UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on July 22, 2019, 10:10:44 AM
-
If an abductor entered 5A it is almost certain he/she wore gloves. Do we know if police soc investigators or forensics looked for glove prints?
-
If an abductor entered 5A it is almost certain he/she wore gloves. Do we know if police soc investigators or forensics looked for glove prints?
The word "glove" was used once, in a different context.
Is there another word rather than glove prints.
-
The word "glove" was used once, in a different context.
Is there another word rather than glove prints.
I don't believe so.
-
From memory GA says there were no glove prints found in one of his interviews.
-
The word "glove" was used once, in a different context.
Is there another word rather than glove prints.
Glove Smear.
-
He/she would have to have been wearing not only gloves, but head to toe cling film to leave the place so clean of any marks/DNA.
Diane tried to lift the shutters- she said it was impossible. perhaps that is why the parents claimed a jemmie was used to prize them open, sadly no evidence of that either.
No scuff marks on the white walls inside or outside the apartment. Which given the small enterence and a man/woman carrying a sleeping child would be awkward.
There was no finger prints or glove marks/smudges found on the front door/ this would be the other exit if JT saw an abductor- was the front door locked? did he manage to lock it behind him after he stole MBM?
Oh and there is no Chimney.
-
Glove Smear.
The word glove is only used once. Were there smears or smudges?
"7. One pair of rubber gloves." ???? that is an odd item to take on holiday.
words smear or smudge do not appear.
-
He/she would have to have been wearing not only gloves, but head to toe cling film to leave the place so clean of any marks/DNA.
Diane tried to lift the shutters- she said it was impossible. perhaps that is why the parents claimed a jemmie was used to prize them open, sadly no evidence of that either.
No scuff marks on the white walls inside or outside the apartment. Which given the small enterence and a man/woman carrying a sleeping child would be awkward.
There was no finger prints or glove marks/smudges found on the front door/ this would be the other exit if JT saw an abductor- was the front door locked? did he manage to lock it behind him after he stole MBM?
Oh and there is no Chimney.
What sort of DNA evidence do you think an abductor might have left behind that would be useful in an investigation of this type?
Glove prints would not necessarily be revealed unless investigators/forensics looked for them?
I don't believe MM was wearing any footwear so what sort of scuff marks would be expected if an abductor carried her out.
-
What sort of DNA evidence do you think an abductor might have left behind that would be useful in an investigation of this type?
Glove prints would not necessarily be revealed unless investigators/forensics looked for them?
I don't believe MM was wearing any footwear so what sort of scuff marks would be expected if an abductor carried her out.
I would expect to find his/her scuff marks below the window. Foot print on the bed at the window where he/she had to negotiate to get out carrying a heavy child, hair from MBM at or near the window he/she may must have brushed against something.
The tight area and small opening at the window means he /she would need to hold MBM in one arm or have great balance to get both out without touching /brushing against anything.
Only fingerprints found on the window was Kates.
-
I would expect to find his/her scuff marks below the window. Foot print on the bed at the window where he/she had to negotiate to get out carrying a heavy child, hair from MBM at or near the window he/she may must have brushed against something.
The tight area and small opening at the window means he /she would need to hold MBM in one arm or have great balance to get both out without touching /brushing against anything.
Only fingerprints found on the window was Kates.
Well I believe the window was 'staged'. Either by the abductor to throw investigators or the McCanns as they felt so dumb in leaving the patio doors unlocked.
My theory involves the perp entering via the patio doors, scooping up MM and exiting via the front door placing MM in a car in the immediate vicinity.
-
Well I believe the window was 'staged'. Either by the abductor to throw investigators or the McCanns as they felt so dumb in leaving the patio doors unlocked.
My theory involves the perp entering via the patio doors, scooping up MM and exiting via the front door placing MM in a car in the immediate vicinity.
Circa what time?
-
Well I believe the window was 'staged'. Either by the abductor to throw investigators or the McCanns as they felt so dumb in leaving the patio doors unlocked.
My theory involves the perp entering via the patio doors, scooping up MM and exiting via the front door placing MM in a car in the immediate vicinity.
I agree with the 'staged' window by the parents part of your theory
The front door was locked? did your prep open from the inside and lock it behind him/her while carrying a child?
where in the time line would this have happened?
-
Circa what time?
I would say it would have to been when perp(s) know T9 were all seated at tapas. Based on G-Unit's timeline I would say circa 21.20.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10830.msg539314#msg539314
-
I would say it would have to been when perp(s) know T9 were all seated at tapas. Based on G-Unit's timeline I would say circa 21.20.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10830.msg539314#msg539314
I agree with that.
-
I would say it would have to been when perp(s) know T9 were all seated at tapas. Based on G-Unit's timeline I would say circa 21.20.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10830.msg539314#msg539314
Wasn't Jane still on the move at that time?
-
I agree with the 'staged' window by the parents part of your theory
The front door was locked? did your prep open from the inside and lock it behind him/her while carrying a child?
where in the time line would this have happened?
The front door was locked from outside yes but anyone could open from within and upon closing it would return to its previous position.
Re timeline see post above.
-
Well I believe the window was 'staged'. Either by the abductor to throw investigators or the McCanns as they felt so dumb in leaving the patio doors unlocked.
My theory involves the perp entering via the patio doors, scooping up MM and exiting via the front door placing MM in a car in the immediate vicinity.
You may not be aware yet, but the car parks of block 5 and block 4 are connected for pedestrian-only traffic (not vehicular). So a nearby, safe point for a car is in the block 4 car park.
-
Wasn't Jane still on the move at that time?
Not according to G-Unit's timeline. It would take less than 2 mins for any abductor to enter via patio doors, walk into children's room, open up window/shutter (if applicable), scoop up MM, out front door and into waiting car.
-
The front door was locked from outside yes but anyone could open from within and upon closing it would return to its previous position.
Re timeline see post above.
There is no proof that would happen. "upon closing it would return to its previous position".
From the video I've seen you need a key to close the door from the outside.
-
Not according to G-Unit's timeline. It would take less than 2 mins for any abductor to enter via patio doors, walk into children's room, open up window/shutter (if applicable), scoop up MM, out front door and into waiting car.
I assume this is your estimate, rather than a timed event and that the car is just an imaginary one.
-
There is no proof that would happen. "upon closing it would return to its previous position".
From the video I've seen you need a key to close the door from the outside.
I don't believe so. Please post the video.
-
Not according to G-Unit's timeline. It would take less than 2 mins for any abductor to enter via patio doors, walk into children's room, open up window/shutter (if applicable), scoop up MM, out front door and into waiting car.
It is a well thought out theory- worthy of discussion.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
5 minutes with them all coming and going, what about Gerry noticing the door had movedwhile he was in the apartment?
I am sure the front door needed keys to lock from outside- I can't be sure about that though.
OKAY just a thought. Let us assume the parents claimed that MBM was missing and there was no mention of an abductor- would you still be thinking MBM had been abducted?
-
I don't believe so. Please post the video.
There is a whole thread on it. I'll get the link.
-
It is a well thought out theory- worthy of discussion.
21:20 Jane returns to Tapas (Gerry has returned)
21:25 Matt and Russ go to apartments. Russell stays there.
5 minutes with them all coming and going, what about Gerry noticing the door had movedwhile he was in the apartment?
I am sure the front door needed keys to lock from outside- I can't be sure about that though.
OKAY just a thought. Let us assume the parents claimed that MBM was missing and there was no mention of an abductor- would you still be thinking MBM had been abducted?
If MM was abducted we do not know if the abductor acted alone or had an accomplice acting as lookout. Is it possible to view the tapas bar etc from the stairs/lifts/corridors at the front?
We do not know if the 'moved' door is relevant or not. If it was moved by the abductor he/she may have waited inside, unlikely imo, or carried out a dry run. Maybe wanted to ensure no baby monitor in-situ.
Yes because everything taken as a whole points to abduction imo.
-
I assume this is your estimate, rather than a timed event and that the car is just an imaginary one.
Its my estimate which is supported by Ian Horrocks' report.
I don't know what you mean by imaginary one in terms of my theory that a car was waiting in the vicinity?
-
There is a whole thread on it. I'll get the link.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8198.0
-
I would say it would have to been when perp(s) know T9 were all seated at tapas. Based on G-Unit's timeline I would say circa 21.20.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10830.msg539314#msg539314
That's assuming the times are an absolute not an estimate,a couple of minutes either way narrows the time.
-
Its my estimate which is supported by Ian Horrocks' report.
I don't know what you mean by imaginary one in terms of my theory that a car was waiting in the vicinity?
A car has been invented by you to fit your theory - IMO
-
A car has been invented by you to fit your theory - IMO
Not even SY have asked for info regarding a car.
-
A car has been invented by you to fit your theory - IMO
That is what theories are about. Cars had been invented by 2007.
-
That is what theories are about. Cars had been invented by 2007.
No theories cannot be based solely on invention. There has to be some basis of fact underpinning them
Anything less would be rejected by any competent police force.
IMO
-
No theories cannot be based solely on invention. There has to be some basis of fact underpinning them
IMO
What there are cars in the car parks and cars using the roads. The PJ put patrols on the bridge across to Spain. They must have been thinking in terms of abduction using a car in that case. Alerts were made to Faro airport. A car would be used if they got that far too.
-
A car has been invented by you to fit your theory - IMO
I base it in part on the fact the GNR search and rescue dogs did not pick up MM's scent outside the immediate vicinity.
-
I base it in part on the fact the GNR search and rescue dogs did not pick up MM's scent outside the immediate vicinity.
And that proves the existence of a car? I don't think so.
-
If an abductor entered 5A it is almost certain he/she wore gloves. Do we know if police soc investigators or forensics looked for glove prints?
TPN: What did you find at the apartment?
No signs of forced entry. There were no signs of glove marks on the window. We compiled a report of the evidence we collected, but we are not here to accuse anyone.
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-in-english-former-maddie-cop-interview/24788
-
That's assuming the times are an absolute not an estimate,a couple of minutes either way narrows the time.
in the absence of some digital/satellite recording them a timeline is only going to be approx. Of course a couple of mins either way narrows the time or widens it.
-
And that proves the existence of a car? I don't think so.
Agreed it doesn't prove the existence of a car but it does what I said it does, offers some support to the theory.
-
And that proves the existence of a car? I don't think so.
But it doesn't exclude it either. Therefore it is valid to include it in a theory.
-
TPN: What did you find at the apartment?
No signs of forced entry. There were no signs of glove marks on the window. We compiled a report of the evidence we collected, but we are not here to accuse anyone.
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-in-english-former-maddie-cop-interview/24788
I haven't had time to read the article yet but based on what you've quoted above did they look for glove prints or marks eg fibres? And did they check the doors and gate for glove prints?
-
But it doesn't exclude it either. Therefore it is valid to include it in a theory.
Not in my opinion.
If a car had been seen driving off, it would be valid to claim that Madeleine might have been in it, even though she wasn't observed.
To say there might have been a car that might have contained Madeleine is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
-
Not in my opinion.
If a car had been seen driving off, it would be valid to claim that Madeleine might have been in it, even though she wasn't observed.
To say there might have been a car that might have contained Madeleine is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Are we allowed to use the word "nonsense"?
-
Are we allowed to use the word "nonsense"?
I do hope so, as I've just done so 8(0(*
I'm claiming the idea is nonsense, not commenting on the poster.
-
Agreed it doesn't prove the existence of a car but it does what I said it does, offers some support to the theory.
lol well it can't support the theory if it doesn't exist. If witnesses had mentioned a car then I would look closer.
The only reason I Can think of for MBM's scent to stop suddenly was; if she woke and wandered in her bare feet and got picked up at the spot mentioned.
This could be picked up by a stranger or someone known to her can carried back to the flat or somewhere else.
-
lol well it can't support the theory if it doesn't exist. If witnesses had mentioned a car then I would look closer.
The only reason I Can think of for MBM's scent to stop suddenly was; if she woke and wandered in her bare feet and got picked up at the spot mentioned.
This could be picked up by a stranger or someone known to her can carried back to the flat or somewhere else.
This is based on the assumption that the dogs were following Madeleine's scent in the first place.
-
I do hope so, as I've just done so 8(0(*
I'm claiming the idea is nonsense, not commenting on the poster.
But that reflects back to the person saying it as in "You are not making sense".
-
But that reflects back to the person saying it as in "You are not making sense".
And what's wrong with that ?
It's not like saying " I consider you a complete idiot for even suggesting such a stupid idea" is it ?
I think moderation should be based on what people actually say, not what moderators think they say
-
lol well it can't support the theory if it doesn't exist. If witnesses had mentioned a car then I would look closer.
The only reason I Can think of for MBM's scent to stop suddenly was; if she woke and wandered in her bare feet and got picked up at the spot mentioned.
This could be picked up by a stranger or someone known to her can carried back to the flat or somewhere else.
There's no need for the lol. What evidence exists that a car was or wasn't involved?
Its entirely possible MM was placed in a car in the immediate vicinity which corresponds with the GNR search and rescue dogs. If MM was taken to an apartment then I would expect the dogs to indicate at the doors.
-
Not in my opinion.
If a car had been seen driving off, it would be valid to claim that Madeleine might have been in it, even though she wasn't observed.
To say there might have been a car that might have contained Madeleine is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
If a car was used in the immediate vicinity who would you expect to observe such?
What evidence do you have that MM was not placed in a car in the immediate vicinity?
-
If a car was used in the immediate vicinity who would you expect to observe such?
What evidence do you have that MM was not placed in a car in the immediate vicinity?
A witness.
In reply to the 2nd sentence, there was no witness.
Just how far do you think police are prepared to go on pure supposition?
-
And what's wrong with that ?
It's not like saying " I consider you a complete idiot for even suggesting such a stupid idea" is it ?
I think moderation should be based on what people actually say, not what moderators think they say
Well if Hmm are not allowed. I tend to think it has gone overboard too. That is why I asked a poster "are you thick?" Some posters even admit to being thick.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10908.msg547217#msg547217
-
There's no need for the lol. What evidence exists that a car was or wasn't involved?
Its entirely possible MM was placed in a car in the immediate vicinity which corresponds with the GNR search and rescue dogs. If MM was taken to an apartment then I would expect the dogs to indicate at the doors.
The lol reflects my mood and response to someone making a theory which includes an imaginary/invention of a car- I find that funny. As you are claiming yours is evidence based- So sue me.
"What evidence exists that a car was or wasn't involved?"
Evidence there was no car would be the absence of witnesesses.
The evidence of there being a car used to carry abductor and child would require witnesses to place it where you claim it was.
Anything is possible, doesn't make your theory believable though IMO.
"If MM was taken to an apartment then I would expect the dogs to indicate at the doors."
If she walked out in bare feet and scent was fiollowed - then carried- the scent would have stopped at the point where she was picked up. That is the point I was making. So there would be no scents at doors!
-
Well if Hmm are not allowed. I tend to think it has gone overboard too. That is why I asked a poster "are you thick?" Some posters even admit to being thick.
It is my observation that those who claim to be thick are usually anything but, whereas those who claim uber intelligence usually aren't
-
It is my observation that those who claim to be thick are usually anything but, whereas those who claim uber intelligence usually aren't
OMG !
-
It is my observation that those who claim to be thick are usually anything but, whereas those who claim uber intelligence usually aren't
Self praise hath no worth! I use 'Hmm' and 'MBM' there is absolutely nothung wrong with either, but used as a stick to beat me with by mods and supporters alike.. which is hilarious as it has the opposite effect!
I do enjoy reading theories, If they have circumstancial evidence of motive,opportunity and credability I will commend it as a possibility. not having a car would crash out many abduction to order theories.
-
According to the PJ files, the front door has a round knob. A key has to be used when one is on the outside but exiting from the inside, one simply pull the door closed, automatically locking it.
-
A witness.
In reply to the 2nd sentence, there was no witness.
Just how far do you think police are prepared to go on pure supposition?
It was low season. Some of the apartments were empty. It was dark or darkish and by most accounts quite chilly. Why would you expect witnesses to necessarily be around to observe? Even if they did they might deem it irrelevant. JT observed 'Tannerman' but GM and JW didn't. And after all this it seems 'Tannerman' was simply Dr Totman. Did anyone else observe Tannerman? A man carrying a child moves a lot slower than a moving car.
It is not pure supposition hence Ian Horrocks, a police officer of long experience, incorporates it in his theory.
-
According to the PJ files, the front door has a round knob. A key has to be used when one is on the outside but exiting from the inside, one simply pull the door closed, automatically locking it.
Thanks anthro1967.
-
But it doesn't exclude it either. Therefore it is valid to include it in a theory.
Horse and cart next.
-
It was low season. Some of the apartments were empty. It was dark or darkish and by most accounts quite chilly. Why would you expect witnesses to necessarily be around to observe? Even if they did they might deem it irrelevant. JT observed 'Tannerman' but GM and JW didn't. And after all this it seems 'Tannerman' was simply Dr Totman. Did anyone else observe Tannerman? A man carrying a child moves a lot slower than a moving car.
It is not pure supposition hence Ian Horrocks, a police officer of long experience, incorporates it in his theory.
How is it not supposition? Where is there positive evidence of there being a car at that time & place?
I'm afraid I don't place much weight on the view of a retired detective working for the Sun newspaper
-
According to the PJ files, the front door has a round knob. A key has to be used when one is on the outside but exiting from the inside, one simply pull the door closed, automatically locking it.
Look at the video. They have to activate the lever to close it. No this can't be done "one simply pull the door closed, automatically locking it".
-
Horse and cart next.
Are we allowed to assume the person who removed Madeleine wore shoes? It is an assumption.
-
Look at the video. They have to activate the lever to close it. No this can't be done "one simply pull the door closed, automatically locking it".
Why would you suggest Ian Horrocks suggests the perp exited via the front door if it as you suggest?
I can't find the vid you are referring to?
-
Why would you suggest Ian Horrocks suggests the perp exited via the front door if it as you suggest?
I can't find the vid you are referring to?
Did he have access to 5A to check for himself, or did he just assume it would self-close ?
-
But it doesn't exclude it either. Therefore it is valid to include it in a theory.
Horse and cart next.
I'm using the horse and cart analogy because it doesn't exclude it so it's valid,no one mentioned about searching for a car,in the same manner no one mentioned about searching for a horse and cart.
-
I'm using the horse and cart analogy because it doesn't exclude it so it's valid,no one mentioned about searching for a car,in the same manner no one mentioned about searching for a horse and cart.
Or a donkey, or any other form of transport.
-
Or a donkey, or any other form of transport.
Good enough for Mary,so why not a chosen one.
-
Good enough for Mary,so why not a chosen one.
Oh very good 8@??)(
-
Why would you suggest Ian Horrocks suggests the perp exited via the front door if it as you suggest?
I can't find the vid you are referring to?
it is the one with the cleaners in the room.
Horrocks probably doesn't know you can't just close the door. It is a bit different than usual. It catches everyone, but David Payne knew and immediately checked the front door. He found it closed.
-
Or a donkey, or any other form of transport.
Donkeys and horses poo often. They leave a trail.
-
You may not be aware yet, but the car parks of block 5 and block 4 are connected for pedestrian-only traffic (not vehicular). So a nearby, safe point for a car is in the block 4 car park.
Thanks. I've just looked at our friend GE and as you say it appears there's a wall between the two blocks preventing vehicular access which is supported by the angle of the lines marking out spaces too.
So if a car was used the abductor(s) might have been blatant and used blocked 5 or they might have tried to operate under the radar and used block 4. It seems the tracker dogs have pretty much ruled out anything beyond here.
-
Donkeys and horses poo often. They leave a trail.
Perhaps it was a self-contained donkey 8)-)))
-
How is it not supposition? Where is there positive evidence of there being a car at that time & place?
I'm afraid I don't place much weight on the view of a retired detective working for the Sun newspaper
A car is attested to by the woman visiting 605.
Another was used by the executive chef to get to the Tapas zone.
Stephen Carpenter attests to checking for traffic as he walked between parked cars.
-
Donkeys and horses poo often. They leave a trail.
Peter Pan wouldn't leave a trail or DNA... I am keeping that theory as a work in Progress. 8)--))
-
A car is attested to by the woman visiting 605.
Another was used by the executive chef to get to the Tapas zone.
Stephen Carpenter attests to checking for traffic as he walked between parked cars.
All of these cars at the same time and place ?
Obviously the chef's is accounted for so that's one ruled out.
In fact, as fa as I can see no car has been implicated.
-
But that reflects back to the person saying it as in "You are not making sense".
Let's not be too silly about this.
-
Back to ‘spotty man’: he was described within the context of a vehicle nearby.
“The third witness is a Cheshire man who was walking with his partner at about 11.30am on May 2 or 3.
He said: “I saw a man standing next to a wall. On the opposite side of the road was a white van.
“I paid particular attention to him because he appeared to be focused on watching the apartment block.
-
All of these cars at the same time and place ?
Obviously the chef's is accounted for so that's one ruled out.
In fact, as fa as I can see no car has been implicated.
Why does one need 3 or 4 cars at the same time? Unless they were playing musical chairs with MBM.
I had forgotten two cars. The one actually driven by the boyfriend of the woman leaving 605, and the one driven by the maintenance worker who was working late that night.
Luz had cars in 2007. Judging by all the car parks built to accommodate them, they were not uncommon.
-
So no particular connection between man and vehicle.
-
Why does one need 3 or 4 cars at the same time? Unless they were playing musical chairs with MBM.
I had forgotten two cars. The one actually driven by the boyfriend of the woman leaving 605, and the one driven by the maintenance worker who was working late that night.
Luz had cars in 2007. Judging by all the car parks built to accommodate them, they were not uncommon.
The point I was making was that unless the car was in the right place at the right time - (Holly specifies 21.20 ish ), then it is of no relevance - IMO
-
Back to ‘spotty man’: he was described within the context of a vehicle nearby.
“The third witness is a Cheshire man who was walking with his partner at about 11.30am on May 2 or 3.
He said: “I saw a man standing next to a wall. On the opposite side of the road was a white van.
“I paid particular attention to him because he appeared to be focused on watching the apartment block.
This witness statement is pointless, they cannot place the date and or be within the may 3rd time line.
can we have a cite please.
-
Thanks. I've just looked at our friend GE and as you say it appears there's a wall between the two blocks preventing vehicular access which is supported by the angle of the lines marking out spaces too.
So if a car was used the abductor(s) might have been blatant and used blocked 5 or they might have tried to operate under the radar and used block 4. It seems the tracker dogs have pretty much ruled out anything beyond here.
The dogs were following the scent from a towel allegedly used by MBM.
-
The dogs were following the scent from a towel allegedly used by MBM.
Yes. I would have thought an item of clothing or even foot ware would have had stronger scent .
Perhaps they were already all in the wash 8(0(*
-
5A door. I am trying to upload images from my iPad. Can you please tell me what is the easiest way to do that?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you. I have managed to upload an image.
-
The dogs were following the scent from a towel allegedly used by MBM.
The GNR officer quotes a Turkish towel. KM states MM's pink princess blanket and clothes were offered with only the blanket used.
I would expect photographs, an exhibit number and witnesses signatures.
-
The GNR officer quotes a Turkish towel. KM states MM's pink princess blanket and clothes were offered with only the blanket used.
I would expect photographs, an exhibit number and witnesses signatures.
Yes, so would I.
Can't see the police choosing a bath towel in preference to personal items
Perhaps a bit of poetic licence when it came to the book 8(0(*
-
Yes, so would I.
Can't see the police choosing a bath towel in preference to personal items
Perhaps a bit of poetic licence when it came to the book 8(0(*
The Turkish towel may well be the pink princess blanket.
-
Jassi, just a contextual connection.
-
Miss Taken Identity, re: ‘spotty man’. This too was reported all over the world.
-
Jassi, just a contextual connection.
He wasn't seen getting in or out of this van, standing by it , polishing the wing mirror, etc, so in my opinion it has no significant or meaningful connection at all.
-
Jassi, since the case remains unsolved 12 years and counting, perhaps ‘acknowledgement’ is due to the person who possibly removed Madeleine. It requires skill and know-how in the modus operandi. Perhaps the person was well aware how not to implicate himself in any way. Therefore, I am suggesting a ‘contextual connection’.
-
Jassi, since the case remains unsolved 12 years and counting, perhaps ‘acknowledgement’ is due to the person who possibly removed Madeleine. It requires skill and know-how in the modus operandi. Perhaps the person was well aware how not to implicate himself in any way. Therefore, I am suggesting a ‘contextual connection’.
Which you are perfectly entitled to do, but which will only lead you further into fantasy land - IMO
-
Jassi, I am stating what is known in the public domain. It might be fact or fiction but surely also some truth in it all. What do you believe happened when Madeleine was discovered missing. Your ‘fantasy world’ mention needs validation.
-
Jassi, I am stating what is known in the public domain. It might be fact or fiction but surely also some truth in it all. What do you believe happened when Madeleine was discovered missing. Your ‘fantasy world’ mention needs validation.
What is known about 'spottyman' connects him neither to Madeleine nor this van.
The fantasy is attempting to tie these ideas together - IMO
As to what happened to Madeleine, I have no idea - I wasn't there.
-
Jassi, since you have no idea as to what happened to Madeleine, on what basis do you comment on the forum? Like you, neither was I and presumably members on this forum present when Madeleine disappeared. Can you please explain the ‘fantasy land’ comment.
-
Jassi, I am stating what is known in the public domain. It might be fact or fiction but surely also some truth in it all. What do you believe happened when Madeleine was discovered missing. Your ‘fantasy world’ mention needs validation.
I think it is fair to comment that the crime has not been established. Therefore, we do not know who was involved with what.
The forum is a mouthpiece for some to counter act the parents version of what happened to their daughter, some try to enforce it by many means.
I personally prefer to take seriously some scenarios which can have some evidentual value and could be considered very highly likely to have happened that way. I have mentioned this in anothre thread.
-
Jassi, since you have no idea as to what happened to Madeleine, on what basis do you comment on the forum? Like you, neither was I and presumably members on this forum present when Madeleine disappeared. Can you please explain the ‘fantasy land’ comment.
Fantasy land is where people make up things like non-existent cars to fit their particular theory, even when there is no evidence to do so
I am here to question and probe, not to attempt to promulgate a theory of any sort.
-
Then, in that sense you are also participating in ‘fantasy land?
-
Fantasy land is where people make up things like non-existent cars to fit their particular theory, even when there is no evidence to do so
I am here to question and probe, not to attempt to promulgate a theory of any sort.
Peter Pan theory the story fts very well I think Jass. 8)--))
-
Fantasy land is where people make up things like non-existent cars to fit their particular theory, even when there is no evidence to do so
I am here to question and probe, not to attempt to promulgate a theory of any sort.
but the biggest made up theory with no real evidence to support it was made up by the detective who led the investigation
-
Then, in that sense you are also participating in ‘fantasy land?
Participating? Maybe, but certainly not encouraging.
-
but the biggest made up theory with no real evidence to support it was made up by the detective who led the investigation
... and this person would be?
I was of the impression that the pj as a whole were thinking along the same lines ie no stranger abduction from the apartment and the shutter story was staged!
-
Fantasy land is where people make up things like non-existent cars to fit their particular theory, even when there is no evidence to do so
I am here to question and probe, not to attempt to promulgate a theory of any sort.
I don't see anyone in fantasy land with regard to the possibility of a car being involved. I suggested a car may have been used and parked up in the allocated spaces for block 4 and 5 or in the immediate vicinity. In the absence of cctv how would anyone know one way or the other?
-
Perhaps it was a self-contained donkey 8)-)))
That would be a first.
-
Peter Pan wouldn't leave a trail or DNA... I am keeping that theory as a work in Progress. 8)--))
Peter Pan and aliens never seem to leave a trail. Aliens have the better excuse as they probably have the technology to reuse it.
-
All of these cars at the same time and place ?
Obviously the chef's is accounted for so that's one ruled out.
In fact, as fa as I can see no car has been implicated.
If the Executive Chef had his times correct IMO he would be ruled out.
-
Let's not be too silly about this.
Well I'm not the one stupid enough to edit out "Hmm"s. That seems like a terrible burden upon your shoulders.
-
Back to ‘spotty man’: he was described within the context of a vehicle nearby.
“The third witness is a Cheshire man who was walking with his partner at about 11.30am on May 2 or 3.
He said: “I saw a man standing next to a wall. On the opposite side of the road was a white van.
“I paid particular attention to him because he appeared to be focused on watching the apartment block.
If the man was spying he needs to get more lessons IMO.
-
Why does one need 3 or 4 cars at the same time? Unless they were playing musical chairs with MBM.
I had forgotten two cars. The one actually driven by the boyfriend of the woman leaving 605, and the one driven by the maintenance worker who was working late that night.
Luz had cars in 2007. Judging by all the car parks built to accommodate them, they were not uncommon.
Had Luz really kept up with modern technology?
-
5A door. I am trying to upload images from my iPad. Can you please tell me what is the easiest way to do that?
That is not the door to 5A.
-
Yes, so would I.
Can't see the police choosing a bath towel in preference to personal items
Perhaps a bit of poetic licence when it came to the book 8(0(*
Weren't the two dog teams early on.
-
That is not the door to 5A.
If you enlarge it,the number is clearly 5a.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2308.jpg
-
Jassi, since you have no idea as to what happened to Madeleine, on what basis do you comment on the forum? Like you, neither was I and presumably members on this forum present when Madeleine disappeared. Can you please explain the ‘fantasy land’ comment.
After reading 1000's of post by Jassi, I'd take some notice of her criticism. No one knows for sure but I'd guess she is a former detective.
-
That is not the door to 5A.
I stand corrected. For some reason I thought the knob at 5A was in a different position.
-
Had Luz really kept up with modern technology?
The car parks were laid at the same time as blocks were built. That's block 1, block 2, block 4, block 5, block 6 and LuzTur.
As far as my history research goes, these were all built in the early 1980s.
-
After reading 1000's of post by Jassi, I'd take some notice of her criticism. No one knows for sure but I'd guess she is a former detective.
Id say your guess is a million miles out...I find anthro a balanced and interesting poster
-
Id say your guess is a million miles out
And you'd be right ?{)(**
-
Id say your guess is a million miles out...I find anthro a balanced and interesting poster
I agree, a little hotheaded maybe. 8(0(*
-
I agree, a little hotheaded maybe. 8(0(*
no disrespect to anyone....I just think the average detective isnt quite as skilled as we would like them to be..
i have an ongoing case at the moment....
-
no disrespect to anyone....I just think the average detective isnt quite as skilled as we would like them to be..
i have an ongoing case at the moment....
Discussing that would be off topic here, but I do find Jassi very astute and correct. Not prone to giving opinions but valid pointers to a good investigation, that is why I say "former detective".
-
Discussing that would be off topic here, but I do find Jassi very astute and correct. Not prone to giving opinions but valid pointers to a good investigation, that is why I say "former detective".
Im sure shes a lovely person but totally on the wrong track re this case......so totally incorrect
-
Im sure shes a lovely person but totally on the wrong track re this case......so totally incorrect
I'm not aware of her being totally incorrect. People say I'm incorrect too but I have tried very hard to back everything I say with what little evidence there is in this case.