusion with a group timeline has done, in the eyes of the PJ, rightly or wrongly, and commented on in the Chief Inspector's report is to make it appear that none of the group individually are telling the truth (that's according to them not me). This then arouses suspicion. I'm sure the same situation repeated in the UK would also create the same difficulties. I'm struggling to see a case where group witness collusion is encouraged or seen as helpful.This was a bunch of people desperately trying to think of anything that might assist in the search for Madeleine, they were feeling powerless, out of control and this exercise gave them something to focus on. My opinion. If a timeline of their movements wasn’t important or relevant why did the police want to do a reconstitution of them anyway? Whose account should they have relied on?
My own personal opinion, which I am free to express legally, is that I concur with Jassi's comments above.Of course that doesn't mean I'm correct and no inference can be taken from the fact, that like you, I have formed my own opinion of events based upon the available evidence.
This was a bunch of people desperately trying to think of anything that might assist in the search for Madeleine, they were feeling powerless, out of control and this exercise gave them something to focus on. My opinion. If a timeline of their movements wasn’t important or relevant why did the police want to do a reconstitution of them anyway? Whose account should they have relied on?
Few of us have ever experienced anything like the trauma these people were experiencing. I imagine the knowledge that a friend's little girl had vanished and the knowledge that it could have been any one of theirs must have caused real psychological trauma in the group.
I think there is something really mean spirited about the sceptic analysis and criticism they have be subjected to for over fourteen years; which I think tells us a lot more about sceptics than it ever could about witnesses to an horrific crime.
Aye well it doesn't do any good to be to serious.
It's not as if any of us are personally involved with the personalities involved. is it ?
Thank you for noticing. Let's all have a laugh.
This Forum is fast bordering on hilarious.
What makes you say that? Surely it's reasonable and very serious to ask what the T9 witnessed, when an assertion is made that they were witness to "an horrific crime"? Isn't this exactly what the PJ did (i.e. take statements from potential witnesses)? With the greatest of respect and without any intention to come across as confrontational or goading, I fail to see how any of the points raised regarding the timeline are "hilarious".
Hilarious doesn't describe the forum in my opinion either, but each to their own.
What I find hilarious is your preoccupation with the timeline..
I'm pleased it amuses you. I must admit that I prefer to explore the facts of the case, rather than speculating about how the witnesses felt, what motivates other posters, and what the Germans might know.
It can't be assumed that the T9 were traumatised. Not everyone suffers trauma after an upsetting event. It certainly can't be used to explain what people do in the immediate aftermath imo. That's because each person will respond differently, whether traumatised or not.
In this case one person; Russell O'Brien responded by writing down a timeline of the evening and handing it to the GNR officers. A few days later the group decided to create and type out another version which was handed to the PJ on 10th May by 'the British Laison Official'
The timelines weren't completely the same; Russell's initial recollection was that all members of the group were present at the Tapas restaurant at 8.45pm. His opinion isn't actually independently corroborated, but the later time of 9pm in the typed timeline is independently contradicted. Individual statements by those involved didn't match the 'group' timelines either, so, understandably, people wondered why.
I don't think it's a sign of being 'mean spirited' to analyse and compare these differences. Nor do I think it's correct to assume that's meant as a criticism. Given the importance of the timeline of events, and the apparent acceptance of it by the authorities and the media, I think it's very important to identify how much it can really be relied upon.
In my opinion non verbatim and non recorded statements cannot be relied upon particularly under the auspices of the manner in which they were translated and typed out.
Absolutely farcical!
I would see the point of "revisiting" the timeline if it meant anything other than providing an opportunity for sceptics to wallow in their scepticism which - in my opinion - can easily be classed as being "mean spirited" at the very, very least.
If this were true, then it would make the Grange timeline worthless - IMO
I'm pleased it amuses you. I must admit that I prefer to explore the facts of the case, rather than speculating about how the witnesses felt, what motivates other posters, and what the Germans might know.What do you hope to achieve by doing so, out of interest?
The mccanns left their apt around 8.30...the childrem were checked intermittently....maddie found missing around 10.
the detail is of no real importance....imo
I'm pleased it amuses you. I must admit that I prefer to explore the facts of the case, rather than speculating about how the witnesses felt, what motivates other posters, and what the Germans might know.
I'm sure you'll be saying much the same in another 10 years.
You are dealing with a time when the facts of the case were being manipulated by an incompetent investigation which was more obsessed with leaking information to the press in the attempt to incriminating their patsy than looking for Madeleine.
"This is a very badly told story" Diário de Notícias
by: José Manuel Oliveira and Paula Martinheira
05 May 2007
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the English three-year-old child that was on holidays in Lagos, "is a very badly told story", a source from the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão has confided to DN. The statement reflects the authorities' doubts concerning the "confused" depositions that were given by the witnesses yesterday, throughout the day.
Don't you think that illustrates rather a rush to judgement and the fact that you are still raising it fourteen+ years later just a tad extraordinary.
If this were true, then it would make the Grange timeline worthless - IMO
Perhaps they took notice only of the typed timeline which is present in the files in the original English. Comparing other statements to that timeline (whether by the T9 or others) may not have occured to them.
Speculation
You are dealing with a time when the facts of the case were being manipulated by an incompetent investigation which was more obsessed with leaking information to the press in the attempt to incriminating their patsy than looking for Madeleine.
"This is a very badly told story" Diário de Notícias
by: José Manuel Oliveira and Paula Martinheira
05 May 2007
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the English three-year-old child that was on holidays in Lagos, "is a very badly told story", a source from the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão has confided to DN. The statement reflects the authorities' doubts concerning the "confused" depositions that were given by the witnesses yesterday, throughout the day.
Don't you think that illustrates rather a rush to judgement and the fact that you are still raising it fourteen+ years later just a tad extraordinary.
The two 'group' timelines are in English, so no manipulation of them was possible. Individual statements included times which didn't match the group's timeline and these are the facts. What the PJ might have thought or said is immaterial imo. I don't think it's extraordinary at all to return to the timeline because I think that convicting anyone of abducting Madeleine McCann will have to include showing when and how it happened.
You seem to be of the same mistaken mindset as Amaral.
What will be important is showing it happened... And it seems Wolters can do this.
So you think maybe they can convict him of murder but not of abduction? Because proving he murdered Madeleine (if they can) doesn't prove he abducted her.
The two 'group' timelines are in English, so no manipulation of them was possible. Individual statements included times which didn't match the group's timeline and these are the facts. What the PJ might have thought or said is immaterial imo. I don't think it's extraordinary at all to return to the timeline because I think that convicting anyone of abducting Madeleine McCann will have to include showing when and how it happened.
They dont need to prove abduction if they can prove murder It doesnt really matter.. Why do you think it does
You are entirely wrong based on your premise that anyone other than a small rump of like minded sceptics need to be 'convinced' that Madeleine was kidnapped.
Amaral botched the investigation right from the start by trying to set up her parents. It didn't work then and it certainly is not working now. The tragedy of it all is it most definitely did not work as far as rescuing or finding Madeleine was concerned.
He knew what the situation was in the Algarve regarding burglaries and sex attacks. Or if he didn't he should have.
No court worthy of the name is going to find anyone guilty of abduction without evidence of abduction.
But they could find someone guilty of murder.
They dont need to prove abduction if they can prove murder It doesnt really matter.. Why do you think it doesIn Germany without a body is like hens teeth, this'll be no different .
In Germany without a body is like hens teeth, this'll be no different .
No court worthy of the name is going to find anyone guilty of abduction without evidence of abduction.
Even that will require strong evidence.
Depends on the evidence though you make a good reason for Wolters taking his time
But they could find someone guilty of murder.
Absolutely and sadly correct, Eleanor. Wolters has said he has evidence featuring Brueckner ~ I think it is only Amaral and the sceptics who are fixated on abduction
Really? For over 14 years it's been the McCanns, their family, friends and supporters who have insisted that Madeleine McCann was abducted; snatched from her bed by someone.
Really? For over 14 years it's been the McCanns, their family, friends and supporters who have insisted that Madeleine McCann was abducted; snatched from her bed by someone.
It seems she was... But the idea that the parents wil be cslled and questioned re the timeline to try and show abduct was not possible is plain bonkers
To be murdered Madeleine had to first be abducted. I would have thought that this much was obvious, even for you.
But Murder is the greater crime. Wolters only has to prove that Madeleine was murdered.
Really? For over 14 years it's been the McCanns, their family, friends and supporters who have insisted that Madeleine McCann was abducted; snatched from her bed by someone.
It doesn't matter to me, but it leaves open the question of how the two met; inside 5A or outside?Being unable to fully estythe finer details of how, when, where Mark Bridger murdered April Jones did not prevent the police bringing charges against him, remember?
To be murdered Madeleine had to first be abducted. I would have thought that this much was obvious, even for you.
But Murder is the greater crime. Wolters only has to prove that Madeleine was murdered.
Like I've said in Germany they don't do murder with out a body, it'll be hard to see how this will happen.defendants put up all sorts of idiotic excuses, eg Mark Bridger claimed he accidentally ran over April Jones. There’s nothing to prove he didn’t, but really?? It didn’t stop him being found guilty of murder.
Lets just suppose Wolters has a picture of a dead Madeleine, my scenario which holds as much water as Nina and Frederik's bucket I'll admit ,a perfect defence would be CB took a photo when he happened upon that which smithy hid, over to you Mr Prosecutor.
Like I've said in Germany they don't do murder with out a body, it'll be hard to see how this will happen.Think about it. There was a million pound reward for information leading to the discovery of Madeleine McCann. What judge or juror is going to believe that any man as money motivated as CB just accidentally happens upon the corpse of the most sought after missing child in the area / world and doesn’t come forward to try and claim his prize, if only the massive fame and fortune the would undoubtedly be conferred upon him by the world’s media? Not a believable excuse, so back to the drawing board I’m afraid.
Lets just suppose Wolters has a picture of a dead Madeleine, my scenario which holds as much water as Nina and Frederik's bucket I'll admit ,a perfect defence would be CB took a photo when he happened upon that which smithy hid, over to you Mr Prosecutor.
Think about it. There was a million pound reward for information leading to the discovery of Madeleine McCann. What judge or juror is going to believe that any man as money motivated as CB just accidentally happens upon the corpse of the most sought after missing child in the area / world and doesn’t come forward to try and claim his prize, if only the massive fame and fortune the would undoubtedly be conferred upon him by the world’s media? Not a believable excuse, so back to the drawing board I’m afraid.
Like I've said in Germany they don't do murder with out a body, it'll be hard to see how this will happen.
Lets just suppose Wolters has a picture of a dead Madeleine, my scenario which holds as much water as Nina and Frederik's bucket I'll admit ,a perfect defence would be CB took a photo when he happened upon that which smithy hid, over to you Mr Prosecutor.
Who says germany doesnt do no body murders...that cannot be true
Find them ?
I remember your post....I wasnt impressed. Why would germany not prosecute with no body if the evidence was overwhelming
They did dob him in though didn’t they? When there was a reward on offer had he already told them of his supposed involvement, or was it only some years later?
The million pound reward never brought his best of buddies to dob him in it.
Like I say find them searches find limited cases , one being a miscarriage of Justice.yes, a strange case in which all the victim’s family confessed to a murder they never committed. Of course Joana Cipriano’s murder was also a conviction without a body, albeit a Portuguese example.
To be murdered Madeleine had to first be abducted. I would have thought that this much was obvious, even for you.
But Murder is the greater crime. Wolters only has to prove that Madeleine was murdered.
Like I say find them searches find limited cases , one being a miscarriage of Justice.
https://www.heraldlive.co.za/weekend-post/your-weekend/2021-08-14-german-killers-jailed-after-mammoth-trial-but-still-no-body/
one from two weeks ago
Whats the evidence though, I'll concede this is one.
They did dob him in though didn’t they? When there was a reward on offer had he already told them of his supposed involvement, or was it only some years later?
Madeleine may have used the unlocked patio doors to go and find her parents and wandered into Brueckner outside. What then of moving doors and opened shutters?
More speculation.....i thought you didnt do it
AllegedlyWas the reward on offer when they first learnt of CB’s alleged involvement?
Not for the million you quoted though.
Madeleine may have used the unlocked patio doors to go and find her parents and wandered into Brueckner outside. What then of moving doors and opened shutters?What of them?
defendants put up all sorts of idiotic excuses, eg Mark Bridger claimed he accidentally ran over April Jones. There’s nothing to prove he didn’t, but really?? It didn’t stop him being found guilty of murder.
He was hacked to death with an axe by his wife, children and a family friend, his torso later fed to the family's three pet dogs and his head boiled in an urn and buried in a heap of manure.Yes the family comfessed then retracted their confessions. Interesting parallels with the Cipriano case IMO.
At least that is the version of events German prosecutors presented to a court in 2005 at the trial of Rudolf Rupp's wife and children, who were convicted over the killing of the family's tyrannical patriarch.
But the case was rolled out again following the discovery by workmen in March 2009 of a Mercedes that had tumbled down an embankment and into the river Danube. Forensic scientists soon discovered that the car was Rupp's and the rotting but intact body found inside was his.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/20/rudolf-rupp-farmer-family-trial
Retrial :
This led to the acquittal of all defendants.
http://www.albanylawreview.org/Articles/Vol77_3/77.3.1139%20Grunewald.pdf
A witness gave a description of Bridger's Land Rover & April getting in after speaking to the driver, so that didn't help.The witness was a six year old girl. She could have made it up. Bridger could have run her over after taking her for a spin round the block and dropping her off outside her home. Any old cock and bull story could have been used by him but none would have washed because it was clearly bullshit.
The witness was a six year old girl. She could have made it up. Bridger could have run her over after taking her for a spin round the block and dropping her off outside her home. Any old cock and bull story could have been used by him but none would have washed because it was clearly bullshit.
You have to conceded Wolters has never said his suspect took Madeleine out of 5a.
Well I think he's innocent.that’s because you’re a tw at.
I seem to recall Wolters mentioning abduction....and that CB acted alone
Madeleine may have used the unlocked patio doors to go and find her parents and wandered into Brueckner outside. What then of moving doors and opened shutters?
I seem to recall Wolters mentioning abduction....and that CB acted alone
😁 Really!!
Except in sceptic minds, hearts and fora, where does this delusional insistence feature in the investigation by SY - PJ - BKA.
Investigators generally follow whatever evidence there is - I think that is part of their training - and although I think they will evaluate what witnesses have to say - I think it is utter balderdash (not to say insulting) to subscribe to the fallacy that they are swayed by a small group of witnesses.
They are professionals ~ not bloggers 😁
I really can't believe you'te trying to deny that abduction has been the only crime mentioned by the McCanns, their family and friends, their supporters and Operation Grange.
A C Rowley 2017
"In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction."
Finding the window open would suggest abduction to the McCanns. it seems like garlic to a vampire to some
"plenty of evidence for abduction for those of us who understand what evidence means"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.msg256029#msg256029
Finding the window open would suggest abduction to the McCanns. it seems like garlic to a vampire to some
I really can't believe you'te trying to deny that abduction has been the only crime mentioned by the McCanns, their family and friends, their supporters and Operation Grange.
A C Rowley 2017
"In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction."
What on earth has your post got to do with anything let alone revisiting timelines of the 3rd May 2007. But whatever it is I think you picked exactly the wrong cite to illustrate it.
I suggest you pop back and reread the whole of the question and answer session without prejudice ... and give a little thought to what the man is actually saying and not what you think he should be saying
Interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from 21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April 2017.
What we started with here was something extraordinary. We started with 40,000 documents.
We’ve got the original Portuguese investigation
and six or eight sets of private detectives who’ve done work
and we did appeals to the public,
four Crimewatch appeals, hoovering as much information as possible.
Sifting that, structuring it and working through it is an immense effort.
It’s much more ‘hard slog’ in reality than it is inspiration. That takes time and it takes systems. That’s what we’ve been working on. And what you’ve seen in the bits which have been reported publically is those appeals, when we’ve announced suspects, when we’ve made particular announcements, slowly crunching through it and
focusing our attention and making progress.
And of course at one stage we had 600 people who at one stage have been of interest to the enquiry, that doesn’t mean that they are suspects, people who were suspicious at the time or have a track record which makes us concerned about them, sifting, which focused the enquiry increasingly and when you’re doing this then across a continent and with multiple languages and having to build working relationships with the Portuguese, you put that
together and that takes real time.
So we’ve achieved complete understanding of it all, we’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects, people of interest, and where we are today is a much smaller team, focused on a small remaining
number of critical lines of enquiry, which we think are significant.
If we didn’t think they were significant we wouldn’t be carrying on.
___________________________________________________________________
Q: Over the years you have appealed for a number of what could be called suspicious-looking men, watching the apartment, watching the apartment block. Knocking on the doors touting for a bogus charity. You have issued E-fits, have you been able to identify and eliminate any of those?
MR: Some of them have been identified and eliminated but not all of them.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/115/MET_25_04_2017s.htm
What on earth has your post got to do with anything let alone revisiting timelines of the 3rd May 2007. But whatever it is I think you picked exactly the wrong cite to illustrate it.
I suggest you pop back and reread the whole of the question and answer session without prejudice ... and give a little thought to what the man is actually saying and not what you think he should be saying
Interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from 21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April 2017.
What we started with here was something extraordinary. We started with 40,000 documents.
We’ve got the original Portuguese investigation
and six or eight sets of private detectives who’ve done work
and we did appeals to the public,
four Crimewatch appeals, hoovering as much information as possible.
Sifting that, structuring it and working through it is an immense effort.
It’s much more ‘hard slog’ in reality than it is inspiration. That takes time and it takes systems. That’s what we’ve been working on. And what you’ve seen in the bits which have been reported publically is those appeals, when we’ve announced suspects, when we’ve made particular announcements, slowly crunching through it and
focusing our attention and making progress.
And of course at one stage we had 600 people who at one stage have been of interest to the enquiry, that doesn’t mean that they are suspects, people who were suspicious at the time or have a track record which makes us concerned about them, sifting, which focused the enquiry increasingly and when you’re doing this then across a continent and with multiple languages and having to build working relationships with the Portuguese, you put that
together and that takes real time.
So we’ve achieved complete understanding of it all, we’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects, people of interest, and where we are today is a much smaller team, focused on a small remaining
number of critical lines of enquiry, which we think are significant.
If we didn’t think they were significant we wouldn’t be carrying on.
___________________________________________________________________
Q: Over the years you have appealed for a number of what could be called suspicious-looking men, watching the apartment, watching the apartment block. Knocking on the doors touting for a bogus charity. You have issued E-fits, have you been able to identify and eliminate any of those?
MR: Some of them have been identified and eliminated but not all of them.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/115/MET_25_04_2017s.htm
My post says what it's about; your attempts to suggest that abduction was not the mantra of the McCanns, their family and friends, supporters and Op Grange. Of course it was.It’s not a “mantra”, it’s the only plausible logical and plausible explanation when taking into account all the known facts. IMO.
It’s not a “mantra”, it’s the only plausible logical and plausible explanation when taking into account all the known facts. IMO.
Repeating this doesn't make it true.the lack of any convincing rebuttal to the statement in 14+ years makes me quite confident that it is, whether you like it or not.
It’s not a “mantra”, it’s the only plausible logical and plausible explanation when taking into account all the known facts. IMO.
There's nothing implausible and illogical about a child leaving 5A through patio doors left unlocked for that exact purpose.
There's nothing implausible and illogical about a child leaving 5A through patio doors left unlocked for that exact purpose.And then what? Fill in all the plausible, logical gaps.
And theres nothing implausible or illogical about an abduction. If you accept Maddie was able to leave the aot unnoticed then you must accept that CB could have entered unnoticed. Then of course would Maddie have closed doors and gates behind herNope. G-Unit steadfastly maintains abduction by a stranger is neither logical nor plausible. Go figure.
And theres nothing implausible or illogical about an abduction. If you accept Maddie was able to leave the aot unnoticed then you must accept that CB could have entered unnoticed. Then of course would Maddie have closed doors and gates behind her
Were the gates definitely closed?
2200: (approx): KM leaves table to check children in 5A. The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
the patio door was closed as i understand.....its all speculation isnt it. The point is tHAt if woke and wandered is possible as you accept...then you must accept abduction is possible. If not...why not
There are various possibilities, but not enough evidence to decide which one occured or when.
According to Commander Simon Foy, the first person to take charge of Operation Grange;
Foy: " it was perfectly clear to us, that the McCanns themselves had nothing, at all, to do with the actual disappearance of the child"
Interviewer: "why?"
Foy: Because, it was, it was just obvious, from, you know; that everything stacked up that they were, they were where they were when the child went missing"
Panorama 3rd May 2017 36:26 / 58:52
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6lrye9
What time did the child go missing I wonder?
there is more than enough evidence to show which scenario is by far the most likely The mcCanns are not being investigated which is evidence they have been ruled out.
There are various possibilities, but not enough evidence to decide which one occured or when.You have avoided answering the question. You claim it is perfectly plausible and logical that Madeleine woke and wandered but refuse to acknowledge that abduction by a stranger is perfectly plausible and logical. Why can't you do that? Is it just down to an idelogical resistance in your case? If not you wil be able to explain why a child leaving under her own steam is plausible and logical but that a stranger entering the apartment and removing the child is not.
According to Commander Simon Foy, the first person to take charge of Operation Grange;
Foy: " it was perfectly clear to us, that the McCanns themselves had nothing, at all, to do with the actual disappearance of the child"
Interviewer: "why?"
Foy: Because, it was, it was just obvious, from, you know; that everything stacked up that they were, they were where they were when the child went missing"
Panorama 3rd May 2017 36:26 / 58:52
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6lrye9
What time did the child go missing I wonder?
there is more than enough evidence to show which scenario is by far the most likely The mcCanns are not being investigated which is evidence they have been ruled out.
How were they ruled out?
How were they ruled out?The same way Murat was ruled out. By virtue of the fact that there was a lack of any evidence of their involvement.
You have avoided answering the question. You claim it is perfectly plausible and logical that Madeleine woke and wandered but refuse to acknowledge that abduction by a stranger is perfectly plausible and logical. Why can't you do that? Is it just down to an idelogical resistance in your case? If not you wil be able to explain why a child leaving under her own steam is plausible and logical but that a stranger entering the apartment and removing the child is not.
You seem to think the two things are the same, but they're not. I can leave my home very quickly, even in the dark. Someone entering my home with nefarious intent has to discover the layout in the dark, find what they're looking for, pick it up without any noise and then exit. They have far more to accomplish than I have.You have yet again failed to answer the question. You seem to be suggesting that a stranger entering and leaving an unlocked premises and taking something without being detected is somehow not a logical or plausible occurrence, and yet it happens hundreds, possibly thousands of times a day worldwide, certainly far more frequently than little children waking up in the night and disappearing out the door never to be seen again. So try again. Why is the latter plausible and logical, but the former not? Try and explain as best you can, I'm all ears.
And theres nothing implausible or illogical about an abduction. If you accept Maddie was able to leave the aot unnoticed then you must accept that CB could have entered unnoticed. Then of course would Maddie have closed doors and gates behind her
You have yet again failed to answer the question. You seem to be suggesting that a stranger entering and leaving an unlocked premises and taking something without being detected is somehow not a logical or plausible occurrence, and yet it happens hundreds, possibly thousands of times a day worldwide, certainly far more frequently than little children waking up in the night and disappearing out the door never to be seen again. So try again. Why is the latter plausible and logical, but the former not? Try and explain as best you can, I'm all ears.
Abduction is one possible explanation.
I actually believe it’s “supporters” that refuse to accept that there are also other possibilities.
There needs to be enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an abduction took place, when, how and by whom. Op Grange assumed the PJ had ruled the McCanns out according to Rowley, but they didn't. Foy says they checked where the McCanns were when the child disappeared, but he couldn't have known when the child disappeared, so that was nonsense waffle imo.Rowley said that SY looked at everything and came to the conclusion the mccanns were not involved... Not that they simply took the PJs word for it
The Germans are trying to prove CB murdered Madeleine and perhaps they'll suceed. If they can't prove he abducted her there will always be the possibility that an accomplice remains free, that someone unconnected did it, or that she wandered unprotected into the night on her own.
Then you havent read my posts... I saying abduction is the most likely.. Not the only
Abduction is one possible explanation.Can you let G-Unit explain why woke and wandered is plausible and logical but stranger abduction is not please?
I actually believe it’s “supporters” that refuse to accept that there are also other possibilities.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10830.msg664203#msg664203
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10830.msg664203#msg664203You have yet again failed to answer the question. You seem to be suggesting that a stranger entering and leaving an unlocked premises and taking something without being detected is somehow not a logical or plausible occurrence, and yet it happens hundreds, possibly thousands of times a day worldwide, certainly far more frequently than little children waking up in the night and disappearing out the door never to be seen again. So try again. Why is the latter plausible and logical, but the former not? Try and explain as best you can, I'm all ears.
The same way Murat was ruled out. By virtue of the fact that there was a lack of any evidence of their involvement.
I don't remember SY ever saying Murat had been ruled out.So Murat is still a suspect is he?
When an opportunist burglar enters a property he/she is looking for undetermined items of value which may or may not be present at that time.
When a child abductor enters a property he/she will already know that a child is in there if reconnaissance work has been undertaken.
Who would break into an appartment before 10pm unless he knew that the occupants were out?
Not knowing when they would be back too, massive risk with nothing much except a missing child to suggest it being so.
Who would break into an appartment before 10pm unless he knew that the occupants were out?
Interesting question which raises another imo, if doors are unlocked is it a breaking in, unlawful entry yes but breaking in, Mitchell on behalf of the McCann's stated the window was used for exit and they (abductor one presumes ) didn't have to tamper with anything.And what difference would that make in the grand scheme of things?
And what difference would that make in the grand scheme of things?The same as any thing else said on this board yet you continue to engage.
The same as any thing else said on this board yet you continue to engage.I meant what difference would it make to the case? Whether it’s breaking in or unlawful entry?
I meant what difference would it make to the case? Whether it’s breaking in or unlawful entry?
I meant what difference would it make to the case? Whether it’s breaking in or unlawful entry?
Well, if Kate opened the window for him then that would make her complicit, and there's physical evidence that she opened the window, but none that Brueckner ever did.I see. So in your view if Bruckner is charged, then so will Kate as being his accomplice? Novel theory, one of your more “original “ ones for sure…. *%87
I see. So in your view if Bruckner is charged, then so will Kate as being his accomplice? Novel theory, one of your more “original “ ones for sure…. *%87
The half hour phone call at 7:30 could have been Kate & Gerry on a burner phone, making arrangements with Brueckner.
According to David Payne they didn't get their two burner phones until the morning of 4th.
According to David Payne they didn't get their two burner phones until the morning of 4th.
I don't suppose you could do something about Spammy, could you?
I don't suppose you could do something about Spammy, could you?
What do you mean?
Use your imagination.
Nope, nothing springs to mind.
The half hour phone call at 7:30 could have been Kate & Gerry on a burner phone, making arrangements with Brueckner.Was this before or after they’d murdered her? Perhaps Bruckner ran a corpse disposal service and they found his number on a card in a local phone kiosk. Yes, I think that’s probably it.
Was this before or after they’d murdered her? Perhaps Bruckner ran a corpse disposal service and they found his number on a card in a local phone kiosk. Yes, I think that’s probably it.
This is the only logical & plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance, imo.of course it is dear.
How many posters here accept it likely that the actual time of Kate's alarm was before 10pm.Based on that I would say it was around 10pm, which would have been around half an hour after the last check which is in keeping with the pattern of the previous checks, ie on the hour and half hour.
Some independent witnesses suggest it may have been but....
Of the T7 in their first statements we have:
DP "Towards 10pm" (suggests before imo)
FP - Doesn't give a time.
MO - At around 10pm
RO - At around 10pm
JT - not present when alarm raised
ROB At around 10pm
DW - Doesn't say a time.
Gerry and Kate stated:
GM - At about 10pm
KM - At around 10pm
Based on that I would say it was around 10pm, which would have been around half an hour after the last check which is in keeping with the pattern of the previous checks, ie on the hour and half hour.
Well, according to the archival summary "they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did".Oh? So when did they check on them? The archival summary must have proof of the actual times, let’s hear it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Oh? So when did they check on them? The archival summary must have proof of the actual times, let’s hear it.
No one has proof of the actual times, had you not noticed?but the archiving summary which you quoted says
Based on that I would say it was around 10pm, which would have been around half an hour after the last check which is in keeping with the pattern of the previous checks, ie on the hour and half hour.
One thing which puzzles me is that Matthew Oldfield was 'in tune' with the McCanns. He checked his daughter at 9pm and 9.30pm. He was also due to check at 10pm therefore, but he didn't. He said;I don’t understand. At 10pm other things were going on, that they hadn’t anticipated. What’s puzzling you?
Russell came back and we started chatting, you know, how's Evie and all that sort of thing, erm, so, I think he was still eating at the time, so we waited until he'd finished before we went'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Of course Russell didn't need to check at 10pm because Jane was in his apartment.
And off we go again on this not so bright Sunday morning.
Rinse and Repeat ad infinitum.
I don’t understand. At 10pm other things were going on, that they hadn’t anticipated. What’s puzzling you?
That Matthew, who was due to check his daughter at the same time as Kate, didn't.I don’t think they were in a pact that meant they had to leave the table at exactly the same time. I expect tongues would have wagged even harder in some circles if they had!
And off we go again on this not so bright Sunday morning.
Rinse and Repeat ad infinitum.
Give over, what else would you be doing if you didn't have it to read.
The weather here is bright and sunny. 8(>((
but the archiving summary which you quoted says
“they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did”
So upon what basis did they arrive at this conclusion?
I haven't re-read it but maybe that is referring to the manner of the check i.e going inside the apartment. My understanding is that they employed instead a listening on the outside method of "checking" by their own admission apart from the one fateful night when it was, reportedly, done differently.
Mrs Fenn heard crying lasting an hour and fifteen minutes, which means the children were not being visited every 30 minutes.That is an assumption on your part.
That is an assumption on your part.
A conclusion reached by the PJ, not me.You stated it as a fact, it is not a fact unless you can explain why.
You stated it as a fact, it is not a fact unless you can explain why.
The alarm was raised at around 10pm and Gerry was sat at the tapas table at the time.
Mrs Fenn heard crying lasting an hour and fifteen minutes, which means the children were not being visited every 30 minutes.
'Around' 10pm, so it could have been quarter to then.No it couldn't. Then it would have been described as "around quarter to 10".
It's a fact that the PJ reached that conclusion.You didn't mention the PJ in your post though did you? But I'm glad we can now treat their conclusions as facts. They concluded Gerry could not be Smithman, so now that's a fact.
"PAMELA FENN lives on the first floor of the residential block, above the apartment occupied by the McCANN family. She related that, on 1 May 2007, two days before the disappearance, at about 22h30, she heard a child crying, which by the sound was MADELEINE. The child continued weeping for one hour and 15 minutes, until the parent’s arrival (she heard the door sounds), at about 23h45. This witness places in cause the allegation (by the parents) of the daily routine of visits every 30 minutes to check the children who had been left on their own."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
No it couldn't. Then it would have been described as "around quarter to 10".
IMO I still believe Mrs Fenn was confused. On the Tuesday night Madeleine was woken by the twins crying. IMO Amelie woke grizzled for a bit waking Sean who then cried, waking Madeleine who called Daddy. She then went into the McCann's bedroom and slept there the rest of the night.
Ok, so what is the cut off point between quarter to & ten when the time becomes 'around'no more than five minutes either side of the quarter hour IMO.
9.46?, 9.51?
It seems a bit vague if you ask me.
I don't think Mrs Fenn was confused I think the PJ were making assumptions, always supposing we have been allowed to read the correct version of the translation.
For example Did Mrs Fenn mention Madeleine by name? It must also be borne in mind that there were other people moving around in the resort at the time - not one of whom mentions hearing a crying child.
Not even the Irish teenager nipping out for a smoke, or the Tapas waiter hanging about doing likewise.
To update the information just a little ~ had the PJ bothered to track Brueckner (or A N Other with a similar profile to his) down instead of going away when he didn't answer his door to them ~ they could have asked him pertinent questions, the answers to which might have made a 'timeline' really meaningful.
no more than five minutes either side of the quarter hour IMO.
IMO I still believe Mrs Fenn was confused. On the Tuesday night Madeleine was woken by the twins crying. IMO Amelie woke grizzled for a bit waking Sean who then cried, waking Madeleine who called Daddy. She then went into the McCann's bedroom and slept there the rest of the night.
The fact remains that there was crying for one hour and fifteen minutes, and no parental intervention.
The fact remains that there was crying for one hour and fifteen minutes, and no parental intervention.
The fact doesn't remain - unless you choose to let us in on how you know this.
Easy to do. For example ~ who else corroborated Mrs Fenn's statement? Did the PJ bother to check the time and date of the phone call to her friend and where is her statement in the files?
Yes, they could have asked him 'did you abduct Maddie?'
He'd say no, then what?
Who rushes into the bedroom when a child starts to grizzle? You wait to see if they go back to sleep, Amelie cried woke Sean who cried. Then it was Madeleine who called Daddy IMO. Kate said she was on her way to the bedroom when Madeleine came into their bedroom. IMO on the Thursday morning she remembered this and asked 'why didn't you come when we cried' or similar words.
Where were you?
At home, now what?
But he wasn't "At Home."
Yeah, so basically the certainty Gerry wasn't Smithman is based on an uncertain data.You're missing the point. G-Unit cited as FACT that Mrs Fenn heard the McCann children simply on the basis that this was the PJ's conclusion. Therefore based on the PJ's conclusion I can state as FACT that Gerry was not Smithman. Got it now?
The fact remains that there was crying for one hour and fifteen minutes, and no parental intervention.How do you know it's a FACT there was no parental intervention?
How do you know it's a FACT there was no parental intervention?
If they intervened the crying would have stopped imo.We are either dealing with Fact or Opinion here. Which is it?
If they intervened the crying would have stopped imo.They may have intervened by giving her a slap, so Vertigo has a valid point.
If they intervened the crying would have stopped imo.That's just your opinion so we've established it's not a fact.
We are either dealing with Fact or Opinion here. Which is it?
They may have intervened by giving her a slap, so Vertigo has a valid point.Thanks. Also, they may have intervened and the crying may have subsided and returned once they had left. Did Mrs Fenn say the crying was uninterrupted for 90 solid minutes? I would have gone down there and slapped them myself had that been the case. The parents I mean, not the children.
Kate didn't say she was on her way to the bedroom.
When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room. She says that before Madeleine appeared in their room, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine went to the room almost at the same time she head the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she or Gerry went to the childrens' room, however she states that Amelie cried for a short time.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
The crying and shouting heard by Mrs Fenn stopped at 11.45, when the patio doors were used, so crying after midnight is a different matter.
Well Kate said it wasn't true so ...
Was she there?Was Mrs Fenn? Did she actually see the children crying? Were they the only children staying within hearing distance of her apartment?
Was she there?
I raised the issue that the Portuguese Police didn't appear to be too fussed about following up on criminals who were residents of Luz and who had a recorded timeline of activity on the night Madeleine disappeared.Are you suggesting by asking what these guys were doing , that the crying Mrs Fenn alleged came from the apt. below hers that they were perhaps in that apt. Just asking because wouldn't Madeleine have told her parents that someone was in her bedroom ?
There has been a deafening silence on that one.
A more pertinent question than yours is where these guys were and what were they doing. Why is it with all the "research 😁" carried out over the intervening years sceptics remain reliant on Mrs Fenn's Levy posted statement taken on 20th August, while totally ignoring that men with a profile like Brueckner's were ignored.
Are you suggesting by asking what these guys were doing , that the crying Mrs Fenn alleged came from the apt. below hers that they were perhaps in that apt. Just asking because wouldn't Madeleine have told her parents that someone was in her bedroom ?
Good question, its not been established as a fact the girl was abducted .That's your opinion.. I would say it has
That's your opinion.. I would say it has
IYO
Sorry - I find your post incoherent. I haven't the slightest idea what it is you are trying to say.
Sorry - I find your post incoherent. I haven't the slightest idea what it is you are trying to say.Your post has been helpfully ‘interpreted’ which makes it crystal clear why it was unintelligible in the first instance.
Your post has been helpfully ‘interpreted’ which makes it crystal clear why it was unintelligible in the first instance.
Having reread your post it would seem that my post which you were answering was as unintelligible to you as was yours to me.
I said in the post you answered
"I raised the issue that the Portuguese Police didn't appear to be too fussed about following up on criminals who were residents of Luz and who had a recorded timeline of activity on the night Madeleine disappeared.
There has been a deafening silence on that one.
That was in response to the fact that Amaral announced without a blush on Portuguese television that Brueckner was on a list at the time to be interviewed in connection with Madeleine's abduction but that hadn't been done.
It refers also to the 'burglars' later questioned by SY and their phone activity on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.
A more pertinent question than yours is where these guys were and what were they doing. Why is it with all the "research 😁" carried out over the intervening years sceptics remain reliant on Mrs Fenn's Levy posted statement taken on 20th August, while totally ignoring that men with a profile like Brueckner's were ignored."
That is in reference to the fact that known criminals whose phones placed them in the relevant time and in the relevant place were overlooked until Scotland Yard looked at them:
the fact that Mrs Fenn was ignored until four months after the event:
the fact that the internet files to which we have access are by the grace of a 'disgraceful' rogue:
the fact that individuals such as Brueckner and the 'burglars' later interviewed under rogatory conditions by SY showed a lack of diligence on behalf of the investigators of 2007.
From that you may note that you are not actually answering my post. You are making reference to your own invention.
In my post I referring to proven facts. In your post you are asking me to respond to sceptic shibboleths which did not feature in what I said.
Is it any wonder I had not the slightest idea what you were on about in your post for the simple reason you addressed nothing I said in mine.
This is what it is largely all about these days, as people become more accustomed to the use of words. Some of us are better at it than others, but it is often a crock of shite. I even do it myself sometimes, although I do try not to.
But I am delighted to note that the use of The English Language has improved vastly on this Forum, although I do so often fall about laughing.
So we are all improving intellectually. And this is a very good thing.
Unfortunately Eleanor some posts never make sense no matter how erudite the poster.
Was Mrs Fenn? Did she actually see the children crying? Were they the only children staying within hearing distance of her apartment?
That is in reference to the fact that known criminals whose phones placed them in the relevant time and in the relevant place were overlooked until Scotland Yard looked at them:
Oh come on! The McCann's were out at the bar and I'm pretty sure Mrs Fenn would know which apartment she heard the crying from!! I used to live next door to a couple with a child who regularly woke and cried. She wasn't the only child neighbour in ear shot but I am absolutely 100% certain where the crying came from!!Did you live in a block of apartments with rooms above, below and next to yours? Were there children living in all the apartments or buildings immediately adjacent to yours? Can you say with 100% certainty it would have been impossible for Mrs Fenn to miss-identify where the noise was coming from? Can you be certain her recall about the length of time the crying went on for was accurate? Eye and ear witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but you think Mrs Fenn was completely accurate in her recollection?
Did you live in a block of apartments with rooms above, below and next to yours? Were there children living in all the apartments or buildings immediately adjacent to yours? Can you say with 100% certainty it would have been impossible for Mrs Fenn to miss-identify where the noise was coming from? Can you be certain her recall about the length of time the crying went on for was accurate? Eye and ear witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but you think Mrs Fenn was completely accurate in her recollection?I don't think we need to stretch credulity here when Kate herself confirmed the crying.
Did you live in a block of apartments with rooms above, below and next to yours? Were there children living in all the apartments or buildings immediately adjacent to yours? Can you say with 100% certainty it would have been impossible for Mrs Fenn to miss-identify where the noise was coming from? Can you be certain her recall about the length of time the crying went on for was accurate? Eye and ear witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but you think Mrs Fenn was completely accurate in her recollection?
It seems to me that someone living above a holiday apartment where children regularly stayed would have learned to recognise where the sound of a crying child came from. Why some are so keen to cast doubt on Mrs Fenn's testimony without any evidence to suggest she was an unreliable witness is pretty obvious imo.
Yeah, when Mrs Fenn heard the patio doors in the flat below her open, the child 2 doors along stopped crying.
Strange.
More illogical than strange. An allegedly distressed child does not suddenly stop crying when they hear a door open
It seems to me that someone living above a holiday apartment where children regularly stayed would have learned to recognise where the sound of a crying child came from. Why some are so keen to cast doubt on Mrs Fenn's testimony without any evidence to suggest she was an unreliable witness is pretty obvious imo.
Why not?
She wanted attention, the doors open, that indicates to her the parents she was crying out for had come back.
No need to keep crying.
I don't think we need to stretch credulity here when Kate herself confirmed the crying.How would Kate be able to confirm the 90 minutes of crying if she supposedly wasn’t there?
Might make sense to you but not to me...do you have children
It seems to me that someone living above a holiday apartment where children regularly stayed would have learned to recognise where the sound of a crying child came from. Why some are so keen to cast doubt on Mrs Fenn's testimony without any evidence to suggest she was an unreliable witness is pretty obvious imo.There is no evidence either way regarding her reliability. I know from personal experience of living in apartment blocks that sound does travel in strange ways. I have boring personal experiences of such which I can share upon request.
Why not?Seriously? A screaming child at the back of the apartment suddenly stops crying when the patio doors at the front of the apartment opened?
She wanted attention, the doors open, that indicates to her the parents she was crying out for had come back.
No need to keep crying.
Seriously? A screaming child at the back of the apartment suddenly stops crying when the patio doors at the front of the apartment opened?
Yes, it was an enormous Cathedral like apartment & the sound waves simply couldn't have made it as far as the bedroom door.And as we all know sliding patio doors make such a hell of a noise.
And as we all know sliding patio doors make such a hell of a noise.
Loud enough to be heard from the apartment above?OK, so they were very noisy doors that were louder than children's screams. Thanks for confirming based on your own personal experience of not having sliding patio doors, never having stayed in Apart 5a and not having any children. Very useful.
Absolutely no reason why not.
I can hear the key click in my front door from my downstairs kitchen, a damn sight further than the few feet across the lounge of 5a, & it isn't an old clunky door.
Patio doors require maintenance, or funnily enough, they get noisy.
Unless maybe, do you have the maintenance log on when the patio doors were last greased?
OK, so they were very noisy doors that were louder than children's screams. Thanks for confirming based on your own personal experience of not having sliding patio doors, never having stayed in Apart 5a and not having any children. Very useful.
I had sliding doors years ago, they were fitted in the 80's, & by the 90's they would rub & drag, the runners fill with grit, so I replaced them.Fascinating. This proves the McCanns murdered their child. Thanks for sharing.
Fascinating. This proves the McCanns murdered their child. Thanks for sharing.
You see, you're having to appeal to absurdity because there isn't a good reason to doubt Mrs Fenn.There is a good reason to question the witness testimony of everyone involved because no one has a video-recorded memory and people do make mistakes, however there are certain individuals whose testimony is (according to sceptics) 100% accurate and reliable and should not be brought into question - Martin Smith, Mrs Fenn, some bloke on the Tapas, who said everyone had left the table at 9.20pm, the female Gaspar, not to mention the dogs of course. I, on the other hand, treat it all with a pinch of salt, including the testimony of the McCanns and their friends. According to G-Unit we must Accept nothing, Believe No-one, Confirm everything - is Mrs Fenn exempt from this rule in your opinion?
There is a good reason to question the witness testimony of everyone involved because no one has a video-recorded memory and people do make mistakes, however there are certain individuals whose testimony is (according to sceptics) 100% accurate and reliable and should not be brought into question - Martin Smith, Mrs Fenn, some bloke on the Tapas, who said everyone had left the table at 9.20pm, the female Gaspar, not to mention the dogs of course. I, on the other hand, treat it all with a pinch of salt, including the testimony of the McCanns and their friends. According to G-Unit we must Accept nothing, Believe No-one, Confirm everything - is Mrs Fenn exempt from this rule in your opinion?
No, I'm just saying, there isn't a good reason to doubt her.I accept that you could be right, however it doesn't mean you ARE right and that she couldn't have been mistaken. It's also possible that the children did not cry solidly without stopping for a few minutes during that period, it's also possible that Mrs Fenn was on the lav or on the phone when one of the McCanns came back to do a check that she missed. We shall never know for sure. Given that the Tapas group did perform regular checks on their kids on the evening of 3rd May it would be very odd if they'd decided to become more vigilant rather than less vigilant as the holiday came to its conclusion unless you believe that they were all colluding to cover up Madeleine's death by going along with some charade that night.
Having lived in the apartment for 4 years, being old so probably spending a lot of time at home, it isn't unreasonable to believe she would come to recognise sounds from the apartment immediately below hers.
I accept that you could be right, however it doesn't mean you ARE right and that she couldn't have been mistaken. It's also possible that the children did not cry solidly without stopping for a few minutes during that period, it's also possible that Mrs Fenn was on the lav or on the phone when one of the McCanns came back to do a check that she missed. We shall never know for sure. Given that the Tapas group did perform regular checks on their kids on the evening of 3rd May it would be very odd if they'd decided to become more vigilant rather than less vigilant as the holiday came to its conclusion unless you believe that they were all colluding to cover up Madeleine's death by going along with some charade that night.
Seriously? A screaming child at the back of the apartment suddenly stops crying when the patio doors at the front of the apartment opened?
Not really, Kate claimed the crying incident was earlier in the week, it gave her cause to be more vigilant, so she sat with her back to the apartment before asking Fiona 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out & find us or, erm, locking it & finding that we're not there & the doors locked if she woke up'.It might actually turn out to be the harbinger that the case rests on.
First of all the children's bedroom was actually at the front of the apartment, judging by where the front door was situated. Secondly, there's no reason to assume a mobile child remained in that bedroom.Relative to the patio doors the kids bedroom was at the back of the apartment. Did Mrs Fenn say the crying was coming from all over the apartment, ie: that the crier was mobile? Did The McCanns state that Madeleine was out of her bed when they came back that night?
Not really, Kate claimed the crying incident was earlier in the week, it gave her cause to be more vigilant, so she sat with her back to the apartment before asking Fiona 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out & find us or, erm, locking it & finding that we're not there & the doors locked if she woke up'.I'm afraid that doesn't compute. On the one hand you're saying she was concerned enough about the crying to do more frequent checks, but on the other you are implying that by sitting with her back to the apartment and leaving her child to come and find her if she was upset again that she couldn't give a shit whether she cried or not. So - which is it, in your opinion?
Relative to the patio doors the kids bedroom was at the back of the apartment. Did Mrs Fenn say the crying was coming from all over the apartment, ie: that the crier was mobile? Did The McCanns state that Madeleine was out of her bed when they came back that night?If they weren't all sedated they would all be awake and crying, except the twins may not have been able to get out of the cot. From experience, if one kicks off they all kick off.
I'm afraid that doesn't compute. On the one hand you're saying she was concerned enough about the crying to do more frequent checks, but on the other you are implying that by sitting with her back to the apartment and leaving her child to come and find her if she was upset again that she couldn't give a shit whether she cried or not. So - which is it, in your opinion?The more frequent checks may well have had more to do with the fact that the constant crying would give rise to external concern. Bottom line is, irrespective, she decided that going out was more important than staying in.
I'm afraid that doesn't compute. On the one hand you're saying she was concerned enough about the crying to do more frequent checks, but on the other you are implying that by sitting with her back to the apartment and leaving her child to come and find her if she was upset again that she couldn't give a shit whether she cried or not. So - which is it, in your opinion?
She makes the contradiction here.Was Gerry sitting with his back to the apartment? Presumably unless it was like the Last Supper someone would have to be sitting with their backs to the apartments - perhaps she drew the short straw. In any case why would the entire group agree to up the frequency of their checks just because the McCann kids were screaming?
She references her concern for Maddie's welfare & leaving the doors unlocked, on the same night by tragic coincidence Maddie disappears, yet she had sat with her back to the apartment.
Maybe she asked Russell to swap chairs & he refused, but I haven't seen that claimed anywhere & sitting with your back to the unlocked apartment door behind which are the children you're concerned about doesn't make sense to me.
But I suppose, if she's weird enough to do something like that then maybe she wasn't checking the children more frequently upon increased concern for them.
If they weren't all sedated they would all be awake and crying, except the twins may not have been able to get out of the cot. From experience, if one kicks off they all kick off.That's your experience, but not mine. In my experience one can sleep blissfully while the other screams the place down. That's the thing about personal experience - it doesn't tell us much about what actually happened.
That's your experience, but not mine. In my experience one can sleep blissfully while the other screams the place down. That's the thing about personal experience - it doesn't tell us much about what actually happened.I suppose if they were in different room that could be the case. But are you seriously suggesting that Madeleine didn't go over to her siblings to wake them up? That's pretty considerate. Maybe she sobbed quietly to herself for daddy too, but not quietly enough evidently.
I suppose if they were in different room that could be the case. But are you seriously suggesting that Madeleine didn't go over to her siblings to wake them up? That's pretty considerate. Maybe she sobbed quietly to herself for daddy too, but not quietly enough evidently.I'm sorry I don't get you. Why would you naturally assume that Madeleine would get out of bed deliberately to wake up her siblings? Is that a given in your view? As I said in my experience a child can wake up and cry without waking the other child. Not only cry but vomit right next to the sleeping child. Oh, the joys of sharing a hotel room with the sprogs!
It might actually turn out to be the harbinger that the case rests on.
What better way for CB's accomplice to alert him to a pattern of crying in the apartment i.e. child / children being left alone on consecutive nights.
It could be that the infamous phone call was from someone in the Tapas bar keeping tabs on the group and telling him when the coast was clear.
I'm sorry I don't get you. Why would you naturally assume that Madeleine would get out of bed deliberately to wake up her siblings? Is that a given in your view? As I said in my experience a child can wake up and cry without waking the other child. Not only cry but vomit right next to the sleeping child. Oh, the joys of sharing a hotel room with the sprogs!Her intention wouldn't have been to 'wake up to deliberately to wake up her siblings', and I never said that, you did, she would wake them up because she woke up and was probably scared and alone. Most likely the 2nd thing she would do after crying for her mum and dad.
Her intention wouldn't have been to 'wake up to deliberately to wake up her siblings', and I never said that, you did, she would wake them up because she woke up and was probably scared and alone. Most likely the 2nd thing she would do after crying for her mum and dad.
As for your 2nd point, I'll bet you didn't just let your child run amok; you were there so you placated him/her, soothed him/her, whatever. So your assertion is invalid, as the parents weren't there to do that - not the same.
Her intention wouldn't have been to 'wake up to deliberately to wake up her siblings', and I never said that, you did, she would wake them up because she woke up and was probably scared and alone. Most likely the 2nd thing she would do after crying for her mum and dad.I'm getting bored with arguing with you. I didn't say what you said I said, and you did say that Madeleine would deliberately wake up her siblings, indeed you repeated it above! You have no idea what Madeleine would or would not have done, and basing it on your own experience of what your or my kid would or wouldn't do is neither here nor there. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't, who knows, and why does it matter anyway? My last word to you on the subject.
As for your 2nd point, I'll bet you didn't just let your child run amok; you were there so you placated him/her, soothed him/her, whatever. So your assertion is invalid, as the parents weren't there to do that - not the same.
I'm getting bored with arguing with you. I didn't say what you said I said, and you did say that Madeleine would deliberately wake up her siblings, indeed you repeated it above! You have no idea what Madeleine would or would not have done, and basing it on your own experience of what your or my kid would or wouldn't do is neither here nor there. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't, who knows, and why does it matter anyway? My last word to you on the subject.
I'm not sure what all this fascination is with Mrs, Fenn.. If it's true then it gives more opportunity for an abduction.I suggested that earlier if you care to read back.
I suggested that earlier if you care to read back.
But I'm not fascinated by anything, Mrs. Fenn's account was corroborated by Kate herself - the kids had been crying, so it's safe to assume she heard them crying on the night she described.
So the fact that they were crying actually put them more at risk, although that's easy to say with hindsight.
No, it isn't safe to assume.Assumption in my post = my opinion.
A few more IMOs would help.
I think it’s been well established that the McCanns left their kids alone and that their kids cried though for how long on both counts is up for debate, though what purpose such debate serves 14 years dwon the line apart from yet another opportunity for more sanctimonious clap trap I’m not entirely sure.
Assumption in my post = my opinion.
No, nor am I. Madeleine appears to have asked a question of her Mother, but we still don't know when or at what time this was related to.Well we can narrow it down. It wasn't the previous Christmas, it was on holiday. So there's that.
You know, those online commentators that aren't pointing the finger at Cleo Smith's parents as the culprits in her disappearance are instead blaming them for letting her sleep in a separate compartment of the tent to the one they were in and for having such a bloody big tent. I mean what sort of a parent even DOES that?! And then there are those that blame them for taking little children on a camping holiday in the first place. Maybe they dunnit, maybe they didn't dunnit but whatever the outcome there will always be online commentators usually "perfect parents" who think it's their duty to pass judgement before all the facts are known.
Perfect Parents could have been the bane of my life.Maybe that's why we're not so hard on the McCanns being or having had similarly laissez faire parents. I spent most of my childhood playing in rivers, jungles and rubber plantations whilst my mother played mah jong or smoked and drank tea while poring over a copy of the Straits Times. Of course I was also left unattended in the evenings when my parents went out "on the town" and here I am scarred for life and brimming with resentment towards them, the evil gits.
My middle son was climbing the garden gate and bogging off to The Kampong at the age of four years old when I wasn't even sure where The Kampong was.
My Amah wasn't watching him you see. She was much more interested in my baby. I can't remember what I was doing at the time. Probably at the beach.
I think it’s been well established that the McCanns left their kids alone and that their kids cried though for how long on both counts is up for debate, though what purpose such debate serves 14 years dwon the line apart from yet another opportunity for more sanctimonious clap trap I’m not entirely sure.
Maybe that's why we're not so hard on the McCanns being or having had similarly laissez faire parents. I spent most of my childhood playing in rivers, jungles and rubber plantations whilst my mother played mah jong or smoked and drank tea while poring over a copy of the Straits Times. Of course I was also left unattended in the evenings when my parents went out "on the town" and here I am scarred for life and brimming with resentment towards them, the evil gits.
You know, those online commentators that aren't pointing the finger at Cleo Smith's parents as the culprits in her disappearance are instead blaming them for letting her sleep in a separate compartment of the tent to the one they were in and for having such a bloody big tent. I mean what sort of a parent even DOES that?! And then there are those that blame them for taking little children on a camping holiday in the first place. Maybe they dunnit, maybe they didn't dunnit but whatever the outcome there will always be online commentators usually "perfect parents" who think it's their duty to pass judgement before all the facts are known.
It is never, ever the victim's fault if something is stolen from them.
It is always the fault of the thief.
It is never, ever the victim's fault if something is stolen from them.
It is always the fault of the thief.
If you leave doors, windows unlocked & get burgled it can invalidate your insurance.
If you have a burglar alarm but don't turn it on the same applies.
This is victim blaming by insurance companies.
People should be allowed to be utterly negligent because it's always the burglars fault regardless.
Why should one need a burglar alarm?
In my experience that is not generally the view of insurance companies.
Not many tents come with solid front doors, perhaps we should just ban them to keep the kiddies safe from paedos?
I don't know why people have solid front doors on their houses if keeping your valuables behind a thin nylon sheet & zipper is adequate & it's never your fault if they get stolen.
If you leave doors, windows unlocked & get burgled it can invalidate your insurance.Oh that old argument again! Can you think of nothing original to say? I know it’s hard after 14 years, but do try!
If you have a burglar alarm but don't turn it on the same applies.
This is victim blaming by insurance companies.
People should be allowed to be utterly negligent because it's always the burglars fault regardless.
Insurance companies sometimes insist on one being installed. Depends on value of what's being insured.
Not many tents come with solid front doors, perhaps we should just ban them to keep the kiddies safe from paedos?
So Theft is endemic. Why is this do you think?
Because of gross inequality in society, and an outrageous sense of entitlement .
People see others with material goods that they can't afford, so turn to theft .
I have an expensive rare cd collection, as much as I'd like to let it have a few nights out in the back garden with nothing to protect it but a sheet of plastic, I've assessed the risk & consider them much safer in the bottom of the wardrobe.you can’t give CDs away these days, you’re quite safe to go camping with your collection.
If I had a child I might consider the risks of camping, I'd observe the fact that there'd be no protection from the rape & murder offered by a plastic sheet & so I'd judge that venture unwise.
Seems rational to me.
you can’t give CDs away these days, you’re quite safe to go camping with your collection.
you can’t give CDs away these days, you’re quite safe to go camping with your collection.
These aren't standard fare, they are mostly promo CD's from the late 80's very limited edition still in their extra fancy boxes. Some still sealed.
This is really sad. Most of what other people own is of no importance to me or even of my liking.
So do these thieves want it just because someone else owns it?
These aren't standard fare, they are mostly promo CD's from the late 80's very limited edition still in their extra fancy boxes. Some still sealed.&%%6
Oh Dear, how sad. Spammy's CDs aren't worth the time of day.
Yes, maybe the data on the disc has got old & died.Especially to CDs from the 80s. Many got cd cancer and are now unplayable.
I believe that's known to happen.
Especially to CDs from the 80s. Many got cd cancer and are now unplayable.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/the-library-of-congress-wants-to-destroy-your-old-cds-for-science/370804/
A collector buying an ancient sealed copy is unlikely to ever unwrap the disc, since it devalues instantly.give me an example of one of these precious relics.
I have a similar view regarding possessions and have never been interested in 'status symbols'.
I do however have some antique collections which give me greater pleasure that a new car or kitchen.
I have a similar view regarding possessions and have never been interested in 'status symbols'.
I do however have some antique collections which give me greater pleasure that a new car or kitchen.
In my experience that is not generally the view of insurance companies.
give me an example of one of these precious relics.
If you leave doors, windows unlocked & get burgled it can invalidate your insurance.
If you have a burglar alarm but don't turn it on the same applies.
This is victim blaming by insurance companies.
People should be allowed to be utterly negligent because it's always the burglars fault regardless.
It is the burglar's fault.
If an elderly person forgets to lock their door and their home is ransacked.....it surely is the fault of the burglar?
The majority are the Smith's Cd's, off the top of my head for instance the 1988 reissue of The Headmaster Ritual, which was discontinued due to objection by the actress pictured on the front cover.
In that case it isn't even the disc data but the artwork that matters. I have the full set of re issues.
I have a mint copy of headmaster that's only worth around maybe 40 to 80 pounds though granted, compared to the Smith's Rhino records box set released 2011 sealed, bought for a tenner, I've seen open copies go on ebay for over 100.
Oh My, so now we see a chink in the armour.
But that's okay. At least you are looking human. I was beginning to worry.
Anyway, getting back to the subject of tents & child safety.
No, tents aren't safe for keeping precious things in imo.
It is the burglar's fault.
If an elderly person forgets to lock their door and their home is ransacked.....it surely is the fault of the burglar?
Of course they are unless you have anyone about who is a thief, murderer, rapist or anyone who does not believe in the rule of law.
The majority are the Smith's Cd's, off the top of my head for instance the 1988 reissue of The Headmaster Ritual, which was discontinued due to objection by the actress pictured on the front cover.I have the first Smiths album on vinyl fully signed by the band, as well as Heaven Knows 12” and Hand In Glove 7” fully signed, that’s a good £1000 for starters. I used to have all the long promo posters advertising the singles which I foolishly sold 30 years ago, each one worth over £100 now. b....r. Never mind, it will all be in a skip somewhere in less than 50 years.
In that case it isn't even the disc data but the artwork that matters. I have the full set of re issues.
I have a mint copy of headmaster that's only worth around maybe 40 to 80 pounds though granted, compared to the Smith's Rhino records box set released 2011 sealed, bought for a tenner, I've seen open copies go on ebay for over 100.
No it's still the fault of the elderly person, unless they had dementia & a designated carer who's job it was to make sure the doors were locked. In which case it would be the carers fault.So the pensioner would be arrested for the theft and the burglar would be completely exonerated?
If they want anything of value from my gaff they'll have to bring it along first.
People don’t keep children in tents as a rule. They go camping with tents. My son used to go camping with the scouts, he escaped unmolested which was something of a miracle now I come to think of it,..
Anyway, getting back to the subject of tents & child safety.
No, tents aren't safe for keeping precious things in imo.
I have the first Smiths album on vinyl fully signed by the band, as well as Heaven Knows 12” and Hand In Glove 7” fully signed, that’s a good £1000 for starters. I used to have all the long promo posters advertising the singles which I foolishly sold 30 years ago, each one worth over £100 now. b....r. Never mind, it will all be in a skip somewhere in less than 50 years.
People don’t keep children in tents as a rule. They go camping with tents. My son used to go camping with the scouts, he escaped unmolested which was something of a miracle now I come to think of it,..
People don’t keep children in tents as a rule. They go camping with tents. My son used to go camping with the scouts, he escaped unmolested which was something of a miracle now I come to think of it,..
So the pensioner would be arrested for the theft and the burglar would be completely exonerated?
Used to camp on the IOW as a child, North Wales when I got a bit older, lovely memories of warm summers on the IOW. Nearly froze to death in Snowdonia early spring, blizzard conditions, hail stones like golf balls, thankfully no rapists or murderers though.
That was funny.yes but it makes a nice little interlude in the relentless McCann bashing.
I was a Cub Mistress once upon a time. According to my step mother the Cub Master was after me although I didn't see it. She stopped me doing something that I really liked. So I bogged off and Joined The Wrens.
And hasn't this all gone a bit Off Topic.
yes but it makes a nice little interlude in the relentless McCann bashing.
Yes, it so does. But probably pertinent anyway.True. I spent so much time with mine I spoke more Chinese than English as a young kid. Sadly I didn’t retain most of it.
We are all who we are.
I was swanning around in Singapore and leaving my Amah to take care of the brats while your parents were swanning around up the road a bit in Malaysia and doing the same thing. Those were the days my friend. No child was ever neglected in the care of an Amah.
True. I spent so much time with mine I spoke more Chinese than English as a young kid. Sadly I didn’t retain most of it.
yes but it makes a nice little interlude in the relentless McCann bashing.
This is hardly a forum for relentless "McCann bashing". The dominant view is "pro McCann" and the few folk who question the rare stranger abduction narrative don't strike me as being McCann bashing - but rather they are raising valid questions and concerns.
You mean the individuals who have been raising exactly the same "questions and concerns" have learned nothing after 14+ years at it. That alone raises valid questions and concerns for me about their sanity.
Jeez, they never give up.
It's because there are questions that have never been answered satisfactorily. Posters can try to shout down anyone raising questions with straw man and ad hominem retorts (see above for a good example), but such an approach fails to answer the points of folk who "accept nothing" and "question everything". Should we get back on topic? Does anyone have a timeline for Gerry's whereabouits in the hour after the alarm was raised, and who is this timeline corroborated by? Also, do we know where he and Kate went in the early hours of the morning after Madeleine was first reported missing?
They went out looking for their missing daughter. You are still looking for answers to that question all these years down the line, even now when the only timeline which is of interest to the police is Brueckner's.
That is lazy policing, I would suggest. Nothing can be ruled out, at this stage, on the basis of the evidence in the public domain, imo.
Do you know where Gerry and Kate went to look for their missing daughter? Do they explain why they waited for hours before this search? Who corroborates their movements?
That is lazy policing, I would suggest. Nothing can be ruled out, at this stage, on the basis of the evidence in the public domain, imo.
Do you know where Gerry and Kate went to look for their missing daughter? Do they explain why they waited for hours before this search? Who corroborates their movements?
It is not your malice that astounds me - it is your obtuseness.
This is hardly a forum for relentless "McCann bashing". The dominant view is "pro McCann" and the few folk who question the rare stranger abduction narrative don't strike me as being McCann bashing - but rather they are raising valid questions and concerns.Being pro McCann has driven many a good poster away not because of losing the argument but through spite, it's still prevalent through what Eleanor describes as word games.
You mean the individuals who have been raising exactly the same "questions and concerns" have learned nothing after 14+ years at it. That alone raises valid questions and concerns for me about their sanity.
The way to stop questions and concerns being raised is to provide answers and reassurance. Trying to deflect people's attention by questiioning their sanity will never work imo.You don’t think providing answers and reassurances hasn’t been tried a million times? This is where the obtuseness from those demanding answers comes into it. You really are no better than holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers. Nothing, no answer, no reassurance will ever sway you from your beliefs.
You don’t think providing answers and reassurances hasn’t been tried a million times? This is where the obtuseness from those demanding answers comes into it. You really are no better than holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers. Nothing, no answer, no reassurance will ever sway you from your beliefs.
You don’t think providing answers and reassurances hasn’t been tried a million times? This is where the obtuseness from those demanding answers comes into it. You really are no better than holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers. Nothing, no answer, no reassurance will ever sway you from your beliefs.Really? Is this the depths the forum has descended to to get a rise out of someone? Comparing 'sceptics' of a child being abducted to holocaust deniers? That's shameful and pretty despicable.
Really? Is this the depths the forum has descended to to get a rise out of someone? Comparing 'sceptics' of a child being abducted to holocaust deniers? That's shameful and pretty despicable.
Really? Is this the depths the forum has descended to to get a rise out of someone? Comparing 'sceptics' of a child being abducted to holocaust deniers? That's shameful and pretty despicable.Explain why?
Ok sway me from my beliefs, my belief is there's no reliable evidence Maddie was abducted, I mean presumably there is some since this is the only line of investigation, so what is it?Let’s face it, not even a sworn admission of. guilt by CB would convince you that the McCanns weren’t involved so why should I bother trying to convince you of anything?
Yeah, there are a few subtle differences between Madeleine's disappearance & the holocaust, such as the existence of death camps & millions of dead Jews.Talk about missing the point spectacularly, but of course that was deliberate. What did you call it yesterday? Appealing to the absurd or something?
I'm looking forward to my visit to the museum of Madeleine's abduction, & then denying the existence of all the irrefutable abduction evidence contained within, right after I visit the site of the Sandy Hook hoax.
Let’s face it, not even a sworn admission of. guilt by CB would convince you that the McCanns weren’t involved so why should I bother trying to convince you of anything?
Talk about missing the point spectacularly, but of course that was deliberate. What did you call it yesterday? Appealing to the absurd or something?
Explain why?Holocaust denial is a criminal offence, usually perpetrated by raging, hateful anti-Semites. So there's no comparison, despite you inferring some tenuous, catch all 'deniers' link.
You don’t think providing answers and reassurances hasn’t been tried a million times? This is where the obtuseness from those demanding answers comes into it. You really are no better than holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers. Nothing, no answer, no reassurance will ever sway you from your beliefs.
Holocaust denial is a criminal offence, usually perpetrated by raging, hateful anti-Semites. So there's no comparison, despite you inferring some tenuous, catch all 'deniers' link.The comparison is the determined obtuseness, the insistence on focusiing on largely irrelevant minutiae and refusing to see the bigger picture, the belief in a conspiracy of the high-ups, the dismissal of all rational explanations and rebuttals to their claims. I will continue to use the comparison as I see fit. I spent quite some time debating with holocaust deniers online and the comparison is quite apt in my opinion. Sorry you don’t like it but at least I gave you something to write about and to express more outraged indignation.
You need reeling in, but your mates won't do it.
I remember how swayed you are by the Cipriano's confession.No you’re right I’m not convinced by the evidence in that case, but on the other hand I think it’s possible they were involved. I’d like to see the case re-examined in light of the fact that at least one of them was tortured and that Joana isn’t the only young girl to go missing in such a relatively small area and during a relatively short time period.
I have seen loads of replies, most of which don't amount to answers. Not that I expect or demand answers; no-one here can provide them. I don't have beliefs, I have doubts and explanations as to how they arose.Doubts are beliefs IMO. You believe the parents and their friends weren’t being straight with their answers.
Doubts are beliefs IMO. You believe the parents and their friends weren’t being straight with their answers.
You think you can provide answers? Have a go at explaining this for me then. Here is a very strong statement by Kate McCann about leaving her children alone in their unlocked apartment;As you very well know I am not Kate McCann, nor Fiona Payne. Therefore you know that any answer I give is simply my opinion which you can and no doubt will choose to ignore. You know there is no likelihood of getting any explanation from the horse’s mouth so you continue seeking explanations knowing one will never be forthcoming. Why then do you do it?
"If I'd had to think for one second about it, it wouldn't have happened. I never even had to think like that, to make the decision. It felt so safe that I didn't even have to - I mean, I don't think we took a risk."
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/madeleine-s-parents-we-were-wrong-to-believe-she-was-safe-alone-6610698.html
Here is what she said to her friends on 3rd May 2007;
"she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh'."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
As you very well know I am not Kate McCann, nor Fiona Payne. Therefore you know that any answer I give is simply my opinion which you can and no doubt will choose to ignore. You know there is no likelihood of getting any explanation from the horse’s mouth so you continue seeking explanations knowing one will never be forthcoming. Why then do you do it?
The only reason I asked you for an answer is because you claimed answers had been provided. I've given just one example of a question that, as you acknowledge, can only be answered by those involved. As you say, they will never answer, but imo that doesn't that mean the anomalies should be forgotten.Why should the “anomalies” not be forgotten? What purpose does it serve?
You think you can provide answers? Have a go at explaining this for me then. Here is a very strong statement by Kate McCann about leaving her children alone in their unlocked apartment;I just got off the phone to Kate and here’s her explanation for the so-called anomaly you cite above:
"If I'd had to think for one second about it, it wouldn't have happened. I never even had to think like that, to make the decision. It felt so safe that I didn't even have to - I mean, I don't think we took a risk."
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/madeleine-s-parents-we-were-wrong-to-believe-she-was-safe-alone-6610698.html
Here is what she said to her friends on 3rd May 2007;
"she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh'."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
You think you can provide answers? Have a go at explaining this for me then. Here is a very strong statement by Kate McCann about leaving her children alone in their unlocked apartment;
"If I'd had to think for one second about it, it wouldn't have happened. I never even had to think like that, to make the decision. It felt so safe that I didn't even have to - I mean, I don't think we took a risk."
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/madeleine-s-parents-we-were-wrong-to-believe-she-was-safe-alone-6610698.html
Here is what she said to her friends on 3rd May 2007;
"she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh'."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
The way to stop questions and concerns being raised is to provide answers and reassurance. Trying to deflect people's attention by questiioning their sanity will never work imo.
Your post seems to accept that it was quite OK to leave the children yet again rather than stay in that evening .You’re interpreting my post to say say something I did not.
Both parents must have been aware that Madeleine could have woken up but thought it better to leave a door open than lock her in .
Rational thinking ? Not!!
I just got off the phone to Kate and here’s her explanation for the so-called anomaly you cite above:
In the first quote she was referring specifically to the threat posed by paedophile abductors in PdL towards her own children:
Everyone I know who has been to Portugal with their children said it was very family friendly, and it did feel like that.
"If I'd had to think for one second about it, it wouldn't have happened. I never even had to think like that, to make the decision. It felt so safe that I didn't even have to - I mean, I don't think we took a risk.”
She felt it was a safe, family-friendly resort. That said, and moving on to the words spoken by her friend Fiona Payne who has paraphrased what she said, Kate was expressing concerns, not about the likelihood of a stranger abducting her children but about the possibility that Madeleine might wake and cry and what would be best for her in such a scenario, to be able to potentially leave the apartment of her own accord to alert her parents or to be locked in so she couldn’t leave the apartment. They chose the former option but Kate had some misgivings in case Madeleine came to harm by wandering off or having an accident for example.
I hope that clears up that particular anomaly for you though I very much doubt you will accept this explanation as it’s unlikely to chime with your own beliefs and prejudices.
Well, as you say, those are very much your thoughts. I thought family-friendly meant that a resort or establishment offered facilities and activities aimed at all family members, which the Ocean Club did. When did it begin to mean "safe from abducting paedophiles", or "safe enough for small girls to wander around alone at night"? Can we assume that anywhere can be assumed to meet those criteria? I seriously doubt that.Family friendly means a friendly place for families, which when you think about it also precludes predatory paedophiles abducting children. Is that really the best you can do?
Family friendly means a friendly place for families, which when you think about it also precludes predatory paedophiles abducting children. Is that really the best you can do?
Kate says to thank you for your interest and hopes that’s an end to it, though something tells me you will be dredging this one up again at some point. God knows why!
Just because Kate McCann claims someone abducted her child (not a paedophile, she's spent years searching for an undamaged child) doesn't mean it happened.You are deflecting and shifting the goalposts. You wanted an explanation for why she said what she said remember? I have given you a perfectly logical and plausible one, but just as I predicted you rejected it for the flimsiest of reasons. This is why it’s pointless trying to offer answers to your loaded questions- you know the answer you want and reject any other which does not match.
It can be explained very simply... Neither are direct quotes from Kate... Lol
Explain why?
Jesus, God preserve me. Do you read what you say?
It is not your malice that astounds me - it is your obtuseness.
I bear no malice. I am seeking justice. Again, instead of the ad hominem retorts it would make for a more productive forum debate if you instead attempted to answer my questions.
You don’t think providing answers and reassurances hasn’t been tried a million times? This is where the obtuseness from those demanding answers comes into it. You really are no better than holocaust deniers and 9/11 truthers. Nothing, no answer, no reassurance will ever sway you from your beliefs.
If I'm shown concrete evidence to prove that Madeleine was abducted I would have no problem believing it. Instead though I see more evidence that points towards a death in the apartment. Eddie and Keela far from barking randomly were far more specific and it is undeniable that their alerts were only in property used by the McCann's. Indeed, the highly experienced expert dog handler with years of experience, Martin Grime, stated:
"My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's
behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment.
He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search.
On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above
average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent'
and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to
identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.
I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so
alerting in an area to the rear of the sofa in the lounge."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
We know that forensic evidence was collected from areas where both dogs alerted and we know that the "human cellular material" collected could have come from Madeleine McCann:
"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann."
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
We also know that Martin Smith believes the man he saw carrying a child at around 10pm could very well have been Gerry McCann. We know that despite claims to leave no stone unturned the Smith family sighting was ignored by Clarence Mitchell for months!! Surely it is reasonable to believe that parents wanting to recover a missing child would be desperate to find out who Smithman was. Instead they wanted to ignore him. Why?
We know that Kate and Gerry didn't join the initial search around PDL. After a superficial search around the holiday complex they instead took time to delete their mobile phone call logs. Why? They later went out together reportedly around 6am. Why wait so long to search for your own child? Has it ever been established where they went on this search and which route they took?
There are many valid questions which remain unanswered because OG made the error, imo, of neglecting to "clear the ground" from under the parents feet. This error, and the error of ignoring the Smith sighting have been highlighted by former UK homicide detective Colin Sutton:
"Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one of the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
According to media reports, Sutton had been tipped to head up the new probe by British police in 2010. He claims he received a call shortly after these reports from a high-ranking friend in the Met who warned him not to take on the job as he would not be happy being told what he could and could not look at.
Several aspects of the new investigation perplex him including the apparent decision by Operation Grange not to question Gerry and Kate McCann or their friends again.
“Looking at the background to the whole case again, inconvenient suggestions like the Smith sightings, have been dismissed on a number of occasions”, he says: "When someone comes forward like that, it must be taken very seriously. It wasn’t just a throwaway phone call. It was something quite specific. The fact that Mr Smith’s memory was triggered by Gerry McCann carrying the child down the steps of the plane is quite relevant because I think that is how the mind works. It is a trigger I would take quite seriously.
I can see no reason why Martin Smith would make up these claims. He has nothing to gain from doing so.”
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/colin-sutton/
Because the Nazi Holocaust is a well documented, well researched, and there is concrete evidence to prove the existence of ghettos, Einsatzgruppen actions, concentration camps and extermination camps. There is not such a body of concrete evidence to support the narrative that Madeleine McCann was abducted.Missing. The. Point.
If I'm shown concrete evidence to prove that Madeleine was abducted I would have no problem believing it. Instead though I see more evidence that points towards a death in the apartment. Eddie and Keela far from barking randomly were far more specific and it is undeniable that their alerts were only in property used by the McCann's. Indeed, the highly experienced expert dog handler with years of experience, Martin Grime, stated:You forgot to mention Kate’s earrings. And didn’t she once get her hair done too? I would suggest that instead of trying to convince me of the McCanns’ guilt that you send this post to Operation Grange and the BKA. Maybe they are unaware of the wealth of evidence pointing to the McCanns? As a “justice seeker” I believe it is your duty to do this. Good luck!
"My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's
behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment.
He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search.
On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above
average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent'
and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to
identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.
I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so
alerting in an area to the rear of the sofa in the lounge."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
We know that forensic evidence was collected from areas where both dogs alerted and we know that the "human cellular material" collected could have come from Madeleine McCann:
"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann."
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
We also know that Martin Smith believes the man he saw carrying a child at around 10pm could very well have been Gerry McCann. We know that despite claims to leave no stone unturned the Smith family sighting was ignored by Clarence Mitchell for months!! Surely it is reasonable to believe that parents wanting to recover a missing child would be desperate to find out who Smithman was. Instead they wanted to ignore him. Why?
We know that Kate and Gerry didn't join the initial search around PDL. After a superficial search around the holiday complex they instead took time to delete their mobile phone call logs. Why? They later went out together reportedly around 6am. Why wait so long to search for your own child? Has it ever been established where they went on this search and which route they took?
There are many valid questions which remain unanswered because OG made the error, imo, of neglecting to "clear the ground" from under the parents feet. This error, and the error of ignoring the Smith sighting have been highlighted by former UK homicide detective Colin Sutton:
"Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one of the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
According to media reports, Sutton had been tipped to head up the new probe by British police in 2010. He claims he received a call shortly after these reports from a high-ranking friend in the Met who warned him not to take on the job as he would not be happy being told what he could and could not look at.
Several aspects of the new investigation perplex him including the apparent decision by Operation Grange not to question Gerry and Kate McCann or their friends again.
“Looking at the background to the whole case again, inconvenient suggestions like the Smith sightings, have been dismissed on a number of occasions”, he says: "When someone comes forward like that, it must be taken very seriously. It wasn’t just a throwaway phone call. It was something quite specific. The fact that Mr Smith’s memory was triggered by Gerry McCann carrying the child down the steps of the plane is quite relevant because I think that is how the mind works. It is a trigger I would take quite seriously.
I can see no reason why Martin Smith would make up these claims. He has nothing to gain from doing so.”
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/colin-sutton/
If I'm shown concrete evidence to prove that Madeleine was abducted I would have no problem believing it. Instead though I see more evidence that points towards a death in the apartment. Eddie and Keela far from barking randomly were far more specific and it is undeniable that their alerts were only in property used by the McCann's. Indeed, the highly experienced expert dog handler with years of experience, Martin Grime, stated:
"My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's
behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment.
He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search.
On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above
average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent'
and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to
identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.
I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so
alerting in an area to the rear of the sofa in the lounge."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
We know that forensic evidence was collected from areas where both dogs alerted and we know that the "human cellular material" collected could have come from Madeleine McCann:
"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann."
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
We also know that Martin Smith believes the man he saw carrying a child at around 10pm could very well have been Gerry McCann. We know that despite claims to leave no stone unturned the Smith family sighting was ignored by Clarence Mitchell for months!! Surely it is reasonable to believe that parents wanting to recover a missing child would be desperate to find out who Smithman was. Instead they wanted to ignore him. Why?
We know that Kate and Gerry didn't join the initial search around PDL. After a superficial search around the holiday complex they instead took time to delete their mobile phone call logs. Why? They later went out together reportedly around 6am. Why wait so long to search for your own child? Has it ever been established where they went on this search and which route they took?
There are many valid questions which remain unanswered because OG made the error, imo, of neglecting to "clear the ground" from under the parents feet. This error, and the error of ignoring the Smith sighting have been highlighted by former UK homicide detective Colin Sutton:
"Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one of the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.
According to media reports, Sutton had been tipped to head up the new probe by British police in 2010. He claims he received a call shortly after these reports from a high-ranking friend in the Met who warned him not to take on the job as he would not be happy being told what he could and could not look at.
Several aspects of the new investigation perplex him including the apparent decision by Operation Grange not to question Gerry and Kate McCann or their friends again.
“Looking at the background to the whole case again, inconvenient suggestions like the Smith sightings, have been dismissed on a number of occasions”, he says: "When someone comes forward like that, it must be taken very seriously. It wasn’t just a throwaway phone call. It was something quite specific. The fact that Mr Smiths:’s memory was triggered by Gerry McCann carrying the child down the steps of the plane is quite relevant because I think that is how the mind works. It is a trigger I would take quite seriously.
I can see no reason why Martin Smith would make up these claims. He has nothing to gain from doing so.”
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/tag/colin-sutton/
There isn’t really much to be said about that sceptic diatribe except that the timeline has progressed from the mistakes of the past to the present day where the investigation continues.
The suspect who was suspected of something by the PJ but who was allowed to slip unquestioned through their fingers in 2007 is currently under investigation.
Truth seekers and justice seeker claimants could be expected to be content with the thought that at long last the unequivocal truth about what actually happened to Madeleine might soon be out. With even the possibility of the miracle that she could be alive somewhere to be considered.
I think your bluff has been called on that though. Don’t you 😁
Missing. The. Point.
I think the fact is that you consistently fail to address the valid questions raised and this is why they continue to be asked.
How so?see reply #1945
The questions aren't valid anymore.
I think the fact is that you consistently fail to address the valid questions raised and this is why they continue to be asked.Have you any idea how many times these so-called “valid questions “ have been addressed? The whole forum is about pretty much nothing else!
That sounds like they were valid at some point in time, so what changed?
I think the fact is that you consistently fail to address the valid questions raised and this is why they continue to be asked.
Have you any idea how many times these so-called “valid questions “ have been addressed? The whole forum is about pretty much nothing else!
I think you need to check the facts before making claims... Your post included..
Several aspects of the new investigation perplex him including the apparent decision by Operation Grange not to question Gerry and Kate McCann or their friends again.
That is not what Sutton said. I would say it's certain that OG did interview the McCann's again
And I'm yet to read anything that convinces me that the questions have been satisfactorily addressed. Look at Dave, for example. He is basically accusing a UK Police dog handler with 35 years experience of gross professional misconduct with the intent of feathering his own nest. I'm sorry but that just doesn't sound credible. The fact is that evidence was collected in areas where the dogs alerted. The FSS stated: ""An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann." Dave describes pointing this fact out as "complete and total tripe". As I said earlier such retorts do not address the issues. If he believes that Martin Grime was guilty of perverting the course of justice and gross professional misconduct then it his him, not me, that should be reporting his concerns to the Police.It seems you’ve already decided what the answers are to all these questions and that any answers that deviate from your own opinion can be dismissed by yourself.. So, why do you keep on asking for something that is not deliverable from those you are questioning? Are you waiting for Davel, myself or any other McCann supporter to give you answers that corresponds with your beliefs? Because if you are then that explains why we are stuck in Groundhog Day mode.
On the Smith sighting attempts have been made to smear him or to claim it can't have been Gerry McCann as he was elsewhere at 22:03. Yet at the same time the same posters concede we can't believe anything in the PJ Files as it may have been "lost in translation". So there is nothing in the public domain, independent of the T9, that is offered to prove Gerry McCann was not the man that the Smith family saw.
No-one has attempted to answer why deleting call logs and text messages was so important for Kate and Gerry. I can't imagine how damning these same posters would find it if CB had spent his time immediately after the alarm was raised deleting texts and his mobile phone call log.
Colin Sutton is open minded. He has seen nothing recently that makes him believe the parents were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, but he is on record as saying science advances and loyalties change and this fact could be key.
It seems you’ve already decided what the answers are to all these questions and that any answers that deviate from your own opinion can be dismissed by yourself.. So, why do you keep on asking for something that is not deliverable from those you are questioning? Are you waiting for Davel, myself or any other McCann supporter to give you answers that corresponds with your beliefs? Because if you are then that explains why we are stuck in Groundhog Day mode.
So would I say that. Operation Grange were not obliged to say that they did so. I don't understand why anyone thinks that they should have done.
It seems you’ve already decided what the answers are to all these questions and that any answers that deviate from your own opinion can be dismissed by yourself.. So, why do you keep on asking for something that is not deliverable from those you are questioning? Are you waiting for Davel, myself or any other McCann supporter to give you answers that corresponds with your beliefs? Because if you are then that explains why we are stuck in Groundhog Day mode.
And forever more will be so.
How anyone can live their lives completely without logic is beyond me. Or are only some of us blessed with this?
There is No Conspiracy. Why would there be?
Not at all. It would just be nice for you to offer an opinion and to be prepared to debate the questions being asked.It’s been offered a million times, and shot down a million times. Your claim is that the questions you’ve asked have never been answered but they have, you just don’t accept the answers.
Explain to me the logic of deleting texts and call logs whilst searching for your missing daughter.All been done to death over and over again.
Explain how it is logical to accuse Martin Grime of gross professional misconduct. Remember he has nothing to gain financially from false alerts.
Explain how it is logical for your PR man to ignore the sighting of a man carrying a child that resembled Madeleine McCann 500 yards from the Ocean Club shortly after the alarm was reportedly raised.
Explain to me the logic of deleting texts and call logs whilst searching for your missing daughter.By using the search facility I have found an answer to your first question. It took me 5 seconds to find and was posted in 2013. As far as I’m concerned it offers a perfectly plausible, rational explanation however I guarantee you won’t accept it and will continue to claim that the question has never been answered.
Explain how it is logical to accuse Martin Grime of gross professional misconduct. Remember he has nothing to gain financially from false alerts.
Explain how it is logical for your PR man to ignore the sighting of a man carrying a child that resembled Madeleine McCann 500 yards from the Ocean Club shortly after the alarm was reportedly raised.
Explain to me the logic of deleting texts and call logs whilst searching for your missing daughter.
Explain how it is logical to accuse Martin Grime of gross professional misconduct. Remember he has nothing to gain financially from false alerts.
Explain how it is logical for your PR man to ignore the sighting of a man carrying a child that resembled Madeleine McCann 500 yards from the Ocean Club shortly after the alarm was reportedly raised.
And I'm yet to read anything that convinces me that the questions have been satisfactorily addressed. Look at Dave, for example. He is basically accusing a UK Police dog handler with 35 years experience of gross professional misconduct with the intent of feathering his own nest. I'm sorry but that just doesn't sound credible. The fact is that evidence was collected in areas where the dogs alerted. The FSS stated: ""An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann." Dave describes pointing this fact out as "complete and total tripe". As I said earlier such retorts do not address the issues. If he believes that Martin Grime was guilty of perverting the course of justice and gross professional misconduct then it his him, not me, that should be reporting his concerns to the Police.
On the Smith sighting attempts have been made to smear him or to claim it can't have been Gerry McCann as he was elsewhere at 22:03. Yet at the same time the same posters concede we can't believe anything in the PJ Files as it may have been "lost in translation". So there is nothing in the public domain, independent of the T9, that is offered to prove Gerry McCann was not the man that the Smith family saw.
No-one has attempted to answer why deleting call logs and text messages was so important for Kate and Gerry. I can't imagine how damning these same posters would find it if CB had spent his time immediately after the alarm was raised deleting texts and his mobile phone call log.
Colin Sutton is open minded. He has seen nothing recently that makes him believe the parents were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, but he is on record as saying science advances and loyalties change and this fact could be key.
Not at all. It would just be nice for you to offer an opinion and to be prepared to debate the questions being asked.
I called your post tripe because rthere is so much in it tyhat is wrong. What evidence is rthere that OG have not reinterviewed the Mccanns as your post claims. Until you can show thats true i think its fair to refer to your post as tripe.
Isn't the burden of proof on those who claim they have been?
None of our business.
Isn't the burden of proof on those who claim they have been?Billy is claiming they havent been.. In his post.. Ivr seen no confirmation either way and have never claimed it as a fact.
I called your post tripe because rthere is so much in it tyhat is wrong. What evidence is rthere that OG have not reinterviewed the Mccanns as your post claims. Until you can show thats true i think its fair to refer to your post as tripe.
Billy is claiming they havent been.. In his post.. Ivr seen no confirmation either way and have never claimed it as a fact.
The BOF is therefore on Billy
I posted...
Martin Grime and Harrison came up with a new idea that the, alerts, could be used, as intelligence.. Grime eventually took it one step futher and decided they could be used as evidence. Grime used PDL to showcase his new business that would eventually earn him almost 100 K in Jersey... Where his contribution to the investigation was heavily critised by an official review.
All that is totally factual .....your opinion is that it implies gross professional misconduct......I wouldnt go quite that far but thanks for your opinion.
I never once mentioned whether OG had interviewed them. I was instead agreeing with Sutton's assessment that you should not begin your investigation with parental involvement t ruled out.
I don't have to prove if they deleted text messages to free up space on their phones. It's a valid speculative explanation but I don't have to prove it.
The alerts are intelligence. It led scientists to areas where forensic evidence was collected.
You are doing Martin Grime a huge disservice because he went to great lengths to explain that the alerts alone were NOT evidence - but were instead indicative that forensic evidence was likely to be in the areas where the dogs alerted.
By using the search facility I have found an answer to your first question. It took me 5 seconds to find and was posted in 2013. As far as I’m concerned it offers a perfectly plausible, rational explanation however I guarantee you won’t accept it and will continue to claim that the question has never been answered.Bumping for Billy. Please do tell us why you reject this plausible, logical explanation.
Here it is.
Posts: 2231
Total likes: 2
Open-minded truth seeker.
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Deleted calls/texts and use of mobiles
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2013, 12:02:00 AM »
Quote
Quote from: C.Edwards on April 15, 2013, 11:26:07 PM
Do you find it perfectly normal behaviour for a couple in their position to spend time altering the records on their phones?
Gilet replies:
The simple answer to your question is YES, I find it perfectly normal.
To explain.
Those looking at this issue do so with clouded eyes.
They are used to telephones which hold thousands of numbers, thousands of call records and thousands of messages.
Things were simply not the same back in 2007.
For a start, unless you were a geek you tended to keep your phone at least two years and secondly unless you were a geek your phone had nothing like the memory that we see on the most basic non smart phones today.
I still have the phone which I bought in October 2005 and which I was still using till late 2007.
It is a Samsung A300. While it was by no means state of the art at the time, it was a very well respected phone and I know that at least two other colleagues (all of us at senior managerial level) had the same phone around that time).
I have charged it up to refresh my memory.
The memory capacity was/is as follows:
It will accept 100 phone numbers.
It stores
the 10 latest dialled calls,
the 10 latest received calls,
the ten latest missed calls and
the ten latest messages.
With regard to the messages, you cannot read a new message if you already have 10 in memory, therefore you have to delete messages to receive new ones.
I have no idea if this was the make of phone that the McCanns were using but I do know it was an extremely popular model and was similar in specification to a large number of phones around at the time.
Now with those figures in mind, I suggest people think seriously about the anti-McCann claims that it is somehow bizarre that the McCanns were deleting messages and phone calls.
I suggest people think seriously about how many people they would be phoning and even more importantly how many people would be phoning them.
Ten messages could be received in a matter of minutes or even less. Even if the limit was 15 or 20 as it was on many other phones how could they keep themselves informed without constant deleting of old messages?
I can recall how often I used to delete old messages and numbers and I did not have a major world news story to deal with.
100 numbers is nothing when you are dealing with dozens of relatives contacting you, media, police, taxis, Mark Warner people, travel agents, etc, etc. I have just looked at my phone and in my relatively calm circumstances I have 176 entries in the phone book. I think at least half of those have two numbers and many have three separate numbers (home, mobile and business). That makes at least 250 in total, possibly a good few more. And as I say. I live a quiet life.
If anyone really cannot see that it was absolutely necessary using mobiles of that vintage (whichever phone they actually had) to delete calls and messages and numbers as the tragedy took over their lives then you really are burying your head in the sand.
Just to add I changed provider in November 2007 and got hold of another Samsung, this time the D900. It was probably in its way the best phone I have ever had. It did everything I needed at the time, it was best phone in almost all reviews for 2006 and many colleagues recommended it.
That pretty much state of the art phone in early 2007 held just 30 dialled numbers, 30 received numbers and 30 missed calls and just 200 messages before you had to delete some from memory to get new ones to load.
So yes I really can see why they would be deleting on a regular basis.
The alerts are intelligence. It led scientists to areas where forensic evidence was collected.Everything I posted Re Grime is 100% factual.. It was you who seemed to think those factual statements implied misconduct... Not me
You are doing Martin Grime a huge disservice because he went to great lengths to explain that the alerts alone were NOT evidence - but were instead indicative that forensic evidence was likely to be in the areas where the dogs alerted.
Bumping for Billy. Please do tell us why you reject this plausible, logical explanation.
The very detailed answer raises just one question in my mind. I don't recall needing to delete received calls on a mobile phone. Messages, yes, but calls no. As I recall it a new call just replaced the oldest one in the list.
your post said the parents hadnt been interviewed.
is there an official source supporting the claim that the mccanns deleted phone calls
The PJ
The very detailed answer raises just one question in my mind. I don't recall needing to delete received calls on a mobile phone. Messages, yes, but calls no. As I recall it a new call just replaced the oldest one in the list.Please can you supply a link to these deleted phone calls thanks.
I don't have to prove if they deleted text messages to free up space on their phones. It's a valid speculative explanation but I don't have to prove it.
The PJSo you're not going to respond to the fact that I provided you with an answer to one of your burning questions? That's a bit rude IMO.
If an interview was mentioned in my post it was from a quote.... not my words. My point is that like Sutton I believe OG was flawed from the start as it begun from a point which ruled out parental involvement on the basis of the PJ investigation.
So you're not going to respond to the fact that I provided you with an answer to one of your burning questions? That's a bit rude IMO.
To the deleted texts and call logs? I did respond. I said it was a reasonable theory (depending on their phones) but totally speculative.I've reviewed your recent posts and can find none which matches this description - kindly provide the post number thanks. Furthermore, when you say that you ask questions that have never been answered to your satisfaction can you please explain how anyone here can ever give you an answer that is anything BUT speculative?
Your post included the claim that the McCanns had not been interviwedby SY.. That's speculation
What isn't speculation is that Colin Sutton believed OG was flawed from the start because it refused to consider parental involvement.
Here's some reading on the deleted texts and calls: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
What isn't speculation is that Colin Sutton believed OG was flawed from the start because it refused to consider parental involvement.Could you provide the raw data showing the deleted phone calls - what time and date were these calls and to what numbers?
Here's some reading on the deleted texts and calls: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
The deleted calls link..
WITH THANKS TO PAULO REIS: LINK: FOR THE DETAILED ANALYSIS REPORT, IT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS NOT PART OF THE OFFICIAL RELEASED PJ FILES.
So no reliable source for the deleted calls...just paulo reiss who is a member of what I regard as the crackpot site.
So all you have in reality is Sutton.......who does not know what Grange did...hes just speculating
What isn't speculation is that Colin Sutton believed OG was flawed from the start because it refused to consider parental involvement.
Here's some reading on the deleted texts and calls: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
That doesn't mean that Colin Sutton believed the McCann's to be guilty of a cover up, indeed, his thoughts on the matter was that Madeleine was taken by a child trafficking gang.
Sutton never claimed the McCann's had not been iterviewed
I've reviewed your recent posts and can find none which matches this description - kindly provide the post number thanks. Furthermore, when you say that you ask questions that have never been answered to your satisfaction can you please explain how anyone here can ever give you an answer that is anything BUT speculative?
"I think the fact is that you consistently fail to address the valid questions raised and this is why they continue to be asked." - Billy Whizz Kid.
I take issue with some things sutton has said...such as..
I said I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail.
That is a totally illogical statement and it seems he hasnt thought through what he is saying. The only way it would be destined to fail is if the McCanns were guilty...otherwise the remit would not affect the investigation...have another think colin
That's more chaff mate. You know as well as I do what Sutton said about OG.
Here's a reminder for you.... (written in 2017)
http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
At the outset I should say that I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann. All the evidence available to me – and there is more and deeper information available to the public on this than any case I have looked at – does not convince me of any theory or scenario being proved. Soon, in the coming months when my other projects are less busy, I hope to take a proper analytical look at it all and come up with some conclusions. But as things stand my position is that I don't know.
Having said all that, there are aspects of the case which trouble me already and the main one is what the Metropolitan Police set out to do in Operation Grange. My brush with that investigation – and I call it that because I was never actually involved with it – has been the subject of a fair bit of comment, embellishment and misunderstanding. So it is right I think that I set out clearly what happened and what did not.
On Sunday 9th May 2010 the News of the World published a story which suggested that the Met was going to reinvestigate Madeleine’s disappearance and that I would be asked to lead it. This was news to me on both counts. Nobody from the Met had, or indeed ever did, make such a request of me.
The only official news I heard about the reinvestigation was a week or two later when I heard that the idea of such a reinvestigation had been shelved for the time being in the wake of the change of Government. You will recall the note by former Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne, apologising to his successor that there was no money left. The rumour in the Met was that, unless and until the Government were prepared to fund it, we would not undertake such an expensive operation which, as desirable as it might have been, was not really something on which Londoners should see their Council Tax spent.
However, before this, just a few days after the NotW story I did receive a call from a senior officer in the Met whom I knew quite well. This officer told me I would do better to avoid the McCann investigation if it did happen, because "You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".
That is the totality of the advice I received. It was made clear that this was an ‘unofficial’ call and that it was made in my interest – so that I might not end up taking on a task which would ultimately frustrate me. As such I never pressed the caller for more information, nor will I ever be in a position to disclose who the officer was.
I was familiar enough with the reporting of the McCann case in the media to understand that there was a widespread reluctance to talk of any scenario which did not involve an abduction and in which no blame or complicity was to be attributed to the parents and their friends. This struck me as odd but, in those days, quite frankly I was busy enough with he investigations I was involved in without undertaking any 'off the books' look at what had gone on in Praia de Luz. I had assumed that there was good reason for this; that those who had been involved had satisfied themselves that was the case.
I retired after 30 years service in early 2011. At the time I retired there had been no decision made to mount the Met operation. As I embarked upon a new career writing and commenting I looked at the case a little, sufficiently enough to provide sensible assistance to the media when they asked me. This was, though, always around police procedures and techniques. Nobody ever asked me what I thought might have happened, only what the police were doing, why and what they might do next.
Last year Sky asked me to a meeting to discuss what a ten-year anniversary film might achieve. I explained that I would be willing to take part but that my position was one where I was as sceptical of the accepted (abduction) theory as I was of any other. I said I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail. In support of this I presented the original Grange terms of reference and told them of the advice I had received in the phone call.
Dear me…. Colin Sutton is an experienced homicide detective. He knows how to conduct an investigation!! Just face reality Dave OG was flawed from the start because certain scenarios were ruled out. That is not the way to investigate a missing person. It really is that simple.
Just for the record are you disputing that the McCann’s deleted texts because PR reports on it? Amaral also mentions it in his book and numerous interviews. It would be easy for Kate and Gerry to show they didn’t delete texts and call logs but I don’t recall them ever doing that. Also it’s interesting that you reject Pauli’s Reiss out of hand because it doesn’t suit your narrative yet you’re happy to cite newspaper articles as evidence if you feel they point the finger of blame at CB. Open your eyes Dave…. You have a logical mind - I know you do!! Just be open to consider all possibilities.
That's more chaff mate. You know as well as I do what Sutton said about OG.
Here's a reminder for you.... (written in 2017)
http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
At the outset I should say that I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann. All the evidence available to me – and there is more and deeper information available to the public on this than any case I have looked at – does not convince me of any theory or scenario being proved. Soon, in the coming months when my other projects are less busy, I hope to take a proper analytical look at it all and come up with some conclusions. But as things stand my position is that I don't know.
Having said all that, there are aspects of the case which trouble me already and the main one is what the Metropolitan Police set out to do in Operation Grange. My brush with that investigation – and I call it that because I was never actually involved with it – has been the subject of a fair bit of comment, embellishment and misunderstanding. So it is right I think that I set out clearly what happened and what did not.
On Sunday 9th May 2010 the News of the World published a story which suggested that the Met was going to reinvestigate Madeleine’s disappearance and that I would be asked to lead it. This was news to me on both counts. Nobody from the Met had, or indeed ever did, make such a request of me.
The only official news I heard about the reinvestigation was a week or two later when I heard that the idea of such a reinvestigation had been shelved for the time being in the wake of the change of Government. You will recall the note by former Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne, apologising to his successor that there was no money left. The rumour in the Met was that, unless and until the Government were prepared to fund it, we would not undertake such an expensive operation which, as desirable as it might have been, was not really something on which Londoners should see their Council Tax spent.
However, before this, just a few days after the NotW story I did receive a call from a senior officer in the Met whom I knew quite well. This officer told me I would do better to avoid the McCann investigation if it did happen, because "You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".
That is the totality of the advice I received. It was made clear that this was an ‘unofficial’ call and that it was made in my interest – so that I might not end up taking on a task which would ultimately frustrate me. As such I never pressed the caller for more information, nor will I ever be in a position to disclose who the officer was.
I was familiar enough with the reporting of the McCann case in the media to understand that there was a widespread reluctance to talk of any scenario which did not involve an abduction and in which no blame or complicity was to be attributed to the parents and their friends. This struck me as odd but, in those days, quite frankly I was busy enough with he investigations I was involved in without undertaking any 'off the books' look at what had gone on in Praia de Luz. I had assumed that there was good reason for this; that those who had been involved had satisfied themselves that was the case.
I retired after 30 years service in early 2011. At the time I retired there had been no decision made to mount the Met operation. As I embarked upon a new career writing and commenting I looked at the case a little, sufficiently enough to provide sensible assistance to the media when they asked me. This was, though, always around police procedures and techniques. Nobody ever asked me what I thought might have happened, only what the police were doing, why and what they might do next.
Last year Sky asked me to a meeting to discuss what a ten-year anniversary film might achieve. I explained that I would be willing to take part but that my position was one where I was as sceptical of the accepted (abduction) theory as I was of any other. I said I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail. In support of this I presented the original Grange terms of reference and told them of the advice I had received in the phone call.
I haven't got time to do that sorry.... Maybe it was deleted by an admin if you can't find it..... Found it looking at something else Reply #1997I’ve given you a perfectly logicsl answer to a question that you claimed had ver been answered before though obviously it has many, many times. I’ve yet to read a more logical one so perhaps you can assist?
I agree that all our opinion is speculative! That's why it is not logical to rule out other scenarios to the ones you b elieve are likely.
Dear me…. Colin Sutton is an experienced homicide detective. He knows how to conduct an investigation!! Just face reality Dave OG was flawed from the start because certain scenarios were ruled out. That is not the way to investigate a missing person. It really is that simple.Does PR have access to information the rest of us do not? If not then you should be able to supply a link to the raw data he puts his spin on and indicate specifically which phone calls were deleted, what days they were made and at what times.
Just for the record are you disputing that the McCann’s deleted texts because PR reports on it? Amaral also mentions it in his book and numerous interviews. It would be easy for Kate and Gerry to show they didn’t delete texts and call logs but I don’t recall them ever doing that. Also it’s interesting that you reject Pauli’s Reiss out of hand because it doesn’t suit your narrative yet you’re happy to cite newspaper articles as evidence if you feel they point the finger of blame at CB. Open your eyes Dave…. You have a logical mind - I know you do!! Just be open to consider all possibilities.
If Operation Grange has been such a "wash out" as alleged by sceptics why are we where we are today regarding the investigation of Madeleine's case with police breathing down the neck of a prime suspect?cos he’s a patsy innit. The British government paid the German government to frame Brückner to protect the McCanns, it’s so obvious. Or maybe Boris has something on Merkel and it’s blackmail?
I know precisely what Sutton said and he never said the McCann's had not been interviewed.
He never said the person who he says warned him off mentioned the McCanns
He said without looking at the parents first then Grange was destibed to fail... Which contradicts his previous statement.
Petermac is also a retired senior policeman who believes in the alerts and is convinced Maddie died Three days before..
So it's clear just because someone is a retired policeman their conclusions should be valued.
Pretty well everything you believe is based on fallacies..as has been pointed out to you..
I’ve given you a perfectly logicsl answer to a question that you claimed had ver been answered before though obviously it has many, many times. I’ve yet to read a more logical one so perhaps you can assist?
Neither you nor gunit have been able to quote an official source for the deleted calls.. It seems there isn't one. Amaral is not a reliable source..his book is full of things that can be proved to be wrong.
My mind is totally open to evidence...there hadn't been any real evidence produced to implicate the parents. ...That's why imo SY have ruled them out. The evidence you think rules them in does not stand up..
What is "real evidence", Dave? And why is your bar so low for evidence you'll accept to implicate the latest paedophile patsy (imo) yet so high when it comes to parental involvement? Like OG your approach to this is flawed imo. I love it that you believe you can run rings around Colin Sutton when it comes to investigative methodology. Am I correct to assume that you weren't actually a leading detective? Your self assuredness and total lack of humility put a smile on my face. I'm not goading you Dave. There's no ill feeling towards you. I just think you have tunnel vision when it comes to this case.
Logical it may be, but IMO it is purely speculative.... IMO it doesn't prove anything....You never asked for proof, you asked for answers, but in any case it appears you have proven me right by dismissing the answer as it doesn’t fit with your beliefs. The problem is coming up with another answer for the deleted texts that does fit your narrative of accidental death and cover up and I’m afraid the timings just don’t fit very well do they?
Fair play and credit to you though for not just dismissing the alleged deleted texts out of hand.
Does PR have access to information the rest of us do not? If not then you should be able to supply a link to the raw data he puts his spin on and indicate specifically which phone calls were deleted, what days they were made and at what times.Billy Whizz, can you answer this question or not?
You never asked for proof, you asked for answers, but in any case it appears you have proven me right by dismissing the answer as it doesn’t fit with your beliefs. The problem is coming up with another answer for the deleted texts that does fit your narrative of accidental death and cover up and I’m afraid the timings just don’t fit very well do they?
Does PR have access to information the rest of us do not? If not then you should be able to supply a link to the raw data he puts his spin on and indicate specifically which phone calls were deleted, what days they were made and at what times.
The CD issued by Ministerio Publico de Portimao in July 2008, contains a great deal of information on the mobile calls made and received by the 'Tapas 9' but it is dispersed, difficult to retrieve and with important pages and charts missing. The main documents of interest from the CD are:
* A 3 page report by the Policia Judiaria (undated, but probably 4th May 2007) listing call records retrieved from the handsets of Mr and Mrs McCann
* A detailed (and excellent report) by Inspector Paulo Dias, Inspector of UNI-Sector de An'ise, Lisbon, dated 9th November 2007
* Schedules provided by Vodafone on 14th December 2007 covering a period from 29th April 2007 for Gerald McCann, David Payne, Rachael Mampilly, broken into four separate sections for incoming and outgoing telephone calls, incoming and outgoing SMS traffic
* A second report by Inspector Dias dated 5th February 2008, containing time bars, link charts and maps pinpointing where the 'Tapas 9's' sets were when they activated antennae
* A third report by Inspector Dias dated 2nd June 2008 which includes details of activations of the Luz and other mobile antenna from 28th April 2007 to September 2007
* The Rogatory Letter requests and correspondence dated from 5th December 2007 to May 2007 and responses from the Home Office in April and May 2008
I didn't dismiss your answer. I said it was valid and logical.... but purely speculative. In other words it may be right but it may not be.
In a court of law things have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt...saying something may or may not be true doesn't come anywhere near that.
Is it this data Reiss puts his "spin" on?
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Vodaphone-records.jpg
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OutrosApensos13pdf3374Kate1May.jpg
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OutrosApensos13pdf344Gerry2May.jpg
And notes on his source:
That is exactly what I was trying to communicate to Vertigo.
The very detailed answer raises just one question in my mind. I don't recall needing to delete received calls on a mobile phone. Messages, yes, but calls no. As I recall it a new call just replaced the oldest one in the list.
Is it this data Reiss puts his "spin" on?could you please pick out the deleted phone calls, times and dates for me.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Vodaphone-records.jpg
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OutrosApensos13pdf3374Kate1May.jpg
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OutrosApensos13pdf344Gerry2May.jpg
And notes on his source:
I didn't dismiss your answer. I said it was valid and logical.... but purely speculative. In other words it may be right but it may not be.Does that mean we can strike it off your list of unanswered questions?
So what evidence is there against the McCanns
So who apart from amaral and reiss say calls were deleted
I wil ask you again.. Do you have an official or reliable source calls were deleted
I love the demands for immediate responses as if I'm here 24/7. Sorry to keep you waiting!!I think the cite was first asked for at least 24 hours ago.
Please can you supply a link to these deleted phone calls thanks.My mistake - 19 hours ago.
Does that mean we can strike it off your list of unanswered questions?
I think the cite was first asked for at least 24 hours ago.
My mistake - 19 hours ago.
That doesn't mean that Colin Sutton believed the McCann's to be guilty of a cover up, indeed, his thoughts on the matter was that Madeleine was taken by a child trafficking gang.
For what?For the claims made by amaral
For the claims made by amaral
Only if you provide an evidenced based rationale for why Pro-McCann supporters offer an explanation for why the texts were deleted.I beg your pardon?!
I love the demands for immediate responses as if I'm here 24/7. Sorry to keep you waiting!!
I can only apologise for keeping you waiting. I can't spend my entire waking life on this forum. *%^^&I’m not asking you to, but you’ve been posting in the interim so what’s stopping you providing the information?
Which claims? He makes quite a lot!!
With regards to that theory Colin Sutton explains how he was misrepresented by the newspaper of ill repute. He explains this in an interview with The Armchair Detective on You Tube. Colin Sutton says abduction by a child trafficking gang is way down his list of likely scenarios. I think it is on this interview but apologies in advance if it's on a different one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVQ-bMpjik4
That really is one of your most ridiculous posts
He doesn't say stranger abduction is at the bottom of his list.. Probably because that's the most likely imo
That really is one of your most ridiculous postsI'd say this one was even more ridiculous:
I beg your pardon?!
You asked if I could strike “deleted texts” from my unanswered questions because you and the site I gave as an example offered a logical and rational explanation for the deleted texts. I stated that, imo, the fact that pro-McCann posters offer this explanation lends weight to the opinion that there may have been the deleted texts that Paulo Reiss discusses.
The reason I can’t strike it off my list is because the explanation given is only speculative and not supported by any “real evidence” (as Dave likes to call it).
So do you believe that the claims by Reiss are entirely fictitious or do you believe Reiss offers reliable information but it can be explained by the need to free up memory on Gerry and Kate’s phones?
You asked if I could strike “deleted texts” from my unanswered questions because you and the site I gave as an example offered a logical and rational explanation for the deleted texts. I stated that, imo, the fact that pro-McCann posters offer this explanation lends weight to the opinion that there may have been the deleted texts that Paulo Reiss discusses.This is called a strawman argument".
The reason I can’t strike it off my list is because the explanation given is only speculative and not supported by any “real evidence” (as Dave likes to call it).
So do you believe that the claims by Reiss are entirely fictitious or do you believe Reiss offers reliable information but it can be explained by the need to free up memory on Gerry and Kate’s phones?
It'd getting ridiculous.. You have provided no independent evidence of any deleted texts. Gunit has actually said it would be reasonable to delete texts.
I posted the claims of Paulo Reiss which are referenced with times and phone numbers. Its your right to believe his claims are fictitious or that they are "not independent" - whatever that means.
I also referenced a Pro-McCann Forum which explains the "deleted texts" and I suggested these explanations lend weight to the possibility that texts were indeed deleted.
I posted the claims of Paulo Reiss which are referenced with times and phone numbers. Its your right to believe his claims are fictitious or that they are "not independent" - whatever that means.
I also referenced a Pro-McCann Forum which explains the "deleted texts" and I suggested these explanations lend weight to the possibility that texts were indeed deleted.
This is called a strawman argument".
Firstly, I have never claimed that the deleted texts were entirely fictitious. I accept that texts were deleted from the McCanns' phones. What I asked for was the data pertaining to the allegedring (or individual) deleted phone calls which I also accept may have occurred but I would like to know what day and what time these calls were made to see how they might be a cause for suspicion if one believes the McCanns discovered Madeleine dead in the apartment on the evening of 3rd May.
Given that the only people who know the reason for deleting anything off their phones is the McCanns themselves and given that you don't accept a single word they say as being evidence or the truth, how do you propose McCann supporters provide evidence to support the theory that they deleted them to free up space on their phones?
This is how debates with other Conspiracy Theorists often go. I remember one debate with Holocaust deniers that went something along the lines of "provide independent evidence of mass exterminations at Auschwitz but we reject all eyewitness testimony as it either comes from Jews or ex-Nazis paid to lie or Commie scientists".
This is gobbledy gook.
P Rs claim don't make s lot of sense ...he's speculating..
Have you read it
He doesn't appear to be speculating about the mobile phone records. He references times and phone numbers.If you want to believe him it's up to you... He's a member on CMMOM.. A friend of amarals... Wrote s book that sank without a trace... He then tried to give it away... Then asked people on the forum to give him money because he couldn't oay his rent... A complete idiot imo
I'm glad you accept that there were indeed deleted texts. I will gladly accept any eyewitness testimony as to why the calls were deleted. What I have seen is just speculation that doesn't come from the McCann's themselves.So if I supply evidence from the McCanns themselves that they deleted the messages to make space on their phones you will accept it and move on?
For the record I find Holocaust denial utterly abhorrent.
Claims that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger is not a proven fact. Colin Sutton sums up the available evidence very well and concludes that he doesn't know if an abduction takes place. Is Sutton a conspiracy theorist? I think not.
No it's quite simple.
If you explain why something has happened - it suggests that the event actually happened!
So if I supply evidence from the McCanns themselves that they deleted the messages to make space on their phones you will accept it and move on?
I'm glad you find Holocaust denial utterly abhorrent, so do I and I despise the tactics such conspiracy theorists use to cast doubt, to smear and incite hatred and distrust. It's on a far more serious and harmful level than the conspiracy campaign against the McCanns, but still the tactics are similar IMO.
Once again you create another strawman argument concerning Colin Sutton - no one has accused him of being a conspiracy theorist as far as I'm aware.
Suggests means nothing unless you have evidence.
It’s bordering on shameful to compare those who believe the case for rare stranger abduction hasn’t been proved with Holocaust deniers.
Colin Sutton raises questions about the case and is not convinced either way on the basis of the available evidence.
If the McCann’s offer an explanation for deleted texts I will consider it with an open mind.
It’s bordering on shameful to compare those who believe the case for rare stranger abduction hasn’t been proved with Holocaust deniers.
Colin Sutton raises questions about the case and is not convinced either way on the basis of the available evidence.
If the McCann’s offer an explanation for deleted texts I will consider it with an open mind.
If you were asked to explain something that had not happened would you offer an explanation or say “I don’t believe it happened”?
You will not get an explanation from The McCanns and they are not obliged to give one.
Indeed so, particularly when they have plenty to explain things for them.
It’s bordering on shameful to compare those who believe the case for rare stranger abduction hasn’t been proved with Holocaust deniers.Will you now? Just like you've considered all their explanations for every other aspect of this case and dismissed?
Colin Sutton raises questions about the case and is not convinced either way on the basis of the available evidence.
If the McCann’s offer an explanation for deleted texts I will consider it with an open mind.
This is a laugh a minute. Fourteen Years and absolutely nothing to suggest that The McCanns were in any way culpable. Not even so much as an arrest for anything at all.This is exactly the point that Billy is reluctant to confront or explain, but like all good conspiracy theorists the logic of it is not important, only the agenda of pushing the vague suspicion that referring to "deleted texts and phonecalls" engenders.
Whether or not The McCanns deleted their text messages is of no interest to me.
Or do certain persons think that The McCanns were plotting Madeleine's disappearance by text?
Indeed so, particularly when they have plenty to explain things for them.In case you hadn't noticed sceptics demand answers repeatedly but the only people hearing them are McCann supporters on this forum. We try and help by giving plausible and logical answers but the sceptics are only pretending to want answers, in reality they just want to give voice their suspicions by asking the same questions over and over again, interminably.
This is exactly the point that Billy is reluctant to confront or explain, but like all good conspiracy theorists the logic of it is not important, only the agenda of pushing the vague suspicion that referring to "deleted texts and phonecalls" engenders.
So just another McCann bashing exercise. As if I didn't know. Did The PJ find anything?
Fourteen Years ago. For heave's sake.
A McCann bashing exercise with the added offshoot of bringing the forum into disrepute in my opinion. The amount of ancient unfounded speculation imported from other places is myriad and very tough to deal with given the forum's reputation for allowing free expression of opinion.
The thing is this is not really opinion - it is indoctrination by any other name and I for one am becoming bored with this forum unfriendly tactic.
There are plenty of cess pits already on the internet - to date this forum does not number amongst them - but that seems displeasing to some.
There actually is a valid timeline under discussion and the Germans have already informed us that we will find out what it is later rather than sooner. I think that is what the sceptic panic of the moment is all about.
As usual, you put it more succinctly than I.
But we are aware of what is afoot. An attempt to infiltrate this Forum with lies and innuendo. It isn't going to happen.
This Forum is the best you all are going to get and it is going to stay that way. So cut the word games. Some of us are much better at this some of you seem to think.
It is being done so transparently that I find it heart breaking. This is the only forum on the internet which really does allow freedom of expression within decent limits. It is very valuable and that is what makes it a target.
A McCann bashing exercise with the added offshoot of bringing the forum into disrepute in my opinion. The amount of ancient unfounded speculation imported from other places is myriad and very tough to deal with given the forum's reputation for allowing free expression of opinion.
The thing is this is not really opinion - it is indoctrination by any other name and I for one am becoming bored with this forum unfriendly tactic.
There are plenty of cess pits already on the internet - to date this forum does not number amongst them - but that seems displeasing to some.
There actually is a valid timeline under discussion and the Germans have already informed us that we will find out what it is later rather than sooner. I think that is what the sceptic panic of the moment is all about.
You seem to be saying that freedom of expression is a good thing, but when the views expressed don't meet with your personal approval you suggest they consist of speculation and indoctrination. Imo freedom of expression is either tolerated or it isn't. Judging and labelling people's views and posts is straying towards censorship imo.
You seem to be saying that freedom of expression is a good thing, but when the views expressed don't meet with your personal approval you suggest they consist of speculation and indoctrination. Imo freedom of expression is either tolerated or it isn't. Judging and labelling people's views and posts is straying towards censorship imo.Have you got the data which proves the McCanns deleted their phone calls yet? Also the dated and times of these deleted phone calls? If so please supply it (second or third time of asking) thanks.
You seem to be saying that freedom of expression is a good thing, but when the views expressed don't meet with your personal approval you suggest they consist of speculation and indoctrination. Imo freedom of expression is either tolerated or it isn't. Judging and labelling people's views and posts is straying towards censorship imo.
I am a moderator on this forum as are you.
Don't you think you have expressed a rather strange opinion for a moderator to hold 😁
Isn't that more or less what I expressed about your opinion?
You seem to be saying that freedom of expression is a good thing, but when the views expressed don't meet with your personal approval you suggest they consist of speculation and indoctrination. Imo freedom of expression is either tolerated or it isn't. Judging and labelling people's views and posts is straying towards censorship imo.
I'm afraid you dont seem to understand how freedom of speech works. It is not an absolute right and there has to be limits for obvious reasons... Obvious to me at least. It's not a matter of freedom or no freedom.. It's freedom with limits
There are limits, but accusations of speculation and indoctrination are personal opinions, not reasons to limit freedom of expression imo.
The decisions made by moderators are based on their own opinions.. That's how it's always been
Have you got the data which proves the McCanns deleted their phone calls yet? Also the dated and times of these deleted phone calls? If so please supply it (second or third time of asking) thanks.Can I have an answer to this please @G-Unit
Opinions on the content of a comment regarding the rules of this Forum. It can't be any other way.
Ultimately overseen and decided upon by John.
There are limits, but accusations of speculation and indoctrination are personal opinions, not reasons to limit freedom of expression imo.
Can I have an answer to this please @G-Unit
Can I have an answer to this please @G-Unit
In case you hadn't noticed sceptics demand answers repeatedly but the only people hearing them are McCann supporters on this forum. We try and help by giving plausible and logical answers but the sceptics are only pretending to want answers, in reality they just want to give voice their suspicions by asking the same questions over and over again, interminably.
Will you now? Just like you've considered all their explanations for every other aspect of this case and dismissed?
If something hadn't happened then I would not feel any need to explain for something that hadn't happened.
This is a ridiculous suggestion.
That is exactly what I was saying…. Therefore the explanations given on the Pro-McCann Family Forum lend weight to the claims that texts were indeed deleted… If there was no evidence of deleted texts then no McCann supporter would offer up an explanation. They would just say “it didn’t happen”.
I actually initially believed they were not involved…. It was Mitchell ignoring Smithman that first created some doubts.
I posted the claims of Paulo Reiss which are referenced with times and phone numbers. Its your right to believe his claims are fictitious or that they are "not independent" - whatever that means.It doesn't matter in the slightest what PR says.. The fact he supports amaral who clearly didn't understand the evidence. What matters is the evidence in the case.. You've decided Wolters doesn't have concrete evidence of death and CBs involvement. He says now he has enough to charge..but your mind is closed
I also referenced a Pro-McCann Forum which explains the "deleted texts" and I suggested these explanations lend weight to the possibility that texts were indeed deleted.
Their phones should have been tapped from the start to help rule them in or out, as was done in the Cleo Smith case, I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't standard procedure in missing child cases where privacy laws allow.
NoWhy not? You claimed the McCanns deleted phone call logs, surely you can supply more detail?
Why do you need an answer so badly. Since you’ve conceded they deleted texts can’t you do your own research if you need more detail?I didn’t bring up the deleted phone call logs, G-Unit did, she should supply the detail.
It’s rather grandiose to presume that just because you offer a logical answer all others must accept it as correct. Do you really just want an echo chamber here or a serious forum for debate?IMO it is completely pointless asking questions that you know noone here can answer. Actually, no there IS a point and it has absolutely nothing to do with getting answers, just promoting vague suspicions IMO. You don’t have to accept anything I say btw, carry on asking your insinuating questions if you really have nothing better to do and I shall continue pointing out why they are pointless, irrelevant and illogical.
I actually initially believed they were not involved…. It was Mitchell ignoring Smithman that first created some doubts.How bizarre.
I didn’t bring up the deleted phone call logs, G-Unit did, she should supply the detail.
Did I?yes
I agree... Problem is if it's standard practice it's, easily got round
No, davel, we're not supposed to agree on anything.I agree with you both.
I agree with you both.
Oh my god, I'm literally spinning like a cat with buttered toast strapped to it's back whilst falling from a height.Time to make an outrageously offensive statement that any decent person would struggle not to be repulsed by, let alone agree with.
(Cat always land on it's feet, the toast always falls butter side down, so am left twirling in infinity)
Time to make an outrageously offensive statement that any decent person would struggle not to be repulsed by, let alone agree with.@)(++(*
@)(++(*Blimey, you cracked out an emoji, I’m honoured.
Old News on allegations of phone tapping in 2007.Maybe they were, which probably means they never said anything to give police the idea that theywere in any way covering up Madeleine’s death.
MADELEINE McCann's parents believe their mobile phones and emails are being bugged by British police.
Kate and Gerry are convinced officers are acting on behalf of Portuguese detectives who suspect the couple accidentally killed their four-year-old daughter and hid her body.
Friends also fear they are being targeted with the same tactics.
One source said: "There's a firm belief Kate and Gerry were listened into in Portugal and it's happening now they're home.
"That belief is based on information they received during the investigation. Kate and Gerry are entirely innocent and have nothing to hide.
"But they're understandably cautious about what they say on the phone and in emails."
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/WE%27RE+BEING+BUGGED%3B+McCanns+convinced+cops+are+tapping+their+phones.-a0168864800
Madeleine McCann parents fear their phones are being tapped in Britain
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563652/Madeleine-McCann-parents-fear-their-phones-are-being-tapped-in-Britain.html
Please explain what you mean by "Mitchell ignoring Smithman". Thank you
As far as I can remember (and it's a long time ago) I think it was at the LSE event led by Clarence Mitchell. By this time the Smith family sighting was known about, but was completely ignored in the faux police press conference and the resultant appeals for information about a certain suspect - Tannerman (as we later came to know him by).So why didn’t you think Smithman was likely to be Gerry up until that point?
Maybe they were, which probably means they never said anything to give police the idea that theywere in any way covering up Madeleine’s death.
Yes, maybe they were & there was nothing incriminating because they're innocent.So just another pointless speculation. What can we speculate about next?
Or
Maybe they were, but were careful about what they spoke about re Madeleine's disappearance, as the 'source' suggests they were, so nothing incriminating was discovered.
Or
Maybe they just weren't tapped.
So why didn’t you think Smithman was likely to be Gerry up until that point?
I had no idea - I don’t think I followed it so closely. I certainly wasn’t really clear about the Thursday timeline. When I saw the faux police press conference I thought; “I’m sure I’ve seen reports of another sighting in the Daily Mirror… I wonder why he didn’t mention that?”. I was also troubled by his claims of “private briefings” with CEOP - so much so that I wrote to them asking why a member of the Public was receiving private briefings on potentially criminal cases.So do you think Clarence Mitchell is involved in a conspiracy to shield and protect the McCanns from prosecution?
I had no idea - I don’t think I followed it so closely. I certainly wasn’t really clear about the Thursday timeline. When I saw the faux police press conference I thought; “I’m sure I’ve seen reports of another sighting in the Daily Mirror… I wonder why he didn’t mention that?”. I was also troubled by his claims of “private briefings” with CEOP - so much so that I wrote to them asking why a member of the Public was receiving private briefings on potentially criminal cases.Are you talking about this? Why are you referring to it as a "faux police press conference"?
I had no idea - I don’t think I followed it so closely. I certainly wasn’t really clear about the Thursday timeline. When I saw the faux police press conference I thought; “I’m sure I’ve seen reports of another sighting in the Daily Mirror… I wonder why he didn’t mention that?”. I was also troubled by his claims of “private briefings” with CEOP - so much so that I wrote to them asking why a member of the Public was receiving private briefings on potentially criminal cases.
Did you get a reply ?Probably "mind your own bloody business" if anything at all.
So do you think Clarence Mitchell is involved in a conspiracy to shield and protect the McCanns from prosecution?
Are you talking about this? Why are you referring to it as a "faux police press conference"?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/madeleine-s-parents-not-suspects-6625901.html?amp
Did you get a reply ?
Yes - more than one. I don’t want to disclose too much as I don’t want to be identified. The bottom line was they denied he had private briefings.Who's "they?"
I think he will always act in what he believes are their best interests. However, any thorough investigation into the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann should have made a public appeal to try and identify Smithman - as OG finally did years later! Only Mitchell can explain why he ignored Smithman. Is that the action of trying to find Madeleine or trying to defend Gerry McCann? Over to Clarence for an answer.I think there's a very good reason for it which I have explained before so pointless me repeating it, as, with the deleted texts explanation it will be rejected on the basis it is ̶ ̶f̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶u̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶e̶p̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ speculation.
That’s when he repeated claims of private briefings from CEOPs but the faux police press conference was when he displayed pictures of suspect(s). He might have also done that at the LSE event but the You Tube videos have been deleted. It was presented like a Police appeal for information. He did such appeals more than once and some in other countries in Europe. I’m sure you’ll be able to remember them.What date was this?
I think there's a very good reason for it which I have explained before so pointless me repeating it, as, with the deleted texts explanation it will be rejected on the basis it is ̶ ̶f̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶u̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶e̶p̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ speculation.I think the deleted text thing makes a lot of sense, if that's the model phone they had, an S300?
Who's "they?"
Yes - more than one. I don’t want to disclose too much as I don’t want to be identified. The bottom line was they denied he had private briefings.
CEOPS - Two line managers up from the person who first answers their mail.What year did you write to them?
I think the deleted text thing makes a lot of sense, if that's the model phone they had, an S300?
Does that apply to texts and the call logs. It was the latter that raised eyebrows (“a red flag”) my according to Mark McCleish (I think that was his name - the retired air Marshall) commenting on the case on that Australian channel that did the “Maddie” podcast.I believe so, 8 of each, so deletion was required apparently. I can't confirm though as I never had one.
Does that apply to texts and the call logs. It was the latter that raised eyebrows (“a red flag”) my according to Mark McCleish (I think that was his name - the retired air Marshall) commenting on the case on that Australian channel that did the “Maddie” podcast.And yet we’ve still not been supplied with a link to the raw data which shows the time and dates of these alleged deleted call logs. Did any of them occur on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance for example?
I think there's a very good reason for it which I have explained before so pointless me repeating it, as, with the deleted texts explanation it will be rejected on the basis it is ̶ ̶f̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶u̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶c̶c̶e̶p̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ speculation.
What date was this?
I honestly can't remember.... Late 2007 / early 2008 was the first one I was aware of. He did more than one.... you must remember them?Vaguely. It’s worth noting that Jim Gamble was the head of CEOP at the time and he has been nothing but supportive of the McCanns and is of the opinion that Madeleine was abducted.
All in a day's spin for a Master.
I believe so, 8 of each, so deletion was required apparently. I can't confirm though as I never had one.
If you are trying to find an abducted child it makes logical sense to appeal for public information with regards to a man seen carrying a child (with a significant match to the girl) and only 500 metres away from the Ocean Club just after the time it is reported that the alarm was raised. Think of all the dead end leads that did hit the papers.... think of all the appeals for information.... yet this sighting was ignored for months. It makes no logical sense to ignore this sighting.If you’re trying to find your child but stand accused by the police of involvement in your child’s disappearance and one of the reasons for this is an eye witness sighting that claims it was you seen carrying away your own child at the time the alarm was raised, then yes I can understand why you would view that witness statement with some scepticism. Furthermore if there is another eyewitness (a woman who you know and trust) that saw a man carrying a child right next to the apartment from whence your child disappeared then yes I can understand why you would give this sighting more credence and why you would dismiss the Smith sighting as it doesn’t fit with the timing of the earlier sighting. Now, all of this premise relies on you accepting the possibility that the McCanns may not be involved in the disappearance of their child which I know from experience is virtually impossible for most sceptics to do.
Absolutely - but this one actually can be answered - Brietta knows!So he lied when he said the police and CEOP told him in private that they did not believe the McCanns were involved, is that what you’re claiming?
It's down to his position and when the briefings take place. He spins it to make it sound current (at the time)... That is what incensed me.... How can a member of the public be privy to briefings into potential criminal activity. This would be shocking and could easily pervert the course of justice.... The reality was what CEOPS finally admitted.... He wasn't given private briefings at that time, but earlier when he was working for government.
So he lied when he said the police and CEOP told him in private that they did not believe the McCanns were involved, is that what you’re claiming?
No - ask Brietts to explain it. She knows. It was when he was given the briefings that’s important.I’ve given a plausible rational explanation for that, though I don’t expect you to agree.
The real issue here though is ignoring Smithman when delivering public appeals for information.
Also, just think about it…. How could the Police give a PR man (working for people declared arguidos) private briefings during an on-going investigation into probable criminal offences? It’’s when he had briefings that is important.So he lied when he said the police and CEOP told him in private that they did not believe the McCanns were involved, is that what you’re claiming?
So he lied when he said the police and CEOP told him in private that they did not believe the McCanns were involved, is that what you’re claiming?
I’ve given a plausible rational explanation for that, though I don’t expect you to agree.
I've answered your question at 21:35:34.So you are accusing him of lying then? As for your question, you’ve changed the goalposts somewhat. CM did not say that CEOP and the police had assured him the McCanns were innocent, they said that he was reassured in private briefings that they were treating the case as one of stranger abduction and I don’t have a problem with that at all, and clearly it was true - they were. CEOP worked with Mitchell and the McCanns in 2009 to produce a video showing an age progession picture of Madeleine appraling for information on her whereabouts. Jim Gamble has always been vocal in his support of the McCanns as well. I really don’t know what the problem is.
Look at it another way. If CB was rich enough to be able to afford a PR consultant what would your response be if the PR consultant stated in public "I have been given private briefings by the PJ that assure me that CB is innocent"? A PR consultant acting for a person of interest in an on-going criminal investigation should not (and would not) be given private briefings by law enforcement agencies involved in the on-going investigation.
I don't recall it, sorry.It was only earlier this evening!
So you are accusing him of lying then? As for your question, you’ve changed the goalposts somewhat. CM did not say that CEOP and the police had assured him the McCanns were innocent, they said that he was reassured in private briefings that they were treating the case as one of stranger abduction and I don’t have a problem with that at all, and clearly it was true - they were. CEOP worked with Mitchell and the McCanns in 2009 to produce a video showing an age progession picture of Madeleine appraling for information on her whereabouts. Jim Gamble has always been vocal in his support of the McCanns as well. I really don’t know what the problem is.
Does that apply to texts and the call logs. It was the latter that raised eyebrows (“a red flag”) my according to Mark McCleish (I think that was his name - the retired air Marshall) commenting on the case on that Australian channel that did the “Maddie” podcast.
It was only earlier this evening!
No - ask Brietta to explain it. She knows. It was when he was given the briefings that’s important.
The real issue here though is ignoring Smithman when delivering public appeals for information.
Absolutely - but this one actually can be answered - Brietta knows!
It's down to his position and when the briefings take place. He spins it to make it sound current (at the time)... That is what incensed me.... How can a member of the public be privy to briefings into potential criminal activity. This would be shocking and could easily pervert the course of justice.... The reality was what CEOPS finally admitted.... He wasn't given private briefings at that time, but earlier when he was working for government.
I was at work.... and missed it.... maybe give me the comment reference or time of the post?no you weren’t - reply #2159
I think you need to look at when the briefings to CM (given by CEOPS) took place. Brietta has explained this previously.I’m not going to believe anything an anonymous poster claims they were told by anyone but what I do know for a fact is that the head of CEOP is fully supportive of the McCanns so why you should think on the one hand they should be given credence wrt to what they allegedly told you and on the other hand dismiss their position wrt to the McCanns I haven’t the faintest idea.
Separately to that point, in 2009 the McCann's were no longer arguidos - but they were when the LSE event took place. I'm not accusing CM of anything. CEOPS told me that CM wasn't given private briefings when he was acting as the McCann's PR man. You can choose to believe them or not.
The Police and law enforcement agencies should not give private briefings to suspects or to PR representatives of suspects. That is a general point. I'm making no inference with regards to the McCann case.
I’m not going to believe anything an anonymous poster claims they were told by anyone but what I do know for a fact is that the head of CEOP is fully supportive of the McCanns so why you should think on the one hand they should be given credence wrt to what they allegedly told you and on the other hand dismiss their position wrt to the McCanns I haven’t the faintest idea.
As a general rule do you seriously believe it is OK for CEOPs to give “private briefings” to PR representatives of current suspects in an on-going Police investigation?
As a general rule do you seriously believe it is OK for CEOPs to give “private briefings” to PR representatives of current suspects in an on-going Police investigation?
As a general rule do you seriously believe it is OK for CEOPs to give “private briefings” to PR representatives of current suspects in an on-going Police investigation?It depends what information was divulged, but as I understand it the McCanns themselves had close connections with CEOP and Mitchell may well have attended briefings with them, I don’t know and frankly I don’t care, certainly not enough to be writing letters about! The bottom line is CEOP consider this a case of stranger abduction, I don’t know how you come to terms with that, but that’s your problem not mine.
It depends what information was divulged, but as I understand it the McCanns themselves had close connections with CEOP and Mitchell may well have attended briefings with them, I don’t know and frankly I don’t care, certainly not enough to be writing letters about! The bottom line is CEOP consider this a case of stranger abduction, I don’t know how you come to terms with that, but that’s your problem not mine.
Did you write a letter of complaint to the Australian police when they informed the parents of Cleo Smith thst they were treating her case as one of stranger abduction?
I think you might have to prove that they did.
So,
We have Deleted Texts not proven to have been Deleted.
And Private Briefings not proven to have happened.
What next I have to wonder.
Please God may it be interesting.
Judge Judy is looking infinitely preferable at the moment.
It seems it will soon to be proved it's a case of stranger abduction.. How will sceptics cope
So,
We have Deleted Texts not proven to have been Deleted.
And Private Briefings not proven to have happened.
What next I have to wonder.
Please God may it be interesting.
Judge Judy is looking infinitely preferable at the moment.
I’m open minded. If CB is convicted in a fair trial I hope the McCann’s find some closure.
I already said that I wrote to them years ago and they said they didn’t. Any briefings he had with CEOPs were either before he was their PR man or after they were no longer arguidos.
I honestly don’t believe anyone seriously questions the deleted texts and call logs. Instead they offer an explanation for why they were deleted.
It’s Clarence Mitchell who said he had “private briefings”…. Do you dispute his claims and stand by “they never happened”?
I'm openminded to... Of course the idea of a trial being fair is very subjective. There are some sceptics who have already decided he can't get a fair trial
I have to wonder why that is. I have been told that this would be a Judges Only Trial. Am I supposed to presume that German Judges are influenced by public opinion?
It gives them an excuse not to accept the verdict.. Imo
It gives them an excuse not to accept the verdict.. Imo
Goodness me, a verdict already.
I didn't realise charges had been laid, let alone a trial taken place.
No one has actually said that there will be a trial. It's all to do with word skills and what you choose to read into a comment incorrectly.
No trial, no verdict.
Seems straightforward to me
No one has said that there will be a Trial. We are all speculating.
Do you understand what Speculating means?
If there was no Speculating then this Forum would die.
While it seems reasonable to speculate over whether a trial will take place, it seems ridiculous to speculate overWhat would you prefer to discuss? How about the McCanns smiling outside the church with balloons? We haven’t done that one for a while.
the hypothetical verdict of a hypothetical trial.
And to speculate over the reaction of people to this hypothetical verdict.
IMO
What would you prefer to discuss? How about the McCanns smiling outside the church with balloons? We haven’t done that one for a while.
Or Kate wearing earrings and getting her hair done while Madeleine was in the bottom of a coffin. Or stitch up in the body of a dead dog.
Jesus wept, there's a very interesting trial resuming at 3pm.No one here is particularly interested in men killing each other in the USA I'm afraid (unless they're BLM or Far Right nutters).
Take your collective heads out of the McCanns or Amaral's butt & we could watch & discuss that instead.
No one here is particularly interested in men killing each other in the USA I'm afraid (unless they're BLM or Far Right nutters).
It was at a BLM protest.
Well, anyway, it's the most high profile case in the states right now & has split opinion between Reps & Dems, despite seemingly obvious video evidence it was justifiable self defence in all 3 instances.
At present the left wing media outlets are refusing to budge from their position that Rittenhouse is a murderer,
But, what about sedative drugs?
Is this pertinent to Madeleine McCann?
Several pages back you were thinking about watching Judge Judy, such is the tedium in here.
I thought I'd offer another criminal case, since we're all interested in justice apparently, for McCann weary members to consider & offer our opinions on, but never mind.
Goodness me, a verdict already.
I didn't realise charges had been laid, let alone a trial taken place.
Have you not noticed sceptics such as gunit saying CB won't get a fair trial and would have the right ti make an application to the ECHR.. That's the trial I'm talking about.. Some people just can't seem to follow the thread of the discussion.
Of course now Wolters is reported to have said he has enough evidence to charge CB it seems a trial... Note I say.. A.. trial.. Is quite likely
This is all getting a bit silly now. But probably just more deflection away from someone who is far more likely to have been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Sceptics are totally incapable of accepting that they could be wrong. I don't understand this. Why do they think that they are right beyond any other explanation?
It stinks of a Witch Hunt to me. Really nasty people who always have to be right in the worst possible way.
This is all getting a bit silly now. But probably just more deflection away from someone who is far more likely to have been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Sceptics are totally incapable of accepting that they could be wrong. I don't understand this. Why do they think that they are right beyond any other explanation?
It stinks of a Witch Hunt to me. Really nasty people who always have to be right in the worst possible way.
Even if CB is tried and found guilty on strong evidence... I can't see Ammaral accepting it nor the sceptic posters here and on other forums
Good to see irony alive and well on the forum ?{)(**
It might be time for you to have something pertinent for you to say which has so far been sadly lacking.
Good to see irony alive and well on the forum ?{)(**
It truly is.
What would you prefer to discuss? How about the McCanns smiling outside the church with balloons? We haven’t done that one for a while.
It depends what information was divulged, but as I understand it the McCanns themselves had close connections with CEOP and Mitchell may well have attended briefings with them, I don’t know and frankly I don’t care, certainly not enough to be writing letters about! The bottom line is CEOP consider this a case of stranger abduction, I don’t know how you come to terms with that, but that’s your problem not mine.
Did you write a letter of complaint to the Australian police when they informed the parents of Cleo Smith thst they were treating her case as one of stranger abduction?
Or maybe why Clarence Mitchell allegedly ignored Smithman.... imo
You have just said that the Private Briefings didn't happen.
As for Texts and Call Logs, McCann Supporters have a habit of trying to discuss these things with some measure of good manners. I have even done it myself. But not anymore.
You raise what you think is an issue so you prove it.
As I wrote to CEOPs - if they had evidence of stranger abduction they should share it with the Police not with a PR man who was acting for people who at the time (of his claim - not the alleged "private briefings") were arguidos. You might "not care" about justice and due legal process - but I most certainly do.... The Australian Police did not brief any PR Consultants acting for potential suspects as far as I know.
Who was Smithman? Was that the 60 to 80% person who looked like Cristovao?
The man seen by Martin Smith and his family:
From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family
Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland
Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Or maybe why Clarence Mitchell allegedly ignored Smithman.... imoWe’ve already discussed this recently I thought?
As I wrote to CEOPs - if they had evidence of stranger abduction they should share it with the Police not with a PR man who was acting for people who at the time (of his claim - not the alleged "private briefings") were arguidos. You might "not care" about justice and due legal process - but I most certainly do.... The Australian Police did not brief any PR Consultants acting for potential suspects as far as I know.Who said CEOP shared evidence with Mitchell? What evidence? Do you have a cite?
The man seen by Martin Smith and his family:And yet the archiving report put Gerry at the Tapas table when this was all going on - perhaps Gerry had a twin brother he never mentioned?
From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family
Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland
Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
This is getting embarrassing now. None of the rest of Martin Smith's family agreed with him.In Sceptic Land 60%-80% Smith certain = 100% definitely Gerry, whereas 100% certain (when it’s HCW expressing it) = haven’t got a clue.
This is getting embarrassing now. None of the rest of Martin Smith's family agreed with him.
Who said CEOP shared evidence with Mitchell? What evidence? Do you have a cite?
PS: the Australian police briefed the world’s media, was the preferable in your view?
And yet the archiving report put Gerry at the Tapas table when this was all going on - perhaps Gerry had a twin brother he never mentioned?
In Sceptic Land 60%-80% Smith certain = 100% definitely Gerry, whereas 100% certain (when it’s HCW expressing it) = haven’t got a clue.
Peter Smith:
The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.
— He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes. He states that he did not notice those details as his pregnant wife was somewhat ill and he was constantly attending to her, not caring about observation of the individual.
Aoife Smith:
The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
— She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.
— The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.
— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:
— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.
— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.
And yet the archiving report put Gerry at the Tapas table when this was all going on - perhaps Gerry had a twin brother he never mentioned?
I didn't say they "shared evidence" with him. That's just strawman deflection, imo, and with all due respect.This implies you believe CEOP shared evidence with Mitchell, unless you can put another spin on it? But gee, I bet they were ever so grateful to you for telling them how to do their jobs.
Mitchell said he had "private briefings" that reassured him this was a case of stranger abduction.
I wrote to CEOPs and part of what I said was "if you have evidence of stranger abduction, that must be shared with the investigating Police force and not divulged to a PR man working", at the time I wrote, "for arguidos".
I thought you had no faith in the PJ investigation?I don’t. Do you? Let me guess. Yes, all apart from that bit.
This implies you believe CEOP shared evidence with Mitchell, unless you can put another spin on it? But gee, I bet they were ever so grateful to you for telling them how to do their jobs.
Who said it was 100% Gerry? Do you have a cite?Only about a billion posts and tweets by sceptics across the internet who are utterly convinced Gerry = Smithman. Now tell me you’ve never read a single one of them and think I must be mistaken.
Which makes it all the more illogical that Mitchell ignored the sighting, imo.No it doesn’t, it is perfectly explicable and I have already done so, as did DCI Redwood on Crimewatch I believe.
I don’t. Do you? Let me guess. Yes, all apart from that bit.
Which makes it all the more illogical that Mitchell ignored the sighting, imo.
Only Mitchell can answer what was said that "reassured" him this was "a case of stranger abduction".But you agree you implied that CEOP shared evidence with him? The entire world was reassured by the Australian police that Cleo Smith’s parents were not involved, did that upset you too?
So it's actually you that has no faith in the PJ investigation - yet you're willing to accept that one bit. Can you explain why?Because it is based on facts and logic. The PJ weren’t all complete idiots and by the time of the archiving report they had already kicked out the chief idiot, and replaced him with someone with a couple more braincells, and had had time to reflect on their findings, which are all in the archiving report.
Because it is based on facts and logic. The PJ weren’t all complete idiots and by the time of the archiving report they had already kicked out the chief idiot, and replaced him with someone with a couple more braincells, and had had time to reflect on their findings, which are all in the archiving report.
No it doesn’t, it is perfectly explicable and I have already done so, as did DCI Redwood on Crimewatch I believe.
Didn't he say it was because they followed Tannerman instead? Yet we know from Tannerman's wife that the PJ had accounted for Tannerman at a very early stage.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/madeleine-mccann-cops-wasted-four-12496049
But you agree you implied that CEOP shared evidence with him? The entire world was reassured by the Australian police that Cleo Smith’s parents were not involved, did that upset you too?
Because it is based on facts and logic. The PJ weren’t all complete idiots and by the time of the archiving report they had already kicked out the chief idiot, and replaced him with someone with a couple more braincells, and had had time to reflect on their findings, which are all in the archiving report.
What?? The Police did a great job finding Cleo Smith who was a victim of stranger abduction. I don't recall "private briefings" to PR consultants in her case.
Mitchell stated he was reassured by "private briefings". He made that statement not me. Only he can explain what information he was given that reassured him.
No, I don't think so. Unless you know something that we don't
As it happens he doesn't have to.
So you agree with this:
- Introduction
Before actually entering the appreciation of the present inquiry it is useful to take a summarised look at the enormous dimension of the inquiry which is constituted of 17 Volumes, with a global processing of approximately 4500 pages, 9 appendixes that are integrated by 55 Volumes, in which 12000 pages and other relevant pieces were gathered, analysed and treated; further 22 dossiers were constituted, with more than 5000 pages, concerning fanciful or senseless news, yet organised out of mere caution.
Therefore, this inquiry which demonstrates the pertinent commitment of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) in the resolution of the disappearance of minor Madeleine McCann, demanded from it the performance or coordination of several diligences as described in the various files, namely: the preservation of the location of the fact (although it had already been rummaged by numerous people as we will discuss ahead); several collections and examinations on the existence of eventual traces; a circumstantiated photographic report; the installation, in the first 24 hours of an extensive operational scheme, including the participation of several police and civil protection forces, in a total of over 130 elements; the reinforcement, in the next 24 hours of said operational scheme, with the mobilisation of over 300 members of police forces and public entities; the installation of control posts on roads and on the Southern terrestrial border with Spain; the use of sniffer dog teams; the use of exceptional search and rescue teams (aerial, terrestrial and maritime), alerts and diffusion all over the country and abroad. As a mere example, during the following weeks and on a permanent basis, two helicopters, four vessels and several all-road vehicles, apart from private airplanes and boats, were employed; in the same manner, the investigation operations were coordinated with the specific search operations, with hundreds of diligences performed, like the identification and the formal and informal hearing of citizens, door-to-door searches, in the impressive number of 443, at the residences and tourist resorts of Vila da Luz and its surroundings, the identification and search of vehicles, and searches on the terrain, in an area that started out covering 15 Km2, and progressively grew to 30Km2 (where special attention was paid to locations like wells, passages, tunnels, reservoirs and lakes).
During the following days, more than 700 persons who might possess some relevant information about the disappearance were formally and informally questioned, with the PJ using more than 100 officers from several departments of Portimao, Faro and Lisbon, who worked on a consecutive base of 24 hours per day to accomplish the task.
All the locations where there could be images that might be related to the case (like, for example, restaurants and petrol stations) were equally consulted, and the telephone lines of the permanent services of the Portimao and Faro departments were made available. A mobile police post was installed in Vila da Luz to collect information.
Apart from the already mentioned identifications and door-to-door house searches, the listing, contact and interview with known local suspects with previous connections to sexual criminality against minors, was performed.
The PJ was especially careful to promote regular meetings with the missing child's parents and also designated a Liaison Officer for the family, for permanent support and relationship, with the active following and cooperation of the Royal British Consulate in Portimao.
Shortly after the beginning of the investigation continuous relationships with the Leicestershire Constabulary, which, for the effect, sent several of its officers to Portugal, with the PJ equally sending officers to the United Kingdom, were established, and intense cooperation and understanding was registered between these entities, which were united in the common purpose of searching for the missing child, and for the truth.
In the inquiry it is clear that the PJ never dismissed any information or credible elements that might lead to the revelation of facts, with over 2000 formal and informal diligences carried out over the months, and the PJ having explored, nationally and internationally, all of the information with a higher or lower degree of credibility, with special relevance for tens of supposed sightings or trackings of the child, most of which were widely reported by the press.
As an example, cases of international cooperation can be mentioned, namely with Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which led to the detention or identification of persons that tried to introduce misleading information about the hypothetical destiny or tracking of the child.
In summary, it is notorious that the PJ spared no efforts in the sense of making exceptional technical, human and financial means available to find the child and to discover the truth of facts, having been completely accompanied in this effort by the Leicestershire Constabulary, the police force that is located in the city of Leicester, where most of the people in the holiday group come from.
Did you read the link?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/madeleine-mccann-cops-wasted-four-12496049
What?? The Police did a great job finding Cleo Smith who was a victim of stranger abduction. I don't recall "private briefings" to PR consultants in her case.You’ve missed the point and are assuming the police shared evidence with him. My point is he said nothing about being given evidence, only reassurances which is no more thsn what the Australian police gave in the Cleo Smith case, so what is the big deal here?
Mitchell stated he was reassured by "private briefings". He made that statement not me. Only he can explain what information he was given that reassured him.
So you agree with this:I couldn’t be arsed to read it all. Isn’t that just them blowing their own trumpet? Well someone had to I guess.
- Introduction
Before actually entering the appreciation of the present inquiry it is useful to take a summarised look at the enormous dimension of the inquiry which is constituted of 17 Volumes, with a global processing of approximately 4500 pages, 9 appendixes that are integrated by 55 Volumes, in which 12000 pages and other relevant pieces were gathered, analysed and treated; further 22 dossiers were constituted, with more than 5000 pages, concerning fanciful or senseless news, yet organised out of mere caution.
Therefore, this inquiry which demonstrates the pertinent commitment of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) in the resolution of the disappearance of minor Madeleine McCann, demanded from it the performance or coordination of several diligences as described in the various files, namely: the preservation of the location of the fact (although it had already been rummaged by numerous people as we will discuss ahead); several collections and examinations on the existence of eventual traces; a circumstantiated photographic report; the installation, in the first 24 hours of an extensive operational scheme, including the participation of several police and civil protection forces, in a total of over 130 elements; the reinforcement, in the next 24 hours of said operational scheme, with the mobilisation of over 300 members of police forces and public entities; the installation of control posts on roads and on the Southern terrestrial border with Spain; the use of sniffer dog teams; the use of exceptional search and rescue teams (aerial, terrestrial and maritime), alerts and diffusion all over the country and abroad. As a mere example, during the following weeks and on a permanent basis, two helicopters, four vessels and several all-road vehicles, apart from private airplanes and boats, were employed; in the same manner, the investigation operations were coordinated with the specific search operations, with hundreds of diligences performed, like the identification and the formal and informal hearing of citizens, door-to-door searches, in the impressive number of 443, at the residences and tourist resorts of Vila da Luz and its surroundings, the identification and search of vehicles, and searches on the terrain, in an area that started out covering 15 Km2, and progressively grew to 30Km2 (where special attention was paid to locations like wells, passages, tunnels, reservoirs and lakes).
During the following days, more than 700 persons who might possess some relevant information about the disappearance were formally and informally questioned, with the PJ using more than 100 officers from several departments of Portimao, Faro and Lisbon, who worked on a consecutive base of 24 hours per day to accomplish the task.
All the locations where there could be images that might be related to the case (like, for example, restaurants and petrol stations) were equally consulted, and the telephone lines of the permanent services of the Portimao and Faro departments were made available. A mobile police post was installed in Vila da Luz to collect information.
Apart from the already mentioned identifications and door-to-door house searches, the listing, contact and interview with known local suspects with previous connections to sexual criminality against minors, was performed.
The PJ was especially careful to promote regular meetings with the missing child's parents and also designated a Liaison Officer for the family, for permanent support and relationship, with the active following and cooperation of the Royal British Consulate in Portimao.
Shortly after the beginning of the investigation continuous relationships with the Leicestershire Constabulary, which, for the effect, sent several of its officers to Portugal, with the PJ equally sending officers to the United Kingdom, were established, and intense cooperation and understanding was registered between these entities, which were united in the common purpose of searching for the missing child, and for the truth.
In the inquiry it is clear that the PJ never dismissed any information or credible elements that might lead to the revelation of facts, with over 2000 formal and informal diligences carried out over the months, and the PJ having explored, nationally and internationally, all of the information with a higher or lower degree of credibility, with special relevance for tens of supposed sightings or trackings of the child, most of which were widely reported by the press.
As an example, cases of international cooperation can be mentioned, namely with Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which led to the detention or identification of persons that tried to introduce misleading information about the hypothetical destiny or tracking of the child.
In summary, it is notorious that the PJ spared no efforts in the sense of making exceptional technical, human and financial means available to find the child and to discover the truth of facts, having been completely accompanied in this effort by the Leicestershire Constabulary, the police force that is located in the city of Leicester, where most of the people in the holiday group come from.
Didn't he say it was because they followed Tannerman instead? Yet we know from Tannerman's wife that the PJ had accounted for Tannerman at a very early stage.And where was her statement in the files?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/madeleine-mccann-cops-wasted-four-12496049
Not The PJ that I had knowledge of at the time.
Where did you find this misinterpretation. Okay, don't bother telling me. I already know.
And where was her statement in the files?
Peter Smith:
The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.
— He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes. He states that he did not notice those details as his pregnant wife was somewhat ill and he was constantly attending to her, not caring about observation of the individual.
Aoife Smith:
The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
— She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.
— The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.
— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:
— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.
— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.
It's from the archiving summary that Vertigo found so compelling when it came to the whereabouts of Gerry McCann at the time of the Smith sighting..... If you believe it is a "misrepresentation" then it stands to reason it might also misrepresent the whereabouts of certain people at certain times.
Are all statements in the files? I'm led to believe the answer is "no". But I don't know why it's not there. It certainly seems clear that Totman was known about from an early stage, though.
Which makes it all the more illogical that Mitchell ignored the sighting, imo.
You’ve missed the point and are assuming the police shared evidence with him. My point is he said nothing about being given evidence, only reassurances which is no more thsn what the Australian police gave in the Cleo Smith case, so what is the big deal here?
Oh, well done. You think you spotted a flaw in my argument. Although you actually haven't because you have no proof.
But only in your opinion. The rest of us had no idea. And of course Totman would have been coming from entirely the wrong direction. Or did you miss that small point?
Why are you so damned set on misleading this forum using "statements" taken from the files to substantiate the lie that the Smith family agrees with Martin Smith's false identification.
Not one of them did as the man himself reported. Although he seems to think his wife agreed with him it certainly was not to the extent that she was prepared to put it on record.
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement.
_____________________________________________________________________________
During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
I have pointed out to you that the Smith sighting was the property of the Policia Judiciaria and was under the SECRECY of JUSTICE of Portuguese law.
What is it you are incapable of understanding about that.
What is it you are incapable of understanding about the fact that the Policia Judiciaria under Amaral and subsequently under Rebelo did not do as you are demanding a British civilian should have done.
The police investigators of the crime chose not to hold press conferences or issue public statements did they. Why do you suppose that might have been.
I think Amaral just probably couldn't be arsed and I think Rebelo had it checked and proved Mr Smith was mistaken.
Would you please stop adding to the insanity which is sceptic lore by in effect attempting to misguide the forum in this devious manner.
They all describe a man of broadly similar appearance. They didn't have the same experience that Martin Smith describes which triggered his brain:
He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head.
From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family
It does not follow that Martin Smith's "identification" is "false". Instead those that made statements describe a man of similar appearance.
Why weren't other sightings "the property of the PJ"? Mitchell was selective - he didn't ignore everything that formed part of the PJ investigation.
Whilst you're here you might want to kindly explain to VS when Mitchell was given the "private briefings" by CEOPs. That was one question you did have a credible answer for, imo.
Oh Dear God, what on earth can I say? Your arguments don't even make sense and are a mish mash of mistakes.You have summed up my disquiet succinctly when you say "Your arguments don't even make sense and are a mish mash of mistakes."
I happen to believe that Andy Redwood was mistaken about Dr. Totman simply because he didn't know as much about Praia da Luz as we all do. Although he jolly well should have done. But Dr. Totman was undoubtedly coming from the wrong direction if you believe Jane Tanner, which I do.
The half an hour time lapse is easy enough to explain if an abducted child is being transported to an organised pick up from the beach and times have to be coordinated.
But I don't care of what any of you think. I will go on hoping that Madeleine is still alive until someone proves otherwise.
The Policia Judiciaria knew all about the alleged Smith sighting a fortnight after Madeleine's disappearance.
The Policia Judiciaria knew all about Mr Smith's amendment to his statement (his and in the first instance Mr McCluskey's almost identical amendment amendment to his).
I await with interest your vitriolic condemnation of the Policia Judiciaria for the lack of publicity given to these alleged sightings.
You have summed up my disquiet succinctly when you say "Your arguments don't even make sense and are a mish mash of mistakes."
The "mistakes" given with such surety in almost every post are becoming intolerable.
The hallmark of this forum is its integrity which false information undermines.
Who was Smithman? Was that the 60 to 80% person who looked like Cristovao?Hes the key to the case and always has been imo, including the present BKA one .
Hes the key to the case and always has been imo, including the present BKA one .
Are all statements in the files? I'm led to believe the answer is "no". But I don't know why it's not there. It certainly seems clear that Totman was known about from an early stage, though.So if it was in the files the Met would have seen it and completely ignored it, is that what you think happened? Isn’t it more likely that Totman spoke to the GNR who never bothered passing the information to the PJ? Because let’s face it - there is no good reason for her statement not to be in the files. Furthermore, if her statement was known by Amaral why didn’t he use it to eliminate Tannerman once and for all, rather than go to all the trouble of doubting her integrity? And finally, where is Totman’s statement in the archiving report, which would explain JT’s signting eliminating that line of enquiry from the investigation?
I'm not assuming anything. Only Mitchell knows what information reassured him this was a case of stranger abduction.You ARE assuming, and that is why 1) you got angry enough to write to CEOP about it and 2) for some inexplicable reason you used Clarence Mitchell’s words and deeds as a basis upon which to start doubting the honesty and integrity of the McCanns themselves.
I am beginning to suspect that the likes of we are wasting our time. Although I can't say that I care about that anymore.
There was a time when I thought that I could help to keep the integrity, but it isn't working now because I no longer know what I am allowed to do. And so I do nothing. I will not choose when my choice will be over ridden. Which it often has been of late.
So I guess that I will just stay with my right to express my opinions along with everyone else. But at least I have been around from Day One and not just turned up for some God forsaken whim for some sick punch up.
Hes the key to the case and always has been imo, including the present BKA one .
For me too also, which I actually doubt could have been Brueckner. But Brueckner could still have abducted Madeleine and then passed her to someone else.
Does it matter of what anyone thinks?
Most salient point of the year imo.
Hes the key to the case and always has been imo, including the present BKA one .
Smithman has never been identified despite the Judicial police being made aware of him a fortnight after Madeleine's disappearance.
The police invited three members of the family back to reconstruct the event of the alleged sighting but did not bother to retrace their steps to the restaurant and bars they visited until many months after the event.
Shoddy police work at best perhaps driven by the assurances given that none of the family were able to identify their sighting from photographs ~ except to say it was not Murat.
If you are so certain that Smithman is the "key to the case" why do you suppose the Policia Judiciaria with Amaral as coordinator didn't agree with you to the extent they ignored him and the Smiths, entirely for months on end.
The PJ were arranging to further investigate Smithman when Amaral was taken off the case…. Also as you know they weren’t in the business of press conference appeals to identify suspects…. I only recall Mitchell and later OG doing such.
Mitchell was selective in which persons of interest he wanted to identify, imo. As a result he ignored what you, me and Barrier agree is key to the case.
Even if the parents knew that Martin Smith had identified Gerry as Smithman Gerry, if innocent, knew that it wasn’t him so would know that there was still an unidentified individual running around PDL with a child similar to their daughter on the night that their daughter disappeared. No matter what the circumstances of the sighting wouldn't any reasonable parent use every method open to them to identify the individual?The McCanns were convinced Madeleine was abducted by Tannerman and the time of the Smith sighting meant it was unlikely to have been the same man. “Wrong time, wrong place” as Redwood said.
The PJ were arranging to further investigate Smithman when Amaral was taken off the case…. Also as you know they weren’t in the business of press conference appeals to identify suspects…. I only recall Mitchell and later OG doing such.
Mitchell was selective in which persons of interest he wanted to identify, imo. As a result he ignored what you, me and Barrier agree is key to the case.
The PJ were arranging to further investigate Smithman when Amaral was taken off the case…. Also as you know they weren’t in the business of press conference appeals to identify suspects…. I only recall Mitchell and later OG doing such.
Mitchell was selective in which persons of interest he wanted to identify, imo. As a result he ignored what you, me and Barrier agree is key to the case.
Agreed.Actually 'the only thing that matters' is the truth. The only evidence of relevance is that which pertains to the truth.
The only thing that matters is the evidence. But however irrefutable even that will not be accepted by some.
Actually 'the only thing that matters' is the truth. The only evidence of relevance is that which pertains to the truth.
But I get your point.
Actually 'the only thing that matters' is the truth. The only evidence of relevance is that which pertains to the truth.
But I get your point.
The problem with your stance is that it is the evidence which shows us the truth. I agree the truth is important but those who perhaps don't like the truth can misrepresent the evidence.
The full truth of what happened might never be known. Perhaps evidence is the best that can be hoped for.
Even if the parents knew that Martin Smith had identified Gerry as Smithman Gerry, if innocent, knew that it wasn’t him so would know that there was still an unidentified individual running around PDL with a child similar to their daughter on the night that their daughter disappeared. No matter what the circumstances of the sighting wouldn't any reasonable parent use every method open to them to identify the individual?
Let us get it on record that I fervently object to you attributing your falsehoods to me.
Be in absolutely no doubt that I have never stated anywhere the sentiment you assign to me. That is a falsehood like so much else you post. Do not dare to post anything alleged to come from me without providing a substantiating cite.
Any ideas why Amaral ignored the Smith's testimony from 26 May 2007 until he was sacked from Madeleine's case 2 Oct 2007.
I make that over five months. So the Smith sighting was hardly a priority for the Policia Judicairia or their co-ordinator Amaral.
I'm sorry I misread your post on a phone... but I was under the impression that you agreed with Redwood as to the centrally important need to account for Smithman. Apologies if that isn't the case. So are you stuck on Tannerman being the alleged abductor?
How do you know the PJ "ignored" the sighting? Where is your evidence on how they followed up the statements from 26.5.2007. If they didn't make any effort to find this man, then that would be a mistake, imo.
However what prompted further investigation were the emails from Lindsay Long and DC Hughes (these emails were sent at the end of September):
From: DC Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42
CC: Prior Stuart
Re: FW: Smith Family
This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.
DC John Hughes
__________________
From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family
Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland
Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.
Lindsay Long
Holmes Indexer
Major Crime
Braunstone Police Station
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This further information wasn't "ignored" but prompted the following response:
NOTE
On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.
Portimao, 27th September 2007
Signed
Inspector Paiva
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
The Smith sighting was ignored by Amaral and the Policia Judiciaria for over five months.
The Smith amendment was ruled out when Rebelo's team investigated it.
Your ignorance of these facts is astounding.
So if it was in the files the Met would have seen it and completely ignored it, is that what you think happened? Isn’t it more likely that Totman spoke to the GNR who never bothered passing the information to the PJ? Because let’s face it - there is no good reason for her statement not to be in the files. Furthermore, if her statement was known by Amaral why didn’t he use it to eliminate Tannerman once and for all, rather than go to all the trouble of doubting her integrity? And finally, where is Totman’s statement in the archiving report, which would explain JT’s signting eliminating that line of enquiry from the investigation?I like how Billy completely ignores posts which expose flaws in his/her logic. @)(++(*
I like how Billy completely ignores posts which expose flaws in his/her logic. @)(++(*
I like how Billy completely ignores posts which expose flaws in his/her logic. @)(++(*
For the Totmans to approach the Portuguese police it would have been necessary for them to have known about Jane Tanner's sighting and to have linked it to the time Mr Totman was around. Officially the details of the sighting were released on 25th May, so the only way they would have known about the sighting would have been if the T9 talked about it.
For the Totmans to approach the Portuguese police it would have been necessary for them to have known about Jane Tanner's sighting and to have linked it to the time Mr Totman was around. Officially the details of the sighting were released on 25th May, so the only way they would have known about the sighting would have been if the T9 talked about it.
Operation Grange were interested enough to appeal for information about the man the Smiths saw, once they had satisfied themselves that the Tanner sighting was unrelated.
Do you know when the Tannerman sighting was first reported in the UK media?
Do you know when the Tannerman sighting was first reported in the UK media?
The main problem suffered by sceptics is their inability to move on from one moment in time to the next one.
Bit like flies stuck in the aspic of their limited vision.
The information to which you refer is now history; information was sought; a great deal of information was gathered as a result; analysed; then the investigation moved on into its next phase.
The culmination of which is at present the investigation of the present day prime suspect, Brueckner.
While sceptics prefer to swill around in their notions of the timelines of 2007 ~ the world has moved on.
Didn't you notice.
What’s flawed in what Faithlily stated / asked?What's Faithlilly got to do with it?
Are all statements in the files? I'm led to believe the answer is "no". But I don't know why it's not there. It certainly seems clear that Totman was known about from an early stage, though.I replied
So if it was in the files the Met would have seen it and completely ignored it, is that what you think happened? Isn’t it more likely that Totman spoke to the GNR who never bothered passing the information to the PJ? Because let’s face it - there is no good reason for her statement not to be in the files. Furthermore, if her statement was known by Amaral why didn’t he use it to eliminate Tannerman once and for all, rather than go to all the trouble of doubting her integrity? And finally, where is Totman’s statement in the archiving report, which would explain JT’s signting eliminating that line of enquiry from the investigation?you then ignored what I wrote.
Two men carrying children were seen that night. One of those sightings was clung to by the McCanns and their supporters even after Operation Grange moved on to the other. It seems 'sceptics' are not alone in clinging to past theories. Neither sighting is of use to the German investigation which some are hoping will solve the mystery. I hope they keep one eye on the timeline evidence gathered in 2007, as it could well be relevant.
I'm pretty we'll certain the Germans have soved it and all your posts Re timelines and inconsistent statements are if no importance
The main problem suffered by sceptics is their inability to move on from one moment in time to the next one.
Bit like flies stuck in the aspic of their limited vision.
The information to which you refer is now history; information was sought; a great deal of information was gathered as a result; analysed; then the investigation moved on into its next phase.
The culmination of which is at present the investigation of the present day prime suspect, Brueckner.
While sceptics prefer to swill around in their notions of the timelines of 2007 ~ the world has moved on.
Didn't you notice.
What's Faithlilly got to do with it?
You wrote (claiming the Met would have known about the Totman sighting for years before ruling out Tannerman):I repliedyou then ignored what I wrote.
Two men carrying children were seen that night. One of those sightings was clung to by the McCanns and their supporters even after Operation Grange moved on to the other. It seems 'sceptics' are not alone in clinging to past theories. Neither sighting is of use to the German investigation which some are hoping will solve the mystery. I hope they keep one eye on the timeline evidence gathered in 2007, as it could well be relevant.
What's Faithlilly got to do with it?
Even if the parents knew that Martin Smith had identified Gerry as Smithman Gerry, if innocent, knew that it wasn’t him so would know that there was still an unidentified individual running around PDL with a child similar to their daughter on the night that their daughter disappeared. No matter what the circumstances of the sighting wouldn't any reasonable parent use every method open to them to identify the individual?
The alleged “abduction” was in 2007. Any case made against a suspect will go back to events on that evening. Without closure it’s impossible to “move on”.
You really do not have a clue what is of interest or what is not to the present investigation. For certain one historic record which is of interest concerns Brueckner's phone traffic as recorded along with the rest of the phone activity in Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared.Two alleged sightings of a man carrying a toddler on the night in question can not be written off as “irrelevancies” imo.
Smithman and Tannerman are of their era and merited investigation at the time. If that was not done at the time or was done incompetently at the time ~ those birds have long since flown and have been replaced with other information.
I doubt very much if there is much of interest in the complete timelines from 2007 which the present investigators have worked on (note the past tense there), for the simple reason an investigation is a progressive beast. It moves on. Getting mired in sceptic shibboleths long since played out goes nowhere.
Madeleine's present investigation is an active one.
The one sceptics cling to died back in 2007 when the myths were discovered to be just that with the solution being to archive the case.
Time to move on and catch up with everyone else and leave the irrelevances where they belong which is in the dustbin of history.
Two alleged sightings of a man carrying a toddler on the night in question can not be written off as “irrelevancies” imo.Fair point.
You really do not have a clue what is of interest or what is not to the present investigation. For certain one historic record which is of interest concerns Brueckner's phone traffic as recorded along with the rest of the phone activity in Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared.
Smithman and Tannerman are of their era and merited investigation at the time. If that was not done at the time or was done incompetently at the time ~ those birds have long since flown and have been replaced with other information.
I doubt very much if there is much of interest in the complete timelines from 2007 which the present investigators have worked on (note the past tense there), for the simple reason an investigation is a progressive beast. It moves on. Getting mired in sceptic shibboleths long since played out goes nowhere.
Madeleine's present investigation is an active one.
The one sceptics cling to died back in 2007 when the myths were discovered to be just that with the solution being to archive the case.
Time to move on and catch up with everyone else and leave the irrelevances where they belong which is in the dustbin of history.
I was referring to this post:But I wasn't so totally irrelevant as the post I was referring to was written BEFORE Faithlilly's post.
Because I had made no reference to the “Met”.You're either being obtuse or are just plain forgetful. You originally wrote:
Didn't he (ie Redwood) say it was because they followed Tannerman instead? Yet we know from Tannerman's wife that the PJ had accounted for Tannerman at a very early stage.
Thank you for your opinion, but we'll just have to wait and see if they can come up with a narrative that fits with all the evidence gathered previously, won't we? The proof of the pudding has yet to be revealed.
Two alleged sightings of a man carrying a toddler on the night in question can not be written off as “irrelevancies” imo.
You also don't know what will be of interest to the Germans. What they won't be able to do is to ignore or contradict
the evidence provided by the McCanns and their friends.
Their phone evidence didn't result in proving that Brueckner was in the area that evening, as Wolters has admitted.
So when Brueckner's lawyer actually went to Luz to check out time and distance - he was wasting his time was he.
NB: the lawyer did not deny his client's presence in Luz that evening.
Mr Fuelscher said: “If the witness statements are correct, there was a time window of one minute and 30 seconds in which the child could have been abducted.”
Mobile phone records put Brueckner, 43, in Praia da Luz at the time Madeleine went missing.
But after timing distances from various places in the resort to the flat, Mr Fuelscher declared: “My client did not commit this crime.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-brueckners-22834534
Mobile phone records do not put Brueckner in Praia da Luz, let alone at the (unknown) time that Madeleine went missing.
Mobile phone records do not put Brueckner in Praia da Luz, let alone at the (unknown) time that Madeleine went missing.
You post as though you are on an inside track for information but succeeding only in illustrating how ill informed and stuck in a rut of prejudice you are.
Brueckner's lawyer is not denying his client was in Luz and although he would allow him to watch his dog but not his daughter ~ professes his innocence.
I think the investigators know a lot more about what is going on than do either you or Brueckner's lawyer. 😁
But what they can't do is pinpoint where that mobile phone was during the 30 minute phone call it received on 3rd May, nor who was using the phone, no matter what the Mirror says.
But what they can't do is pinpoint where that mobile phone was during the 30 minute phone call it received on 3rd May, nor who was using the phone, no matter what the Mirror says.In which case why are phone records ever used in evidence if they can’t put a suspect in the locale of a crime scene?
They obviously don't need to now...as they are able to charge.
They obviously have other information that confirms his actions
In which case why are phone records ever used in evidence if they can’t put a suspect in the locale of a crime scene?
They can now, but not in 2007 with the evidence available and collected at the time. All they could do with that evidence was place a phone which they think was used by their suspect within the area (unknown) of a particular mast.so what technology exists now that tells you who actually held the phone at the time the mast was activated?
Yeah right, thats why you've not heard of any charges.I know why he hasn't been charged even though they have enough evidence to charge now
You have just said that the Private Briefings didn't happen.
As for Texts and Call Logs, McCann Supporters have a habit of trying to discuss these things with some measure of good manners. I have even done it myself. But not anymore.
You raise what you think is an issue so you prove it.
Mobile phone records do not put Brueckner in Praia da Luz, let alone at the (unknown) time that Madeleine went missing.
Says who ... yooo 😁
Think I'll bide my time and wait for someone who knows what is going on to let us know. Your OPINION just doesn't come anywhere near that category.
They can now, but not in 2007 with the evidence available and collected at the time. All they could do with that evidence was place a phone which they think was used by their suspect within the area (unknown) of a particular mast.
You're either being obtuse or are just plain forgetful. You originally wrote:
.
You claimed we "know" the PJ had accounted for Tannerman but offered no evidence for it.
Yes, me. I know enough about the mobile phone evidence to be able to say that the Mirror have got it wrong, whether you believe me or not.
It isn't my opinion it's the opinion of the German investigation fir which Wolters is the spokesperson... And no one else in the German investigation has contradicted him.
The German view of the case is it has been solved and CB is responsible. 100%...and they now have enough evidence to bring charges. That would prove all your suspicions Re the mcvanns are unfounded and that there never was any cadaver in 5a.. Which undermines the dogs and Grimes credibility.. Imo
Why not ~ isn't that exactly what Amaral did with his inaction for over five months with regard to the alleged smithman.
If it wasn't an irrelevance then ~ it sure is now.
Grime never claimed there was a cadaver in 5A. That is a gross misrepresentation, imo.
In all honesty do you believe neither Smithman nor Tannerman were carrying Madeleine McCann?
Where does that mention "the Met"?you do know Redwood worked for the Met right? Look, let’s cut to the chase: do you now accept that there is no record of Mrs Totman’s statement to the Portuguese police in the Files and that the Met therefore did not ignore her testimony for the simple reason they didn’t know about it?
😁 You haven't a clue really and your OPINION just does not count 😁
Things just are not panning out as you think they should. What a pity. All those wasted years! Sigh.
The dogs only alerted to things McCann... And Eddies behaviour changed as soon as he entered 5a.. According to Grime.
So what other explanation is there if Grime and his dogs are so reliable
you do know Redwood worked for the Met right? Look, let’s cut to the chase: do you now accept that there is no record of Mrs Totman’s statement to the Portuguese police in the Files and that the Met therefore did not ignore her testimony for the simple reason they didn’t know about it?
That's whataboutery. Grime never claimed the alerts proved there was a cadaver in 5A. He said they were indicative that there was a possibility that forensic evidence could be collected from the areas where the dogs alerted. Grime was very clear that it was the evidence that might be collected that was important when working with these dogs. This shows, imo, that he acted professionally. Your only explanation of the alerts has Grime acting with gross professional misconduct for the purpose of feathering his own nest.Think about it - if the dogs had never alerted we’d never have heard of Martin Grime. He got millions of pounds of free advertising thanks to those barks.
Not only does your explanation fly in the face of how Grime conducting himself professionally in this case but it also makes no sense. A series of false alerts do not make his case for the usefulness of EVR dogs and as such would have served him no purpose (assuming, as you seem to, that he wasn't a professional police officer but instead a rogue maverick on the take).
I believe it's highly unlikely either were
That is certainly a possibility. However, it seems unlikely given that both law enforcement bodies talked about sharing information from a very early stage. Tannerman was trumpeted by the group around the McCann's as THE ABDUCTOR. Perhaps then the most important part of the abduction narrative from a very early stage. Surely, although possible, it's hard to believe that the two forces didn't discuss Tannerman (or Totman - if indeed that's who Jane Tanner saw... and there's no consensus here about that)You have completely avoided the point and ignored the rationale I gave in my previous post on the subject which shows that Totman’s statement almost certainly never even reached the PJ.
Think about it - if the dogs had never alerted we’d never have heard of Martin Grime. He got millions of pounds of free advertising thanks to those barks.
What, as the man whose dogs gave false alerts? I don't think so!!It would have been a gamble but Madeleine had been missing for months. He probably felt quite secure in thr belief that she was dead by then, so a low risk gamble with lots to gain IMO. Though I doubt it was quite as conscious a decision as that.
In my opinion he conducted himself professionally in this case.
You have completely avoided the point and ignored the rationale I gave in my previous post on the subject which shows that Totman’s statement almost certainly never even reached the PJ.
It would have been a gamble but Madeleine had been missing for months. He probably felt quite secure in thr belief that she was dead by then, so a low risk gamble with lots to gain IMO. Though I doubt it was quite as conscious a decision as that.
You keep changing the goal posts... first you claimed I said something about Totman and "The Met"... I just re-read all my posts since the one where you quote me and I never said anything about the Met..... Then you retort "Redwood was in the Met you know" (or words to that effect) I checked again and I didn't mention Redwood either in the post of mine you are quoting...... and now it's "never even reached the PJ".... I have no way of knowing if that's true. All I've read about Totman is what his wife reportedly said in a Scottish newspaper some other credible media reports and a few other uncorroborated tales on the internet.Dear or dear oh dear. I suggest you start from the top of page 150 of this thread and read the conversation between us. There you will see where you mentioned Redwood (who used to work for the Met). Explain how the PJ knew about Totman from the off, but it was never mentioned either by Amaral in his book to pour cold water on Tannerman or in the final report to rule out JT’s sighting? Do you think they knew about Totman but decided not to rule out Tannerman by ever publicly mentioning Totman?
I have no reason to doubt Totman's wife. I have no reason to doubt which police agency they told (see below). I have seen no evidence either way but it seems somewhat incredible that this information wasn't shared with the PJ given the trumpeted central importance of Tannerman.
In October 2007 the McCanns put out a sketch of the Tannerman but Mr Totman had already told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May that it was probably him but they kept looking for the suspect.
It was only in 2011 after Scotland Yard took over the investigation that Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood, who led the probe from Britain, described a 'moment of revelation' when they became 'almost certain this sighting [Tannerman] is not the abductor.'
After this the Met went on the hunt for the so-called 'Smithman' - a man seen carrying a child away from the Ocean Club resort by Irish tourist Martin Smith.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698933/Madeleine-McCann-police-spent-four-years-trying-ID-man-GP-said-him.html
It's not clear who "they" refers to in that Daily Fail article (that's just an aside VS - my thoughts on Totman are above)
Why is that? And don't you think it is therefore strange that Smithman (if not involved) has not identified himself in such a high profile case?As far as I am aware.. There has never been an appeal for smithman in Portugal.. Crazy I know... So no.. Not odd he hasn't I'd himself
With all due respect why are you rightly upset if the McCann's are unfairly slurred in public yet you are happy to do the same to Grime? I have yet to see any evidence to show he acted with gross professional misconduct in order to feather his own nest.I might ask you the same question in reverse. I’ve never seen you spring to the defence of the McCanns when it is suggested that they lied in their statements, yet you seem very defensive of Grime and won’t have a word said against him. As I said in my previous post I don’t believe he consciously decided to stitch up the McCanns but I do think it’s possible that he was hoping for a positive result and may have unconsciously transmitted that message to his dogs, an example can be seen with the way he kept calling the dog back to the McCanns car. IMO.
That's whataboutery. Grime never claimed the alerts proved there was a cadaver in 5A. He said they were indicative that there was a possibility that forensic evidence could be collected from the areas where the dogs alerted. Grime was very clear that it was the evidence that might be collected that was important when working with these dogs. This shows, imo, that he acted professionally. Your only explanation of the alerts has Grime acting with gross professional misconduct for the purpose of feathering his own nest.
Not only does your explanation fly in the face of how Grime conducting himself professionally in this case but it also makes no sense. A series of false alerts do not make his case for the usefulness of EVR dogs and as such would have served him no purpose (assuming, as you seem to, that he wasn't a professional police officer but instead a rogue maverick on the take).
I'm stating facts.. You have said you believe the dogs alerted to cadaver.. So if there was no cadaver what do you think Eddie alerted to
Everything I have said about Grime is 100% true.. You seem to think those true facts point to professional misconduct ..
Those are your words not mine.
We're not debating my opinions. We are debating the professional integrity of Martin Grime. Your explanation is that he encouraged false alerts. Such actions would certainly constitute gross professional misconduct. I just don't see that myself.
Dear or dear oh dear. I suggest you start from the top of page 150 of this thread and read the conversation between us. There you will see where you mentioned Redwood (who used to work for the Met). Explain how the PJ knew about Totman from the off, but it was never mentioned either by Amaral in his book to pour cold water on Tannerman or in the final report to rule out JT’s sighting? Do you think they knew about Totman but decided not to rule out Tannerman by ever publicly mentioning Totman?
So you don't believe OG / Redwood were correct in claiming that Tannerman/Totman was no longer considered the abductor.... and that Smithman was now their main person of interest?
It's the Mirror, not me, which is spreading erroneous opinions which mislead some to believe there is useful mobile phone evidence.
I have no preconceptions of how things should 'pan out', by the way. Nor do I feel I have wasted my time, so I need no pity.
Here's one I made earlier http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg669704#msg669704 Terribly sorry if the link isn't up to your 'exacting' standards but it did originate from Correio de Manhã so that might be more to your liking 😁
Don't his phone records count? and he was already on the police radar but the PJ managed to make a mess of an attempt to interview him.
So I suggest it might have been pertinent for the PJ to track him down and ask why now you see him in Luz on the third but come the fourth - now you don't.
There was also a job of co-ordinating information to be done. For example did it really take all that time for Ocean Club employees phones to be checked out.
They sure had no problem going through the McCann's records with a fine toothcomb.
A hotel worker may have given the Madeleine McCann suspect the opportunity to break into the family’s apartment on the night she disappeared, it is claimed.
________________________________________________
The hotel employee has been identified by police, said Correio de Manhã. It also claimed the employee had the suspect’s mobile number in his phone.
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/madeleine-mccann-praia-da-luz-hotel-worker-christian-brueckner-opportunity-441331
I've read all my posts AGAIN this time from Page 150 and there still isn't one which comments on The Met or Redwood apart from a reply to Eleanor which was nothing to do with whether the Met or the PJ had or hadn't been aware of Julian Totman at an early stage. Instead it was a question to ask if she now agreed with Redwood's new direction of travel (new as in 2013!!!). I said to Eleanor:G-Unit’s “excellent point” is not so excellent imo. It was said with the benefit of hindsight and does not mean that they had to have known about JT’s sighting before they went to the police, but that once they heard about her sighting from that point on they always thought it might be Julian. The bottom line is, there is no evidence of Totman’s statement in the files, no mention of it by Amaral and no mention of it in the final report. The remaining question is - why not? I don’t expect an answer obviously.
As I said - I have no reason to doubt Totman's wife's claim that they spoke to the Portuguese Police. The Portuguese Police may have taken the photograph of the pink pyjamas and Ocean Club towel (speculation but it's possible - and seems somewhat unlikely that Totman would keep pyjamas for 6 years just waiting for OG to find him!!).... However, there is the excellent point by G-Unit asking why would Totman have approached the Police before the Tanner sighting was made public? Totman's wife reportedly said:
"We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner. But the national police who investigated didn't get back to us and we don't know if our information was ever passed on."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5698933/Madeleine-McCann-police-spent-four-years-trying-ID-man-GP-said-him.html
So obviously, from that remark, the Totman's reported to the Portuguese Police after the Tanner sighting was known to them. Unlike the fundamentalists here I don't claim to have all the answers!!
With regards to what the UK Police did or did not know here's another report from 2013:
The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.
A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”
Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
It is not clear if the questionnaires were analysed by the British force or simply forwarded to Portugal.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
Bear in mind this is just a newspaper story! Nevertheless it does demonstrate that we don't know with any certainty when Totman first accounted for himself, and which Police forces knew that he had.... I would like to know the origin of the pink pyjamas photo, though.
Here's one I made earlier http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg669704#msg669704 Terribly sorry if the link isn't up to your 'exacting' standards but it did originate from Correio de Manhã so that might be more to your liking 😁
Don't his phone records count? and he was already on the police radar but the PJ managed to make a mess of an attempt to interview him.
So I suggest it might have been pertinent for the PJ to track him down and ask why now you see him in Luz on the third but come the fourth - now you don't.
There was also a job of co-ordinating information to be done. For example did it really take all that time for Ocean Club employees phones to be checked out.
They sure had no problem going through the McCann's records with a fine toothcomb.
A hotel worker may have given the Madeleine McCann suspect the opportunity to break into the family’s apartment on the night she disappeared, it is claimed.
________________________________________________
The hotel employee has been identified by police, said Correio de Manhã. It also claimed the employee had the suspect’s mobile number in his phone.
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/madeleine-mccann-praia-da-luz-hotel-worker-christian-brueckner-opportunity-441331
I'm stating facts.. You have said you believe the dogs alerted to cadaver.. So if there was no cadaver what do you think Eddie alerted to
Everything I have said about Grime is 100% true.. You seem to think those true facts point to professional misconduct ..
Those are your words not mine.
I haven't seen any evidence that Brueckner was in PdL on 3rd and was 'gone' on 4th. Once again newspaper reports quoting an unidentified source are being relied on, but the 'helpful hotel worker' is just a rumour in my opinion.
What Grime said and did is factually recorded. It's your interpretations of his words and actions which is opinion, and it's your interpretations which cast doubt upon his professional integrity.
What Grime said and did is factually recorded. It's your interpretations of his words and actions which is opinion, and it's your interpretations which cast doubt upon his professional integrity.
I haven't seen any evidence that Brueckner was in PdL on 3rd and was 'gone' on 4th. Once again newspaper reports quoting an unidentified source are being relied on, but the 'helpful hotel worker' is just a rumour in my opinion.In my opinion the image promoted by Amaral of the clapped out Westphalia covered with kiddie cartoons would have been a magnet for investigators searching for a missing child on the 4th.
In my opinion the image promoted by Amaral of the clapped out Westphalia covered with kiddie cartoons would have been a magnet for investigators searching for a missing child on the 4th.
But guess what - nobody searched it. In fact not a single person mentioned seeing it. My explanation for that is that it wasn't there to be seen. And we know again from Amaral that neither was Brueckner.
The fact that you haven't seen any evidence is a bit of a presumption on your part and is of importance in the scheme of things. Quite simply - it is not.
What is of importance is the evidence held by the police who say they have evidence: are you arguing they have not?
I know why he hasn't been charged even though they have enough evidence to charge now
What Grime said and did is factually recorded. It's your interpretations of his words and actions which is opinion, and it's your interpretations which cast doubt upon his professional integrity.
Same old, lets fast forward to Grange in 2014 after going back to zero and translating the files, they came up with the three amigos after analysing the phone records , the very same Wolters uses to claim his suspect was around at the time, yet Grange never picked up on him, either they are inept, or they did pick up on him and passed it to the BKA, (there doesn't seem evidence of), if they did then they (BKA) are inept, so all in all its a feck up from the start.
The Germans had information on Brueckner which they acted on.
The Portuguese also had information on Brueckner which they did not act on. We know this because Amaral told us they could have done in 2007 but didn't.
Scotland Yard were not privy to either German or Portuguese case files or intelligence.
But whatever omissions of the past might have been - starting with the dreadful Portuguese 'investigation' of 2007 - we are where we are today.
Sceptics and Brueckner may be annoyed about that - but a lot of people like it just fine 😁
Of course you do, in your mind its far better for the girl to have suffered all manner of abuse than die an accidental death, says a lot about you.
What a parlthetic post but typical of the increasing desperation of sceptics.. Imo
This is what Billy objected to
Martin Grime and Harrison came up with a new idea that the, alerts, could be used, as intelligence.. Grime eventually took it one step futher and decided they could be used as evidence. Grime used PDL to showcase his new business that would eventually earn him almost 100 K in Jersey... Where his contribution to the investigation was heavily critised by an official review.
All facts no interpretation.. You need to get your facts right
I've posted facts about Grime and his dogs... Everything I've said is true
The truth seems to be a problem for you.
Away with you, you lot are positively salivating at the thought of CB being the one.Such accusations are baseless and sick in the head. IMO.
Away with you, you lot are positively salivating at the thought of CB being the one.
There have been no slurs cast at Martin Grime except for suggestions such as yours above. Please desist.
G-Unit’s “excellent point” is not so excellent imo. It was said with the benefit of hindsight and does not mean that they had to have known about JT’s sighting before they went to the police, but that once they heard about her sighting from that point on they always thought it might be Julian. The bottom line is, there is no evidence of Totman’s statement in the files, no mention of it by Amaral and no mention of it in the final report. The remaining question is - why not? I don’t expect an answer obviously.
So do you now agree that Martin Grime didn’t deliberately encourage false alerts?
Is there any official in any official capacity casting doubts upon Grime and his dogs ?
Please BEHAVE YOURSELF and STOP putting words into other members' mouths.
Not every statement has been made public. So there’s one POSSIBLE answer….. Do you think Totman kept his daughters pyjamas and an Ocean Club towel for six years or perhaps is it more plausible to think that photo was taken earlier?Why would that statement not have been made public? Why was it not referenced at all by Amaral who was so keen to discredit JT's sighting as a possible abductor? Why was Totman's testimony not referenced in the final Report? Please supply a credible, logical answer to this if you can and then I will move on to the next bit of your post.
You’ve been here a long time. You know that is what Dave believes. No need to pretend I’m putting words into his mouth.Does Davel believe it was deliberate? Does Davel speak for Brietta?
Away with you, you lot are positively salivating at the thought of CB being the one.
So do you now agree that Martin Grime didn’t deliberately encourage false alerts?
Do you have evidence that alerts by cadaver dogs had never been seen as intelligence previously, or are you speculating? Do you have evidence that Grime was the person who "decided they could be used as evidence" or is that speculation also?I've supplied the evidence before as you Know well
Do you have evidence that alerts by cadaver dogs had never been seen as intelligence previously, or are you speculating? Do you have evidence that Grime was the person who "decided they could be used as evidence" or is that speculation also?
Please BEHAVE YOURSELF and STOP putting words into other members' mouths.
It is a perfectly reasonable QUESTION to ask and isn’t putting words into anyone’s mouth. So do you believe Grime encouraged false alerts?
That is a disgusting post.Sceptics probably don't bury their heads in the sand and probably too believe those experienced professionals have a far better idea of Madeleine's fate than internet armchair detectives such as you and others in here who choose to believe in miracles .
There are those amongst us who still hope for a miracle here. But sceptics really don't.
Sceptics probably don't bury their heads in the sand and probably too believe those experienced professionals have a far better idea of Madeleine's fate than internet armchair detectives such as you and others in here who choose to believe in miracles .What an odd post. It's sceptics who for the last 10 years or so who have been at odds with the experts investigating Madeleine's disappearance. Perhaps your head was buried in the sand and you hadn't noticed.
Sceptics probably don't bury their heads in the sand and probably too believe those experienced professionals have a far better idea of Madeleine's fate than internet armchair detectives such as you and others in here who choose to believe in miracles .
Which experienced. Professionals are you referring to.... The experienced professionals are those investigating who claim that CB is 100% guilty
So who claims CB is 100% guilty and who are the professionals investigating them ?
I've supplied the evidence before as you Know well
Are you really so out of touch you have to ask... LOL
How can you find such evidence? How can you know whether or not cadaver dog alerts seen as intelligence before 2007?
Well its usually beyond reasonable doubt, of which there clearly is, CB's not even been questioned.
Another one who doesn't read the post properly
So I ask again who says CB is 100% guilty and who are the professionals investigating them.
How can you find such evidence? How can you know whether or not cadaver dog alerts seen as intelligence before 2007?
First i never mentioned 2007...try to be more precise...this is what Grime wrote and it is evidence and supports what I posted...fact..
In 2005 it was realised that detection canines may be of assistance to the law enforcement investigation of homicide and allegations of abduction where the pace of investigations is of paramount importance. Innovative method and ‘out of the box thinking by the UK National Search Manager introduced Human Scent Trailing, Human Blood Detection and Victim Recovery Dogs (now collectively designated as Forensic Canines) within critical case investigations to ascertain whether or not they could provide case intelligence.
That refers specifically to critical case investigations. I'm sure the dogs were used previously to provide intelligence, but maybe not always in that kind of investigation.Can you give an example of the sort of case where cadaver and blood dog intelligence might have been called upon in court prior to 2005 that weren’t homicide or abduction cases?
That refers specifically to critical case investigations. I'm sure the dogs were used previously to provide intelligence, but maybe not always in that kind of investigation.
That sounds like total waffle to me.. What do you understand by "critical case investigations"...please explain what you think it means
Does it? It seems quite clear to me.Can you give an example of the sort of case where cadaver and blood dog intelligence might have been called upon in court prior to 2005 that weren’t homicide or abduction cases?
Grime is talking about the introduction in 2005 of Forensic Canines into critical case investigations. These investigations are the investigation of homicide and allegations of abduction where the pace of investigations is of paramount importance.
That refers specifically to critical case investigations. I'm sure the dogs were used previously to provide intelligence, but maybe not always in that kind of investigation.
You've now claimed two different things..
Encouraged false alerts.... Possibly but not conciously
Deliberately encouraged false alerts.. No
So cadaver dogs hadn't been used as intelligence in homicide or abduction cases...but had been used in other cases... Are you serious
Mark Harrison's job was to advise NATIONALLY on homicide searches. Not all forces had Forensic Cannines, so not all forces would use them as a matter of course. Harrison, Grime and the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys became available nationally to any force needing their expertise.
You two are masters of evasion I must say…
Mark Harrison's job was to advise NATIONALLY on homicide searches. Not all forces had Forensic Cannines, so not all forces would use them as a matter of course. Harrison, Grime and the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys became available nationally to any force needing their expertise.
Mark Harrison was involved in many critical incidents, including the Soham murders;
"The search team was last night being directed by the national police search specialist advisor, Mr Mark Harrison, who recently advised both Surrey police in their hunt for Milly Dowler, and the Essex force in their investigation into the disappearance of Danielle Jones."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/uk-police-question-school-pair-on-missing-children-1.1092228
It seems he felt that being able to call in nationally available Forensic Dog teams would be helpful.
What about when he called Eddie back to the Renault Scenic? Was he acting unconsciously? If not what do you think he was doing?
Also your theory about what Eddie alerts to "when there is no cadaver" doesn't stack up imo. Why no alerts in any other apartments? And "length of time" doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. Where is your peer reviewed forensic science which shows given enough time a cadaver dog will eventually alert even when there is no cadaverine? This is such a high profile case yet it seems no forensic scientist or police dog handler are critical of Grime and his work in the McCann case.
Understanding the meaning of the written word has nothing to do with being evasive. Misunderstanding the meaningNot replying directly to questions and giving "politician" style answers or not even bothering to reply at all means being evasive in my lexicon, what does it mean in yours?
and context can lead to mistaken assumptions.
Not replying directly to questions and giving "politician" style answers means being evasive in my lexicon, what does it mean in yours?
Not replying directly to questions and giving "politician" style answers or not even bothering to reply at all means being evasive in my lexicon, what does it mean in yours?
In my mine it means, waffle and an inability to present a logical argument.
Grime and Harrison were inconsistent and contradictory in the meaning of the alerts.. Fact. This to me supports the idea that the whole process of the alerts had not been properly thought through...
The nature of the questions being asked and reason they are being asked often shapes the response.Yes hard questions that expose the flaw in the opponent's logic and understanding often have that effect.
Harrison and Grime downplayed the value of the alerts after the searches compared to before them. Unlike you, I don't think that was due to muddled thinking on their part.
Yes hard questions that expose the flaw in the opponent's logic and understanding often have that effect.
Let's see who is muddled..
Harrison
No inference can be taken from the alerts unless supported by physical evince...
Then he says.
The alert may signify a corpse has been present and moved.. Thsts an inference
Grime..
Alerts need to be supported by evidence or anecdotal witness statements..
That contradicts Harrison.
Muddled.. Contradictory... Inconsistent.... Proven
I was referring to questions which involve research which the questioner could do themselves. Also to questions about a scenario suggested by the questioner and not by me.You wrote
I think your timescale is wrong. On 23rd July Harrison wrote;
"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed."
It was in a report dated 22nd August that he wrote;
"I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence"
So his opinion changed AFTER the dogs alerted.
You wrote
Quote from: G-Unit on November 12, 2021, 07:06:58 PM
That refers specifically to critical case investigations. I'm sure the dogs were used previously to provide intelligence, but maybe not always in that kind of investigation.
I replied:
Can you give an example of the sort of case where cadaver and blood dog intelligence might have been called upon in court prior to 2005 that weren’t homicide or abduction cases?
Now, can give an answer to this or not? You say you are sure of something but seem unwilling to back up your claim, any reason for that?
It doesnt matter..he contradicted himself...that is the bottom line.
He also contradicts Grime.
He did indeed, and the interesting question is why.
I've already given my explanation and supplied evidence.
It was a relatively new idea that Harrison had come up with and had not been properly thought through. I wonder why Grime felt it necessary to give such an extensive CV to the investigation extolling his skills and experience. Of course the PJ then ran away with the idea that the alerts wrte proof... Fact... Thats another reason why it was necessary for Harrison to bring things back to reality
Your explanation ignored the fact that Harrison contradicted himself only after the dogs alerted to places and items connected with the McCanns.
Your claim that "It was a relatively new idea that Harrison had come up with and had not been properly thought through" is just speculation.
I don't understand the question. Why would a cadaver dog be used in non homicide cases?That's what I'm asking you!
I've already given my explanation and supplied evidence.
It was a relatively new idea that Harrison had come up with and had not been properly thought through. I wonder why Grime felt it necessary to give such an extensive CV to the investigation extolling his skills and experience. Of course the PJ then ran away with the idea that the alerts wrte proof... Fact... Thats another reason why it was necessary for Harrison to bring things back to reality
That’s a strawman argument. No investigating agencies, not even the PJ, believed the alerts on their own could be “proof”. This is why the FSS analysis became crucial for them.
The role of the dogs was to find the girls or their remains... The accepted role of cadaver dogs ..no mention of providing intelligence.
As, you are keen on the written word read the reason why Harrison suggested taking the dogs to Luz.
These dogs were known as VRD dogs... That's the clue
Such a pity that The PJ didn't read the report properly.Or that in their haste, they misunderstood what they did read entirely.
Or that in their haste, they misunderstood what they did read entirely.
That’s a strawman argument. No investigating agencies, not even the PJ, believed the alerts on their own could be “proof”. This is why the FSS analysis became crucial for them.
Or wanted to misunderstand, peut être.
Another area of British expertise where opinion changed.
There’s no contradiction. If a cadaver has been moved, for example, you can use the dogs together. Firstly to find indicative “intelligence” that a corpse may have been present, and then secondly to identify areas where blood may be found. The alerts on their own do not constitute as “evidence”. What might be collected as a result of the intelligence and indicative alert is evidence…. Even this evidence on its own is not “proof” but it is further intelligence.
That's what I'm asking you!
Your explanation ignored the fact that Harrison contradicted himself only after the dogs alerted to places and items connected with the McCanns.I never said it wasn't but he contradicted himself. In fact other experts including prof Cassella... Grimed academic lead... Says the alerts must be corroborated
Your claim that "It was a relatively new idea that Harrison had come up with and had not been properly thought through" is just speculation.
They certainly read enough into it to use it as an excuse to make the McCanns suspects. A nonsense then and even more of a nonsense when the FSS results were explained properly and understood.
That’s a strawman argument. No investigating agencies, not even the PJ, believed the alerts on their own could be “proof”. This is why the FSS analysis became crucial for them.
Another area of British expertise whereopinion changed.
Edited to add appeared to change between interim and final report.
They certainly read enough into it to use it as an excuse to make the McCanns suspects. A nonsense then and even more of a nonsense when the FSS results were explained properly and understood.
The McCanns were made arguidos because they could have incriminated themselves by answering the PJ's questions. As an arguida Kate McCann was not legally bound to answer. As a witness she would have been.
No she wouldn't. Apart from the aforementioned stairs of course.
Another area of British expertise whereopinion changed.
Edited to add appeared to change between interim and final report.
The question is nonesensical then.It was your statement that was nonsensical, my question merely highlighted that fact.
Witnesses in criminal investigations are legally bound to co-operate with the police and do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
Kate had already answered what questions she was asked. So actually no need to make her an Arguida.
Witnesses in criminal investigations are legally bound to co-operate with the police and do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
She was questioned as a witness on 6th September and answered the questions asked. She was questioned as an arguida on 7th September and choose not to answer the questions asked on that occasion.
There is s contradiction as gunit has accepted.
Harrison said no inference from an alert without physical evidence... He contradicted himself... Fact
Can you post the comment that you believe contradicts this?I've posted it today.. On one hand he says no inference can be drawn.. Then he says it may indicate a cadaver had been there.. He's drawing an inference.
Nice to see you agree to be speculating above. I think it’s important to note that although you post “only facts” and “the truth” you admit that the conclusions you draw from the facts are merely speculative.
Indeed it would be a very foolish arguida who accepted everything the police were putting to her as the real deal when their ineptitude was so patently apparent.
SNIP
And so, for the record, this is where we stand on the supposed evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann.
There was never any DNA "proof" that Madeleine's body had been in the couple's hire car - that originated from a misinterpretation by the PJ of inconclusive findings by British forensics experts.
The full report indicates it was the supposed "scent of death" found in the apartment that led directly to the couple's naming as arguidos, but forensics experts have always argued for caution in interpreting sniffer dogs' reactions.
An American court case ruled this kind of evidence inadmissible last year after finding that three supposedly "specialist" dogs were incorrect between 62% and 78% of the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/23/madeleinemccann.portugal
Two days later as Eleanor says the McCanns would NEVER have been constituted arguidos for the simple reason the law was changed so that no-one could be made a suspect without supporting evidence.
The fact of the matter is that there never was or had been such evidence.
As far as Justice is concerned it was a shoddy move (no wonder Amaral is the self appointed expert in "scape-goats") and a shameful episode for the Portuguese.
Is that a reference to the Zapata case in the Guardian? Such irony!! I’m surprised any pro-Mcann supporter would still be posting articles referencing that case!!
The fact of the matter in the McCann case was the FSS when asked could this be Madeleine’s DNA said the results were “inconclusive”. I don’t see what is shameful about using highly a experienced UK dog handler and two dogs with an excellent record in the field to see if there was any indicative signs that forensic evidence might be collected to help the investigation. We know the dogs alerted, we know evidence was collected, we know forensic analysis of the samples was “inconclusive”. How exactly is any of that shameful?
I've posted it today.. On one hand he says no inference can be drawn.. Then he says it may indicate a cadaver had been there.. He's drawing an inference.
That's factual. I point out which posts are factual and which ate opinion.
I'm convinced based on lots that the alerts ate totally useless in this case.....same as in Jersey where Grime was paid a fortune after showing Harper a video of the dogs in Luz. ...then twice alerting to the coconut she'll.. An absolute joke. Imo
The bottom line is Eddie has made very little contribution in solving cases.. In his whole career. It's all hype imo
Can you tell me the number of your post that has the link. It sounds to me like you are taking one of the remarks out of context…. You can draw the inference that an alert might suggest a cadaver had been present at one point in time…. You can’t draw from that that a particular person is dead and that it was their corpse that was present at some point. Everyone agrees that the dogs are not infallible… therefore you can’t use the alerts alone to prrve anything. They are indicative that evidence might be found. I don’t recall Harrison claiming differently. I’d like to read the entire article you are quoting from.Do us a favour and point that out to Amaral because that is EXACTLY what he did do.
The alerts by the dogs added absolutely nothing to the investigation.. It was shameful. Amaral and the PJ didn't understand
I've posted it today.. On one hand he says no inference can be drawn.. Then he says it may indicate a cadaver had been there.. He's drawing an inference.
That's factual. I point out which posts are factual and which ate opinion.
I'm convinced based on lots that the alerts ate totally useless in this case.....same as in Jersey where Grime was paid a fortune after showing Harper a video of the dogs in Luz. ...then twice alerting to the coconut she'll.. An absolute joke. Imo
The bottom line is Eddie has made very little contribution in solving cases.. In his whole career. It's all hype imo
I disagree. It wasn’t shameful using the UK dogs even if, as it turned out, the evidence collected was “inconclusive” so ultimately added nothing to the case. It’s not shameful at all to employ such methods in the circumstances.
I'm not convinced that coconut reference is as clear cut as you like to portray. There were, reportedly, some irregularities in the handling of the specimen. Also coconut shell doesn't contain "collagen" but this debate should probably be elsewhere.
Do us a favour and point that out to Amaral because that is EXACTLY what he did do.
I disagree. It wasn’t shameful using the UK dogs even if, as it turned out, the evidence collected was “inconclusive” so ultimately added nothing to the case. It’s not shameful at all to employ such methods in the circumstances.
She was questioned as a witness on 6th September and answered the questions asked. She was questioned as an arguida on 7th September and choose not to answer the questions asked on that occasion.
I never said it was shameful to use thebdogs but shameful the PJ. Never understood the alerts
No, he realised the results were "inconclusive" in terms of cementing a case of parental involvement, despite his own views. He states clearly in The Truth of the Lie; "These conclusions do not, for the moment, constitute proof. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof.
I'm convinced it is clear-cut.. And convinced there was never any collagen in the sample
In an email from a certain Ms Brock, in the lab, she reports after initial tests to establish if carbon dating is possible; "the sample yielded 1.6% collagen"
https://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2010/03/jar6.html
Like I said though, this is a debate for elsewhere.
You really do like to play around with words don't you.
No-one said it was "shameful using the UK dogs"- ONLY YOU.
You are deliberately falsifying the content of members posts in a way which I think is inherently dishonest.
You really must desist.
You really do like to play around with words don't you.
No-one said it was "shameful using the UK dogs"- ONLY YOU.
You are deliberately falsifying the content of members posts in a way which I think is inherently dishonest.
You really must desist.
"The alerts by the dogs added absolutely nothing to the investigation.. It was shameful. Amaral and the PJ didn't understand"
It's not my fault that Dave's grammar was bad. He put a full stop after "shameful" which changes the perceived meaning of his post:
Dave has very kindly clarified what he meant in a reasonable, rational manner,
It's not my fault that Dave's grammar was bad. He put a full stop after "shameful" which changes the perceived meaning of his post:
Dave has very kindly clarified what he meant in a reasonable, rational manner,
No, he realised the results were "inconclusive" in terms of cementing a case of parental involvement, despite his own views. He states clearly in The Truth of the Lie; "These conclusions do not, for the moment, constitute proof. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof.He asserted at the end of the book that Madeleine was dead. How did he arrive at this conclusion?
Note.. My grammar isn't bad... It's a typo on my phone keyboard.
Amaral understood the results of analysis on the evidence collected were "inconclusive". He knew the evidence collected, never mind the alerts (to quote him), "do not, for the moment, constitute proof.". How is that understanding shameful?
We do not ever criticise the Grammar of another Member. Please remember this.I do. Soz la.
Otherwise I might have a go at yours.
You are wasting your time with this. Billy Whizz thinks that distorting words will suffice. They won't, of course, but there you go.
Something very foolish has crept into this when some not so very bright persons think that they can abuse The English Language for whatever they think is pertinent.
This is never going to happen.
He asserted at the end of the book that Madeleine was dead. How did he arrive at this conclusion?
“The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;”
No, he realised the results were "inconclusive" in terms of cementing a case of parental involvement, despite his own views. He states clearly in The Truth of the Lie; "These conclusions do not, for the moment, constitute proof. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof.
Yes I agree that was his conclusion, but he understood that the FSS report did not help cement this case.How did he arrive at this conclusion then?
Yes I agree that was his conclusion, but he understood that the FSS report did not help cement this case.
I do. Soz la.
I don't think I have ever encountered such a prolonged or transparent misuse of the English Language. It isn't a trustworthy thing to do..
If you read his book he says the alerts confirm a body in the apt
Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
Yes that is his opinion, but he understood the FSS results could not be used to support his case. The alerts on their own are only indicative. I personally believe the alerts suggest there was a cadaver in 5A - though I don't fully understand the issue of Eddie and alerts to human blood i.e. Maybe both Eddie and Keela were alerting to human blood. I do understand that the alerts on their own don't constitute proof of Madeleine McCann dying in apartment 5A. I believe it is certainly likely and is actually touched upon by DCI Redwood as a possibility. It is disputed if they can be even claimed to be evidence. That's not so important here as evidence was collected. The issue is inconclusive DNA analysis.
Cite for Redwood remarks:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
You believe what you want... I trust my judgement implicitly and believe I have a far better understanding of the evifenve than amaral. I think there's going to be a lot of sceptics not knowing which way to turn fairly soon.
The dog alerts are imo a total joke. ..The dogs role is to find evidence... To suggest MM died in the aptand the alerts were to her cadaver is total fantasy... As was the coconut in Jersey. Grimes dreams in his white paper never materialised... I've got my opinions why
What do you believe led Redwood to make the remark; "that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was".?It means the police considered the possibility that she was murdered by a stranger in the room who then removed her body but that doesn’t mean they considered this possibility because of the dog alerts. Remember, the Met believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and there is no way that could have happened if the dogs were actually alerting to the scent of her dead body. The Met obviously chose to ignore the alerts completely IMO.
The dog alerts led to the collection of evidence? Can you find any serious scientific articles or research to support your claim that "the dog alerts are [in your opinion] a total joke"? (Dave's quote states "imo" where I have inserted the brackets.)
Do you remember Debunked's posts from years ago trying to rubbish the dog alerts? He arrived at the conclusion that given their "70-90%" reliability a certain percentage of alerts would be false. He then uses a statistical maths equation to state the reliability of two dogs is actually less so Debunked stated maybe 51% of alerts are false... It stands to reason that the other alerts are not false. So what were Eddie and Keela alerting to? Surely it is the material sent to the FSS?
Yes the "coconut" in Jersey might be total fantasy!
It means the police considered the possibility that she was murdered by a stranger in the room who then removed her body but that doesn’t mean they considered this possibility because of the dog alerts. Remember, the Met believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and there is no way that could have happened if the dogs were actually alerting to the scent of her dead body. The Met obviously chose to ignore the alerts completely IMO.
Wasn't there some guy in the news the other week who had a thing about dead bodies?Good point, he may have holidayed in Apt 5 a shortly before or after the disappearance.
Maybe it was him.
It means the police considered the possibility that she was murdered by a stranger in the room who then removed her body but that doesn’t mean they considered this possibility because of the dog alerts. Remember, the Met believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and there is no way that could have happened if the dogs were actually alerting to the scent of her dead body. The Met obviously chose to ignore the alerts completely IMO.
What other evidence exists that could lead you to consider the possibility she was dead before being taken out of the apartment?Who talked about there being evidence? It was a theory they considered that is all. Now you tell me how Madeleine could have been abducted by a stranger as the Met believe she was and be dead in situ in the apartment for long enough to leave cadaver odour.
Who talked about there being evidence? It was a theory they considered that is all. Now you tell me how Madeleine could have been abducted by a stranger as the Met believe she was and be dead in situ in the apartment for long enough to leave cadaver odour.Firstly do you believe cadaverine existed in the apt.?
Firstly do you believe cadaverine existed in the apt.?Firstly - I have no idea.
Secondly the Met never implied when Redwood made that revelation on Crimewatch that she had been abducted by a stranger .
Firstly - I have no idea.I know what he said and he was indicating Smithsman was the person to concentrate on . However he made no reference to the fact that the latter could possibly be carrying a dead child did he?
Secondly- are you serious?! I suggest you go back and watch the episode of Crimewatch in question again.
I know what he said and he was indicating Smithsman was the person to concentrate on . However he made no reference to the fact that the latter could possibly be carrying a dead child did he?I don’t know what point you are trying to make but Redwood and the Met think Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, not that she died in the apartment and Gerry carried her dead body through town, hope that’s cleared up any misunderstanding you mayhave had about it.
I don’t know what point you are trying to make but Redwood and the Met think Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, not that she died in the apartment and Gerry carried her dead body through town, hope that’s cleared up any misunderstanding you mayhave had about it.
Given those words:Perhaps you’d like to have a go at figuring out their rationale then?
"that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was".
It doesn't seem that the former had been rejected. There must have been some rationale for the Met to consider the possibility that Madeleine was dead before she left the apartment. They don't consider scenarios without some reason just for the sake of it.
Perhaps you’d like to have a go at figuring out their rationale then?
Well I can't see what else it could be other than the indicative dog alerts and the subsequent material collected under the tiles???? Can you think why the Met were considering the possibility that she died in the apartment. Also such a possibility would generate questions of a motive. A paedophile, imo, would not have killed Madeleine in the apartment and then carried her out.Certainly not after 90 minutes, no. So if the Met ever took the dog alerts seriously as you suggest then they must have been focusing their attention on the parents, yet the Met is always being criticised by sceptics for obeying orders not to investigate any other theory than abduction so how do you square that circle?
Certainly not after 90 minutes, no. So if the Met ever took the dog alerts seriously as you suggest then they must have been focusing their attention on the parents, yet the Met is always being criticised by sceptics for obeying orders not to investigate any other theory than abduction so how do you square that circle?
It's not me that has to square the circle - it is the Met. I could speculate if you like but there doesn't seem to be much point. We know their focus shifted away from Tannerman and towards Smithman - maybe they came across evidence which shifted focus in other ways and led them to believe there was a possibility that Madeleine was dead when she was removed from the apartment.No, the Met doesn’t have to do anything to satisfy your curiosity, it just has to get on with the job of solving the case. It is obvious however that the parents have never been suspects since Day One of Operation Grange and therefore as the dog alerts only support parental involvement they surely must not have been considered relevant to the Met’s investigation.
I still believe Colin Sutton is correct when he criticises the initial brief of OG, and its initial focus. (cite provided earlier on this topic)
Well I can't see what else it could be other than the indicative dog alerts and the subsequent material collected under the tiles???? Can you think why the Met were considering the possibility that she died in the apartment. Also such a possibility would generate questions of a motive. A paedophile, imo, would not have killed Madeleine in the apartment and then carried her out.
No, the Met doesn’t have to do anything to satisfy your curiosity, it just has to get on with the job of solving the case. It is obvious however that the parents have never been suspects since Day One of Operation Grange and therefore as the dog alerts only support parental involvement they surely must not have been considered relevant to the Met’s investigation.
Surely you must believe the dog alerts might "support" some other party's involvement?Using logic and common sense it is impossible to derive a plausible scenario who allows for both death in the apartment and non-parental involvement. By all means try to prove me wrong.
You say that the OG never suspected the parents. We know that they were considering the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment. That must mean they considered the possibility that someone else (not the parents) killed Madeleine in the apartment (or that she died there accidentally). I don't see how you can say; "the dog alerts only support parental involvement". That's after all is what Amaral was saying!! The fact is that the dog alerts are just indicative that forensic evidence may be retrieved from certain areas that might possibly aid the investigation.
Surely you must believe the dog alerts might "support" some other party's involvement?
You say that the OG never suspected the parents. We know that they were considering the possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment. That must mean they considered the possibility that someone else (not the parents) killed Madeleine in the apartment (or that she died there accidentally). I don't see how you can say; "the dog alerts only support parental involvement". That's after all is what Amaral was saying!! The fact is that the dog alerts are just indicative that forensic evidence may be retrieved from certain areas that might possibly aid the investigation.
Well I can't see what else it could be other than the indicative dog alerts and the subsequent material collected under the tiles???? Can you think why the Met were considering the possibility that she died in the apartment. Also such a possibility would generate questions of a motive. A paedophile, imo, would not have killed Madeleine in the apartment and then carried her out.
Using logic and common sense it is impossible to derive a plausible scenario who allows for both death in the apartment and non-parental involvement. By all means try to prove me wrong.
A burglary gone wrong?As cadaver odour takes at the very least 60 minutes (though actually usually at least 90 minutes) to develop to a point where it is detectable by a dog I don’t see how “burglary gone wrong” could fit into the timeline do you? And then there are the alerts to the McCanns property and car….
As cadaver odour takes at the very least 60 minutes (though actually usually at least 90 minutes) to develop to a point where it is detectable by a dog I don’t see how “burglary gone wrong” could fit into the timeline do you? And then there are the alerts to the McCanns property and car….
The alerts could have been coincidental (no one really know what decomposition odour Eddie reacted to), possibly even some irrelevant scent left by subsequent occupants.You do this dog great injustice if you think that Eddie would alert to " an irrelevant scent" .
You do this dog great injustice if you think that Eddie would alert to " an irrelevant scent" .
You do this dog great injustice if you think that Eddie would alert to " an irrelevant scent" .
You need an imo thereI don't you know . He would be of absolutely no use in what he had been trained to alert to if he was simply going to react to an irrelevant scent in any given situation .
I don't you know . He would be of absolutely no use in what he had been trained to alert to if he was simply going to react to an irrelevant scent in any given situation .
You do this dog great injustice if you think that Eddie would alert to " an irrelevant scent" .
The alerts could have been coincidental (no one really know what decomposition odour Eddie reacted to), possibly even some irrelevant scent left by subsequent occupants.I agree and that’s why the dog alerts are completely irrelevant IMO and I believe that view is shared by the Met as they have ruled out parental involvement.
I agree and that’s why the dog alerts are completely irrelevant IMO and I believe that view is shared by the Met as they have ruled out parental involvement.Ah , capitals noted !
I agree and that’s why the dog alerts are completely irrelevant IMO and I believe that view is shared by the Met as they have ruled out parental involvement.
Using logic and common sense it is impossible to derive a plausible scenario who allows for both death in the apartment and non-parental involvement. By all means try to prove me wrong.
But we also had Keela's alerts and the collection of material from under the tiles for forensic analysis. It wasn't just Eddie that alerted.
Ah , capitals noted !What has the Supreme Court got to do with the Met’s opinion of the parents’ involvement? I always capitalise IMO FYI.
The Met have told us that the PJ dealt with investigating the parents ( so it was not in their remit)although the Supreme Court ruling was worded rather differently to what you believe the Met have ruled out wasn't it?
But we also had Keela's alerts and the collection of material from under the tiles for forensic analysis. It wasn't just Eddie that alerted.I never said it was, why are you erecting yet another strawman? Dog alerts = all alerts by both dogs, both now consigned to the doghouse of history by all but the most ardent McCann sceptic.
So just to be clear, when Redwood said the Met were considering the possibility that Madeleine might have been dead when she was removed from the apartment, do you believe that they were considering parental involvement as a possible scenario? If not, then what "plausible scenario who allows for both death in the apartment and non-parental involvement."No I do not believe they were considering parental involvement when he said that but look, I am once again answering your questions when you refuse to answer mine! How about YOU answer the questions I ask you for once?
But we also had Keela's alerts and the collection of material from under the tiles for forensic analysis. It wasn't just Eddie that alerted.
What has the Supreme Court got to do with the Met’s opinion of the parents’ involvement? I always capitalise IMO FYI.Not the Met's " opinion" at all ,don't you understand how these announcements are carefully constructed ? I expect not if you're not a member of a police force .
Not the Met's " opinion" at all ,don't you understand how these announcements are carefully constructed ? I expect not if you're not a member of a police force .Are you a member of a police force then? I thought you were an ex-nurse. I have no idea what you are on about tbh, but the Met are of thr firm opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and the Supreme Court’s ruling on a defamation case has got diddly squat to do with the current investigation.
The Supreme Court of Portugal (the country whose case it is remember) announcement definitely counts far more than what the Met say ,whose remit doesn't include investigating the parents.
Not the Met's " opinion" at all ,don't you understand how these announcements are carefully constructed ? I expect not if you're not a member of a police force .
The Supreme Court of Portugal (the country whose case it is remember) announcement definitely counts far more than what the Met say ,whose remit doesn't include investigating the parents.
Not the Met's " opinion" at all ,don't you understand how these announcements are carefully constructed ? I expect not if you're not a member of a police force .
The Supreme Court of Portugal (the country whose case it is remember) announcement definitely counts far more than what the Met say ,whose remit doesn't include investigating the parents.
The point being that "the collection of material from under the tiles for forensic analysis" perhaps verified the alert of both dogs to the blood deposited there as proved by forensic analysis.
So what exactly did the dogs alert to
After seeing the images and in agreement with the officers of DIC of Portimao it was defined that the undersigned should proceed with the recovery of four tiles. It was also defined that this operation of recovery of the tiles would also be filmed.
When looking at the images referred to above it was observed that the floor tiles to be recovered were situated in an area of the living room next to a window where there was a sofa and that the tiles referred to were underneath that sofa.
_____________________________________________________________________
As requested by investigating officers of the DIC of Portimao it was performed the lifting and respective recovery of the four tiles and of the skirting board next to them (they being identified with numbers 1 to 4) using a tile trimmer, a flat chisel [spelling mistake in report: "escopo" should be "escopro"] and a hammer.
After the recovery of the four tiles and the skirting board the dog specialised in the detection of traces of human blood was put into the area from where the tiles had been recovered, the English police officer who coordinated the movement of the dog, Martin Grime, having informed the undersigned that they should proceed with the recovery of another piece of tile that was close to the area from where the tile identified as number 1 had been lifted, that terminating the recovery of the tiles signalled by the dog. As requested the undersigned performed the lifting of and the recovery of the piece of tile indicated.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_EDDIE-KEELA.htm
_____________________________________________________________________
FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 9
Objects attributed to the Apartment 5A of the Ocean Club
286/2007-CRL (1) Pieces of floor-tile identified as number 1
A DNA result by LCN, that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex for a meaningful interpretation, was obtained from the cellular material collected from these floor tiles.
286/2007-CRL (2) Pieces of floor-tile identified as number 2
An inconclusive, incomplete DNA result, consisting of only some unconfirmed DNA components, was obtained from the cellular material recovered from the edges of floor-tile 2 from the apartment floor. The attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from the larger area of floor-tile 2 was unfruitful, given that it was not possible to obtain any DNA profile. These samples were then subjected to LCN analysis.
An incomplete, low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material in an area of floor-tile 2. In my opinion, there is not any positive proof that supports the theory of any of the members of the McCann family to have contributed DNA to this result. A DNA result was obtained through LCN consistent with only one DNA component from a second area of floor-tile 2. In my opinion, this component leaves no room for any other interpretation.
286/2007-CRL (3) Pieces of floor-tile identified as number 3
The attempts to a DNA profile from any cellular material in two areas of this floor-tile were unfruitful, given that no DNA profile was obtained. These samples were submitted for LCN analysis.
FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 10
A DNA result that consisted of only some DNA components was obtained through LCN analysis of cellular material recovered from one area of floor-tile 3. In my opinion, this result left no room for any other interpretation. The attempt made the obtain a DNA profile through LCN from a second area of floor-tile 3 was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained.
286/2007-CRL (4) Pieces of floor-tile identified as number 4
Low-level DNA results were obtained through LCN from cellular material present in swabs collected from these floor-tiles. In my opinion, this resuly contained information too meagre [scanty/poor] to permit a meaningful comparison.
286/2007-CRL (5) Pieces of floor-tile identified close to number 1
The attempt to obtain a DNA result through the LCN technique from some cellular material present in swabs collected from the marks [spots] 1, 2 and 3 were unfruitful, given that no DNA profile was obtained.
286/2007-CRL (6) Pieces of skirting board identified as number 1
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from these objects.
FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 11
286/2007-CRL (7) Pieces of skirting board identified as number 2
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered from these objects.
286/2007-CRL (8) Pieces of skirting board identified as numbers 2 and 3
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered from these objects.
286/2007-CRL (9) Pieces of skirting board identified as number 3
A DNA result that contained information too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in swabs collected from these objects.
286/2007-CRL (10) Pieces of skirting board identified as number 4
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered from these objects.
FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 12
286/2007-CRL (11) Pieces of skirting board identified close to number 1
A DNA result that appeared to be from at least three persons and that was too complex to permit a meaningful interpretation was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered from these objects.
286/2007-CRL (12) Pieces of skirting board identified close to number 4
Low-level DNA results were obtained through LCN from cellular material present in swabs collected from these objects. In my opinion, there exists no proof that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to these results.
286/2007-CRL (13) Residual/small fragments in the area of the skirting board.
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
286/2007-CRL (14) Dust/small fragments in the area of the floor tiles
This object was not adequate to perform DNA profile tests.
FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 13
286/2007-CRL (15) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
286/2007-CRL (16) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 1
A DNA profile that did not match any [of the five members] of the McCann family was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered in that area.
286/2007-CRL (17) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 2
A DNA profile that appeared to be from at least two sources was obtained through LCN from cellular material recovered in that area. In my opinion, the major part of the profile matched that of Lino Henriques. Breaking [departing] from the principle, for it to have had a DNA contribution from Lino Henriques then the remaining information in the smaller part of the result is too meagre to permit a meaningful interpretation.
286/2007-CRL (18) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 3
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 14
286/2007-CRL (19) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 4
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
286/2007-CRL (20) Fragments of floor tile and grouting
The attempt to obtain a result through LCN from any cellular material that may have been in these fragments was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-forensic-science-service-lowe-report-t10.html
Who is Lino Henriques
None other than the guy tasked with lifting the floor tiles and who apparently was the only forensically recognised contributor to any of the samples collected from the tiled floor of Apartment 5A
Certainly not after 90 minutes, no. So if the Met ever took the dog alerts seriously as you suggest then they must have been focusing their attention on the parents, yet the Met is always being criticised by sceptics for obeying orders not to investigate any other theory than abduction so how do you square that circle?
Interesting that you stop there given what comes next at "Pagina 15". If you accept that the DNA match from that sample is from Lino Henriques when there were more than one contributor then it stands to reason that the DNA from swab 3A might have originated from Madeleine McCann.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
The results as we know are inconclusive.... but in the same way so would be a claim tham Lino Henriques is 100% the contributor of the swab taken from grouting between tiles. Of course you're not making such a claim are you Brietta? Just suggesting that one swab might have Lino Henrique's DNA on. Have I understood your post correctly?
Next time you latch onto something to post about as incorrigibly as you do about DNA - try to pick on a subject you might know something about in that way your posts might not be so foolish.
Interesting that you stop there given what comes next at "Pagina 15". If you accept that the DNA match from that sample is from Lino Henriques when there were more than one contributor then it stands to reason that the DNA from swab 3A might have originated from Madeleine McCann.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
The results as we know are inconclusive.... but in the same way so would be a claim tham Lino Henriques is 100% the contributor of the swab taken from grouting between tiles. Of course you're not making such a claim are you Brietta? Just suggesting that one swab might have Lino Henrique's DNA on. Have I understood your post correctly?
I didn't say the Met definitely took the dog alerts seriously. I said Redwood openly says the Met considered a possibility that Madeleine died in the apartment. I then asked what evidence might have led them to this consideration other than the dog alerts and subsequent forensic evidence collected (which as we know yielded a possible but inconclusive DNA match to Madeleine McCann in more than one sample.So are you suggesting the Met took the dog alerts seriously or not?
Next time you latch onto something to post about as incorrigibly as you do about DNA - try to pick on a subject you might know something about in that way your posts might not be so foolish.
I think Billy has a point. Neither of the samples were fully matched.
I think Billy has a point. Neither of the samples were fully matched.And if it had been a 100% match to Madeleine what would that have told us in your view?
I think you and Billy are totally misguided. In the MM case all four of her family had been present where the DNA, was collected providing an obvious source for the markers
Are you suggesting that more than one member of the McCann family contributed to a stain?
And if it had been a 100% match to Madeleine what would that have told us in your view?
It wasn't, and neither was the match with Lino Henriques, which was my point. Therefore one can't be relied on and not the other.So the DNA rsults were of no consequence whatever the results.
So the DNA rsults were of no consequence whatever the results.
According to the FSS, no.But whatever the result they would have been of no consequence, even 100% match to Madeleine would have established precisely nothing about what happened to her.
But whatever the result they would have been of no consequence, even 100% match to Madeleine would have established precisely nothing about what happened to her.
Agree, except in certain circumances. If an uncontaminated full profile had been found in eg the car boot / home of a total stranger (the French Maëlys case), or even in 5a if there had been inexplicable traces of blood spatter where the person lived (Meredith).
Neither of which were found in this case.
That would be my understanding too.
I do wonder why no efforts were made to identify the "human cellular material" collected from the car and under the tiles as blood in the car and a 100% match would have been significant evidence. The technology to identify the type of bodily fluids does exist - but isn't a factor of DNA analysis only.
(Snip)
If there had been more than a few alleles on the swabs, they wouldn't have had to resort to LCN.
How significant could a meagre low-level result of a few alleles
I'd like to see that question put to Dr Purlin.Well it's a bit like the dogs; only of value when the shoe's on the other foot.
Well it's a bit like the dogs; only of value when the shoe's on the other foot.
I'd like to see that question put to Dr Purlin.
Doesn't matter what foot.. The alerts cannot be relied uponSo if they're hypothetically used as evidence against CB to bolster a case - still not relied upon as having no evidentiary value?
So if they're hypothetically used as evidence against CB to bolster a case - still not relied upon as having no evidentiary value?
No evidential value.. Grime said he trains digs to recover evidence... They don't seem very successful.. So Harrison and Grime came up with the idea in 2005 to use the alerts as intelligence.. Grime took things one step further and decided they could be used ss evidence... That's what attracted the FBIs attention imoYou know that's all false, and once again, you'd poo your kecks rather than email him with those scurrilous accusations. Post it on Facebook minus the 'imo'.
You know that's all false, and once again, you'd poo your kecks rather than email him with those scurrilous accusations. Post it on Facebook minus the 'imo'.
Let's hark back to Martin Grime assisting Prof. Casella in his most recent academic studies. 'The go to' man, or words to that effect.
He didn't invent an industry, he perfected it.
Have you read Prof Casella's most recent publication, or has he disappointed you enough already?
You know that's all false, and once again, you'd poo your kecks rather than email him with those scurrilous accusations. Post it on Facebook minus the 'imo'.
Let's hark back to Martin Grime assisting Prof. Casella in his most recent academic studies. 'The go to' man, or words to that effect.
He didn't invent an industry, he perfected it.
Have you read Prof Casella's most recent publication, or has he disappointed you enough already?
I'll go further.. Grime saw an opportunity to make a business out of the alerts.. He used the film in Luz to promote it. Made 90K in Jersey for finding s coconut snd that was, about itThe promotional video was used while it was still under "secrecy of justice" rules.
I wonder why no one has thought to put all Brückner’s vehicles in a garage and pay Martin Grime to set the dogs on them?
In the same way that we know they had dogs on his allotment we would probably know aabout dogs being used to find residual scent in his cars. But hey, perhaps they did and the dogs positively alerted and that’s Wolters concrete evidence, eh? 8(0(*
How do you know the Germans haven't, they had doggies when digging his allotment for him.
How do you know the Germans haven't, they had doggies when digging his allotment for him.
They may well have done.. With the dogs doing what they were trained to do... Find evidence...of no evidentiary value?
...of no evidentiary value?Let me help you. If the dogs find a human skull, the skull is evidence. If the dogs find a bad smell it is not evidence without additional forensic evidence. You're welcome.
Let me help you. If the dogs find a human skull, the skull is evidence. If the dogs find a bad smell it is not evidence without additional forensic evidence. You're welcome.
Corroberating evidence doesn't have to be forensic, it can be circumstantial.
Not according to Mark harrison and every cadaver dog expert apart from grimeSauce.
Sauce.
Sauce.
Not according to Mark harrison and every cadaver dog expert apart from grime
It's not up to them to decide which evidence is used in court.
It's not up to them to decide which evidence is used in court.
It's not up to them to decide which evidence is used in court.
Judge orders release of man suspected in Gina DeJesus' disappearance (republished)Looking forward to hearing how dog apologists spin this one.
Updated: Jan. 12, 2019, 6:58 a.m. | Published: May. 04, 2013,
A judge ordered Matthew Hurayt released from the Cuyahoga County Jail Monday, overriding the protests of prosecutors who maintain he may have been involved in the disappearance of Gina DeJesus.
Assistant County Prosecutor Jennifer Driscoll said a police dog trained to alert officers to the scent of cadavers “indicated” in three locations at Hurayt's West 50th Street home on Friday that a dead body may have been present at one time.
Two of the locations where the dog sat, the indicator used to alert police, were in Hurayt's garage, where an informant told investigators Hurayt had buried the girl's body beneath a freshly poured concrete floor. Investigators tore up the floor in the garage and under a doghouse.
The dog also alerted to a location in the house, Driscoll said.
Police arrested Hurayt, 35, a registered sexual predator, on Thursday based on the informant's tip. But investigators who dug up the garage floor and searched the house didn't find a body or any physical evidence of the girl, who has been missing since April 2004. Nineteen items removed from the house will be investigated further, Driscoll said.
https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2013/05/judge_orders_release_of_man_su.html
Gina DeJesus was not dead.
She had been kidnapped by Ariel Castro and imprisoned along with Michelle Knight and Amanda Berry for nearly ten years.
The girls escaped from incarceration May 6, 2013.
The dog 'alerts' misled investigators and prosecutors.
Looking forward to hearing how dog apologists spin this one.
Looking forward to hearing how dog apologists spin this one.
As I've pointed out before, each dog is different and standards vary.And what standard had the dog in the Gina deJesus case achieved (or not achieved)? Explain how you are able to conclude that Eddie and Keela were of a higher standard than any dog in any case that gives a false alert to cadaver odour.
And what standard had the dog in the Gina deJesus case achieved (or not achieved)? Explain how you are able to conclude that Eddie and Keela were of a higher standard than any dog in any case that gives a false alert to cadaver odour.
I don't know the standard reached by the dog in question. These dogs can only be judged by their track records, and I do know that Eddie had never given a false alert. I also know that there's a wide variety of expertise (or lack thereof) in the US.
I don't know the standard reached by the dog in question. These dogs can only be judged by their track records, and I do know that Eddie had never given a false alert. I also know that there's a wide variety of expertise (or lack thereof) in the US.
I don't know the standard reached by the dog in question. These dogs can only be judged by their track records, and I do know that Eddie had never given a false alert. I also know that there's a wide variety of expertise (or lack thereof) in the US.So you have no idea if the dog in the DeJesus case also had a supposedly unblemished track record up until that point. Eddid did of course give several false alerts as far as alerting to cadaver odour are concerned but you have conveniently overlooked those.
This.. No false alerts... Is a fallacy that gunit has naively believedI believe the source of the “no false alerts” claim is the handler and/or his close associate if I’m not mistaken, not an independent arbiter?
I believe the source of the “no false alerts” claim is the handler and/or his close associate if I’m not mistaken, not an independent arbiter?
This.. No false alerts... Is a fallacy that gunit has naively believed
Once again you are accusing Martin Grime of lying. I find that quite distasteful; not to mention libellous.
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Once again you are accusing Martin Grime of lying. I find that quite distasteful; not to mention libellous.Can you please explain why you are so willing to suspend your ABC of crime-solving when it comes to the owner of the dogs making such claims about their reliability?
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Try reading it again.. I haven't..
As for your quote you need to post the whole paragragh. You are absolutely wrong. Eddie has alerted many times.. It cannot be proven if all those alerts are, correct..or false. It's basic common sense that some seem to lack..
Can you please explain why you are so willing to suspend your ABC of crime-solving when it comes to the owner of the dogs making such claims about their reliability?
Can you please explain why you are so willing to suspend your ABC of crime-solving when it comes to the owner of the dogs making such claims about their reliability?
I'm well aware that not all policemen are honourable people. I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that Martin Grime wasn't professional, experienced and honest.So because you're not aware of any stains on his character or professionalism (and this from a position of almost total ignorance of the man on a personal and professional basis) you are able to dispense quite happily of the ABC mantra which you are so strict to apply to others. How does that make any sense?
Gunit needs to read the sentence following the one she's, quoted where grime clarifies he's talking about road kill.. She's made a massive error
You need to read on...
"My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I'm well aware that not all policemen are honourable people. I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that Martin Grime wasn't professional, experienced and honest.BTW, I've seen something to suggest that he was not averse to claiming astoundingly large expenses for himself and his services. Jersey was it not? And what did the Jersey police get for the almost £100k they had to shell out for a few days work? And would they have been quite so willing to pay such princely sums had Grime not made a name for himself and his dogs by exploiting his involvement in high profile cases such as the McCann case and by making such unproveable claims about his dogs' abilities? You may call that professional, experienced and honest, well inasmuch as blowing his own trumpet and making unsubstantiated claims about his worth in the field, then yes I'm sure he was very expert indeed.
Are you the only poster on the McCann boards who has not watched the videos of of the cadaver dog in action.
BTW, I've seen something to suggest that he was not averse to claiming astoundingly large expenses for himself and his services. Jersey was it not? And what did the Jersey police get for the almost £100k they had to shell out for a few days work? And would they have been quite so willing to pay such princely sums had Grime not made a name for himself and his dogs by exploiting his involvement in high profile cases such as the McCann case and by making such unproveable claims about his dogs' abilities? You may call that professional, experienced and honest, well inasmuch as blowing his own trumpet and making unsubstantiated claims about his worth in the field, then yes I'm sure he was very expert indeed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html
I have watched the videos and, just like other posters, I'm not qualified to reach conclusions about them.
I think you'll find (if you read the story you provided the link to) that Grime was there for a lot longer than 'a few days', and his fees were not excessive compared to those charged by UK police forces.Nice work if you can get it, and unlicensed too! what possible justification can there be for charging that amount of money and spending that amount of time to find a piece of coconut and a sex tissue with a barky dog?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.htmlWhat was he actually doing for a 3rd of a year then?
It appears that Martin Grime spent much of his time on Jersey working for Harper at £650 a day when his dogs were not required at all.
What was he actually doing for a 3rd of a year then?
I have watched the videos and, just like other posters, I'm not qualified to reach conclusions about them.
You dint need any qualifications to see grime calling eddie back.. Nor to see the posters in the Renault... Nor to see Eddie did not alert to CC... Etc etc
As you aren't qualified to comment, your insinuations are merely the opinions of an 'armchair detective' and not worthy of notice imo.
As you aren't qualified to comment, your insinuations are merely the opinions of an 'armchair detective' and not worthy of notice imo.Your opinions are merely those of an armchair detective too, but the way you educate and lecture us anyone would think you were some sort of leading authority of all matters. Give it a rest girl!
I have watched the videos and, just like other posters, I'm not qualified to reach conclusions about them.
I think you are proving that other posters may possess more analytical skills than you and can recognise a pup when they see one.
It is interesting that you don't trust the evidence of your eyes despite ~I think you are evidencing a wee bit of denial there 🤣 and your readiness to accept your qualification across the board to voice opinion on everything else - dare I say it, probably even by implication, Eddie's alerts.
- watching the evidential videos which were taken as a record of the occasion??? - despite the time and date stamp being missing
- your opinion that you are not "qualified" to reach conclusions
My opinion, which you seem to have missed, is that I have no idea whether the dogs were handled correctly because I'm not a dog handler. There has been much speculation about the right and wrong way to handle CSI dogs, but in the end that's all it amounts to.
My opinion, which you seem to have missed, is that I have no idea whether the dogs were handled correctly because I'm not a dog handler. There has been much speculation about the right and wrong way to handle CSI dogs, but in the end that's all it amounts to.
I haven’t missed posts like the one above in which you abrogate all responsibility of the sceptic tenets which shape the basis of your comments.
My opinion of that is that you do not have the courage of your conviction and there can be only one reason for that.
I've got no idea what 'sceptic tenets' are. I speak as I find, and having examined Grime, his work, his evidence and his career minutely (due to supporters being obsessed with it all), I can find nothing to arouse my suspicions. Baseless mud-slinging abounds, but there's no evidence.It’s a bit rich to say supporters are “obsessed with it all” when the only reason Grime and his dogs are still being discussed 14 years later is because sceptics think his dogs are evidence of McCann involvement when clearly to anyone that actually matters they are not. The world has moved on, sceptics have not, and cling to their “Dogs Don’t Lie” mantra for comfort.
I've got no idea what 'sceptic tenets' are. I speak as I find, and having examined Grime, his work, his evidence and his career minutely (due to supporters being obsessed with it all), I can find nothing to arouse my suspicions. Baseless mud-slinging abounds, but there's no evidence.
I've got no idea what 'sceptic tenets' are. I speak as I find, and having examined Grime, his work, his evidence and his career minutely (due to supporters being obsessed with it all), I can find nothing to arouse my suspicions. Baseless mud-slinging abounds, but there's no evidence.
Grimed claim that the akertd can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence is logically and scientifically absurd.. That is not opinion it is fact. If Grime truly believes that then it undermines his whole credibility. Again.. Fact not opinionDog alerts.
Dog alerts.Then there’s the example of “killer” confessing, leading them to the kill site, dog alerting multiple times, then it turns out the “killer” made the whole thing up.
No body found.
Body found elsewhere.
Killer caught.
Killer confirms body was in place where dog alerted.
Would you like some examples? I'll provide cites where you never do.
Have you emailed Martin yet, or are you worried he won't understand your typing?
Dog alerts.
No body found.
Body found elsewhere.
Killer caught.
Killer confirms body was in place where dog alerted.
Would you like some examples? I'll provide cites where you never do.
Have you emailed Martin yet, or are you worried he won't understand your typing?
It’s a bit rich to say supporters are “obsessed with it all” when the only reason Grime and his dogs are still being discussed 14 years later is because sceptics think his dogs are evidence of McCann involvement when clearly to anyone that actually matters they are not. The world has moved on, sceptics have not, and cling to their “Dogs Don’t Lie” mantra for comfort.
On this forum I find it's mostly supporters who are interested in the dog alerts, just as they are the ones interested in discussing Amaral.Whilst you’re interested in picking holes in McCann and friends’ stratements so I guess that makes you obssessed with them.
Dog alerts.
No body found.
Body found elsewhere.
Killer caught.
Killer confirms body was in place where dog alerted.
Would you like some examples? I'll provide cites where you never do.
Have you emailed Martin yet, or are you worried he won't understand your typing?
I've got no idea what 'sceptic tenets' are. I speak as I find, and having examined Grime, his work, his evidence and his career minutely (due to supporters being obsessed with it all), I can find nothing to arouse my suspicions. Baseless mud-slinging abounds, but there's no evidence.
That is an illogical post based on previous assertions of your ignorance. You concede your lack of expertise disqualifies you from having and expressing an opinion - yet here you are voicing a very firm one.
You really like having it both ways don't you.
Also please desist from your accusations of on occasion "lying" and now the abundance of "mud-slinging" for which you have no evidence because it doesn't happen. Members have posted only the facts of the matter which you must accept even if you don't appreciate them - so cut out the slurs.
I can't comment on how a search by CSI dogs should be conducted because I don't know enough to do so. Neither, in my opinion, does anyone else posting on here. Despite that, untold speculation has been posted.
One of the things Grime has been accused of is calling a disinterested Eddie back to the McCann's hire car. It has even been suggested that he did that because he knew it was their car. That's what I call a slur.
On this forum I find it's mostly supporters who are interested in the dog alerts, just as they are the ones interested in discussing Amaral.
I can't comment on how a search by CSI dogs should be conducted because I don't know enough to do so. Neither, in my opinion, does anyone else posting on here. Despite that, untold speculation has been posted.
One of the things Grime has been accused of is calling a disinterested Eddie back to the McCann's hire car. It has even been suggested that he did that because he knew it was their car. That's what I call a slur.
I can't comment on how a search by CSI dogs should be conducted because I don't know enough to do so. Neither, in my opinion, does anyone else posting on here. Despite that, untold speculation has been posted.
One of the things Grime has been accused of is calling a disinterested Eddie back to the McCann's hire car. It has even been suggested that he did that because he knew it was their car. That's what I call a slur.
8((()*/
Eddie showed no interest in the mccanns car at least twice and was twice called back before alerting. Fact
Grime claimed he didn't know it was the McCanns car yet it was the only one with posters of Maddie... Fact
So you see what is the TRUTH as a slur.. You have obviously drswn your own conclusions
This is what Grime said;
"We examined the cars with the dog and the only reaction we got was in relation to the car in the extreme corner. I will indicate that it was the Renault. What we have is a reaction to this door here, where (the dog) lifts its head in the air and sniffs for the objects which it has been trained to detect. And when we limit our movements, the dog chooses this car, this door. It is important to know that the dog chooses the odour that comes from the lower part of the door. Based on this information, I will try to place the dog inside the car."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I understand from that that Eddie's behaviour changed when he reached that area; namely by lifting his head and sniffing. Grime limits the dog's movements and he alerts.
Your reading of the situation differs from Grime's, but I think he knows his job and his dog better than you do.
What a ridiculous post.
We saw the dog "alerting" - and you did too. You just cannot rely on the evidence of your own eyes.
This is what Grime said;Grime also stated he didn’t know that the only car plastered with posters of Madeleine and which had been regularly featured on news clips of the McCanns movements post disappearance was the McCanns car. So is he blind, completely switched off from current events or being somewhat disingenuous (to put it mildly)? Which do you think it is, eh?
"We examined the cars with the dog and the only reaction we got was in relation to the car in the extreme corner. I will indicate that it was the Renault. What we have is a reaction to this door here, where (the dog) lifts its head in the air and sniffs for the objects which it has been trained to detect. And when we limit our movements, the dog chooses this car, this door. It is important to know that the dog chooses the odour that comes from the lower part of the door. Based on this information, I will try to place the dog inside the car."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I understand from that that Eddie's behaviour changed when he reached that area; namely by lifting his head and sniffing. Grime limits the dog's movements and he alerts.
Your reading of the situation differs from Grime's, but I think he knows his job and his dog better than you do.
I saw what you saw. I chose to accept the handler's explanation and you, along with others, didn't. I can see no reason to reject the handler's explanation, and I'm certainly not going to do that on the say so of random posters on the internet.
I saw what you saw. I chose to accept the handler's explanation and you, along with others, didn't. I can see no reason to reject the handler's explanation, and I'm certainly not going to do that on the say so of random posters on the internet.
I saw what you saw. I chose to accept the handler's explanation and you, along with others, didn't. I can see no reason to reject the handler's explanation, and I'm certainly not going to do that on the say so of random posters on the internet.
Cadaver dogs are no different from any other search dog. When we see the digs at the airport they simply move down the conveyor belt and are not repeatedly called back.
Even the PJ observers were suprised that the dogs alerted to area they had previously shown no interest in. I think you need to wake up.
Quite obviously you did not "see what I saw".
You saw the content of the video through the prism of of eyes distorted by the same biased beliefs which saw the image of the dog in iconic pose achieve cult status.
Having not even looked at this site for 4 months I had a few spare minutes so thought I would look to see if Davel had received an early Xmas present of CB being charged yet, but alas no, they are still in the evidence gathering phase it seems.do you apply that same sentiment to the current investigation into Christian Brückner?
Then I see this post and realise it's still the same horseshit that is being posted. This is why laymen shouldn’t pontificate on subjects that they have no background or experience in.
A scent dog at an airport is doing a blind screen search, it is not led by intelligence to target a specific person or area, a cadaver dog search is normally intelligence lead and the dogs are searching for something that may or may not be in the search area, hence blind screen dogs are kept on leads and cadaver dogs search off lead and are given freedom to explore the area thoroughly. To equate the two types of search as being no different from each other shows a lack of understanding in just how different types of police dogs operate.
You can keep saying that Eddie’s searches were suspect but realise, this is only your opinion nothing else. It is also just my opinion that the searches were done correctly as I am not an expert dog handler either, but as we both lack qualifications or experience in this matter the best course of action would be to follow the qualified experts that carried out or observed said searches and have not opined that they were suspect or corrupt. Or maybe not?
do you apply that same sentiment to the current investigation into Christian Brückner?
Quite obviously you did not "see what I saw".
You saw the content of the video through the prism of of eyes distorted by the same biased beliefs which saw the image of the dog in iconic pose achieve cult status.
I saw what you saw. I chose to accept the handler's explanation of what I saw, you chose to believe those who were not experienced dog handlers. It's difficult to accept that your choice was not biased by your views on the case.I saw what you saw and it's difficult to accept that the alerts wasn't possibly subject to unconscious bias by the handler who will have known full well whose car, apartment and possessions he was tasked with finding evidence in and on
Having not even looked at this site for 4 months I had a few spare minutes so thought I would look to see if Davel had received an early Xmas present of CB being charged yet, but alas no, they are still in the evidence gathering phase it seems.
Then I see this post and realise it's still the same horseshit that is being posted. This is why laymen shouldn’t pontificate on subjects that they have no background or experience in.
A scent dog at an airport is doing a blind screen search, it is not led by intelligence to target a specific person or area, a cadaver dog search is normally intelligence lead and the dogs are searching for something that may or may not be in the search area, hence blind screen dogs are kept on leads and cadaver dogs search off lead and are given freedom to explore the area thoroughly. To equate the two types of search as being no different from each other shows a lack of understanding in just how different types of police dogs operate.
You can keep saying that Eddie’s searches were suspect but realise, this is only your opinion nothing else. It is also just my opinion that the searches were done correctly as I am not an expert dog handler either, but as we both lack qualifications or experience in this matter the best course of action would be to follow the qualified experts that carried out or observed said searches and have not opined that they were suspect or corrupt. Or maybe not?
That's, actually one of the best posts by a sceptic Re the alerts... Supports everything I say Re the alerts being worthless... And contains many points I have raised previously... I will explain why later.
Looks like I understand a lot more about these useless alerts than you think
Nothing I posted supports everything you say about the alerts being worthless.IMO random drug searches by police dogs at an airport are less likely to be subject to unconscious handler bias than searches of suspects' houses, cars and possessions.
If you believe cadaver dogs should be operated in the same manner as a scent dog at an airport, and if they are not then the search is suspect, then I don’t believe you do understand about scent dogs and their alerts.
IMO random drug searches by police dogs at an airport are less likely to be subject to unconscious handler bias than searches of suspects' houses, cars and possessions.
Nothing I posted supports everything you say about the alerts being worthless.
If you believe cadaver dogs should be operated in the same manner as a scent dog at an airport, and if they are not then the search is suspect, then I don’t believe you do understand about scent dogs and their alerts.
If you had read all the posts I've made what you have potsed totally supports what I've said... I'm too busy to explain at the moment..
Try this.... Why did Grime soend more time in other apartments.. And call eddie back three times to the car.. You will be surprised at my answer
Go on, surprise me.I've never said Grime was doing it wrong. In answer to the clsim that the dogs only alerted to things Mccan I've said for things McCann.. That was the only time he called the dig back... I have given the reason fir this in orevuous posts.. And it's not that he was doing it wrong... Almost ready
I am already surprised that you think a cadaver dog search should follow the same modus operandi as a blind search dog and if he doesn’t, he is doing it wrong.
Having not even looked at this site for 4 months I had a few spare minutes so thought I would look to see if Davel had received an early Xmas present of CB being charged yet, but alas no, they are still in the evidence gathering phase it seems.
Then I see this post and realise it's still the same horseshit that is being posted. This is why laymen shouldn’t pontificate on subjects that they have no background or experience in.
A scent dog at an airport is doing a blind screen search, it is not led by intelligence to target a specific person or area, a cadaver dog search is normally intelligence lead and the dogs are searching for something that may or may not be in the search area, hence blind screen dogs are kept on leads and cadaver dogs search off lead and are given freedom to explore the area thoroughly. To equate the two types of search as being no different from each other shows a lack of understanding in just how different types of police dogs operate.
You can keep saying that Eddie’s searches were suspect but realise, this is only your opinion nothing else. It is also just my opinion that the searches were done correctly as I am not an expert dog handler either, but as we both lack qualifications or experience in this matter the best course of action would be to follow the qualified experts that carried out or observed said searches and have not opined that they were suspect or corrupt. Or maybe not?
I'm more than happy to follow the qualified experts... No inference. Should be drawn from the alerts... The alerts have no evidential value or reliability... Hows thst for starters
But here is the problem, you are following the words of experts in one field that are proclaiming about things that pertain to another field.
These are dog handlers not experts on what can be used as evidence in a court of law.
Listen to the experts in matters of law who have admitted such alerts to be heard in a court of Law, ie the judges that have, in at least England, Scotland and USA and probably more countries that we don’t know about.
You dint need any qualifications to see grime calling eddie back.. Nor to see the posters in the Renault... Nor to see Eddie did not alert to CC... Etc etc
Your post is total rfubbish. the Judge decides what evidence can be admittede based on expert advice. judges take advice from experts in the field.
So you thinhk that if an expert testified that no inference should be taken from an alert....that the alert needs to be corroborated with forensic evidence....do you think the judge would admit it.
Could you cite the english one again....as ive said before. cadaver dog has been admitted as it has not been robustly challenged...same as LCN DNA.
from what i can see in the US its being admitted on the back of trail dog evidence...its not the same
“ The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search."
That’s exactly what Grime was doing.
my view on Grime and the alerts.
firstly it was Grime and harrison who came up with the idea of using alerts as intelligence in 2005. therefore in 2007 it was in its infancy and im not sure Grime or Harrison fully understood the implications of what they were proposing. that would expalin harrisons contradiction as no inference .....may indicate abody has been present.
in 2007 the judge in the Zapata case referred to it as a new type of evidence. Grime has now changed his mind from 2007 to say that the alert can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence...logically thats plain daft as anectdotal evidence corrobortaes nothing.
In 2007 grime decide he would rertire and start a new business re the cadaver dogs so the relevance and performance of the dogs were critical to his new business success. Thats called aconflict of interest
In luz grime carried out intelligence led searches. he knew there was mor chance of finding evidence from McCann associated items than others.
In the the raprtments and cars it was a blind search and thats why he skated through them .
In%a he knew tahts wher ehe might find evidence....alll this is fact but my opinion is he tried to hard to make sure he didnt mis anything. Thats why he spent longer and called the dogs back...all fact......opinion..he tried too hard.
So the reason the dogs alerted to things mcann was because Grime tried harder in these areas and didnt want to miss anything. This is nothing new from me ive posted it several times...an intelligence led search as opposed to a blind search for the other apts and cars.
the fact taht Grime tried so hard to find evidence and foyund nothing supports the view maddie did not die in the apt and the alerts are basically worthless
Provide a cite that states a judge must take expert advice before admitting evidence. He doesn’t. A judge can admit evidence based on previous case precedents. Before admission the judge would look at the evidence supplied previously...he dosnt just amke the decision based on...well it was ok before. Alerts have been admitted very sparingly and not robustly challenged imo. It seems the defence teams are not fully aware of the facts
Grime has said in written statements that no inference should be taken but he has been called as an expert witness many times. Now either the judge is unaware of Grimes previous statements, although the defence would be remiss not to raise them or it really is only up to the judge if they are admitted or not.
i would say neither the judge nor the defence are aware
The case in England was Helen Bailey. ill have alook at that
I presume when you say “cadaver dog has been admitted as it has not been robustly challenged” you mean pre trial rather than the trial itself in open court?
Is it your opinion that “cadaver dog has been admitted as it has not been robustly challenged” or is it a fact that you could also provide a cite for.
LCN DNA was not admitted and then found it had not been robustly challenged so was admitted in error, it was found to be poor quality evidence during the Omagh trials. It was suspended then allowed again as evidence after a review. Please stick to the facts....lCN was admitted and when challenged the trial was stopped.....its allowed as evidence in the UK but very few other countries....in fact the dna evidence in this case would not be admissible in the portuguese cour
ts
Is not admitted in the US on the back of anything, its admitted because the judges deems it to be evidence.
ive seen trial reports where the judge refers to the precedent set by trail dogs
This again is your opinion about Harrison coming up with the idea based on a single paragraph in Martin Grimes white paper. I have pointed out the FBI had human scent trailing programs prior to this. Has Harrison ever claimed it, if not its hearsay.
Grime hasn’t changed his mind he says in his profile in the PJ files
“Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.”
We have already covered the time spent in the apartment before the first alert. I believe it was 3mins 16 secs.
And of course the fly in the ointment for Grimes master plan to get more business for himself was what if the girl or body was found elsewhere.
And do you think he would try to coax false positives around the McCanns property by consciously spending more time there, so to get more business he was willing to through a young distressed couple under the bus so to speak.
Your theory has more holes than swiss cheese.
in Luz Grime says supported not corroborated...stick to the facts
As for hs masterplan the more alerts made the more chance he has of hitting atarget...thats how clairvoyents fool poeple..looks like you are easily fooled
You may think my posts are not factual...you are wrong. If wolters ghas the evidence he claims...if its shown Maddie did not die in the apt and was not transported in the car...what will that say for the reliability of the alerts
I saw what you saw. I chose to accept the handler's explanation of what I saw, you chose to believe those who were not experienced dog handlers. It's difficult to accept that your choice was not biased by your views on the case.
It's all conjecture, no facts. Your opinion is that Grime set out to coax alerts by spending more time in McCann places suggests a corrupt officer out for gain rather than truth.
If Wolters has the evidence it will show the alerts were all false. I have no problem with that, dogs can and do make false alerts, I have never said otherwise. But lets cross that bridge when we get to it shall we?
The fact is Grime called the dogs back to things McCann... That's factual not opinion.. You don't seem to understand the difference. I'm reporting facts and you and gunit are suggesting the facts make him corrupt.
I think it's a high on certainty that Wolters has the evidence... Glad you agree thst would suggest all the alerts are false.
The fact is that Grime can call the dogs back if he feels the area wasn’t searched adequately,Grime can do what he liked it's meaningless..
As you seem to be unaware, a cadaver dog search is not like a dog at the airport searching packages on a conveyor belt.
Let me ask you, why do you think it is high on certain that Wolter has the evidence?
What leads you to this conclusion, he has been very vague with what he actually has up till now
Grime can do what he liked it's meaningless..
You may not have listened to Wolters as much or as closely as, I have. He's been quite precise... Half a dozen pointers that the evidence is photographic
Well go on tell me what he has said that makes you so convinced he has the evidence.
Hasn't he said its not a photo?
No he hasn't... Why should I bother... Your mind is closed.
Sceptics think CB can't be guilty because the dogs never lie
No he hasn't... Why should I bother... Your mind is closed.
Sceptics think CB can't be guilty because the dogs never lie
Grime can do what he liked it's meaningless..
You may not have listened to Wolters as much or as closely as, I have. He's been quite precise... Half a dozen pointers that the evidence is photographic
thank heavens our resident dog handler expert has given us her opinion
He says quite clearly he only has circumstantial evidence. This is from October 2021
Your welcome.
Anything else you need to know don’t be afraid to ask.
So what are the half dozen pointers that you mention?
Well go on tell me what he has said that makes you so convinced he has the evidence.
Hasn't he said its not a photo?
It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence,' Wolters said.
'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.'
I don't think CB can't be guilty. You sure like to pigeon hole people don't you.Neither Operation Grange nor the BKA has once referred to the dog alerts. They are completely irrelevant as far as the current investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance is concerned. Do you agree with this?
Why is my mind closed?
if I may say your mind seems to be closed to the option that Wolters doesn't have very much.
Question... Shouldn't it be you're not your
Well go on tell me what he has said that makes you so convinced he has the evidence.
Hasn't he said its not a photo?
It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence,' Wolters said.
'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.'
It certainly should be…well spotted.Anyone who can't understand my posts is a bit thick imo so I'm not fussed if they can't understand then
Now if you could apply the same diligence to your own spelling I’m sure your posts would be so much easier to understand.
You fell into my trap Re the photo.. I'll answer shortly.
Th e devil is in the detail... You just don't pick up on the important details whereby this remark strengthens my thoughts on the fact the evidence is photograohic
Neither Operation Grange nor the BKA has once referred to the dog alerts. They are completely irrelevant as far as the current investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance is concerned. Do you agree with this?
I've said the concrete evidence could well be photographis at least six moths ago if not more. Wolters has made a least half a dizen pointers it is photographic
I've said the photo shows the abuse of MM but not her death and CB is not in the photo...that would be proof if his involvement.
Woltere has confirmed he does not have a photo with Mm and CB in.
The fact he mentions photographic evidence is unusual and confirms my thoughts that his evidence is photographic.
He has also appealed fir descriptions if the interiors of any places CB lived or hhas access to.. Could well be trying to identify the location of the video/photo
So the fact he mentions a photo in reference that he doesn't have a photo of both MM and CB together, confirms to you that he has a photo but it just doesn't contain MM and CB in the same photo. That is some twisting of logic right there.Doesn't definitively confirm anything on it's own.... It's just another pointer
Doesn't definitively confirm anything on it's own.... It's just another pointerIts all semantics, he said something very close to no photo
You thought he said he didn't have a photo... You were wrong... That confirms
You aren't aware of all that Wolters has said
You're a bit sloppy in reading and understanding what you have read
This again is your opinion about Harrison coming up with the idea based on a single paragraph in Martin Grimes white paper. I have pointed out the FBI had human scent trailing programs prior to this. Has Harrison ever claimed it, if not its hearsay.
Grime hasn’t changed his mind he says in his profile in the PJ files
“Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are
supported by forensic evidence/anecdotal witness accounts.”
We have already covered the time spent in the apartment before the first alert. I believe it was 3mins 16 secs.
And of course the fly in the ointment for Grimes master plan to get more business for himself was what if the girl or body was found elsewhere.
And do you think he would try to coax false positives around the McCanns property by consciously spending more time there, so to get more business he was willing to through a young distressed couple under the bus so to speak.
Your theory has more holes than swiss cheese.
Its all semantics, he said something very close to no photo
'It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence,' Wolters said.
'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.'
He also hasn't said he has a photo but you seem convinced he has one.
I am quite hurt that you think my understanding and reading is sloppy, that feels quite hurtful. Be nice.
You've missed the point again. I've never suggested Grime has tried to coax false positives.. I've said he wants to make sure he doesn't miss anything.. He is therefore getting more false positives.
If MM died elsewhere as I'm fairly sure it will be proved... How do you explain all those false positives for a dog that Grime CLAIMS has such an impressive record.. It simply doesn't add up.
Its all semantics, he said something very close to no photo
'It is circumstantial evidence – we have no scientific evidence,' Wolters said.
'If we had a video of the act or a picture of Madeleine dead with Brueckner on camera, we wouldn't have had to make a public appeal. But we only have circumstantial evidence.'
He also hasn't said he has a photo but you seem convinced he has one.
I am quite hurt that you think my understanding and reading is sloppy, that feels quite hurtful. Be nice.
When you accuse my logic of being twisted... When it isn't.. I have to respond.
So how does the fact that Eddie alerted after 3 minutes 16 seconds in apt 5a fit in with your theory and Grime stating that he was interested before entering the apt. You believe some of what Grime says ie. Harrisons inventing scent evidence, no inference from alerts but other bits that don't fit into your theories you dismiss out of hand.
I don't need to explain anything, I accept its possible the alerts could be wrong. But you are putting the horse before the cart, when it is proved MM died elsewhere then we can castigate Grime and Eddie.
You could respond politely though couldn't you.
I have noticed a lot of your posts especially to G-Unit appear almost malicious.
It's not semantics at all it's, being precise. I'm fairly sure the man evidence is photographic... As in the, Rui Pedro case... Another child abduction in Portugal
OK if we want to be really precise, I didn't say Walters has said he doesn't have a photo. I said
"Hasn't he said it's not a photo" in reference to what evidence that makes you so sure that Wolters has the case cracked.
To be clear I don't know if he has a photo or not.
Gunit claimed yesterday Eddie has never given a false alert.... There is no evidence to show that's a fact and imo a daft claim
The McCanns cannot be innocent if, Eddie was correct... Unless the PJ planted evidence.. That's, why I think it's necessary to counter those who believe in the hype surrounding the dogs
Well Martin Grime does claim that Eddie has never given a false positive alert in his statement do you have contrary info that he had given a false positive prior to this statement.I'm not sure that's what Grime claims. If he does that's quite a daft claim. ..Grime cannot substantiate that claim.. That would be a massive question against his credibility
To me there is the crux of your position, you are convinced that the McCanns are innocent and from that perspective the alerts have to be false there is no other way, but what if it could have been either CB or the McCanns or even someone else no one knows.
And replied.. No he hasn't..
I said that because he hasn't said he doesn't have a photo and I'm reasonably sure from what he has, said he does. Quite a few who follow the case agree.
An Australian jotlrnalist who interviewed him picked up thee exact phrase I did
Well Martin Grime does claim that Eddie has never given a false positive alert in his statement do you have contrary info that he had given a false positive prior to this statement.
To me there is the crux of your position, you are convinced that the McCanns are innocent and from that perspective the alerts have to be false there is no other way, but what if it could have been either CB or the McCanns or even someone else no one knows.
I'm not sure that's what Grime claims. If he does that's quite a daft claim. ..Grime cannot substantiate that claim.. That would be a massive question against his credibility
The difference is I don't know if he has a photo or not, there is not enough from what Wolters has said to jump to that conclusion, but you seem convinced that he has. Time will tell.You don't seem to be aware of all Wolters has said and some of what you've read you've misunderstood.. I and other knowledgeable and intelligent posters think its quite likely
I'm not convinced thevalerts have to be false.. I've said the pj may have planted evidence..
If not then I'm convinced they are false partly due to my belief that the McCanns are innocent and two because there is no real evidence to support their credibility
You don't seem to be aware of all Wolters has said and some of what you've read you've misunderstood.. I and other knowledgeable and intelligent posters think its quite likely
False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
Well how do you interpret his words in bold?
I've explained that I think he's referring to false positives Re food or roadkill.
If he did say it... He's an idiot... And I don't think he is
Well please expand to this dumb and non intelligent poster just what I have misunderstood.
You do know how punctuation works right? There is a full stop right after the word training. This signifies the end of the sentence. He then starts another sentence referring to foodstuffs and then another sentence regarding road kill.
They are different sentences.
Why would he be an idiot if he is telling the truth and Eddie hasn't false alerted operationally or in training. If you know that he has please provide evidence to back it up.
You do know how punctuation works right? There is a full stop right after the word training. This signifies the end of the sentence. He then starts another sentence referring to foodstuffs and then another sentence regarding road kill.
They are different sentences.
Why would he be an idiot if he is telling the truth and Eddie hasn't false alerted operationally or in training. If you know that he has please provide evidence to back it up.
I've explained that I think he's referring to false positives Re food or roadkill.
If he did say it... He's an idiot... And I don't think he is
You picked up on what you felt was malice in my posts... I don't have a malicious bone in my body.
When I raised the awful abuse I've experienced on this forum you ignored it.
When you earn a little more respect for others I might take a little time to expand on my observations. I have no interest to prove to others I'm right.. All will be revealed.
How could he possily know that every alert Eddie has made. Has been genuine.. He simply can't. Every unconfirmed alert isvan unknown.. Surely you can understand that
It's very telling you ask me for evidence but are prepared to accept a totally daft claim from Grime without any evidence
When I read that your wife was racially abused I felt sad that it should come to that on a forum.I dint think you sympathy for gunit takes us anywhere...I don't think your personal criticism of me takes us, anywhere.. I don't think two wrongs make, a right..... But I think context is important. I pointed out that the person you accused if malice has been on the end if some of the most maliciousvposts in the forum.. But I rise above it
But then I thought 2 wrongs don’t make a right and if you had been abused on this forum maybe you should have some understanding not to abuse other posters yourself.
I didn’t ignore your post I took it onboard but felt any reply I made wouldn’t take us anywhere.
I have the utmost respect for other people, I don't know why you think I don't unless you think it was me who abused your wife
I dint think you sympathy for gunit takes us anywhere...I don't think your personal criticism of me takes us, anywhere.. I don't think two wrongs make, a right..... But I think context is important. I pointed out that the person you accused if malice has been on the end if some of the most maliciousvposts in the forum.. But I rise above it
Like you said when you referenced Kate McCanns testimony about the window being open but she claimed not to have opened it, was evidence of abduction, Martin Grimes testimony that Eddie never false alerted is evidence that Eddie never false alerted. There is no evidence that Eddie did false alert before 2007 is there?
I don’t know, but he said it in a sworn statement. Maybe another thing you could email him about.
Anyway I thought you were under the impression that Eddie never achieved much anyway, what did you say, he only really found one body. Maybe he never alerted much in his 200 plus searches. Or maybe he was that good that he never gave a false positive, again who knows?
Grime would need more than evidence to make such a claim he would need proof.
That claim cannot be substantiated unless every alert has been 100 % corroborate which is impossible
It would be strange if all his previous, alerts were corroborated but none in Luz or Jersey.
If Grime did make that claim it reflects very poorly on his credibility
So does Kate McCann need proof when she states she found the window open but claims she didn't open it herself? And if she has no proof do we disregard her testimony in its entirety. It also cannot be substantiated.
An Foi request showed in 5 to 6 years eddie was only used in 37 cases.. More hype
It's not individual pieces of evidence that are important it's the sum of the pieces
When I read that your wife was racially abused I felt sad that it should come to that on a forum.If you had the utmost respect for people you wouldn’t come back to this forum after a prolonged absence and declare in the first new post you’ve written for a while that someone else’s post was “horseshit”. IMO.
But then I thought 2 wrongs don’t make a right and if you had been abused on this forum maybe you should have some understanding not to abuse other posters yourself.
I didn’t ignore your post I took it onboard but felt any reply I made wouldn’t take us anywhere.
I have the utmost respect for other people, I don't know why you think I don't unless you think it was me who abused your wife
If you had the utmost respect for people you wouldn’t come back to this forum after a prolonged absence and declare in the first new post you’ve written for a while that someone else’s post was “horseshit”. IMO.
The post was horseshit. I didn't refer to the poster as horseshit just the post. I had no respect for the post.oh come on now, if I describe something you’ve written as “horsehit” do you think that’s respectful to you as a person?
oh come on now, if I describe something you’ve written as “horsehit” do you think that’s respectful to you as a person?
Go ahead if you feel my posts are horseshit knock yourself out. My self esteem will not take a battering because you describe one of my posts as horseshit I can assure you.Describing a post as “horseshit” is designed to be belittling and insulting. The words people write on here are the only measure you have of them, therefore describing their posts as horseshit is hardly respectful of a person’s opinion. Now, if you were to reply by saying what I’ve just written was “horseshit” it would get my back up, because it would be contemptuous of something I happen to believe is true. That said, I believe you can be as rude about it as you like, just please don’t pretend you are respecting me or my views - on here they are one and the same thing imo.
You are expressing your view on the post not the person.
Describing a post as “horseshit” is designed to be belittling and insulting. The words people write on here are the only measure you have of them, therefore describing their posts as horseshit is hardly respectful of a person’s opinion. Now, if you were to reply by saying what I’ve just written was “horseshit” it would get my back up, because it would be contemptuous of something I happen to believe is true. That said, I believe you can be as rude about it as you like, just please don’t pretend you are respecting me or my views - on here they are one and the same thing imo.
Describing a post as “horseshit” is designed to be belittling and insulting. The words people write on here are the only measure you have of them, therefore describing their posts as horseshit is hardly respectful of a person’s opinion. Now, if you were to reply by saying what I’ve just written was “horseshit” it would get my back up, because it would be contemptuous of something I happen to believe is true. That said, I believe you can be as rude about it as you like, just please don’t pretend you are respecting me or my views - on here they are one and the same thing imo.
Ues, he describes my post and horseshit and the accuses me of being rude to him and others
I still think your post washorseshit“total rfubbish”. I doesn't mean I respect you any less because of it.
Do you still believe as your original post suggested that there is no difference in search methods between cadaver dogs and blind search dogs used to screen parcels on a conveyor belt?
I think much of what you post is total horseshit.. Same goes for gunit.. Angelo.. Barrier Jassi... In no particular order... Also find your posts that attempt to score points childish
Going forward I would suggest you keep your 5 yr old away from the OC as he appears to be posting in your behalf...
I think much of what you post is total horseshit.. Same goes for gunit.. Angelo.. Barrier Jassi... In no particular order... Also find your posts that attempt to score points childish
Going forward I would suggest you keep your 5 yr old away from the OC as he appears to be posting in your behalf...
I thought the mantra was attack the post not the poster, or something like that.I find you post to be a bit of a personal dig at me now. Are my ears too sensitive? No. Did I say I was offended by the word "horseshit"? No, I did not, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of claiming to be respectful toward other posters and then denigrating one of their posts as "horseshit". That is not respectful by any measure. What would have been respectful is to say instead: "I strongly disagree with what you have written and think you are mistaken for the following reasons" or words to that effect. If someone calls your riposte total rubbish in response then that's hardly surprising as you rather set the tone with your "horseshit" comment.
Thats exactly what I did.
Maybe the vernacular that was used was too raw for your sensitive ears, as a mere 3 hours later Davel posted to me “Your post is total rfubbish”.
So if this is acceptable I will edit my posts that contain the word “horsesh*t” to “total rfubbish”. But if you do find the word “horsesh*t” so offensive don’t ever leave your house as you are likely to be even more shocked and offended out and about.
I think much of what you post is total horseshit.. Same goes for gunit.. Angelo.. Barrier Jassi... In no particular order... Also find your posts that attempt to score points childish
Going forward I would suggest you keep your 5 yr old away from the OC as he appears to be posting in your behalf...
VS, look to the post above are you going to call out Davel for his lack of respect or are you not because he seems to be on your team.
What do you say? Call him out.
VS, look to the post above are you going to call out Davel for his lack of respect or are you not because he seems to be on your team.Like I said, you came on here all guns blazing after 4 months and described Davel's post as "horseshit" but you don't see that as confrontational, provocative and lacking in respect? Gimme a break.
What do you say? Call him out.
Like I said, you came on here all guns blazing after 4 months and described Davel's post as "horseshit" but you don't see that as confrontational, provocative and lacking in respect? Gimme a break.
And you always seem able to get the personal digs in, bravo.
on quite afew oicsions ive suggested everyone refrains from personaldigs and Ive had no support. Ive ven taken the lead and led the way. Unforunately i was still subject to insults....doesnt bother me taht muchbut you came on here referring to my post as horseshit.
i actually said YOUR post wa svery good and said something i have posted in the past.
Grime....imo.... was determined to find evidence...thats quite noble...
unfortunately his enthusiasm didnt have the required result. hed biggged up how good these dogs were and some couldnt see through the hype.
Quite simply...if the dogs were correct then the McCanns are guilty...simple. whens the arrest
I have seen no evidence of you leading the way in refraining from digs, since I have been here my opinion is you are at the forefront for digs. I still maintain in my opinion your post was horses*t unless you want to clarify what you meant by it as you have been dodging it ever since.
And in saying my post was good only because, you then went on to say because it supports everything you say about the alerts being worthless, which it did not.
No arrests forthcoming. The McCanns are in the clear.
I think much of what you post is total horseshit.. Same goes for gunit.. Angelo.. Barrier Jassi... In no particular order... Also find your posts that attempt to score points childish
Going forward I would suggest you keep your 5 yr old away from the OC as he appears to be posting in your behalf...
We must all be doing OK then lol....I think we're doing just fine ?{)(**
But is Davels post to me where he saysAs far as I'm concerned you can slag each other off to the cows come home, just don't pretend you're more virtuous than the rest of us by claiming to be respectful when clear you are not IMO.
"I think much of what you post is total horseshit" confrontational, provocative and lacking in respect?
I only said one of his post was "total rfubbish" he has upped the ante with most of my posts.
You don't want to be accused of hypocrisy do you/
Call him out like you called me out.
As far as I'm concerned you can slag each other off to the cows come home, just don't pretend you're more virtuous than the rest of us by claiming to be respectful when clear you are not IMO.
I think much of what you post is total horseshit.. Same goes for gunit.. Angelo.. Barrier Jassi... In no particular order... Also find your posts that attempt to score points childish
.
As I said my comment was aimed at the post not the poster.
I don’t even know why you got involved, the post wasn’t directed to you, it was to Davel and he never raised any complaints, what are you, his lawyer or something? Why do you care so much?
I have never said I am more virtuous than anyone, but I believe myself to be fairly respectful to other people, you can choose to disagree, up to you.
By the way the whole respect thing came up when Davel advised me to learn (or earn) a little respect because I didn’t reply concerning a post about his wife receiving racist abuse.
Was I being disrespectful by not replying, I don’t think so, do you?
I think you were.. I think it showed a distinct lack of fairness and Manners. At the time she was being abused we had just discovered she had breast cancer... Surgery.. Chem.. Radio.. The lot.
But it doesn't matter what you think.. Or anyone else here. I considered getting the police involved but fortunately it stopped as the person who instigated the abuse lost his own wife to a sudden illness. How ironic.
Let's leave it there now.. If you want to believe I'm the most evil man since Crowley I don't particularly care.. But it has no place in this forum
I as a Senior Moderator have completely lost the plot when another Moderator is constantly churning out convoluted and utter rubbish. I don't know what to do about this.
I don't often intervene. But I will fight anyone who persists in twisting and lying about what actually happened.
I as a Senior Moderator have completely lost the plot when another Moderator is constantly churning out convoluted and utter rubbish. I don't know what to do about this.
I don't often intervene. But I will fight anyone who persists in twisting and lying about what actually happened.
As I said my comment was aimed at the post not the poster.OK, I get that you don’t get it, time to move on.
I don’t even know why you got involved, the post wasn’t directed to you, it was to Davel and he never raised any complaints, what are you, his lawyer or something? Why do you care so much?
I have never said I am more virtuous than anyone, but I believe myself to be fairly respectful to other people, you can choose to disagree, up to you.
By the way the whole respect thing came up when Davel advised me to learn (or earn) a little respect because I didn’t reply concerning a post about his wife receiving racist abuse.
Was I being disrespectful by not replying, I don’t think so, do you?
You think you know what actually happened ?
Something for you in your undying faith in Wolters.
It is essential to establish that the victim is dead , that injuries were the cause of death, and that the suspect caused those injuries, Wolters has none of these and if you think so you're deluded.
Something for you in your undying faith in Wolters.So Davel is deluded for believing Wolters has the evidence and you’re deluded for believing you know he hasn’t got any evidence. One-All.
It is essential to establish that the victim is dead , that injuries were the cause of death, and that the suspect caused those injuries, Wolters has none of these and if you think so you're deluded.
OK, I get that you don’t get it, time to move on.
Are you stalking me? Try someone else who knows better than I do. Idiot.
Yeah, I don’t get why you are so bothered by a post I made to someone else, who expressed no horror in the words I chose, which I have now edited to make them more in line with words other posters use. Time to move on.Sigh.
Sigh.
smhSorry my hero?
Sorry my hero?
Sure. Forgiven.
Yeah, thats the one. You got it..
Time to move on.
They say that a fish rots from the head down…much like the nastiness on this forum.And that’s a perfect example of nastiness.
You do know how punctuation works right? There is a full stop right after the word training. This signifies the end of the sentence. He then starts another sentence referring to foodstuffs and then another sentence regarding road kill.Another example of you kecturing me about punctuation and getting it wrong.. Lol
They are different sentences.
Why would he be an idiot if he is telling the truth and Eddie hasn't false alerted operationally or in training. If you know that he has please provide evidence to back it up.
Another example of you kecturing me about punctuation and getting it wrong.. Lol
Please explain how my description of the correct usage of full stop was wrong. Thanks in advance.You claimed the full stop meant the false positive statement was not related to the alerts to foodstuffs.. Have you forgotten
Please explain how my description of the correct usage of full stop was wrong. Thanks in advance.
You claimed the full stop meant the false positive statement was not related to the alerts to foodstuffs.. Have you forgotten
I posted
There is a full stop right after the word training. This signifies the end of the sentence.
Is this incorrect?
I posted
There is a full stop right after the word training. This signifies the end of the sentence.
Is this incorrect?
That is not the point.. Lol.
The point is you claimed the full stop meant the two sentences were not related
Are you police or ex policeI am not and have never been a member of the police force.
I never said they were not related, that would be a new paragraph. Very basic stuff.
This is a full stop definition.
What is full stop in punctuation?
Full stop (.), also called 'period', is used to mark the end of a declarative sentence or an imperative sentence. It essentially marks a pause greater than the one marked by a comma and is also used to suggest that there is nothing more to say on a topic, for instance, 'I like playing football.
Davel I am trying hard not to make fun of your posts but you are making it really hard.
Make as much fun as you wish.. You are only making yourself look a bit daft.. Imo
Maybe we both look a bit daft davel.
Do you do introspection?
So you accept the possibility that you may look a bit daft.... There's something we agree on
Of course davel, of course, do you not think sometime you may appear to others as daft.I'm absolutely sure some might think I'm daft.. I'm eccentric.. But those who think I'm daft are probably stupid.
Or are you so perfect that this could never occur?
I'm absolutely sure some might think I'm daft.. I'm eccentric.. But those who think I'm daft are probably stupid.