-
According to at least one member of this forum the McCanns “abduction story” is laughable.
So what exactly is the abduction story told by the McCanns, which bits make forum members laugh and why?
We all know some find the jemmied shutters rather hilarious but that is just a semantics game played by certain members objecting to the word “jemmied” which may or may not have been uttered by Gerry. Whether he meant actually jemmied with a crow bar or force opened by some other means is really a boring argument that seems pointless to repeat for the umpteenth time - the gist though is that the McCanns said someone else opened the shutters and window.
Does this make forum members laugh and if so please explain why it tickles you so.
Also anything else that gets you giggling about the “abduction story” as told by the McCanns, please share your views here.
-
I feel like we have made no progress in 12 years.
-
I feel like we have made no progress in 12 years.
I think SY and the Germans may well have...need to wait and see
-
According to at least one member of this forum the McCanns “abduction story” is laughable.
So what exactly is the abduction story told by the McCanns, which bits make forum members laugh and why?
We all know some find the jemmied shutters rather hilarious but that is just a semantics game played by certain members objecting to the word “jemmied” which may or may not have been uttered by Gerry. Whether he meant actually jemmied with a crow bar or force opened by some other means is really a boring argument that seems pointless to repeat for the umpteenth time - the gist though is that the McCanns said someone else opened the shutters and window.
Does this make forum members laugh and if so please explain why it tickles you so.
Also anything else that gets you giggling about the “abduction story” as told by the McCanns, please share your views here.
I laughed at how Kate wished she'd dressed Maddie in long sleeve pyjamas, like that would be a concern for her when paedo gangs just abducted her kid.
-
I laughed at how Kate wished she'd dressed Maddie in long sleeve pyjamas, like that would be a concern for her when paedo gangs just abducted her kid.
Nice, but not really what I was asking for.
-
Nice, but not really what I was asking for.
It might just be me ... but I don't find anything to laugh about in the heart stopping panic of realising that one of your children is missing.
I think it is a primeval terror which is inbred in all of us. In Madeleine's case the realisation that the window which had never been opened by them was open leaving but one immediate logical conclusion that someone unknown to them had opened it is not a laugh ... it is a horror.
-
It has been reported that Brückner had an accomplice. Since German authorities have not appealed for information on such person, it may indicate that the identity of that person is already known and that s/he is already cooperating in the investigation. My thinking.
-
It might just be me ... but I don't find anything to laugh about in the heart stopping panic of realising that one of your children is missing.
I think it is a primeval terror which is inbred in all of us. In Madeleine's case the realisation that the window which had never been opened by them was open leaving but one immediate logical conclusion that someone unknown to them had opened it is not a laugh ... it is a horror.
This post made me laugh.
-
It has been reported that Brückner had an accomplice. Since German authorities have not appealed for information on such person, it may indicate that the identity of that person is already known and that s/he is already cooperating in the investigation. My thinking.
I agree with that assessment. I believe the alleged accomplice is known to the police and has been questioned by them in Germany which is her home.
It may even be possible that she is the woman seen at different times outside the apartment by Jes Wilkins and Mrs Murat.
According to media reports I believe this alleged accomplice was the spotter but didn't actually carry out the burglaries so finding out retrospectively the end result of this one was Madeleine's abduction probably came as a bit of a shock. I imagine police will want to know what she might have known and when and there might be huge implications for her as a result.
So I think she may be another who for her own reasons finds nothing the least bit laughable in the heat from the abduction.
-
This post made me laugh.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Quite sad really that you fail to notice that your post reflects more badly on your opinion of mine than it does on me.
It is also revealing that sceptics are thin on the ground when justification of amusement at a child's kidnapping is called for.
So well done you for ably upholding the sceptic banner and showing part of what McCann sceptics are all about.
-
According to at least one member of this forum the McCanns “abduction story” is laughable.
So what exactly is the abduction story told by the McCanns, which bits make forum members laugh and why?
We all know some find the jemmied shutters rather hilarious but that is just a semantics game played by certain members objecting to the word “jemmied” which may or may not have been uttered by Gerry. Whether he meant actually jemmied with a crow bar or force opened by some other means is really a boring argument that seems pointless to repeat for the umpteenth time - the gist though is that the McCanns said someone else opened the shutters and window.
Does this make forum members laugh and if so please explain why it tickles you so.
Also anything else that gets you giggling about the “abduction story” as told by the McCanns, please share your views here.
Nothing to laugh about at all, as far as I am concerned.
Absolutely nothing.
-
Nothing to laugh about at all, as far as I am concerned.
Absolutely nothing.
Totally agree
-
According to at least one member of this forum the McCanns “abduction story” is laughable.
So what exactly is the abduction story told by the McCanns, which bits make forum members laugh and why?
We all know some find the jemmied shutters rather hilarious but that is just a semantics game played by certain members objecting to the word “jemmied” which may or may not have been uttered by Gerry. Whether he meant actually jemmied with a crow bar or force opened by some other means is really a boring argument that seems pointless to repeat for the umpteenth time - the gist though is that the McCanns said someone else opened the shutters and window.
Does this make forum members laugh and if so please explain why it tickles you so.
Also anything else that gets you giggling about the “abduction story” as told by the McCanns, please share your views here.
I don't know about laughable but abduction from the children's bedroom has been shown to be less than credible compared to the abduction from the street scenario which at least is/supported by some credible evidence.
-
It might just be me ... but I don't find anything to laugh about in the heart stopping panic of realising that one of your children is missing.
I think it is a primeval terror which is inbred in all of us. In Madeleine's case the realisation that the window which had never been opened by them was open leaving but one immediate logical conclusion that someone unknown to them had opened it is not a laugh ... it is a horror.
Sorry Brie but there is a very big question mark over this given that Kate McCanns fingerprints were the only ones found on the window. If I came across an open window in such circumstances I would have made a beeline for the front door and not waste time running to any tapas bar. Sceptics are right to question her claims and alleged actions that night since they just don't add up imo.
-
I don't know about laughable but abduction from the children's bedroom has been shown to be less than credible compared to the abduction from the street scenario which at least is/supported by some credible evidence.
”Has been shown” by whom?
-
Sorry Brie but there is a very big question mark over this given that Kate McCanns fingerprints were the only ones found on the window. If I came across an open window in such circumstances I would have made a beeline for the front door and not waste time running to any tapas bar. Sceptics are right to question her claims and alleged actions that night since they just don't add up imo.
She didn’t run to “any tapas bar”, she searched the apartment and then ran to get help from her husband and friends, who happened to be in the OC Tapas bar. What is incredible about that? Where is the time wasting?
-
”Has been shown” by whom?
By many people including several former detectives. There isn't a shred of evidence to support Madeleine McCann being abducted from her bed.
-
She didn’t run to “any tapas bar”, she searched the apartment and then ran to get help from her husband and friends, who happened to be in the OC Tapas bar. What is incredible about that? Where is the time wasting?
Yes, she screamed something from the balcony and instead of going out the front to check she ran to the tapas bar wasting more time. Strangely she never once did the obvious thing and check the car park for Madeleine.
-
By many people including several former detectives. There isn't a shred of evidence to support Madeleine McCann being abducted from her bed.
There isn’t a shred of evidence she was abducted from the street.
-
Yes, she screamed something from the balcony and instead of going out the front to check she ran to the tapas bar wasting more time. Strangely she never once did the obvious thing and check the car park for Madeleine.
What do you think this means and how much time do you believe she wasted?
-
Sorry Brie but there is a very big question mark over this given that Kate McCanns fingerprints were the only ones found on the window. If I came across an open window in such circumstances I would have made a beeline for the front door and not waste time running to any tapas bar. Sceptics are right to question her claims and alleged actions that night since they just don't add up imo.
I don’t think there is a formula to determine how to react on discovering one of your children missing from her bed ~ the bedroom window open and finding that what you thought was a security shutter was not.
If Kate McCann had opened the window from inside she would have used the handle.
In my opinion the position of her fingerprints on the glass is commensurate with leaning out of the window as she stated she had. I think if the window had been opened using a hand on the glass the prints would not have been the perfect impressions of only the tips of the fingers they were, but would have been smudged particularly by the heel of the hand making contact.
It would have taken the athletic Kate seconds to run to the tapas entrance and would in my opinion have been the quickest and most effective way to raise the alarm.
I don't think anything would make sense or add up in the immediate aftermath of a kidnapping. But what does make sense to me in retrospect as it did to Jane Tanner immediately she heard Madeleine was missing was that she had witnessed Madeleine being carried away.
-
I don’t think there is a formula to determine how to react on discovering one of your children missing from her bed ~ the bedroom window open and finding that what you thought was a security shutter was not.
If Kate McCann had opened the window from inside she would have used the handle.
In my opinion the position of her fingerprints on the glass is commensurate with leaning out of the window as she stated she had. I think if the window had been opened using a hand on the glass the prints would not have been the perfect impressions of only the tips of the fingers they were, but would have been smudged particularly by the heel of the hand making contact.
It would have taken the athletic Kate seconds to run to the tapas entrance and would in my opinion have been the quickest and most effective way to raise the alarm.
I don't think anything would make sense or add up in the immediate aftermath of a kidnapping. But what does make sense to me in retrospect as it did to Jane Tanner immediately she heard Madeleine was missing was that she had witnessed Madeleine being carried away.
What doesn’t make sense is
a) Why leave the twins alone and vulnerable after finding her child gone ?
b) Why did the ‘leaning out of the window’ tale appear only 4 years after the event in Kate’s book ? No mention of it in her statement.
-
These are not questions any police force or even Amaral have agonised over for years, they are just exercises in straw clutching for those desperate to mKe something out of nothing. Do either point make the “abduction story” laughable or less likely? I think not.
-
Far from being laughable an extraordinary tragedy was was allowed to unfold around the disappearance of this little girl because of the obduracy of the senior investigating officer who formulated his own version of events from which he has made a lucrative living by promoting unceasingly for over thirteen years.
All done without benefit of a scrap of supporting evidence to either justify or sustain the story he invented which is why the English dogs and their misinterpreted significance were leapt on as 'evidence' which was promoted as 'proof'.
-
Far from being laughable an extraordinary tragedy was was allowed to unfold around the disappearance of this little girl because of the obduracy of the senior investigating officer who formulated his own version of events from which he has made a lucrative living by promoting unceasingly for over thirteen years.
All done without benefit of a scrap of supporting evidence to either justify or sustain the story he invented which is why the English dogs and their misinterpreted significance were leapt on as 'evidence' which was promoted as 'proof'.
It was Amaral's job to investigate Madeleine's disappearance and to gather evidence. The actions of the McCanns and their friends and family definitely hampered the investigation imo.
-
It was Amaral's job to investigate Madeleine's disappearance and to gather evidence. The actions of the McCanns and their friends and family definitely hampered the investigation imo.
his job involves acting on the evidence...he didnt understand it so he was doomed to failure
-
By many people including several former detectives. There isn't a shred of evidence to support Madeleine McCann being abducted from her bed.
Redwood said he believed maddie was abducted by a stranger based on the evidence...the open window is evidence of an intruder
HCW says he has evidence his suspect killed madeleine
-
his job involves acting on the evidence...he didnt understand it so he was doomed to failure
Amaral was inventing a scenario in his head prior to studying any reports from the responding officers about the night before.
He worked out in his head who to be suspicious of before he had even bothered to visit the crime scene, talk to the victims or hear first hand intelligence from them or about them.
His subsequent preposterous theories would actually be laughable were it not for the paranoia being displayed revealing a mindset where he thought everyone was out to get him. Persecution complex at the least, I think.
His ego was such that in my opinion it far eclipsed Madeleine's plight and emphasised only that he was unfit to address the complexities of her case many of which he himself is responsible for adding to the mix from day one.
Throughout the Algarve holiday homes were being entered and burgled.
Holiday homes were being entered and little girls were being assaulted in their beds.
The area including Luz appears to have been a magnet for paedophiles.
Bearing in mind the path the investigation took it really is enough to generate hysterical laughter if Madeleine is factored out of the tragedy which in effect was what actually happened when it was decided that first Murat and then Madeleine's parents would fit whatever agenda Amaral had in his head ... perhaps an effort to sanitise his forthcoming trial ~ who knows?
-
There isn’t a shred of evidence she was abducted from the street.
You are definitely in denial. The tracker dogs fortunately tell a different tale.
-
It was Amaral's job to investigate Madeleine's disappearance and to gather evidence. The actions of the McCanns and their friends and family definitely hampered the investigation imo.
For starters, no truly innocent parent of a missing child refuses to answer dozens of simple police questions. Such a parent would be pro active and fully assist the police but this didn't happen here!
Who or what was Kate McCann scared of?
-
Redwood said he believed maddie was abducted by a stranger based on the evidence...the open window is evidence of an intruder
HCW says he has evidence his suspect killed madeleine
Was there an open window because NOBODY ELSE SAW ONE?
-
Was there an open window because NOBODY ELSE SAW ONE?
According to kate yes...it seems the police beleive her...and strangely its how its said CB burgles properteis
-
If my car is parked outside my house last thing at night and its gone in the morning is there any evidence of theft.
-
If my car is parked outside my house last thing at night and its gone in the morning is there any evidence of theft.
is there any evidence of theft.
Well obviously yes...the car has gone...clue being no car.
-
By many people including several former detectives. There isn't a shred of evidence to support Madeleine McCann being abducted from her bed.
Strange how Police forces have come to the conclusion that she was.
-
is there any evidence of theft.
Well obviously yes...the car has gone...clue being no car.
precisely...well done
-
What doesn’t make sense is
a) Why leave the twins alone and vulnerable after finding her child gone ?
b) Why did the ‘leaning out of the window’ tale appear only 4 years after the event in Kate’s book ? No mention of it in her statement.
Kate had searched the apartment, the abductor had gone and wouldn't be hanging about either. What questions were Kate asked in her interviews? she may have just said searched the apartment.
-
It was Amaral's job to investigate Madeleine's disappearance and to gather evidence. The actions of the McCanns and their friends and family definitely hampered the investigation imo.
Hampered it in what way? Please give specific examples.
-
You are definitely in denial. The tracker dogs fortunately tell a different tale.
No you are in denial, and in the thrall of the dogs. How come you believe the tracker dogs but dismiss the cadaver dogs? Icidentally how do the tracker dogs prove that Madeleine was not abducted from the apartment?
-
For starters, no truly innocent parent of a missing child refuses to answer dozens of simple police questions. Such a parent would be pro active and fully assist the police but this didn't happen here!
Who or what was Kate McCann scared of?
Easy - The PJ and of being fitted up. Next question?
-
Was there an open window because NOBODY ELSE SAW ONE?
Yes they did - check out the witness statements again.
-
For starters, no truly innocent parent of a missing child refuses to answer dozens of simple police questions. Such a parent would be pro active and fully assist the police but this didn't happen here!
Who or what was Kate McCann scared of?
Here's the online advice which somewhat mirrors the action Kate took:-
-
What doesn’t make sense is
a) Why leave the twins alone and vulnerable after finding her child gone ?
b) Why did the ‘leaning out of the window’ tale appear only 4 years after the event in Kate’s book ? No mention of it in her statement.
Here's the demonstration of how the children's window opened in 5A contained in GA's documentary TToTL. The position of Kate's fingerprints on the r/h edge of the r/h frame were consistent with her leaning out the window, not opening it.
https://youtu.be/x_ZdDTsFC2g?t=2753
-
For starters, no truly innocent parent of a missing child refuses to answer dozens of simple police questions. Such a parent would be pro active and fully assist the police but this didn't happen here!
Who or what was Kate McCann scared of?
Scared of beeing fitted up by an inept police force who didnt understand the evidence...whose co ordinator had alraedy acted illegally in another investigation
-
According to at least one member of this forum the McCanns “abduction story” is laughable.
So what exactly is the abduction story told by the McCanns, which bits make forum members laugh and why?
We all know some find the jemmied shutters rather hilarious but that is just a semantics game played by certain members objecting to the word “jemmied” which may or may not have been uttered by Gerry. Whether he meant actually jemmied with a crow bar or force opened by some other means is really a boring argument that seems pointless to repeat for the umpteenth time - the gist though is that the McCanns said someone else opened the shutters and window.
Does this make forum members laugh and if so please explain why it tickles you so.
Also anything else that gets you giggling about the “abduction story” as told by the McCanns, please share your views here.
Think you have twisted things a bit here ...the abduction laughable .. as in its a joke.
meaning
What is the word for not telling the whole truth?
While the noun prevarication is mostly just a fancy way to say "lie," it can also mean skirting around the truth, being vague about the truth, or even delaying giving someone an answer, especially to avoid telling them the whole truth.
The no evidence whatsoever...apart from the mccs saying so abduction ..is a joke IMO
-
Scared of beeing fitted up by an inept police force who didnt understand the evidence...whose co ordinator had alraedy acted illegally in another investigation
Well, that's a joke as well....seems they made sure the world was watching.
Far too many influential people involved for that to ever happen.
-
Well, that's a joke as well....seems they made sure the world was watching.
Far too many influential people involved for that to ever happen.
I don't agree....I think it's ridiculous to suggest it's anything else
-
I don't agree....I think it's ridiculous to suggest it's anything else
You would...But no way was the mccs going to be unfairly treated in anyway ..for some strange reason
We prefer not to discuss this with Stuart Prior: we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to prevent their detention. His concern on that subject is obvious.
uring the couple's interrogation, at the beginning of September, the two police forces defined a common strategy: to go forward with the search for evidence concerning the crimes of concealment of a corpse and simulation of abduction; actively pursue investigations to find the body; get to the bottom of the causes of death. We realised very quickly that it was not going to be like that. After the interrogations and the McCanns' return to England, the British police lost interest in the case, giving the impression that their work was finished. We were left to pursue the investigation alone. It would seem that the reasons for their presence in our country were linked more to the McCann couple than to Madeleine. The child disappeared in Portugal, not in Great Britain. For what reasons did they depart immediately after the McCanns? A very hard, yet crucial question to answer.
-
You would...But no way was the mccs going to be unfairly treated in anyway ..for some strange reason
We prefer not to discuss this with Stuart Prior: we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to prevent their detention. His concern on that subject is obvious.
uring the couple's interrogation, at the beginning of September, the two police forces defined a common strategy: to go forward with the search for evidence concerning the crimes of concealment of a corpse and simulation of abduction; actively pursue investigations to find the body; get to the bottom of the causes of death. We realised very quickly that it was not going to be like that. After the interrogations and the McCanns' return to England, the British police lost interest in the case, giving the impression that their work was finished. We were left to pursue the investigation alone. It would seem that the reasons for their presence in our country were linked more to the McCann couple than to Madeleine. The child disappeared in Portugal, not in Great Britain. For what reasons did they depart immediately after the McCanns? A very hard, yet crucial question to answer.
I disagree...Kate felt she was about to be arrested..I think her lawyer advised her she might be.
Once arrested it would be very difficult for the UK authorities to interfere in another countries judicial system..you won't accept that but it's s fact.
Theres no point in quoting from amarals book...it's full of falsehoods and for anyone who understand s the case and the evidence has no credibility
-
Think you have twisted things a bit here ...the abduction laughable .. as in its a joke.
meaning
What is the word for not telling the whole truth?
While the noun prevarication is mostly just a fancy way to say "lie," it can also mean skirting around the truth, being vague about the truth, or even delaying giving someone an answer, especially to avoid telling them the whole truth.
The no evidence whatsoever...apart from the mccs saying so abduction ..is a joke IMO
I don't consider the McCanns opinion of what happened to Madeleine in any way relevant. If they had both dropped dead that night of shock or grief without uttering a word I would still be of the opinion that Madeleine had been abducted. Why do you and your fellow mirth-seekers find that so laughable?
-
I disagree...Kate felt she was about to be arrested..I think her lawyer advised her she might be.
Once arrested it would be very difficult for the UK authorities to interfere in another countries judicial system..you won't accept that but it's s fact.
Theres no point in quoting from amarals book...it's full of falsehoods and for anyone who understand s the case and the evidence has no credibility
Wrong its wrote from the case files...nothing in it is libel...it jas every credibility or it would have been banned.
Now why on earth would her lawyer think she was going to be arrested....if she is as innocent as you say
-
Well, that's a joke as well....seems they made sure the world was watching.
Far too many influential people involved for that to ever happen.
What are you talking about 'made sure the world was watching' ?
-
Wrong its wrote from the case files...nothing in it is libel...it jas every credibility or it would have been banned.
Now why on earth would her lawyer think she was going to be arrested....if she is as innocent as you say
So many things wrong with this post it’s hard to know where to start.
-
You would...But no way was the mccs going to be unfairly treated in anyway ..for some strange reason
We prefer not to discuss this with Stuart Prior: we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to prevent their detention. His concern on that subject is obvious.
uring the couple's interrogation, at the beginning of September, the two police forces defined a common strategy: to go forward with the search for evidence concerning the crimes of concealment of a corpse and simulation of abduction; actively pursue investigations to find the body; get to the bottom of the causes of death. We realised very quickly that it was not going to be like that. After the interrogations and the McCanns' return to England, the British police lost interest in the case, giving the impression that their work was finished. We were left to pursue the investigation alone. It would seem that the reasons for their presence in our country were linked more to the McCann couple than to Madeleine. The child disappeared in Portugal, not in Great Britain. For what reasons did they depart immediately after the McCanns? A very hard, yet crucial question to answer.
So much for the Police on the ground agreeing with his theory.
-
Wrong its wrote from the case files...nothing in it is libel...it jas every credibility or it would have been banned.
Now why on earth would her lawyer think she was going to be arrested....if she is as innocent as you say
It is banned in the UK
-
It is banned in the UK
By whom?
-
Wrong its wrote from the case files...nothing in it is libel...it jas every credibility or it would have been banned.
Now why on earth would her lawyer think she was going to be arrested....if she is as innocent as you say
The PJ didn't understand the evidence ...neither did the court.. innocent people get arrested...do you not realise that
-
precisely...well done
We only have your word that the car was ever outside. No one else saw it, so you might be lying.
-
We only have your word that the car was ever outside. No one else saw it, so you might be lying.
The insurance company paid out....they accepted I wasn't...My witness statement was accepted as being truthful
-
Strange how Police forces have come to the conclusion that she was.
I think you will find that the police are exploring all options.
-
If my car is parked outside my house last thing at night and its gone in the morning is there any evidence of theft.
Not necessarily, maybe another member of the family took it.
-
No you are in denial, and in the thrall of the dogs. How come you believe the tracker dogs but dismiss the cadaver dogs? Icidentally how do the tracker dogs prove that Madeleine was not abducted from the apartment?
*%87 ...could it be that the tracker dogs were used hours after the child disappeared whereas the cadaver dogs weren't brought in until weeks later. I know which ones I would trust completely.
If Madeleine had been carried out of the apartment the dogs would not have found her ground scent. As it was she walked out barefoot and they found her scent with no trouble whatsoever.
-
I think you will find that the police are exploring all options.
I dont see any evidence that any police force is looking at the McCanns. what we do know is taht HCW says he has evidence the his supect...christian b...murdered Maddie. that's pretty definite. the germans have very strict privacy laws...I doubt he would say that unless he had that evidence
-
Easy - The PJ and of being fitted up. Next question?
Sorry, but that's just a pathetic excuse. Kate McCanns refusal to cooperate will haunt her forever, little wonder the Portuguese detective asked if she understood that by refusing to answer their questions she was impeding the investigation into her daughters disappearance to which she replied in the affirmative. Unbelievable imo!
-
I dont see any evidence that any police force is looking at the McCanns. what we do know is taht HCW says he has evidence the his supect...christian b...murdered Maddie. that's pretty definite. the germans have very strict privacy laws...I doubt he would say that unless he had that evidence
It's their job to look at every possibility.
-
I think you will find that the police are exploring all options.
I have to say that I see no evidence that any police force is investigating Madeleines parents.
Do you have any evidence that they are indeed doing so?
-
It's their job to look at every possibility.
Do you really think after 13 years they are still looking at the McCanns. Despite what the SC said I think the Mccans were ruled out years ago
-
Do you really think after 13 years they are still looking at the McCanns. Despite what the SC said I think the Mccans were ruled out years ago
But if only the police would just tell us how the McCanns have been ruled out.
-
perhaps someone could remind us what the SC said...wasn't it that the McCanns were not ruled out by the archiving report....not that they were not ruled out...theres a difference...a big difference
-
*%87 ...could it be that the tracker dogs were used hours after the child disappeared whereas the cadaver dogs weren't brought in until weeks later. I know which ones I would trust completely.
If Madeleine had been carried out of the apartment the dogs would not have found her ground scent. As it was she walked out barefoot and they found her scent with no trouble whatsoever.
*%87 how do you explain the PT prosecutors conclusion then?
“At 08.00 the GNR Search and Rescue sniffer dog team came into action, searches were begun from the resort in the direction of the beach, covering a 2 km area; in Praia da Luz 300m radius searches were made as well searches of abandoned houses, wells and waste land, the radius subsequently being expanded to 600m including the verges of the EN 125 motorway.
Subsequently an attempt was made to reconstruct the route taken by Madeleine by giving the dogs a blanket/towel used by her, but the results were not significant, given that the dogs are more trained for use in rural areas rather than urban or populated areas, the existence of more odours in the air making it impossible for the tracker dog to identify/locate the “target smell”.
Not all abducted children are carried anyway. She could have been taken from the Apartment and made to walk to the car.
-
Sorry, but that's just a pathetic excuse. Kate McCanns refusal to cooperate will haunt her forever, little wonder the Portuguese detective asked if she understood that by refusing to answer their questions she was impeding the investigation into her daughters disappearance to which she replied in the affirmative. Unbelievable imo!
I think your post is pathetic. Kate McCann’ “refusal to co-operate” (a statement in itself which is ballcocks) made absolutely no difference to the investigation as claiming to being innocent none of those questions would, if answered, have helped the police find Madeleine’s abductor, so how on earth would she be haunted by her refusal? Makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Kate did co operate. Posters want to ignore that the reason amaral and his team were so convinced of Kates guilt was they didnt understand the evidence. The only way kate could have helped them is if she had beat herself up...knelt on some glass ashtrays...put a bag over her head and confessed
-
Sorry, but that's just a pathetic excuse. Kate McCanns refusal to cooperate will haunt her forever, little wonder the Portuguese detective asked if she understood that by refusing to answer their questions she was impeding the investigation into her daughters disappearance to which she replied in the affirmative. Unbelievable imo!
I disgaree, John.
She was the arguida under questioning therefore the investigation being carried out was into her as the accused. She had already been interrogated for ... was it sixteen hours? and she answered many of the questions asked when she had been made a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance by intimating that she couldn't answer any more than she already had. So she had already answered all the questions they put to her.
In my opinion the Portuguese detective questioning her regarding the dogs didn't know what he was talking about and Kate was absolutely correct in following her lawyer's advice to keep her mouth shut.
Conversely Gerry did not heed the same advice and answered every question he was asked. But when he asked to have sight of the paperwork being waved under his nose allegedly detailing the dog evidence against him and Kate, that was refused.
What a farce!
-
I disgaree, John.
She was the arguida under questioning therefore the investigation being carried out was into her as the accused. She had already been interrogated for ... was it sixteen hours? and she answered many of the questions asked when she had been made a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance by intimating that she couldn't answer any more than she already had. So she had already answered all the questions they put to her.
In my opinion the Portuguese detective questioning her regarding the dogs didn't know what he was talking about and Kate was absolutely correct in following her lawyer's advice to keep her mouth shut.
Conversely Gerry did not heed the same advice and answered every question he was asked. But when he asked to have sight of the paperwork being waved under his nose allegedly detailing the dog evidence against him and Kate, that was refused.
What a farce!
I agree, Brietta. If this scenario played out in my country, under no circumstance would I cooperate with police who clearly had their own preconceived resolution.
-
I disgaree, John.
She was the arguida under questioning therefore the investigation being carried out was into her as the accused. She had already been interrogated for ... was it sixteen hours? and she answered many of the questions asked when she had been made a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance by intimating that she couldn't answer any more than she already had. So she had already answered all the questions they put to her.
In my opinion the Portuguese detective questioning her regarding the dogs didn't know what he was talking about and Kate was absolutely correct in following her lawyer's advice to keep her mouth shut.
Conversely Gerry did not heed the same advice and answered every question he was asked. But when he asked to have sight of the paperwork being waved under his nose allegedly detailing the dog evidence against him and Kate, that was refused.
What a farce!
Sixteen hours of interrogation? I make 3pm to 11pm eight hours.(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm)
There were 2.5 hours of breaks, too, (madeleine)so she was actually interviewed for five and a half hours.
Why the need to exaggerate?
-
She didn’t run to “any tapas bar”, she searched the apartment and then ran to get help from her husband and friends, who happened to be in the OC Tapas bar. What is incredible about that? Where is the time wasting?
Am being pernickerty here. They were NOT actually in the Tapas Bar; they were in the Tapas restaurant , which was next door, but separate
-
The run up to Kate's arguida interview was as follows ...
Snip
And how exactly are you supposed to prepare for being interrogated in a foreign language about the abduction of your child?
All I could do was to tell the police the truth – again – and hope that was what they were actually interested in
____________________________________________________________
I was due at the police station in Portimão at 2pm.
I finally went in for my interview at 2.55pm.
____________________________________________________________
At one point early on, something was read out from my initial statement, given on 4 May. It wasn’t quite accurate and I explained to the officer that the original meaning seemed to have been lost slightly in translation. To my astonishment, the interpreter became quite angry and suddenly interrupted, ‘What are you saying? That we interpreters can’t do our job? The interpreter will only have translated what you told her!’
____________________________________________________________
At 5pm, we had a fifteen-minute break, which I spent standing in the corridor outside the interrogation room.
We stopped again at 7.50pm, supposedly for five minutes. I was getting tired by now and hoping it
would all be finished fairly soon. No such luck. Those five minutes stretched into two and a quarter hours.
____________________________________________________________
I heard later that he’d (Gerry) twice come back to Portimão in the hope of collecting Trisha and me. At midnight he was sent home.
____________________________________________________________
It was 12.40am by the time the interview – and the attendant rigmarole of having it translated into Portuguese and then read back to me in English by the interpreter – was over. I was told I would have to return at ten o’clock in the morning.
I left the station with Trish, Carlos and Sofia a little after 1am.
____________________________________________________________
It must have been close to 4am when Carlos and Sofia left, saying they would see me at the police station later that morning.
____________________________________________________________
It was almost 5am when we finally got to bed.
madeleine ... Kate McCann
-
Do you really think after 13 years they are still looking at the McCanns. Despite what the SC said I think the Mccans were ruled out years ago
Not according to the highest court in Portugal but then you know this very well but still continue to deny it.
-
Not according to the highest court in Portugal but then you know this very well but still continue to deny it.
As I've said ...what did the SC say..
Did they say the McCanns are not ruled out or did they say...they were not ruled out by the arching report.
I'll have to check...there is s massive difference between the too.
Having said that I think it's clear they are ruled out. I think the SC judgement was perverse and will be heavily criticised by the ECHR...which could lead to amarals book being banned
-
perhaps someone could remind us what the SC said...wasn't it that the McCanns were not ruled out by the archiving report....not that they were not ruled out...theres a difference...a big difference
You can spin it any way you like but the McCanns claimed that they had been cleared and the Portuguese Supreme Court felt it necessary to state otherwise.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE2M9ylXsAAsB5q?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
As I've said ...what did the SC say..
Did they say the McCanns are not ruled out or did they say...they were not ruled out by the arching report.
I'll have to check...there is s massive difference between the too.
Having said that I think it's clear they are ruled out. I think the SC judgement was perverse and will be heavily criticised by the ECHR...which could lead to amarals book being banned
I'm not in the habit f repeating myself but for your benefit on this occasion I will do so.
Until Madeleine is found all investigative opportunities remain open.
-
You can spin it any way you like but the McCanns claimed that they had been cleared and the Portuguese Supreme Court felt it necessary to state otherwise.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE2M9ylXsAAsB5q?format=jpg&name=medium)
this is something else...of course they havent been proved innocent because a court never rules anyone innocent. Even if they had been tried and found guilty they would not have been proven innocent. have the needhams who were suspects been proven innocent...no.
has barry george been proven innocent...NO
It is a crazy statement from the Sc which imo shows they are not fit for purpose. they have a poor record at teh ECHR
-
this is something else...of course they havent been proved innocent because a court never rules anyone innocent. Even if they had been tried and found guilty they would not have been proven innocent. have the needhams who were suspects been proven innocent...no.
has barry george been proven innocent...NO
It is a crazy statement from the Sc which imo shows they are not fit for purpose. they have a poor record at teh ECHR
It is what it is.
-
I'm not in the habit f repeating myself but for your benefit on this occasion I will do so.
Until Madeleine is found all investigative opportunities remain open.
and i would say its clear the McCanns have been ruled out of this investiagtion and are not being investigated. SY have told us as much. .....so it seems SY have ruled them out and they are not being investigated
-
It is what it is.
Gunit showed some figures...the SC loses almost 9 out of ten cases that are heard at the ECHR
-
remember the SC in its judgement lists the staement taht the dogs alert to cadaver is a proven fact...we know the SC is a100% wrong there....so can they be trusted to get the facts right
-
I'm not in the habit f repeating myself but for your benefit on this occasion I will do so.
Until Madeleine is found all investigative opportunities remain open.
Are the McCanns currently under investigation then?
-
Are the McCanns currently under investigation then?
A stupid question. Since they haven't been cleared of involvement by the very country in which the missing kid disappeared and since they haven't managed to pin it on some unfortunate German paedophile or some dead guy from the Azores then this case is still wide open imo.
-
i have just read the judgement again. It says the mCcanns were not cleared by the archiving despatch,,,that was 2008. Therefore the SC were referring to the situation in 2008, 12 years ago...not now.
Rowley made it clear the mcCanns were not being investigating and he was happy their involvemnet had been dealt with...he regarded them as not being involved..cleared. obviously if new evidence comes to light things could change.
No where can I see the statement that the McCanns have not been proven innocent...i dont think the SC said that..if they did they should all be sacked.
I dont see anyone calling for CB to prove hes innocent. Thats a disgrace to justice and and any court making that statement is adisgrace and not fit for purpose..imo
-
A stupid question.
only stupid in as much as they are not...you and john both believe taht Maddie woke and wandered ...which rules out their involvement in any hiding of a body
-
i have just read the judgement again. It says the mCcanns were not cleared by the archiving despatch,,,that was 2008. Therefore the SC were referring to the situation in 2008, 12 years ago...not now.
Rowley made it clear the mcCanns were not being investigating and he was happy their involvemnet had been dealt with...he regarded them as not being involved..cleared. obviously if new evidence comes to light things could change.
No where can I see the statement that the McCanns have not been proven innocent...i dont think the SC said that..if they did they should all be sacked.
I dont see anyone calling for CB to prove hes innocent. Thats a disgrace to justice and and any court making that statement is adisgrace and not fit for purpose..imo
Your squirming again @)(++(*
-
Pedro da Carmo said the McCanns are not suspects and there no evidence against them....i think thats pretty clear
-
You can spin it any way you like but the McCanns claimed that they had been cleared and the Portuguese Supreme Court felt it necessary to state otherwise.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE2M9ylXsAAsB5q?format=jpg&name=medium)
"HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED INNOCENT"
-
"HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED INNOCENT"
Courts dont prove people innocent...I dont think the SC even said this..
But CB hasnt been proven innocent
-
Pedro da Carmo said the McCanns are not suspects and there no evidence against them....i think thats pretty clear
Don't you know by now that what these people say publicly and what they are really doing behind the scenes are often two very different things? Rowley stated publicly that the Met were not being given a free hand in this investigation and are being thwarted by political interference. That says it all for me.
Anyhoo...work beckons...laters my dear.
-
Don't you know by now that what these people say publicly and what they are really doing behind the scenes are often two very different things? Rowley stated publicly that the Met were not being given a free hand in this investigation and are being thwarted by political interference. That says it all for me.
Anyhoo...work beckons...laters my dear.
Rowley NEVER said that...more sceptivc untruths
Try and stick to the facts...the SC never said the Mccanns hadnt been proven innocent either...you should realise by now not to believe what you read in the papers
-
A stupid question. Since they haven't been cleared of involvement by the very country in which the missing kid disappeared and since they haven't managed to pin it on some unfortunate German paedophile or some dead guy from the Azores then this case is still wide open imo.
Are the McCanns currently under investigation then? A yes or no without the insult will do just fine.
-
"HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED INNOCENT"
Please supply the source document cite.
-
the mail sums it up..
Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
But they added: 'It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.
So I'm right yet again...the SC said they were not cleared by the archiving despatch...never said they had not been proved innocent...and if their statement is seen in context it has a different meaning.
-
Courts dont prove people innocent...I dont think the SC even said this..
But CB hasnt been proven innocent
No wonder they call this the laughable thread.
-
No wonder they call this the laughable thread.
I agree it's laughable ...that's why I posted it..
CB is a suspect...he will never be declared innocent
-
I agree it's laughable ...that's why I posted it..
CB is a suspect...he will never be declared innocent
Everyone's a suspect until they're not.
-
I don't consider the McCanns opinion of what happened to Madeleine in any way relevant. If they had both dropped dead that night of shock or grief without uttering a word I would still be of the opinion that Madeleine had been abducted. Why do you and your fellow mirth-seekers find that so laughable?
Did you see the pictures a few days later on Maddie's birthday?
wonder what the mccs found so laughable you will no the ones I mean VS
-
I agree it's laughable ...that's why I posted it..
CB is a suspect...he will never be declared innocent
Seems neither will the mccs.
-
Everyone's a suspect until they're not.
The McCanns are not
-
Seems neither will the mccs.
If CB is found guilty..they will
-
Did you see the pictures a few days later on Maddie's birthday?
wonder what the mccs found so laughable you will no the ones I mean VS
There a really simple explanation for that
-
(http://)
this is Cassidy Stay arriving at the funeral of her family who were all murdered...she survived by playing dead....why is she so happy
Brave Cassidy breaks down as six white coffins carrying her parents and four young siblings are carried from their funeral a week after they were gunned down in their Houston home
-
If CB is found guilty..they will
IF
-
Did you see the pictures a few days later on Maddie's birthday?
wonder what the mccs found so laughable you will no the ones I mean VS
This has absolutely no relevance to what I posted, and it's just plain nasty IMO.
-
IF
Whatever happens he won't be cleared or declared innocent
-
The McCanns are not
IMO both them, the Kennedys and a few others should have been prosecuted for interfering with the investigation but the Portuguese hadn't the balls to do it.
-
If CB is found guilty..they will
He won't even be charged as he has nothing to do with it imo.
-
Whatever happens he won't be cleared or declared innocent
No, not if he is a scapegoat he wont..probably say they havent enought to charge him
Probably get shelved like the mccs.IMO.
I doubt you will here anymore once the time is up in portugal ...that will be the end of that.
-
He won't even be charged as he has nothing to do with it imo.
HCW says he has evidence the suspect killed Maddie...I think that sounds quite significant
-
No, not if he is a scapegoat he wont..probably say they havent enought to charge him
Probably get shelved like the mccs.IMO.
I doubt you will here anymore once the time is up in portugal ...that will be the end of that.
Then he won't be cleared and won't be declared innocent
-
HCW...live on TV...we have enough evidence to say that our suspect killed Madeleine McCann...those are his exact words...some people are in total denial
-
HCW...live on TV...we have enough evidence to say that our suspect killed Madeleine McCann...those are his exact words...some people are in total denial
Mark Rowley an assistant commissioner to the MET said they have no definitive evidence either way, SY are still classing it has a missing persons case.There's a disconnect there.
-
Mark Rowley an assistant commissioner to the MET said they have no definitive evidence either way, SY are still classing it has a missing persons case.There's a disconnect there.
Depends when and if the Germans have shared the evidence....when did SY say it was a missing persons case...they and the McCanns seem to have gone very quiet
-
I agree it's laughable ...that's why I posted it..
CB is a suspect...he will never be declared innocent
I'll declare he is innocent until proven guilty. Or is this only when he is charged with the crime, that you have the presumption of innocence?
-
This thread is so off topic you may as well delete it.
-
This thread is so off topic you may as well delete it.
That's laughable too.
-
I'll declare he is innocent until proven guilty. Or is this only when he is charged with the crime, that you have the presumption of innocence?
Ask those who continually claim the McCanns havent been declared innocent...as though its some indication of guilt..
-
Ask those who continually claim the McCanns havent been declared innocent...as though its some indication of guilt..
Well, it certainly seems an indication they are not declared innocent.
-
Well, it certainly seems an indication they are not declared innocent.
Has Robert Murat been declared innocent? If not, is it OK to suggest he dunnit still?
-
Well, it certainly seems an indication they are not declared innocent.
AFAIAC its a stupid idea becasue it just isnt something that happens...and as I recall the SC never said it..
even Barry George hasnt been declared innocent
-
Has Robert Murat been declared innocent? If not, is it OK to suggest he dunnit still?
If you want ....you don't have to ask me VS suggest what you think fit.
-
Well, it certainly seems an indication they are not declared innocent.
Perhaps you could tell us when suspects are declared innocent...by whom...and perhaps a couple of examples
-
Perhaps you could tell us when suspects are declared innocent...by whom...and perhaps a couple of examples
Why my point is the mccs are not cleared of any involvement in maddies disappearance.
I not interested in others.
-
Why my point is the mccs are not cleared of any involvement in maddies disappearance.
I not interested in others.
I'd say they are cleared..the SC doesn't say they aren't...just that they weren't cleared by the archiving report...not a llot of people know that because the act just like parrots and don't read what the SC actually say
-
I'd say they are cleared..the SC doesn't say they aren't...just that they weren't cleared by the archiving report...not a llot of people know that because the act just like parrots and don't read what the SC actually say
@)(++(*
-
@)(++(*
You haven't got a clue what the SC said...you're just listening to others...try reading it
It says what I've said
-
You haven't got a clue what the SC said...you're just listening to others...try reading it
It says what I've said
Did it.
McCanns instruct the lawyer who has acted for them for eight years, Isabel Duarte: "Do not say anything about the court case we lost to anybody":
'DON'T SAY ANYTHING!'
Kate and Gerry McCann ban their lawyer from answering questions after judges reveal they have NOT been cleared over Madeleine’s disappearance
MADELEINE McCann’s parents have begged their Portuguese lawyer to keep quiet after judges ruled they weren’t in the clear over their daughter’s disappearance.
Isabel Duarte is believed to have been readying herself to comment on the failed libel battle against ex-cop Goncalo Amaral, who claims the couple faked Maddie’s abduction.
But Kate and Gerry have now reportedly ordered her to not “say anything” or respond to any media requests after the judgement was handed down last week.
Ms Duarte said today: “We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself.”
-
Did it.
McCanns instruct the lawyer who has acted for them for eight years, Isabel Duarte: "Do not say anything about the court case we lost to anybody":
'DON'T SAY ANYTHING!'
Kate and Gerry McCann ban their lawyer from answering questions after judges reveal they have NOT been cleared over Madeleine’s disappearance
MADELEINE McCann’s parents have begged their Portuguese lawyer to keep quiet after judges ruled they weren’t in the clear over their daughter’s disappearance.
Isabel Duarte is believed to have been readying herself to comment on the failed libel battle against ex-cop Goncalo Amaral, who claims the couple faked Maddie’s abduction.
But Kate and Gerry have now reportedly ordered her to not “say anything” or respond to any media requests after the judgement was handed down last week.
Ms Duarte said today: “We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself.”
How reliable is this..where's it from
.the SC judgement is on here to read for yourself...it says what I've said
It's from the Sun...lol
-
If you want ....you don't have to ask me VS suggest what you think fit.
Robert Murat has not been declared innocent then.
-
How reliable is this..where's it from
.the SC judgement is on here to read for yourself...it says what I've said
It's from the Sun...lol
What about the damage THEY did to maddie fgs.
They expected damages for the damage done to there family.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html
Madeleine McCann's parents ban their lawyer from speaking to the press after Portugal's supreme court insisted they hadn't been proved innocent over their daughter's death
Isabel Duarte thought have been considering a reaction after a failed libel battle
Ex-policeman Goncalo Amaral claimed the couple faked Maddie's abduction
But Kate and Gerry have reportedly ordered her 'not to say anything' about case
By Tracey Kandohla For Mail Online
Published: 17:58, 17 February 2017 | Updated: 18:31, 17 February 2017.
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
Whilst Isabel Duarte had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!'
Lisbon-based Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral.
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance
But the McCann's have now ordered her not to respond to any media request for their reaction.
Ms Duarte said today: 'We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself.'
The couple lost on appeal their nine-year civil battle against the Portuguese ex-policeman who they had tried to silence for claiming their daughter had been accidentally killed in a holiday apartment in May 2007 and they had covered it up.
They have always vehemently denied any involvement.
Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry were ruled out as 'arguidos' – formal suspect - in 2008 but the country's top court said in newly released 76-page dossier that this does not 'equate to proof of innocence', meaning suspicion still hangs over them.
Senior judges claim the investigation into them was only shelved because of lack of evidence.
Whilst Isabel Duarte (right) had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!' Also pictured: Kate McCann (left) and friend Fiona Payne
Their latest order to their lawyer may signal the end of their legal fight against Mr Amaral with no anticipation of them challenging the ruling in the European Court of Human Rights.
The couple, both 48, from Rothley, Leics, have previously gone to extraordinary lengths to stop people close to them talking and even prevented some British newspapers from reporting certain details about the Maddie mystery.
They have also banned all family members and friends from talking to journalists.
Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral (pictured)
The pair only speak publically on occasional anniversaries of their daughter's disappearance. And Kate does the odd interview as ambassador for Missing People to highlight the charity's work.
Their long-serving spokesman Clarence Mitchell sometimes comments on their behalf but he no longer gets paid for his services.
The McCann's dropped him last year from the Maddie Fund payroll to cut costs but the renowned PR assists them, he says, because 'hopefully it helps in the search for Madeleine.'
The previously reported Supreme Court ruling said there were 'serious concerns' over the theory three-year-old Maddie had been snatched from her bedroom at the Ocean Club apartment in the Algarve's Praia da Luz nearly 10 years ago.
The comments were made in the huge dossier after Mr Goncalo, who headed the hunt for the missing girl, who was handed victory. The McCanns had insisted 'poisonous lies' in his 2008 Maddie book The Truth of the Lie and a TV documentary about the case had been hurtful and libellous.
The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority. Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
The McCann's have now ordered Duarte not to respond to any media request for their reaction
After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCann's.
Mr Mitchell added: 'I haven't seen the ruling so it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it in any way. It is purely for the lawyers.'
Mr Amaral, 58, was booted off the original Maddie inquiry after criticising British police, and later retired. He insists everything written in his book was already contained in police and court case files which had been made public.
He is now writing a second Maddie book after judges ruled his 'right to freedom of expression' was worthy of greater protection than the McCann's 'right to honour.'
Ms Duarte, speaking before the couple's original libel victory was overturned on appeal: 'It has been proved in the civil file that Mr Amaral earned around 380,000 Euros in one year from the book, which is made of up false stories based on the case.
Kate and Gerry expect compensation for the dreadful damages this book has brought their family.'
-----------------------------------------------
-
What about the damage THEY did to maddie fgs.
They expected damages for the damage done to there family.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html
Madeleine McCann's parents ban their lawyer from speaking to the press after Portugal's supreme court insisted they hadn't been proved innocent over their daughter's death
Isabel Duarte thought have been considering a reaction after a failed libel battle
Ex-policeman Goncalo Amaral claimed the couple faked Maddie's abduction
But Kate and Gerry have reportedly ordered her 'not to say anything' about case
By Tracey Kandohla For Mail Online
Published: 17:58, 17 February 2017 | Updated: 18:31, 17 February 2017.
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
Whilst Isabel Duarte had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!'
Lisbon-based Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral.
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance
But the McCann's have now ordered her not to respond to any media request for their reaction.
Ms Duarte said today: 'We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself.'
The couple lost on appeal their nine-year civil battle against the Portuguese ex-policeman who they had tried to silence for claiming their daughter had been accidentally killed in a holiday apartment in May 2007 and they had covered it up.
They have always vehemently denied any involvement.
Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry were ruled out as 'arguidos' – formal suspect - in 2008 but the country's top court said in newly released 76-page dossier that this does not 'equate to proof of innocence', meaning suspicion still hangs over them.
Senior judges claim the investigation into them was only shelved because of lack of evidence.
Whilst Isabel Duarte (right) had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!' Also pictured: Kate McCann (left) and friend Fiona Payne
Their latest order to their lawyer may signal the end of their legal fight against Mr Amaral with no anticipation of them challenging the ruling in the European Court of Human Rights.
The couple, both 48, from Rothley, Leics, have previously gone to extraordinary lengths to stop people close to them talking and even prevented some British newspapers from reporting certain details about the Maddie mystery.
They have also banned all family members and friends from talking to journalists.
Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral (pictured)
The pair only speak publically on occasional anniversaries of their daughter's disappearance. And Kate does the odd interview as ambassador for Missing People to highlight the charity's work.
Their long-serving spokesman Clarence Mitchell sometimes comments on their behalf but he no longer gets paid for his services.
The McCann's dropped him last year from the Maddie Fund payroll to cut costs but the renowned PR assists them, he says, because 'hopefully it helps in the search for Madeleine.'
The previously reported Supreme Court ruling said there were 'serious concerns' over the theory three-year-old Maddie had been snatched from her bedroom at the Ocean Club apartment in the Algarve's Praia da Luz nearly 10 years ago.
The comments were made in the huge dossier after Mr Goncalo, who headed the hunt for the missing girl, who was handed victory. The McCanns had insisted 'poisonous lies' in his 2008 Maddie book The Truth of the Lie and a TV documentary about the case had been hurtful and libellous.
The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority. Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
The McCann's have now ordered Duarte not to respond to any media request for their reaction
After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCann's.
Mr Mitchell added: 'I haven't seen the ruling so it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it in any way. It is purely for the lawyers.'
Mr Amaral, 58, was booted off the original Maddie inquiry after criticising British police, and later retired. He insists everything written in his book was already contained in police and court case files which had been made public.
He is now writing a second Maddie book after judges ruled his 'right to freedom of expression' was worthy of greater protection than the McCann's 'right to honour.'
Ms Duarte, speaking before the couple's original libel victory was overturned on appeal: 'It has been proved in the civil file that Mr Amaral earned around 380,000 Euros in one year from the book, which is made of up false stories based on the case.
Kate and Gerry expect compensation for the dreadful damages this book has brought their family.'
-----------------------------------------------
How many times do you need to be told that the SC didn't say they hadn't been proved innocent and how many times do you need to be told that just because it's in the paper doesn't make it true
-
What about the damage THEY did to maddie fgs.
They expected damages for the damage done to there family.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html
Madeleine McCann's parents ban their lawyer from speaking to the press after Portugal's supreme court insisted they hadn't been proved innocent over their daughter's death
Isabel Duarte thought have been considering a reaction after a failed libel battle
Ex-policeman Goncalo Amaral claimed the couple faked Maddie's abduction
But Kate and Gerry have reportedly ordered her 'not to say anything' about case
By Tracey Kandohla For Mail Online
Published: 17:58, 17 February 2017 | Updated: 18:31, 17 February 2017.
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
Whilst Isabel Duarte had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!'
Lisbon-based Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral.
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance
But the McCann's have now ordered her not to respond to any media request for their reaction.
Ms Duarte said today: 'We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself.'
The couple lost on appeal their nine-year civil battle against the Portuguese ex-policeman who they had tried to silence for claiming their daughter had been accidentally killed in a holiday apartment in May 2007 and they had covered it up.
They have always vehemently denied any involvement.
Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry were ruled out as 'arguidos' – formal suspect - in 2008 but the country's top court said in newly released 76-page dossier that this does not 'equate to proof of innocence', meaning suspicion still hangs over them.
Senior judges claim the investigation into them was only shelved because of lack of evidence.
Whilst Isabel Duarte (right) had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!' Also pictured: Kate McCann (left) and friend Fiona Payne
Their latest order to their lawyer may signal the end of their legal fight against Mr Amaral with no anticipation of them challenging the ruling in the European Court of Human Rights.
The couple, both 48, from Rothley, Leics, have previously gone to extraordinary lengths to stop people close to them talking and even prevented some British newspapers from reporting certain details about the Maddie mystery.
They have also banned all family members and friends from talking to journalists.
Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral (pictured)
The pair only speak publically on occasional anniversaries of their daughter's disappearance. And Kate does the odd interview as ambassador for Missing People to highlight the charity's work.
Their long-serving spokesman Clarence Mitchell sometimes comments on their behalf but he no longer gets paid for his services.
The McCann's dropped him last year from the Maddie Fund payroll to cut costs but the renowned PR assists them, he says, because 'hopefully it helps in the search for Madeleine.'
The previously reported Supreme Court ruling said there were 'serious concerns' over the theory three-year-old Maddie had been snatched from her bedroom at the Ocean Club apartment in the Algarve's Praia da Luz nearly 10 years ago.
The comments were made in the huge dossier after Mr Goncalo, who headed the hunt for the missing girl, who was handed victory. The McCanns had insisted 'poisonous lies' in his 2008 Maddie book The Truth of the Lie and a TV documentary about the case had been hurtful and libellous.
The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority. Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
The McCann's have now ordered Duarte not to respond to any media request for their reaction
After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCann's.
Mr Mitchell added: 'I haven't seen the ruling so it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it in any way. It is purely for the lawyers.'
Mr Amaral, 58, was booted off the original Maddie inquiry after criticising British police, and later retired. He insists everything written in his book was already contained in police and court case files which had been made public.
He is now writing a second Maddie book after judges ruled his 'right to freedom of expression' was worthy of greater protection than the McCann's 'right to honour.'
Ms Duarte, speaking before the couple's original libel victory was overturned on appeal: 'It has been proved in the civil file that Mr Amaral earned around 380,000 Euros in one year from the book, which is made of up false stories based on the case.
Kate and Gerry expect compensation for the dreadful damages this book has brought their family.'
-----------------------------------------------
They didn't do any damage to Maddie...it looks like that was CB
-
How’s Amaral’s second book coming along I wonder? Shouldn’t be long now...
-
What about the damage THEY did to maddie fgs.
They expected damages for the damage done to there family.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html
Madeleine McCann's parents ban their lawyer from speaking to the press after Portugal's supreme court insisted they hadn't been proved innocent over their daughter's death
Isabel Duarte thought have been considering a reaction after a failed libel battle
Ex-policeman Goncalo Amaral claimed the couple faked Maddie's abduction
But Kate and Gerry have reportedly ordered her 'not to say anything' about case
By Tracey Kandohla For Mail Online
Published: 17:58, 17 February 2017 | Updated: 18:31, 17 February 2017.
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
Whilst Isabel Duarte had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!'
Lisbon-based Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral.
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance
But the McCann's have now ordered her not to respond to any media request for their reaction.
Ms Duarte said today: 'We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself.'
The couple lost on appeal their nine-year civil battle against the Portuguese ex-policeman who they had tried to silence for claiming their daughter had been accidentally killed in a holiday apartment in May 2007 and they had covered it up.
They have always vehemently denied any involvement.
Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry were ruled out as 'arguidos' – formal suspect - in 2008 but the country's top court said in newly released 76-page dossier that this does not 'equate to proof of innocence', meaning suspicion still hangs over them.
Senior judges claim the investigation into them was only shelved because of lack of evidence.
Whilst Isabel Duarte (right) had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!' Also pictured: Kate McCann (left) and friend Fiona Payne
Their latest order to their lawyer may signal the end of their legal fight against Mr Amaral with no anticipation of them challenging the ruling in the European Court of Human Rights.
The couple, both 48, from Rothley, Leics, have previously gone to extraordinary lengths to stop people close to them talking and even prevented some British newspapers from reporting certain details about the Maddie mystery.
They have also banned all family members and friends from talking to journalists.
Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral (pictured)
The pair only speak publically on occasional anniversaries of their daughter's disappearance. And Kate does the odd interview as ambassador for Missing People to highlight the charity's work.
Their long-serving spokesman Clarence Mitchell sometimes comments on their behalf but he no longer gets paid for his services.
The McCann's dropped him last year from the Maddie Fund payroll to cut costs but the renowned PR assists them, he says, because 'hopefully it helps in the search for Madeleine.'
The previously reported Supreme Court ruling said there were 'serious concerns' over the theory three-year-old Maddie had been snatched from her bedroom at the Ocean Club apartment in the Algarve's Praia da Luz nearly 10 years ago.
The comments were made in the huge dossier after Mr Goncalo, who headed the hunt for the missing girl, who was handed victory. The McCanns had insisted 'poisonous lies' in his 2008 Maddie book The Truth of the Lie and a TV documentary about the case had been hurtful and libellous.
The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority. Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.
And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
The McCann's have now ordered Duarte not to respond to any media request for their reaction
After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCann's.
Mr Mitchell added: 'I haven't seen the ruling so it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it in any way. It is purely for the lawyers.'
Mr Amaral, 58, was booted off the original Maddie inquiry after criticising British police, and later retired. He insists everything written in his book was already contained in police and court case files which had been made public.
He is now writing a second Maddie book after judges ruled his 'right to freedom of expression' was worthy of greater protection than the McCann's 'right to honour.'
Ms Duarte, speaking before the couple's original libel victory was overturned on appeal: 'It has been proved in the civil file that Mr Amaral earned around 380,000 Euros in one year from the book, which is made of up false stories based on the case.
Kate and Gerry expect compensation for the dreadful damages this book has brought their family.'
-----------------------------------------------
I said the McCanns silenced people and there's one of their cheerleaders agreeing with me. Perhaps she'd been silenced too.
-
They didn't do any damage to Maddie...it looks like that was CB
How many times do you have to fabricate what you think happened?
Wether you like it or not .seems you don't the mccs are not cleared of any involvement in what happened to Maddie
They left her to her fate for a start.
There wasn't enough evidence .not no evidence.
-
How many times do you have to fabricate what you think happened?
Wether you like it or not .seems you don't the mccs are not cleared of any involvement in what happened to Maddie
They left her to her fate for a start.
There wasn't enough evidence .not no evidence.
Who said the McCanns are not cleared of any involvement...cite . The SC didn't say that
-
I said the McCanns silenced people and there's one of their cheerleaders agreeing with me. Perhaps she'd been silenced too.
That's what I wondered when I saw Tracey Kandohla had written it.
-
I said the McCanns silenced people and there's one of their cheerleaders agreeing with me. Perhaps she'd been silenced too.
Does that mean from now on you accept Tracy Kandohla’s word as gospel?
-
I said the McCanns silenced people and there's one of their cheerleaders agreeing with me. Perhaps she'd been silenced too.
That isn't what you said...at least try and quote your own posts correctly
-
Who said the McCanns are not cleared of any involvement...cite . The SC didn't say that
Your Laughable D....what do you think suspicion still hangs over them...means
The previously reported Supreme Court ruling said there were 'serious concerns' over the theory three-year-old Maddie had been snatched from her bedroom at the Ocean Club apartment in the Algarve's Praia da Luz nearly 10 years ago.
Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry were ruled out as 'arguidos' – formal suspect - in 2008 but the country's top court said in newly released 76-page dossier that this does not 'equate to proof of innocence', meaning suspicion still hangs over them
-
Your Laughable D....what do you think suspicion still hangs over them...means
The previously reported Supreme Court ruling said there were 'serious concerns' over the theory three-year-old Maddie had been snatched from her bedroom at the Ocean Club apartment in the Algarve's Praia da Luz nearly 10 years ago.
Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry were ruled out as 'arguidos' – formal suspect - in 2008 but the country's top court said in newly released 76-page dossier that this does not 'equate to proof of innocence', meaning suspicion still hangs over them
You are quoting the newspaper not the the SC.
Everything I have posted re the SC ruling is 100 % correct...the article isnt
-
I said the McCanns silenced people and there's one of their cheerleaders agreeing with me. Perhaps she'd been silenced too.
Why do you think she’s been silenced? Here she is last month, quoting a friend of the McCanns who obviously hasn’t been banned by them from speaking to the media
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8526773/Kate-Gerry-McCann-wont-surprised-Germans-drop-Maddie-case.html
-
Why do you think she’s been silenced? Here she is last month, quoting a friend of the McCanns who obviously hasn’t been banned by them from speaking to the media
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8526773/Kate-Gerry-McCann-wont-surprised-Germans-drop-Maddie-case.html
A 'friend' who isn't prepared to be indentified. Why not?
-
A 'friend' who isn't prepared to be indentified. Why not?
Perhaps they’re not comfortable with the world knowing that their ‘friend’ is paid to be ‘ a friend’ ?
-
A 'friend' who isn't prepared to be indentified. Why not?
In case the McCanns have them assassinated?
-
In case the McCanns have them assassinated?
That is a laugh.
-
Why do you think she’s been silenced? Here she is last month, quoting a friend of the McCanns who obviously hasn’t been banned by them from speaking to the media
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8526773/Kate-Gerry-McCann-wont-surprised-Germans-drop-Maddie-case.html
If the 'friend' was confident that they were speaking officially why would they hide their identity?
-
If the 'friend' was confident that they were speaking officially why would they hide their identity?
They are just using their rights to be confidential.
-
They are just using their rights to be confidential.
Maybe they should keep their mouths shut then. The McCanns are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
-
They are just using their rights to be confidential.
@)(++(*
Usually, when you say things in confidence ...you don't want anyone to know what you have said.
-
@)(++(*
Usually, when you say things in confidence ...you don't want anyone to know what you have said.
The purpose of this story seems to be to tell people what the McCanns are thinking and feeling.
In my opinion the message is that they won't accept a solution resembling the Ben Needham one. Anyone saying their daughter is dead has to offer real evidence in order for them to accept that conclusion. If the Germans can't do that then Operation Grange should continue with it's missing person enquiry.
-
The purpose of this story seems to be to tell people what the McCanns are thinking and feeling.
In my opinion the message is that they won't accept a solution resembling the Ben Needham one. Anyone saying their daughter is dead has to offer real evidence in order for them to accept that conclusion. If the Germans can't do that then Operation Grange should continue with it's missing person enquiry.
A missing person enquiry includes a dead person
-
A missing person enquiry includes a dead person
They are rejecting the German murder enquiry, that's for sure. An abduction is acceptable but not a murder, although there's no real evidence of either.
-
They are rejecting the German murder enquiry, that's for sure. An abduction is acceptable but not a murder, although there's no real evidence of either.
They are not rejecting anything...you are mistaken...their enquiry would obviously include the possibility of death...redwood said so...but not the certainty of death
HCW says he has the evidence..
-
If the 'friend' was confident that they were speaking officially why would they hide their identity?
Who said they hid their identity from the McCanns?
-
The purpose of this story seems to be to tell people what the McCanns are thinking and feeling.
In my opinion the message is that they won't accept a solution resembling the Ben Needham one. Anyone saying their daughter is dead has to offer real evidence in order for them to accept that conclusion. If the Germans can't do that then Operation Grange should continue with it's missing person enquiry.
Now perhaps you can speculate about why two people who know their child is dead and buried at the bottom of landfill would insist on real evidence of their daughter's death before accepting that she is.
-
Now perhaps you can speculate about why two people who know their child is dead and buried at the bottom of landfill would insist on real evidence of their daughter's death before accepting that she is.
If they accept she is ........they have the fund to consider and their reputation.
-
If they accept she is ........they have the fund to consider and their reputation.
If I may say so ... I think that post must rank as the most laughable yet in your attempt to smear using 'the fund' as your vehicle.
What fund ???
The one which was so depleted that it could not sustain paying to continue the search for Madeleine when no one else was looking for her?
Kate wrote her book, not for personal gain or aggrandisement as Amaral did, but to put the proceeds into the fund's coffers to enable the search for Madeleine to continue until the appropriate folk who should have been doing it, took over due to Madeleine's parents' hard work and persistence they should.
I've never been able to work out why sceptics have this visceral objection first touted by Amaral to the vehicle for financing the search for Madeleine.
-
Now perhaps you can speculate about why two people who know their child is dead and buried at the bottom of landfill would insist on real evidence of their daughter's death before accepting that she is.
There are two ways of interpreting everything they have said and done since 3rd May 2007. Their supporters believe that they have been driving the search for their abducted daughter. Others suspect that they have been trying to convince people of their own innocence. Either way there are good reasons to reject an unproven solution.
-
There are two ways of interpreting everything they have said and done since 3rd May 2007. Their supporters believe that they have been driving the search for their abducted daughter. Others suspect that they have been trying to convince people of their own innocence. Either way there are good reasons to reject an unproven solution.
Fortunately neither sceptic not supporters beliefs or opinions have any importance.
What is important is that none of the current police investigations have Madeleines parents as suspects in her disappearance,
-
Who said they hid their identity from the McCanns?
Just from the press and can you blame any one?
The " researchers" would be in full speed searching births, marriages, any personal details to be found of anyone.foolish enough to give a name.
-
There are two ways of interpreting everything they have said and done since 3rd May 2007. Their supporters believe that they have been driving the search for their abducted daughter. Others suspect that they have been trying to convince people of their own innocence. Either way there are good reasons to reject an unproven solution.
I think we may well have an answer in the next few months..
Amarals theory is an unproven solution so good you support its rejection
-
If they accept she is ........they have the fund to consider and their reputation.
Ah right. So the fund is more important to them than gaining any form of closure in your view? They are going to keep up the pretense of searching by renewing appeals for money from the general public which they will then do what with, in your view? And how does accepting Madeleine is dead impact on their reputation exactly?
-
There are two ways of interpreting everything they have said and done since 3rd May 2007. Their supporters believe that they have been driving the search for their abducted daughter. Others suspect that they have been trying to convince people of their own innocence. Either way there are good reasons to reject an unproven solution.
Perhaps you’d now like to spell those out, which is what I asked you to in my post, or do we have to guess at what you mean?
-
There are two ways of interpreting everything they have said and done since 3rd May 2007. Their supporters believe that they have been driving the search for their abducted daughter. Others suspect that they have been trying to convince people of their own innocence. Either way there are good reasons to reject an unproven solution.
If I may, why is it so important to you to push the dichotomy of so-called supporters and skeptics? Surely, it is not that simplistic?
-
Who said they hid their identity from the McCanns?
Why would the McCanns use anonymous others to speak for them? Deniability?
-
Fortunately neither sceptic not supporters beliefs or opinions have any importance.
What is important is that none of the current police investigations have Madeleines parents as suspects in her disappearance,
Isn't that a supporter belief?
-
Isn't that a supporter belief?
Could you expalin why you are happy with the label supporter but not sceptic..i doubt you can....seems highly hypocritical to me
-
If I may, why is it so important to you to push the dichotomy of so-called supporters and skeptics? Surely, it is not that simplistic?
It is on this forum. I've fought against it, but the sad fact is that the supporters insist that anyone who's not convinced about an abducted child and innocent parents is not just a sceptic, they are morally bankrupt, cruel, Amaral-worshipping idiots who don't understand the evidence we have access to.
-
It is on this forum. I've fought against it, but the sad fact is that the supporters insist that anyone who's not convinced about an abducted child and innocent parents is not just a sceptic, they are morally bankrupt, cruel, Amaral-worshipping idiots who don't understand the evidence we have access to.
At last you've got something right
what you don't understand is what a supporter is. the name doesnt bother me .....for me its just someone who doesn't beleive the barmy accident /cover up theory...
-
It is on this forum. I've fought against it, but the sad fact is that the supporters insist that anyone who's not convinced about an abducted child and innocent parents is not just a sceptic, they are morally bankrupt, cruel, Amaral-worshipping idiots who don't understand the evidence we have access to.
So, what is the ‘sceptics’ stance with reference to ‘supporters’?
-
So, what is the ‘sceptics’ stance with reference to ‘supporters’?
Basically supporters of child neglect, "sheeple" who can't see the real truth, worship the McCanns, are blind sighted by MSM, don't believe that the McCann have influence on Prime Ministers, the press etc
-
It is on this forum. I've fought against it, but the sad fact is that the supporters insist that anyone who's not convinced about an abducted child and innocent parents is not just a sceptic, they are morally bankrupt, cruel, Amaral-worshipping idiots who don't understand the evidence we have access to.
You forgot dog worshippers as well.
-
You forgot dog worshippers as well.
Please leave the dogs outside.
-
So, what is the ‘sceptics’ stance with reference to ‘supporters’?
I can only speak for myself and I think they are entitled to believe in the McCanns if they want to. What they aren't entitled to do is criticise anyone who doesn't share their views and suggest that they are lacking in some way. I don't care what they think of me, because I know it's false, but I find their opinions of Portugal, their Judiciary and their police forces quite distasteful.
-
I can only speak for myself and I think they are entitled to believe in the McCanns if they want to. What they aren't entitled to do is criticise anyone who doesn't share their views and suggest that they are lacking in some way. I don't care what they think of me, because I know it's false, but I find their opinions of Portugal, their Judiciary and their police forces quite distasteful.
I trust you find certain sceptics’ opinions of the McCanns, their family, Clarence Mitchell, The Tapas group, the Met, the German prosecutor etc equally distateful? Nah, didn’t think so.
-
Basically supporters of child neglect, "sheeple" who can't see the real truth, worship the McCanns, are blind sighted by MSM, don't believe that the McCann have influence on Prime Ministers, the press etc
don’t forget the new one - delighted to think CB abused and murdered Madeleine.
-
I can only speak for myself and I think they are entitled to believe in the McCanns if they want to. What they aren't entitled to do is criticise anyone who doesn't share their views and suggest that they are lacking in some way. I don't care what they think of me, because I know it's false, but I find their opinions of Portugal, their Judiciary and their police forces quite distasteful.
Do you have any inkling of what you are saying about yourself by your use of the phraseology ... "believe in the McCanns"?
-
Just from the press and can you blame any one?
The " researchers" would be in full speed searching births, marriages, any personal details to be found of anyone.foolish enough to give a name.
Indeed, that’s what happened to me. Unfortunately the supporter got the wrong person and the manager of some poor physiotherapist in a Glasgow hospital was connected. I’ve often wondered what her manager thought...probably ‘ we’ve got a right heid the baw here’.
-
Indeed, that’s what happened to me. Unfortunately the supporter got the wrong person and the manager of some poor physiotherapist in a Glasgow hospital was connected. I’ve often wondered what her manager thought...probably ‘ we’ve got a right heid the baw here’.
I was actually referring to the ultimate researchers into the truth of Madeleine's disappearance.
Those on the CMOMM......those who know the truth and who "research" birth certificates, marriage certificates and write letters to the employers of any of Madeleine's family or friends.
-
don’t forget the new one - delighted to think CB abused and murdered Madeleine.
Yes, but I really, really hope no sceptic does believe that.
-
Yes, but I really, really hope no sceptic does believe that.
Well they must be saying it to goad then, unless they really are that twisted.
-
Well they must be saying it to goad then, unless they really are that twisted.
Some to goad, and some are that twisted!
-
I can only speak for myself and I think they are entitled to believe in the McCanns if they want to. What they aren't entitled to do is criticise anyone who doesn't share their views and suggest that they are lacking in some way. I don't care what they think of me, because I know it's false, but I find their opinions of Portugal, their Judiciary and their police forces quite distasteful.
Don’t you think I am lacking in any way? You see, I do find that some people with certain opinions can be cruel, racist, sexist, delusional, bonkers, misguided, ignorant, malicious, hypocritical, paranoid etc etc etc. Am I not permitted to criticise these views or should I respect all opinions on any subject as having equal value and deserving of respect no matter what?
-
Indeed, that’s what happened to me. Unfortunately the supporter got the wrong person and the manager of some poor physiotherapist in a Glasgow hospital was connected. I’ve often wondered what her manager thought...probably ‘ we’ve got a right heid the baw here’.
I have seen you mention this incident before and wondered at the time how you became aware of it.
How did the recipient or the recipient's manager know who you were and how to contact you?
Were they better 'researchers' than "the supporter" who managed to miss you so entirely to target them instead of you?
-
Don’t you think I am lacking in any way? You see, I do find that some people with certain opinions can be cruel, racist, sexist, delusional, bonkers, misguided, ignorant, malicious, hypocritical, paranoid etc etc etc. Am I not permitted to criticise these views or should I respect all opinions on any subject as having equal value and deserving of respect no matter what?
Only those with certain opinions? Are those with different opinions never guilty of being cruel, racist, sexist, delusional, bonkers, misguided, ignorant, malicious, hypocritical, paranoid etc etc etc?
-
Only those with certain opinions? Are those with different opinions never guilty of being cruel, racist, sexist, delusional, bonkers, misguided, ignorant, malicious, hypocritical, paranoid etc etc etc?
It was a general question, not limited to the McCann case. I didn’t expect a straight answer from you and you haven’t disappointed. In any case I’m not the one trying to shut down criticism of others’ views - if you think my views are cruel, racist, sexist, delusional etc I have no problem in being confronted with your opinion and challenging it. You claim you’re not entitled to do so however.
-
Do you have any inkling of what you are saying about yourself by your use of the phraseology ... "believe in the McCanns"?
Accepting the open shutters and window as a fact involves believing in the McCann's truthfulness, because there's no independent testimony.
-
It was a general question, not limited to the McCann case. I didn’t expect a straight answer from you and you haven’t disappointed. In any case I’m not the one trying to shut down criticism of others’ views - if you think my views are cruel, racist, sexist, delusional etc I have no problem in being confronted with your opinion and challenging it. You claim you’re not entitled to do so however.
Why mention 'certain opinions' then? I'm not worried by criticism of other's views, it's criticism of other's characters and morality which I find distasteful.
-
Why mention 'certain opinions' then? I'm not worried by criticism of other's views, it's criticism of other's characters and morality which I find distasteful.
right they make it totally personal dont they
-
I was actually referring to the ultimate researchers into the truth of Madeleine's disappearance.
Those on the CMOMM......those who know the truth and who "research" birth certificates, marriage certificates and write letters to the employers of any of Madeleine's family or friends.
Apologosies I didn’t realise you were ignoring the supporters who ‘research’ electoral rolls, LinkedIn and write letters to people’s employers in an attempt to destroy their lives and careers for no other reason than that they think the parents are guilty.
-
I can only speak for myself and I think they are entitled to believe in the McCanns if they want to. What they aren't entitled to do is criticise anyone who doesn't share their views and suggest that they are lacking in some way. I don't care what they think of me, because I know it's false, but I find their opinions of Portugal, their Judiciary and their police forces quite distasteful.
I have every right to criticise whoever I like within the limits of the law......I have every right to criticise the portuguese police and judicial system......I have never criticised portugal or the portuguese people...you have no right to try and limit my criticism
-
right they make it totally personal dont they
have you forgot you referred to my children just a few days ago...that is you being personal
-
Apologosies I didn’t realise you were ignoring the supporters who ‘research’ electoral rolls, LinkedIn and write letters to people’s employers in an attempt to destroy their lives and careers for no other reason than that they think the parents are guilty.
or steal personal photos off facebooks
-
I have seen you mention this incident before and wondered at the time how you became aware of it.
How did the recipient or the recipient's manager know who you were and how to contact you?
Were they better 'researchers' than "the supporter" who managed to miss you so entirely to target them instead of you?
The supporter gave me the details of the person she thought I was and it was an actual person. The supporter also said that they were going to contact the poor girl’s employer. As I knew people the supporter had done this to in the past I had no reason to doubt them.
-
Why mention 'certain opinions' then? I'm not worried by criticism of other's views, it's criticism of other's characters and morality which I find distasteful.
Obviously brcause I don’t find ALL opinions worthy of criticism! I’m glad we’ve settled this now, so that if someone writes something sexist, racist, bonkers, delusional, hypocritical, cruel, etc I know I AM entitled to criticise those views. Right?
-
or steal personal photos off facebooks
Indeed. It really is a rather sh*tty business.
-
Accepting the open shutters and window as a fact involves believing in the McCann's truthfulness, because there's no independent testimony.
Who said the open window is a fact....I don't know its a fact but I think its highly likely to be true based on other supporting evidence.
You show a certain naievety in the way justice works. The whole justice system is not based on facts but on beleiving who is telling the truth....the jury decides that based on the evidence. Even a guilty or not guilty verdict is not a true statement of guilt or innocence
You and other sceptics have no problem with amaral and his team stating as a fact that the alerts confirmed the presence of abody in 5a which they patently don't. The fact that you are prepared to ignore this and criticise others is what leads me to question your understanding of evidence and credibility.
-
Indeed. It really is a rather sh*tty business.
the mcanns are adults you have to wonder why supporters think the mcanns need so much coddeling and protecting
-
the mcanns are adults you have to wonder why supporters think the mcanns need so much coddeling and protecting
You really don't understand...no one is protecting the McCanns ...we are discussing the case and giving our views
-
You really don't understand...no one is protecting the McCanns ...we are discussing the case and giving our views
Quite right. The McCanns have no need of our protection but some people still cling onto the belief that we do this because we’re besotted by them, or paid to do it. So childish!
-
the mcanns are adults you have to wonder why supporters think the mcanns need so much coddeling and protecting
I think it’s more psychologically complex than that.
-
I often wonder what motivates sceptics to log on every day for 13 yearsm trying to persuade anyone who will listen that two people they have nothing to do with and have never met are criminals evading justice. I find that quite psychologically interesting.
-
I think it’s more psychologically complex than that.
spme have admitted they did what the mcanns did themselves so maybe they feel guilty??
-
I often wonder what motivates sceptics to log on every day for 13 yearsm trying to persuade anyone who will listen that two people they have nothing to do with and have never met are criminals evading justice. I find that quite psychologically interesting.
Everything we do...every choice we make...to a certain extent is psychologically driven. I do find it interesting to read posts and try to understand the psychology behind them . I think I could tell you a lot about some posters here simply from their posts. One emotion I see a lot from sceptics is bitterness
-
spme have admitted they did what the mcanns did themselves so maybe they feel guilty??
I don't feel at all guilty..I feel lucky. I did something I thought was safe...I wouldn't do it again
The McCanns did something lots of people have done. ..others were lucky...Maddie and her family weren' t
-
The supporter gave me the details of the person she thought I was and it was an actual person. The supporter also said that they were going to contact the poor girl’s employer. As I knew people the supporter had done this to in the past I had no reason to doubt them.
Thank you … rather amazing this very chummy ‘supporter’ was willing to incriminate him/herself directly to you with the threat of contacting “the poor girl’s employer” thinking she was you. I thought it was the fact that the contact had already been made which was the point you were making.
I’m amazed how you “knew” this individual had a record of doing this. I didn't think it was usual for poison pen writers to ‘fess up. I thought the whole point of such aberrant behaviour was anonymity, but there you are then.
Back on topic now please ... “A Laughable Story”
-
a reminder of the topic
According to at least one member of this forum the McCanns “abduction story” is laughable.
So what exactly is the abduction story told by the McCanns, which bits make forum members laugh and why?
We all know some find the jemmied shutters rather hilarious but that is just a semantics game played by certain members objecting to the word “jemmied” which may or may not have been uttered by Gerry. Whether he meant actually jemmied with a crow bar or force opened by some other means is really a boring argument that seems pointless to repeat for the umpteenth time - the gist though is that the McCanns said someone else opened the shutters and window.
Does this make forum members laugh and if so please explain why it tickles you so.
Also anything else that gets you giggling about the “abduction story” as told by the McCanns, please share your views here.
Modify message
-
If I may say so ... I think that post must rank as the most laughable yet in your attempt to smear using 'the fund' as your vehicle.
What fund ???
The one which was so depleted that it could not sustain paying to continue the search for Madeleine when no one else was looking for her?
Kate wrote her book, not for personal gain or aggrandisement as Amaral did, but to put the proceeds into the fund's coffers to enable the search for Madeleine to continue until the appropriate folk who should have been doing it, took over due to Madeleine's parents' hard work and persistence they should.
I've never been able to work out why sceptics have this visceral objection first touted by Amaral to the vehicle for financing the search for Madeleine.
What fund ???
I was referring to when the fund was started...when they had nothing.
My posts B are no more laughable than yours.
How many more suspects are going to be dragged up...acussed of being the abductor.
When it has never been proved there was an abductor in the first place,
-
What fund ???
I was referring to when the fund was started...when they had nothing.
My posts B are no more laughable than yours.
How many more suspects are going to be dragged up...acussed of being the abductor.
When it has never been proved there was an abductor in the first place,
Nothing has been proved, does that therefore mean all theories and discussions of them are also laughable in your view?
-
Laughable - so ludicrous as to be amusing.
So why is the Abduction theory so ludicrous as to be amusing when it's clear to many (including Operation Grange and German Prosecutor for example) that it is the most logical and plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance. How can there be such a huge gulf between the two views?
-
What fund ???
I was referring to when the fund was started...when they had nothing.
My posts B are no more laughable than yours.
How many more suspects are going to be dragged up...acussed of being the abductor.
When it has never been proved there was an abductor in the first place,
You don't seem to understand how these things work...if an abductor is found and proven guilty then that proves abduction.
You and others seem to think a crime has to be proven before there can be an investigation...that's bonkers imo
-
What fund ???
I was referring to when the fund was started...when they had nothing.
My posts B are no more laughable than yours.
How many more suspects are going to be dragged up...acussed of being the abductor.
When it has never been proved there was an abductor in the first place,
If we follow your logic it would be wrong to investigate the parents until their involvement had been proven
-
Laughable - so ludicrous as to be amusing.
So why is the Abduction theory so ludicrous as to be amusing when it's clear to many (including Operation Grange and German Prosecutor for example) that it is the most logical and plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance. How can there be such a huge gulf between the two views?
Because it didn't happen.
-
Because it didn't happen.
Typical sceptic logic
-
Typical sceptic logic
Well, it didn't.
-
Well, it didn't.
Typical sceptic logic
-
I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Therefore Maddie wasn't abducted, since there's no proof anyone abducted her.
-
I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Therefore Maddie wasn't abducted, since there's no proof anyone abducted her.
i also believe her parents were neglectful as were all the tapas they were so into each other they didnt care about the kids did they
-
Thank you … rather amazing this very chummy ‘supporter’ was willing to incriminate him/herself directly to you with the threat of contacting “the poor girl’s employer” thinking she was you. I thought it was the fact that the contact had already been made which was the point you were making.
I’m amazed how you “knew” this individual had a record of doing this. I didn't think it was usual for poison pen writers to ‘fess up. I thought the whole point of such aberrant behaviour was anonymity, but there you are then.
Back on topic now please ... “A Laughable Story”
I find supporters, on the whole, don’t appear to be the brightest bulbs in the box and what’s the point of threatening to destroy someone’s career if you don’t tell them about it ? Where’s the fun in that ? Besides supporters rarely have the courage to reveal their real identity. As to the contact already having made I have no doubt that the person was capable of it...their online name was also connected to the Brenda Leyland affair.
So perhaps instead of attempting to dissect my experience members may think better of you if you castigate those that attempted to ruin an innocent young girls career. Just a thought.
Now....definitely....back on topic.
-
I find supporters, on the whole, don’t appear to be the brightest bulbs in the box and what’s the point of threatening to destroy someone’s career if you don’t tell them about it ? Where’s the fun in that ? Besides supporters rarely have the courage to reveal their real identity. As to the contact already having made I have no doubt that the person was capable of it...their online name was also connected to the Brenda Leyland affair.
So perhaps instead of attempting to dissect my experience members may think better of you if you castigate those that attempted to ruin an innocent young girls career. Just a thought.
Now....definitely....back on topic.
That is one of the most hypocritical posts I have ever read.
Now ......... definitely .....back on topic.
-
a reminder of the topic
According to at least one member of this forum the McCanns “abduction story” is laughable.
So what exactly is the abduction story told by the McCanns, which bits make forum members laugh and why?
We all know some find the jemmied shutters rather hilarious but that is just a semantics game played by certain members objecting to the word “jemmied” which may or may not have been uttered by Gerry. Whether he meant actually jemmied with a crow bar or force opened by some other means is really a boring argument that seems pointless to repeat for the umpteenth time - the gist though is that the McCanns said someone else opened the shutters and window.
Does this make forum members laugh and if so please explain why it tickles you so.
Also anything else that gets you giggling about the “abduction story” as told by the McCanns, please share your views here.
Modify message
I would assume that the three current police forces do not find anything to laugh at in their investigations !
-
Who said the open window is a fact....I don't know its a fact but I think its highly likely to be true based on other supporting evidence.
You show a certain naievety in the way justice works. The whole justice system is not based on facts but on beleiving who is telling the truth....the jury decides that based on the evidence. Even a guilty or not guilty verdict is not a true statement of guilt or innocence
You and other sceptics have no problem with amaral and his team stating as a fact that the alerts confirmed the presence of abody in 5a which they patently don't. The fact that you are prepared to ignore this and criticise others is what leads me to question your understanding of evidence and credibility.
Ah, but you believe the window was open when there's no evidence that it was. Your only reason for believing it is because you believe in the McCanns imo.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11656.msg615335;topicseen#msg615335
-
a reminder of the topic
According to at least one member of this forum the McCanns “abduction story” is laughable.
So what exactly is the abduction story told by the McCanns, which bits make forum members laugh and why?
We all know some find the jemmied shutters rather hilarious but that is just a semantics game played by certain members objecting to the word “jemmied” which may or may not have been uttered by Gerry. Whether he meant actually jemmied with a crow bar or force opened by some other means is really a boring argument that seems pointless to repeat for the umpteenth time - the gist though is that the McCanns said someone else opened the shutters and window.
Does this make forum members laugh and if so please explain why it tickles you so.
Also anything else that gets you giggling about the “abduction story” as told by the McCanns, please share your views here.
Modify message
You seem to be concentrating on your own idea of what laughable means. It doesn't, in my opinion, mean that people 'giggle' at something. It means ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposperous and irrational. The idea that the only danger facing children left home alone is being abducted, for example, fits all those descriptions. I find it absurd that mature parents were completely unaware of all the other dangers inherent in leaving children alone in an unlocked apartment.
-
You don't seem to understand how these things work...if an abductor is found and proven guilty then that proves abduction.
You and others seem to think a crime has to be proven before there can be an investigation...that's bonkers imo
.if an abductor is found and proven guilty then that proves abduction.
IF...that's if they find one who fits into committing the perfect crime.
13 years and they haven't found one..apart from the continuous line of suspects they keep digging up.
Now it seems to be in the hands of Germans who have ulterior motives for keeping latest suspect in prison.
Even the mccs seem to think it will come to nothing...they more concerned about it disrupting their lives.
Why you can trust Sky News
The parents of Madeleine McCann say reports they have received a letter from German authorities stating that Madeleine is dead are "false".
In a statement, Kate and Gerry McCann said the "unsubstantiated stories" had "caused unnecessary anxiety to friends and family and once again disrupted our lives".
-
You seem to be concentrating on your own idea of what laughable means. It doesn't, in my opinion, mean that people 'giggle' at something. It means ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposperous and irrational. The idea that the only danger facing children left home alone is being abducted, for example, fits all those descriptions. I find it absurd that mature parents were completely unaware of all the other dangers inherent in leaving children alone in an unlocked apartment.
I find amarals theory as laughable. You have your opinion on the McCanns leaving the children in the apartment but your opinion is of no importance. None of our opinions here are of any importance...but some seem to think theirs are. The only opinions of any importance are the authorities....SY, the Germans are investigating an abduction....Gerry is a well respected Professor....kate works in the medical field...social services have not intervened and therefore do not see the twins as being in danger.....and on and on
-
Ah, but you believe the window was open when there's no evidence that it was. Your only reason for believing it is because you believe in the McCanns imo.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11656.msg615335;topicseen#msg615335
I beleive the window was open based on all the evidence......
once again you make an incorrrect assumption
amaral and many others ...including the PJ and the portuguese judicial system beleive the alerts confirm the past presence of a cadaver in 5a...maddie's cadaver....even though theres no evidence to support that and the expert has said it cant be confirmed.....what significance an open window compared to that
-
I find amarals theory as laughable. You have your opinion on the McCanns leaving the children in the apartment but your opinion is of no importance. None of our opinions here are of any importance...but some seem to think theirs are. The only opinions of any importance are the authorities....SY, the Germans are investigating an abduction....Gerry is a well respected Professor....kate works in the medical field...social services have not intervened and therefore do not see the twins as being in danger.....and on and on
GA is as credible as anyone ...he also worked on the case.
Who are you comparing him to ex cons traffickers drug dealers ex-girlfriends. no credibility at all especially if there is something in for them..like a £20.000 reward
What medical field does kmcc work in.........she is no longer a GP it seems.
-
GA is as credible as anyone ...he also worked on the case.
Who are you comparing him to ex cons traffickers drug dealers ex-girlfriends. no credibility at all especially if there is something in for them..like a £20.000 reward
What medical field does kmcc work in.........she is no longer a GP it seems.
GA has no credibility imo based on the fact it is proven he doesnt understand the evidence.
GP is not the entire scope of medicine
-
I beleive the window was open based on all the evidence......
once again you make an incorrrect assumption
amaral and many others ...including the PJ and the portuguese judicial system beleive the alerts confirm the past presence of a cadaver in 5a...maddie's cadaver....even though theres no evidence to support that and the expert has said it cant be confirmed.....what significance an open window compared to that
That wasn't the only reason .was it...according to Tavares the Cheif inspectors final report.
if the checking as he says is lies and falls down...so could everything else .
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!
From the declarations of the group results a total incoherence, in the face of which it's obvious, that everyone lies.
If anyone went to check the children and if everything was alright the disappearance could only have occurred between 21:30h and 22:00h;
' If the information didn't take into account that witness (' ) then the disappearance occurred between 21:00h and 22:00 h, enlarging the period ( assuming the father is telling the truth);
There is however another question about the timing, which is:
' The last time the child was seen outside of the GROUP, by someone that can prove that moment, it was around 17h:35m, when the parents went to fetch her from the Creche, which can enlarge the gap of time, between the disappearance and the alarm, to four hours.
-
That wasn't the only reason .was it...according to Tavares the Cheif inspectors final report.
if the checking as he says is lies and falls down...so could everything else .
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!
From the declarations of the group results a total incoherence, in the face of which it's obvious, that everyone lies.
If anyone went to check the children and if everything was alright the disappearance could only have occurred between 21:30h and 22:00h;
' If the information didn't take into account that witness (' ) then the disappearance occurred between 21:00h and 22:00 h, enlarging the period ( assuming the father is telling the truth);
There is however another question about the timing, which is:
' The last time the child was seen outside of the GROUP, by someone that can prove that moment, it was around 17h:35m, when the parents went to fetch her from the Creche, which can enlarge the gap of time, between the disappearance and the alarm, to four hours.
more from amaral the convicted liar
-
I find supporters, on the whole, don’t appear to be the brightest bulbs in the box and what’s the point of threatening to destroy someone’s career if you don’t tell them about it ? Where’s the fun in that ? Besides supporters rarely have the courage to reveal their real identity. As to the contact already having made I have no doubt that the person was capable of it...their online name was also connected to the Brenda Leyland affair.
So perhaps instead of attempting to dissect my experience members may think better of you if you castigate those that attempted to ruin an innocent young girls career. Just a thought.
Now....definitely....back on topic.
Your narrative is in the first person from start to finish.
I find it reminiscent of the technique that Amaral used to suggest he had witnessed events he had not in “The Truth of the Lie”.
Careful reading of your posts suggest that the incident you claim was visited on another in the mistaken belief it was you, had not actually happened … it was a “threat”.
Thereafter follows the tirade of defamation the genesis of which is based on a fantastical mental image which you have convinced yourself occurred as you remember it but which I don't think ever really happened.
Your posts confirm that.
There is so much within that limited exchange that is a mirror image of what has happened to the McCann case that it is really quite spooky much more than it is laughable.
But to choose just one of the earlier ‘laughable’ instances, I think I have to go for the Calpol one.
We all know that Calpol isn’t poison. Amaral didn’t … but he managed to convince an army of people, some to this day, that it was.
Probably more tragic than laughable.
-
Your narrative is in the first person from start to finish.
I find it reminiscent of the technique that Amaral used to suggest he had witnessed events he had not in “The Truth of the Lie”.
Careful reading of your posts suggest that the incident you claim was visited on another in the mistaken belief it was you, had not actually happened … it was a “threat”.
Thereafter follows the tirade of defamation the genesis of which is based on a fantastical mental image which you have convinced yourself occurred as you remember it but which I don't think ever really happened.
Your posts confirm that.
There is so much within that limited exchange that is a mirror image of what has happened to the McCann case that it is really quite spooky much more than it is laughable.
But to choose just one of the earlier ‘laughable’ instances, I think I have to go for the Calpol one.
We all know that Calpol isn’t poison. Amaral didn’t … but he managed to convince an army of people, some to this day, that it was.
Probably more tragic than laughable.
Are you suggesting a child cannot overdose on Calpol or similar, therefore it's not a poison?
-
Are you suggesting a child cannot overdose on Calpol or similar, therefore it's not a poison?
a child can overdose on calpol but it takes about 3 days to die
-
a child can overdose on calpol but it takes about 3 days to die
Not the point. The member above stated that Calpol is not a poison. It is.
-
Are you suggesting a child cannot overdose on Calpol or similar, therefore it's not a poison?
Calpol contains paracetamol which can cause delayed, serious liver damage. No child will immediately collapse and fall off a sofa and die as a result ... which Amaral alleges is what happened to Madeleine.
This has been exhaustively discussed on the forum.
-
#
Not the point. The poster above stated that Calpol is not a poison. It is.
it is very much the point in a smuch thatsome lesser informe poster have suggested that maddie may have died due to an overdose of calpol. it depends what definition of poison you mean....is salt a poison
-
Not the point. The member above stated that Calpol is not a poison. It is.
I believe water taken in excess can be a poison ...
Water intoxication, also known as water poisoning, hyperhydration, overhydration, or water toxemia, is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside safe limits by excessive water intake.
Water intoxication - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org ›
-
calpol itself isnt a poison when given in the correct dose.....so it would be true to say an overdose of calplol is poisonous but not calpol itself
-
it is very much the point in a smuch thatsome lesser informe poster have suggested that maddie may have died due to an overdose of calpol. it depends what definition of poison you mean....is salt a poison
Definitely. Salt poisoning occurs in pigs, and dogs too.
-
Definitely. Salt poisoning occurs in pigs, and dogs too.
and humans
-
and humans
OK
-
I believe water taken in excess can be a poison ...
Water intoxication, also known as water poisoning, hyperhydration, overhydration, or water toxemia, is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside safe limits by excessive water intake.
Water intoxication - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org ›
Exactly.
-
calpol itself isnt a poison when given in the correct dose.....so it would be true to say an overdose of calplol is poisonous but not calpol itself
No. Calpol is a poison, that's why they state a correct dose.
-
Your narrative is in the first person from start to finish.
I find it reminiscent of the technique that Amaral used to suggest he had witnessed events he had not in “The Truth of the Lie”.
Careful reading of your posts suggest that the incident you claim was visited on another in the mistaken belief it was you, had not actually happened … it was a “threat”.
Thereafter follows the tirade of defamation the genesis of which is based on a fantastical mental image which you have convinced yourself occurred as you remember it but which I don't think ever really happened.
Your posts confirm that.
There is so much within that limited exchange that is a mirror image of what has happened to the McCann case that it is really quite spooky much more than it is laughable.
But to choose just one of the earlier ‘laughable’ instances, I think I have to go for the Calpol one.
We all know that Calpol isn’t poison. Amaral didn’t … but he managed to convince an army of people, some to this day, that it was.
Probably more tragic than laughable.
I found it ludicrous that a mother who thought her children had been sedated by an abductor did nothing except check occasionally that they were still breathing. Fancy doing no medically recommended tests!
I don't know what Mrs McCann's job is, but she seems to have been spending more time with her family rather than helping with the recent emergencies. Most NHS workers carried on, including those like my daughter who doesn't work with patients face to face.
"We have been fortunate to spend more time together as a family since lockdown began, an enforced block to a usually frenetic life, a silver lining to this dark cloud.
"It has made us think about Madeleine even more, as she would have shared this period of special closeness with us too."
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-mccann-haunted-lockdown-18191803
-
No. Calpol is a poison, that's why they state a correct dose.
calpol itself is not a poison....unless taken in excess...same as salt
-
GA has no credibility imo based on the fact it is proven he doesnt understand the evidence.
GP is not the entire scope of medicine
How do you know kmc works with medicine.or involved with working with medicine.
-
How do you know kmc works with medicine.or involved with working with medicine.
because its been well publicised
-
because its been well publicised
Oh well if that's working in the medical field .it could be anything even a cleaner
-
Oh well if that's working in the medical field .it could be anything even a cleaner
No it couldn't..don't be silly...you think working as a cleaner is working in medicine
-
Calpol contains paracetamol which can cause delayed, serious liver damage. No child will immediately collapse and fall off a sofa and die as a result ... which Amaral alleges is what happened to Madeleine.
This has been exhaustively discussed on the forum.
Also, Calpol bottles in 2007 had a child-resistant safety feature.
-
I found it ludicrous that a mother who thought her children had been sedated by an abductor did nothing except check occasionally that they were still breathing. Fancy doing no medically recommended tests!
I don't know what Mrs McCann's job is, but she seems to have been spending more time with her family rather than helping with the recent emergencies. Most NHS workers carried on, including those like my daughter who doesn't work with patients face to face.
"We have been fortunate to spend more time together as a family since lockdown began, an enforced block to a usually frenetic life, a silver lining to this dark cloud.
"It has made us think about Madeleine even more, as she would have shared this period of special closeness with us too."
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-mccann-haunted-lockdown-18191803
Every family I know has spent much more time as a family during lock down.
No cinemas, no restaurants, no sports, no clubs, no concerts, no visiting friends and no school..........so much more family time.
What a petty criticism!
-
No it couldn't..don't be silly...you think working as a cleaner is working in medicine
Sort of a care worker then ...that's not working in medicine.
-
Every family I know has spent much more time as a family during lock down.
No cinemas, no restaurants, no sports, no clubs, no concerts, no visiting friends and no school..........so much more family time.
What a petty criticism!
And, it seems, no work.
-
You seem to be concentrating on your own idea of what laughable means. It doesn't, in my opinion, mean that people 'giggle' at something. It means ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposperous and irrational. The idea that the only danger facing children left home alone is being abducted, for example, fits all those descriptions. I find it absurd that mature parents were completely unaware of all the other dangers inherent in leaving children alone in an unlocked apartment.
I earlier posted the dictionary definition of "laughable" for the avoidance of any doubt and you have completely failed to say WHY you think the abduction theory is laughable, only that you think it is. No one has EVER suggested that the ONLY danger facing children left alone is abduction - I think you're having a laugh there yourself! Now wil you answer the question this thread poses or will you simply deflect again? I know where I'd put my money...
-
And, it seems, no work.
No all continued to work!
The evenings when work was over, these families spent so much more time together.
No cinemas, no restaurants, no sports activities, no clubs, no visiting friends, no visiting family members, no concerts etc etc,.
A neighbour who is a paediatrician and continued to work in hospital, remarked how her time at home was now exclusively family time.
You are being petty!
-
I found it ludicrous that a mother who thought her children had been sedated by an abductor did nothing except check occasionally that they were still breathing. Fancy doing no medically recommended tests!
I don't know what Mrs McCann's job is, but she seems to have been spending more time with her family rather than helping with the recent emergencies. Most NHS workers carried on, including those like my daughter who doesn't work with patients face to face.
"We have been fortunate to spend more time together as a family since lockdown began, an enforced block to a usually frenetic life, a silver lining to this dark cloud.
"It has made us think about Madeleine even more, as she would have shared this period of special closeness with us too."
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-mccann-haunted-lockdown-18191803
Ah so now you're criticising Kate for spending too much time with her family rather than too little. [personal comments removed]
-
That is one of the most hypocritical posts I have ever read.
Now ......... definitely .....back on topic.
Perhaps you’d like to explain ?
-
Ah so now you're criticising Kate for spending too much time with her family rather than too little.
Considering kmcc worked in medicine and a GP this has a lot to be desired imo although she is not now a GP
Doctor Kate McCann and Dr Fiona Payne: Sedation of Sean and Amelie McCann - why are these two NHS doctors still on the Medical Register?
Sedation
In this study we attempt to answer three questions
1 Were the twins sedated on the night of 3rd May 2007?
2 If so, were they sedated by an intruder ?
3 If so, but not by an intruder, then by whom ?
1 Were the twins sedated on the night of 3rd May 2007?
The question of sedation of the three McCann children is one which has caused problems since the very beginning.
Reported facts.
Around 10 pm 3rd May 2007 Kate McCann entered the apartment in the holiday resort and reported Madeleine missing. The younger twins were still in their travel cots in the same room, and were asleep.
What followed is a matter of public record. The apartment was searched, several times, by many people, the surrounding area was searched by large numbers of police and ex-pats and villagers, and huge amount of activity was directed to discovering Madeleine’s whereabouts. All were in vain.
BUT . . . during all of this commotion -
despite a window and shutters having been open for an hour on a cold night,
despite the door slamming shut,
despite curtains blowing into the room,
despite their mother frantically opening and closing wardrobes and cupboards
despite their mother rushing out screaming for help,
despite the entire Tapas 7 group searching throughout the apartment,
despite Kate and the Tapas group shouting Madeleine’s name outside,
despite Gerry McCann’s closing and opening the shutters multiple times
despite Mrs Webster’s similarly attempting to open the shutters but failing,
despite the Police investigating the scene,
despite Gerry’s “roaring like a lion” and then prostrating himself on the floor,
despite both parents repeating this action and wailing
despite Kate’s checking the twins for vital signs,
despite the twins being lifted from their cots by people not their parents, and
despite their being carried out into the cold night air, and to another apartment. [1.1]
Despite all of this . . . the twins did not wake
http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2016/09/doctor-kate-mccann-and-dr-fiona-payne_14.html
-
Considering kmcc worked in medicine and a GP this has a lot to be desired imo although she is not now a GP
Doctor Kate McCann and Dr Fiona Payne: Sedation of Sean and Amelie McCann - why are these two NHS doctors still on the Medical Register?
Sedation
In this study we attempt to answer three questions
1 Were the twins sedated on the night of 3rd May 2007?
2 If so, were they sedated by an intruder ?
3 If so, but not by an intruder, then by whom ?
1 Were the twins sedated on the night of 3rd May 2007?
The question of sedation of the three McCann children is one which has caused problems since the very beginning.
Reported facts.
Around 10 pm 3rd May 2007 Kate McCann entered the apartment in the holiday resort and reported Madeleine missing. The younger twins were still in their travel cots in the same room, and were asleep.
What followed is a matter of public record. The apartment was searched, several times, by many people, the surrounding area was searched by large numbers of police and ex-pats and villagers, and huge amount of activity was directed to discovering Madeleine’s whereabouts. All were in vain.
BUT . . . during all of this commotion -
despite a window and shutters having been open for an hour on a cold night,
despite the door slamming shut,
despite curtains blowing into the room,
despite their mother frantically opening and closing wardrobes and cupboards
despite their mother rushing out screaming for help,
despite the entire Tapas 7 group searching throughout the apartment,
despite Kate and the Tapas group shouting Madeleine’s name outside,
despite Gerry McCann’s closing and opening the shutters multiple times
despite Mrs Webster’s similarly attempting to open the shutters but failing,
despite the Police investigating the scene,
despite Gerry’s “roaring like a lion” and then prostrating himself on the floor,
despite both parents repeating this action and wailing
despite Kate’s checking the twins for vital signs,
despite the twins being lifted from their cots by people not their parents, and
despite their being carried out into the cold night air, and to another apartment. [1.1]
Despite all of this . . . the twins did not wake
http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2016/09/doctor-kate-mccann-and-dr-fiona-payne_14.html
i've seen this depth of sleep in non sedated children
-
i've seen this depth of sleep in non sedated children
Probably one ..not two
-
Probably one ..not two
Its not as unusual as you think...its all been gone through before...deep sleep in children doesnt confirm sedation...its a natural phenomenen
-
Its not as unusual as you think...its all been gone through before...deep sleep in children doesnt confirm sedation...its a natural phenomenen
Don't tell us, tell the doctor.
-
Don't tell us, tell the doctor.
I already have done...my sons a doctor and he was the first person I saw it from. Its the sort of thing parents might know ....it isnt taught at med school
-
Its not as unusual as you think...its all been gone through before...deep sleep in children doesnt confirm sedation...its a natural phenomenen
Not both of them......seems others thought it strange as well also kmc so it wasn't the norm
Diane Webster - Fiona Payne’s mother: “Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.” . . .
Q: “So how would you imagine that they may have been drugged?”
DW: “Err by the abductor. I think Madeleine would have been drugged as well.” [1.9]
nd just before the release of her book ‘madeleine’, Kate says she believes they were drugged.
13 May 2011
Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken. Kate McCann said the kidnapper who seized Madeleine may also have drugged her other two children, as she launched a new appeal in the hunt for her missing girl today.
Mrs McCann said she had to check that twins Sean and Amelie were still breathing because they did not wake as they began a frantic search for the missing three-year-old. [1.12]
Those then are the facts relating to the McCanns’ belief in sedation of the twins, and by extension, of Madeleine.
-
Not both of them......seems others thought it strange as well also kmc so it wasn't the norm
Diane Webster - Fiona Payne’s mother: “Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.” . . .
Q: “So how would you imagine that they may have been drugged?”
DW: “Err by the abductor. I think Madeleine would have been drugged as well.” [1.9]
nd just before the release of her book ‘madeleine’, Kate says she believes they were drugged.
13 May 2011
Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken. Kate McCann said the kidnapper who seized Madeleine may also have drugged her other two children, as she launched a new appeal in the hunt for her missing girl today.
Mrs McCann said she had to check that twins Sean and Amelie were still breathing because they did not wake as they began a frantic search for the missing three-year-old. [1.12]
Those then are the facts relating to the McCanns’ belief in sedation of the twins, and by extension, of Madeleine.
I don't believe...based on all the evidence...that they were drugged. That's from a parent with lots of experience of taking young children on that sort of holiday and from my professioanl experience in sedating children.
-
I don't believe...based on all the evidence...that they were drugged. That's from a parent with lots of experience of taking young children on that sort of holiday and from my professioanl experience in sedating children.
Calpol is used all over the world. Perhaps posters who are insinuating an overdose was administered, can provide some insight re. other instances where this had been the case.
-
How is Madeleine supposed to have adminstefed a Calpol overdose to herself anyway?
-
Calpol is used all over the world. Perhaps posters who are insinuating an overdose was administered, can provide some insight re. other instances where this had been the case.
I think posters need to understand the difference between calpol and paracetamol tablets with regard to overdose...i've explained it before
-
I think posters need to understand the difference between calpol and paracetamol tablets with regard to overdose...i've explained it before
Remind us then please.
-
Remind us then please.
Im sure i dont have to remind all the knowledgable educated posters here...do I?
-
Im sure i dont have to remind all the knowledgable educated posters here...do I?
Yes, thanks.
-
Yes, thanks.
with some posters seeming to think supporters are not very bright... I will post the answer....once sceptics have had a chance to show how superior their intellect is...are you struggling
-
Calpol is used all over the world. Perhaps posters who are insinuating an overdose was administered, can provide some insight re. other instances where this had been the case.
It's Kate McCann who started the rumour that the children had been drugged. Perhaps she should explain how and with what it could have been achieved.
-
It's Kate McCann who started the rumour that the children had been drugged. Perhaps she should explain how and with what it could have been achieved.
Why don't you ask her
-
It's Kate McCann who started the rumour that the children had been drugged. Perhaps she should explain how and with what it could have been achieved.
why should she explain
-
why should she explain
I don't think there is the slightest reason for Kate to explain anything at all. She gave a list of the medication she had brought with her to the police in a statement. Which Amaral probably leaked to Felguieras making him the source of the calpol story much as he was the source of the majority of the myths put into the public domain.
Quite obviously 'Calpol' was yet another of the lies he fed to Sandra Feligueiras, as she has verified on Netflix.
Snip
Transcript of TV Interview with Sandra Felgueiras
Here is a transcript of Felgueiras' question and Gerry McCann's answer. Note that the McCanns at this point were still subject to Portuguese secrecy law and were restricted in what they were permitted to say on threat of legal sanction:-
Quote:
Sandra Felguiras: "In that evening, did you give to your kids something like Calpol to help them sleep?"
Gerry McCann: “You know we’re not going to comment on anything, but you know there is absolutely no way we used any sedative drugs or anything like that.”
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077700/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2013
-
It's Kate McCann who started the rumour that the children had been drugged. Perhaps she should explain how and with what it could have been achieved.
***NEWSFLASH*** Kate McCann doesn’t owe you or anyone else an explanation about anything.
-
why should she explain
Perhaps she can't.
-
***NEWSFLASH*** Kate McCann doesn’t owe you or anyone else an explanation about anything.
It was clear from day one imo that people were supposed to listen, sympathise, donate, search and accept, not question.
-
It was clear from day one imo that people were supposed to listen, sympathise, donate, search and accept, not question.
people still question jon benet ramseys parents all these later even her brother
-
It was clear from day one imo that people were supposed to listen, sympathise, donate, search and accept, not question.
What utter nonsense, imo.
-
It was clear from day one imo that people were supposed to listen, sympathise, donate, search and accept, not question.
What a mean spirited post. You are referring to the parents of a little girl who vanished off the face of the earth from them and all who dearly loved her. The only question to be answered is her whereabouts.
-
What a mean spirited post. You are referring to the parents of a little girl who vanished off the face of the earth from them and all who dearly loved her. The only question to be answered is her whereabouts.
That’s the thing....you should feel empathy for two parents who are suffering the worst trauma that can befall a parent.. but you don’t. Why is that ?
I felt heart sorry for Holly and Jessica and Sarah Payne’s parents when they went missing and even willed Winnie Johnson on when she searched Saddleworth Moor for the body of her poor son, hoping against hope that she would find something, anything to bring her peace but with the McCanns all I have ever felt was suspicion.
-
That’s the thing....you should feel empathy for two parents who are suffering the worst trauma that can befall a parent.. but you don’t. Why is that ?
I felt heart sorry for Holly and Jessica and Sarah Payne’s parents when they went missing and even willed Winnie Johnson on when she searched Saddleworth Moor for the body of her poor son, hoping against hope that she would find something, anything to bring her peace but with the McCanns all I have ever felt was suspicion.
Holly, Jesssica & Sarah's parents all had the support of the UK police & media. Do you think your suspicions were founded on the restrictions imposed from the outset by judicial secrecy laws? The parents were not free to express themselves without management.
-
Noone had much sympathy for Lindy Chamberlain at the time as I recall - I think the press had a lot to do with it, plus people prefer their tragic mothers to be a blubbering, quivering mess which clearly neither Kate nor Lindy was. Doesn’t mean they dunnit though.
-
What a mean spirited post. You are referring to the parents of a little girl who vanished off the face of the earth from them and all who dearly loved her. The only question to be answered is her whereabouts.
Also who is responsible for her yet to be explained disappearance.
-
It was clear from day one imo that people were supposed to listen, sympathise, donate, search and accept, not question.
Just your biased opinion and imo absolute rubbish
-
Could you stop posting your opinion as fact..it isn't
It's clearly your biased opinion and imo absolute rubbish
It was expressed as opinion. What more do you want?
-
Del
-
What a mean spirited post. You are referring to the parents of a little girl who vanished off the face of the earth from them and all who dearly loved her. The only question to be answered is her whereabouts.
IYO
-
I don't believe...based on all the evidence...that they were drugged. That's from a parent with lots of experience of taking young children on that sort of holiday and from my professioanl experience in sedating children.
The 2 doctors who were there thought the children had been drugged.
They weren't taken for a check-up ...so seems there was no panic on what they had been given by alleged abductor.
-
What a mean spirited post. You are referring to the parents of a little girl who vanished off the face of the earth from them and all who dearly loved her. The only question to be answered is her whereabouts.
I believe when you are suspicious of the parents being involved... it's not mean at all.
-
Holly, Jesssica & Sarah's parents all had the support of the UK police & media. Do you think your suspicions were founded on the restrictions imposed from the outset by judicial secrecy laws? The parents were not free to express themselves without management.
In my opinion the secrecy law played in there favor... not against them.
-
Holly, Jesssica & Sarah's parents all had the support of the UK police & media. Do you think your suspicions were founded on the restrictions imposed from the outset by judicial secrecy laws? The parents were not free to express themselves without management.
In my opinion the UK police would not have encouraged the parents to 'express themselves' to the media as they did. Were photo shoots showing them having fun with their other children something that the UK police would have recommended? I think not.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/S5FScDuDfnI/AAAAAAAAHa0/nLBOV3BwiFo/s1600-h/gerry_mccann_kate+and+twins.jpg
-
Please may I remind members the topic of the thread is “A Laughable Story” Thank you
-
In my opinion the UK police would not have encouraged the parents to 'express themselves' to the media as they did. Were photo shoots showing them having fun with their other children something that the UK police would have recommended? I think not.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/S5FScDuDfnI/AAAAAAAAHa0/nLBOV3BwiFo/s1600-h/gerry_mccann_kate+and+twins.jpg
amelie looked alot like maddie imo
-
The 2 doctors who were there thought the children had been drugged.
They weren't taken for a check-up ...so seems there was no panic on what they had been given by alleged abductor.
Kate thought the children had been drugged as she remembered the stain on the pyjama top Madeleine wore the morning of Thursday May 3rd. She mentioned it as she thought someone had tried to abduct Madeleine Wednesday evening. Kate is a Dr. she would know if the twins moved, they were not unconscious from drugs.
-
In my opinion the UK police would not have encouraged the parents to 'express themselves' to the media as they did. Were photo shoots showing them having fun with their other children something that the UK police would have recommended? I think not.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/S5FScDuDfnI/AAAAAAAAHa0/nLBOV3BwiFo/s1600-h/gerry_mccann_kate+and+twins.jpg
All this from someone, who has not been in a foreign country and lost a child, has not been inundated with journalists looking for a story. The McCann's were not familiar with this situation, if they thought that a photograph was going to help publicise that Madeleine was still missing then I would imagine they would go along with it. Anyone can smile for a camera especially if the photographer is trying to make them, doesn't mean anything, what was going on in their minds would not be visible.
-
It was clear from day one imo that people were supposed to listen, sympathise, donate, search and accept, not question.
Was it? It was clear to me from that message to the press that Gerry made with Kate looking absolutely devastated, that they were out of their minds with worry. No one made the public give them money, but they did, what were they supposed to do with it? Put it in their bank account? They had to start a fund which they had a lot of help doing, it wasn't just the McCann's sitting down at a computer and opening one all by themselves. Yes they wanted people to search just as other parents of missing children would. Question what? You are suspicious, but there is no reason to be, Amaral poisoned minds.
-
Was it? It was clear to me from that message to the press that Gerry made with Kate looking absolutely devastated, that they were out of their minds with worry. No one made the public give them money, but they did, what were they supposed to do with it? Put it in their bank account? They had to start a fund which they had a lot of help doing, it wasn't just the McCann's sitting down at a computer and opening one all by themselves. Yes they wanted people to search just as other parents of missing children would. Question what? You are suspicious, but there is no reason to be, Amaral poisoned minds.
You forgot to add IMO there.
I'd never heard of Amaral before I suspected the McCanns.
-
All this from someone, who has not been in a foreign country and lost a child, has not been inundated with journalists looking for a story. The McCann's were not familiar with this situation, if they thought that a photograph was going to help publicise that Madeleine was still missing then I would imagine they would go along with it. Anyone can smile for a camera especially if the photographer is trying to make them, doesn't mean anything, what was going on in their minds would not be visible.
As far as I know only one other UK family have been in the same position, so it's a very exclusive group. Did they and/or their advisors really think a photograph of them having fun with their other children was going to achieve anything positive? They were wrong...again (imo)
You think they were such accomplished actors that they were able to hide every trace of their true feelings?
-
Was it? It was clear to me from that message to the press that Gerry made with Kate looking absolutely devastated, that they were out of their minds with worry. No one made the public give them money, but they did, what were they supposed to do with it? Put it in their bank account? They had to start a fund which they had a lot of help doing, it wasn't just the McCann's sitting down at a computer and opening one all by themselves. Yes they wanted people to search just as other parents of missing children would. Question what? You are suspicious, but there is no reason to be, Amaral poisoned minds.
I believe a big percent of those who gave money.. was not happy with what they spent it on.
It seems it may as well of been in there bank account...It started with a bucket in the foyer.
Ameral did not poison minds...is that IYO or can you prove otherwise.
-
As far as I know only one other UK family have been in the same position, so it's a very exclusive group. Did they and/or their advisors really think a photograph of them having fun with their other children was going to achieve anything positive? They were wrong...again (imo)
You think they were such accomplished actors that they were able to hide every trace of their true feelings?
Why would the McCann's not smile playing with Sean and Amelie? I think it was the twins that helped them get through the first months, they were a distraction, they still had to be parents to them didn't they?
-
I believe a big percent of those who gave money.. was not happy with what they spent it on.
It seems it may as well of been in there bank account...It started with a bucket in the foyer.
Ameral did not poison minds...is that IYO or can you prove otherwise.
'You believe'. The money was there to help the family as well as the search at the start, I was quite happy with the spending it the way they sought fit, if that meant getting a lawyer to help start the fund or getting one to stop telling lies about them.
Give me a link where it says it was the McCann's who put the bucket in the foyer, or someone who was helping them.
-
You forgot to add IMO there.
I'd never heard of Amaral before I suspected the McCanns.
I suspected the McCann's when there were huge headlines saying '100% DNA found in car' 'Madeleines blood found in car' It wasn't until quite a few years later I took an interest and read the files. There were 19 markers that matched Madeleine's DNA, yet she shares her DNA with her parents and brother and sister, plus strangers and taking into account it was a hire car it could be absolutely anyone.
-
I suspected the McCann's when there were huge headlines saying '100% DNA found in car' 'Madeleines blood found in car' It wasn't until quite a few years later I took an interest and read the files. There were 19 markers that matched Madeleine's DNA, yet she shares her DNA with her parents and brother and sister, plus strangers and taking into account it was a hire car it could be absolutely anyone.
I suspected the McCanns around May 4th 2007, because I wasn't born yesterday.
-
I suspected the McCanns around May 4th 2007, because I wasn't born yesterday.
You and others must be very disappointed that you could very well soon proved to be wrong
-
You and others must be very disappointed that you could very well soon proved to be wrong
Yeah, the 3 police forces are going to finally find some abduction evidence after 13 years.
-
Yeah, the 3 police forces are going to finally find some abduction evidence after 13 years.
Could well be they already have it...
Evidence that shows CB killed Maddie is evidence of abduction
-
Could well be they already have it...
Evidence that shows CB killed Maddie is evidence of abduction
No it isn't.
If the McCanns sold Maddie to Brueckner then that wouldn't be an abduction.
-
You and others must be very disappointed that you could very well soon proved to be wrong
You could be proved wrong...was the Germans ever really interested in Maddie
Or was it her name for publicity to get what they wanted.. to keep CB in jail..
-
Why would the McCann's not smile playing with Sean and Amelie? I think it was the twins that helped them get through the first months, they were a distraction, they still had to be parents to them didn't they?
Smiling is fine. Posing for happy family photos two weeks after the disappearance of a child isn't imo.
-
Smiling is fine. Posing for happy family photos two weeks after the disappearance of a child isn't imo.
So you don't think they should look happy ever again do you? They smile for the sake of the twins, that doesn't mean they have forgotten Madeleine if that is what you are implying.
You really don't know how you would behave in the same situation, the fact is the McCann's have fought to keep Madeleine in the news and if that means having a photo taken with their remaining children to show that they are helping them survive the horror then that is up to them.
-
So you don't think they should look happy ever again do you? They smile for the sake of the twins, that doesn't mean they have forgotten Madeleine if that is what you are implying.
You really don't know how you would behave in the same situation, the fact is the McCann's have fought to keep Madeleine in the news and if that means having a photo taken with their remaining children to show that they are helping them survive the horror then that is up to them.
https://servimg.com/view/14388310/9631
What about that one .the twins weren't even there,..it was Maddies birthday
-
https://servimg.com/view/14388310/9631
What about that one .the twins weren't even there,..it was Maddies birthday
What about that one?
You find it important?
Why?
-
Smiling is fine. Posing for happy family photos two weeks after the disappearance of a child isn't imo.
It's none of your business
-
What about that one?
You find it important?
Why?
Not important .........just very odd for a couple who think their child is with a pedo
-
It's none of your business
Its the mccs who made it peoples business ..........when they invited the media the night Maddie went missing.
-
Its the mccs who made it peoples business ..........when they invited the media the night Maddie went missing.
It isn't any of your business either....
-
It isn't any of your business either....
Is it any of your business ...what people post.
Stop taking this so personal D
-
https://servimg.com/view/14388310/9631
What about that one .the twins weren't even there,..it was Maddies birthday
You really are dredging the bottom of the barrel with that one it is such a well known example of 'tampering' to make a true event untrue it has become somewhat of a celebrated cliché.
In fact I thought it had become so well known that not even the most dyed in the wool sceptics bothered with it anymore, seems I was mistaken so here we go yet again with the debunk.
Someone went to the bother of misrepresenting a brief moment recorded on video when birthday balloons startled everyone around. Including Madeleine's grieving parents. People round about can also be heard on the soundtrack laughing on what was a very sombre occasion.
It was a brief moment.
Another still from the same video would tell a completely different story, but the McCanns laughing was the story wanted.
The image is true insofar as it goes when taking and using a fleeting moment to be frozen in time from one still video frame taken out of context out of the thousands available.
It has been made into a lie because it doesn't reflect the reality of how Kate and Gerry really looked after the service marking Madeleine's birthday, as a look at the rest of the video will reveal.
It is beyond me why people go out of their way to promote misconceptions such as this. But I think that a cause which requires deceit to promote a message is suspect and would ordinarily cause a logical person to question why it is necessary if the cause is a valid one.
-
Not important .........just very odd for a couple who think their child is with a pedo
So obviously they.don't care that she is with a paedophile in your opinion.
-
You really are dredging the bottom of the barrel with that one it is such a well known example of 'tampering' to make a true event untrue it has become somewhat of a celebrated cliché.
In fact I thought it had become so well known that not even the most dyed in the wool sceptics bothered with it anymore, seems I was mistaken so here we go yet again with the debunk.
Someone went to the bother of misrepresenting a brief moment recorded on video when birthday balloons startled everyone around. Including Madeleine's grieving parents. People round about can also be heard on the soundtrack laughing on what was a very sombre occasion.
It was a brief moment.
Another still from the same video would tell a completely different story, but the McCanns laughing was the story wanted.
The image is true insofar as it goes when taking and using a fleeting moment to be frozen in time from one still video frame taken out of context out of the thousands available.
It has been made into a lie because it doesn't reflect the reality of how Kate and Gerry really looked after the service marking Madeleine's birthday, as a look at the rest of the video will reveal.
It is beyond me why people go out of their way to promote misconceptions such as this. But I think that a cause which requires deceit to promote a message is suspect and would ordinarily cause a logical person to question why it is necessary if the cause is a valid one.
The dredging of the bottom of the barrel continues!
-
Holly, Jesssica & Sarah's parents all had the support of the UK police & media. Do you think your suspicions were founded on the restrictions imposed from the outset by judicial secrecy laws? The parents were not free to express themselves without management.
No I don’t. My suspicions were founded on being in the place the disappearance happened and knowing the impossibility of their claims.
-
No I don’t. My suspicions were founded on being in the place the disappearance happened and knowing the impossibility of their claims.
Do you think the present investigations agree with your knowledge?
-
Do you think the present investigations agree with your knowledge?
Irrelevant.
If you don’t investigate those closest to the child...read Brietta’s tag line....then you’re never going to find incriminating evidence. It really is that simple.
-
You really are dredging the bottom of the barrel with that one it is such a well known example of 'tampering' to make a true event untrue it has become somewhat of a celebrated cliché.
In fact I thought it had become so well known that not even the most dyed in the wool sceptics bothered with it anymore, seems I was mistaken so here we go yet again with the debunk.
Someone went to the bother of misrepresenting a brief moment recorded on video when birthday balloons startled everyone around. Including Madeleine's grieving parents. People round about can also be heard on the soundtrack laughing on what was a very sombre occasion.
It was a brief moment.
Another still from the same video would tell a completely different story, but the McCanns laughing was the story wanted.
The image is true insofar as it goes when taking and using a fleeting moment to be frozen in time from one still video frame taken out of context out of the thousands available.
It has been made into a lie because it doesn't reflect the reality of how Kate and Gerry really looked after the service marking Madeleine's birthday, as a look at the rest of the video will reveal.
It is beyond me why people go out of their way to promote misconceptions such as this. But I think that a cause which requires deceit to promote a message is suspect and would ordinarily cause a logical person to question why it is necessary if the cause is a valid one.
So why have you not put a link to the video..........
-
Irrelevant.
If you don’t investigate those closest to the child...read Brietta’s tag line....then you’re never going to find incriminating evidence. It really is that simple.
So you still utterly believe that Madeleine`s parents are complicit in her disappearance?
Do you believe, as some sceptics do, that there is a huge cover up to protect the McCanns.
-
So why have you not put a link to the video..........
I did not think it was necessary ... but check it out for yourself ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11722.msg616111#msg616111
-
I did not think it was necessary ... but check it out for yourself ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11722.msg616111#msg616111
I remember the beginning of that report and how Kate had to be supported as she came into the church.
The grief was etched in her face.
-
I remember the beginning of that report and how Kate had to be supported as she came into the church.
The grief was etched in her face.
Either that or she was acting.
I'm sticking with acting.
-
Either that or she was acting.
I'm sticking with acting.
The grief acting or the happy as a bunny acting?
-
It's none of your business
Since the disappearance of the child, up to this date, the appellants have publicised their opinion on the facts, though these are still unknown today.
M. As well as the appellants, every citizen has the right to have an opinion on the facts and to publicize it.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
-
Since the disappearance of the child, up to this date, the appellants have publicised their opinion on the facts, though these are still unknown today.
M. As well as the appellants, every citizen has the right to have an opinion on the facts and to publicize it.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
It's still none of your business...
-
Smiling is fine. Posing for happy family photos two weeks after the disappearance of a child isn't imo.
Tell us why it isn’t fine.
-
Apparently it’s only if you”ve been to Praia Da Luz that you will know the McCanns’ claims are “impossible”.
Which claims made by the McCanns are impossible and why, based on knowledge of PdL?
-
The fact is...despite what sceptics imagine...Abduction is not impossible.
in fact looking at all the evidence ..imo..its the most probable........and the fact taht CB is now the prime suspect...the investigators agree with me
-
No I don’t. My suspicions were founded on being in the place the disappearance happened and knowing the impossibility of their claims.
Can you please explain re. impossibility of their claims?
-
So you still utterly believe that Madeleine`s parents are complicit in her disappearance?
Do you believe, as some sceptics do, that there is a huge cover up to protect the McCanns.
No I don’t believe that there is a huge coverup and I don’t think many sceptics do. Of course I don’t stalk sceptic groups on Facebook so perhaps you know better.
-
No I don’t believe that there is a huge coverup and I don’t think many sceptics do. Of course I don’t stalk sceptic groups on Facebook so perhaps you know better.
Lol.
I do read a wide variety of opinions on Madeleine's disappearance and that does include the many varied sceptic/ conspiracy theories which are abundant on social media.
If you don't believe in the almighty power of the McCanns to thwart the investigation of their involvement in their child's disappearance nor believe there is a huge cover up to prevent their arrest/ conviction ..,...why do you still believe they are guilty of being involved n their child's disappearance?
-
Lol.
I do read a wide variety of opinions on Madeleine's disappearance and that does include the many varied sceptic/ conspiracy theories which are abundant on social media.
If you don't believe in the almighty power of the McCanns to thwart the investigation of their involvement in their child's disappearance nor believe there is a huge cover up to prevent their arrest/ conviction ..,...why do you still believe they are guilty of being involved n their child's disappearance?
Nobody knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Some have accepted what her parents have said and done without question, others haven't. Some have wondered if there was a cover-up because the authorities appeared to go beyond the call of duty. Others have suggested that there was an organised effort to point the finger at the parents.
I think all possibilities should be considered because no-one has been able to offer proof that Madeleine was abducted. Operation Grange appear to have decided she was and their remit was to investigate an abduction, but they based their views on a by no means certain timeline.
-
Lol.
I do read a wide variety of opinions on Madeleine's disappearance and that does include the many varied sceptic/ conspiracy theories which are abundant on social media.
If you don't believe in the almighty power of the McCanns to thwart the investigation of their involvement in their child's disappearance nor believe there is a huge cover up to prevent their arrest/ conviction ..,...why do you still believe they are guilty of being involved n their child's disappearance?
Apparently because of the “impossibility of their claims”, though she won’t be drawn on what claims made by the McCanns are in her opinion “impossible “.
-
Nobody knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Some have accepted what her parents have said and done without question, others haven't. Some have wondered if there was a cover-up because the authorities appeared to go beyond the call of duty. Others have suggested that there was an organised effort to point the finger at the parents.
I think all possibilities should be considered because no-one has been able to offer proof that Madeleine was abducted. Operation Grange appear to have decided she was and their remit was to investigate an abduction, but they based their views on a by no means certain timeline.
What do the German police think? And why are you so insulting as to suggest those who believe that abduction is the most logical and plausible explanation accept what the McCanns have said and done “without question”? Why in your opinion is it not possible to arrive at that conclusion even after questioning every single thing they said or did?
-
What do the German police think? And why are you so insulting as to suggest those who believe that abduction is the most logical and plausible explanation accept what the McCanns have said and done “without question”? Why i. your opinion is it not possible to arrive at that conclusion after questioning every single thing they said or did?
From what I've seen the German police think CB might have abducted and killed Madeleine, although there's no evidence that he's ever killed her or anyone else.
Accepting that Madeleine was abducted involves accepting what the McCanns said and did, imo, because the only 'evidence' of abduction was their evidence.
Accepting what the McCanns said and did involves accepting (and excusing) some very strange behaviour imo.
-
From what I've seen the German police think CB might have abducted and killed Madeleine, although there's no evidence that he's ever killed her or anyone else.
Accepting that Madeleine was abducted involves accepting what the McCanns said and did, imo, because the only 'evidence' of abduction was their evidence.
Accepting what the McCanns said and did involves accepting (and excusing) some very strange behaviour imo.
An excellent point. For many this strange behaviour and refusal to cooperate fully with the original investigation as would be expected of the innocent parents of a missing child is extremely concerning. Are there any other cases anywhere in the world where the parents of a missing child have actively sought to discredit the police chief in charge of the investigation simply because the focus of attention as suspects came their way?
-
From what I've seen the German police think CB might have abducted and killed Madeleine, although there's no evidence that he's ever killed her or anyone else.
Accepting that Madeleine was abducted involves accepting what the McCanns said and did, imo, because the only 'evidence' of abduction was their evidence.
Accepting what the McCanns said and did involves accepting (and excusing) some very strange behaviour imo.
Well that’s your opinion, and mine is that the “very strange behaviour” is just you seeing stuff you want to see to support your beliefs.
-
Well that’s your opinion, and mine is that the “very strange behaviour” is just you seeing stuff you want to see to support your beliefs.
Quite the reverse. It was their stories and behaviour which triggered my doubts, not vice versa.
-
Well that’s your opinion, and mine is that the “very strange behaviour” is just you seeing stuff you want to see to support your beliefs.
So you believe their conduct was conducive of that of innocent parents?
-
Lol.
I do read a wide variety of opinions on Madeleine's disappearance and that does include the many varied sceptic/ conspiracy theories which are abundant on social media.
If you don't believe in the almighty power of the McCanns to thwart the investigation of their involvement in their child's disappearance nor believe there is a huge cover up to prevent their arrest/ conviction ..,...why do you still believe they are guilty of being involved n their child's disappearance?
It doesn't let up although noticeably not as many or as virulent ~ but early days yet.
Underneath the latest newspaper article detailing his sexual assault on on a five year old child we have ...
Snip
jb777777777, cleethorpes, United Kingdom, about 11 hours ago
If he was guilty they'd of got him for maddie by now . Wonder why they haven't then ? Too convenient !
seggy1958, Kettering, United Kingdom, about 11 hours ago
Has he answered 'No comment' to 48 police questions..?
Ms Fandango, Ashford, United Kingdom, 10 hours ago
Oh, I was wondering where this week's Christian Brueckner bashing article was.
I wonder what the relevance is thought to be as the apologists for an abuser take their every opportunity to vent their spleen on Madeleine's parents.
-
So you believe their conduct was conducive of that of innocent parents?
in kates book kate mentioned maddie was terrfied of pain why wpuld a 3 year old be scared/terrfied of pain
-
in kates book kate mentioned maddie was terrfied of pain why wpuld a 3 year old be scared/terrfied of pain
Do you believe a child of almost four has never experienced any pain?
-
So you believe their conduct was conducive of that of innocent parents?
Seen through the prism of Amaral's jaded eye I might have been seduced as some have been. But I came into this discussion when most of the evidence was available in the public domain ... then I watched Levy's dog tapes.
It is my belief that there are many people who have many sins to answer for the unprecedented thirteen years of gang vilification of parents whose sin appears to be their insistence on finding out their daughter's fate.
-
Seen through the prism of Amaral's jaded eye I might have been seduced as some have been. But I came into this discussion when most of the evidence was available in the public domain ... then I watched Levy's dog tapes.
It is my belief that there are many people who have many sins to answer for the unprecedented thirteen years of gang vilification of parents whose sin appears to be their insistence on finding out their daughter's fate.
It is obvious through your many posts that you are want to manipulate the facts to suit your viewpoint and fail to diverge from that even when your mistake is pointed out.
No problem with that just don’t expect us all to be so blind.
-
An excellent point. For many this strange behaviour and refusal to cooperate fully with the original investigation as would be expected of the innocent parents of a missing child is extremely concerning. Are there any other cases anywhere in the world where the parents of a missing child have actively sought to discredit the police chief in charge of the investigation simply because the focus of attention as suspects came their way?
Others think Kate was quite justified in refusing to answer anymore questions having already answered hours of questioning. ...from a police force who didn't understand the evidence. A force where the original coordinator was found guilty of perjury to cover up the torture of a suspect... A force where Almeida who wrote the interim report was found guilty of torturr... I think the PJ did a good job discrediting themselves
-
An excellent point. For many this strange behaviour and refusal to cooperate fully with the original investigation as would be expected of the innocent parents of a missing child is extremely concerning. Are there any other cases anywhere in the world where the parents of a missing child have actively sought to discredit the police chief in charge of the investigation simply because the focus of attention as suspects came their way?
,
Strange behaviour? Kate had been interrogated for hours, been told she must have had a 'black out' and couldn't remember hiding Madeleine, that she was guilty that they had proof that Madeleine was dead. Now, do you think you would sit there and answer questions that had already been answered just so that they could twist what you said? Her lawyer give her sound advice. IMO
-
,
Strange behaviour? Kate had been interrogated for hours, been told she must have had a 'black out' and couldn't remember hiding Madeleine, that she was guilty that they had proof that Madeleine was dead. Now, do you think you would sit there and answer questions that had already been answered just so that they could twist what you said? Her lawyer give her sound advice. IMO
she was guilty that they had proof that Madeleine was dead
so why would she not freak out at that news instead of just sat calmly refusing to answer questions?
If she did think Maddie had been abducted ..how did she know they were not telling the truth.
-
she was guilty that they had proof that Madeleine was dead
so why would she not freak out at that news instead of just sat calmly refusing to answer questions?
If she did think Maddie had been abducted ..how did she know they were not telling the truth.
She did freak out when she was interrogated.
She didn't know they weren't telling the truth about Madeleine being dead, she knew she didn't have anything to do with it they were trying to frame her.
-
So you believe their conduct was conducive of that of innocent parents?
Absolutely
-
https://servimg.com/view/14388310/9631
What about that one .the twins weren't even there,..it was Maddies birthday
You know this reminds me of something Kerry Needham said in her book, have you read her book about the disappearance of Ben? I bought it to help the fund. Kerry said she was on a bus, when someone told her a joke, she laughed at it and another passenger looked at her horrified, the passenger said how could she laugh when her son was missing. That was a very hurtful thing to say as if Kerry didn't care Ben was still missing.
That video of the McCann's, balloons go haywire the crowd laugh and the McCann's laugh with them, its a natural thing to do, the body just reacts to it. Like some people who laugh at a funeral, it doesn't me they are being disrespectful its nervous laughter at the situation they are in. It didn't mean the McCann's had forgotten their child was missing not for a second, why would they laugh about a situation like that?
-
,
Strange behaviour? Kate had been interrogated for hours, been told she must have had a 'black out' and couldn't remember hiding Madeleine, that she was guilty that they had proof that Madeleine was dead. Now, do you think you would sit there and answer questions that had already been answered just so that they could twist what you said? Her lawyer give her sound advice. IMO
Kate McCann's strange behaviour and tales began long before she was interviewed for the second time by the PJ on 6th September 2007. They spoke to her from 3pm to 11pm, with two breaks of 15 minutes and 2 hours respectively. Her interrogation lasted 5.75 hours in total on that day.
Kate's lawyer was concerned by her demeanor on that day; he warned her during a break at 5pm not to be so definite with her answers. Imo that was why he advised her to be silent once she was made arguida.
-
You know this reminds me of something Kerry Needham said in her book, have you read her book about the disappearance of Ben? I bought it to help the fund. Kerry said she was on a bus, when someone told her a joke, she laughed at it and another passenger looked at her horrified, the passenger said how could she laugh when her son was missing. That was a very hurtful thing to say as if Kerry didn't care Ben was still missing.
That video of the McCann's, balloons go haywire the crowd laugh and the McCann's laugh with them, its a natural thing to do, the body just reacts to it. Like some people who laugh at a funeral, it doesn't me they are being disrespectful its nervous laughter at the situation they are in. It didn't mean the McCann's had forgotten their child was missing not for a second, why would they laugh about a situation like that?
The crowd laugh the mccs laugh..was you in the crowd then.
They had police protection coming out that church you would have thought a bang was more worrying than funny.
It was just over a week after maddie went missing ..
So at least it shows the mccs were more or less back normally then
-
Absolutely
I believe the only thing that makes sense with the behaviour of the mccs is they know what happened to maddie IMO.
They seemed to have made the pathway to protect themselves ..not to look for maddie.
-
The crowd laugh the mccs laugh..was you in the crowd then.
They had police protection coming out that church you would have thought a bang was more worrying than funny.
It was just over a week after maddie went missing ..
So at least it shows the mccs were more or less back normally then
You just don't understand do you? The crowd were laughing the McCann's laughed along, it's on the video watch it.
Back to normal? Was Kerry Needham 'back to normal' when she laughed on the bus at a joke? No, they weren't back to normal.
-
I believe the only thing that makes sense with the behaviour of the mccs is they know what happened to maddie IMO.
They seemed to have made the pathway to protect themselves ..not to look for maddie.
Rubbish. What path was that?
-
I believe the only thing that makes sense with the behaviour of the mccs is they know what happened to maddie IMO.
They seemed to have made the pathway to protect themselves ..not to look for maddie.
If they were trying to cover up their guilt, why didn't they go around when they knew the camera's were directed onto them and weep and wail for all to see?
-
I believe the only thing that makes sense with the behaviour of the mccs is they know what happened to maddie IMO.
They seemed to have made the pathway to protect themselves ..not to look for maddie.
I think that's all rubbish
-
You know this reminds me of something Kerry Needham said in her book, have you read her book about the disappearance of Ben? I bought it to help the fund. Kerry said she was on a bus, when someone told her a joke, she laughed at it and another passenger looked at her horrified, the passenger said how could she laugh when her son was missing. That was a very hurtful thing to say as if Kerry didn't care Ben was still missing.
That video of the McCann's, balloons go haywire the crowd laugh and the McCann's laugh with them, its a natural thing to do, the body just reacts to it. Like some people who laugh at a funeral, it doesn't me they are being disrespectful its nervous laughter at the situation they are in. It didn't mean the McCann's had forgotten their child was missing not for a second, why would they laugh about a situation like that?
Can the incidents be compared? Was Kerry laughing on a bus 11 days after her son disappeared?
-
(http://)
this is Cassidy Stay arriving at the funeral of her family who were all murdered...she survived by playing dead....why is she so happy
Brave Cassidy breaks down as six white coffins carrying her parents and four young siblings are carried from their funeral a week after they were gunned down in their Houston home
What about this young lady smiling as she arrives at her families funeral
-
Can the incidents be compared? Was Kerry laughing on a bus 11 days after her son disappeared?
Do you think Kerry felt any different about Ben's disappearance? Do you think she was 'back to normal'?
-
Do you think Kerry felt any different about Ben's disappearance? Do you think she was 'back to normal'?
Faith was spot on when she said you could never feel sympathy for them ..like you would for others.
IMO They have never seemed genuine as grieving parents looking for their daughter..more it seems they knew what happened to her
Their interviews always pre-set questions ...hiring a spokesman always pokerfaced holding hands as if prompting each other.
Always you believed something was not right ...even to this day.
-
(http://)
THis is Cassidy arriving at her family's funeral...its totally ridiculous to draw conclusioms from th eimage of the McCanns smiling
-
(http://)
THis is Cassidy arriving at her family's funeral...its totally ridiculous to draw conclusioms from th eimage of the McCanns smiling
Not exactly the same IMO. Its not the only thing there are plenty more.
For instance, why did she run out the apartment leaving twins with a window open [allegedly]
-
Faith was spot on when she said you could never feel sympathy for them ..like you would for others.
IMO They have never seemed genuine as grieving parents looking for their daughter..more it seems they knew what happened to her
Their interviews always pre-set questions ...hiring a spokesman always pokerfaced holding hands as if prompting each other.
Always you believed something was not right ...even to this day.
I see them as totally genuine...If CB is judged guilty it will prove it
-
S
Why is Cassidy smiling arriving at the funeral of her entire murdered family
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2694572/Parents-four-children-shot-dead-Texas-family-massacre-laid-rest-six-white-coffins.html
-
Whyy is Cassidy smiling arriving at the funeral of her entire murdered family
Not exactly the same IMO. Its not the only thing there are plenty more.
For instance, why did she run out the apartment leaving twins with a window open [allegedly]
-
Not exactly the same IMO. Its not the only thing there are plenty more.
For instance, why did she run out the apartment leaving twins with a window open [allegedly]
The smiling ...and the above is not evidence....but as you have no evidence you have to pretend it is.
thats Cassidy arriving at the funeral aweek after her entire family were murdered...she only survived by playing dead.....and shes smiling...how do you expalin that
-
Faith was spot on when she said you could never feel sympathy for them ..like you would for others.
IMO They have never seemed genuine as grieving parents looking for their daughter..more it seems they knew what happened to her
Their interviews always pre-set questions ...hiring a spokesman always pokerfaced holding hands as if prompting each other.
Always you believed something was not right ...even to this day.
Sadly there will always be some who think parents of missing children don't behave in the way they should. Even though these people have never been in the position these parents have been in. There is no exact way parents will behave all are different.
-
Not exactly the same IMO. Its not the only thing there are plenty more.
For instance, why did she run out the apartment leaving twins with a window open [allegedly]
Kate searched the apartment first. The abductor had gone.
-
The smiling ...and the above is not evidence....but as you have no evidence you have to pretend it is.
thats Cassidy arriving at the funeral aweek after her entire family were murdered...she only survived by playing dead.....and shes smiling...how do you expalin that
Look at the rest of the photos..she was 15.
Staying strong: The 15-year-old makes a sign at her supporters as she arrives for the funeral services
Heartbroken: Cassidy Stay, center, watches as the caskets of her family are loaded into waiting hearse outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after their funeral service on Wednesday
-
The smiling ...and the above is not evidence....but as you have no evidence you have to pretend it is.
thats Cassidy arriving at the funeral aweek after her entire family were murdered...she only survived by playing dead.....and shes smiling...how do you expalin that
It can be classed as circumstantial.
She ran out leaving twins window open doors unlocked etc ect.believing Maddie had been taken.
IMO the only time you would do that is knowing it was safe ..no abductor still lurking.
-
It can be classed as circumstantial.
She ran out leaving twins window open doors unlocked etc ect.believing Maddie had been taken.
IMO the only time you would do that is knowing it was safe ..no abductor still lurking.
You can class it as what you like... CB is the suspect.. The McCanns are not
-
You can class it as what you like... CB is the suspect.. The McCanns are not
It is as simple as that.
-
It is obvious through your many posts that you are want to manipulate the facts to suit your viewpoint and fail to diverge from that even when your mistake is pointed out.
No problem with that just don’t expect us all to be so blind.
I have no requirement to 'manipulate' facts which are as they are. Look elsewhere for the manipulation which occurred and still occurs to fit in with Amaral's ~ "badly told story" ~ from the word go .
-
Kate McCann's strange behaviour and tales began long before she was interviewed for the second time by the PJ on 6th September 2007. They spoke to her from 3pm to 11pm, with two breaks of 15 minutes and 2 hours respectively. Her interrogation lasted 5.75 hours in total on that day.
Kate's lawyer was concerned by her demeanor on that day; he warned her during a break at 5pm not to be so definite with her answers. Imo that was why he advised her to be silent once she was made arguida.
Do you think Brueckner's lawyer will advise him to answer the police questions should he face further charges.
Do you think he should ... or do you think he should advise him to answer all the questions the police ask him?
-
I believe the only thing that makes sense with the behaviour of the mccs is they know what happened to maddie IMO.
They seemed to have made the pathway to protect themselves ..not to look for maddie.
Hmmm ... that will be why after years of her parents' appealing and keeping Madeleine's name alive ... nobody but nobody continues to look for Madeleine?
Sometimes I think there is a parallel universe out there because for sure there are inexplicable comments being made about events which just are not happening in this one.
-
Faith was spot on when she said you could never feel sympathy for them ..like you would for others.
IMO They have never seemed genuine as grieving parents looking for their daughter..more it seems they knew what happened to her
Their interviews always pre-set questions ...hiring a spokesman always pokerfaced holding hands as if prompting each other.
Always you believed something was not right ...even to this day.
It really would not matter whatever the McCann's said or did it just would not escape vilification of one kind or another. I doubt very much if there is a living person anywhere in the world whose character would be able to withstand the intense unending scrutiny Kate and Gerry have been subjected to over the years.
I find it all very disturbing particularly the pack behaviour.
Are they still handing out diplomas on hounding the McCanns?
-
From what I've seen the German police think CB might have abducted and killed Madeleine, although there's no evidence that he's ever killed her or anyone else.
Accepting that Madeleine was abducted involves accepting what the McCanns said and did, imo, because the only 'evidence' of abduction was their evidence.
Accepting what the McCanns said and did involves accepting (and excusing) some very strange behaviour imo.
No there is a good deal more evidence that Madeleine was alive in 2012 This I am unable, sadly, to share.... but to have this evidence, it seems the only way would be an abduction. From such a loving family, I hardly think that the Mccanns would have sold her
Do you ever wonder why, unless I have missed something, SY are absolutely quiet on these claims that Madeleine is dead, killed by CB ?
Because I do.
I wonder if they have finally shared some of their very secret info with the German team cos they also seem to have gone quiet (again unless I have missed something)
-
It really would not matter whatever the McCann's said or did it just would not escape vilification of one kind or another. I doubt very much if there is a living person anywhere in the world whose character would be able to withstand the intense unending scrutiny Kate and Gerry have been subjected to over the years.
I find it all very disturbing particularly the pack behaviour.
Are they still handing out diplomas on hounding the McCanns?
I agree Brie. The pack behaviour is extra-ordinary and I believe must have been fuelled by some organisatioin or person giving out deliberate disinformation to save their own skins … or centuries old drugs and slave trafficking businesses.
Just think of the mega money they will lose if uncovered and the indignity of very rich and important people ending up in jail! …. Phew!
-
It really would not matter whatever the McCann's said or did it just would not escape vilification of one kind or another. I doubt very much if there is a living person anywhere in the world whose character would be able to withstand the intense unending scrutiny Kate and Gerry have been subjected to over the years.
I find it all very disturbing particularly the pack behaviour.
Are they still handing out diplomas on hounding the McCanns?
Are they still handing out diplomas on hounding the McCanns?
Haven't a clue what you are on about ...but then again I don't scour the internet on what is being said against the mccs.
-
I agree Brie. The pack behaviour is extra-ordinary and I believe must have been fuelled by some organisatioin or person giving out deliberate disinformation to save their own skins … or centuries old drugs and slave trafficking businesses.
Just think of the mega money they will lose if uncovered and the indignity of very rich and important people ending up in jail! …. Phew!
To be honest Sadie, I think there is an element which can only be explained by 'untouchability' and it is not unique to Portugal.
Offhand I can think of cases in Belgium, Northern Ireland, Britain, Germany and probably every country in the world where children have been turned into commodities and there is no childhood.
The internet also has a place in this.
How organised it may be is probably beyond our understanding. But the lengths which have been gone to simply to discredit the McCanns and the duration of it is I think quite extraordinary.
-
I would like to share the following with you: Today, two weeks ago three couples and their children went on a weeklong holiday to the Kalahari region, close to the Namibian border. They actually planned to go to the Kruger National Park but since the inter-provincial borders were only opened a week later, they had to settle for this getaway in their province. During their last night, in the early hours of the Sunday, the thatched-roof home caught fire. Ten people died that morning. Six children and four adults. One entire family died. One girl was not accounted for, except for bones a day later which is with forensics in Cape Town. Two mothers survived. One with her 2-year old Ben and another, having lost her entire family. Today in our Sunday press, the following pictures were published. To me, it is about context. I will not judge in this case and also not in the McCann case. I have no right to.
Photo 1, all died. Photo 2, the mother survived and the older girl is unaccounted for. Photo 3, the mother and 2-year old Ben survived. Photo 4, mother of Ben. Photo 5, mother who has lost her husband and two children.
A final published picture to follow.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
How dreadful.
Heartbreaking.
-
I would like to share the following with you: Today, two weeks ago three couples and their children went on a weeklong holiday to the Kalahari region, close to the Namibian border. They actually planned to go to the Kruger National Park but since the inter-provincial borders were only opened a week later, they had to settle for this getaway in their province. During their last night, in the early hours of the Sunday, the thatched-roof home caught fire. Ten people died that morning. Six children and four adults. One entire family died. One girl was not accounted for, except for bones a day later which is with forensics in Cape Town. Two mothers survived. One with her 2-year old Ben and another, having lost her entire family. Today in our Sunday press, the following pictures were published. To me, it is about context. I will not judge in this case and also not in the McCann case. I have no right to.
Photo 1, all died. Photo 2, the mother survived and the older girl is unaccounted for. Photo 3, the mother and 2-year old Ben survived. Photo 4, mother of Ben. Photo 5, mother who has lost her husband and two children.
A final published picture to follow.
Are any of them smiling after the event?
-
Are any of them smiling after the event?
Is it not obvious? Cf. last photo.
-
Is it not obvious? Cf. last photo.
That's two that are in the press... There must be thousands more... Another failed attempt to condemn the McCanns
-
Is it not obvious? Cf. last photo.
Firstly do you know when the last photo was taken and secondly did they think any of their children was in the hands of a paedophile ?
-
Firstly do you know when the last photo was taken and secondly did they think any of their children was in the hands of a paedophile ?
It is the first interview since the tragedy. The ‘smiling’ photo was taken during the interview. Just because they are smiling, does not mean they have ‘moved on’. They are devastated. The last part of your sentence is non-sensical in my opinion.
-
It is the first interview since the tragedy. The ‘smiling’ photo was taken during the interview. Just because they are smiling, does not mean they have ‘moved on’. They are devastated. The last part of your sentence is non-sensical in my opinion.
The McCanns have admitted that in the first weeks after the disappearance they thought that their daughter may in the hands of a paedophile. How could any parent even smile while thinking that ?
-
You would understand it people holding lottery check...not a picture of your missing daughter.
'Every day is incredibly hard without Madeleine', 03 July 2007
'Every day is incredibly hard without Madeleine' Algarve Resident
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/McCannsAshton2.jpg
-
So you believe their conduct was conducive of that of innocent parents?
Absolutely
-
Absolutely
Absolutely... Because they are innocent parents..
-
Kate McCann's strange behaviour and tales began long before she was interviewed for the second time by the PJ on 6th September 2007. They spoke to her from 3pm to 11pm, with two breaks of 15 minutes and 2 hours respectively. Her interrogation lasted 5.75 hours in total on that day.
Kate's lawyer was concerned by her demeanor on that day; he warned her during a break at 5pm not to be so definite with her answers. Imo that was why he advised her to be silent once she was made arguida.
Tales? Strange behaviour? All only in your (extremely biased) opinion.
-
Why did kmccann stay in the apartment and search when she knew maddie had been abducted open window bla bla
why did she not just run straight out instead of spending IIRC 10 minutes looking for her.
Then left the twins ..she could have quite easily screamed for help from outside..
Its like disturbing a burglar when your house as been robbed you don't run about looking what was stolen you get help in case they are still in there.
Re: McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Supreme Court Judgement
In the documentary, this thesis is clearly stated as the contra-narrative of the abduction hypothesis, as the real alternative to it and to the shelving of the investigation for lack of evidence. This is why the challenge is "discover the truth about what happened that day. A death that many people want to cover up", ending the defendant with this conclusion: "I am sure that this fact [Madeleine McCann died in the apartment] on day will be revealed. The investigation was brutally interrupted and there was political and precipitated shelving. Some hide the truth, but later or earlier, the varnish will crack and the revelations will emerge. Only then there will be justice for Madeleine McCann” (n°s 41 and 42).
-
Why did kmccann stay in the apartment and search when she knew maddie had been abducted open window bla bla
why did she not just run straight out instead of spending IIRC 10 minutes looking for her.
Then left the twins ..she could have quite easily screamed for help from outside..
Its like disturbing a burglar when your house as been robbed you don't run about looking what was stolen you get help in case they are still in there.
Re: McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Supreme Court Judgement
In the documentary, this thesis is clearly stated as the contra-narrative of the abduction hypothesis, as the real alternative to it and to the shelving of the investigation for lack of evidence. This is why the challenge is "discover the truth about what happened that day. A death that many people want to cover up", ending the defendant with this conclusion: "I am sure that this fact [Madeleine McCann died in the apartment] on day will be revealed. The investigation was brutally interrupted and there was political and precipitated shelving. Some hide the truth, but later or earlier, the varnish will crack and the revelations will emerge. Only then there will be justice for Madeleine McCann” (n°s 41 and 42).
You are quoting the convicted liar again.. That is the convicted liars opinion..not the courts
-
You are quoting the convicted liar again..
Wrong its the court files.....it did say
-
Wrong is the court files.....it did say
It's from the docu... It's the convicted liars opinion... Not the court's
-
You are quoting the convicted liar again.. That is the convicted liars opinion..not the courts
Well the court believed him
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
-
It is the first interview since the tragedy. The ‘smiling’ photo was taken during the interview. Just because they are smiling, does not mean they have ‘moved on’. They are devastated. The last part of your sentence is non-sensical in my opinion.
For us that is a heart rending event to hear about ... for the wives and mothers it is an unbearable life changing one.
I am in awe of them that they were capable of being interviewed and I am in awe of them that they are still able to smile.
It is a remarkable example of the power of the human spirit to overcome the most unthinkable personal disasters it is possible to endure; I wish them every condolence and hope for the future.
-
Well the court believed him
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0
No the court didn't believe him...you really don't understand the SC judgement... They simply supported amarals right to promote his theory
-
For us that is a heart rending event to hear about ... for the wives and mothers it is an unbearable life changing one.
I am in awe of them that they were capable of being interviewed and I am in awe of them that they are still able to smile.
It is a remarkable example of the power of the human spirit to overcome the most unthinkable personal disasters it is possible to endure; I wish them every condolence and hope for the future.
Thank you for your response, Brietta. It is such a devastating tragedy that has sent much despair throughout my country. To me, it personifies human resilience and like you say, the human spirit hanging onto what is left. Like Madeleine’s parents have had to do for so many years now.
-
Is it not obvious? Cf. last photo.
So what was the relevance of the other pics?
-
Why did kmccann stay in the apartment and search when she knew maddie had been abducted open window bla bla
why did she not just run straight out instead of spending IIRC 10 minutes looking for her.
Then left the twins ..she could have quite easily screamed for help from outside..
Its like disturbing a burglar when your house as been robbed you don't run about looking what was stolen you get help in case they are still in there.
Re: McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Supreme Court Judgement
In the documentary, this thesis is clearly stated as the contra-narrative of the abduction hypothesis, as the real alternative to it and to the shelving of the investigation for lack of evidence. This is why the challenge is "discover the truth about what happened that day. A death that many people want to cover up", ending the defendant with this conclusion: "I am sure that this fact [Madeleine McCann died in the apartment] on day will be revealed. The investigation was brutally interrupted and there was political and precipitated shelving. Some hide the truth, but later or earlier, the varnish will crack and the revelations will emerge. Only then there will be justice for Madeleine McCann” (n°s 41 and 42).
Don’t you have it the wrong way round? Hayibo!
-
Why did kmccann stay in the apartment and search when she knew maddie had been abducted open window bla bla
why did she not just run straight out instead of spending IIRC 10 minutes looking for her.
Then left the twins ..she could have quite easily screamed for help from outside..
Its like disturbing a burglar when your house as been robbed you don't run about looking what was stolen you get help in case they are still in there.
Re: McCanns v Goncalo Amaral - Supreme Court Judgement
In the documentary, this thesis is clearly stated as the contra-narrative of the abduction hypothesis, as the real alternative to it and to the shelving of the investigation for lack of evidence. This is why the challenge is "discover the truth about what happened that day. A death that many people want to cover up", ending the defendant with this conclusion: "I am sure that this fact [Madeleine McCann died in the apartment] on day will be revealed. The investigation was brutally interrupted and there was political and precipitated shelving. Some hide the truth, but later or earlier, the varnish will crack and the revelations will emerge. Only then there will be justice for Madeleine McCann” (n°s 41 and 42).
When you’ve entered your child’s bedroom and discovered her missing get back to me, until them your opinion and views on what’s normal behaviour and what isn’t are completely irrelevant imo.
-
So what was the relevance of the other pics?
Showing the three families prior to the tragedy.
-
When you’ve entered your child’s bedroom and discovered her missing get back to me, until them your view opinion and views on what’s normal behaviour and what isn’t are completely irrelevant imo.
I notice you left the abducted word out of your post. It's true that Madeleine McCann went missing in 2007 but it's a matter of opinion that her mother entered her bedroom and discovered her missing. Everyone's views are irrelevant but those who think the parent's behavour was strange are as entitled to say so as those who don't.
-
I notice you left the abducted word out of your post. It's true that Madeleine McCann went missing in 2007 but it's a matter of opinion that her mother entered her bedroom and discovered her missing. Everyone's views are irrelevant but those who think the parent's behavour was strange are as entitled to say so as those who don't.
Of course. Say what the hell you like, doesn’t mean I have to respect it or agree with it, nor will I keep silent when I read what I consider to be idiotic, disingenuous, cruel or ignorant posts.
Ps: why the big deal about my leaving out the abducted word? What is noteworthy about it?
PPS your new sig line makes no sense.
-
On another thread this rather insulting post was made;
People on the spectrum often find it hard to read emotions in others and also often lack empathy and emotional intelligence. Perhaps this is one explanation why some people were unable to see the anguish in the McCanns? Perhaps they can only read anguish if it is full on screaming and crying but miss more subtle restrained examples of despair and heartbreak? Just a thought...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11633.msg616296#msg616296
As usual the suggestion is that those who doubt the McCanns are lacking in some way, unlike those who believe their story. Of course it's just as likely that those who believe them are doing so because of motivated perception and reasoning. They're seeing what they expect to see.
I saw some signs of emotion but only in the first few days. Perhaps some examples of these 'subtle restrained examples' of despair and heartbreak could be provided?
-
On another thread this rather insulting post was made;
People on the spectrum often find it hard to read emotions in others and also often lack empathy and emotional intelligence. Perhaps this is one explanation why some people were unable to see the anguish in the McCanns? Perhaps they can only read anguish if it is full on screaming and crying but miss more subtle restrained examples of despair and heartbreak? Just a thought...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11633.msg616296#msg616296
As usual the suggestion is that those who doubt the McCanns are lacking in some way, unlike those who believe their story. Of course it's just as likely that those who believe them are doing so because of motivated perception and reasoning. They're seeing what they expect to see.
I saw some signs of emotion but only in the first few days. Perhaps some examples of these 'subtle restrained examples' of despair and heartbreak could be provided?
Why should anyone take the trouble to provide anything... Imo you are so convinced you are right you won't accept anything... Like the photos of bereaved people smiling... A complete waste if time. Far better just to accept views differ
-
On another thread this rather insulting post was made;
People on the spectrum often find it hard to read emotions in others and also often lack empathy and emotional intelligence. Perhaps this is one explanation why some people were unable to see the anguish in the McCanns? Perhaps they can only read anguish if it is full on screaming and crying but miss more subtle restrained examples of despair and heartbreak? Just a thought...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11633.msg616296#msg616296
As usual the suggestion is that those who doubt the McCanns are lacking in some way, unlike those who believe their story. Of course it's just as likely that those who believe them are doing so because of motivated perception and reasoning. They're seeing what they expect to see.
I saw some signs of emotion but only in the first few days. Perhaps some examples of these 'subtle restrained examples' of despair and heartbreak could be provided?
I think it is risible to take everything to oneself as if recognising oneself in what is being said.
Therein lies the death of debate.
It is my opinion we are all within the spectrum and mention of it should not be turned into something it is not, but as with so much else it does appear to be a tactic instances of which are brought in when the abstract is just unpalatable for some.
Just as loathing for individuals never met is equated with best wishes for Madeleine is really laughable I think it is time that Amaral's example of petty thin skin is not adopted by his supporters of a way to personalise and dumb down the debate on here.
Having transported the post to this thread ... is that for you to illustrate how laughable it is?
-
On another thread this rather insulting post was made;
People on the spectrum often find it hard to read emotions in others and also often lack empathy and emotional intelligence. Perhaps this is one explanation why some people were unable to see the anguish in the McCanns? Perhaps they can only read anguish if it is full on screaming and crying but miss more subtle restrained examples of despair and heartbreak? Just a thought...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11633.msg616296#msg616296
As usual the suggestion is that those who doubt the McCanns are lacking in some way, unlike those who believe their story. Of course it's just as likely that those who believe them are doing so because of motivated perception and reasoning. They're seeing what they expect to see.
I saw some signs of emotion but only in the first few days. Perhaps some examples of these 'subtle restrained examples' of despair and heartbreak could be provided?
I suggest you take a look at the clip of Gerry talking to the press on the airport tarmac on the McCanns' return to the UK and see if you can spot any...
-
On another thread this rather insulting post was made;
People on the spectrum often find it hard to read emotions in others and also often lack empathy and emotional intelligence. Perhaps this is one explanation why some people were unable to see the anguish in the McCanns? Perhaps they can only read anguish if it is full on screaming and crying but miss more subtle restrained examples of despair and heartbreak? Just a thought...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11633.msg616296#msg616296
As usual the suggestion is that those who doubt the McCanns are lacking in some way, unlike those who believe their story. Of course it's just as likely that those who believe them are doing so because of motivated perception and reasoning. They're seeing what they expect to see.
I saw some signs of emotion but only in the first few days. Perhaps some examples of these 'subtle restrained examples' of despair and heartbreak could be provided?
You don't think the claim that some people "believe in the McCanns unquestioningly" as if we're some species of gullible sheep who worship the McCanns isn't slightly insulting? Tsk.
-
I suggest you take a look at the clip of Gerry talking to the press on the airport tarmac on the McCanns' return to the UK and see if you can spot any...
I saw it.
It didn't convince me.
I've never seen a single interview with the McCanns that made me think they didn't do it.
-
I saw it.
It didn't convince me.
I've never seen a single interview with the McCanns that made me think they didn't do it.
I think it would be worth your while to make the attempt to catch up with everyone else.
Madeleine McCann case: PJ confirms lead on new suspect
03.06.2020
Portuguese police confirm that there are "elements that indicate the possible intervention, in the child's disappearance, of a German citizen". The PJ even suspected that Maddie's parents were responsible for her daughter's disappearance and now, 13 years later, admit that there may be another responsible for the crime
_________________________________________________
The investigation, "in close coordination with the German (BKA) and British (Metropolitan Police)" authorities, led to the identification of a 43-year-old suspect with a criminal record who resided in Portugal between 1996 and 2007 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Germany ". According to the police, "the family of the missing child has been informed of these investigative developments by the English authorities".
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2020-06-03-Caso-Madeleine-McCann-PJ-confirma-pista-sobre-novo-suspeito
-
I saw it.
It didn't convince me.
I've never seen a single interview with the McCanns that made me think they didn't do it.
So what....who cares. Who cares if a few on the net hate the McCanns...it just isnt important
-
I saw it.
It didn't convince me.
I've never seen a single interview with the McCanns that made me think they didn't do it.
And that tells me alot more about you than it does about them. Thanks for sharing.
-
So what....who cares. Who cares if a few on the net hate the McCanns...it just isnt important
You cared enough to reply.
-
When you’ve entered your child’s bedroom and discovered her missing get back to me, until them your opinion and views on what’s normal behaviour and what isn’t are completely irrelevant imo.
No Ill get back to you now.
She went in everything seemed ok till the door slammed maddie had gone window open bowing a gale or whoosh.
She knew straight away maddie had been abducted..she searches apartment looks out of the the window... doesn't close it though then rushes out leaving twins.
I wouldn't and I expect others would not do that in a million years ...you would just scream blue murder for help.
How irresponsible can you get again not only leaving twins but a wide open window as well.
-
I suggest you take a look at the clip of Gerry talking to the press on the airport tarmac on the McCanns' return to the UK and see if you can spot any...
Fgs...do you mean this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pepDNi7WSYs
Reading from a script...its a wonder they didn't have CM there.speaking for them
There first time coming home [empty seat] Maddie not with them ..you would have thought they wouldn't be able to talk to anyone ...let alone reading from a script.
-
I think it would be worth your while to make the attempt to catch up with everyone else.
Madeleine McCann case: PJ confirms lead on new suspect
03.06.2020
Portuguese police confirm that there are "elements that indicate the possible intervention, in the child's disappearance, of a German citizen". The PJ even suspected that Maddie's parents were responsible for her daughter's disappearance and now, 13 years later, admit that there may be another responsible for the crime
_________________________________________________
The investigation, "in close coordination with the German (BKA) and British (Metropolitan Police)" authorities, led to the identification of a 43-year-old suspect with a criminal record who resided in Portugal between 1996 and 2007 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Germany ". According to the police, "the family of the missing child has been informed of these investigative developments by the English authorities".
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2020-06-03-Caso-Madeleine-McCann-PJ-confirma-pista-sobre-novo-suspeito
Catch up ...its nearly three months old news....nothing new ..it maybe/ could possibly be.the German suspect
It also thinks the case has been going on 17 years...just another newspaper report...not very clued up.
-
No Ill get back to you now.
She went in everything seemed ok till the door slammed maddie had gone window open bowing a gale or whoosh.
She knew straight away maddie had been abducted..she searches apartment looks out of the the window... doesn't close it though then rushes out leaving twins.
I wouldn't and I expect others would not do that in a million years ...you would just scream blue murder for help.
How irresponsible can you get again not only leaving twins but a wide open window as well.
She had a track record in "irresponsibility" remember? She left her children unattended every night, so why are you remotely surprised she left the twins again momentarily to get help? Personally she did exactly what I would have done. How many actual minutes do you think it took her to run towards the Tapas restaurant, shouting for help? How many additional minutes were the twins left unattended from the moment she left to get help til the moment she returned? Having established that there was no sight nor sound of Madeleine she probably also (unconsciously) noticed that there was no abductor lurking around waiting to take her other children, so I really don't get this particular line of attack. It's stupid, IMO.
-
I think it would be worth your while to make the attempt to catch up with everyone else.
Madeleine McCann case: PJ confirms lead on new suspect
03.06.2020
Portuguese police confirm that there are "elements that indicate the possible intervention, in the child's disappearance, of a German citizen". The PJ even suspected that Maddie's parents were responsible for her daughter's disappearance and now, 13 years later, admit that there may be another responsible for the crime
_________________________________________________
The investigation, "in close coordination with the German (BKA) and British (Metropolitan Police)" authorities, led to the identification of a 43-year-old suspect with a criminal record who resided in Portugal between 1996 and 2007 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Germany ". According to the police, "the family of the missing child has been informed of these investigative developments by the English authorities".
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2020-06-03-Caso-Madeleine-McCann-PJ-confirma-pista-sobre-novo-suspeito
So this is a portuguese newspaper confirming that the PJ are treating CB as a suspect...
-
Fgs...do you mean this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pepDNi7WSYs
Reading from a script...its a wonder they didn't have CM there.speaking for them
There first time coming home [empty seat] Maddie not with them ..you would have thought they wouldn't be able to talk to anyone ...let alone reading from a script.
Wow. The Tin Man had more heart than you do, obviously.
-
Wow. The Tin Man had more heart than you do, obviously.
Obviously I have more heart than the mccs it seems.
-
Wow. The Tin Man had more heart than you do, obviously.
The fact is that if the MCcanns were showing lots of emotion sceptics would say its acting
-
Obviously I have more heart than the mccs it seems.
not at all.....
-
So this is a portuguese newspaper confirming that the PJ are treating CB as a suspect...
And .......its an old newspaper report ....
-
And .......its an old newspaper report ....
its quite recent and shows the PJ are treating CB as a suspect..or has he been cleared and proven innocent
-
The fact is that if the MCcanns were showing lots of emotion sceptics would say its acting
Not at all.......it all seemed like acting anyway.
Being told not to show emotion to the kidnapper is totally unbelievable. who really believes that.
-
Not at all.......it all seemed like acting anyway.
Being told not to show emotion to the kidnapper is totally unbelievable. who really believes that.
youve proved me right......it all seems like acting to you
-
youve proved me right......it all seems like acting to you
When somebody only wants you to look in a certain direction, without considering other possibilities,
That somebody is trying to steer people away from something else
-
No Ill get back to you now.
She went in everything seemed ok till the door slammed maddie had gone window open bowing a gale or whoosh.
She knew straight away maddie had been abducted..she searches apartment looks out of the the window... doesn't close it though then rushes out leaving twins.
I wouldn't and I expect others would not do that in a million years ...you would just scream blue murder for help.
How irresponsible can you get again not only leaving twins but a wide open window as well.
She could have phoned her husband.
-
When somebody only wants you to look in a certain direction, without considering other possibilities,
That somebody is trying to steer people away from something else
What I do believe is they just never knew how to act when your child has been abducted.
That is why everything seemed faulse
-
She could have phoned her husband.
Showing the close proximity of them having dinner, in relation to their apartment.
-
She could have phoned her husband.
where was his phone at the time?
-
Goodness me. Why weren't The McCanns more altogether?
-
Not at all.......it all seemed like acting anyway.
Being told not to show emotion to the kidnapper is totally unbelievable. who really believes that.
you don’t believe the McCanns were told not to show emotion?
-
Showing the close proximity of them having dinner, in relation to their apartment.
Yes they would have heard her screams quicker than running there and then back...the twins could have been gone in that time with an open window.
-
where was his phone at the time?
According to his wife they had their phones with them.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
-
Yes they would have heard her screams quicker than running there and then back...the twins could have been gone in that time with an open window.
A hypothetical scenario: You find yourself in the midst of an armed home invasion where your children are present. As soon as it goes quiet and presumably the perpetrator has left with whatever s/he has looted, what would you instinctively do? You have no certainty that the perpetrator has in fact left but you consider the possibility that the situation has been deflated. You look for help, irrespective of the presence of your children at the crime scene. That is my thinking.
-
According to his wife they had their phones with them.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
And she took her phone with her to check on the kids?
-
A hypothetical scenario: You find yourself in the midst of an armed home invasion where your children are present. As soon as it goes quiet and presumably the perpetrator has left with whatever s/he has looted, what would you instinctively do? You have no certainty that the perpetrator has in fact left but you consider the possibility that the situation has been deflated. You look for help, irrespective of the presence of your children at the crime scene. That is my thinking.
Instinctively you pick up the phone and call whoever you feel is best placed to help.
-
Instinctively you pick up the phone and call whoever you feel is best placed to help.
Then a bit later on you delete all your call history.
-
Then a bit later on you delete all your call history.
which police can trace anyway
-
which police can trace anyway
So a bit pointless then.
-
which police can trace anyway
And what incriminating stuff did they find on the McCanns phones?
-
I suggest you take a look at the clip of Gerry talking to the press on the airport tarmac on the McCanns' return to the UK and see if you can spot any...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pepDNi7WSYs
OMG. What a splendid example to show their distress; they must have been sobbing almost all the way on the flight.
Kizzy , I suggest that you fully enlarge the video and take a good look at the pallor and the hugely swollen eyes of both Gerry and Kate. Even his lips are devoid of colour. What a brave couple they are, facing cameras even in their exhausted and distressed state.
All I can say is that "IF" any of you cannot see their distress, you are either very insensitive ... have atrocious eyesight ... or you are on the porkie trail
-
Obviously I have more heart than the mccs it seems.
Sorry but that deeply annoys me. You are speaking bigotted rubbish ... and might live to regret it.
Has any of your children vanished or died?
My only son died at the age of 9 from a brain tumour .... and I know a great deal more than you about what it does to a parent ... and i don't claim to know it all.
May I respectfully suggest that you rein in on this continual appalling criticism of the bereaved parents, when you are clearly bigotted and know nothing about the truth of the matter.
As said before, the foul things that you are asserting SAY FAR MORE ABOUT YOU, than about anything else. People will eternally judge you accordingly.
And I wonder how you would react, if Martin Brunt came knocking on your door?
-
Not at all.......it all seemed like acting anyway.
Being told not to show emotion to the kidnapper is totally unbelievable. who really believes that.
I think that you have little worldly experience. Of course there are people who get a kick out of seeing others distress if they have caused it. It's the POWER SYNDROME (my invented name). The power of being able to hurt others gives some inadequate people a big sadistic thrill. It also can sexually arouse them, I believe.
I am wondering if some on here suffer from THE POWER SYNDROME ?
-
She could have phoned her husband.
Hahaha!
Were they each carrying their phones?
Just a few seconds running . Not even a minute. I worked out how long it would take the athletic Kate once, posted somewhere on here) and was amazed how quickly she could have got back to Gerry .. and she yelled him from a distance.
Gerry is her rock.
-
Yes they would have heard her screams quicker than running there and then back...the twins could have been gone in that time with an open window.
You think so? I don't.
And risk waking the twins to hear her fear and join the fear ?
-
According to his wife they had their phones with them.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
And did Kate carry it back with her or leave it in her handbag at the table?
-
You think so? I don't.
And risk waking the twins to hear her fear and join the fear ?
I know nothing about motherhood, but, apart from searching frantically & noisily for my daughter, the 2nd thing I would do is wake the remaining children. Then maybe scream like a banshee.
I'm no mother. I'm just a dude, playing a dude, pretending to be another dude.
-
Sorry but that deeply annoys me. You are speaking bigotted rubbish ... and might live to regret it.
Has any of your children vanished or died?
My only son died at the age of 9 from a brain tumour .... and I know a great deal more than you about what it does to a parent ... and I don't claim to know it all.
May I respectfully suggest that you rein in on this continual appalling criticism of the bereaved parents, when you are clearly bigotted and know nothing about the truth of the matter.
As said before, the foul things that you are asserting SAY FAR MORE ABOUT YOU, than about anything else. People will eternally judge you accordingly.
And I wonder how you would react, if Martin Brunt came knocking on your door?
With all due respect Sadie. I read your posts and your theory and respect what you post. I wouldn't ridicule it.
I know you have done a lot of work and research on all this and fair play to you for doing so.
You don't know me the person behind the keyboard you are wrong to judge me on my opinion.
What you should understand first is ..I do believe the mccs are involved in a cover up. IMO
So my stance is the complete opposite to yours Im not the only one... that does not make me a bad person.
How when I believe they are involved could I ever have respect or empathy for them....you see one thing i see another.
Why should it annoy you you believe them innocent thats your prerogative - its just I don't.
How will I live to regret it ...and yes I know what it is like to be a grieving parent.
Why do you think believing the mccs make you a good person...and not believing them doesn't that is bigotry.
You will know also grief is not something you can hide its a natural function/emotion that can not be hidden.
I don't know why you feel you have the right to criticize me the way you have in your posts for my opinion.
When in a way you have done to me... what you are acusing me of doing to the mccs.
Kind regards anyway Sadie I was going to put it in pm but decided to put it on forum x
All i can say about MB knocking on my door is - if he did he would regret it.
-
With all due respect Sadie. I read your posts and your theory and respect what you post. I wouldn't ridicule it.
I know you have done a lot of work and research on all this and fair play to you for doing so.
You don't know me the person behind the keyboard you are wrong to judge me on my opinion.
What you should understand first is ..I do believe the mccs are involved in a cover up. IMO
So my stance is the complete opposite to yours Im not the only one... that does not make me a bad person.
How when I believe they are involved could I ever have respect or empathy for them....you see one thing i see another.
Why should it annoy you you believe them innocent thats your prerogative - its just I don't.
How will I live to regret it ...and yes I know what it is like to be a grieving parent.
Why do you think believing the mccs make you a good person...and not believing them doesn't that is bigotry.
You will know also grief is not something you can hide its a natural function/emotion that can not be hidden.
I don't know why you feel you have the right to criticize me the way you have in your posts for my opinion.
When in a way you have done to me... what you are acusing me of doing to the mccs.
Kind regards anyway Sadie I was going to put it in pm but decided to put it on forum x
All i can say about MB knocking on my door is - if he did he would regret it.
Those who are 'certain' of the McCanns' guilt have had over thirteen long years to come up with some credible evidence to support their belief. They have not been able to do so.
Which one are you going for ... shadowy figures around the church where the woman's body lay in repose before her cremation.
Or is your money on Gerry running around in the dark carrying a dead child in a town he didn't know but nonetheless able to secrete her body never to be seen again.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pepDNi7WSYs
OMG. What a splendid example to show their distress; they must have been sobbing almost all the way on the flight.
Kizzy , I suggest that you fully enlarge the video and take a good look at the pallor and the hugely swollen eyes of both Gerry and Kate. Even his lips are devoid of colour. What a brave couple they are, facing cameras even in their exhausted and distressed state.
All I can say is that "IF" any of you cannot see their distress, you are either very insensitive ... have atrocious eyesight ... or you are on the porkie trail
Still from the flight.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-mccanns-on-their-return-flight-home-to-the-united-kingdom-after-20389985.html
-
Those who are 'certain' of the McCanns' guilt have had over thirteen long years to come up with some credible evidence to support their belief. They have not been able to do so.
Which one are you going for ... shadowy figures around the church where the woman's body lay in repose before her cremation.
Or is your money on Gerry running around in the dark carrying a dead child in a town he didn't know but nonetheless able to secrete her body never to be seen again.
I would say Fight or Flight....It was imo a case of what could be lost as well as Maddie.
By priming your body for action, you are better prepared to perform under pressure. The stress created by the situation can actually be helpful, making it more likely that you will cope effectively with the threat.
This type of stress can help you perform better in situations where you are under pressure to do well, such as at work or school. And in cases where the threat is life-threatening, the fight-or-flight response plays a critical role in your survival. By gearing you up to fight or flee, the fight-or-flight response makes it more likely that you will survive the danger.
-
Sorry but that deeply annoys me. You are speaking bigotted rubbish ... and might live to regret it.
Has any of your children vanished or died?
My only son died at the age of 9 from a brain tumour .... and I know a great deal more than you about what it does to a parent ... and i don't claim to know it all.
May I respectfully suggest that you rein in on this continual appalling criticism of the bereaved parents, when you are clearly bigotted and know nothing about the truth of the matter.
As said before, the foul things that you are asserting SAY FAR MORE ABOUT YOU, than about anything else. People will eternally judge you accordingly.
And I wonder how you would react, if Martin Brunt came knocking on your door?
I can't believe that this nasty post has not been moderated.
-
you don’t believe the McCanns were told not to show emotion?
Well CM said they were.
But as I have already said you cannot hide raw emotion for anything ...grieving is grieving.
They thought Maddie was with a pedo ...if that had been the case Maddie would not be coming back.
Do you think it would have made one bit of difference to an alleged abductor ..seriously?
IMO just another excuse for the behaviour
-
Well CM said they were.
But as I have already said you cannot hide raw emotion for anything ...grieving is grieving.
They thought Maddie was with a pedo ...if that had been the case Maddie would not be coming back.
Do you think it would have made one bit of difference to an alleged abductor ..seriously?
IMO just another excuse for the behaviour
Could I ask you what you believe this lack of raw emotion ( in your opinion) proves ?
Your tag llne does indicate that you have a deep loathing of Madeleine's parents.
Would it be fair to suggest your strong antipathy towards them does not allow you to see what some of us see?
-
I can't believe that this nasty post has not been moderated.
Very often posts which I perceive as nasty are allowed to remain.
I suppose sometimes the truth as one person perceives may appear "nasty" to others.
-
Very often posts which I perceive as nasty are allowed to remain.
I suppose sometimes the truth as one person perceives may appear "nasty" to others.
The rules say 'Abuse will not be tolerated'. It's abusive to call someone a bigot.
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
-
The rules say 'Abuse will not be tolerated'. It's abusive to call someone a bigot.
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
No one was called a bigot. Sadie described what Kizzy wrote as "bigotted rubbish". I thought we were allowed to attack the post, not the poster?
-
The rules say 'Abuse will not be tolerated'. It's abusive to call someone a bigot.
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."
Describing posts as " bigoted rubbish" is surely free speech if the person perceives the posts as " bigoted rubbish".
I have to say that often Kizzys posts do sadly appear as such.
You cannot deny that Kizzy does post about Madeleine's parents in a manner which seems both hateful and intolerant?
Perhaps you don't perceive them as such!
I do and I assume Sadie does.
-
Well CM said they were.
But as I have already said you cannot hide raw emotion for anything ...grieving is grieving.
They thought Maddie was with a pedo ...if that had been the case Maddie would not be coming back.
Do you think it would have made one bit of difference to an alleged abductor ..seriously?
IMO just another excuse for the behaviour
Yes, I can certainly see the logic of it. A paedophile abductor is not likely to be the thoughtful, kind and empathetic typre, nor struck with remorse at his actions, but IMO more likely to gain pleasure from causing pain, both to his victim and to his victim's family. Would you want to give him more pleasure by letting him know how much pain he was causing you?
-
Could I ask you what you believe this lack of raw emotion ( in your opinion) proves ?
Your tag llne does indicate that you have a deep loathing of Madeleine's parents.
Would it be fair to suggest your strong antipathy towards them does not allow you to see what some of us see?
Do I care what some of you think...you should tell that to someone who does.
You are at it again ..where in my tag line does it say I have a deep loathing of the mccs.
You should not think you are all that clever ...if you think loathing the mccs is on my list of priority its not even on the page E.
Looks like I bother you ..more than you can ever bother me.
-
Yes, I can certainly see the logic of it. A paedophile abductor is not likely to be the thoughtful, kind and empathetic typre, nor struck with remorse at his actions, but IMO more likely to gain pleasure from causing pain, both to his victim and to his victim's family. Would you want to give him more pleasure by letting him know how much pain he was causing you?
Would you want to give him more pleasure by letting him know how much pain he was causing you?
Well don't you think he would know that ...it was their 3/4 year old child...what more devastation could he have caused.
Strange imo your way of thinking that it could hide the devastation it would cause if your opinion was right.
-
Describing posts as " bigoted rubbish" is surely free speech if the person perceives the posts as " bigoted rubbish".
I have to say that often Kizzys posts do sadly appear as such.
You cannot deny that Kizzy does post about Madeleine's parents in a manner which seems both hateful and intolerant?
Perhaps you don't perceive them as such!
I do and I assume Sadie does.
It doesn't matter to me what you think or others .....I have a right to post what my opinion is.
If you don't like what I post just simply block me. we all have choices ..yours choice seems to be to read them.
Then you wont have to tolerate them
-
Do I care what some of you think...you should tell that to someone who does.
You are at it again ..where in my tag line does it say I have a deep loathing of the mccs.
You should not think you are all that clever ...if you think loathing the mccs is on my list of priority its not even on the page E.
Looks like I bother you ..more than you can ever bother me.
So what do you mean by " the mccs bring out the worst in me"?
-
It doesn't matter to me what you think or others .....I have a right to post what my opinion is.
If you don't like what I post just simply block me. we all have choices ..yours choice seems to be to read them.
Then you wont have to tolerate them
Of course you have that right.
My choice is to read your posts.
I find them very interesting.
I also have the right to comment on your posts.
-
Would you want to give him more pleasure by letting him know how much pain he was causing you?
Well don't you think he would know that ...it was their 3/4 year old child...what more devastation could he have caused.
Strange imo your way of thinking that it could hide the devastation it would cause if your opinion was right.
I don't think you really understand. I am talking about an abductor getting off on watching a mother and father breaking down and sobbing in front of the cameras, being aroused by seeing their suffering. But whatever, if you think it's strange then that's fine, I really can't be bothered trying to explain it any further.
-
Would you want to give him more pleasure by letting him know how much pain he was causing you?
Well don't you think he would know that ...it was their 3/4 year old child...what more devastation could he have caused.
Strange imo your way of thinking that it could hide the devastation it would cause if your opinion was right.
you think maddie died in an accident...do you not think theMcanns would be upset if that was the case
-
I can't believe that this nasty post has not been moderated.
This is looking like Bias to me. No Rules by either party appear to have been broken.
I would stay out of it if I were you.
-
I can't believe that this nasty post has not been moderated.
Hmmm ... correct me if I'm wrong ... but aren't you a moderator?
-
I don't think you really understand. I am talking about an abductor getting off on watching a mother and father breaking down and sobbing in front of the cameras, being aroused by seeing their suffering. But whatever, if you think it's strange then that's fine, I really can't be bothered trying to explain it any further.
No neither can I.
-
Hmmm ... correct me if I'm wrong ... but aren't you a moderator?
It was probably more of an ethical consideration in regard to moderating posts pertaining to oneself - so bias isn't perceived.
-
So what do you mean by " the mccs bring out the worst in me"?
Isn't that obvious by my posts.
In the real world, I am a caring compassionate person.
-
It was probably more of an ethical consideration in regard to moderating posts pertaining to oneself - so bias isn't perceived.
The post wasn't pertaining to "oneself".
-
Isn't that obvious by my posts.
In the real world, I am a caring compassionate person.
But on here you're not. Well at least you admit it I guess.
-
you think maddie died in an accident...do you not think theMcanns would be upset if that was the case
Yes of course heartbroken....I believe this is the grief people see.
It is the fact that they could have covered it up that I find intolerable and heartless. IMO
-
It was probably more of an ethical consideration in regard to moderating posts pertaining to oneself - so bias isn't perceived.
Then in my opinion if it is an ethical consideration of self moderation it is one which many members disregard with a vengeance with every post.
Sometimes I find what is posted quite unbelievable; not to say it doesn't hold some shuddering interest for me of displays of the human psyche. Interesting but not edifying or in the least laughable.
-
Yes of course heartbroken....I believe this is the grief people see.
It is the fact that they could have covered it up that I find intolerable and heartless. IMO
I dont find it intolerable or heartless...as Ive said before...Gerry was very well liked at the hospital.....not intolerant or heartless to those who actually knew him
-
It was probably more of an ethical consideration in regard to moderating posts pertaining to oneself - so bias isn't perceived.
I think you might have lost the plot. It wasn't pertaining to "oneself".
-
I dont find it intolerable or heartless...as Ive said before...Gerry was very well liked at the hospital.....not intolerant or heartless to those who actually knew him
So are you saying you wouldnt find it inolerable or heartless to cover it up if there had been an accident.
Regardless of what people thought of gmcc
There are quite a few people who are well-liked ...it doesn't mean they are incapable of committing a crime.
Aso shocked people those people when they have done.
-
Yes of course heartbroken....I believe this is the grief people see.
It is the fact that they could have covered it up that I find intolerable and heartless. IMO
I am bemused.
You make blanket statements alleging all sorts ... in this instance a 'cover up'.
Yet never once have you explained exactly how they contrived to achieve any of this?
Go on ... please tell us how two strangers to a village were able to pull the wool over the eyes of the Policia Judicairia at the time ~ and years down the line have continued to outfox the British police~the German police and yet again the Portuguese?
-
So are you saying you wouldnt find it inolerable or heartless to cover it up if there had been an accident.
Regardless of what people thought of gmcc
There are quite a few people who are well-liked ...it doesn't mean they are incapable of committing a crime.
Aso shocked people those people when they have done.
I dont think they covered anything up...theres no evidence to support that..
-
This is looking like Bias to me. No Rules by either party appear to have been broken.
I would stay out of it if I were you.
So others can say this to fellow members and not be sanctioned in your opinion?
"you are clearly bigotted and know nothing about the truth of the matter."
-
Then in my opinion if it is an ethical consideration of self moderation it is one which many members disregard with a vengeance with every post.
Sometimes I find what is posted quite unbelievable; not to say it doesn't hold some shuddering interest for me of displays of the human psyche. Interesting but not edifying or in the least laughable.
What?
-
So others can say this to fellow members and not be sanctioned in your opinion?
"you are clearly bigotted and know nothing about the truth of the matter."
I don't find the word Bigoted particularly offensive, depending on how it is used.
There is quite a lot said on this Forum that offends me personally, but if I ran riot on that one then there wouldn't be a lot left.
By the by, why didn't you Delete or Modify this Comment?
-
What?
What do you mean by What? That's a bit rude, In My Opinion.
-
What do you mean by What? That's a bit rude, In My Opinion.
More rude than this?:
I think you might have lost the plot. It wasn't pertaining to "oneself".
-
More rude than this?:
You obviously don't read Posts before Commenting. This in itself is not good.
-
Isn't that obvious by my posts.
In the real world, I am a caring compassionate person.
Yes it is obvious by your posts that Madeleine`s parents " bring out the worst in you."
-
I am bemused.
You make blanket statements alleging all sorts ... in this instance a 'cover up'.
Yet never once have you explained exactly how they contrived to achieve any of this?
Go on ... please tell us how two strangers to a village were able to pull the wool over the eyes of the Policia Judicairia at the time ~ and years down the line have continued to outfox the British police~the German police and yet again the Portuguese?
Yet never once have you explained exactly how they contrived to achieve any of this?
You wouldn't understand - so why should I explain.
The way you carry on you would think I was in the minority...but Im not.
-
You obviously don't read Posts before Commenting. This in itself is not good.
I obviously do, I'll have you know. How dare you!
-
I obviously do, I'll have you know. How dare you!
Your Comment about Oneself says otherwise.
-
So others can say this to fellow members and not be sanctioned in your opinion?
"you are clearly bigotted and know nothing about the truth of the matter."
I think in view of the fact that in the same post sadie talks about one of her children dying with a brain tumour a little compassion might be in order
-
Your Comment about Oneself says otherwise.
I don't think so.....etc......blah........
-
Hmmm ... correct me if I'm wrong ... but aren't you a moderator?
I am, but I wasn't here. By the time I arrived a very good answer had been posted so I decided to leave both posts as examples.
-
Yet never once have you explained exactly how they contrived to achieve any of this?
You wouldn't understand - so why should I explain.
The way you carry on you would think I was in the minority...but Im not.
You seem to be content to post whatever comes into your head without bothering either to justify your assertions or provide evidence which supports them.
In my opinion that devalues everything you post if it does not stand up to scrutiny and that is not what this forum is about.
-
I am, but I wasn't here. By the time I arrived a very good answer had been posted so I decided to leave both posts as examples.
So you just saw fit to criticise other Moderators.
Did it not occur to you that we might have felt that both Posts should be left?
-
I am, but I wasn't here. By the time I arrived a very good answer had been posted so I decided to leave both posts as examples.
Such are the trials and tribulations of being a moderator. You win some and you lose some and in my opinion you lost that one hands down.
Or did I miss the "laughable" reference which would have kept your post on topic ... whatever that is.
-
So you just saw fit to criticise other Moderators.
Did it not occur to you that we might have felt that both Posts should be left?
It's quite clear that calling another member a bigot isn't seen by some as an insult, so members have carte blanche to use it, it seems.
-
You seem to be content to post whatever comes into your head without bothering either to justify your assertions or provide evidence which supports them.
In my opinion that devalues everything you post if it does not stand up to scrutiny and that is not what this forum is about.
Who do I have to justify my posts to .....You.
Who are you to judge my posts...and devalue them...that is bias I believe you being a mod.
I have said before you go a bit and beyond thinking you are better than anyone else ...your not.
The way you are going about this ...is as if I am some sort of threat IMO.
-
It's quite clear that calling another member a bigot isn't seen by some as an insult, so members have carte blanche to use it, it seems.
Wonderfulspam is a racist bigot and proud of it, so why shouldn’t we be allowed to say so?
-
It's quite clear that calling another member a bigot isn't seen by some as an insult, so members have carte blanche to use it, it seems.
That will depend. Or are you deliberately encouraging others to do this?
If this is the case then you can all watch out.
-
Who do I have to justify my posts to .....You.
Who are you to judge my posts...and devalue them...that is bias I believe you being a mod.
I have said before you go a bit and beyond thinking you are better than anyone else ...your not.
The way you are going about this ...is as if I am some sort of threat IMO.
dont worry kizzy....you aren't a threat to anyone
-
Yet never once have you explained exactly how they contrived to achieve any of this?
You wouldn't understand - so why should I explain.
The way you carry on you would think I was in the minority...but Im not.
That’s very defeatist of you. Go on, explain - I’ve waited 13 years for a plausible and logical explanation of parental involvement so don’t go and disappoint me now!
-
I would say I have proved that the accident in the apartment....within the timeline is impossible. Anyone who disagrees please explain what the accident was
-
Who do I have to justify my posts to .....You.
Who are you to judge my posts...and devalue them...that is bias I believe you being a mod.
I have said before you go a bit and beyond thinking you are better than anyone else ...your not.
The way you are going about this ...is as if I am some sort of threat IMO.
You are posting your opinion as fact on many occasions and you are unable to provided verification of what you post.
Nothing to do with me. Merely forum rules which you have agreed to abide by. Another protocol which you appear to be in ignorance of is not to criticise moderators.
-
I would say I have proved that the accident in the apartment....within the timeline is impossible. Anyone who disagrees please explain what the accident was
I don't believe it was an accident.
-
I don't believe it was an accident.
and i think your post is total bonkers...but at least you have repliied
-
You are posting your opinion as fact on many occasions and you are unable to provided verification of what you post.
Nothing to do with me. Merely forum rules which you have agreed to abide by. Another protocol which you appear to be in ignorance of is not to criticise moderators.
I would be grateful if you could provide me with a link to this particular rule.
-
I don't believe it was an accident.
What do you believe re. Madeleine’s disappearance?
-
I would be grateful if you could provide me with a link to this particular rule.
Its hidden in the hidden sub division of hidden rules.
-
I would be grateful if you could provide me with a link to this particular rule.
There you go Babycakes
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8293.0
-
What do you believe re. Madeleine’s disappearance?
stand by for a REALLY laughable story.
-
What do you believe re. Madeleine’s disappearance?
I believe she was killed then disposed of.
-
I believe she was killed then disposed of.
Killed by whom?
-
Killed by whom?
One would have to blame it on an accident, made more likely by the use of Calpol and the infrequent checks by the parents.
That was Goncalo's theory. - No actual proof just a theory.
-
One would have to blame it on an accident, made more likely by the use of Calpol and the infrequent checks by the parents.
That was Goncalo's theory. - No actual proof just a theory.
No proof at all.
Just a theory.
And yet thereby hangs a tale.
-
Killed by whom?
Reckon you will wait a wee while for an answer.
-
No proof at all.
Just a theory.
And yet thereby hangs a tale.
Rather like Brueckner. Yet we hear supporters talk of his part in Madeleine’s disappearance as if it’s fact.
-
Rather like Brueckner. Yet we hear supporters talk of his part in Madeleine’s disappearance as if it’s fact.
Can you point out one post, please?
-
Rather like Brueckner. Yet we hear supporters talk of his part in Madeleine’s disappearance as if it’s fact.
No . I don't.
However it does seem that three police investigations are not interested in the theory theorised by Amaral!
Just so you are absolutely clear about my feelings about this.
I would much rather your theory that Madeleine died an accidental death in the apartment due to an overdose of Calpol and her father chucked her body in a bin was the correct theory rather than that which the German police are now stating they know to be the fact.
-
Can you point out one post, please?
I would like to see that.
-
No . I don't.
However it does seem that three police investigations are not interested in the theory theorised by Amaral!
Just so you are absolutely clear about my feelings about this.
I would much rather your theory that Madeleine died an accidental death in the apartment due to an overdose of Calpol and her father chucked her body in a bin was the correct theory rather than that which the German police are now stating they know to be the fact.
An overdose of calpol ? What a ridiculous suggestion. Calpol is not a sedative.
As to the German police stating Madeleine’s death at the hands of Brueckner as a fact, the Portuguese police also stated as a fact that the parents were complicit in their daughter’s disappearance. Not enough evidence to charge in both cases.
-
I would like to see that.
Can I then suggest you try reading back ?
-
An overdose of calpol ? What a ridiculous suggestion. Calpol is not a sedative.
As to the German police stating Madeleine’s death at the hands of Brueckner as a fact, the Portuguese police also stated as a fact that the parents were complicit in their daughter’s disappearance. Not enough evidence to charge in both cases.
So that's not your theory.
Apologies.
But you do believe Madeleine's father chucked her body in a bin?
-
Can I then suggest you try reading back ?
Your statement. It's down to you to prove it.
-
So that's not your theory.
Apologies.
But you do believe Madeleine's father chucked her body in a bin?
I believe he may have made that pragmatic choice yes. Not sure what that has to do with the subject though.
-
Your statement. It's down to you to prove it.
I’d prepare myself for a disappointment then.
-
I believe he may have made that pragmatic choice yes. Not sure what that has to do with the subject though.
He may have made the "pragmatic choice" to chuck his daughters body in a bin.....why?
What do you theorise caused him to do so?
What do you believe was the cause of her death?
-
An overdose of calpol ? What a ridiculous suggestion. Calpol is not a sedative.
As to the German police stating Madeleine’s death at the hands of Brueckner as a fact, the Portuguese police also stated as a fact that the parents were complicit in their daughter’s disappearance. Not enough evidence to charge in both cases.
Maybe you should get Amaral to amend his book then and while you are at it you should catch up on what the real Portuguese police had to say about Amaral's thesis.
You appear to be a bit bogged down in conspiracy theory while the rest of the world read the facts and has moved on from the groundhog day you seem to prefer..
-
Not one supporter here has claimed as fact that Bruckner took Madeleine, the woman is making stuff up.
-
I’d prepare myself for a disappointment then.
So you won't mind if I delete all the posts with your unverified claim in it then? [You can claim you never read this as you have me on "ignore".]
-
Maybe you should get Amaral to amend his book then and while you are at it you should catch up on what the real Portuguese police had to say about Amaral's thesis.
You appear to be a bit bogged down in conspiracy theory while the rest of the world read the facts and has moved on from the groundhog day you seem to prefer..
Why would I get Amaral to do anything ? Do you realise how nonsensical that sounds?
The facts ?
That OG, even when given a particular remit, I note it’s in your signature, and millions of pounds have in 9 years yet to come up with a coherent solution that fulfils that remit ?
That the German police even after years of investigation, a worldwide appeal and three months of newspaper headlines have yet to connect Brueckner to the disappearance?
Those facts ?
-
Why would I get Amaral to do anything ? Do you realise how nonsensical that sounds?
The facts ?
That OG, even when given a particular remit, I note it’s in your signature, and millions of pounds have yet to come up with a coherent solution that involves any suspect ?
That the German police even after years of investigation, a worldwide appeal and three months of newspaper headlines have yet to connect Brueckner to the disappearance?
Those facts ?
Do move on ... bluster just doesn't do it anymore. In my opinion all your posts show is that you are reluctant to move with the times and you are desperately worried about the end of your era drawing to its close.
Because it has you know. I think it probably started with the Netflix documentaries but the tin lid was put on it when Amaral and then the Germans introduced Brueckner into the equation.
What's the saying about fooling some of the people etc - etc.
-
Do move on ... bluster just doesn't do it anymore. In my opinion all your posts show is that you are reluctant to move with the times and you are desperately worried about the end of your era drawing to its close.
Because it has you know. I think it probably started with the Netflix documentaries but the tin lid was put on it when Amaral and then the Germans introduced Brueckner into the equation.
What's the saying about fooling some of the people etc - etc.
Yet again this theme that things have moved on...they haven’t.
OG don’t agree with the Germans and, it appears, the Portuguese don’t agree with either.
It’s a shambles.
9 years, millions spent, thousands of man hours worked, numerous suspects investigated, three police forces and numerous outside agencies involved and still not a single charge laid.
This is what happens when you are blinkered....you tend not to see what’s in front of your face.
-
Yet again this theme that things have moved on...they haven’t.
OG don’t agree with the Germans and, it appears, the Portuguese don’t agree with either.
It’s a shambles.
9 years, millions spent, thousands of man hours worked, numerous suspects investigated, three police forces and numerous outside agencies involved and still not a single charge laid.
This is what happens when you are blinkered....you tend not to see what’s in front of your face.
Well ... at least you have taken pains to stay On Topic with "a laughable story". But really no need to go to repetitive extremes.
-
Well ... at least you have taken pains to stay On Topic with "a laughable story". But really no need to go to repetitive extremes.
This is the answer you give when you can’t discredit a word of a member’s post.
-
Reckon you will wait a wee while for an answer.
I answered straight away as it happens, only the mods didn't like the answer.
-
This is the answer you give when you can’t discredit a word of a member’s post.
Why would I bother when I think you do it so much better.
-
Why would I bother when I think you do it so much better.
While I myself enjoy sarcasm the result is never really as enjoyable as an intelligent, well thought out answer....something you may like to consider.
-
So you won't mind if I delete all the posts with your unverified claim in it then? [You can claim you never read this as you have me on "ignore".]
You go down that route Rob and there'll be nowt to read from anyone.
-
You go down that route Rob and there'll be nowt to read from anyone.
Back your claims with a cite and your post will be safe.
-
Do move on ... bluster just doesn't do it anymore. In my opinion all your posts show is that you are reluctant to move with the times and you are desperately worried about the end of your era drawing to its close.
Because it has you know. I think it probably started with the Netflix documentaries but the tin lid was put on it when Amaral and then the Germans introduced Brueckner into the equation.
What's the saying about fooling some of the people etc - etc.
Nothing has changed, imo, despite your increasingly desperate attempts to pretend it has. The Scarlet Pimpernel has nothing on the 'abductor' the McCanns and their ilk have promoted. This mythical person has been sought here, there and everywhere but never found. Millions have been spent, endless rumours of a breakthrough have been circulated, but the situation remains the same.
An abduction remains a possibilty, but by no means is it the certainty that the McCanns strove to make it imo. Operation Grange was instigated by politicians 'encouraged' by a newspaper editor and agreed to by the high ups in Scotland Yard imo. Those continuing it are constrained by a remit based on insufficient evidence.
-
Nothing has changed, imo, despite your increasingly desperate attempts to pretend it has. The Scarlet Pimpernel has nothing on the 'abductor' the McCanns and their ilk have promoted. This mythical person has been sought here, there and everywhere but never found. Millions have been spent, endless rumours of a breakthrough have been circulated, but the situation remains the same.
An abduction remains a possibilty, but by no means is it the certainty that the McCanns strove to make it imo. Operation Grange was instigated by politicians 'encouraged' by a newspaper editor and agreed to by the high ups in Scotland Yard imo. Those continuing it are constrained by a remit based on insufficient evidence.
There is nothing desperate about Brietta whose comments are logical and well presented. And there is nothing Ilk about me.
This is a Discussion Forum, laughable though it is sometimes.
-
There is nothing desperate about Brietta whose comments are logical and well presented. And there is nothing Ilk about me.
This is a Discussion Forum, laughable though it is sometimes.
What is that word Eleanor? "Ilk"
-
Nothing has changed, imo, despite your increasingly desperate attempts to pretend it has. The Scarlet Pimpernel has nothing on the 'abductor' the McCanns and their ilk have promoted. This mythical person has been sought here, there and everywhere but never found. Millions have been spent, endless rumours of a breakthrough have been circulated, but the situation remains the same.
An abduction remains a possibilty, but by no means is it the certainty that the McCanns strove to make it imo. Operation Grange was instigated by politicians 'encouraged' by a newspaper editor and agreed to by the high ups in Scotland Yard imo. Those continuing it are constrained by a remit based on insufficient evidence.
Things have certainly changed but you refuse to accept it. HCW has said they have enough evidence to show that their suspect killed MM. Simom Foy of SY was very supportive of the german invstigation and says the statement is significant. I think its laughable that you and other sceptics want to deny there is any truth in the claims by HCW before he has finshed his investigation. The abduction theory is supported certainly by two police forces....it isnt just the McCanns pushing the idea
-
Do move on ... bluster just doesn't do it anymore. In my opinion all your posts show is that you are reluctant to move with the times and you are desperately worried about the end of your era drawing to its close.
Because it has you know. I think it probably started with the Netflix documentaries but the tin lid was put on it when Amaral and then the Germans introduced Brueckner into the equation.
What's the saying about fooling some of the people etc - etc.
Do move on
What to ...no one is in further on since the 3rd of May 2007.
Apart from a dozen suspects all making headlines ...that just fizzle out and come to nothing.
-
dont worry kizzy....you aren't a threat to anyone
Thou doth protest too much.
Some times its best to say nothing.......a reaction can speak volumes.
-
What is that word Eleanor? "Ilk"
Hoi Poloi, Rob. Basically The Pits.
-
Thou doth protest too much.
Some times its best to say nothing.......a reaction can speak volumes.
Can't it ever.
-
Nothing has changed, imo, despite your increasingly desperate attempts to pretend it has. The Scarlet Pimpernel has nothing on the 'abductor' the McCanns and their ilk have promoted. This mythical person has been sought here, there and everywhere but never found. Millions have been spent, endless rumours of a breakthrough have been circulated, but the situation remains the same.
An abduction remains a possibilty, but by no means is it the certainty that the McCanns strove to make it imo. Operation Grange was instigated by politicians 'encouraged' by a newspaper editor and agreed to by the high ups in Scotland Yard imo. Those continuing it are constrained by a remit based on insufficient evidence.
You sound like you're losing the plot in this post, hope it's OK to say so.
-
Hoi Poloi, Rob. Basically The Pits.
We are the Ilk.
-
We are the Ilk.
According to Gunit.
-
According to Gunit.
She's a different species of Ilk - Sceptic Ilk.
-
She's a different species of Ilk - Sceptic Ilk.
I resent the connection. I am upper class Ilk.
-
Nothing has changed, imo, despite your increasingly desperate attempts to pretend it has. The Scarlet Pimpernel has nothing on the 'abductor' the McCanns and their ilk have promoted. This mythical person has been sought here, there and everywhere but never found. Millions have been spent, endless rumours of a breakthrough have been circulated, but the situation remains the same.
An abduction remains a possibilty, but by no means is it the certainty that the McCanns strove to make it imo. Operation Grange was instigated by politicians 'encouraged' by a newspaper editor and agreed to by the high ups in Scotland Yard imo. Those continuing it are constrained by a remit based on insufficient evidence.
I disagree that nothing has changed. OG have been working with the German Police. Just because we are not reading anything in the papers doesn't mean things are not moving. The German Police have said they are gathering evidence. We have to wait and see what happens.
-
One would have to blame it on an accident, made more likely by the use of Calpol and the infrequent checks by the parents.
That was Goncalo's theory. - No actual proof just a theory.
Do you really think one policeman had a theory and managed to persuade all his colleagues and the Public Prosecutors to go along with it?
This whole case is about rival theories, given the lack of evidence showing what happened.
-
I disagree that nothing has changed. OG have been working with the German Police. Just because we are not reading anything in the papers doesn't mean things are not moving. The German Police have said they are gathering evidence. We have to wait and see what happens.
Very sensible. This is so obvious, talk about those who are so blind they cannot see - I would say that describes sceptics and their ilk to the tee.
Ooh, I'm a poet and I know it!
-
I answered straight away as it happens, only the mods didn't like the answer.
And you said it was Kate who killed Madeleine.
-
Doesn't 'ilk' mean 'type' or 'kind' of person?
-
Do you really think one policeman had a theory and managed to persuade all his colleagues and the Public Prosecutors to go along with it?
This whole case is about rival theories, given the lack of evidence showing what happened.
No it is not about rival theories. It is about a missing little girl whose case was wrecked by an incompetent who then set about making his fortune from her in conjunction with attempting to destroy har family.
Once all possibilities have been investigated and impossible ones discarded the police will concentrate on what is left.
What is left are the British police ~ the German police and the Portuguese police putting a lot of time and effort into investigating Madeleine's abduction.
You are in denial but that is the fact of the matter.
-
No it is not about rival theories. It is about a missing little girl whose case was wrecked by an incompetent who then set about making his fortune from her in conjunction with attempting to destroy har family.
Once all possibilities have been investigated and impossible ones discarded the police will concentrate on what is left.
What is left are the British police ~ the German police and the Portuguese police putting a lot of time and effort into investigating Madeleine's abduction.
You are in denial but that is the fact of the matter.
It is all quite plain to those blessed with Logic. Those who have none are to be pitied.
-
It is all quite plain to those blessed with Logic. Those who have none are to be pitied.
You never said a truer world Eleanor and my pity is boundless.
-
No it is not about rival theories. It is about a missing little girl whose case was wrecked by an incompetent who then set about making his fortune from her in conjunction with attempting to destroy har family.
Once all possibilities have been investigated and impossible ones discarded the police will concentrate on what is left.
What is left are the British police ~ the German police and the Portuguese police putting a lot of time and effort into investigating Madeleine's abduction.
You are in denial but that is the fact of the matter.
It is not I who am in denial in my opinion. Repeating one's beliefs does not a fact make. You still insist that only one man suspected the McCanns, that the PJ didn't investigate all possibilities and that they are now investigating an abduction.
How about offering some evidence to explain your beliefs?
-
It is not I who am in denial in my opinion. Repeating one's beliefs does not a fact make. You still insist that only one man suspected the McCanns, that the PJ didn't investigate all possibilities and that they are now investigating an abduction.
How about offering some evidence to explain your beliefs?
There's plenty of evidence but you don't accept..
It's quite clear amaral was not the only one of his, team who suspected the mccanns... None of them understood the evidence.
Pedro DA Carmo said the McCanns are not suspects and there's no evidence against them.... That's evidence of what the PJ think
-
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nintchdbpict000003707334.jpg?w=960)
That is not Madeleine McCann IMO.
blob:https://www.thesun.co.uk/5e1ddec9-c33c-4c91-a9ba-cfe014858ee8
-
Nice hat though.
-
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nintchdbpict000003707334.jpg?w=960)
That is not Madeleine McCann IMO.
blob:https://www.thesun.co.uk/5e1ddec9-c33c-4c91-a9ba-cfe014858ee8
In my opinion that definitely is not Madeleine McCann. But for me the jury is out re the original snap.
-
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nintchdbpict000003707334.jpg?w=960)
That is not Madeleine McCann IMO.
blob:https://www.thesun.co.uk/5e1ddec9-c33c-4c91-a9ba-cfe014858ee8
I agree, Rob. That is Bushra. I never understood the potential importance of the original picture (not this one) until Sadie pointed to the girl walking in front.
-
It is not I who am in denial in my opinion. Repeating one's beliefs does not a fact make. You still insist that only one man suspected the McCanns, that the PJ didn't investigate all possibilities and that they are now investigating an abduction.
How about offering some evidence to explain your beliefs?
My belief is that the British police, the German police and the Portuguese police are investigating Madeleine's abduction ... want to tell where I've gone wrong with that assessment?
-
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nintchdbpict000003707334.jpg?w=960)
That is not Madeleine McCann IMO.
blob:https://www.thesun.co.uk/5e1ddec9-c33c-4c91-a9ba-cfe014858ee8
Bushra had no resemblance whatsoever to Madeleine McCann, neither did the older girl walking in front have any resemblance to the murdered Portuguese child Joana Cipriano.
-
Bushra had no resemblance whatsoever to Madeleine McCann, neither did the older girl walking in front have any resemblance to the murdered Portuguese child Joana Cipriano.
I realise this is old territory, John. However, given new information and developments in Madeleine’s case, it may be worthwhile to reconsider. It is said that Brückner talked about taking children to Morocco.
-
I realise this is old territory, John. However, given new information and developments in Madeleine’s case, it may be worthwhile to reconsider. It is said that Brückner talked about taking children to Morocco.
Who said ?
And why would you want to reconsider a photograph that has already been dismissed ? The children clearly look nothing like Madeleine or Joanna?
-
Who said ?
And why would you want to reconsider a photograph that has already been dismissed ? The children clearly look nothing like Madeleine or Joanna?
The Austrian carpenter, Michael Tatschl said his friend bragged about making money by trafficking drugs and burgling apartments, and once talked about 'selling children to Morocco‘. There are many references. Like I said, given new input into Madeleine’s disappearance, ‘dismissed’ information may gain new momentum.
-
Bushra had no resemblance whatsoever to Madeleine McCann, neither did the older girl walking in front have any resemblance to the murdered Portuguese child Joana Cipriano.
I think it is interesting that everything has been replicated almost as it was in the original with the exception of the exaggerated blue nipples on the person wearing the white blouse in the original photo.
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.2259593.1383015508!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/madeleine-cp-3646764.jpg)
-
The Austrian carpenter, Michael Tatschl said his friend bragged about making money by trafficking drugs and burgling apartments, and once talked about 'selling children to Morocco‘. There are many references. Like I said, given new input into Madeleine’s disappearance, ‘dismissed’ information may gain new momentum.
Was the ‘selling children to Morocco’ in the tabloids by any chance ? You know, the kind of tabloid that pays more money for more sensational stories ?
The photograph of Bushra was not ‘dismissed information’ but a visual representation of two girls who were not Madeleine or Joanna. Any input, new or old, doesn’t change that.
-
I think it is interesting that everything has been replicated almost as it was in the original with the exception of the exaggerated blue nipples on the person wearing the white blouse in the original photo.
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.2259593.1383015508!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/madeleine-cp-3646764.jpg)
And you laughed at those who believed in the ‘last photograph’ nonsense.
Jeez what is it with this case that it turns perfectly normally functioning brains to Swiss cheese ?
-
i dont think any child not related to the maddie case should be allowed on here photos etc i mean bushra was appently very distressed when people thought she was maddie
-
My belief is that the British police, the German police and the Portuguese police are investigating Madeleine's abduction ... want to tell where I've gone wrong with that assessment?
A direct quote from the PJ that they are investigating an abduction would be helpful.
-
A direct quote from the PJ that they are investigating an abduction would be helpful.
We’ve had a direct quote from the Pj that the parents are not suspects but that’s not good enough for you, nor would a direct quote saying they were investigating an abduction. You’d simply claim then that the Pj were saying one thing and doing another. Admit it!
-
We’ve had a direct quote from the Pj that the parents are not suspects but that’s not good enough for you, nor would a direct quote saying they were investigating an abduction. You’d simply claim then that the Pj were saying one thing and doing another. Admit it!
I have never denied what Pedro do Carmo said three years ago. Rather than speculating about my reaction just supply the evidence and see what I say. In my opinion you can't.
-
I have never denied what Pedro do Carmo said three years ago. Rather than speculating about my reaction just supply the evidence and see what I say. In my opinion you can't.
The de Carmo quote IS the evidence only you can’t see it. If the parents AREN’T suspects then what theory are the PJ investigating if not a stranger abduction?
-
I have never denied what Pedro do Carmo said three years ago. Rather than speculating about my reaction just supply the evidence and see what I say. In my opinion you can't.
In fact Wolters, who most supporters believe has his finger on the pulse of what is happening in the case, has said that the Portuguese still believe that the parents are responsible for the disappearance.
From the Telegraph.
"I think the Portuguese officials still think that Maddie's parents are responsible for her disappearance." A senior source in the Portuguese police yesterday said that they are not searching any of the suspect's former homes until they get a request from Germany. "We will do what they say," he said.
-
I have never denied what Pedro do Carmo said three years ago. Rather than speculating about my reaction just supply the evidence and see what I say. In my opinion you can't.
This doesn't make sense. If Pedro do Carmo said it what evidence is there to supply?
-
In fact Wolters, who most supporters believe has his finger on the pulse of what is happening in the case, has said that the Portuguese still believe that the parents are responsible for the disappearance.
From the Telegraph.
"I think the Portuguese officials still think that Maddie's parents are responsible for her disappearance." A senior source in the Portuguese police yesterday said that they are not searching any of the suspect's former homes until they get a request from Germany. "We will do what they say," he said.
Does this mean that The PJ are now prepared to do as they are told by The German Police?
-
[
Bushra had no resemblance whatsoever to Madeleine McCann, neither did the older girl walking in front have any resemblance to the murdered Portuguese child Joana Cipriano.
John, we can all see when comparing the photos of Madeleine and Bushra that they bear no resemblance to each other and that is why everyone can see that the picture number 2 of Bushra is completely contrived .. a false representation of Madeleine … it is so blindingly obvious.
And the carriers are two different people. The wo/man carrying Madeleine has no waist but Bushras mum has a womanly waist. The striped over-skirt fit around Bushras mum waist easily. It doesn't even meet around the wo/mans waist carrying Madeleine.
And see the distress that the Bushra weighted sling is causing to Bushras mums upper level boobs. The lighter Madeleine weighted sling makes no impression on the wo/man carrying her. She is lighter of course but there is a false womans front under that blouse IMO. Such false boobs can be bought
Now with Joana* walking in front of the group, it is important for any avid Amaral supporters that the young walking girl be denied as being Joana . Cos it shows
1) that Joana is still alive;
2) that Amaral got it wrong;
3) and there is even a question mark over the Judge in the case that found against Leonor and Joao, then incarcerated them both for about 16 years
4) It adds weight to the fact that almost certainly with Joana being there, then the little girl being carried is almost 100% certainly Madeleine
5) That in all probability there is a place near Zinat that abducted children are kept, in some cases to 'pleasure' Paedophiles , but in Madeleines and probably Joanas case to keep them for their bloodlines maybe. So part of a trafficking set up in all likelihood.
Joana comes
from at least one historically very upper class bloodline. The Ciprianos are a big name in Italy.
This is all IMO but I will guarantee that it was not Bushra on her mothers back in the original photo at Zinat; it was Madeleine … and neither do I think the wo/man carrying Madeleine was female.
My main suspect is a great JOKER.
-
You are posting your opinion as fact on many occasions and you are unable to provided verification of what you post.
Nothing to do with me. Merely forum rules which you have agreed to abide by. Another protocol which you appear to be in ignorance of is not to criticise moderators.
-
Does this mean that The PJ are now prepared to do as they are told by The German Police?
As they were involved in searching numerous wells associated with CB the answer to that would seem to be “yes”.
-
[
John, we can all see when comparing the photos of Madeleine and Bushra that they bear no resemblance to each other and that is why everyone can see that the picture number 2 of Bushra is completely contrived .. a false representation of Madeleine … it is so blindingly obvious.
And the carriers are two different people. The wo/man carrying Madeleine has no waist but Bushras mum has a womanly waist. The striped over-skirt fit around Bushras mum waist easily. It doesn't even meet around the wo/mans waist carrying Madeleine.
And see the distress that the Bushra weighted sling is causing to Bushras mums upper level boobs. The lighter Madeleine weighted sling makes no impression on the wo/man carrying her. She is lighter of course but there is a false womans front under that blouse IMO. Such false boobs can be bought
Now with Joana* walking in front of the group, it is important for any avid Amaral supporters that the young walking girl be denied as being Joana . Cos it shows
1) that Joana is still alive;
2) that Amaral got it wrong;
3) and there is even a question mark over the Judge in the case that found against Leonor and Joao, then incarcerated them both for about 16 years
4) It adds weight to the fact that almost certainly with Joana being there, then the little girl being carried is almost 100% certainly Madeleine
5) That in all probability there is a place near Zinat that abducted children are kept, in some cases to 'pleasure' Paedophiles , but in Madeleines and probably Joanas case to keep them for their bloodlines maybe. So part of a trafficking set up in all likelihood.
Joana comes
from at least one historically very upper class bloodline. The Ciprianos are a big name in Italy.
This is all IMO but I will guarantee that it was not Bushra on her mothers back in the original photo at Zinat; it was Madeleine … and neither do I think the wo/man carrying Madeleine was female.
My main suspect is a great JOKER.
Sadie, your guarantee is well past its redeem-by date. It's Bushra and the same woman carrier in both photos..
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Does this mean that The PJ are now prepared to do as they are told by The German Police?
That really is "a laughable story".
The PJ are as deeply into this investigation as are the other two national police forces involved and are doing their part.
The fact is it is all being done quietly which might be frustrating for us armchair detectives but not for the ends of Justice.
What's the betting they have plugged the leak direct line to Amaral to ensure secrecy of justice as per Portuguese law.
-
That really is "a laughable story".
The PJ are as deeply into this investigation as are the other two national police forces involved and are doing their part.
The fact is it is all being done quietly which might be frustrating for us armchair detectives but not for the ends of Justice.
What's the betting they have plugged the leak direct line to Amaral to ensure secrecy of justice as per Portuguese law.
The fact is it is all being done quietly
Why should that be a true fact......its just guess work on your part IMO
Because the fact could be they are doing nothing at all.
-
Does this mean that The PJ are now prepared to do as they are told by The German Police?
I think that means that the Portuguese have not excluded the parents as suspects and as they have primacy in this case.....well you know the rest.
-
Does this mean that The PJ are now prepared to do as they are told by The German Police?
The word you need is REQUESTED. Portugal responds to International Letters of Request. They have responded to such requests by the UK, for example, just as the UK have responded to their ILOR's.
-
I think that means that the Portuguese have not excluded the parents as suspects and as they have primacy in this case.....well you know the rest.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/e35774ba4a665b6e46296a3fe718ef68/tenor.gif)
-
I think that means that the Portuguese have not excluded the parents as suspects and as they have primacy in this case.....well you know the rest.
Now there's a thought. There's nothing like beating a dead horse, or dog for that matter.
-
The word you need is REQUESTED. Portugal responds to International Letters of Request. They have responded to such requests by the UK, for example, just as the UK have responded to their ILOR's.
The PJ are now prepared to do as they are requested to do by The German Police.
As a matter of interest, can The PJ refuse?
-
The word you need is REQUESTED. Portugal responds to International Letters of Request. They have responded to such requests by the UK, for example, just as the UK have responded to their ILOR's.
Didn't the Portuguese refuse to accede to such communications from Operation Grange on more than a few occasions when it came up their hump?
What record is there of such requests being made recently Germany~Portugal??? Brueckner's lawyer seems to have some complaints regarding paperwork involving more than one European country if memory serves me well
-
As they were involved in searching numerous wells associated with CB the answer to that would seem to be “yes”.
It was anunconfirmed rumour that the three wells searched were associated with CB. It was also rumoured that another twenty were to be searched, but it hasn't happened. Accepting newspaper stories as factual should be avoided imo.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/e35774ba4a665b6e46296a3fe718ef68/tenor.gif)
They haven't been ruled out have they ...the case was shelved not closed.
Just not enough evidence not non it seems.
-
It was anunconfirmed rumour that the three wells searched were associated with CB. It was also rumoured that another twenty were to be searched, but it hasn't happened. Accepting newspaper stories as factual should be avoided imo.
PJ made new searches for Maddie in three wells in the Algarve in recent weeks
Elements were collected that indicate the possible intervention of the German suspect in the disappearance of the English child.
Rui Pando Gomes
July 10, 2020
The Judiciary Police (PJ) searched for Madeleine McCann's body in three water wells located in rural areas in the municipality of Vila do Bispo.
The searches, which the CM found out, were carried out in recent weeks and are part of a list of measures developed by the Portuguese police, after the German Christian Brueckner became the main suspect in the disappearance of the English child, in Praia da Luz, in Lagos in 2007.
The CM knows that the searches in the wells were carried out with the support of a team of firemen specialized in search and rescue, which included divers.
According to CM , the PJ investigators found no trace of Maddie.
Other investigations have already been carried out, namely the questioning of witnesses, in conjunction with the German police BKA and the English Metropolitan Police, which share information to carry out investigative and expert acts, in Portugal and abroad.
The CM knows that elements have been collected that indicate the possible intervention of the German suspect in the disappearance of the English child.
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/pj-fez-novas-buscas-por-maddie-em-tres-pocos-no-algarve-nas-ultimas-semanas-veja-esta-noite-no-programa-rua-segura-na-cmtv
Much as it goes against your grain I don't think the Judicial Police are allowing the British or the German police to rampage through Portugal without their say-so and involvement.
They are sharing information and cooperating and the press are working on the information they have which I suggest without Amaral's leaks to the press would be nothing.
-
It was anunconfirmed rumour that the three wells searched were associated with CB. It was also rumoured that another twenty were to be searched, but it hasn't happened. Accepting newspaper stories as factual should be avoided imo.
Ah Yes, that one at Ibispo was searched because The McCanns seem to have been there. So there you go. The McCanns done it.
All back on track. Okay.
-
The PJ are now prepared to do as they are requested to do by The German Police.
As a matter of interest, can The PJ refuse?
The UK refused a request by Portugal, as I recall. It's all done in accordance with the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, which you can learn about here;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al33108#:~:text=The%20convention%20aims%20to%20encourage,and%20efficiency%20of%20judicial%20cooperation.&text=Requests%20must%20be%20made%20in,by%20the%20national%20judicial%20authorities.
-
They haven't been ruled out have they ...the case was shelved not closed.
Just not enough evidence not non it seems.
I suggest you drop a line to Robert Murat's lawyers with exactly that idiotic information and let the forum know exactly how you get on with it.
-
The UK refused a request by Portugal, as I recall. It's all done in accordance with the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, which you can learn about here;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al33108#:~:text=The%20convention%20aims%20to%20encourage,and%20efficiency%20of%20judicial%20cooperation.&text=Requests%20must%20be%20made%20in,by%20the%20national%20judicial%20authorities.
Was that to do with The PJ forgetting that The Smith Family live in Southern Ireland?
-
Ah Yes, that one at Ibispo was searched because The McCanns seem to have been there. So there you go. The McCanns done it.
All back on track. Okay.
According to another unconfirmed rumour the wells were searched in connection with the death of a local man.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/e35774ba4a665b6e46296a3fe718ef68/tenor.gif)
Can any Portuguese speakers translate a**e and elbow for me so I can respond to the post re the Portuguese investigation
-
The UK refused a request by Portugal, as I recall. It's all done in accordance with the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, which you can learn about here;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al33108#:~:text=The%20convention%20aims%20to%20encourage,and%20efficiency%20of%20judicial%20cooperation.&text=Requests%20must%20be%20made%20in,by%20the%20national%20judicial%20authorities.
Totally laughable ... in my opinion ... and sooooooooooooooooo yesterday's news. All but a few diehards have progressed way beyond that point ... don't you think it is time to play catch-up with current affairs.
-
I suggest you drop a line to Robert Murat's lawyers with exactly that idiotic information and let the forum know exactly how you get on with it.
Why
-
According to another unconfirmed rumour the wells were searched in connection with the death of a local man.
Didn't you start that one ?
I think you might have, unless you can point to an unreliable press report to the contrary.
-
Now there's a thought. There's nothing like beating a dead horse, or dog for that matter.
Then how do you translate Wolter’s words ?
-
Why
If you don't know why ... I am afraid I am unable to help you ... particularly as I believe you are far too intelligent not to know the answer already.
CLUE ... Like Princess Diana's marriage ~ there were three in this arguidoship
-
If you don't know why ... I am afraid I am unable to help you ... particularly as I believe you are far too intelligent not to know the answer already.
CLUE ... Like Princess Diana's marriage ~ there were three in this arguidoship
Seemed RM was not really a person of interest although gmcc wouldn't say whether he knew him or not.
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTSTAVARES DE ALMEIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
-
If you don't know why ... I am afraid I am unable to help you ... particularly as I believe you are far too intelligent not to know the answer already.
CLUE ... Like Princess Diana's marriage ~ there were three in this arguidoship
Oooh, this is like 3-2-1.
OK, here goes....so Princess Diana's marriage, well where did it take place? Westminster Abbey. Westminster Abbey was originally a Benedictine Monastic Church. Benedictine is liqueur produced in France, made from 27 flowers. Brandon Flowers is the lead singer of The Killers. So.........you're saying one of the arguidos or Dodi Fayed are the killers?
-
Oooh, this is like 3-2-1.
OK, here goes....so Princess Diana's marriage, well where did it take place? Westminster Abbey. Westminster Abbey was originally a Benedictine Monastic Church. Benedictine is liqueur produced in France, made from 27 flowers. Brandon Flowers is the lead singer of The Killers. So.........you're saying one of the arguidos or Dodi Fayed are the killers?
Wrong start.
They were married in St. Paul's.
So I'm afraid your theory .doesn't stand scrutiny.
-
According to another unconfirmed rumour the wells were searched in connection with the death of a local man.
Nope. They already had his body.
-
Wrong start.
They were married in St. Paul's.
So I'm afraid your theory .doesn't stand scrutiny.
Sh1t!
....St. Paul's........is......Christopher Wren.......bird.......Dodi.....Dodo.......both extinct........
-
Nope. They already had his body.
They were looking for the muydur weapon. Allegedly.
-
Then how do you translate Wolter’s words ?
I don't. As you know, I believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
But I have to admit to a bit of a wobble on this one, although I'm trying not to.
-
Seemed RM was not really a person of interest although gmcc wouldn't say whether he knew him or not.
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTSTAVARES DE ALMEIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida. Well some of that sounds so much like Amaral's book. The bit about Gerry being cold as he's a 'surgeon' except that Gerry isn't a surgeon. The part about the Calpol, I feel so sorry for Kate's dad being misquoted. He actually said the only thing he had ever seen Kate and Gerry give the children was Calpol, he did NOT say they had given it to them on May 3rd or that they give it to them to help them sleep. Weird that they couldn't think to themselves, well maybe Gerry and Jeremy were facing downwards when they were talking and that is why they didn't see Jane. Jane said she wanted to stick to her first statement about what she saw as they had been putting words into her mouth. She said she thought the pyjamas had turn ups on the bottom of them, then she found out that Madeleine's pyjamas had frills at the bottom, she thought it was a girl as the pyjamas were light in colour maybe white or pink. Kate searched the apartment before she went to get help no doubt in an absolute panic, there was no one in the apartment. It would have been ok to stand on the balcony then, even if the window was open and the abductor could have got back in and taken the twins!!! What utter rubbish.
Gerry said he wasn't going to say whether he knew Murat or not, because he wasn't allowed to talk about the investigation!!! Two years imprisonment if they said anything.
-
They were looking for the muydur weapon. Allegedly.
What? Down a well? How very odd. It could have been anywhere. Was he dead?
-
I don't. As you know, I believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
But I have to admit to a bit of a wobble on this one, although I'm trying not to.
We don't have to translate anything from Wolters.. He has, spoken in very good English
-
Nope. They already had his body.
Who said they were looking for a body?
-
Who said they were looking for a body?
So what were they looking for? Scotch Mist?
-
What? Down a well? How very odd. It could have been anywhere. Was he dead?
Totally dead. As a Dodi.
Discarding a weapon down a well or similar inaccessible place is not 'odd'.
-
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida. Well some of that sounds so much like Amaral's book. The bit about Gerry being cold as he's a 'surgeon' except that Gerry isn't a surgeon. The part about the Calpol, I feel so sorry for Kate's dad being misquoted. He actually said the only thing he had ever seen Kate and Gerry give the children was Calpol, he did NOT say they had given it to them on May 3rd or that they give it to them to help them sleep. Weird that they couldn't think to themselves, well maybe Gerry and Jeremy were facing downwards when they were talking and that is why they didn't see Jane. Jane said she wanted to stick to her first statement about what she saw as they had been putting words into her mouth. She said she thought the pyjamas had turn ups on the bottom of them, then she found out that Madeleine's pyjamas had frills at the bottom, she thought it was a girl as the pyjamas were light in colour maybe white or pink. Kate searched the apartment before she went to get help no doubt in an absolute panic, there was no one in the apartment. It would have been ok to stand on the balcony then, even if the window was open and the abductor could have got back in and taken the twins!!! What utter rubbish.
Gerry said he wasn't going to say whether he knew Murat or not, because he wasn't allowed to talk about the investigation!!! Two years imprisonment if they said anything.
Well, cant make sense of your post.but.
It sounds like GA book simply because .the Book was wrote from the PJ police files.
-
Totally dead. As a Dodi.
Discarding a weapon down a well or similar inaccessible place is not 'odd'.
If Wells are so inaccessible why bother to search for a weapon when someone is definitely dead?
-
If Wells are so inaccessible why bother to search for a weapon when someone is definitely dead?
To find evidence to convict the killer.
But hey, who knows? Not me. I read a story about a man getting killed by another man and they were looking for the murder weapon.
-
PJ made new searches for Maddie in three wells in the Algarve in recent weeks
Elements were collected that indicate the possible intervention of the German suspect in the disappearance of the English child.
Rui Pando Gomes
July 10, 2020
The Judiciary Police (PJ) searched for Madeleine McCann's body in three water wells located in rural areas in the municipality of Vila do Bispo.
The searches, which the CM found out, were carried out in recent weeks and are part of a list of measures developed by the Portuguese police, after the German Christian Brueckner became the main suspect in the disappearance of the English child, in Praia da Luz, in Lagos in 2007.
The CM knows that the searches in the wells were carried out with the support of a team of firemen specialized in search and rescue, which included divers.
According to CM , the PJ investigators found no trace of Maddie.
Other investigations have already been carried out, namely the questioning of witnesses, in conjunction with the German police BKA and the English Metropolitan Police, which share information to carry out investigative and expert acts, in Portugal and abroad.
The CM knows that elements have been collected that indicate the possible intervention of the German suspect in the disappearance of the English child.
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/pj-fez-novas-buscas-por-maddie-em-tres-pocos-no-algarve-nas-ultimas-semanas-veja-esta-noite-no-programa-rua-segura-na-cmtv
Much as it goes against your grain I don't think the Judicial Police are allowing the British or the German police to rampage through Portugal without their say-so and involvement.
They are sharing information and cooperating and the press are working on the information they have which I suggest without Amaral's leaks to the press would be nothing.
It was CM who claimed to have unpublished photos of Gerry McCann searching too. That was false, so why believe this story? They quote no sources, it looks like just another rumour to me.
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/fotos-ineditas-mostram-buscas-do-pai-de-maddie-mccann-no-areal-e-rochas?ref=DET_Relacionadas
-
If Wells are so inaccessible why bother to search for a weapon when someone is definitely dead?
Looking for a murder weapon?
https://www.portugalresident.com/dutchman-found-dead-in-suspected-murder-in-vila-do-bispo/
-
Sadie, your guarantee is well past its redeem-by date. It's Bushra and the same woman carrier in both photos..
Suggest you go to Specsavers Myster. Your eyesight is sooo... bad.
Undoubtedly the two carried girls are not the same girl …. and with almost 100% certainty the first girl is Madeleine.
As for Joana: The legs and ankles give it away and also the upper farce.
And why does the overskirt not fit the wo/man carrying Madeleine, yet it easily fits Bushras Mum ?
I have an original photo of the little girl on the wo/mans back but I ain't posting it, cos almost certainly someone will alter it. Anyway SY have the evidence, sent to them years ago.
Long ago, I posted on here a report saying that rich European business men kept hareems of children in N, Africa. I am wondering if both Joana and Madeleine were being kept (albeit temporarily with Madeleine) in such a place?
-
Looking for a murder weapon?
https://www.portugalresident.com/dutchman-found-dead-in-suspected-murder-in-vila-do-bispo/
Down which one of many Wells? All of them? He was dead for Christ's sake and must have had some sort of injury.
Ws he strangled? How to find a piece of string.
-
Down which one of many Wells? All of them? He was dead for Christ's sake and must have had some sort of injury.
Ws he strangled? How to find a piece of string.
I suggest you read the story I linked to.
-
I suggest you read the story I linked to.
Why would I bother? From what little I remember it had nothing to do with Madeleine or The McCanns, other than trying to make it so.
-
Suggest you go to Specsavers Myster. Your eyesight is sooo... bad.
Undoubtedly the two carried girls are not the same girl …. and with almost 100% certainty the first girl is Madeleine.
As for Joana: The legs and ankles give it away and also the upper farce.
And why does the overskirt not fit the wo/man carrying Madeleine, yet it easily fits Bushras Mum ?
I have an original photo of the little girl on the wo/mans back but I ain't posting it, cos almost certainly someone will alter it. Anyway SY have the evidence, sent to them years ago.
Long ago, I posted on here a report saying that rich European business men kept hareems of children in N, Africa. I am wondering if both Joana and Madeleine were being kept (albeit temporarily with Madeleine) in such a place?
Why would the woman carry two identical looking different girls, when carrying one like that looks like a right pain in the arse?
Besides, Joana is dead; killed by her uncle and ably assisted by her own mother.
-
(https://statesboroherald.cdn-anvilcms.net/media/images/2018/09/21/images/SPAIN_MOROCCO_MISSI_5204825.max-2400x1350.jpg)
Sometimes the "Joanna" like girl is cropped out of the photo. I don't really know what Joanna looked like so how can I say she is similar?
(http://i.imgur.com/JD66j34.jpg?1-Joana_Cipriano)
-
Seemed RM was not really a person of interest although gmcc wouldn't say whether he knew him or not.
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTSTAVARES DE ALMEIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
That is truly a laugh a minute laughable have your cake and eating it post. Robert Murat was an arguido just as Kate and Gerry were.
All three remained arguidos until the status was officially lifted.
-
(https://statesboroherald.cdn-anvilcms.net/media/images/2018/09/21/images/SPAIN_MOROCCO_MISSI_5204825.max-2400x1350.jpg)
Sometimes the "Joanna" like girl is cropped out of the photo. I don't really know what Joanna looked like so how can I say she is similar?
(http://i.imgur.com/JD66j34.jpg?1-Joana_Cipriano)
I still don't know why the blue nipples on the original photo. Is it part of 'national or regional dress' ... anyone got an idea?
-
That is truly a laugh a minute laughable have your cake and eating it post. Robert Murat was an arguido just as Kate and Gerry were.
All three remained arguidos until the status was officially lifted.
It was obvious to all that the PJ ceased to actively investigate Murat within a couple of months. The McCanns were actively investigated until at least May 2008, and were still the prime suspects when the case was archived.
-
It was obvious to all that the PJ ceased to actively investigate Murat within a couple of months. The McCanns were actively investigated until at least May 2008, and were still the prime suspects when the case was archived.
12 years ago...do you think the PJ are still investigating them
-
It was anunconfirmed rumour that the three wells searched were associated with CB. It was also rumoured that another twenty were to be searched, but it hasn't happened. Accepting newspaper stories as factual should be avoided imo.
Can I ask how you know this as a fact?
-
PJ made new searches for Maddie in three wells in the Algarve in recent weeks
Elements were collected that indicate the possible intervention of the German suspect in the disappearance of the English child.
Rui Pando Gomes
July 10, 2020
The Judiciary Police (PJ) searched for Madeleine McCann's body in three water wells located in rural areas in the municipality of Vila do Bispo.
The searches, which the CM found out, were carried out in recent weeks and are part of a list of measures developed by the Portuguese police, after the German Christian Brueckner became the main suspect in the disappearance of the English child, in Praia da Luz, in Lagos in 2007.
The CM knows that the searches in the wells were carried out with the support of a team of firemen specialized in search and rescue, which included divers.
According to CM , the PJ investigators found no trace of Maddie.
Other investigations have already been carried out, namely the questioning of witnesses, in conjunction with the German police BKA and the English Metropolitan Police, which share information to carry out investigative and expert acts, in Portugal and abroad.
The CM knows that elements have been collected that indicate the possible intervention of the German suspect in the disappearance of the English child.
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/pj-fez-novas-buscas-por-maddie-em-tres-pocos-no-algarve-nas-ultimas-semanas-veja-esta-noite-no-programa-rua-segura-na-cmtv
Much as it goes against your grain I don't think the Judicial Police are allowing the British or the German police to rampage through Portugal without their say-so and involvement.
They are sharing information and cooperating and the press are working on the information they have which I suggest without Amaral's leaks to the press would be nothing.
That sounds like more than a rumour to me.
-
It was obvious to all that the PJ ceased to actively investigate Murat within a couple of months. The McCanns were actively investigated until at least May 2008, and were still the prime suspects when the case was archived.
Because Amaral wasn't able to link Robert Murat to The McCanns, who would have needed local help to hide a body.
-
According to another unconfirmed rumour the wells were searched in connection with the death of a local man.
Please provide a cite for this unconfirmed rumour.
-
12 years ago...do you think the PJ are still investigating them
Some people think the PJ are investigating an abduction, although they're unable to offer any evidence to support that.
-
Some people think the PJ are investigating an abduction, although they're unable to offer any evidence to support that.
I havent seen any evidence they are investigating anything....there is evidence from them that they dont see the McCanns as suspects which rules the mccanns out of the investigation and points to abduction or woke and wandered
-
Can I ask how you know this as a fact?
You claimed as a fact that the searches were connected to the McCann case.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11722.msg616617#msg616617
If you provide evidence that it is a fact, you can prove me wrong without asking questions.
-
Because Amaral wasn't able to link Robert Murat to The McCanns, who would have needed local help to hide a body.
That sounds to me like something you think rather than something the PJ were thinking.
-
Looking for a murder weapon?
https://www.portugalresident.com/dutchman-found-dead-in-suspected-murder-in-vila-do-bispo/
Did they find one? Have there been any arrests? Did they manage to find a Brit to pin it on? Or is another botched PJ investigation to be filed forever as "unsolved"?
-
It was obvious to all that the PJ ceased to actively investigate Murat within a couple of months. The McCanns were actively investigated until at least May 2008, and were still the prime suspects when the case was archived.
Nothing is obvious unless you can provide a cite supporting your supposition.
The fact remains that Murat was an arguido for much longer than the McCanns were and members who continue to abuse the McCanns on this abuse Murat with the same argument.
-
You claimed as a fact that the searches were connected to the McCann case.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11722.msg616617#msg616617
If you provide evidence that it is a fact, you can prove me wrong without asking questions.
Are you saying that it is a rumour only that they searched any wells? Or that these wells were not in locations that had some association with CB, ie in areas he had lived or stayed near? Were the pics in the media staged then?
Once you've answered those questions you can tell us all how you know for a fact that there have been no further well searches.
-
That is truly a laugh a minute laughable have your cake and eating it post. Robert Murat was an arguido just as Kate and Gerry were.
All three remained arguidos until the status was officially lifted.
I suggest you read the final report. They found no evidence against Murat and he answered their questions and cooperated. They had many unanswered questions in regards to the McCanns.
Information was collected from a Spanish detective agency, named "Método 3", which was hired by a British citizen, to benefit the McCANN couple. This contact was solicitated by this agency, and the information that was given was subject to analysis and dismissal by this Police, pages 3434-a and following. It revealed itself, all of it, as speculative and without fundament, focusing particular attention on ROBERT MURAT.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
speculative - just like the Germans who have no credible evidence on CB. All they have is speculation! A phone call in an area where he lived may be involved in Madeleine's abduction. Absolute nonsense! Smithman is having a laff when fools continue to look in the wrong place @)(++(*
-
Some people think the PJ are investigating an abduction, although they're unable to offer any evidence to support that.
A few years back a few Portuguese nationals were made arguidos in this case. Is that because the PJ were investigating parental involvement?
-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1150260/revealed-brit-cops-know-who-snatched-maddie-and-think-they-have-questioned-him-already/
-
A few years back a few Portuguese nationals were made arguidos in this case. Is that because the PJ were investigating parental involvement?
No, it was because Operation Grange were investigating abduction by burglars.
-
No, it was because Operation Grange were investigating abduction by burglars.
looks like yjey were on the right track...I remembe rposters sayin ...what burglar would abduct a child..now a burgalr/paedophile comes into the picture
-
No, it was because Operation Grange were investigating abduction by burglars.
Indeed. See link above.
-
looks like yjey were on the right track...I remembe rposters sayin ...what burglar would abduct a child..now a burgalr/paedophile comes into the picture
They were questioned but not charged. CB hasn't even been questioned never mind charged with abducting anyone.
The connection you are implying is extremely tenuous imo.
-
They were questioned but not charged. CB hasn't even been questioned never mind charged with abducting anyone.
The connection you are implying is extremely tenuous imo.
HCW has said they have enough evidence to show their suspect killed maddie...How is that tenuous in any sensible person's book
-
HCW has said they have enough evidence to show their suspect killed maddie...How is that tenuous in any sensible person's book
What evidence?
-
What evidence?
can you keep a secret
-
What evidence?
None of course.
-
None of course.
I'm still trying to work out why it's libel to say there's evidence against the McCanns, but not Brueckner.
-
HCW has said they have enough evidence to show their suspect killed maddie...How is that tenuous in any sensible person's book
The tenuous link is between burglars and abduction.
Wolters said he had concrete evidence that Madeleine is dead. He also said he didn't have enough evidence to show that CB did it. Hence the appeal for help.
-
The tenuous link is between burglars and abduction.
Wolters said he had concrete evidence that Madeleine is dead. He also said he didn't have enough evidence to show that CB did it. Hence the appeal for help.
You are wrong yet again
you obviously need to look at what he said...
He said they had enough evidence to show their suspect killed Maddie...do a little more research otherwise you just make yourself look silly.
-
He also said Madeleine could be alive. Nothing but speculation. They can't even question him so charges are a pipe dream. Another fine mess %56&
-
No, it was because Operation Grange were investigating abduction by burglars.
And the Portuguese authorities had no say over this presumably, and were forced to make their own citizens arguidos despite having primacy in the investigation? Extraordinary!
-
‘ The three suspects have already been questioned by Brit police who want to
quiz them further.
But it is believed that Portuguese officials are blocking any new attempt to
speak to them saying that no new evidence has been provided by the British
authorities.’
-
Nice to see Faithlilly relying on unsubstantiated news reports in the MSM with information believed to be gained from unnamed individuals. Let’s remember that next time she pooh-poohs a news article for exactly that reason.
-
I still don't know why the blue nipples on the original photo. Is it part of 'national or regional dress' ... anyone got an idea?
I can't see any blue marks on the later photo. https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nintchdbpict000003707334.jpg?w=960
-
I can't see any blue marks on the later photo. https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nintchdbpict000003707334.jpg?w=960
No, that’s the manipulated photo. Do keep up Rob !
-
I can't see any blue marks on the later photo. https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nintchdbpict000003707334.jpg?w=960
I find it very strange that a woman from a conservative culture would emphasise and draw attention to a part of her anatomy by deliberately emphasising it in that manner.
Even a quick glance at both photos suggests to me that were I carrying either of those children my preference would be for the child being carried in the original photograph.
The child in the later photograph is too big to be carried like that in my opinion and both the woman and the child look uncomfortable.
-
(https://statesboroherald.cdn-anvilcms.net/media/images/2018/09/21/images/SPAIN_MOROCCO_MISSI_5204825.max-2400x1350.jpg)
Sometimes the "Joanna" like girl is cropped out of the photo. I don't really know what Joanna looked like so how can I say she is similar?
(http://i.imgur.com/JD66j34.jpg?1-Joana_Cipriano)
See how Joana has virtually no inner calves. This is an identifying feature of her, as are her ankles and temples.
This proves that the photo that John produced is photoshopped. The photoshopped picture shows normal well developed inner calves, which Joana lacks. The photoshopped picture appeared after I had pointed out the lack of calves and unusual ankles in a post I made many moons ago and is rife now all over the internet.
Why is someone trying to hide the fact that the orange topped girl is likely Joana? Is it because if it is Joana it points to a Hareem of little girls in the Zinat region of Morocco?
Or is because if that little orange topped girl is Joana then it points to fact that the little girl being carried is even more likely to be Madeleine.
Too great a co-incidence that two girls, Joana and Madeleine, each very likely abducted from within 7 miles of each other and in a time scale of less than 3 years apart should be in a remote African village together.
Something going on there, doncha think ?
Unfortunately at the moment I have too little time available to find and show more photos linking the orange topped little girl to Joanna.
Good to see that you have found an original copy of Joana and Madeleine on the wo/mans back in Zinat, Morrocco
-
No, that’s the manipulated photo. Do keep up Rob !
How did you work that out?
-
See how Joana has virtually no inner calves. This is an identifying feature of her, as are her ankles and temples.
This proves that the photo that John produced is photoshopped. The photoshopped picture shows normal well developed inner calves, which Joana lacks. The photoshopped picture appeared after I had pointed out the lack of calves and unusual ankles in a post I made many moons ago and is rife now all over the internet.
Why is someone trying to hide the fact that the orange topped girl is likely Joana? Is it because if it is Joana it points to a Hareem of little girls in the Zinat region of Morocco?
Or is because if that little orange topped girl is Joana then it points to fact that the little girl being carried is even more likely to be Madeleine.
Too great a co-incidence that two girls, Joana and Madeleine, each very likely abducted from within 7 miles of each other and in a time scale of less than 3 years apart should be in a remote African village together.
Something going on there, doncha think ?
Unfortunately at the moment I have too little time available to find and show more photos linking the orange topped little girl to Joanna.
Good to see that you have found an original copy of Joana and Madeleine on the wo/mans back in Zinat, Morrocco
Sorry Sadie, it will take a lot more than uncankled ankles and calveless calves to identify that girl as Joana Cipriano.
-
Sorry Sadie, it will take a lot more than uncankled ankles and calveless calves to identify that girl as Joana Cipriano.
....and wouldn't Joana have been 11, going on 12?
That girl is no older than 9, probably younger.
-
....and wouldn't Joana have been 11, going on 12?
That girl is no older than 9, probably younger.
Joana was 8 when she died (or disappeared).
-
Joana was 8 when she died (or disappeared).
What is the timeline?
-
What is the timeline?
It's on the internet and probably on the JC forum,
-
It's on the internet and probably on the JC forum, and it has eff all to do with the subject of this thread.
Now that did make me laugh (naughty) so it looks like we are heading back on track of the topic again. Please try folks.
-
Please stick to the thread topic ... "A Laughable Topic" ... Thank you
-
Seemed RM was not really a person of interest although gmcc wouldn't say whether he knew him or not.
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTSTAVARES DE ALMEIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
Doesn't that just epitomise this case in a single sentence. Why oh why couldn't Gerry McCann answer the simple question as to whether he knew Robert Murat prior to Madeleine's disappearance?
He either knew him or he didn't. If he didn't why not just say so, why the mystery and if he had previously met him why the obfuscation?
-
Doesn't that just epitomise this case in a single sentence. Why oh why couldn't Gerry McCann answer the simple question as to whether he knew Robert Murat prior to Madeleine's disappearance.
If you are relying on Almeida I don't see he's reliable... Another convicted criminal who misunderstand the alerts which sent the investigation in the wrong direction.
wheres the evidence gerry didnt answer the question...I doubt there is any relaible evidence
-
I find it very strange that a woman from a conservative culture would emphasise and draw attention to a part of her anatomy by deliberately emphasising it in that manner.
Even a quick glance at both photos suggests to me that were I carrying either of those children my preference would be for the child being carried in the original photograph.
The child in the later photograph is too big to be carried like that in my opinion and both the woman and the child look uncomfortable.
According to the woman, her lawyer and the Spanish police only one photo was taken. It was passed to Interpol in Spain and Portugal and the PJ in Portimao. Adam Tudor got a copy too.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Clara_Torres.htm
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A13_5/apenso5_vol_13_p2755.jpg)
-
Seemed RM was not really a person of interest although gmcc wouldn't say whether he knew him or not.
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTSTAVARES DE ALMEIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
Do you have a cite for this...I doubt there is a relable cite...just another myth
-
Doesn't that just epitomise this case in a single sentence. Why oh why couldn't Gerry McCann answer the simple question as to whether he knew Robert Murat prior to Madeleine's disappearance?
He either knew him or he didn't. If he didn't why not just say so, why the mystery and if he had previously met him why the obfuscation?
What does it matter one way or the other, unless you think there is something suspicious to be gleaned from this?
-
See how Joana has virtually no inner calves. This is an identifying feature of her, as are her ankles and temples.
This proves that the photo that John produced is photoshopped. The photoshopped picture shows normal well developed inner calves, which Joana lacks. The photoshopped picture appeared after I had pointed out the lack of calves and unusual ankles in a post I made many moons ago and is rife now all over the internet.
Why is someone trying to hide the fact that the orange topped girl is likely Joana? Is it because if it is Joana it points to a Hareem of little girls in the Zinat region of Morocco?
Or is because if that little orange topped girl is Joana then it points to fact that the little girl being carried is even more likely to be Madeleine.
Too great a co-incidence that two girls, Joana and Madeleine, each very likely abducted from within 7 miles of each other and in a time scale of less than 3 years apart should be in a remote African village together.
Something going on there, doncha think ?
Unfortunately at the moment I have too little time available to find and show more photos linking the orange topped little girl to Joanna.
Good to see that you have found an original copy of Joana and Madeleine on the wo/mans back in Zinat, Morrocco
Here is one, Sadie.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If you are relying on Almeida I don't see he's reliable... Another convicted criminal who misunderstand the alerts which sent the investigation in the wrong direction.
wheres the evidence gerry didnt answer the question...I doubt there is any relaible evidence
Nothing to do with Almeida fortunately. The video speaks for itself!
Reporter: "Did you know Robert Murat"
Gerry McCann: "I'm not going to comment on that...hmm"
https://amp.reddit.com/r/MadeleineMccann/comments/fi93xg/gerry_i_am_not_going_to_comment_if_i_knew_robert/
-
I realise this is old territory, John. However, given new information and developments in Madeleine’s case, it may be worthwhile to reconsider. It is said that Brückner talked about taking children to Morocco.
If Brueckner was involved it is always possible that she was trafficked to or through Morocco. That said however, the two children in the previous photos have been checked out by the authorities and found to be legit.
-
Nothing to do with Almeida fortunately. The video speaks for itself!
Reporter: "Did you know Robert Murat"
Gerry McCann: "I'm not going to comment on that...hmm"
https://amp.reddit.com/r/MadeleineMccann/comments/fi93xg/gerry_i_am_not_going_to_comment_if_i_knew_robert/
So what? Explain the significance.
-
Nothing to do with Almeida fortunately. The video speaks for itself!
Reporter: "Did you know Robert Murat"
Gerry McCann: "I'm not going to comment on that...hmm"
https://amp.reddit.com/r/MadeleineMccann/comments/fi93xg/gerry_i_am_not_going_to_comment_if_i_knew_robert/
as a poster said he may have been referring to judicial serecy...do you have the whole quote
-
I realise this is old territory, John. However, given new information and developments in Madeleine’s case, it may be worthwhile to reconsider. It is said that Brückner talked about taking children to Morocco.
If the german suspect is found to have had no part in the disappearance what then for a supposed Morocco link?
-
I am so tired of this all.
You, John, have no better reason to understand than I have. So unless you think better than I do then you should shut up.
-
If the german suspect is found to have had no part in the disappearance what then for a supposed Morocco link?
If??? I thought you already knew he had nothing to do with it??
-
Nothing to do with Almeida fortunately. The video speaks for itself!
Reporter: "Did you know Robert Murat"
Gerry McCann: "I'm not going to comment on that...hmm"
https://amp.reddit.com/r/MadeleineMccann/comments/fi93xg/gerry_i_am_not_going_to_comment_if_i_knew_robert/
A 5 sec clip...no context...with Sandra F who had previously wound them up...perhaps gerry was returning the compliment...nothing sinister there imo
-
If??? I thought you already knew he had nothing to do with it??
Well I haven't been proven long, won't be long now.
-
Well I haven't been proven long, won't be long now.
Don’t you mean “won’t be wrong now”?
-
So what? Explain the significance.
More unanswered questions in this case because of the McCanns. They are the only ones to answer no comment. Well done them because this case is still on-going after 13 years because of unanswered questions ?>)()<
-
More unanswered questions in this case because of the McCanns. They are the only ones to answer no comment. Well done them because this case is still on-going after 13 years because of unanswered questions ?>)()<
so you think there’s something going on between the McCanns and Murat do you?
-
so you think there’s something going on between the McCanns and Murat do you?
No but they met on 4 May 2007 and Gerry didn't want to admit it.
-
No but they met on 4 May 2007 and Gerry didn't want to admit it.
And that’s suspicious because...?
-
They are only concerned about protecting themselves. Lawyered up from the start so No comment is no surprise.
MADDY suspect Robert Murat has spoken for the first time since he was questioned by Portuguese police and claimed: "I'm a scapegoat."
DAILY EXPRESS: WEDNESDAY 16 MAY 2007
Scapegoat after scapegoat %56&
-
They are only concerned about protecting themselves. Lawyered up from the start so No comment is no surprise.
MADDY suspect Robert Murat has spoken for the first time since he was questioned by Portuguese police and claimed: "I'm a scapegoat."
DAILY EXPRESS: WEDNESDAY 16 MAY 2007
Scapegoat after scapegoat %56&
And McCann answering no comment about knowing Murat is suspicious because...?
-
And McCann answering no comment about knowing Murat is suspicious because...?
.
He had met him and spoken to him on 4th May;
We walked back along the path that I had taken to Gerry's apartment and I explained that Robert spoke Portuguese fluently, he told Gerry that it was important to have someone who spoke the language so that nothing would be lost in translation...
After he left, he explained that Gerry was frustrated with the way in which the case was being handled and they went to talk to John Hill.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
He was very abrupt when he answered the question and then he was off;
0:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related
-
.
He had met him and spoken to him on 4th May;
We walked back along the path that I had taken to Gerry's apartment and I explained that Robert spoke Portuguese fluently, he told Gerry that it was important to have someone who spoke the language so that nothing would be lost in translation...
After he left, he explained that Gerry was frustrated with the way in which the case was being handled and they went to talk to John Hill.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
He was very abrupt when he answered the question and then he was off;
0:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related
And this is suspicious because...?
-
And this is suspicious because...?
Murat was a translator who translated for some of the McCann party ... if memory serves me well he may even have helped Kate.
Nothing at all to do with the McCann party or anyone else requiring a translator, more an issue for the Judicial police who were making use of his services.
-
Here is one, Sadie.
Thank you Anthro
I have another copy which I cant find that shows it.
Looking at that image it looks as though the knee in her left leg is a little lower down than the knee on her right leg, making me wonder if as she grew older her left leg grew faster causing the left ankle to be slightly deformed as in Robs image.
-
And this is suspicious because...?
Well, come on. What more do you want?
There is a faction of society that will always see ill no matter what. And another faction who never will.
Where common bloody dog fat comes into this is a bit beyond me. I call it Logic. In London in my early days we called it common bleeding dog fat. Like use your brain. Is there any sense to this? No, there in't.
But you can do this until the cows come home. You will never convince some people.
My only hope is that Madeleine is still alive. But if she isn't then she has been long dead, and therefor no longer of any importance to herself.
Me? I suspect that I have lived a bit too long, but such is the fate of the likes of me. I go on fighting for something that I don't really understand. But I will never call worse than I was. That's the thing you see. Me. I did this, so how on earth can I possibly blame The McCanns.
-
Nothing to do with Almeida fortunately. The video speaks for itself!
Reporter: "Did you know Robert Murat"
Gerry McCann: "I'm not going to comment on that...hmm"
https://amp.reddit.com/r/MadeleineMccann/comments/fi93xg/gerry_i_am_not_going_to_comment_if_i_knew_robert/
They were told by the Portuguese Police not to speak about the investigation, two years in jail if they did.
If Gerry had said yes/no do you think the journalist would have stopped at that?
-
They were told by the Portuguese Police not to speak about the investigation, two years in jail if they did.
If Gerry had said yes/no do you think the journalist would have stopped at that?
particularly as the journalist was Sandra F who had already taunted them
-
They were told by the Portuguese Police not to speak about the investigation, two years in jail if they did.
If Gerry had said yes/no do you think the journalist would have stopped at that?
Even if they hadn’t stopped what had Gerry to hide ? It just made him look shifty...perhaps unfairly.
-
Even if they hadn’t stopped what had Gerry to hide ? It just made him look shifty...perhaps unfairly.
Only to those who didn't understand why he wasn't saying anything. Sandra should have known better.
-
Only to those who didn't understand why he wasn't saying anything. Sandra should have known better.
Do you really believe that Gerry having already met Murat would be covered by judicial secrecy rules ? In what way ?
-
Even if they hadn’t stopped what had Gerry to hide ? It just made him look shifty...perhaps unfairly.
In my opinion it's typical of those incidents which have set people wondering. When people choose to appear in the public eye they need to be able to put on a good performance. Snapping at reporters isn't a good idea.
-
In my opinion it's typical of those incidents which have set people wondering. When people choose to appear in the public eye they need to be able to put on a good performance. Snapping at reporters isn't a good idea.
But perfectly understandable in the circumstances. Gerry did not choose to become someone hounded by the media in any case.
-
But perfectly understandable in the circumstances. Gerry did not choose to become someone hounded by the media in any case.
Did someone drag him out of his apartment to address the reporters or did he emerge willingly?
-
Did someone drag him out of his apartment to address the reporters or did he emerge willingly?
Was he supposed to remain a prisoner in the apartment until the reporters had gone away then?
-
Was he supposed to remain a prisoner in the apartment until the reporters had gone away then?
And if he had remained in the apartment, can you imagine how that.would have been portrayed!
-
And if he had remained in the apartment, can you imagine how that.would have been portrayed!
It doesn’t matter what the McCannd did or didn’t do, it’s always wrongs as far as some people are concerned. How was he supposed to answer that particular question? “Yeah, I’ve met him”. Do you think there wouldn’t be a follow up question from the reporter to that response? “How well do you know him Gerry, what sort of a man is he Gerry, do you think he took Maddie Gerry”? Far better to cut off that line of questioning dead in its tracks IMO.
-
It doesn’t matter what the McCannd did or didn’t do, it’s always wrongs as far as some people are concerned. How was he supposed to answer that particular question? “Yeah, I’ve met him”. Do you think there wouldn’t be a follow up question from the reporter to that response? “How well do you know him Gerry, what sort of a man is he Gerry, do you think he took Maddie Gerry”? Far better to cut off that line of questioning dead in its tracks IMO.
It's the constant negative criticism of all deeds and words of Madeleine`s parents which does show some sceptics` cult like behaviour.
-
It's the constant negative criticism of all deeds and words of Madeleine`s parents which does show some sceptics` cult like behaviour.
And the fact that thr same old tired tropes and criticisms are trotted out with tiresome regularity and have been for years uoon years upon years, without the apparent realisation that no one in the real world considers any of these seemingly important observations in any way relevant to what happened to Madeleine.
-
They are only concerned about protecting themselves. Lawyered up from the start so No comment is no surprise.
MADDY suspect Robert Murat has spoken for the first time since he was questioned by Portuguese police and claimed: "I'm a scapegoat."
DAILY EXPRESS: WEDNESDAY 16 MAY 2007
Scapegoat after scapegoat %56&
Just like the PJ ...who didnt understand the evidence...tried to make the McCanns scapegoats
-
[Name removed]ust like the PJ ...who didnt understand the evidence...tried to make the McCanns scapegoats
Kate should have answered their questions. They are good at blaming others but only have themselves to blame for not fully cooperating.
She answered one question.
Police: Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
KM: Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.
Police would love that @)(++(*
-
Kate should have answered their questions. They are good at blaming others but only have themselves to blame for not fully cooperating.
She answered one question.
Police: Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
KM: Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.
Police would love that @)(++(*
See my response to you on the other thread
-
And the fact that thr same old tired tropes and criticisms are trotted out with tiresome regularity and have been for years uoon years upon years, without the apparent realisation that no one in the real world considers any of these seemingly important observations in any way relevant to what happened to Madeleine.
To me, it seems like they are trying to brainwash the world.
Say something over and over … and it becomes fact in small unquestioning minds.
And then there are the sinister people who twist the facts. I am thinking some of them must be involved with the mega group behind the child abductions, trafficking and drug running that I believe is being hidden.
.
-
To me, it seems like they are trying to brainwash the world.
Say something over and over … and it becomes fact in small unquestioning minds.
And then there are the sinister people who twist the facts. I am thinking some of them must be involved with the mega group behind the child abductions, trafficking and drug running that I believe is being hidden.
.
Damn it....banged to rights. How did you guess ?
-
To me, it seems like they are trying to brainwash the world.
Say something over and over … and it becomes fact in small unquestioning minds.
And then there are the sinister people who twist the facts. I am thinking some of them must be involved with the mega group behind the child abductions, trafficking and drug running that I believe is being hidden.
.
In my opinion that's what the McCanns did. Abduction, abduction, abduction; nasty PJ, nasty PJ, nasty PJ, poor us, poor us, poor us.
-
Was he supposed to remain a prisoner in the apartment until the reporters had gone away then?
They spoke to the press deliberately, both of them had their pronouncements written down. They were doing one of their appeals and making sure the press knew they were off to Fatima the following day.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/chronological-index-may-2007-t249-s20.html
(22nd May video)
-
They spoke to the press deliberately, both of them had their pronouncements written down. They were doing one of their appeals and making sure the press knew they were off to Fatima the following day.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/chronological-index-may-2007-t249-s20.html
(22nd May video)
What evil gits! My point still stands however. Gerry did not choose to become someone hounded by the world’s press, IMO. IMO, he had no choice but to reach out to them as does the family of many young children who go missing in mysterious circumstances. Just because he had something prepared to say to the media doesn’t make him a publicity seeking narcissist as some imagine, just someone who finds themselves at the centre of intense media interest and scrutiny and who wishes to keep their child’s disappearance high profile in the hope that her whereabouts will be discovered. Answering no comment to certain sensitive questions does not make him a bad person, though some seem to think so. That’s because they are wholly and utterly biased against him. IMO.
-
What evil gits! My point still stands however. Gerry did not choose to become someone hounded by the world’s press, IMO. IMO, he had no choice but to reach out to them as does the family of many young children who go missing in mysterious circumstances. Just because he had something prepared to say to the media doesn’t make him a publicity seeking narcissist as some imagine, just someone who finds themselves at the centre of intense media interest and scrutiny and who wishes to keep their child’s disappearance high profile in the hope that her whereabouts will be discovered. Answering no comment to certain sensitive questions does not make him a bad person, though some seem to think so. That’s because they are wholly and utterly biased against him. IMO.
According to Gerry McCann they interacted with the media to keep the story high profile and to 'take the opportunity to get information into the investigation'. So he had 'clear abjectives', but as Jeremy Paxman said, perhaps he was naive. It was certainly naive to think that the media would allow him to set the agenda imo.
He certainly got information into the investigation, but as usual with appeals 90% of it was pure rubbish, but it took up the time of numerous personnel in Portugal and Britain who had to trawl through it. I certainly don't agree with Gerry McCann that 'any parents would take the opportunity to try to get information into the investigation'. In my opinion a lot of parents would have been content to leave the investigation to the police rather than thrusting themselves into the limelight and doing photoshoots, appeals and European tours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZBdc_oz_aI
The proof of a pudding is in the eating and none of their efforts helped the investigation at all in my opinion.
-
According to Gerry McCann they interacted with the media to keep the story high profile and to 'take the opportunity to get information into the investigation'. So he had 'clear abjectives', but as Jeremy Paxman said, perhaps he was naive. It was certainly naive to think that the media would allow him to set the agenda imo.
He certainly got information into the investigation, but as usual with appeals 90% of it was pure rubbish, but it took up the time of numerous personnel in Portugal and Britain who had to trawl through it. I certainly don't agree with Gerry McCann that 'any parents would take the opportunity to try to get information into the investigation'. In my opinion a lot of parents would have been content to leave the investigation to the police rather than thrusting themselves into the limelight and doing photoshoots, appeals and European tours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZBdc_oz_aI
The proof of a pudding is in the eating and none of their efforts helped the investigation at all in my opinion.
The proof of the pudding.. Do you realise that it was the McCanns appeal on German tv that led to the implication of CB.. Most people do leave it to the professionals and are often let down by them... Im like Gerry and research everything myself... I've recently been let down by the CPS... but having done my own research will bring a private criminal prosecution myself.. Most people wouldnt do that
The problem was the initial investigation was plainly incompetent for reasons you should understand by now
-
In my opinion that's what the McCanns did. Abduction, abduction, abduction; nasty PJ, nasty PJ, nasty PJ, poor us, poor us, poor us.
Cite please.
-
They spoke to the press deliberately, both of them had their pronouncements written down. They were doing one of their appeals and making sure the press knew they were off to Fatima the following day.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/chronological-index-may-2007-t249-s20.html
(22nd May video)
So what?
-
So what?
So, as usual, they were courting the media voluntarily. Then, shock horror, one of the journalists dared to ask a question Gerry McCann didn't like.
-
So, as usual, they were courting the media voluntarily. Then, shock horror, one of the journalists dared to ask a question Gerry McCann didn't like.
It always struck me that Gerry was quite happy being in the limelight. Remember the photos of his trip to Washington ? Thrilled doesn’t quite cover it.
-
It always struck me that Gerry was quite happy being in the limelight. Remember the photos of his trip to Washington ? Thrilled doesn’t quite cover it.
They were warned by Alex Woolfall in the beginning that the media could turn on them, and by Jon Corner that it was becoming the Kate and Gerry show and they chose to carry on. According to Gerry McCann he feared intrusion as soon as he saw the reporters on 4th May, but he trotted out to talk to them regardless and continued to interact thereafter. He did it for his daughter, he said, but he still complained bitterly when the media printed stories he didn't like. Even the US media mentioned neglect, it wasn't all positive out there.
-
So, as usual, they were courting the media voluntarily. Then, shock horror, one of the journalists dared to ask a question Gerry McCann didn't like.
They were making appeals for their missing daughter, keeping her in the news was vital for the search to find her.
It wasn't that Gerry didn't like the question is was the fact that he couldn't answer it for fear of being put in prison for two years.
-
They were warned by Alex Woolfall in the beginning that the media could turn on them, and by Jon Corner that it was becoming the Kate and Gerry show and they chose to carry on. According to Gerry McCann he feared intrusion as soon as he saw the reporters on 4th May, but he trotted out to talk to them regardless and continued to interact thereafter. He did it for his daughter, he said, but he still complained bitterly when the media printed stories he didn't like. Even the US media mentioned neglect, it wasn't all positive out there.
Yes, he did it for his daughter, wouldn't you? Why shouldn't he complain when false stories were printed in the news? He didn't want false stories they wouldn't help the search for Madeleine.
You are unable to put yourself in their position, their daughter was out there somewhere and needed finding the only way to get the public interested was to make appeals.
-
It always struck me that Gerry was quite happy being in the limelight. Remember the photos of his trip to Washington ? Thrilled doesn’t quite cover it.
So you think Gerry was happy his daughter was missing or just smiling for the camera as that is what they wanted.
-
Yes, he did it for his daughter, wouldn't you? Why shouldn't he complain when false stories were printed in the news? He didn't want false stories they wouldn't help the search for Madeleine.
You are unable to put yourself in their position, their daughter was out there somewhere and needed finding the only way to get the public interested was to make appeals.
Some people fir various reasons simply lsck empathy
-
Yes, he did it for his daughter, wouldn't you? Why shouldn't he complain when false stories were printed in the news? He didn't want false stories they wouldn't help the search for Madeleine.
You are unable to put yourself in their position, their daughter was out there somewhere and needed finding the only way to get the public interested was to make appeals.
The very first false stories came from the McCann's friends and family. Their sources? The McCann couple.
-
The very first false stories came from the McCann's friends and family. Their sources? The McCann couple.
Within hours a family member and also a friend said the shutters were jemmied, window wide open,where did that come from?
-
The very first false stories came from the McCann's friends and family. Their sources? The McCann couple.
What false stories? The shutters? FGS
-
So you think Gerry was happy his daughter was missing or just smiling for the camera as that is what they wanted.
I think he enjoyed the attention her disappearance brought.
When I see photographs of Madeleine’s parents in the weeks after her disappearance it’s hard not to compare them to the anguished photographs of Lesley Ann Downey’s mother in the same time frame. Very much the same event but the reaction worlds apart.
-
So, as usual, they were courting the media voluntarily. Then, shock horror, one of the journalists dared to ask a question Gerry McCann didn't like.
Cite for Gerry “not liking” the question please.
-
They were warned by Alex Woolfall in the beginning that the media could turn on them, and by Jon Corner that it was becoming the Kate and Gerry show and they chose to carry on. According to Gerry McCann he feared intrusion as soon as he saw the reporters on 4th May, but he trotted out to talk to them regardless and continued to interact thereafter. He did it for his daughter, he said, but he still complained bitterly when the media printed stories he didn't like. Even the US media mentioned neglect, it wasn't all positive out there.
”trotted out”, “complained bitterly” “false stories”, “courting the media”, “shock, horror”,: “their pronouncements”, “90% pure rubbish” - do you see how contemptuous your language is when writing about the McCanns? And you wonder why people see you as utterly biased and full of contempt?
-
Some people fir various reasons simply lsck empathy
And some people are just plain nasty.
-
Sceptices would have you believe that after disposing of their daughter’s body, far from feeling under immense pressure at the possibility of being caught out in the lie, the McCanns actively sought out the public scrutiny and delighted in the attention of the world’s media. These same sceptics however baulk at describing Kate and Gerry as psychopaths, which IMO they would both have to be, in order to get their kicks in such a way. Odd people, sceptics, IMO.
-
What false stories? The shutters? FGS
Yes, the shutters, and;
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
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/L-R-MCQUEEN.htm
Kate was still frustrated and anguished and felt that nobody was doing anything to help find Madeleine. She told me that the police had left in the morning and returned around 09H30 and that now only a few agents with sniffer dogs were in the locale.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/M_THOMPSON.htm
Kate contacted me by phone, she was devastated and appeared lost. She said that judging from the action of the local police, one would think that she "had lost a dog".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm
And a family friend was reported to have said the parents were certain that the girl had been abducted - but this was unconfirmed.
She said: “They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine.
“They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone.”
And a family friend was reported to have said the parents were certain that the girl had been abducted - but this was unconfirmed.
She said: “They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine.
“They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone.”
And a family friend was reported to have said the parents were certain that the girl had been abducted - but this was unconfirmed.
She said: “They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine.
“They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone.”
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/where-s-our-maddie-the-sun-04-05-07-t2908.html
There were definitely two messages being relayed in my opinion.
1. Madeleine had been abducted.
2. The PJ were inadequate.
-
Sceptices would have you believe that after disposing of their daughter’s body, far from feeling under immense pressure at the possibility of being caught out in the lie, the McCanns actively sought out the public scrutiny and delighted in the attention of the world’s media. These same sceptics however baulk at describing Kate and Gerry as psychopaths, which IMO they would both have to be, in order to get their kicks in such a way. Odd people, sceptics, IMO.
They were certainly proactive. They worked the phones tirelessly immediately and made sure their messages were absorbed and passed on; their child had been abducted and the police were inadequate.
-
I think he enjoyed the attention her disappearance brought.
When I see photographs of Madeleine’s parents in the weeks after her disappearance it’s hard not to compare them to the anguished photographs of Lesley Ann Downey’s mother in the same time frame. Very much the same event but the reaction worlds apart.
There are many anguished photographs of the McCann's in the same time frame. Maybe you should let them know they didn't cry on cue for you.
-
They were certainly proactive. They worked the phones tirelessly immediately and made sure their messages were absorbed and passed on; their child had been abducted and the police were inadequate.
Did you ever consider the possiblity that their child HAD been abducted and that the McCanns had good grounds for considering that the police response WAS inadequate? No of course you didn.t.
-
They were certainly proactive. They worked the phones tirelessly immediately and made sure their messages were absorbed and passed on; their child had been abducted and the police were inadequate.
If you had a network of people who could help locate your missing child, wouldn’t you make use of it?
-
They were certainly proactive. They worked the phones tirelessly immediately and made sure their messages were absorbed and passed on; their child had been abducted and the police were inadequate.
Well good for them if it had been my child I would have done the same. Things weren't moving fast enough for them which is understandable they could see time ticking away and wanted to do something to help. Wouldn't you want to do everything possible if your child were missing?
-
Yes, the shutters, and;
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
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/L-R-MCQUEEN.htm
Kate was still frustrated and anguished and felt that nobody was doing anything to help find Madeleine. She told me that the police had left in the morning and returned around 09H30 and that now only a few agents with sniffer dogs were in the locale.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/M_THOMPSON.htm
Kate contacted me by phone, she was devastated and appeared lost. She said that judging from the action of the local police, one would think that she "had lost a dog".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm
And a family friend was reported to have said the parents were certain that the girl had been abducted - but this was unconfirmed.
She said: “They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine.
“They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone.”
And a family friend was reported to have said the parents were certain that the girl had been abducted - but this was unconfirmed.
She said: “They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine.
“They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone.”
And a family friend was reported to have said the parents were certain that the girl had been abducted - but this was unconfirmed.
She said: “They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine.
“They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone.”
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/where-s-our-maddie-the-sun-04-05-07-t2908.html
There were definitely two messages being relayed in my opinion.
1. Madeleine had been abducted.
2. The PJ were inadequate.
These are the false stories? Well they must be guilty so many misquoted sentences, show that to a judge and he'd laugh in your face.
-
There are many anguished photographs of the McCann's in the same time frame. Maybe you should let them know they didn't cry on cue for you.
Care to supply some of these ‘anguished photographs’ ?
-
Sceptics prefer it if the parents of missing children cry a lot, preferably every time they appear on telly, which is hardly ever as in the sceptics’ opinion it’s shameless self promotion and done for enjoyment, not for the good of the missing child and so definitely to be frowned on. Also, in between crying fits and keeping out of the limelight as much as possible, parents of missing children must be out from dawn until dusk, knocking on every door of every house of every village, town and city, forever until they drop dead or the child is found, which ever comes first. If they have the misfortune to become the police’s chief suspects they must cooperate fully, take part in reconstitutions and do everything in their power to prove their innocence, because at the end of the day it’s on them to prove the police are barking up the wrong tree. If they fail to do so, they must submit fully to the judicial process and take their punishment on the chin (or between the eyes, or on the knees, or wherever else the blows land) without complaint.
-
Care to supply some of these ‘anguished photographs’ ?
Why, for you to sneer at?
-
Care to supply some of these ‘anguished photographs’ ?
Pretending you haven't seen any are you.
-
Pretending you haven't seen any are you.
You made a claim, it’s up to you to substantiate it.
-
You made a claim, it’s up to you to substantiate it.
Have you checked with the forum rules or the forum owner to make sure that having a link to a " go fund" page is within the rules of the forum.
It does seem to open the doors for any member to link to any go fund page.
PS.
I haven't made a donation.......
-
Have you checked with the forum rules or the forum owner to make sure that having a link to a " go fund" page is within the rules of the forum.
It does seem to open the doors for any member to link to any go fund page.
PS.
I haven't made a donation.......
I haven’t but it’s been there for several weeks so if it wasn’t within forum rules I’m sure I would have been informed of it by now.
Why the interest ?
-
You made a claim, it’s up to you to substantiate it.
There are the two when they made appeals, one where Gerry reads then one where Kate reads. There was the video where Kate breaks down, there was another one where they made a Christmas message. I have seen many photo's and read many statements about the McCann's breaking down. Relishing it are you? As I said before why not weep and wail at every opportunity to show their despair if they are innocent? It doesn't work like that. People laugh and joke then go and commit suicide. You don't know what's going on in their heads. You probably wouldn't understand.
-
I haven’t but it’s been there for several weeks so if it wasn’t within forum rules I’m sure I would have been informed of it by now.
Why the interest ?
Just struck me as a possible opening of the door for links to other go fund me pages.
I've read it loads of times but only today did I appreciate that it was perhaps inappropriate to have such a link.
-
Just struck me as a possible opening of the door for links to other go fund me pages.
I've read it loads of times but only today did I appreciate that it was perhaps inappropriate to have such a link.
Report then....I would. Nice to have these things above board.
Now back on topic.
-
The topic is what aspects of the abduction theory do sceptics find laughable and why. I haven’t read one sensible on topic post sincecI asked the question.
-
Report then....I would. Nice to have these things above board.
Now back on topic.
Nope.
-
If you had a network of people who could help locate your missing child, wouldn’t you make use of it?
Fiona Payne said they weren't functioning, but you seem to believe that within a couple of hours they knew what had happened to their daughter and had worked out exactly who to call to help them. They seem to have been functioning incredibly well and with breathtaking speed in my opinion.
-
Fiona Payne said they weren't functioning, but you seem to believe that within a couple of hours they knew what had happened to their daughter and had worked out exactly who to call to help them. They seem to have been functioning incredibly well and with breathtaking speed in my opinion.
In your biased opinion...imo
-
Well good for them if it had been my child I would have done the same. Things weren't moving fast enough for them which is understandable they could see time ticking away and wanted to do something to help. Wouldn't you want to do everything possible if your child were missing?
What they did was start bad mouthing the police immediately. That didn't help anyone, including themselves.
-
What they did was start bad mouthing the police immediately. That didn't help anyone, including themselves.
In your opinion.
-
What they did was start bad mouthing the police immediately. That didn't help anyone, including themselves.
I think they were quite reserved being faced with atotal inept police force
-
In your biased opinion...imo
I have opinions about behaviour and am entitled to comment if I see what I think is abnormal behaviour. In your opinion I'm biased and in my opinion others are biased. I don't know why you keep repeating your opinion over and over, who are you trying to convince?
-
I have opinions about behaviour and am entitled to comment if I see what I think is abnormal behaviour. In your opinion I'm biased and in my opinion others are biased. I don't know why you keep repeating your opinion over and over, who are you trying to convince?
Just like you Im entitled to post my opinions...surely you can see that. Im not trying to convince anyone...next
-
I have opinions about behaviour and am entitled to comment if I see what I think is abnormal behaviour. In your opinion I'm biased and in my opinion others are biased. I don't know why you keep repeating your opinion over and over, who are you trying to convince?
You do seem to find every action and word of Madeleine`s parents as abnormal.
Is that because they didn't act or speak as you would have done
-
What they did was start bad mouthing the police immediately. That didn't help anyone, including themselves.
Can we have a cite of them bad mouthing the police immediately, and how this hindered the search for Madeleine please.
-
Fiona Payne said they weren't functioning, but you seem to believe that within a couple of hours they knew what had happened to their daughter and had worked out exactly who to call to help them. They seem to have been functioning incredibly well and with breathtaking speed in my opinion.
So are you criticising Fiona Payne for her description, or the MCcCanns for getting their act together sufficiently quickly enough to reach to people they believed could help?
-
The topic is what aspects of the abduction theory do sceptics find laughable and why. I haven’t read one sensible on topic post sincecI asked the question.
Prints found on the alleged open window. There was no reason to open a window. There were regular checks that night according to the group. Nobody had time to squeeze through cots in the dark never mind risk waking other children, leaving evidence and wasting precious time they did not have to open a window when there was a quicker and safer front door exit. The front door was recessed, the window was open to the world! The window is indeed laughable.
An abduction in that time frame was highly unlikely and a 3 times moving door in the same time frame confirms it. It is impossible for an abductor to move a door 3 times between 3 separate checks. Impossible!
Leaving the twins again *%87 A mother would not leave her other defenceless children if they were in possible danger! One has gone but I'll leave the others as well. That does not add up!
How could Madeleine disappear from that apartment? Who had the best opportunity to remove her? How could you move Madeleine away without being seen? What route and time is the safest and where would you go? How can the door move 3 times? Answer questions like these and you will be on the right path.
Present your incriminating evidence that a stranger was responsible?
-
What is suspicious about a parent believing straight away that their child has been taken by a stranger? Are sceptics who criticise the McCanns for deciding this is what happened to Madeleine and for “setting about convincing the world”of such telling us that such a thought never crossed the minds of any other parents of a child that suddenly goes missing?
-
Prints found on the alleged open window. There was no reason to open a window. There were regular checks that night according to the group. Nobody had time to squeeze through cots in the dark never mind risk waking other children, leaving evidence and wasting precious time they did not have to open a window when there was a quicker and safer front door exit. The front door was recessed, the window was open to the world! The window is indeed laughable.
An abduction in that time frame was highly unlikely and a 3 times moving door in the same time frame confirms it. It is impossible for an abductor to move a door 3 times between 3 separate checks. Impossible!
Leaving the twins again *%87 A mother would not leave her other defenceless children if they were in possible danger! One has gone but I'll leave the others as well. That does not add up!
How could Madeleine disappear from that apartment? Who had the best opportunity to remove her? How could you move Madeleine away without being seen? What route and time is the safest and where would you go? How can the door move 3 times? Answer questions like these and you will be on the right path.
Present your incriminating evidence that a stranger was responsible?
HCW says he, has the evidence
-
What is suspicious about a parent believing straight away that their child has been taken by a stranger? Are sceptics who criticise the McCanns for deciding this is what happened to Madeleine and for “setting about convincing the world”of such telling us that such a thought never crossed the minds of any other parents of a child that suddenly goes missing?
How do you know the abductor is not going to come back again? You can use your phone and call your husband.
-
Prints found on the alleged open window. There was no reason to open a window. There were regular checks that night according to the group. Nobody had time to squeeze through cots in the dark never mind risk waking other children, leaving evidence and wasting precious time they did not have to open a window when there was a quicker and safer front door exit. The front door was recessed, the window was open to the world! The window is indeed laughable.
An abduction in that time frame was highly unlikely and a 3 times moving door in the same time frame confirms it. It is impossible for an abductor to move a door 3 times between 3 separate checks. Impossible!
Leaving the twins again *%87 A mother would not leave her other defenceless children if they were in possible danger! One has gone but I'll leave the others as well. That does not add up!
How could Madeleine disappear from that apartment? Who had the best opportunity to remove her? How could you move Madeleine away without being seen? What route and time is the safest and where would you go? How can the door move 3 times? Answer questions like these and you will be on the right path.
Present your incriminating evidence that a stranger was responsible?
The open window is laughable in your opinion, but as burglars have entered or exited apartments via windows thousands of times without leaving incriminating evidence, in my opinion there is nothing to rule out the possibility that an abductor opened the window, and the reasons for doing so are not limited to entering or leaving.
The moving door thing is a complete red herring that you are fixated on and which I find completely laughable, and can be explained by a draught, imprecise language, mistaken recollection and certainly does not rule out a stranger in the apartment, if anything it could support the theory.
Leaving the twins is another nothing reason IMO. Discussed recently and seriously not worth the bother arguing about again. A pathetic reason for dismisding the abduction theory imo.
The Met ascertained that there was a window of opportunity for Madeleine to have been removed from the apartment that night, something which could have been carried out in less than 3 minutes, either with or without an accomplice, and she could have been bundled into a parked car nearby and removed from the town within five minutes of being taken from her bed. Now tell us why that is laughable.
-
How do you know the abductor is not going to come back again? You can use your phone and call your husband.
?
-
How do you know the abductor is not going to come back again? You can use your phone and call your husband.
Is this one of your indicators of Madeleine`s parents being involved in her disappearance?
-
The open window is laughable in your opinion, but as burglars have entered or exited apartments via windows thousands of times without leaving incriminating evidence, in my opinion there is nothing to rule out the possibility that an abductor opened the window, and the reasons for doing so are not limited to entering or leaving.
The moving door thing is a complete red herring that you are fixated on and which I find completely laughable, and can be explained by a draught, imprecise language, mistaken recollection and certainly does not rule out a stranger in the apartment, if anything it could support the theory.
Leaving the twins is another nothing reason IMO. Discussed recently and seriously not worth the bother arguing about again. A pathetic reason for dismisding the abduction theory imo.
The Met ascertained that there was a window of opportunity for Madeleine to have been removed from the apartment that night, something which could have been carried out in less than 3 minutes, either with or without an accomplice, and she could have been bundled into a parked car nearby and removed from the town within five minutes of being taken from her bed. Now tell us why that is laughable.
Nobody went through that window. It was not used and therefore laughable.
-
Nobody went through that window. It was not used and therefore laughable.
Whether or not anyone went through that window (and you can’t possibly know definitely one way or the other) is moot. The open window does not mean an abduction is laughable, quite the reverse IMO.
-
Fiona Payne said they weren't functioning, but you seem to believe that within a couple of hours they knew what had happened to their daughter and had worked out exactly who to call to help them. They seem to have been functioning incredibly well and with breathtaking speed in my opinion.
I agree. They probably realised right from the beginning that time is of the essence in locating their small child.
-
Prints found on the alleged open window. There was no reason to open a window. There were regular checks that night according to the group. Nobody had time to squeeze through cots in the dark never mind risk waking other children, leaving evidence and wasting precious time they did not have to open a window when there was a quicker and safer front door exit. The front door was recessed, the window was open to the world! The window is indeed laughable.
An abduction in that time frame was highly unlikely and a 3 times moving door in the same time frame confirms it. It is impossible for an abductor to move a door 3 times between 3 separate checks. Impossible!
Leaving the twins again *%87 A mother would not leave her other defenceless children if they were in possible danger! One has gone but I'll leave the others as well. That does not add up!
How could Madeleine disappear from that apartment? Who had the best opportunity to remove her? How could you move Madeleine away without being seen? What route and time is the safest and where would you go? How can the door move 3 times? Answer questions like these and you will be on the right path.
Present your incriminating evidence that a stranger was responsible?
Surely not the Smithman route.
-
Care to supply some of these ‘anguished photographs’ ?
Some are pleased to call the search for Madeleine "the McCann Circus".
(https://i1.wp.com/konspekta.net/lektsianew/baza11/1011297426751.files/image004.jpg)
But this is what they have lost and it is what they have strained every sinew on behalf for over thirteen years of pain, anguish and suffering.
They need to find out what happened to their daughter. I don't know why it is thought acceptable to continue the hounding of this family and I don't know how it is possible to do so without giving a human thought to how distraught they must be as they watch the German connection developing day by day.
Most definitely not a 'circus' or in the least 'laughable'.
-
Some are pleased to call the search for Madeleine "the McCann Circus".
(https://i1.wp.com/konspekta.net/lektsianew/baza11/1011297426751.files/image004.jpg)
But this is what they have lost and it is what they have strained every sinew on behalf for over thirteen years of pain, anguish and suffering.
They need to find out what happened to their daughter. I don't know why it is thought acceptable to continue the hounding of this family and I don't know how it is possible to do so without giving a human thought to how distraught they must be as they watch the German connection developing day by day.
Most definitely not in the least 'laughable'.
"They need to find out what happened to their daughter."
Unless they already know.
-
What they did was start bad mouthing the police immediately. That didn't help anyone, including themselves.
You appear to be somewhat bogged down in a mire of petty opprobrium on the laghable story thread (and every other one it seems) ... just wondering why you seem to think you witnessed all these events of the past first hand ... considering the world has moved onto the next and perhaps the last stage however which way it all turns out.
-
Some are pleased to call the search for Madeleine "the McCann Circus".
(https://i1.wp.com/konspekta.net/lektsianew/baza11/1011297426751.files/image004.jpg)
But this is what they have lost and it is what they have strained every sinew on behalf for over thirteen years of pain, anguish and suffering.
They need to find out what happened to their daughter. I don't know why it is thought acceptable to continue the hounding of this family and I don't know how it is possible to do so without giving a human thought to how distraught they must be as they watch the German connection developing day by day.
Most definitely not a 'circus' or in the least 'laughable'.
And again no photographs of the ‘anguished parents’
-
Some are pleased to call the search for Madeleine "the McCann Circus".
(https://i1.wp.com/konspekta.net/lektsianew/baza11/1011297426751.files/image004.jpg)
But this is what they have lost and it is what they have strained every sinew on behalf for over thirteen years of pain, anguish and suffering.
They need to find out what happened to their daughter. I don't know why it is thought acceptable to continue the hounding of this family and I don't know how it is possible to do so without giving a human thought to how distraught they must be as they watch the German connection developing day by day.
Most definitely not a 'circus' or in the least 'laughable'.
Also these, Brietta.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
And again no photographs of the ‘anguished parents’
Will these suffice?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Will these suffice?
You know they won’t and will just give ammunition to the sneerers and the scoffers.
-
And again no photographs of the ‘anguished parents’
I am not going to get embroiled in your how many anguished photo's can you find, the McCann's were/are obviously anguished they have lost their beautiful daughter Madeleine and if you think for one moment they were not then you can only be lacking in empathy.
It wouldn't matter how many photo's you saw you wouldn't be happy. Probably come up with more of poor Winnie as she was searching for fifty years poor woman.
-
Will these suffice?
It won't be enough Anthro, it's a competition with her, so sad.
-
The pictures of Kate & Madeleine smiling have convinced me there's no way the McCanns dunnit.
Here's a picture of Ted Bundy doing the dishes.
I think that proves he's innocent too.
-
Ted Bundy's ex-girlfriend struggles to accept he was a serial killer
Elizabeth Kendall remembers her boyfriend Ted as a charming, romantic "family man", who she became smitten with when she first saw him.
And decades later, it is still hard for her to accept that her boyfriend was kidnapping, raping and murdering dozens of women while they were dating.
Ted Bundy is perhaps America's most notorious serial killer, confessing to killing 30 women between 1973 and 1978.
And while he was on his gruesome murder spree, he was dating Elizabeth Kendall.
"I still have a sense of disbelief that this man that I loved and that seemed to be a great guy could go out and do such horrific things," she said.
"It's just so hard to accept."
https://www.9news.com.au/world/ted-bundys-exgirlfriend-struggles-to-accept-he-was-a-serial-killer/77f6cd8c-ec4f-4f74-9054-bfa26ec303bd
-
The pictures of Kate & Madeleine smiling have convinced me there's no way the McCanns dunnit.
Here's a picture of Ted Bundy doing the dishes.
I think that proves he's innocent too.
I think this post proves something, and it’s nothing to do with the McCanns or Ted Bundy, but I’m not allowed to say.
-
Ted Bundy's ex-girlfriend struggles to accept he was a serial killer
Elizabeth Kendall remembers her boyfriend Ted as a charming, romantic "family man", who she became smitten with when she first saw him.
And decades later, it is still hard for her to accept that her boyfriend was kidnapping, raping and murdering dozens of women while they were dating.
Ted Bundy is perhaps America's most notorious serial killer, confessing to killing 30 women between 1973 and 1978.
And while he was on his gruesome murder spree, he was dating Elizabeth Kendall.
"I still have a sense of disbelief that this man that I loved and that seemed to be a great guy could go out and do such horrific things," she said.
"It's just so hard to accept."
https://www.9news.com.au/world/ted-bundys-exgirlfriend-struggles-to-accept-he-was-a-serial-killer/77f6cd8c-ec4f-4f74-9054-bfa26ec303bd
Ted Bundy has more in common with Christian Bruckner than Kate and Gerry McCann, thanks for sharing.
-
Which partner has said CB was a charming man?
-
Which partner has said CB was a charming man?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-maddie-suspect-went-charming-22173955
but I was referring more to the psychopathy, the raping, the violence, the perversion.
-
Whether or not anyone went through that window (and you can’t possibly know definitely one way or the other) is moot. The open window does not mean an abduction is laughable, quite the reverse IMO.
Don't you think it was odd kmc searched the apartment wardrobes/under the bed sqeezwd through to look out of window that she left wide open?
But didnt look out of the front door.
The front door is a potential entry and exit point, especially if someone ..had .. been inside.
-
Don't you think it was odd kmc searched the apartment wardrobes/under the bed sqeezwd through to look out of window.
But didnt look out of the front door.
The front door is a potential entry and exit point, especially if someone ..had .. been inside.
I don't find it odd. Kate searched in a panic then ran out to tell Gerry Madeleine was missing. It's fine to say what she should have done after the event.
-
I don't find it odd. Kate searched in a panic then ran out to tell Gerry Madeleine was missing. It's fine to say what she should have done after the event.
Well, she took the trouble to look out the window so why not the front door. [didnt that lead to a car park].
If as you think she was in a panic why didn't she just run straight out. or scream blue murder for help.
After all, she knew straight away Maddie had been taken. possibly
-
Well, she took the trouble to look out the window so why not the front door. [didnt that lead to a car park].
If as you think she was in a panic why didn't she just run straight out. or scream blue murder for help.
After all, she knew straight away Maddie had been taken. possibly
Are you trying to say what Kate should have done? Have you ever been in the same situation? If not then you have no way of knowing how she was feeling or what action she should have taken.
-
Are you trying to say what Kate should have done? Have you ever been in the same situation? If not then you have no way of knowing how she was feeling or what action she should have taken.
She told everyone what she did its what she didn't do that doesn't make sense. IMO
-
She told everyone what she did its what she didn't do that doesn't make sense. IMO
Just more opinion... Nothing factual
-
Just more opinion... Nothing factual
Did I say it was factual - the forum is mostly based on our opinion
-
Don't you think it was odd kmc searched the apartment wardrobes/under the bed sqeezwd through to look out of window.
But didnt look out of the front door.
The front door is a potential entry and exit point, especially if someone ..had .. been inside.
No. You think she conspired to cover up her child's death so surely you don't believe she searched anywhere, not even under the bed, so why are you trying to make something of her allegedly not looking out the front door?
-
She told everyone what she did its what she didn't do that doesn't make sense. IMO
What doesn't make sense? Kate panicked a normal reaction.
-
She told everyone what she did its what she didn't do that doesn't make sense. IMO
When you're in a panic do you act rationally? Simple question.
-
Did I say it was factual - the forum is mostly based on our opinion
In the end some find the McCanns convincing and others don't.
-
In the end some find the McCanns convincing and others don't.
What's important is that the current investigation does
-
In the end some find the McCanns convincing and others don't.
Obviously the investigative police forces do find them convincing...............so far!!
It's taking a long time to find them unconvincing.
Don't you agree?
-
What doesn't make sense? Kate panicked a normal reaction.
IIRC she was gone 10 minutes searching, gmcc was wondering where she was.
So panic normal reaction - would have been to leave immediately she knew don't forget Maddie had been taken.
-
Obviously the investigative police forces do find them convincing...............so far!!
It's taking a long time to find them unconvincing.
Don't you agree?
The PJ didn't find them convincing in the first investigation and haven't given a lot away since, apart from a couple of very careful and considered interviews in 2017. The UK police have been instructed what to investigate.
-
The PJ didn't find them convincing in the first investigation and haven't given a lot away since, apart from a couple of very careful and considered interviews in 2017. The UK police have been instructed what to investigate.
The first investigation didn't understand the evidence... That's been established..
The Germans certainly don't believe the parents are involved and neither do SY... However she left the apartment she was abducted
-
The PJ didn't find them convincing in the first investigation and haven't given a lot away since, apart from a couple of very careful and considered interviews in 2017. The UK police have been instructed what to investigate.
Cite for who instructed the UK police what to investigate
-
The PJ didn't find them convincing in the first investigation and haven't given a lot away since, apart from a couple of very careful and considered interviews in 2017. The UK police have been instructed what to investigate.
So you do believe that they are being protected by this instruction?
-
So you do believe that they are being protected by this instruction?
Who instructed the UK police... It's about time gunit started supplying cites for her unsubstantiated claims
-
Who instructed the UK police... It's about time gunit started supplying cites for her unsubstantiated claims
It's certainly a strong statement to make that the police" were instructed what to investigate"
-
It's certainly a strong statement to make that the police" were instructed what to investigate"
I dont see its true...gunit is making a habit of posting unsubstantiated calims
-
It's certainly a strong statement to make that the police" were instructed what to investigate"
Have you missed their remit and the words of Colin Sutton?
-
Have you missed their remit and the words of Colin Sutton?
no...who wrote the remit...wasnt it the police.
Colin Suttons account never mentioned the mcCanns or abduction...read it again..sutton assumed it wa sthe Mccanns he wasnt supposed to look at..he wasnt told that..
So who instructed the UK police
-
no...who wrote the remit...wasnt it the police.
Colin Suttons account never mentioned the mcCanns or abduction...read it again..sutton assumed it wa sthe Mccanns he wasnt supposed to look at..he wasnt told that..
So who instructed the UK police
The person writing a remit isn't necessarily the person who decided what it is going to say.
-
The person writing a remit isn't necessarily the person who decided what it is going to say.
You claim someone instructed the UK police... You stated it as, a fact... So again.. Who was it... Or are you just making things up
-
no...who wrote the remit...wasnt it the police.
Colin Suttons account never mentioned the mcCanns or abduction...read it again..sutton assumed it wa sthe Mccanns he wasnt supposed to look at..he wasnt told that..
So who instructed the UK police
So why did he say it on sky news to MB.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4467832/Met-interested-proving-McCann-parents-innocent.html
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said he was warned he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives theories
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said: 'I did receive a call from a very senior met police officer who knew me and said it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to head investigation on the basis that I wouldn’t be happy conducting an investigation being told where I could go and where I couldn’t go, the things I could investigate and the things I couldn’t.
Asked to clarify what he meant, he added: 'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
The Tapas Nine refers to the McCann parents and the seven friends they were out to dinner with when Madeleine disappeared in 2007.
-
So why did he say it on sky news to MB.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4467832/Met-interested-proving-McCann-parents-innocent.html
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said he was warned he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives theories
Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said: 'I did receive a call from a very senior met police officer who knew me and said it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to head investigation on the basis that I wouldn’t be happy conducting an investigation being told where I could go and where I couldn’t go, the things I could investigate and the things I couldn’t.
Asked to clarify what he meant, he added: 'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
The Tapas Nine refers to the McCann parents and the seven friends they were out to dinner with when Madeleine disappeared in 2007.
According to Sutton on his blog... The senior source did not mention the McCanns.. That was an assumption made by Sutton
-
According to Sutton on his blog... The senior source did not mention the McCanns.. That was an assumption made by Sutton
'Show me the bloggy'.
-
'Show me the bloggy'.
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
"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.
so the totality of the advice he received was....
"You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".
Not a mention of the McCanns
http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
-
Of course if sutton had taken the Job he would have been told where he could and couldnt look...who he could and couldnt interview......he would be limited by ILORs and the portuguese police
-
Of course if sutton had taken the Job he would have been told where he could and couldnt look...who he could and couldnt interview......he would be limited by ILORs and the portuguese police
So it bears out the premise that he was given the gypsies by a concerned party and gave it a swerve knowing that he wouldn't be able to investigate anything other than abduction - which is exactly the same thing.
Thanks for the link by the way.
-
So it bears out the premise that he was given the gypsies by a concerned party and gave it a swerve knowing that he wouldn't be able to investigate anything other than abduction - which is exactly the same thing.
Thanks for the link by the way.
You have it wrong too... His source never mentioned abduction... In my experience sceptics get a lot wrong
-
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
"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.
so the totality of the advice he received was....
"You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".
Not a mention of the McCanns
http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
Nor any mention at all of the lead investigating authority, Portugal. who did indeed have the power to decide what could and what could not not be looked at.
A power which I believe they exercised occasionally ... Portugal not being a vassal state but a proud free country which would not be dictated to by anyone.
Logically, I think it far more likely that was the situation being referred to than any addition to the myths which it became.
-
The first investigation didn't understand the evidence... That's been established..
The Germans certainly don't believe the parents are involved and neither do SY... However she left the apartment she was abducted
'However she left the apartment she was abducted'
I think this is a salient point. They are not committing themselves to thinking MBM being abducted/remove dead or alive from her bed. via brokn shutters et el It does cover the theory of walked and wandered and being killed in the apartment and removed/abducted.
-
'However she left the apartment she was abducted'
I think this is a salient point. They are not committing themselves to thinking MBM being abducted/remove dead or alive from her bed. via brokn shutters et el It does cover the theory of walked and wandered and being killed in the apartment and removed/abducted.
OG was set up to help the McCanns, so it wasn't intended to be completely neutral.
-
OG was set up to help the McCanns, so it wasn't intended to be completely neutral.
Do you have a cite for this?
-
OG was set up to help the McCanns, so it wasn't intended to be completely neutral.
Operation Grange was set up to investigate what happened to Madeleine McCann ... they are still looking for her.
-
Operation Grange was set up to investigate what happened to Madeleine McCann ... they are still looking for her.
It was set up to investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK. It began with two assumptions; that there had been an abduction and that the PJ had ruled out the McCanns. One of those assumptions was shown to be incorrect by the Supreme Court in Portugal.
-
It was set up to investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK. It began with two assumptions; that there had been an abduction and that the PJ had ruled out the McCanns. One of those assumptions was shown to be incorrect by the Supreme Court in Portugal.
The SC did not say the McCanns had not been ruled out... I thought you understood that
-
It was set up to investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK. It began with two assumptions; that there had been an abduction and that the PJ had ruled out the McCanns. One of those assumptions was shown to be incorrect by the Supreme Court in Portugal.
Why do you constantly ignore requests for cites? I thought if you made a statement of fact thst you needed to supply a cite if asked for one? Does that forum rule not apply to you?
-
It was set up to investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK. It began with two assumptions; that there had been an abduction and that the PJ had ruled out the McCanns. One of those assumptions was shown to be incorrect by the Supreme Court in Portugal.
No assumtions at all...grange was set up to investigate an abduction after a review had been carried out...thats not an assumption its aconclusion....SY looked at all the evidence against the parents...almost certainly interviewed thema and decided they were not involved. This doesnt mean that if new evidence came to light during the investigation the direction could not look at the parents.
as for not being ruled out...I did think you understood that..you obviously dont..the SC never said teh McCannns hadnt been ruled out ..fact
-
No assumtions at all...grange was set up to investigate an abduction after a review had been carried out...thats not an assumption its aconclusion....SY looked at all the evidence against the parents...almost certainly interviewed thema and decided they were not involved. This doesnt mean that if new evidence came to light during the investigation the direction could not look at the parents.
as for not being ruled out...I did think you understood that..you obviously dont..the SC never said teh McCannns hadnt been ruled out ..fact
No assumtions at all...grange was set up to investigate an abduction
Oh yes there was.
They assumed Maddie had been abducted then - even though no evidence of abduction.
Grange should have been set up to look at what had happened to a missing child.
-
No assumtions at all...grange was set up to investigate an abduction
Oh yes there was.
They assumed Maddie had been abducted then - even though no evidence of abduction.
Grange should have been set up to look at what had happened to a missing child.
To investigate an abduction based on the findings of the review...that is not an assumption. no where does it say it is limited to the remit. Are you suggesting if evidence pointed to woke and wandered Grange would ignore it...that's barmy.
The fact is imo...they are investigating an abduction ...as are the Germans...because thats where the evidence points to
-
To investigate an abduction based on the findings of the review...that is not an assumption. no where does it say it is limited to the remit. Are you suggesting if evidence pointed to woke and wandered Grange would ignore it...that's barmy.
The fact is imo...they are investigating an abduction ...as are the Germans...because thats where the evidence points to
.they are investigating an abduction
So being partial then - instead of looking at the bigger picture.
When infact the mccs were not cleared of being involved - as we know.
-
.they are investigating an abduction
So being partial then - instead of looking at the bigger picture.
When infact the mccs were not cleared of being involved - as we know.
The SC did not say the McCanns havent been cleared...as far as Sy and the Germans..the McCanns are not being investigated ..CB is.
I would say SY have looked at everything...as they have confirmed...and sensibly decided the McCanns are not involved
-
.they are investigating an abduction
So being partial then - instead of looking at the bigger picture.
When infact the mccs were not cleared of being involved - as we know.
i think some people cling to the abduction theory so they dont have to imagine a parent hurting their child it happens though doesnt it i read about parents doing all sorts of things to children sadly
-
When gmc checked when he had the proud father moment - he noticed the door wide open.
Yet he did not think to mention it to kmc - yet isn't that what checking is all about making sure everything is safe.
He was also longer than expected kmcc thought he was watching football IIRC. so why didn't he mention the door?
-
i think some people cling to the abduction theory so they dont have to imagine a parent hurting their child it happens though doesnt it i read about parents doing all sorts of things to children sadly
The majority of parents do not hurt their children or do "all sorts of things to them"
Are you implying that Madeleine`s parents hurt her or " did all sorts of things to her" ?
-
The majority of parents do not hurt their children or do "all sorts of things to them"
Are you implying that Madeleine`s parents hurt her or " did all sorts of things to her" ?
The majority of parents don't piss off out for tapas & leave the kids indoors.
-
The SC did not say the McCanns havent been cleared...as far as Sy and the Germans..the McCanns are not being investigated ..CB is.
I would say SY have looked at everything...as they have confirmed...and sensibly decided the McCanns are not involved
By changing 277/1 to 277/2 the SC changed the reason for the archiving of the case. By doing so they made it clear that no arguidos had been ruled out.
Under 277/1 the archiving occurred because 'sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance.' In other words, the arguidos had been ruled out.
Under 277/2 the archiving occurred because 'it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.' In other words, no-one was ruled out. Nor was the crime identified.
Details of Article 277 can be found here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
-
i think some people cling to the abduction theory so they dont have to imagine a parent hurting their child it happens though doesnt it i read about parents doing all sorts of things to children sadly
I don't " cling to the abduction story" to avoid thinking about all of.your above thoughts.
I would actually prefer the theory if many sceptics that Madeleine died and her father chucked her body in.a bin, or down a well or in the sea.
-
By changing 277/1 to 277/2 the SC changed the reason for the archiving of the case. By doing so they made it clear that no arguidos had been ruled out.
Under 277/1 the archiving occurred because 'sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance.' In other words, the arguidos had been ruled out.
Under 277/2 the archiving occurred because 'it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.' In other words, no-one was ruled out. Nor was the crime identified.
Details of Article 277 can be found here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
So it would be correct to day the SC said they were not ruled out in 2008 ..
They did not say they have not been ruled out since
-
I don't " cling to the abduction story" to avoid thinking about all of.your above thoughts.
I would actually prefer the theory if many sceptics that Madeleine died and her father chucked her body in.a bin, or down a well or in the sea.
That's a terrible thing to say.
Maddie might well be alive living with a nice family, Sadie has even seen a video of her.
But you'd prefer she were dead.
How awful.
-
It was set up to investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK. It began with two assumptions; that there had been an abduction and that the PJ had ruled out the McCanns. One of those assumptions was shown to be incorrect by the Supreme Court in Portugal.
Operation Grange was set up as a result of the scoping exercise set up by Her Majesty's Government after months and years of relentless lobbying on her behalf by Madeleine's parents.
Darshna Soni You are calling for a review of the investigation. Explain to us why.
Gerry McCann I think the first thing to tell the general public is that the authorities haven't been doing anything proactive in the search for Madeleine for well over two years now and we think it is fundamental for any major incident that a case review is undertaken to look at all the avenues that could be explored that might lead to new information coming into the enquiry. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/43nov10/HEADLINES_TODAY_03_11_10.htm
But you already know this, don't you.
-
So it would be correct to day the SC said they were not ruled out in 2008 ..
They did not say they have not been ruled out since
No, so we can class it as they are still not ruled out. imo
-
No assumtions at all...grange was set up to investigate an abduction after a review had been carried out...thats not an assumption its aconclusion....SY looked at all the evidence against the parents...almost certainly interviewed thema and decided they were not involved. This doesnt mean that if new evidence came to light during the investigation the direction could not look at the parents.
as for not being ruled out...I did think you understood that..you obviously dont..the SC never said teh McCannns hadnt been ruled out ..fact
Operation Grange didn't just materialise out of thin air it came about after a long, hard slog by her parents on her behalf and it came about because the authorities were put under the spotlight for their failure to look for Madeleine McCann.
Only the much derided McCann private detectives were doing that.
-
No assumtions at all...grange was set up to investigate an abduction
Oh yes there was.
They assumed Maddie had been abducted then - even though no evidence of abduction.
Grange should have been set up to look at what had happened to a missing child.
Grange should have been set up to look at what had happened to a missing child.
Which is precisely what it was set up to do ... and it is precisely what it has been and continues to do despite the slings and arrows directed at it since its inception.
-
To investigate an abduction based on the findings of the review...that is not an assumption. no where does it say it is limited to the remit. Are you suggesting if evidence pointed to woke and wandered Grange would ignore it...that's barmy.
The fact is imo...they are investigating an abduction ...as are the Germans...because thats where the evidence points to
I think that is already well known it just doesn't make as good an argument as the preferred castles built on the sand with the assumption the police are going to set up an International operation such as Grange without justification.
-
By changing 277/1 to 277/2 the SC changed the reason for the archiving of the case. By doing so they made it clear that no arguidos had been ruled out.
Under 277/1 the archiving occurred because 'sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance.' In other words, the arguidos had been ruled out.
Under 277/2 the archiving occurred because 'it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.' In other words, no-one was ruled out. Nor was the crime identified.
Details of Article 277 can be found here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
I prefer to wait for the ECHR pronouncement and I also prefer it when there is a passing swipe made at the topic under discussion.
You know the old saying though ~ if you can't beat them etc ~ but I really do think there is much more to be discussed by sensible people that the hatreds built up over a thirteen year period and repeated incessantly since.
It says such a lot.
-
i think some people cling to the abduction theory so they dont have to imagine a parent hurting their child it happens though doesnt it i read about parents doing all sorts of things to children sadly
Funnily enough I have the reverse theory and that is that some people cling to the "parents dunnit" theory because they don't like to have to contemplate the reality of paedophiles and stranger abductions.
-
By changing 277/1 to 277/2 the SC changed the reason for the archiving of the case. By doing so they made it clear that no arguidos had been ruled out.
Under 277/1 the archiving occurred because 'sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance.' In other words, the arguidos had been ruled out.
Under 277/2 the archiving occurred because 'it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence confirming the crime or who were the authors.' In other words, no-one was ruled out. Nor was the crime identified.
Details of Article 277 can be found here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm
Please provide a cite for your claim that Operation Grange was set up to help the McCanns - second time of asking.
-
No, so we can class it as they are still not ruled out. imo
So in your opinion we can class Robert Murat as not been ruled out. I'm sure he will be interested to know that.
-
No, so we can class it as they are still not ruled out. imo
You can class it how you like.. What I am saying is that the SC did not say they haven't been ruled out
-
Operation Grange was set up as a result of the scoping exercise set up by Her Majesty's Government after months and years of relentless lobbying on her behalf by Madeleine's parents.
Darshna Soni You are calling for a review of the investigation. Explain to us why.
Gerry McCann I think the first thing to tell the general public is that the authorities haven't been doing anything proactive in the search for Madeleine for well over two years now and we think it is fundamental for any major incident that a case review is undertaken to look at all the avenues that could be explored that might lead to new information coming into the enquiry. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/43nov10/HEADLINES_TODAY_03_11_10.htm
But you already know this, don't you.
Gambles 'scoping exercise' was completed in May 2010. OG was set up in 2011 as a direct result of David Cameron being 'persuaded' by Rebecca Brooks that it was a good idea. Gerry McCann thanked Cameron publicly for his intervention.
Looking for Madeleine chapter 19.
**It's interesting to note that Gamble advised the McCanns to write to him asking what could be done. He copied their letter to the Home Office. Officials there were hesitant, but Alan Johnson overruled them and accepted Gamble's offer to conduct a 'scoping exercise'.**
Looking for Madeleine chapter 18
-
You can class it how you like.. What I am saying is that the SC did not say they haven't been ruled out
Yes they did, by changing the archiving dispatch from Article 277/1 to 277/2.
-
So in your opinion we can class Robert Murat as not been ruled out. I'm sure he will be interested to know that.
Well tell him then - if I was referring to RM I would have gone on correct RM thread where it is being discussed.
-
Yes they did, by changing the archiving dispatch from Article 277/1 to 277/2.
No they didnt....read it again. they said they WERENT ruled out by the archiving despatch..that was 2008...not that they havent been ruled out2017...i actually thought you understood that
-
Gambles 'scoping exercise' was completed in May 2010. OG was set up in 2011 as a direct result of David Cameron being 'persuaded' by Rebecca Brooks that it was a good idea. Gerry McCann thanked Cameron publicly for his intervention.
Looking for Madeleine chapter 19.
**It's interesting to note that Gamble advised the McCanns to write to him asking what could be done. He copied their letter to the Home Office. Officials there were hesitant, but Alan Johnson overruled them and accepted Gamble's offer to conduct a 'scoping exercise'.**
Looking for Madeleine chapter 18
Without the Scoping Exercise there would be no Operation Grange and no active official search conducted for Madeleine McCann since the archiving of her case in 2008 until the present day.
I can appreciate although I do not understand, the chagrin that situation (the continued and continuing search for Madeleine) has caused some.
-
Well tell him then - if I was referring to RM I would have gone on correct RM thread where it is being discussed.
You cannot pick and choose how you interpret the facts. The interpretation you claim for one re the archiving report you claim equally for the other. There is no getting away from that.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
-
Gambles 'scoping exercise' was completed in May 2010. OG was set up in 2011 as a direct result of David Cameron being 'persuaded' by Rebecca Brooks that it was a good idea. Gerry McCann thanked Cameron publicly for his intervention.
Looking for Madeleine chapter 19.
**It's interesting to note that Gamble advised the McCanns to write to him asking what could be done. He copied their letter to the Home Office. Officials there were hesitant, but Alan Johnson overruled them and accepted Gamble's offer to conduct a 'scoping exercise'.**
Looking for Madeleine chapter 18
Can we have the cite for Operation Grange being set up to help the McCanns - third time of asking.
-
.they are investigating an abduction
So being partial then - instead of looking at the bigger picture.
When infact the mccs were not cleared of being involved - as we know.
There was a review before OG started their investigation. They went right back to the beginning. They said there was no need to interview the McCann's as that had already been done by the Portuguese Police. They came to the conclusion that the McCann's were no way suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. So yes they were investigating abduction, but only after studying the files first.
-
i think some people cling to the abduction theory so they dont have to imagine a parent hurting their child it happens though doesnt it i read about parents doing all sorts of things to children sadly
The abduction theory is what OG is pursuing. I agree with the abduction theory as everything points to that being the most credible.
-
Don't you think it was odd kmc searched the apartment wardrobes/under the bed sqeezwd through to look out of window that she left wide open?
But didnt look out of the front door.
The front door is a potential entry and exit point, especially if someone ..had .. been inside.
I agree kizzy, all very odd.
-
The abduction theory is what OG is pursuing. I agree with the abduction theory as everything points to that being the most credible.
Abduction from the street outside has always been the most likely scenario.
-
Abduction from the street outside has always been the most likely scenario.
No it hasn't
-
Abduction from the street outside has always been the most likely scenario.
not according to the police.w
-
No it hasn't
It's the only possible scenario that the facts fit but then we all know that if that is what happened then the blame reverts straight back on the parents.
-
It's the only possible scenario that the facts fit but then we all know that if that is what happened then the blame reverts straight back on the parents.
It isn't the only scenario that the facts fit.. There are several scenarios that the facts could fit
-
It's the only possible scenario that the facts fit but then we all know that if that is what happened then the blame reverts straight back on the parents.
3 year olds can open doors my 2 year old niece can open doors if they are unlocked im sure a nearly 4 year old could easily open doors and wander outside also most nearly 4 year olds can climb up and down stairs etc
-
Without the Scoping Exercise there would be no Operation Grange and no active official search conducted for Madeleine McCann since the archiving of her case in 2008 until the present day.
I can appreciate although I do not understand, the chagrin that situation (the continued and continuing search for Madeleine) has caused some.
I don't believe you have any evidence to support your opinion.
-
No they didnt....read it again. they said they WERENT ruled out by the archiving despatch..that was 2008...not that they havent been ruled out2017...i actually thought you understood that
If they weren't ruled out at the end of the first investigation they are still in the same position today imo.
-
If they weren't ruled out at the end of the first investigation they are still in the same position today imo.
so just your opinion now.
so at least you now accept that the SC were referring to a specific point in the investigation...IMO...the statemnet by both SY...Da Carmo...rules them out..but there is no real legal definition of ruling out so its not really an imprtant point
-
OG was set up to help the McCanns, so it wasn't intended to be completely neutral.
Three times I have asked G-Unit for a cite to back up the assertion above and three times I have been completely ignored and no cite has been forthcoming.
Can another Mod kindly explain if moderators are now no longer obliged to respond to requests for cites?
-
It's the only possible scenario that the facts fit but then we all know that if that is what happened then the blame reverts straight back on the parents.
it really isn't and it really, really doesn't.
-
I don't believe you have any evidence to support your opinion.
I don't believe you have a cite for "Operation Grange was set up to help the McCanns" and that is why you have repeatedly ignored my request for one.
-
Three times I have asked G-Unit for a cite to back up the assertion above and three times I have been completely ignored and no cite has been forthcoming.
Can another Mod kindly explain if moderators are now no longer obliged to respond to requests for cites?
it seems to me that a couple mods who are abusing their position by posting opinion as fact and not giving cites. this post breaks the rules but why should that be an issue when mods are blatantly breaking the rules.
They understand that other mods wont correct them...a bit pathetic really
-
If they weren't ruled out at the end of the first investigation they are still in the same position today imo.
Same goes for Murat then. Still a suspect after all these years despite the fact he obviously isn't.
-
it seems to me that a couple mods who are abusing their position by posting opinion as fact and not giving cites. this post breaks the rules but why should that be an issue when mods are blatantly breaking the rules.
They understand that other mods wont correct them...a bit pathetic really
Exactly, it's arrogant and rude as well.
-
Clue - it is called the Disappearance of MM not abduction. All investigations start from zero and nobody is ruled out. Some don't want a circus. Another clue.
-
Clue - it is called the Disappearance of MM not abduction. All investigations start from zero and nobody is ruled out. Some don't want a circus. Another clue.
What is called "The Disappearance of MM"? I wasn't aware this case had an official, immutable title.
-
Exactly, it's arrogant and rude as well.
It actually makes the whole...obey the rules...thing look a bit silly
-
I don't believe you have any evidence to support your opinion.
The review undertaken by Scotland Yard and the wholly independent review carried out in Portugal by the investigative Policia Judiciaria resulted in action being recommended by both to reopen Madeleine's case.
That is the fact of the matter and I am quite content with that.
If you are content to assume the 2010 scoping exercise which was set up to study the feasibility of such a review played no part in the English process in opening one ... fine by me, but I really do not share your belief that it didn't.
-
I don't believe you have a cite for "Operation Grange was set up to help the McCanns" and that is why you have repeatedly ignored my request for one.
Downing Street said the Government was looking at how it could assist the couple.
The Prime Minister's spokesman said: “We are considering what they have said and seeing if there is anything more we can do. We are thinking about what we can do to help.”
And then the McCanns said......
“We would like to thank Mr Cameron and the Home Secretary for committing such a significant resource as the Metropolitan Police to begin this review process.”
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/david-cameron-calls-the-yard-in-quest-to-find-little-maddy-mccann-28616916.html
-
Downing Street said the Government was looking at how it could assist the couple.
The Prime Minister's spokesman said: “We are considering what they have said and seeing if there is anything more we can do. We are thinking about what we can do to help.”
And then the McCanns said......
“We would like to thank Mr Cameron and the Home Secretary for committing such a significant resource as the Metropolitan Police to begin this review process.”
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/david-cameron-calls-the-yard-in-quest-to-find-little-maddy-mccann-28616916.html
I would say thats because downing street took police advice who thought like myself... the parents were just not involved...all the evidence you think points to the parents doesnt...imo
-
What is called "The Disappearance of MM"? I wasn't aware this case had an official, immutable title.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/57jan12/remit_word.JPG)
-
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/57jan12/remit_word.JPG)
E mail and telephone remains the same,also still a disappearance and the PJ have the lead.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
On 12 May 2011 the Met announced that, at the request of the Home Secretary, it had agreed to bring its particular expertise to the Madeleine McCann case.
The then Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, considered the request and took the decision that on balance it was the right thing to do. This was subject to funding being made available by the Home Office, as this case is beyond the Met’s jurisdiction.
Investigative review
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.
The Portuguese authorities retain the lead and the Met continues to work in support of them.
The Home Office continues to fund Operation Grange.
Contact details for Operation Grange
Ways to contact us:
By phone: 0207 321 9251
By email: Operation.grange@met.police.uk
-
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/57jan12/remit_word.JPG)
excellent,,,a review into the disappearance of MM led to an investiagtion into her abduction...obviously the review concluded an abduction took place
-
excellent,,,a review into the disappearance of MM led to an investiagtion into her abduction...obviously the review concluded an abduction took place
I agree, Davel. How else would one explain Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
excellent,,,a review into the disappearance of MM led to an investiagtion into her abduction...obviously the review concluded an abduction took place
Where's it say that?
-
Where's it say that?
ipso factor loquitor...lets raise the standard of the debate a little ...my typing is awful but my latin is impeccable
-
Downing Street said the Government was looking at how it could assist the couple.
The Prime Minister's spokesman said: “We are considering what they have said and seeing if there is anything more we can do. We are thinking about what we can do to help.”
And then the McCanns said......
“We would like to thank Mr Cameron and the Home Secretary for committing such a significant resource as the Metropolitan Police to begin this review process.”
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/david-cameron-calls-the-yard-in-quest-to-find-little-maddy-mccann-28616916.html
So no cite for Operation Grange being set up to help the McCanns then.
-
excellent,,,a review into the disappearance of MM led to an investiagtion into her abduction...obviously the review concluded an abduction took place
There is one credible lead of an unidentified man seen carrying a MM clone away. And that's your abductor ?>)()<
'However she left that apartment, she's been abducted.' Scotland Yard
-
There is one credible lead of an unidentified man seen carrying a MM clone away. And that's your abductor ?>)()<
'However she left that apartment, she's been abducted.' Scotland Yard
abducted by her own father whilst dead..according to you.....barmy according to every sensible person..imo
-
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/57jan12/remit_word.JPG)
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
On 12 May 2011 the Met announced that, at the request of the Home Secretary, it had agreed to bring its particular expertise to the Madeleine McCann case.
The then Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, considered the request and took the decision that on balance it was the right thing to do. This was subject to funding being made available by the Home Office, as this case is beyond the Met’s jurisdiction.
Investigative review
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.
The Portuguese authorities retain the lead and the Met continues to work in support of them.
The Home Office continues to fund Operation Grange.
Contact details for Operation Grange
Ways to contact us:
By phone: 0207 321 9251
Thanks to Pathfinder and Barrier we now have irrefutable proof that the Review of Madeleine's case started in 2011 having reviewed all previous investigations resulted in becoming a full blown investigation in 2013.
Operation Grange only became an ongoing investigation in 2013 as a result of a complete and thorough investigation of all that preceded it.
Which included I believe re-interviewing material witnesses from the time such as Dr Totman and assault victims.
I really don't know where the erroneous idea came from that the review hadn't addressed all investigative protocols because it very obviously had done so which enabled progression to the next stage of procedure which became the still ongoing investigation which had been determined as stranger abduction.
The Portuguese review reached exactly the same conclusion ... stranger abduction.
-
abducted by her own father whilst dead..according to you.....barmy according to every sensible person..imo
If The supposed main suspect or anyone else for that matter were to own up and say ok I knocked a kid down with my car put her body in a bin and cause I was high on drugs I high tailed it away,hows it'd going to be proved otherwise,no sign of any break in at 5a nor any sign of an intruder.
-
If The supposed main suspect or anyone else for that matter were to own up and say ok I knocked a kid down with my car put her body in a bin and cause I was high on drugs I high tailed it away,hows it'd going to be proved otherwise,no sign of any break in at 5a nor any sign of an intruder.
The open window is sign of an intruder
-
If The supposed main suspect or anyone else for that matter were to own up and say ok I knocked a kid down with my car put her body in a bin and cause I was high on drugs I high tailed it away,hows it'd going to be proved otherwise,no sign of any break in at 5a nor any sign of an intruder.
I don't think there is anything "supposed" about him.
It makes my blood run cold to say it ... but Brueckner is very definitely the main suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction. Not mine or any other armchair detective's ... but the main suspect of investigators who it has become apparent, have been chasing him for years.
-
I don't think there is anything "supposed" about him.
It makes my blood run cold to say it ... but Brueckner is very definitely the main suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction. Not mine or any other armchair detective's ... but the main suspect of investigators who it has become apparent, have been chasing him for years.
He’s certainly the German’s main suspect but SY and the PJ ? Not so much so.
-
The open window is sign of an intruder
I believe it was only kmcc who saw it open and one more who may have - when in reality why didn't she close it.
-
I believe it was only kmcc who saw it open and one more who may have - when in reality why didn't she close it.
I already
-
I already
Already what.
-
ipso factor loquitor...lets raise the standard of the debate a little ...my typing is awful but my latin is impeccable
All the dodgy Latin in the world won't save this post, kidney.
It doesn't mention abduction at all. Doesn't even allude to it for a specific reason; they'd look like a right bunch of tools (again) if they don't leave it open to all possibilities.
-
Already what.
'Ain't nobody don't be saw no opened window, yaw.'
That's what he might have said next.
-
The open window is sign of an intruder
The open window was Kate's revelationary moment. She knew immediately she saw it that Madeleine had been taken. Her friends tried to work out how and why it was open and, in common with others, couldn't understand it at all;
we could never really work out why the shutters were up and the window was open...if they'd come in the patio door, why would they have gone out the window, I'm sure that they could have just gone back out that way, or they could have even just gone out the front door, erm which would have been much easier...
one of the, our theories for why the window and the shutters were open, were that you know, they came in that way and then but that would mean obviously that the window would have had to have been unlocked, you know either all week, or sometime during the day you know, thats kind of a bit of a risky thing to do because actually you know, if, if they had been checked before the children went to bed and you know Gerry and Kate had found the window unlocked, then they would have locked it and then that would have kind of scuppered anyones plans for coming in that way'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-
excellent,,,a review into the disappearance of MM led to an investiagtion into her abduction...obviously the review concluded an abduction took place
I know you like to infer things but not once does that Met document refer to an abduction and rightly so imho.
-
I know you like to infer things but not once does that Met document refer to an abduction and rightly so imho.
So you don't think the Met are treating this as a case of stranger abduction despite actually clearly stating that in an interview?
-
I know you like to infer things but not once does that Met document refer to an abduction and rightly so imho.
The remit referred to an abduction.. As did Rowley... As did Redwood
-
The open window was Kate's revelationary moment. She knew immediately she saw it that Madeleine had been taken. Her friends tried to work out how and why it was open and, in common with others, couldn't understand it at all;
we could never really work out why the shutters were up and the window was open...if they'd come in the patio door, why would they have gone out the window, I'm sure that they could have just gone back out that way, or they could have even just gone out the front door, erm which would have been much easier...
one of the, our theories for why the window and the shutters were open, were that you know, they came in that way and then but that would mean obviously that the window would have had to have been unlocked, you know either all week, or sometime during the day you know, thats kind of a bit of a risky thing to do because actually you know, if, if they had been checked before the children went to bed and you know Gerry and Kate had found the window unlocked, then they would have locked it and then that would have kind of scuppered anyones plans for coming in that way'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
I understand a window was CBs normal MO
-
I agree kizzy, all very odd.
Very odd the door was next to the bedroom, the nearest point to leave. It also lead to the car park.
Yet she took time to look everywhere else, except outside that door.
The alleged intruder could have been still out there.
-
All the dodgy Latin in the world won't save this post, kidney.
It doesn't mention abduction at all. Doesn't even allude to it for a specific reason; they'd look like a right bunch of tools (again) if they don't leave it open to all possibilities.
Redwood said the McCann's were not suspects in the investigation, so that ruled out Amaral's theory.
-
Redwood said the McCann's were not suspects in the investigation, so that ruled out Amaral's theory.
Not what we're discussing, but I like your tenacity and rectitude.
-
Redwood said the McCann's were not suspects in the investigation, so that ruled out Amaral's theory.
And Redwood also thought Maddie was buried on waste ground near the shore.
And where is he now? GONE HISTORY
-
And Redwood also thought Maddie was buried on waste ground near the shore.
And where is he now? GONE HISTORY
It wasnt just Redwood...Rowley was even more direct
-
And Redwood also thought Maddie was buried on waste ground near the shore.
And where is he now? GONE HISTORY
He retired. What he said still stands, the McCann's are not suspects.
-
He retired. What he said still stands, the McCann's are not suspects.
Of course not. Why would they abduct their own child?
-
He retired. What he said still stands, the McCann's are not suspects.
The case was shelved ...so I believe if anything happened to confirm anything they could be suspects again.
They have not been cleared of any involvement of what happened to Maddie.
-
If The supposed main suspect or anyone else for that matter were to own up and say ok I knocked a kid down with my car put her body in a bin and cause I was high on drugs I high tailed it away,hows it'd going to be proved otherwise,no sign of any break in at 5a nor any sign of an intruder.
Oh, there's a mountain of circumstantial evidence with OG, which you have never seen. And I have only revealed a tiny bit of it.
I don't expect any of you to believe me, but I hope that if this case is solved and Madeleine is found, then as the evidence unfolds … and I am dead … that some of you will have the grace to say "Oh, sadie said that".
I would have liked to be there at the end, but …..
Now on a more cheerful note, a few days ago, we received a beautiful Diamond wedding card from The Queen.
-
I don't think there is anything "supposed" about him.
It makes my blood run cold to say it ... but Brueckner is very definitely the main suspect in Madeleine McCann's abduction. Not mine or any other armchair detective's ... but the main suspect of investigators who it has become apparent, have been chasing him for years.
There is another man, who didn't get his hands dirty on the third of May, but he is elite and I wonder if he will get away with it.
IMO he commissioned Madeleines abduction for a special purpose.
-
I believe it was only kmcc who saw it open and one more who may have - when in reality why didn't she close it.
Didn't Gerry see it ?
And Amy Tierney ?
That makes at least three. Please correct me if I am wrong.
-
Didn't Gerry see it ?
And Amy Tierney ?
That makes at least three. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Well gmcc isn't really going to say it wasn't open so class them as one ...and AT not really sure.
None of the T7 though IIRC. My real point was why didn't kmcc close it before she ran out.
-
There is another man, who didn't get his hands dirty on the third of May, but he is elite and I wonder if he will get away with it.
IMO he commissioned Madeleines abduction for a special purpose.
Epstein? Jeffrey, not Brian.
-
Epstein? Jeffrey, not Brian.
Do you ever have anything remotely sensible to say these days?
-
Well gmcc isn't really going to say it wasn't open so class them as one ...and AT not really sure.
None of the T7 though IIRC. My real point was why didn't kmcc close it before she ran out.
Gerry said that Kate had told him the window was open when she entered the apartment....nice bit of deniability there. Tierney saw the window open several minutes after the alarm was raised. Strangely Tanner, Oldfield and O’Brien failed to see an open window on their various checks.
-
Well gmcc isn't really going to say it wasn't open so class them as one ...and AT not really sure.
None of the T7 though IIRC. My real point was why didn't kmcc close it before she ran out.
You don’t believe it was ever open so why are you even asking this question?
-
You don’t believe it was ever open so why are you even asking this question?
Well, you believe it was, so answer the question please VS.
Why didn't kmc close it before she ran out?
-
Of course not. Why would they abduct their own child?
To keep a secret?
Abduct: to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret OR by force, especially to kidnap.
-
To keep a secret?
Abduct: to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret OR by force, especially to kidnap.
Redwood said stranger abduction
-
Didn't Gerry see it ?
And Amy Tierney ?
That makes at least three. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Then they went an interfered with a crime scene, allegedly knowing Madeleine was abducted.Some one shut it,if it was open in the first place.
-
Well, you believe it was, so answer the question please VS.
Why didn't kmc close it before she ran out?
No idea. Panic? Or maybe she was hoping he’d come back for the other two cos she was sick to death of them? Yeah, that will be it.
-
Then they went an interfered with a crime scene, allegedly knowing Madeleine was abducted.Some one shut it,if it was open in the first place.
LOL. One sceptic criticising them for not shutting the window, another sceptic criticising them for closing the window. Perfect!
-
No idea. Panic? Or maybe she was hoping he’d come back for the other two cos she was sick to death of them? Yeah, that will be it.
Ok seems you can't answer then.
So still strange why she didn't then.
-
Ok seems you can't answer then.
So still strange why she didn't then.
I did answer, but as I’m not her it may not be the right answer. Do you expect me to know the right answer?
If they were faking an abduction by opening the window why did they not leave it open for the police to see? A question for you to answer now.
-
I did answer, but as I’m not her it may not be the right answer. Do you expect me to know the right answer?
If they were faking an abduction by opening the window why did they not leave it open for the police to see? A question for you to answer now.
Maybe I believe because it was never open in the first place.
Why would u run out leaving twins with a window left wide open. when one child had gone within the last 25mims
-
Maybe I believe because it was never open in the first place.
Why would u run out leaving twins with a window left wide open. when one child had gone within the last 25mims
So you believe they SAID the window was open but didn’t bother to actually FAKE a break in at all. What a lazy pair, eh? Couldn’t even be bothered to stage a convincing break in, tsk.
-
The shutter twisted and got stuck/jammed re crime scene photos. So they nearly got damaged but NOT by an abductor.
-
The shutter twisted and got stuck/jammed re crime scene photos. So they nearly got damaged but NOT by an abductor.
We may well have some real answers in the next month or so... All those claims from you and your ilk may well look pretty silly... Let's, wait and see.
-
The open window is sign of an intruder
That's it? no wonder it's taken all these years with still no conclusion.
-
AT (Amy Tierney) not really sure.
Why do you say that Amy wasn't sure, Kizzy? Amy clearly says that the shutter was raised and the window half open in her statement. In fact she reiterates it twice in her statement.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
Snip -
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was onduty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl washiding. * She saw that the shutter was raised and that the windowwas partially open.* It was then that she began to look in thewardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could haveleft by her own means, * however after checking that the windowwas open and the shutter raised * she asked the parents whetherMadeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that theywere, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could havebeen taken by someone.
Are you telling a porkie there Kizzy, or have I missed something?
Amy's evidence is clear. What isn't clear is how she saw something which the other person present didn't see;
when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
Amy's evidence is not confirmed by any of the McCann's female friends. Fiona Payne was there from 10:10 and the window and shutters were closed.
-
AT (Amy Tierney) not really sure.
Why do you say that Amy wasn't sure, Kizzy? Amy clearly says that the shutter was raised and the window half open in her statement. In fact she reiterates it twice in her statement.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
Snip -
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was onduty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl washiding. * She saw that the shutter was raised and that the windowwas partially open.* It was then that she began to look in thewardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could haveleft by her own means, * however after checking that the windowwas open and the shutter raised * she asked the parents whetherMadeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that theywere, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could havebeen taken by someone.
Are you telling a porkie there Kizzy, or have I missed something?
Nothing sinister Sadie - just I wasn't sure if it was Amy Tierrney or not.
-
Maybe I believe because it was never open in the first place.
Why would u run out leaving twins with a window left wide open. when one child had gone within the last 25mims
Kate searched the apartment, she looked out of the window. Kate was there for over five minutes why would an abductor who had just taken a child stay outside for that length of time?
-
Kate searched the apartment, she looked out of the window. Kate was there for over five minutes why would an abductor who had just taken a child stay outside for that length of time?
Why was she there that length of time when she knew straight away Maddie had been taken.
Still ran out leaving window wide open
-
Why was she there that length of time when she knew straight away Maddie had been taken.
Still ran out leaving window wide open
kates fingerprints were on the window too
-
Why was she there that length of time when she knew straight away Maddie had been taken.
Still ran out leaving window wide open
Searching the apartment. You don't behave logically when in a state of panic.
-
kates fingerprints were on the window too
They would be she looked out of the window.
-
Searching the apartment. You don't behave logically when in a state of panic.
Are they not trained to behave logically - when in a state of panic being a GP at the time.
Or at least to do the sensible thing the wind was blowing curtains she went to the window but did not close it.
She looked out of the window but not the door right next to Maddie bed leading to a car park
If she was in that much of a panic instead of searching why didn't she run straight out she knew Maddie had been taken after all.
-
Are they not trained to behave logically - when in a state of panic being a GP at the time.
Or at least to do the sensible thing the wind was blowing curtains she went to the window but did not close it.
She looked out of the window but not the door right next to Maddie bed leading to a car park
If she was in that much of a panic instead of searching why didn't she run straight out she knew Maddie had been taken after all.
Yes they are trained, but this was Kate's daughter not a member of the public, of course she would act differently. You think you know how you would react what you would do, but you don't until you are in that situation.
Run straight out? Who runs straight out without searching the apartment? Madeleine could have been hiding somewhere afraid because someone had entered the apartment.
-
Yes they are trained, but this was Kate's daughter not a member of the public, of course she would act differently. You think you know how you would react what you would do, but you don't until you are in that situation.
Run straight out? Who runs straight out without searching the apartment? Madeleine could have been hiding somewhere afraid because someone had entered the apartment.
So thats logic thinking then isnt it to search the apartment.
It cant be both as you said kmc wasnt thinking logically.
So she didn't find her... and still didn't close it... after she had looked out of it... and left her prints on it.
-
They would be she looked out of the window.
Cite please from the files where she said that to the police?
-
Why was she there that length of time when she knew straight away Maddie had been taken.
Still ran out leaving window wide open
Running out leaving the other two alone has always puzzled me too? If you found your ground floor apartment with the window wide open and the curtains wafting in the wind, would you look out and close it or just look out and leave?
-
Amy's evidence is clear. What isn't clear is how she saw something which the other person present didn't see;
when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
Amy's evidence is not confirmed by any of the McCann's female friends. Fiona Payne was there from 10:10 and the window and shutters were closed.
So ?
Amy arrived and saw the window and shutter open from the front door side. She could have seen that from over the outer wall had she peered thru the waving branches of the trees.
When she entered the apartment she saw Kate and Gerry and this female friend (almost certainly Fiona). She could see them, but she could not see the twins, because Kate/Gerry had shut the door and closed the window and shutter at the same time, in order that they wouldn't wake up with all the noise. And have done that within seconds of Amy seeing the open window and raised shutter.. It only takes seconds, but longer (more seconds) to go around from the front to the back, then gather oneself for approaching Kate and Gerry.
This needs to be checked with the statements, but Amy might not have even gone into 5A seeing all three from the patio entrance? You cant just cherry pick bits like that Gunit, you have to think of the whole picture and what conceivably might have happened.
It is entirely plausible that Amy saw the window and shutter open and also saw the three, Kate, Gerry and ?Fiona.
At least you now accept that Amys statement was not "iffy" as was described before.
-
Why was she there that length of time when she knew straight away Maddie had been taken.
Still ran out leaving window wide open
In those first shocked seconds/ minutes, Kate mind must have been tumbling with mixed thoughts. She wanted to believe that Madeleine was somewhere there, but the open window was rapidly pushing those thoughts away IMO.
She ran to Gerry, her rock, and yelled after she got thru the Reception area. With her athleticism it would take a handful gf seconds - just 30 metres from 5A garden gate to where she could yell Gerry on the tapas side of the Reception and downhill.
Leading world records for 100 metes (ladies) are under 11 seconds
I doubt that it took her 5 seconds from 5A gate to Yelling point . Please be realistic.
-
So ?
Amy arrived and saw the window and shutter open from the front door side. She could have seen that from over the outer wall had she peered thru the waving branches of the trees.
When she entered the apartment she saw Kate and Gerry and this female friend (almost certainly Fiona). She could see them, but she could not see the twins, because Kate/Gerry had shut the door and closed the window and shutter at the same time, in order that they wouldn't wake up with all the noise. And have done that within seconds of Amy seeing the open window and raised shutter.. It only takes seconds, but longer (more seconds) to go around from the front to the back, then gather oneself for approaching Kate and Gerry.
This needs to be checked with the statements, but Amy might not have even gone into 5A seeing all three from the patio entrance? You cant just cherry pick bits like that Gunit, you have to think of the whole picture and what conceivably might have happened.
It is entirely plausible that Amy saw the window and shutter open and also saw the three, Kate, Gerry and ?Fiona.
At least you now accept that Amys statement was not "iffy" as was described it before.
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
'At that point, Gerry, I don't think was in the apartment, it was mainly Kate. And Kate was just, huh, utter disbelief and I had disbelief, thinking she's got to be here, you know, what, how can this have happened. And by that point Kate was already saying that the, what she'd found when she'd gone back, which was that the, she'd found the window open and the shutter open and she was convinced at that point that somebody had taken, taken Madeleine and that's what she was telling me and I was like 'They can't have done. They can't have done this', you know. And I looked, I looked throughout the whole apartment and I looked in all the cupboards, under the drawers, under the beds, behind the curtains, everywhere, erm, just, you know, trying to, knowing it had already been done, but you just do. Erm, tut, I looked, when I went into the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine, erm, Madeleine's bed was sort of folded back, the sheets, quite kind of neatly really, erm, Sean and Amelie were fast asleep in their cots, they didn't stir, you know, I was opening the cupboards in the room and moving around the room
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Running out leaving the other two alone has always puzzled me too? If you found your ground floor apartment with the window wide open and the curtains wafting in the wind, would you look out and close it or just look out and leave?
You would dash around like someone demented !
Go on, John, I know that you don't want to, but admit that is what would happen. Having quickly searched and peered out of the window you would dash for help which was the steps + 5 seconds away.
~~~~~~~
BTW, why all the fuss about Kates finger prints on the window ? She had lived there for several days, FGS
https://crimerocket.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/notwmaddiesbedroom-1.jpg
(https://crimerocket.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/notwmaddiesbedroom-1.jpg)
…. or she could have left them there when supporting herself as she leaned over the bed standing in that narrow gap twixt bed and chair. This meant she had to place her feet behind each other in an unbalanced manner to peer out. I bet one hand went on the window and one hand steadied her on the window and the right hand supported her on the curtained wall as she leant as far as possible.
These are only my thoughts but entirely feasible
JUST WHY is there all the fuss about Kates finger prints on the window?
-
I dashed over to the second bed, on the other side ofthe travel cots where the twins slept on, oblivious, and looked out through the window. I’ve no idea what I expected to see there.
[madeleine]
According to Kate she knew immediately that Madeleine had been taken. What she didn't know was when, so in theory she could have seen the alleged abductor making off with her daughter. What else could she have been looking for?
-
You would dash around like someone demented !
Go on, John, I know that you don't want to, but admit that is what would happen. Having quickly searched and peered out of the window you would dash for help which was the steps + 5 seconds away.
~~~~~~~
BTW, why all the fuss about Kates finger prints on the window ? She had lived there for several days, FGS
https://crimerocket.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/notwmaddiesbedroom-1.jpg
(https://crimerocket.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/notwmaddiesbedroom-1.jpg)
…. or she could have left them there when supporting herself as she leaned over the bed standing in that narrow gap twixt bed and chair. This meant she had to place her feet behind each other in an unbalanced manner to peer out. I bet one hand went on the window and one hand steadied her on the window and the right hand supported her on the curtained wall as she leant as far as possible.
These are only my thoughts but entirely feasible
JUST WHY is there all the fuss about Kates finger prints on the window?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet
-
Cite please from the files where she said that to the police?
I didn't say she said that to the Police.
-
Running out leaving the other two alone has always puzzled me too? If you found your ground floor apartment with the window wide open and the curtains wafting in the wind, would you look out and close it or just look out and leave?
I don't know is my answer John, never been in that situation thank god. What I do know is that Kate must have been in one hell of a state searching around that apartment and not finding her daughter, she must have been out of her mind with worry.
-
I don't know is my answer John, never been in that situation thank god. What I do know is that Kate must have been in one hell of a state searching around that apartment and not finding her daughter, she must have been out of her mind with worry.
You don't know what Kate McCann was thinking and feeling at all, you're assuming you do.
-
So thats logic thinking then isnt it to search the apartment.
It cant be both as you said kmc wasnt thinking logically.
So she didn't find her... and still didn't close it... after she had looked out of it... and left her prints on it.
Kate searched the apartment for Madeleine, no doubt getting more and more frantic as she did so, its no wonder when she didn't find her that she just tore out of there to get help.
-
You don't know what Kate McCann was thinking and feeling at all, you're assuming you do.
Yes I can imagine how she felt G-Unit can't you?
-
Kate searched the apartment for Madeleine, no doubt getting more and more frantic as she did so, its no wonder when she didn't find her that she just tore out of there to get help.
Kmc was searching round the apartment IIRC for near on 10 mins. Gmcc was wondering where she was.
So she didnt exactly tear out of there. I minute to me would be a life time.
She went to the window looked out no one IMO would think it not strange she did not close it.
There was gusts of wind blowing the curtains - the twins were in there cots practically underneath it.
IMO the window was never open in the first place for any of what she did to make sense.
-
Kmc was searching round the apartment IIRC for near on 10 mins. Gmcc was wondering where she was.
So she didnt exactly tear out of there. I minute to me would be a life time.
She went to the window looked out no one IMO would think it not strange she did not close it.
There was gusts of wind blowing the curtains - the twins were in there cots practically underneath it.
IMO the window was never open in the first place for any of what she did to make sense.
do you actually think any of this is evidence...someone behaving odd as you out it is not evidence of any crime
-
do you actually think any of this is evidence...someone behaving odd as you out it is not evidence of any crime
No, but IMO if that window wasnt open why did the mccs say it was.
-
I don't know is my answer John, never been in that situation thank god. What I do know is that Kate must have been in one hell of a state searching around that apartment and not finding her daughter, she must have been out of her mind with worry.
If the window was open that would tell you straight away Maddie had been taken like she said - at that point, you would either scream or run out not spend time searching the place.
But what if it was the patio door open that - I believe is when you would search hoping Maddie had not gone out on her own.
If she had of been found wandering about hours later - it would have been adductor took her from her bed.
Not that she had woke and wondered and something terrible happened to her because no one was there.. all in my opinion same as yours L
-
I didn't say she said that to the Police.
So it's irrelevant. Anybody can say anything after police files are released to cover their ass!
-
No, but IMO if that window wasnt open why did the mccs say it was.
Because it was open
-
So it's irrelevant. Anybody can say anything after police files are released to cover their ass!
I wouldn't say she was covering her ass, more defending herself against allegations that she staged an abduction. Wouldn't you want to put the record straight. Why didn't Amaral think to himself that maybe Kate had looked out of the window instead of jumping to the conclusion she must have opened it to stage an abduction?
-
If the window was open that would tell you straight away Maddie had been taken like she said - at that point, you would either scream or run out not spend time searching the place.
But what if it was the patio door open that - I believe is when you would search hoping Maddie had not gone out on her own.
If she had of been found wandering about hours later - it would have been adductor took her from her bed.
Not that she had woke and wondered and something terrible happened to her because no one was there.. all in my opinion same as yours L
Well she must be guilty then as she didn't act the way you think she should have [in your opinion]
-
Well she must be guilty then as she didn't act the way you think she should have [in your opinion]
Glad that's settled.
-
No, but IMO if that window wasnt open why did the mccs say it was.
It was open - Amy Tierney saw it open.
-
Because it was open
Did you see it open - if not its only what you assume to fit your agenda.
-
Well she must be guilty then as she didn't act the way you think she should have [in your opinion]
That's not by far the only thing though ...is it.
-
That's not by far the only thing though ...is it.
It must blow your (not remotely) tiny mind that the police are not investigating the McCanns seeing as how obvious it is they dunnit in your view.
-
That's not by far the only thing though ...is it.
If there is all this evidence what are the PJ doing about it... HCW wants to charge CB. Do the PJ want to cgarge the McCanns... How is their investigation going
-
If there is all this evidence what are the PJ doing about it... HCW wants to charge CB. Do the PJ want to cgarge the McCanns... How is their investigation going
The PJ did try and do something ...but were stopped in there tracks by the UK interfering.
-
If there is all this evidence what are the PJ doing about it... HCW wants to charge CB. Do the PJ want to cgarge the McCanns... How is their investigation going
Don't worry, won't be long now...
-
The PJ did try and do something ...but were stopped in there tracks by the UK interfering.
Pussies.
-
Pussies.
Seems so ...IMO GA was on the right track that's why he needed to go.
-
Seems so ...IMO GA was on the right track that's why he needed to go.
yep, the British government forced him out as they knew he was getting too close to the truth and it could have destroyed Blair. Or was it Brown? Anyway, yeah. They had to get rid of him as it was a matter of national security and if he ever reveals his Ace, well, he's more or less signed his death warrant. He'd be Novichocked.
-
The PJ did try and do something ...but were stopped in there tracks by the UK interfering.
Are you claiming the PJ believe the McCanns are guilty but are doing nothing because SY told them not to
-
Are you claiming the PJ believe the McCanns are guilty but are doing nothing because SY told them not to
I believe the mccs are involved ...so Did PJ ...you know the rest so why ask.
-
I believe the mccs are involved ...so Did PJ ...you know the rest so why ask.
Because it's a barmy idea imo...
-
Because it's a barmy idea imo...
Well it will be when it doesnt fit in with what you want it too.
-
Well it will be when it doesnt fit in with what you want it too.
It isn't supported by evidence.. I think it's a crackpot idea that the McCanns are only free because the UK government is supporting them... Why would the UK govt support s couple of criminal doctors... That's barmy
-
I wouldn't say she was covering her ass, more defending herself against allegations that she staged an abduction. Wouldn't you want to put the record straight. Why didn't Amaral think to himself that maybe Kate had looked out of the window instead of jumping to the conclusion she must have opened it to stage an abduction?
Did he ever say she staged the abduction?
-
()678%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet
Hmm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet
This monster, Baphomet, was worshipped by my suspect. As was Dionysis, God of wine and liberal love (rampant sex)
Seems The General is interested in Baphomet too. He mentioned him/her/the goat in one of his posts recently
Several very unsavoury characters were also associated with Baphomet if you read the Wikipedia before it is rapidly changed, as it probably will be now.
-
Gerry said that Kate had told him the window was open when she entered the apartment....nice bit of deniability there. Tierney saw the window open several minutes after the alarm was raised. Strangely Tanner, Oldfield and O’Brien failed to see an open window on their various checks.
Oh dear, do we have to go over this yet again?
It was windy, the trees surrounding the place were fondy and rather like a willow as they moved in the breeze, and as Tanner, Oldfield and O'Brien passed by along the road they would be looking ahead. No reason to look thru waving branches at a place in near darkness.
They would reach the drive in entrance to the car park and be looking at the place which everyone had to start walking along to get to their flats. This walled pathway started in the centre of the big block which IIRC is called block 5. As they reached the drive in entrance their eyes would be focused on the start of the pathway
At this stage, Madeleines window was way out of their periferal vision and in darkness as the moon had not yet risen. The street lights, which were poor, had their lamps within the heads of the trees, so little light from them.
As they walked across the carpark closer to the pathway entrance Madeleines window went further and further into their periferal vision.
With no chance of seeing it at all once they were on the approach pathway. Totally out of sight.
No chance of seeing Madeleines window for any part of the walk unless they, for some specific reason, were specially interested in it and swivelled their heads, or eyes.
Please just drop all this nonsense about Jane, Matt and Rob not seeing her window was open ... and accept the scientific fact that people cannot see outside their periferal vision.
FGS give The McCanns a break. Instead of bullying them continually with inane ideas that are scientifically shown to be wrong.
-
I don't know about laughable but abduction from the children's bedroom has been shown to be less than credible compared to the abduction from the street scenario which at least is/supported by some credible evidence.
The street scenario would be possible only if:
* 1. Gerry left the front door open by mistake during his last visit.
2. Parent's lied about window- blind being found open
3. Matt Oldfield lied about extra light coming to the room during his visit
If Madeleine left through the unlocked patio doors she would have to: open the curtain, close the curtain, open the sliding doors, close the sliding doors, walk to the gate doors, open the gate doors, close the gate doors.
These steps would be too precise for a 3 year old.
* Factually incorrect.
-
Gerry in his statement said that some slats were left open and that would explain why Matt thought more light was entering the bedroom.
-
Gerry in his statement said that some slats were left open and that would explain why Matt thought more light was entering the bedroom.
By slats, I take it you mean the tiny holes that were in some of the slats. Not much light came thru them ! Had no slats been left open, the room would have been in total darkness from light sources outside.
Surely all the parents would leave those holey slats open, cos they wouldn't want their children possibly waking up to pitch blackness. Matt, like the Mccanns, would have left the shutters down, but likely with the holey slats open for a bit of comfort.
For Matt to have seen this greenish light coming from the window indicates that the shutters were raised … and Madeleine was already gone IMO.
This green glow is another indicator that the shutters were up, as Kate and Amy have stated. Can you understand that PFinder?
Just my opinion, but seems correct..
-
The street scenario would be possible only if:
* 1. Gerry left the front door open by mistake during his last visit.
2. Parent's lied about window- blind being found open
3. Matt Oldfield lied about extra light coming to the room during his visit
If Madeleine left through the unlocked patio doors she would have to: open the curtain, close the curtain, open the sliding doors, close the sliding doors, walk to the gate doors, open the gate doors, close the gate doors.
These steps would be too precise for a 3 year old.
* Factually incorrect.
Well said Vixte can you imagine a child of that age turning around to close the child gate on the top of the steps in the dark? No she wouldn't have been able to.
-
By slats, I take it you mean the tiny holes that were in some of the slats. Not much light came thru them ! Had no slats been left open, the room would have been in total darkness from light sources outside.
Surely all the parents would leave those holey slats open, cos they wouldn't want their children possibly waking up to pitch blackness. Matt, like the Mccanns, would have left the shutters down, but likely with the holey slats open for a bit of comfort.
For Matt to have seen this greenish light coming from the window indicates that the shutters were raised … and Madeleine was already gone IMO.
This green glow is another indicator that the shutters were up, as Kate and Amy have stated. Can you understand that PFinder?
Just my opinion, but seems correct..
Jane left only minutes after Matt returned and did not see an open window. You couldn't miss a raised shutter and open window in that car park. There is a street light next to the entrance.
-
Well said Vixte can you imagine a child of that age turning around to close the child gate on the top of the steps in the dark? No she wouldn't have been able to.
Did either GM,KM or MO mention anything about opening the said gate and closing it?
-
Jane left only minutes after Matt returned and did not see an open window. You couldn't miss a raised shutter and open window in that car park. There is a street light next to the entrance.
Yes you could. In fact unless you had a special reason to stare in the darkness at Madeleines shutter, you definitely would.
Yes one would miss the raised shutter because it was beyond ones periferal vision. And nobody, not even YOU can see things beyond their peripheral vision. Soz, PFinder.
BTW, that street light had it lamp in the middle of the leafy head of a tree on the G. E. street scene of that time. Not much light from that.
Science, dear PFinder .
-
Well said Vixte can you imagine a child of that age turning around to close the child gate on the top of the steps in the dark? No she wouldn't have been able to.
Having gone thru the gate, she would also be one step down. I doubt she could reach the mechanism. Most steps are 7" high/low and that is a lot for a little girl of 90cm (3 feet)
I doubt that she could reach from the step below.
I haven't checked the mechanism of the gate lock cos it is late and I am tired, but it is usually on the top or high up on the gate.
Most kids in a hurry or anxious would just leave it open anyway.
-
Having gone thru the gate, she would also be one step down. I doubt she could reach the mechanism. Most steps are 7" high/low and that is a lot for a little girl of 90cm (3 feet)
I doubt that she could reach from the step below.
I haven't checked the mechanism of the gate lock cos it is late and I am tired, but it is usually on the top or high up on the gate.
Most kids in a hurry or anxious would just leave it open anyway.
I'll ask again where's it stated by either of the three ckeckers on the night of the alleged abduction the gate was opened and fastened behind them?
-
The street scenario would be possible only if:
1. Gerry left the front door open by mistake during his last visit.
2. Parent's lied about window- blind being found open
3. Matt Oldfield lied about extra light coming to the room during his visit
If Madeleine left through the unlocked patio doors she would have to: open the curtain, close the curtain, open the sliding doors, close the sliding doors, walk to the gate doors, open the gate doors, close the gate doors.
These steps would be too precise for a 3 year old.
I don't believe for a moment that any of the above could negate the abduction from the street theory. According to the parents the patio door was intentionally left open so that Madeleine could get out. She probably did just that and ran straight into danger.
-
I don't believe for a moment that any of the above could negate the abduction from the street theory. According to the parents the patio door was intentionally left open so that Madeleine could get out. She probably did just that and ran straight into danger.
Open or unlocked?
-
I don't believe for a moment that any of the above could negate the abduction from the street theory. According to the parents the patio door was intentionally left open so that Madeleine could get out. She probably did just that and ran straight into danger.
Nah, soz John … but an anxious child of not yet 4 pulling back the curtains and then reclosing them, opening a patio door that I think was probably too hard for her ** and re-shutting it, descending the steps and opening a child proof gate, then from the step below re-shutting it, then Opening the garden gate and re-closing it from a step below doesn't seem sensible to me.
By the flimsy nature of the Tapas restaurant and the acute hearing of young ears, she would almost certainly be able to hear her Dad, Mum and friends enjoying themselves. She knew where the restaurant was and it involved a walk of only 23 metres (25 yards or big paces) on the public path between 5A garden gate and the entrance to the Tapas area.
Also, at the top, before she descended the steps, the main lit place in front of her was the Tapas Restaurant. She would look towards the lit places and see her Mum and Dad and Friends there... and hear them !
** Unless the patio doors are "Rolls Royce" in construction, they would take some effort to slide open. **
Scientifically a push at Madeleines low level would take more strength than a push at near the middle height of the door, because a cheaper patio door, which these appear, would tend to tilt and jam with a force lower down, IMO
Nah, John. What you are saying doesn't make sense IMO and it would be a great co-incidence if an abductor just happened to be in the vicinity of the 23 metre walk.
This abduction was thoroughly planned it sems.
-
I don't believe for a moment that any of the above could negate the abduction from the street theory. According to the parents the patio door was intentionally left open so that Madeleine could get out. She probably did just that and ran straight into danger.
The first person to think of those gates was David Payne, apparently. He says he asked Kate about them as they approached 5A after she raised the alarm.
and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
I would hope these doctors were a little more cautious when making medical diagnoses than they were when reaching crime scene conclusions.
Could a child with younger twin siblings be very aware that all gates and doors should be kept closed at all times in case of escape? Of course she could.
-
The first person to think of those gates was David Payne, apparently. He says he asked Kate about them as they approached 5A after she raised the alarm.
and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
I would hope these doctors were a little more cautious when making medical diagnoses than they were when reaching crime scene conclusions.
Could a child with younger twin siblings be very aware that all gates and doors should be kept closed at all times in case of escape? Of course she could.
Such a sensible and logical child might also conclude that the twins would not be able to climb out of their cots and escape so closing the gates and doors in her haste to escape the terrors of the adult-free apartment would not be necessary.
-
Such a sensible and logical child might also conclude that the twins would not be able to climb out of their cots and escape so closing the gates and doors in her haste to escape the terrors of the adult-free apartment would not be necessary.
You're describing a child who is thinking. I was describing a child who had been trained to always close doors.
-
You're describing a child who is thinking. I was describing a child who had been trained to always close doors.
like a pet monkey you mean?
-
I had a three and a half year old and a new born once. I tried to train the three and a half year old not to stand outside her baby brother’s bedroom banging a drum and blowing a trumpet whil he was sleeping but it didn’t work. Should have consulted the McCann Book Of Child Training.
-
I had a three and a half year old and a new born once. I tried to train the three and a half year old not to stand outside her baby brother’s bedroom banging a drum and blowing a trumpet whil he was sleeping but it didn’t work. Should have consulted the McCann Book Of Child Training.
You should have just got rid of the drum and trumpet .
My dog used to chase after people on a bike.
We just took the bike of him.
-
AT (Amy Tierney) not really sure.
Why do you say that Amy wasn't sure, Kizzy? Amy clearly says that the shutter was raised and the window half open in her statement. In fact she reiterates it twice in her statement.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
Snip -
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was onduty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl washiding. * She saw that the shutter was raised and that the windowwas partially open.* It was then that she began to look in thewardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could haveleft by her own means, * however after checking that the windowwas open and the shutter raised * she asked the parents whetherMadeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that theywere, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could havebeen taken by someone.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I DID NOT POST THE ABOVE.
SOMEONE HAS SUBSTITUTED MY POST WITH THE ONE ABOVE
Are you telling a porkie there Kizzy, or have I missed something?
-
You should have just got rid of the drum and trumpet .
My dog used to chase after people on a bike.
We just took the bike of him.
you had a dog that rode a bike? Impressive.
-
you had a dog that rode a bike? Impressive.
@)(++(* The mind boggles at what some people teach their animals. Soz, Kizzy; just pulling your leg.
-
You should have just got rid of the drum and trumpet .
My dog used to chase after people on a bike.
We just took the bike of him.
Quality comedy, love it.
-
Quality comedy, love it.
I agree - Kizzy’s posts are pure comedy gold.
-
Yes you could. In fact unless you had a special reason to stare in the darkness at Madeleines shutter, you definitely would.
Yes one would miss the raised shutter because it was beyond ones periferal vision. And nobody, not even YOU can see things beyond their peripheral vision. Soz, PFinder.
BTW, that street light had it lamp in the middle of the leafy head of a tree on the G. E. street scene of that time. Not much light from that.
Science, dear PFinder .
Here's the witness Matt talking about that check. There's no evidence of an open window at that time.
00.29.11 4078 'So you weren't, just to clarify what you have said, you weren't conscious of any draught''
Reply 'Yeah'.
4078 'The curtains were drawn and weren't blowing around''
Reply 'Yeah'.
4078 'You weren't conscious of light coming through that window but the room was light enough for you to see into it''
Reply 'Yeah. I mean, the difficult thing about that is, when we talked about it afterwards, I agonised for whether it seemed as though there was light coming through the room. And I have to say my answer then was probably more accurate, in that, 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'.
-
Here's the witness Matt talking about that check. There's no evidence of an open window at that time.
00.29.11 4078 'So you weren't, just to clarify what you have said, you weren't conscious of any draught''
Reply 'Yeah'.
4078 'The curtains were drawn and weren't blowing around''
Reply 'Yeah'.
4078 'You weren't conscious of light coming through that window but the room was light enough for you to see into it''
Reply 'Yeah. I mean, the difficult thing about that is, when we talked about it afterwards, I agonised for whether it seemed as though there was light coming through the room. And I have to say my answer then was probably more accurate, in that, 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'.
You need to understand that the whooshing curtains...jemmied shutters is of no longer any interest...all those points have been answerred. there is aprime suspect who may very well be guilty...CB are his initials
-
You should have just got rid of the drum and trumpet .
My dog used to chase after people on a bike.
We just took the bike of him.
How did he get the bike in the first place?
-
You need to understand that the whooshing curtains...jemmied shutters is of no longer any interest...all those points have been answerred. there is aprime suspect who may very well be guilty...CB are his initials
I'd sort of be happy if that was the case because, although I doubt anyone's noticed, but I'm bored out of my swede with it all.
Alas, it's looking more like another tomato can.
-
I'd sort of be happy if that was the case because, although I doubt anyone's noticed, but I'm bored out of my swede with it all.
Alas, it's looking more like another tomato can.
Strange that someone so bored by with it all would even bother visiting this forum. Makes little sense to me.
-
like a pet monkey you mean?
I remember a certain Tory MP likening raising small children to training puppies and there are similarities imo.
-
I remember a certain Tory MP likening raising small children to training puppies and there are similarities imo.
Jesus wept.
-
Is there any evidence that the McCanns trained Madeleine like a pet monkey or puppy?
-
You need to understand that the whooshing curtains...jemmied shutters is of no longer any interest...all those points have been answerred. there is aprime suspect who may very well be guilty...CB are his initials
Poppycock. They have nothing because he is not Smithman. When Smithman is named everything will become relevant 8)--))
-
Poppycock. They have nothing because he is not Smithman. When Smithman is named everything will become relevant 8)--))
ORLY ?
News to me.
-
Poppycock. They have nothing because he is not Smithman. When Smithman is named everything will become relevant 8)--))
When do you think that’s going to happen, by whom and and a result of what evidence being uncovered? Do you ever actually give these matters any thought at all or is it just blind faith and unshakable certainty on your part?
-
ORLY ?
News to me.
Oh really. I get it now.
-
Poppycock. They have nothing because he is not Smithman. When Smithman is named everything will become relevant 8)--))
I am wondering if CB was Smithman, one of the group said he had blonde hair another brown, his hair is a dark blonde. You wouldn't say Gerry had blonde hair would you? Also he had a tanned face Gerry didn't.
-
I am wondering if CB was Smithman, one of the group said he had blonde hair another brown, his hair is a dark blonde. You wouldn't say Gerry had blonde hair would you? Also he had a tanned face Gerry didn't.
I don't think any of the Smiths described the man's hair as blond.
-
I don't think any of the Smiths described the man's hair as blond.
Apologies, 'light brown' which could be described as dark blonde IMO -
— (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.
Would you describe Gerry's hair as being light brown?
-
Apologies, 'light brown' which could be described as dark blonde IMO -
— (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.
Would you describe Gerry's hair as being light brown?
You said "one of the group said he had blonde hair", which is not true. Misrepresenting witness testimony to support your suppositions isn't helpful to your cause imo.
-
You said "one of the group said he had blonde hair", which is not true. Misrepresenting witness testimony to support your suppositions isn't helpful to your cause imo.
I apologised didn't I? Can't remember everything off the top of my head.
Now, would you describe Gerry's hair as being light brown?
-
I apologised didn't I? Can't remember everything off the top of my head.
Now, would you describe Gerry's hair as being light brown?
If I may interject, I'd call Gerry's hair more of a Tuscan Platinum Brown
-
If I may interject, I'd call Gerry's hair more of a Tuscan Platinum Brown
Rules him out then.. Not one of the Smiths described such a colour. I can understand one of them getting it wrong but not all of them
-
Rules him out then.. Not one of the Smiths described such a colour. I can understand one of them getting it wrong but not all of them
I think it rules him in. With low sodium lighting and occasional ingress of household lighting spilling across the scene, Tuscan Platinum Brown could easily be passed off as Rustic Cherry, or even a Dusky Sunburst.
-
I apologised didn't I? Can't remember everything off the top of my head.
Now, would you describe Gerry's hair as being light brown?
Yes you did, but would you have corrected your mistake if I hadn't challenged you, or would your attempt to suggest that Brueckner was Smithman have been successful?
Having seen many photos of Gerry McCann I would describe his hair colour as dark brown.
-
Yes you did, but would you have corrected your mistake if I hadn't challenged you, or would your attempt to suggest that Brueckner was Smithman have been successful?
Having seen many photos of Gerry McCann I would describe his hair colour as dark brown.
remember SY have ruled the McCanns out
-
remember SY have ruled the McCanns out
Based on their misunderstanding of the evidence collected by the first investigation imo.
-
Based on their misunderstanding of the evidence collected by the first investigation imo.
And you know what I think of your opinion. SY have ruled the mcCcanns out ...that is a fact
-
Yes you did, but would you have corrected your mistake if I hadn't challenged you, or would your attempt to suggest that Brueckner was Smithman have been successful?
Having seen many photos of Gerry McCann I would describe his hair colour as dark brown.
How would you describe any hair colour observed in the dark?
-
How would you describe any hair colour observed in the dark?
I haven't been to PdL so I haven't seen the place where Smithman was seen. Those who were there seemed to be able to tell the difference between blond and brown, however.
-
I haven't been to PdL so I haven't seen the place where Smithman was seen. Those who were there seemed to be able to tell the difference between blond and brown, however.
Colour would depend on the sort of light that was around, when each of the Smiths saw the man. According to where they were, they would see anything from no colour to sickly yellow colour to possibly more or less real colour. The moon had just risen IIRC, but I doubt that it would be high enough to illuminate Rua d'Escola much
- Sodium lamps would cast a sickly yellow hue with just shades otherwise … NO colour at all, apart from the yellow
- Moonlight is monochromatic (no colour shows, just shades)
- Most car head lamps are Monochromatic as well, so no colour from them in Rua Abril 26. I understand that certain vehicles like Land Rovers do give out light that shows colour..
- Most normal house lights shining out would give colour, but I don't see many windows in the Smith sighting places
- But the mighty lamp above Aoife ? I wonder exactly what sort of light that gave?
And are we right in thinking that the street lamps in Rua d'Escola and Rua Abril 26th are actually sodium ? cos it makes a hell of a lot of difference if they are not.
.
-
And you know what I think of your opinion. SY have ruled the mcCcanns out ...that is a fact
But that doesn't mean they didn't do it.
-
But that doesn't mean they didn't do it.
Personally I’d give more credence to the opinions of experienced professionals with the full facts at their disposal and no axe to grind than armchair detectives and internet trolls, one can only assume the reverse is true for you.
-
Personally I’d give more credence to the opinions of experienced professionals with the full facts at their disposal and no axe to grind than armchair detectives and internet trolls, one can only assume the reverse is true for you.
When discussing the first investigation the full facts are available to all who wish to see them. A lot of people can see why the PJ turned to investigating the parents rather than chasing an alleged abductor. It's also clear that Rowley's claim that their involvement was 'dealt with' at the time isn't true.
-
When discussing the first investigation the full facts are available to all who wish to see them. A lot of people can see why the PJ turned to investigating the parents rather than chasing an alleged abductor. It's also clear that Rowley's claim that their involvement was 'dealt with' at the time isn't true.
1) Really? So there was nothing in the initial investigation that wasn't included in the online files? And you know there was nothing of worth in the subsesquent investigations carried out by the McCanns investigators that the new investigation has recourse to but that remains unpublished?
2)Are you calling Rowley a liar? Present your evidence for this then.
-
1) Really? So there was nothing in the initial investigation that wasn't included in the online files? And you know there was nothing of worth in the subsesquent investigations carried out by the McCanns investigators that the new investigation has recourse to but that remains unpublished?
2)Are you calling Rowley a liar? Present your evidence for this then.
1. As usual you are pinning your hopes on something which you can't prove exists. Neither can you prove that this mysteriously hidden information was seen by OG. The only interesting information gathered from the PI's was the hidden photofits imo.
2. "it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. "
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The mention of of neglectful homicide still being a possibility means that parental involvement is still a possibility imo. The (mistaken) use of 277/1 probably misled OG as well as the McCanns.
-
1. As usual you are pinning your hopes on something which you can't prove exists. Neither can you prove that this mysteriously hidden information was seen by OG. The only interesting information gathered from the PI's was the hidden photofits imo.
2. "it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. "
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The mention of of neglectful homicide still being a possibility means that parental involvement is still a possibility imo. The (mistaken) use of 277/1 probably misled OG as well as the McCanns.
What an odd response imo.
1)It is a FACT that the experience professionals investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have access to the full set of evidence and information accumulated in a way that you do not. That's got nothing to do with me pinning my hopes on something that may not exist, it DOES exist and my hoping or otherwise has nothing to do with it.
2) You have completely failed to prove that Rowley lied to us when he claimed the parents were dealt with at the time, all you have done is repeat your opinion, which IMO is not worth a hill of beans.
Y
-
1. As usual you are pinning your hopes on something which you can't prove exists. Neither can you prove that this mysteriously hidden information was seen by OG. The only interesting information gathered from the PI's was the hidden photofits imo.
2. "it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely. "
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The mention of of neglectful homicide still being a possibility means that parental involvement is still a possibility imo. The (mistaken) use of 277/1 probably misled OG as well as the McCanns.
Top post.
-
Top post.
Not really for the reasons I have outlined in my post above.
-
What an odd response imo.
1)It is a FACT that the experience professionals investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have access to the full set of evidence and information accumulated in a way that you do not. That's got nothing to do with me pinning my hopes on something that may not exist, it DOES exist and my hoping or otherwise has nothing to do with it.
2) You have completely failed to prove that Rowley lied to us when he claimed the parents were dealt with at the time, all you have done is repeat your opinion, which IMO is not worth a hill of beans.
Y
So you think some of that information led to OG ruling out Madeleine's parents? Rowley said the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement, not OG, but it didn't imo. Neglectful homicide clearly points to those responsible for the care and protection of the child.
-
So you think some of that information led to OG ruling out Madeleine's parents? Rowley said the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement, not OG, but it didn't imo. Neglectful homicide clearly points to those responsible for the care and protection of the child.
That’s your interpretation. It’s clear to me the distinction being drawn is between murder and manslaughter but of course you will disagree. And stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say “That some of that information led to OG ruling out Madeleine’s parents”. I said that I trust the opinion of those professional experts with the full facts at their disposal over the opinion of people like you. Now tell me why I should not.
-
So you think some of that information led to OG ruling out Madeleine's parents? Rowley said the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement, not OG, but it didn't imo. Neglectful homicide clearly points to those responsible for the care and protection of the child.
Rowley said they looked, at all the information...that means looking at all the evidence and deciding the parents were not involved. They didn't just take someones word for it. You are choosing to interpret it in a way that suits your view.. Imo
-
When discussing the first investigation the full facts are available to all who wish to see them. A lot of people can see why the PJ turned to investigating the parents rather than chasing an alleged abductor. It's also clear that Rowley's claim that their involvement was 'dealt with' at the time isn't true.
I think Grange just doesn't see as real the evidence you and others imagine
-
Rowley said they looked, at all the information...that means looking at all the evidence and deciding the parents were not involved. They didn't just take someones word for it. You are choosing to interpret it in a way that suits your view.. Imo
We know that witnesses were interviewed during the review stage; I think it is preposterous to imagine that all material witnesses hadn't been similarly approached.
-
Rowley said they looked, at all the information...that means looking at all the evidence and deciding the parents were not involved. They didn't just take someones word for it. You are choosing to interpret it in a way that suits your view.. Imo
Rowley's exact words
"The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.We're happy that's completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to re-open that or start rumours that's a line of investigation. The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we're trying to get to the bottom of what happened."
-
The video of Rowley being interviewed in which he makes it crystal clear that a huge amount of additional material has been received as a result of various appeals (some of which threw light on information gathered in the original investigation) which confirms my original point (disputed by G-Unit) that the opinion of the experienced professionals with recourse to ALL the gathered information is worth far more than the opinion of armchair detectives and internet trolls. I would love anyone here to tell me why my opinion on that is wrong. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-british-cop-says-madeleine-10295917
-
Rowley's exact words
"The parents’ involvement: that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese.We're happy that's completely dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to re-open that or start rumours that's a line of investigation. The McCanns are the parents of a missing girl and we're trying to get to the bottom of what happened."
He's saying parental involvement was dealt with by the original investigation. It was investigated, true, but not dealt with as in being excluded as a possibility. The Supreme Court made that clear.
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
-
He's saying parental involvement was dealt with by the original investigation. It was investigated, true, but not dealt with as in being excluded as a possibility. The Supreme Court made that clear.
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
Perhaps like me and others Grange feel the SC is talking cobblers. Absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...i'm sure grange accept and understand that ...even if sceptics dont
-
He's saying parental involvement was dealt with by the original investigation. It was investigated, true, but not dealt with as in being excluded as a possibility. The Supreme Court made that clear.
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15
You're getting hung up on one sentence uttered by Mark Rowley in a TV interview to distract from the fact that I made a perfectly valid point that you challenged by erecting some strawman argument around, why did you do that? Can you please tell me why I should value YOUR opinion over experienced professional with all the gathered informaton at their disposal? In your own time...
-
Perhaps like me and others Grange feel the SC is talking cobblers. Absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...i'm sure grange accept and understand that ...even if sceptics dont
I wonder if sceptics accept that Robert Murat's involvement was "dealt with" by the initial investigation, or do they think the SC allows for his possible involvement too?
-
Perhaps like me and others Grange feel the SC is talking cobblers. Absence of evidence is evidence of innocence...i'm sure grange accept and understand that ...even if sceptics dont
In my opinion you and others have a very poor understanding of Portugal's Judicial System. If OG think the McCann's involvement was dealt with by the first investigation perhaps they do too.
-
In my opinion you and others have a very poor understanding of Portugal's Judicial System. If OG think the McCann's involvement was dealt with by the first investigation perhaps they do too.
Imo you and others have a very very poor understanding of the evidence... Plus your failure to understand the mccanns failure to ask for the case to be continued shows a poor understanding of the written word
-
In my opinion you and others have a very poor understanding of Portugal's Judicial System. If OG think the McCann's involvement was dealt with by the first investigation perhaps they do too.
Perhaps the Pj should pipe up and tell OG they’ve got it all wrong then and that as fsr as they’re concerned the parents are still the main suspects. They could do this via their Rent-A-Gob Amaral. I wonder why they haven’t...?
-
Perhaps the Pj should pipe up and tell OG they’ve got it all wrong then and that as fsr as they’re concerned the parents are still the main suspects. They could do this via their Rent-A-Gob Amaral. I wonder why they haven’t...?
I'm not discussing what they think now, I'm discussing whether Rowley was justified in his claim that the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement so OG didn't need to.
-
I'm not discussing what they think now, I'm discussing whether Rowley was justified in his claim that the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement so OG didn't need to.
Rowley didn't say that... From what I remember SY reviewed all the evidence... And ruled the parents ou
It seems they didn't think the dog alerts.. The inconsistent statements.. the forensics.. Kates dream.. Or anything else had any significance.... I totally agree, with them
-
Rowley didn't say that... From what I remember SY reviewed all the evidence... And ruled the parents ou
It seems they didn't think the dog alerts.. The inconsistent statements.. the forensics.. Kates dream.. Or anything else had any significance.... I totally agree, with them
Did you actually read what Rowley said ? G is right on the button
-
Did you actually read what Rowley said ? G is right on the button
I think they know exactly what Rowley said and that the first investigation didn't dismiss the possibility of parental involvement. If OG thought they had, their misunderstanding was clearly exposed by the Portuguese Supreme Court just before the 10th anniversary.
-
I'm not discussing what they think now, I'm discussing whether Rowley was justified in his claim that the first investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement so OG didn't need to.
I don’t think you should be reading so much into one unscripted remark in a TV interview by the guy, it’s more than a bit pedantic IMO and certainly doesn’t cast anything in stone as you seem to think it does. If he was wrong the PJ had ample opportunity to put him and the rest of us right. They didn’t which speaks volumes as does the fact that neither parent was ever reconstituted as an arguido.
-
Rowley didn't say that... From what I remember SY reviewed all the evidence... And ruled the parents ou
It seems they didn't think the dog alerts.. The inconsistent statements.. the forensics.. Kates dream.. Or anything else had any significance.... I totally agree, with them
Rowley:Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation.
-
Rowley:Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation.
Rowley said a lot more...perhaps you didnt read all of it...
MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start, all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress forward.
It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new investigation.
MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work your way through the case.
so Rowley confirms they looked at all the evidence and decide what it did and didnt prove....what it ruled out...and it seems it ruled out the parents
-
I think they know exactly what Rowley said and that the first investigation didn't dismiss the possibility of parental involvement. If OG thought they had, their misunderstanding was clearly exposed by the Portuguese Supreme Court just before the 10th anniversary.
Perhaps like myself and others Rowley doesnt think the SC is fit for purpose
-
I don’t think you should be reading so much into one unscripted remark in a TV interview by the guy, it’s more than a bit pedantic IMO and certainly doesn’t cast anything in stone as you seem to think it does. If he was wrong the PJ had ample opportunity to put him and the rest of us right. They didn’t which speaks volumes as does the fact that neither parent was ever reconstituted as an arguido.
An unscripted remark? Do you have a source for that?
-
An unscripted remark? Do you have a source for that?
i think if you look at what Rowley actually says in full...not just choosing one sentence...it's clear they ahve had alook at all the evidence and ruled the parents out. AFAIAA...the SC did not look at any evidence
-
An unscripted remark? Do you have a source for that?
Did you watch the video? Was he reading from a script?
-
In my opinion you and others have a very poor understanding of Portugal's Judicial System. If OG think the McCann's involvement was dealt with by the first investigation perhaps they do too.
I'm more than happy for you to tell me that in your opinion I have a poor understanding of the judicial system in portugal...mods please note... it gives me carte blanche to accuse others..including yourself of poor understanding...
remenber i have just corrected you on your poor understanding of portuguese law re the McCanns right to challenge the shelving of the case..you clearly didnt understand it
-
Perhaps like myself and others Rowley doesnt think the SC is fit for purpose
According to Jim Gamble the British police certainly upset the Portuguese by treating them as inferior beings during the first investigation, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if that is their attitude. It doesn't change the fact that Rowley claimed that the investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement when it didn't.
-
According to Jim Gamble the British police certainly upset the Portuguese by treating them as inferior beings during the first investigation, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if that is their attitude. It doesn't change the fact that Rowley claimed that the investigation dealt with the question of parental involvement when it didn't.
Why have the PJ made no attempt to “deal with the parents” since the re-opening of the investigation? Has Murat not been dealt with either?
-
Why have the PJ made no attempt to “deal with the parents” since the re-opening of the investigation? Has Murat not been dealt with either?
I have no idea what, if anything, the PJ have been doing, neither am I interested in speculating. I'm discussing the fact that Rowley said the first investigation dealt with parental involvement, so OG saw no reason to do so.
-
I have no idea what, if anything, the PJ have been doing, neither am I interested in speculating. I'm discussing the fact that Rowley said the first investigation dealt with parental involvement, so OG saw no reason to do so.
Do you have a cite for "OG saw no reason to do so" a propos parental involvement or is that just your interpretation?
-
I have no idea what, if anything, the PJ have been doing, neither am I interested in speculating. I'm discussing the fact that Rowley said the first investigation dealt with parental involvement, so OG saw no reason to do so.
What you are saying isnt true imo. The initial investigation interviewed the mcCanns who gave a full account of their
actions. Rowley said he looked at everything which would include the revised statements the mcCanns made which they said corrected mistakes due to translation errors in the original statements. based on all this evidence Rowley was happy to rule the parents out which seems perfectly sensible to me. There is no real evidence of their involvement as confirmed by P D Carmo. if you think there is real evidence please state it...
-
I have no idea what, if anything, the PJ have been doing, neither am I interested in speculating. I'm discussing the fact that Rowley said the first investigation dealt with parental involvement, so OG saw no reason to do so.
While you're at it, you still haven't explained why I should value the opinion of experienced professionals with full access to ALL the information gathered on this case to someone such as yourself who is not an experienced professional and who does not have full access to all the information gathered. This was the point you challenged me on before deciding to deflect onto Mark Rowley.
-
What you are saying isnt true imo. The initial investigation interviewed the mcCanns who gave a full account of their
actions. Rowley said he looked at everything which would include the revised statements the mcCanns made which they said corrected mistakes due to translation errors in the original statements. based on all this evidence Rowley was happy to rule the parents out which seems perfectly sensible to me. There is no real evidence of their involvement as confirmed by P D Carmo. if you think there is real evidence please state it...
You're still adding your own ideas to what he said, aren't you?
"the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese."
"At the time" means in 2007/8.
-
You're still adding your own ideas to what he said, aren't you?
"the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese."
"At the time" means in 2007/8.
think what you wish...i'm bored with you trying...unsuccessfully...to prove you are right. Im far more interested in the fact that the case may soon be solved...which would prove amaral and the dog alerts wrong
-
You're still adding your own ideas to what he said, aren't you?
"the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese."
"At the time" means in 2007/8.
It was dealt with at the time, as was the involvement of Murat, unless you are of the opinion that Murat's involvement has also not been dealt with?
-
It was dealt with at the time, as was the involvement of Murat, unless you are of the opinion that Murat's involvement has also not been dealt with?
The McCann's lawyer in the defamation proceedings relied heavily on the conclusion of the archiving dispatch, particularly the use of Article 277/1. It's quite possible that in Murat's case that was the correct Article to use. I don't know as it wasn't discussed. In the McCann's case the judges looked at the contents of the dispatch and decided that Article 277/2 should have been used instead.
-
The McCann's lawyer in the defamation proceedings relied heavily on the conclusion of the archiving dispatch, particularly the use of Article 277/1. It's quite possible that in Murat's case that was the correct Article to use. I don't know as it wasn't discussed. In the McCann's case the judges looked at the contents of the dispatch and decided that Article 277/2 should have been used instead.
Weasel words.
-
The McCann's lawyer in the defamation proceedings relied heavily on the conclusion of the archiving dispatch, particularly the use of Article 277/1. It's quite possible that in Murat's case that was the correct Article to use. I don't know as it wasn't discussed. In the McCann's case the judges looked at the contents of the dispatch and decided that Article 277/2 should have been used instead.
Does the SC always get it right...perhaps the SC believed the rubbish in the proven facts that the dog alerts signalled a cadaver
-
Does the SC always get it right...perhaps the SC believed the rubbish in the proven facts that the dog alerts signalled a cadaver
At this moment in time they have the last word on the subject. Amaral is free to express his opinion until (and if) something changes.
-
At this moment in time they have the last word on the subject. Amaral is free to express his opinion until (and if) something changes.
And as Ive said...hes gone quite quiet. Any libel repeated now could be the basis for a new action...even more so if the ECHR rule in their favour
-
At this moment in time they have the last word on the subject. Amaral is free to express his opinion until (and if) something changes.
That would require a moral compass and failing that a total affront to Portugal in the European Court of Human Rights
-
”trotted out”, “complained bitterly” “false stories”, “courting the media”, “shock, horror”,: “their pronouncements”, “90% pure rubbish” - do you see how contemptuous your language is when writing about the McCanns? And you wonder why people see you as utterly biased and full of contempt?
Bumping for G-Unit.
-
Bumping for G-Unit.
The context;
Gerry McCann trotted out to address the media on 4th May, despite fearing intrusion by them.
The McCanns complained bitterly about the alleged leaking of their statements to Telecinco.
The very first false stories came from the McCann's friends and family.
So, as usual, they were courting the media voluntarily. Then, shock horror, one of the journalists dared to ask a question Gerry McCann didn't like.
They spoke to the press deliberately, both of them had their pronouncements written down.
but as usual with appeals 90% of it was pure rubbish
Are they comparible to these personally abusive nasty comments about Amaral?
The man’s quite evil imo.
I seem to think Amaral is an arsehole, will that do you?
Rent-A-Gob Amaral
I have never abused the McCanns personally in the manner Amaral has been abused.
-
The context;
Gerry McCann trotted out to address the media on 4th May, despite fearing intrusion by them.
The McCanns complained bitterly about the alleged leaking of their statements to Telecinco.
The very first false stories came from the McCann's friends and family.
So, as usual, they were courting the media voluntarily. Then, shock horror, one of the journalists dared to ask a question Gerry McCann didn't like.
They spoke to the press deliberately, both of them had their pronouncements written down.
but as usual with appeals 90% of it was pure rubbish
Are they comparible to these personally abusive nasty comments about Amaral?
The man’s quite evil imo.
I seem to think Amaral is an arsehole, will that do you?
Rent-A-Gob Amaral
I have never abused the McCanns personally in the manner Amaral has been abused.
But you refuse to criticise Brenda Leyland... That's hypocritical
what about regerring to the mcCanns a sh*t parents...as one senior mod did here ..is that acceptable
-
The context;
Gerry McCann trotted out to address the media on 4th May, despite fearing intrusion by them.
The McCanns complained bitterly about the alleged leaking of their statements to Telecinco.
The very first false stories came from the McCann's friends and family.
So, as usual, they were courting the media voluntarily. Then, shock horror, one of the journalists dared to ask a question Gerry McCann didn't like.
They spoke to the press deliberately, both of them had their pronouncements written down.
but as usual with appeals 90% of it was pure rubbish
Are they comparible to these personally abusive nasty comments about Amaral?
The man’s quite evil imo.
I seem to think Amaral is an arsehole, will that do you?
Rent-A-Gob Amaral
I have never abused the McCanns personally in the manner Amaral has been abused.
some might say thats an accurate description of amaral
-
The context;
Gerry McCann trotted out to address the media on 4th May, despite fearing intrusion by them.
The McCanns complained bitterly about the alleged leaking of their statements to Telecinco.
The very first false stories came from the McCann's friends and family.
So, as usual, they were courting the media voluntarily. Then, shock horror, one of the journalists dared to ask a question Gerry McCann didn't like.
They spoke to the press deliberately, both of them had their pronouncements written down.
but as usual with appeals 90% of it was pure rubbish
Are they comparible to these personally abusive nasty comments about Amaral?
The man’s quite evil imo.
I seem to think Amaral is an arsehole, will that do you?
Rent-A-Gob Amaral
I have never abused the McCanns personally in the manner Amaral has been abused.
Yes they are comparable IMO, your language is withering in its contempt, just because you avoid pithier epithets doesn't mean the net result isn't the same.
In any case don't you pride yourself in being quite objective? Do you think the way you describe the McCanns and their actions is objective?
-
What would be a good word to describe a man who deliberately puts faked pictures of the German's chief suspect in into the media to muddy the waters and in an attempt to derail the German investigation? I think "evil" sums it up perfectly.
-
What would be a good word to describe a man who deliberately puts faked pictures of the German's chief suspect in into the media to muddy the waters and in an attempt to derail the German investigation? I think "evil" sums it up perfectly.
Having taken pains to ensure that the prime suspect's identity was revealed in the public domain while the police were still working on the investigation into him and whether or not he was implicated in Madeleine's abduction.
If that wasn't an attempt to wrong foot an up until then confidential investigation, what was it?
-
At this moment in time they have the last word on the subject. Amaral is free to express his opinion until (and if) something changes.
and online critics are free to express theirs..
-
and online critics are free to express theirs..
...but it depends on to whom the opinion is directed, it seems.
-
Yes they are comparable IMO, your language is withering in its contempt, just because you avoid pithier epithets doesn't mean the net result isn't the same.
In any case don't you pride yourself in being quite objective? Do you think the way you describe the McCanns and their actions is objective?
Well I don't see them as comparable. The first set are mild, not all aimed at the McCanns and mostly true, although the over sensitive or those with an axe to grind may take offence. The second set are unmistakably nasty, personal and insulting.
-
Well I don't see them as comparable. The first set are mild, not all aimed at the McCanns and mostly true, although the over sensitive or those with an axe to grind may take offence. The second set are unmistakably nasty, personal and insulting.
All your opinion... Other ts may feel a policeman whos job it is to uphold the law condones the brutal torture of a suspect can't complain about the names he's called
-
All your opinion... Other ts may feel a policeman whos job it is to uphold the law condones the brutal torture of a suspect can't complain about the names he's called
You seem to be saying that in your opinion nastiness is allowable if, also in your opinion, the target deserves it. On the other hand it's not allowable if, in your opinion, the target doesn't deserve it.
I, however, don't condone being nasty, personal and insulting to anyone, whatever one's opinion of them is.
-
You seem to be saying that in your opinion nastiness is allowable if, also in your opinion, the target deserves it. On the other hand it's not allowable if, in your opinion, the target doesn't deserve it.
I, however, don't condone being nasty, personal and insulting to anyone, whatever one's opinion of them is.
Nastiness is allowable... Don't you realise that simple fact
-
Well I don't see them as comparable. The first set are mild, not all aimed at the McCanns and mostly true, although the over sensitive or those with an axe to grind may take offence. The second set are unmistakably nasty, personal and insulting.
Mostly true?? No IMO.
-
Nastiness is allowable... Don't you realise that simple fact
Why, if it's allowable, is there so much wailing and knashing of teeth from those who support the McCanns when (in their opinions) someone is nasty towards them?
-
Why, if it's allowable, is there so much wailing and knashing of teeth from those who support the McCanns when (in their opinions) someone is nasty towards them?
Maybe that too is freedom of speech.
-
Maybe that too is freedom of speech.
In which case it should be available to all.
-
Why, if it's allowable, is there so much wailing and knashing of teeth from those who support the McCanns when (in their opinions) someone is nasty towards them?
You are allowed to be nasty and people are allowed to find you nasty and to say so, or should be anyway, imo.
-
You are allowed to be nasty and people are allowed to find you nasty and to say so, or should be anyway, imo.
See the rules of the forum;
Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!
-
See the rules of the forum;
Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!
I said you were allowed to be nasty and for others to find you nasty and say so. I didn’t say anything about abuse. Wonderfulspam posted a particularly nasty comment which you have allowed to stand. I am allowed to say it’s nasty am I not?
-
In which case it should be available to all.
That depends on who is giving the freedom.
-
I said you were allowed to be nasty and for others to find you nasty and say so. I didn’t say anything about abuse. Wonderfulspam posted a particularly nasty comment which you have allowed to stand. I am allowed to say it’s nasty am I not?
Except that, that is off topic.
-
Why, if it's allowable, is there so much wailing and knashing of teeth from those who support the McCanns when (in their opinions) someone is nasty towards them?
I havent seen any wailing or gnashing(correct spelling) of teeth. What I've seen is posters expressing their opinion. you seem to have a problem with posters expressing their opinion whicch is odd considering your support for amaral. we have laws that govern the expression of opinion and a slong as posters stay inside those laws i don't see a problem. what i notice from your recent posts is taht you only seem concerned with criticism directed towards Amaral...which in my view is deserved criticism
-
Could we all stay on topic please.