UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Wonderfulspam on January 18, 2023, 02:03:43 PM
-
McCann supporters are often keen to tell us that the three expert investigative forces believe Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. That, in essence, the police have evidence which proves it completely impossible that the McCanns could be in any way involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
So, I'd like to hear from members...
What possible evidence could there be that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
I'll start...
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.
Members are invited to add to this list.
-
McCann supporters are often keen to tell us that the three expert investigative forces believe Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. That, in essence, the police have evidence which proves it completely impossible that the McCanns could be in any way involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
So, I'd like to hear from members...
What possible evidence could there be that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
I'll start...
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.
Members are invited to add to this list.
Police say she didn't walk out by herself. Police say it was an act by a stranger. Police say the McCann's are not suspects.
You don't seem to remember any of these.
-
Police say she didn't walk out by herself. Police say it was an act by a stranger. Police say the McCann's are not suspects.
You don't seem to remember any of these.
I remember. But the question is, what possible evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger could the police have? Not, what do the police say.
-
Police say she didn't walk out by herself. Police say it was an act by a stranger. Police say the McCann's are not suspects.
You don't seem to remember any of these.
I’d be interested in all the evidence he has amassed to make this the only plausible and logical explanation. *%87
-
The troll says the parents murdered her, I’d be interested in all the evidence he has amassed to make this the only plausible and logical explanation. *%87
That's for another thread. This thread is to give suggestions as to what the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger could possibly be? Only one suggestion thus far though. Strangely enough.
-
DCI Redwood :
"We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline & there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive, & it is our belief, as experienced investigators, on the evidence, that um, that, that, you know that that is a criminal act that, you know, that has been undertaken by a stranger, so from that & there are other cases around the world as you know, where many years later people have been taken & been found alive."
https://youtu.be/-R_RjWWCKEA?t=169
-
DCI Redwood :
"We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline & there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive, & it is our belief, as experienced investigators, on the evidence, that um, that, that, you know that that is a criminal act that, you know, that has been undertaken by a stranger, so from that & there are other cases around the world as you know, where many years later people have been taken & been found alive."
https://youtu.be/-R_RjWWCKEA?t=169
Strong on opinion, bit hesitant when trying to discuss evidence. Not surprising as there doesn't seem to be any.
-
Strong on opinion, bit hesitant when trying to discuss evidence. Not surprising as there doesn't seem to be any.
He does stumble a bit doesn't he. I wonder why it should have been quite so difficult for him to explain that they had evidence Madeleine was taken in criminal act by a stranger? Yes, maybe because they never really had any. That's possible isn't it.
-
Strong on opinion, bit hesitant when trying to discuss evidence. Not surprising as there doesn't seem to be any.
Someone else forgetting that the only information they’ve been privy to is the files which only goes up to 2008. Since when did the police divulge all their evidence to the public during an ongoing investigation?
-
Someone else forgetting that the only information they’ve been privy to is the files which only goes up to 2008. Since when did the police divulge all their evidence to the public during an ongoing investigation?
Care to suggest what possible evidence, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, that they could have?
-
DCI Redwood :
"We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline & there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive, & it is our belief, as experienced investigators, on the evidence, that um, that, that, you know that that is a criminal act that, you know, that has been undertaken by a stranger, so from that & there are other cases around the world as you know, where many years later people have been taken & been found alive."
https://youtu.be/-R_RjWWCKEA?t=169
Redwood seems to be saying that because his experienced investigators identified an opportunity for Madeleine to be removed alive from 5A, they believed that's what happened. He mentions evidence, but offers none.
-
Redwood seems to be saying that because his experienced investigators identified an opportunity for Madeleine to be removed alive from 5A, they believed that's what happened. He mentions evidence, but offers none.
Yes, when you listen to what he actually say's, he is saying they believe there was an opportunity for Madeleine to have been taken from the apartment alive, & that, that is a criminal act by a stranger. Not that they have any actual evidence that's what happened.
But maybe they do have? Perhaps, however, no one here is willing to suggest what kind of evidence they could have found since 2008. But anyway, whatever they have, it proves the McCanns had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in Madeleine's disappearance apparently. I do so wonder what it could be? Maybe this thread will yield some more suggestions.
-
Redwood seems to be saying that because his experienced investigators identified an opportunity for Madeleine to be removed alive from 5A, they believed that's what happened. He mentions evidence, but offers none.
Redwood only came to the case years afterwards whereas Amaral was there when it counted.
In my experience, the officer with first hand knowledge of every aspect of a case is much better placed than one coming to a cold case years after the event.
-
Redwood only came to the case years afterwards whereas Amaral was there when it counted.
In my experience, the officer with first hand knowledge of every aspect of a case is much better placed than one coming to a cold case years after the event.
Amaral botched the investigation when he failed to treat the McCanns as suspects immediately.
Coincidentally, this matter was raised during the libel trial, in defence, by the media company which produced the TOTL documentary, & that Kate's refusal to answer police questions left suspicion hanging over the couple.
Thankfully, the three expert investigative forces have since found evidence which removes any suspicion against the McCanns, beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm still not sure what this evidence could actually be though.
-
Redwood only came to the case years afterwards whereas Amaral was there when it counted.
In my experience, the officer with first hand knowledge of every aspect of a case is much better placed than one coming to a cold case years after the event.
And yet you think Amaral’s thesis is incorrect- go figure!
-
Redwood seems to be saying that because his experienced investigators identified an opportunity for Madeleine to be removed alive from 5A, they believed that's what happened. He mentions evidence, but offers none.
Why should he?
-
Why should he?
Well he and his experienced investigators forensically examined the timeline and found an opportunity for a stranger abduction to occur. He doesn't say that abduction did occur. If he had evidence that it did, why not say so?
-
And yet you think Amaral’s thesis is incorrect- go figure!
Yes, I disagree with some of his theories.
-
Well he and his experienced investigators forensically examined the timeline and found an opportunity for a stranger abduction to occur. He doesn't say that abduction did occur. If he had evidence that it did, why not say so?
Because as a rule police don’t and shouldn’t give a running commentary about what evidence they have uncovered during a live investigation, unless there is a very good reason for doing so.
-
Yes, I disagree with some of his theories.
His main theory involves parental involvement and the hiding of a body . You also claim he is best placed to know what happened yet you think he is wrong about the key plank of his theory. This doesn’t make much sense to me, I’m afraid.
-
His main theory involves parental involvement and the hiding of a body . You also claim he is best placed to know what happened yet you think he is wrong about the key plank of his theory. This doesn’t make much sense to me, I’m afraid.
When you figure out why MWT claims to believe Madeleine woke & wandered, you'll have your answer.
-
His main theory involves parental involvement and the hiding of a body . You also claim he is best placed to know what happened yet you think he is wrong about the key plank of his theory. This doesn’t make much sense to me, I’m afraid.
He was certainly best placed to decipher the evidence available to the police in the days following Madeleine's disappearance. Whether he got it wrong or not is something that remains undetermined.
I certainly favour the woke, wandered and was taken theory.
-
He was certainly best placed to decipher the evidence available to the police in the days following Madeleine's disappearance. Whether he got it wrong or not is something that remains undetermined.
I certainly favour the woke, wandered and was taken theory.
But what about the open window, John? I'm sorry but there was absolutely no way Madeleine could have opened the window & shutters herself.
-
That reminds me.
The Possible Evidence Madeleine Was Taken In A Criminal Act By A Stranger.
1) The McCanns claim that Madeleine was abducted.
2)The allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it.
-
He was certainly best placed to decipher the evidence available to the police in the days following Madeleine's disappearance. Whether he got it wrong or not is something that remains undetermined.
I certainly favour the woke, wandered and was taken theory.
If I recall correctly it was days before he even visited the scene of the crime and he never even bothered to meet the parents so…
-
Because as a rule police don’t and shouldn’t give a running commentary about what evidence they have uncovered during a live investigation, unless there is a very good reason for doing so.
So for all we know they had none.
-
He was certainly best placed to decipher the evidence available to the police in the days following Madeleine's disappearance. Whether he got it wrong or not is something that remains undetermined.
I certainly favour the woke, wandered and was taken theory.
Wolters has never claimed the German suspect entered 5a, so it would interesting in their theory where the suspect snatched her from.
-
McCann supporters are often keen to tell us that the three expert investigative forces believe Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. That, in essence, the police have evidence which proves it completely impossible that the McCanns could be in any way involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
So, I'd like to hear from members...
What possible evidence could there be that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
I'll start...
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.
Members are invited to add to this list.
Maybe a better way to ask would be, you're a juror or a judge what leads you to believe BARD that the german suspect entered 5a.
-
So for all we know they had none.
Which allows endless speculation by people without access to all the information which is where we are today, being invited to speculate when I thought speculation was frowned upon on this forum - certainly by the likes of you.
-
Which allows endless speculation by people without access to all the information which is where we are today, being invited to speculate when I thought speculation was frowned upon on this forum - certainly by the likes of you.
I have seen endless speculation that the police do indeed have evidence and are not guessing or just following their remit. Some, in fact, use the police involvement as evidence of a stranger abduction.
-
I have seen endless speculation that the police do indeed have evidence and are not guessing or just following their remit. Some, in fact, use the police involvement as evidence of a stranger abduction.
It's not speculation - it's what the police have told us. You clearly choose to disbelieve every word they say, except when it suits you.
-
If a child of that young age goes missing and an extensive search is made and the child is not found. Then the logical explanation would be abduction.
-
If a child of that young age goes missing and an extensive search is made and the child is not found. Then the logical explanation would be abduction.
No, only a possible explanation. Without proof it is merely an assumption. Which is what OG settled for.
-
No, only a possible explanation. Without proof it is merely an assumption. Which is what OG settled for.
They didn't settle for a 'possible' explanation they settled for abduction.
-
They didn't settle for a 'possible' explanation they settled for abduction.
Aye, but only based on an opinion which was possibly but not necessarily correct
-
If a child of that young age goes missing and an extensive search is made and the child is not found. Then the logical explanation would be abduction.
And that includes family and friends too.
-
I have seen endless speculation that the police do indeed have evidence and are not guessing or just following their remit. Some, in fact, use the police involvement as evidence of a stranger abduction.
Yes, the police are investigating abduction. A criminal act by a stranger. Therefore there must have been an abductor, but there's still no sign of this abductor just yet. Only some incredibly flimsy, yet somehow concrete, evidence against the murderer apparently.
-
Yes, the police are investigating abduction. A criminal act by a stranger. Therefore there must have been an abductor, but there's still no sign of this abductor just yet. Only some incredibly flimsy, yet somehow concrete, evidence against the murderer apparently.
Who may not be a murderer anyway as there is the possibility that she is alive.
-
Who may not be a murderer anyway as there is the possibility that she is alive.
Wolters did say there was still a little bit of hope. Then later he said there was no hope at all.
It's very conclusive, the evidence against Christian Brueckner. Much like the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, for which no one can give any suggestions as to what it could possibly be. But it's most convincing, whatever it is.
-
That reminds me.
The Possible Evidence Madeleine Was Taken In A Criminal Act By A Stranger.
1) The McCanns claim that Madeleine was abducted.
2)The allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it.
Who stages an abduction by opening a window and leaving their finger prints on it?
-
Who stages an abduction by opening a window and leaving their finger prints on it?
Perhaps someone who hastily stages an abduction? That's possible isn't it.
But can we return to the thread topic. Maybe you'd care to suggest what, the evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, could possibly be?
Please do, because I'm not getting many suggestions here, oddly enough.
-
If a child of that young age goes missing and an extensive search is made and the child is not found. Then the logical explanation would be abduction.
There was another possible, logical & plausible, explanation for that, you see.
-
It's not speculation - it's what the police have told us. You clearly choose to disbelieve every word they say, except when it suits you.
Do you believe that the police always tell the truth to the public?
-
An incredibly ludicrous thread at a time when there is an at least three pronged international police investigation currently taking place into a 2007 resident of Luz who fits a perfect profile (cept he's not dead -according to Amaral).
-
An incredibly ludicrous thread at a time when there is an at least three pronged international police investigation currently taking place into a 2007 resident of Luz who fits a perfect profile (cept he's not dead -according to Amaral).
Yes, the case against Brueckner, & how is Wolters getting on with that? Having much joy is he?
No? Maybe that's because Madeleine just wasn't abducted. That's possible isn't it.
-
Its a simple enough question, what convinces you that would pass the BARD threshold that Madeleine was taken out of 5a by a stranger.
-
The three pronged international investigation, that aren't sharing evidence, can't agree & aren't entirely sure, armed as they are with all the abduction & murder evidence they have at their disposal, they can't quite agree on whether the murderer really did murder Maddie, or if she was even murdered at all. Going well isn't it.
-
Its a simple enough question, what convinces you that would pass the BARD threshold that Madeleine was taken out of 5a by a stranger.
Yes, what possible evidence, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, could the police have?
We have an alleged confession to murder to add to the list at least.
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it
3) A second hand confession by a local burgling, rapist & paedophile, to Madeleine's murder.
-
Do you believe that the police always tell the truth to the public?
No, do you believe they always lie?
-
Yes, what possible evidence, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger, could the police have?
We have an alleged confession to murder to add to the list at least.
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it
3) A second hand confession by a local burgling, rapist & paedophile, to Madeleine's murder.
On second thoughts, I have to scrap number 3. The alleged confession wasn't reported to police until 2017, but SY had already established there was a criminal act by a stranger before then.
So we're back to just the first two.
-
No evidence any one has.
Ahh, but if you knew the evidence Wolters has, you would be in no doubt.
-
They didn't settle for a 'possible' explanation they settled for abduction.
Yes, with no evidence.
-
Yes, with no evidence.
That's not entirely true. The McCanns did say that Madeleine was abducted. That's their evidence. It's yet to be tested in court. But given there's a new prime suspect & concrete evidence Madeleine died at his hand, well, it shouldn't be much longer now.
-
Who stages an abduction by opening a window and leaving their fingerprints on it?
Why did she leave it wide open then with twins inside run to the tapas and then close it when she got back.
It was evidence after all...if there had been prints of the so-called abductor she would have wiped them off.
Same as why she let 20-plus people in to trample any evidence there could have been in there.
-
An iincredibly ludicrous thread at a time when there is an at least three pronged international police investigation currently taking place into a 2007 resident of Luz who fits a perfect profile (cept he's not dead -according to Amaral).
I no longer really care. There is nothing to indicte The Mccains and I don't have to worry about this, beyond worrying about the mental state of those who wish to do so.
There is something really horrible going on which is mostly to do with their own inadequiecese, which is really sad. Especially since there is nothing that I can do about this.
-
I no longer really care. There is nothing to indicte The Mccains and I don't have to worry about this, beyond worrying about the mental state of those who wish to do so.
There is something really horrible going on which is mostly to do with their own inadequiecese, which is really sad. Especially since there is nothing that I can do about this.
Who appointed you as arbiter of alleged inadequacies .
-
Why did she leave it wide open then with twins inside run to the tapas and then close it when she got back.
It was evidence after all...if there had been prints of the so-called abductor she would have wiped them off.
Same as why she let 20-plus people in to trample any evidence there could have been in there.
Can you imagine finding your daughter missing? Have you ever tried to put yourself in the place of Kate a mother who couldn't find her daughter?
You talk as though she should have acted as if she was a Police woman 'better not touch the window because of finger prints' 'better shut the window' 'don't go into the apartment its all evidence'. Kate wouldn't have been thinking any of this her main course of action was to search for her child.
It's great to look at it with no compassion isn't it, knowing what happened next.
-
Guess not. Nothing to add to the discussion, other than to insult other members. What a fine example you set as a senior moderator.
You were goading.
-
Yes, with no evidence.
What evidence have you got that she wasn't.
-
Can you imagine finding your daughter missing? Have you ever tried to put yourself in the place of Kate a mother who couldn't find her daughter?
You talk as though she should have acted as if she was a Police woman 'better not touch the window because of finger prints' 'better shut the window' 'don't go into the apartment its all evidence'. Kate wouldn't have been thinking any of this her main course of action was to search for her child.
It's great to look at it with no compassion isn't it, knowing what happened next.
Did she check the wardrobe?
-
I want to have a serious & sensible discussion about what possible evidence that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger
the three expert investigative forces could have?
It's supporters who are disrupting this discussion by failing to come up with any suggestions.
-
Can you imagine finding your daughter missing? Have you ever tried to put yourself in the place of Kate a mother who couldn't find her daughter?
You talk as though she should have acted as if she was a Police woman 'better not touch the window because of finger prints' 'better shut the window' 'don't go into the apartment its all evidence'. Kate wouldn't have been thinking any of this her main course of action was to search for her child.
It's great to look at it with no compassion isn't it, knowing what happened next.
But of course she didn't search. Only the men did that.
Only much later when there was no one around did she venture out, though goodness knows for what purpose at that time in the morning.
-
I no longer really care. There is nothing to indicte The Mccains and I don't have to worry about this, beyond worrying about the mental state of those who wish to do so.
There is something really horrible going on which is mostly to do with their own inadequiecese, which is really sad. Especially since there is nothing that I can do about this.
There are a million and one internet platforms set up specifically to trash Madeleine McCann's case. I gave up wondering why a very long time ago.
Suffice it to say only the persistence of her parents which kept the focus on Madeleine and the evidence has led to any chance of finding the truth.
There are individuals who can't stand the thought of that for some reason best known to themselves.
It is interesting though to watch the process first hand as they chip away at this the remaining of the one or two platforms still able to post and debate the alternative view to the other cess pits hoatching on the internet.
Two words spring to mind - "sad" and "pathetic".
-
There are a million and one internet platforms set up specifically to trash Madeleine McCann's case. I gave up wondering why a very long time ago.
Suffice it to say only the persistence of her parents which kept the focus on Madeleine and the evidence has led to any chance of finding the truth.
There are individuals who can't stand the thought of that for some reason best known to themselves.
It is interesting though to watch the process first hand as they chip away at this the remaining of the one or two platforms still able to post and debate the alternative view to the other cess pits hoatching on the internet.
Two words spring to mind - "sad" and "pathetic".
Nothing to add to the discussion & thread topic from you either then. Resorting to throwing out insults rather than suggesting what possible evidence the three police forces could have.
-
Nothing to add to the discussion & thread topic from you either then. Resorting to throwing out insults rather than suggesting what possible evidence the three police forces could have.
Its what happens when they have no answer, but feel compelled to post anyway.
-
Who appointed you as arbiter of alleged inadequacies .
This Forum. Whether you like it or not.
-
Its what happens when they have no answer, but feel compelled to post anyway.
Like you, you mean, who never has anything to say beyond agreeing with rubbish.
-
Its what happens when they have no answer, but feel compelled to post anyway.
Supporters here are convinced SY have evidence of abduction, yet can't seem to give a single suggestion as to what possible evidence there could be? I find this rather strange. A similar thing happened on my thread about the possible evidence against Christian Brueckner, as it happens.
-
Like you, you mean, who never has anything to say beyond agreeing with rubbish.
Yet another insult. You really are desperate.
-
Yet another insult. You really are desperate.
I count more insults than answers so far.
-
Yet another insult. You really are desperate.
Not a chance. But you wouldn't understand the difference.
-
Right, enough bickering & insults now. We've ran into 6 pages now but still only have 2 suggestions. Let's get back to the topic at hand & have a serious & sensible discussion about.....
The Evidence Madeleine Was Taken In A Criminal Act By A Stranger
The suggestions thus far are...
1) The McCanns claim that Madeleine was abducted
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it
Members are welcome to add to this list.
-
Does opportunity count as evidence ?
Redwood said that in his opinion there was opportunity to commit an abduction.
-
Does opportunity count as evidence ?
Redwood said that in his opinion there was opportunity to commit an abduction.
That just means in his opinion she could have been abducted. But that would depend on whether or not Madeleine was actually alive & in her bed that night, available to be abducted in the first place. I can't see any way to confirm that she actually was, other than by presuming the McCanns account to be entirely truthful & accurate. It seems that is exactly what SY have done, & so it's little wonder to me really why they still can't find the abductor.
-
That just means in his opinion she could have been abducted. But that would depend on whether or not Madeleine was actually alive & in her bed that night, available to be abducted in the first place. I can't see any way to confirm that she actually was, other than by presuming the McCanns account to be entirely truthful & accurate. It seems that is exactly what SY have done, & so it's little wonder to me really why they still can't find the abductor.
And yet they chose to base the whole investigation on that opinion, even though I seem to recall Redwood saying there were alternative views - or something to that effect.
Who decided which opinion to go with ? At what level was that decided - DCI or higher up.
-
Its what happens when they have no answer, but feel compelled to post anyway.
The evidence has been repeated a thousand times, but is always rejected, scoffed at and denied by “your” side of the argument. Fortunately “our” side of the argument includes those who are actually investigating a child abduction, the grown ups, and so I don’t feel I need to justify my opinion yet again to a troll who is only here on a wind up.
-
This Forum. Whether you like it or not.
Nope you abuse your position, you have no idea that some suffer inadequacies.
-
But what about the open window, John? I'm sorry but there was absolutely no way Madeleine could have opened the window & shutters herself.
The window that only had Kate McCann's fingerprints on?
There is no third-party evidence the window was ever opened by a stranger or even open before 10pm.
It also wasn't seen to be open when Matt Oldfield did his alleged bedroom walkby to listen in on the three children.
-
McCann supporters are often keen to tell us that the three expert investigative forces believe Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. That, in essence, the police have evidence which proves it completely impossible that the McCanns could be in any way involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
So, I'd like to hear from members...
What possible evidence could there be that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
I'll start...
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.
Members are invited to add to this list.
To answer the opening post, IMO the evidence is severely lacking and tissue thin at best.
Even Tannerman has been ruled out according to the police so as it stands there isn't a single sighting of a child being carried that night except for the Smith family which has still never been explained.
No wonder the case attracts so much interest nearly 16 years on.
-
That reminds me.
The Possible Evidence Madeleine Was Taken In A Criminal Act By A Stranger.
1) The McCanns claim that Madeleine was abducted.
2)The allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it.
Definitely neither of them.
-
Who stages an abduction by opening a window and leaving their finger prints on it?
It didn't necessarily have to be staged. Maybe she forgot she open it.
-
Do you believe that the police always tell the truth to the public?
I can assure you they don't @)(++(*
-
The evidence has been repeated a thousand times, but is always rejected, scoffed at and denied by “your” side of the argument. Fortunately “our” side of the argument includes those who are actually investigating a child abduction, the grown ups, and so I don’t feel I need to justify my opinion yet again to a troll who is only here on a wind up.
The problem is that there is no longer any evidence in the public domain that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. No confirmed sightings of the child, no sign of a break-in, nothing disturbed in the apartment, no ransom note etc etc
-
The problem is that there is no longer any evidence in the public domain that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. No confirmed sightings of the child, no sign of a break-in, nothing disturbed in the apartment, no ransom note etc etc
What do you mean by “no longer any evidence of abduction?”
-
It didn't necessarily have to be staged. Maybe she forgot she open it.
Maybe the blow she received from the shutters when she stuck her head out of the window knocked it completely from her mind. Although I tend to think she would have noticed.
-
I can assure you they don't @)(++(*
Some police officers are rapists.
Some police officers are murderers.
As far as the truth is concerned some police officers are proven liars and convicted perjurers.
Hopefully that is counterbalanced by those officers who do the best job they can in nailing criminals - even those who may be discovered to be sullying the uniform they wear.
-
The problem is that there is no longer any evidence in the public domain that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. No confirmed sightings of the child, no sign of a break-in, nothing disturbed in the apartment, no ransom note etc etc
There are sworn witness statements in the public domain.
Evidence was destroyed when the bedclothes were taken away by the cleaners to be washed.
-
Maybe the blow she received from the shutters when she stuck her head out of the window knocked it completely from her mind. Although I tend to think she would have noticed.
We covered this some time ago. Dissociative amnesia can result from extreme shock or trauma.
-
Nope you abuse your position, you have no idea that some suffer inadequacies.
it is very obvious that some of you suffer inadequances ... so sad
Eleanor was just stating the obvious
Others are smart arzez ... guess they can't help it.
-
The window that only had Kate McCann's fingerprints on?
There is no third-party evidence the window was ever opened by a stranger or even open before 10pm.
It also wasn't seen to be open when Matt Oldfield did his alleged bedroom walkby to listen in on the three children.
Matts original check of the walkby was before Gerrys thorough check. We know nothing had happened by then.
-
The window that only had Kate McCann's fingerprints on?
There is no third-party evidence the window was ever opened by a stranger or even open before 10pm.
It also wasn't seen to be open when Matt Oldfield did his alleged bedroom walkby to listen in on the three children.
Wrong John.
There is Matts evidence of a strange green light coming from the window. For this to happen, the shutters had to be raised for the yellowy street lamp light to mix with the blue of the curtains as it shone through
Yellow and blue make green as I feel sure all of you know
Likely, the window was open but the curtains were still, because it was the lull before the storm with no wind, The actual window was hidden behind the still curtain an given Witness Kates evidence , which was after the wind picked up, the window was open.
Logically it appears that Madeleine was taken almost immediately Gerry descended the patio steps, as Jane Witnessed a man rapidly walking away. The watcher co-ordinator was unable to see Gerry chatting to Jez because the balcony was recessed back and a corner of block 6, protruding forward, masked his view in a southerly direction
Gerry and Jez were out of his view.
-
The evidence has been repeated a thousand times, but is always rejected, scoffed at and denied by “your” side of the argument. Fortunately “our” side of the argument includes those who are actually investigating a child abduction, the grown ups, and so I don’t feel I need to justify my opinion yet again to a troll who is only here on a wind up.
Another supporter resorting to chucking out insults instead of suggesting possible evidence.
Seems to be a common theme here.
-
The Evidence Madeleine Was Taken In A Criminal Act By A Stranger
The suggestions thus far are...
1) The McCanns claim that Madeleine was abducted
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it
Members are welcome to add to this list.
-
To ask another question, because we weren't getting many answers for the first one, I'd also like to hear from forum members....
What evidence convinces you Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger?
(I'm getting tired of typing 'The evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger' now, so I'll be calling it TEMWTIACABAS in future)
For clarity here, insults do not count as evidence.
-
The window that only had Kate McCann's fingerprints on?
There is no third-party evidence the window was ever opened by a stranger or even open before 10pm.
It also wasn't seen to be open when Matt Oldfield did his alleged bedroom walkby to listen in on the three children.
I'll say this again, why when staging an abduction, would you leave your fingerprints on the window?
-
I think I will leave it to the three Police investigations, investigating abduction.
-
I think I will leave it to the three Police investigations, investigating abduction.
Maybe just maybe thats why it remains unsolved.
-
I think I will leave it to the three Police investigations, investigating abduction.
You'll be waiting a long time before the abductor is ever found.
-
Wrong John.
There is Matts evidence of a strange green light coming from the window. For this to happen, the shutters had to be raised for the yellowy street lamp light to mix with the blue of the curtains as it shone through
Yellow and blue make green as I feel sure all of you know
Likely, the window was open but the curtains were still, because it was the lull before the storm with no wind, The actual window was hidden behind the still curtain an given Witness Kates evidence , which was after the wind picked up, the window was open.
Logically it appears that Madeleine was taken almost immediately Gerry descended the patio steps, as Jane Witnessed a man rapidly walking away. The watcher co-ordinator was unable to see Gerry chatting to Jez because the balcony was recessed back and a corner of block 6, protruding forward, masked his view in a southerly direction
Gerry and Jez were out of his view.
Jane Tanners sighting never attained the interest of SY unlike Smithman in being described as carrying a child fitting a description close to that of Madeleine , smithy is the key, always has been imo.
-
Maybe just maybe thats why it remains unsolved.
Later this year barrier. Brueckner will be charged later this year. Mark Brietta's words. It's over for sceptics, Wolters has solved the case.
-
Jane Tanners sighting never attained the interest of SY unlike Smithman in being described as carrying a child fitting a description close to that of Madeleine , smithy is the key, always has been imo.
But Smithman's child was wearing a long sleeved top. barrier. The McCanns said Madeleine was wearing short sleeved Eeeyore pyjamas. Kate said, in her account of the truth, how, the night of the abduction, bizarrely, she kept thinking of Madeleine's arms being cold & wishing she'd dressed her in her long sleeved pyjamas instead.
So it couldn't be her, it just couldn't. Unless the abductor changed Madeleine's pyjama top? But that's a ridiculous idea, so it can't be that. So maybe, perhaps the McCanns weren't entirely honest about the clothing Madeleine wore? Hmmm, I suppose that's possible isn't it.
-
I'll say this again, why when staging an abduction, would you leave your fingerprints on the window?
A window you opened to stage the scene, in collaboration with your partner in crime who then helpfully closed the window before the police got there...
-
A window you opened to stage the scene, in collaboration with your partner in crime who then helpfully closed the window before the police got there...
Maybe he corrected Kate's mistake.
-
So, what evidence is there of a staged abduction, exactly? Perhaps we need a new thread.
-
So, what evidence is there of a staged abduction, exactly? Perhaps we need a new thread.
Well there's no evidence Madeleine was abducted for starters.
-
Maybe he corrected Kate's mistake.
Defence to prosecution, what open window ?
(https://i.imgur.com/99brgMp.png)
-
I think I will leave it to the three Police investigations, investigating abduction.
I think that's a good idea. Some people tried to make sense of the damages trial and the ECHR appeal and got it completely wrong.
-
Defence to prosecution, what open window ?
"Mrs McCann/Healy, could you demonstrate to the court once again how the curtains just blew open"
-
I think that's a good idea. Some people tried to make sense of the damages trial and the ECHR appeal and got it completely wrong.
If you really thought it was a good idea you'd keep quiet and wait and see what eventuates, instead of speculating, and basing your research on an incomplete set of information.
-
Defence to prosecution, what open window ?
(https://i.imgur.com/99brgMp.png)
Are you suggesting that an open window would have somehow incriminated the McCanns? Please explain.
-
Maybe just maybe thats why it remains unsolved.
Yup, if you concentrate solely on an abduction theory, you are unlikely to pay any attention to anything else.
-
If you really thought it was a good idea you'd keep quiet and wait and see what eventuates, instead of speculating, and basing your research on an incomplete set of information.
You'd be waiting a long time.
-
Are you suggesting that an open window would have somehow incriminated the McCanns? Please explain.
Nope, I'm trying to fathom the open window which a half decent defence would question, but I doubt any prosecution would rely on it .This thread is about stranger abduction and evidence there of.
-
If you really thought it was a good idea you'd keep quiet and wait and see what eventuates, instead of speculating, and basing your research on an incomplete set of information.
Incomplete maybe, but I try to post about what is known rather than relying on the belief that OG have everything under control.
-
Incomplete maybe, but I try to post about what is known rather than relying on the belief that OG have everything under control.
Can't you see how you are contradicting yourself? You think it's a good idea to "leave it to the three Police investigations, investigating abduction" but at the same time you're don't want to rely on them having everything under control. So what exactly do you see as your role in all of this?
-
Can you imagine finding your daughter missing? Have you ever tried to put yourself in the place of Kate a mother who couldn't find her daughter?
You talk as though she should have acted as if she was a Police woman 'better not touch the window because of finger prints' 'better shut the window' 'don't go into the apartment its all evidence'. Kate wouldn't have been thinking any of this her main course of action was to search for her child.
It's great to look at it with no compassion isn't it, knowing what happened next.
Now just a minute here, how is your reply any evidence to show Maddie was abducted
Your post again is just telling me how I should feel....just because you do .
You believe Maddie was abducted ...I don't ...hence lack of compassion.
My point was why she closed the window...when she got back and not before she left twins still inside [destroying evidence, it seems if there was any]
Why when she took over 10 mins to search the apartment and knew Maddie had been taken and let 20-plus people into the room what was the point/motive for that? [destroying any evidence it seems, if there was any]
-
Are you suggesting that an open window would have somehow incriminated the McCanns? Please explain.
It seems to me it wouldn't incriminate the mccs...them saying the window was open.
The incrimination or point is whether it was open or not. IMO
-
Now just a minute here, how is your reply any evidence to show Maddie was abducted
Your post again is just telling me how I should feel....just because you do .
You believe Maddie was abducted ...I don't ...hence lack of compassion.
My point was why she closed the window...when she got back and not before she left twins still inside [destroying evidence, it seems if there was any]
Why when she took over 10 mins to search the apartment and knew Maddie had been taken and let 20-plus people into the room what was the point/motive for that? [destroying any evidence it seems, if there was any]
No not how you feel but how Kate would have felt. You are proving again that you have no idea how someone would react when finding their child missing. You seem intent on making out the McCann's were destroying evidence when first of all Kate is supposed to have opened the window to stage an abduction but leaving her fingerprints on it, then closing it!! How is that staging an abduction? People entered 5a including the Police with dogs the Police left ash everywhere. I don't think it was the McCann's who destroyed evidence.
-
Defence to prosecution, what open window ?
(https://i.imgur.com/99brgMp.png)
Why would Kate say the window was open if it hadn't been?
-
No not how you feel but how Kate would have felt. You are proving again that you have no idea how someone would react when finding their child missing. You seem intent on making out the McCann's were destroying evidence when first of all Kate is supposed to have opened the window to stage an abduction but leaving her fingerprints on it, then closing it!! How is that staging an abduction? People entered 5a including the Police with dogs the Police left ash everywhere. I don't think it was the McCann's who destroyed evidence.
Does Kate? You're presuming once again that MWTIACABAS, when there's scant evidence to support that, except the McCanns untested testimony.
-
No not how you feel but how Kate would have felt. You are proving again that you have no idea how someone would react when finding their child missing. You seem intent on making out the McCann's were destroying evidence when first of all Kate is supposed to have opened the window to stage an abduction but leaving her fingerprints on it, then closing it!! How is that staging an abduction? People entered 5a including the Police with dogs the Police left ash everywhere. I don't think it was the McCann's who destroyed evidence.
One of the possibilities was woke and wandered, but Kate's evidence suggested that was unlikely.
-
Now just a minute here, how is your reply any evidence to show Maddie was abducted
Your post again is just telling me how I should feel....just because you do .
You believe Maddie was abducted ...I don't ...hence lack of compassion.
My point was why she closed the window...when she got back and not before she left twins still inside [destroying evidence, it seems if there was any]
Why when she took over 10 mins to search the apartment and knew Maddie had been taken and let 20-plus people into the room what was the point/motive for that? [destroying any evidence it seems, if there was any]
If Kate had done even a half competent search, then there was no reason at all to let others into the apartment, other than perhaps Gerry, who no doubt have insisted on looking for himself anyway.
Every one else, including OC staff could have remained outwith, there being no reason to enter until the police arrived
-
If Kate had done even a half competent search, then there was no reason at all to let others into the apartment, other than perhaps Gerry, who no doubt have insisted on looking for himself anyway.
Every one else, including OC staff could have remained outwith, there being no reason to enter until the police arrived
Exactly, well-put.
-
If Kate had done even a half competent search, then there was no reason at all to let others into the apartment, other than perhaps Gerry, who no doubt have insisted on looking for himself anyway.
Every one else, including OC staff could have remained outwith, there being no reason to enter until the police arrived
Of course you are talking after the event. If you were the mother of the missing child your brain wouldn't be on who as entering the apartment but worrying about where your child was.
-
No not how you feel but how Kate would have felt. You are proving again that you have no idea how someone would react when finding their child missing. You seem intent on making out the McCann's were destroying evidence when first of all Kate is supposed to have opened the window to stage an abduction but leaving her fingerprints on it, then closing it!! How is that staging an abduction? People entered 5a including the Police with dogs the Police left ash everywhere. I don't think it was the McCann's who destroyed evidence.
so you think fag ash and dog prints destroyed any evidence to prove Maddie was abducted. @)(++(* OK.
Or, adding to the 20-plus people who had been in before them
-
Of course you are talking after the event. If you were the mother of the missing child your brain wouldn't be on who as entering the apartment but worrying about where your child was.
Well, she knew she had been taken after all.....so as long as it makes sense to you.
-
Of course you are talking after the event. If you were the mother of the missing child your brain wouldn't be on who as entering the apartment but worrying about where your child was.
Exactly. People with a shred of empathy and understanding get this.
-
so you think fag ash and dog prints destroyed any evidence to prove Maddie was abducted. @)(++(* OK.
Or, adding to the 20-plus people who had been in before them
What are you talking about? You were the one who mentioned destroying evidence, who were the 20 plus people who entered 5a before the police?
-
Can you imagine what the anti McCann's would be saying if Kate had said 'don't come in it's a crime scene'. It would be Kate telling the Police it was a crime scene, trying to get the police to think there's been a crime committed. Kate just can't win.
-
Of course you are talking after the event. If you were the mother of the missing child your brain wouldn't be on who as entering the apartment but worrying about where your child was.
Just because you might fall to pieces doesn't mean that every one would.
A group of highly intelligent people, mostly doctors trained to deal with trauma certainly wouldn't and at least one of them ought to have been thinking straight enough to keep people out until the police arrived.
Certainly one was sufficiently detached to start finding & printing pictures and another to draw up a timeline.
IMO
-
Well, she knew she had been taken after all.....so as long as it makes sense to you.
I'm a parent, if I found my Child's bed empty and she was nowhere to be found, I would immediately think she had been abducted, I think most parents would.
-
Just because you might fall to pieces doesn't mean that every one would.
A group of highly intelligent people, mostly doctors trained to deal with trauma certainly wouldn't and at least one of them ought to have been thinking straight enough to keep people out until the police arrived.
Certainly one was sufficiently detached to start finding & printing pictures and another to draw up a timeline.
IMO
Drs are trained to deal with trauma, but not if it's their own child.
Who exactly printed off pictures? Who exactly drew up a timeline, I don't think it was the McCann's
-
Why would Kate say the window was open if it hadn't been?
When asked, On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
She gave no comment. But this is about what evidence that Madeleine was taken by a stranger .
-
Can you imagine what the anti McCann's would be saying if Kate had said 'don't come in it's a crime scene'. It would be Kate telling the Police it was a crime scene, trying to get the police to think there's been a crime committed. Kate just can't win.
Kate knew that Madeleine wouldn't/couldn't wander therefore she must have been taken
In her mind there had been a crime committed.
-
When asked, On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
She gave no comment. But this is about what evidence that Madeleine was taken by a stranger .
[/quote
Kate had already answered those questions. After being interrogated and more or less told she was lying. it was a perfectly good response to the questions as they would try to twist what she said.
-
What are you talking about? You were the one who mentioned destroying evidence, who were the 20 plus people who entered 5a before the police?
9 of the Tapas group. Silvia Batista. Louise Knight. Amy Tierny. That's 12. I wonder who the other 8 were?
-
Kate knew that Madeleine wouldn't/couldn't wander therefore she must have been taken
In her mind there had been a crime committed.
Kate would know her own child.
Saying she thought Madeleine had been abducted is a bit different from telling everyone to stay outside as a crime had been committed.
-
9 of the Tapas group. Silvia Batista. Louise Knight. Amy Tierny. That's 12. I wonder who the other 8 were?
Don't know, I don't think the McCann's would keep track on who entered they had a lot worse to worry about.
-
What are you talking about? You were the one who mentioned destroying evidence, who were the 20 plus people who entered 5a before the police?
Well to be hoped she knew who they were ..otherwise it could have been the abductor destroying his own evidence.
-
When asked, On May 3, 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
She gave no comment. But this is about what evidence that Madeleine was taken by a stranger .
Yeah, we're not getting far with TEMWTIACABAS, I'm afraid.
Still stuck on 1 & 2, plus insults at the moment.
-
Yeah, we're not getting far with TEMWTIACABAS, I'm afraid.
Still stuck on 1 & 2, plus insults at the moment.
Ah! insults are the evidence then .
-
Just because you might fall to pieces doesn't mean that every one would.
A group of highly intelligent people, mostly doctors trained to deal with trauma certainly wouldn't and at least one of them ought to have been thinking straight enough to keep people out until the police arrived.
Certainly one was sufficiently detached to start finding & printing pictures and another to draw up a timeline.
IMO
oh god, that old chestnut again. Doctors "certainly" always keep their composure when faced with a personal trauma - I'd love to read the peer reviewed research which proves that particular facet of doctors' behaviour.
-
They're really churning out all the old favourites this week, must have received a directive from Sceptic Central to up the quantity of old tripe posted on this forum.
-
Ah! insults are the evidence then .
Certainly no other answers forthcoming.
-
As an interested bystander, I am amazed. positively amazed,that this thread hasn't been overwhelmed with evidence of a stranger abduction.
-
As an interested bystander, I am amazed. positively amazed,that this thread hasn't been overwhelmed with evidence of a stranger abduction.
You must shake your head in disbelief every single day to know that three police forces are convinced Madeleine was abducted by a stranger despite the apparent complete lack of evidence that she was. How on earth do you cope? It must make you rage inwardly.
-
They're really churning out all the old favourites this week, must have received a directive from Sceptic Central to up the quantity of old tripe posted on this forum.
No, I'm sorry, that doesn't sound like it's *TEMWTIACABAS to me, but you're welcome to have another try.
(pronounced Tem-Weteeka-Bas, for my own amusement)
-
As an interested bystander, I am amazed. positively amazed,that this thread hasn't been overwhelmed with evidence of a stranger abduction.
Maybe drop one of the investigating Police forces a line?
-
Maybe drop one of the investigating Police forces a line?
Why? Its the failure of posters on here to tell us the evidence of abduction that amazes me.
Suggests that they don't know of any, which can't be right, surely ?
-
As an interested bystander, I am amazed. positively amazed,that this thread hasn't been overwhelmed with evidence of a stranger abduction.
I'm not even asking for actual evidence. Just suggestions as to what possible EMWTIACABAS the three investigative forces could have. I mean, they must have something, Shirley.
-
Why? Its the failure of posters on here to tell us the evidence of abduction that amazes me.
Suggests that they don't know of any, which can't be right, surely ?
Yes, & don't call me Shirley.
-
Yes, & don't call me Shirley.
I did think about it but decided it would be rather too personal for someone I don't know.
-
Given that we've now apparently established (thanks to the sterling efforts of the troll) that there is actually not one "scintilla" (copyright Faithlilly) of evidence that Madeleine was abducted then why are the combined forces of Portuguese, German and English police working on this case convinced that she was? Are they mad or bad? Sceptics, please tell us your thoughts.
-
Why? Its the failure of posters on here to tell us the evidence of abduction that amazes me.
Suggests that they don't know of any, which can't be right, surely ?
I've said what evidence there is, a child missing from her bed at night in a foreign country, no sign of her after an extensive search. No evidence parents are involved equals - abduction.
-
Given that we've now apparently established (thanks to the sterling efforts of the troll) that there is actually not one "scintilla" (copyright Faithlilly) of evidence that Madeleine was abducted then why are the combined forces of Portuguese, German and English police working on this case convinced that she was? Are they mad or bad? Sceptics, please tell us your thoughts.
There's no way to be sure. Much like Wolters & his concrete evidence. Does he really have any? Only time will tell, but I think we'll all be long dead before we find out. Anyway. I'm just disappointed you haven't said TEMWTIACABAS yet. I was hoping it would catch on.
-
I've said what evidence there is, a child missing from her bed at night in a foreign country, no sign of her after an extensive search. No evidence parents are involved equals - abduction.
That's not evidence, only assumption.
-
I've said what evidence there is, a child missing from her bed at night in a foreign country, no sign of her after an extensive search. No evidence parents are involved equals - abduction.
Or parents destroyed the evidence? Isn't that possible?
-
Either there is evidence that Madeleine was abducted or police forces across three countries are all entirely incompetent and/or corrupt. Which is it?
-
Either there is evidence that Madeleine was abducted or police forces across three countries are all entirely incompetent and/or corrupt. Which is it?
Oh I'm sure there is evidence. They've got the 8000 sightings & 600 paedophiles of interest to investigate.
-
There's no way to be sure. Much like Wolters & his concrete evidence. Does he really have any? Only time will tell, but I think we'll all be long dead before we find out. Anyway. I'm just disappointed you haven't said TEMWTIACABAS yet. I was hoping it would catch on.
‘Operation Rechen’ is in charge of the investigation and the evidence, not Mr Wolters.
-
‘Operation Rechen’ is in charge of the investigation and the evidence, not Mr Wolters.
Thanks. As president of the Christian Brueckner Appreciation Society I probably should have known that.
-
‘Operation Rechen’ is in charge of the investigation and the evidence, not Mr Wolters.
Do you know the scope of the investigation? Is it to investigate an abduction as if it had taken place in Germany ?
-
Thanks. As president of the Christian Brueckner Appreciation Society I probably should have known that.
It’s a pleasure.
-
‘Operation Rechen’ is in charge of the investigation and the evidence, not Mr Wolters.
Did you know that investigations in Germany take place under the supervision and instructions of prosecutors?
-
Do you know the scope of the investigation? Is it to investigate an abduction as if it had taken place in Germany ?
Why do you want to know?
-
Why do you want to know?
Curiosity. Is it investigating the disappearance or is it concentrating solely on getting a conviction on Brueckner, which is not necessarily the same thing.
-
Did you know that investigations in Germany take place under the supervision and instructions of prosecutors?
Yes. And?
-
Curiosity. Is it investigating the disappearance or is it concentrating solely on getting a conviction on Brueckner, which is not necessarily the same thing.
I suggest you do your own research to find the answer to your question.
-
I suggest you do your own research to find the answer to your question.
So you don't know. Fair enough.
-
Well there's no evidence Madeleine was abducted for starters.
YAWN........... 6&%5%
AGAIN
Every time you repeat your brain washing mantra (Cos its purpose is to brain wash people definitely, I will post my answer, probably adding extra bits as I go along
Sadie quote
Ok, you have challenged this WS
Just a few pointers, clues for the discerning. who are willing to consider.[/u]
1. Witness Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying off with a ?sleeping girl who matched Madeleines description.
2. Witness Kate saw the open window.
Witness Matt saw a strange greenish light coming from the (closed curtained) shutter area. Was the shutter raised already and the sickly yellowish street light mixed its colour with the blue curtains, making green? Had Madeleine already gone ? Yellow and blue mixed makes green.
I think that directed from the balcony opposite, the watcher thinking that GErry was gone completely, ordered the go ahead immediately. Then too late, Witness Jane appeared. The director of operations was already in the getaway car by then, which he could access by the rear garden of the balcony and flat block
3. Several different Witnesses saw a certain man watching 5A. One Witness, Tasmin Silence, saw him on two seperate days. He was WATCHING 5A. In fact, the once he was really close up, leaning against the garden wall and peering in.
4) There were fag ends on the balcony of the block immediately opposite 5A.
From this balcony a watcher/abduction director could see the area immediately before both front and rear doors and to the routes up to and away from 5A. He could see all around, both roads. In fact, apert from southwards on the eastern pavement and little car park opposite Tapas reception, he could see everywhere including the Tapas restaurant. I believe he could see them eating.
And he could see straight into 5A and see anyone walking towards, or away, from Madeleines bedroom, and the front door and the patio doors, because the sitting room light was left on.
He himself could vanish into the shadow of Block 6, which was cast by the street lamp obliquely outside. Or just duck down behind the balcony. What an amazing viewing point
5) A limousine,which IIRC was black, was seen driving up by Baptista Supermarket at the pertinent time that Kate and Gerry suddenly appeared out of 5A en route for the restaurant. This limousine suddenly made a three point turn and drove off away from the viewing area. ?Frightened of being seen by Kate and Gerry? For a couple of witnesses to have noticed this, the three point turn must have been very hurried and rough IMO. Maybe panicky?
6) Parents who had criminally vanished their own child would NOT lobby, as the Mccanns did, for Scotland Yard to be brought in.
THINK about it WS. Had you done it, would YOU bring in Scotland Yard if you were guilty?
John, please note: If WS can keep repeating accusations and stuff ad nausium, then I claim the right to repeatedly post my offering. Fair is fair. Right?
John, Why was I not allowed to post this last night? I have a feeling that most, if not all, of my observations are correct so the wish is that my post vanishes into the ether. This sort of thing has happened before. Also a virus/ malware was foisted on to my computer. Please make sure this stops. I don't want to have to contact David Cameron. He acted last time, remember?
-
So you don't know. Fair enough.
Jassi, please get off my case. You are deliberately provocative by asking me what I know about the investigation.
-
Yes. And?
It may not be Wolters, but a prosecutor will be involved in Operation Rechen.
-
What exactly is Operation Rechen investigating ?
Google returns zilch
-
What exactly is Operation Rechen investigating ?
Google returns zilch
According to this, information, caveat press and google translate.
https://regionalheute.de/fall-maddie-braunschweig-gar-nicht-zustaendig-braunschweig-gifhorn-goslar-harz-helmstedt-peine-salzgitter-wolfenbuettel-wolfsburg-1674209768/
Maddie is still wanted
Then 3-year-old Madeleine "Maddie" McCann disappeared from a hotel room in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on May 3, 2007. The girl is still being searched for. In Germany, too, a public search is still being carried out by the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office. A reward of 10,000 euros is being offered for information leading to the investigation of the crime. The BKA takes tips on 0 611/55-18444 or any other police station.
-
What exactly is Operation Rechen investigating ?
Google returns zilch
Christian Brückner. Best you read Amaral’s second book.
-
It may not be Wolters, but a prosecutor will be involved in Operation Rechen.
Yes, Ute Lindemann comes to mind.
-
Yes, Ute Lindemann comes to mind.
That name rings a bell from earlier in the investigation. Quite possibly Wolters was just the spokesman, and boy did he speak!
-
That name rings a bell from earlier in the investigation. Quite possibly Wolters was just the spokesman, and boy did he speak!
Still in a job though isn’t he, despite the claims on here that he was a loose cannon, a maverick, and predictions that he would be sued or sacked.
-
Still in a job though isn’t he, despite the claims on here that he was a loose cannon, a maverick, and predictions that he would be sued or sacked.
Who ever said that though? Certainly not me. I always believed Wolters was appealing for information, an approved tactical move. Testing Brueckner on his confession & trying to flush out his mystery accomplice. At the same time, by linking Brueckner to Maddie, Wolters gained maximum publicity, &, as with Hazel B, his victims of other unrelated crimes felt compelled to come forward. Anyway, Brueckner will be doing porridge for many years to come, so well done Wolters. Bad luck to him on Maddie case though. You can't win them all.
-
Still in a job though isn’t he, despite the claims on here that he was a loose cannon, a maverick, and predictions that he would be sued or sacked.
Who called him a loose cannon or a maverick? Who said he was going to be sacked? You're not exaggerating are you? One of the reasons Brueckner's lawyer is trying to get the trial moved away from Braunschweig is because he believes a fair trial isn't possible there, and has already submitted a written complaint about statements being made which prejudged the outcome. A reprimand could be issued, which could be used as the basis for an appeal if Brueckner was convicted.
https://regionalheute.de/fall-maddie-braunschweig-gar-nicht-zustaendig-braunschweig-gifhorn-goslar-harz-helmstedt-peine-salzgitter-wolfenbuettel-wolfsburg-1674209768/
-
Who called him a loose cannon or a maverick? Who said he was going to be sacked? You're not exaggerating are you? One of the reasons Brueckner's lawyer is trying to get the trial moved away from Braunschweig is because he believes a fair trial isn't possible there, and has already submitted a written complaint about statements being made which prejudged the outcome. A reprimand could be issued, which could be used as the basis for an appeal if Brueckner was convicted.
https://regionalheute.de/fall-maddie-braunschweig-gar-nicht-zustaendig-braunschweig-gifhorn-goslar-harz-helmstedt-peine-salzgitter-wolfenbuettel-wolfsburg-1674209768/
Brueckner's legal team are only doing their jobs and my opinion is that they appear only to have procedural moves to use in his defence. As they did regarding jurisdiction in the first instance regarding the arrest in Italy.
-
YAWN........... 6&%5%
AGAIN
Every time you repeat your brain washing mantra (Cos its purpose is to brain wash people definitely, I will post my answer, probably adding extra bits as I go along
John, please note: If WS can keep repeating accusations and stuff ad nausium, then I claim the right to repeatedly post my offering. Fair is fair. Right?
John, Why was I not allowed to post this last night? I have a feeling that most, if not all, of my observations are correct so the wish is that my post vanishes into the ether. This sort of thing has happened before. Also a virus/ malware was foisted on to my computer. Please make sure this stops. I don't want to have to contact David Cameron. He acted last time, remember?
Sadie you may have missed my question regarding point 1.Who described said child matching Madeleines description ?
1. Witness Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying off with a ?sleeping girl who matched Madeleines description.
-
Brueckner's legal team are only doing their jobs and my opinion is that they appear only to have procedural moves to use in his defence. As they did regarding jurisdiction in the first instance regarding the arrest in Italy.
I'm just explaining what they are doing and why.
-
I'm just explaining what they are doing and why.
I don't think you are explaining anything as yet again having read through the link you supplied I am left wondering if you bothered.
To me it seems you didn't or you missed out on the groundwork being being prepared for a subsequent appeal against sentence as was attempted in the European court last time round.
When supporting evidence to mount a defence is lacking all the legal team has to fall back on is procedure. Which from my reading of the link you gave is precisely what Brueckner's legal team are doing.
They are good. And I think whoever is paying them are getting their money's worth.
-
I don't think you are explaining anything as yet again having read through the link you supplied I am left wondering if you bothered.
To me it seems you didn't or you missed out on the groundwork being being prepared for a subsequent appeal against sentence as was attempted in the European court last time round.
When supporting evidence to mount a defence is lacking all the legal team has to fall back on is procedure. Which from my reading of the link you gave is precisely what Brueckner's legal team are doing.
They are good. And I think whoever is paying them are getting their money's worth.
Well, it is a legal matter and they can be hard to understand. We shall have to wait and see if Braunschweig have blotted their copybook enough to persuade the authorities that they have endangered the chances of a fair trial.
-
Well, it is a legal matter and they can be hard to understand. We shall have to wait and see if Braunschweig have blotted their copybook enough to persuade the authorities that they have endangered the chances of a fair trial.
Particularly for non-lawyers without a good grounding in German Law.
-
Particularly for non-lawyers without a good grounding in German Law.
A link was provided.
When read it was clear and concise in its context. How nice it would be if members would actually read information they have supplied instead of cherry picking what they think are the salacious bits.
It really only requires the introduction of common sense - a good read at the information contained - then it might be possible to lay claim to providing "explanations".
Maybe you would like to bump your post up to Gunit - she is after all the one laying claims of "explaining" things with as far as I know, being a non-lawyer with no grounding in German law.
-
Sadie you may have missed my question regarding point 1.Who described said child matching Madeleines description ?
1. Witness Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying off with a ?sleeping girl who matched Madeleines description.
I don't need to find any written words; it is very plain that Jane thought that the little girl was Madeleine.
So many different versions of * The Cutting Edge Video * are around now and i have just picked any one that has this particular scene on it (at the moment, 21/01/23 @ 1239 anyway). May not be there in a few minutes time!
11.00-12.35 ish Janes description of child being carried.
Crying just before 12.30
https://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/videos?ssdcat=321&installsource=client&source=client&year=2015&version=22.21.8.62&templatecat=sbu_w_1000_5039_ns_retail_2&schemacat=sbu_w&schemaver=1.0.0.0&olpchannel=retail&osvers=10.0&oslocale=iso%3Agbr&oslang=iso%3Aeng&os=windows&cmpgn=jul21&showuninstallsurvey=1&installstatus=updated&vendorsrc=firefox&machinelocation=gb&sw=1&3in1=0&npw=0&hp=0&dsp=0&browser=firefox&cdest=client&psw=1&pds=1&annot=false&vendorConfigured=ask&o=APN12179&prt=ngc&ver=22.21.8.62&tpr=111&chn=1004670&guid=ccebe8f8-5cbf-4655-8944-9ec975308183&doi=2021-09-29&q=madeleine+mccann+cutting+edge+video&geo=en_GB&ctype=videos&ueid=3d553e2c-8832-4639-918e-747fa0cdd88f&videoId=atfDV7imHHY&p2=%5EET%5Efd00gb%5E&rch=606518&rtb=29050&askid=d338fece-fcd0-4b7e-8325-a6291f8ba8fc-0-us_gsb
Why so many PIRATE versions? Just to spread confusion and make the case more difficult to be solved. IMO
-
A link was provided.
When read it was clear and concise in its context. How nice it would be if members would actually read information they have supplied instead of cherry picking what they think are the salacious bits.
It really only requires the introduction of common sense - a good read at the information contained - then it might be possible to lay claim to providing "explanations".
Maybe you would like to bump your post up to Gunit - she is after all the one laying claims of "explaining" things with as far as I know, being a non-lawyer with no grounding in German law.
The law will prevail irrespective of what lay people think. We saw this both in the Portuguese and European courts, where certain persons were sure of their opinions and were proved utterly wrong.
-
I don't need to find any written words; it is very plain that Jane thought that the little girl was Madeleine.
So many different versions of * The Cutting Edge Video * are around now and i have just picked any one that has this particular scene on it (at the moment, 21/01/23 @ 1239 anyway). May not be there in a few minutes time!
11.00-12.35 ish Janes description of child being carried.
Crying just before 12.30
https://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/videos?ssdcat=321&installsource=client&source=client&year=2015&version=22.21.8.62&templatecat=sbu_w_1000_5039_ns_retail_2&schemacat=sbu_w&schemaver=1.0.0.0&olpchannel=retail&osvers=10.0&oslocale=iso%3Agbr&oslang=iso%3Aeng&os=windows&cmpgn=jul21&showuninstallsurvey=1&installstatus=updated&vendorsrc=firefox&machinelocation=gb&sw=1&3in1=0&npw=0&hp=0&dsp=0&browser=firefox&cdest=client&psw=1&pds=1&annot=false&vendorConfigured=ask&o=APN12179&prt=ngc&ver=22.21.8.62&tpr=111&chn=1004670&guid=ccebe8f8-5cbf-4655-8944-9ec975308183&doi=2021-09-29&q=madeleine+mccann+cutting+edge+video&geo=en_GB&ctype=videos&ueid=3d553e2c-8832-4639-918e-747fa0cdd88f&videoId=atfDV7imHHY&p2=%5EET%5Efd00gb%5E&rch=606518&rtb=29050&askid=d338fece-fcd0-4b7e-8325-a6291f8ba8fc-0-us_gsb
Why so many PIRATE versions? Just to spread confusion and make the case more difficult to be solved. IMO
Thank you, Redwood wasn't interested so in all likely hood it was not Madeleine.
-
I don't need to find any written words; it is very plain that Jane thought that the little girl was Madeleine.
So many different versions of * The Cutting Edge Video * are around now and i have just picked any one that has this particular scene on it (at the moment, 21/01/23 @ 1239 anyway). May not be there in a few minutes time!
11.00-12.35 ish Janes description of child being carried.
Crying just before 12.30
https://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/videos?ssdcat=321&installsource=client&source=client&year=2015&version=22.21.8.62&templatecat=sbu_w_1000_5039_ns_retail_2&schemacat=sbu_w&schemaver=1.0.0.0&olpchannel=retail&osvers=10.0&oslocale=iso%3Agbr&oslang=iso%3Aeng&os=windows&cmpgn=jul21&showuninstallsurvey=1&installstatus=updated&vendorsrc=firefox&machinelocation=gb&sw=1&3in1=0&npw=0&hp=0&dsp=0&browser=firefox&cdest=client&psw=1&pds=1&annot=false&vendorConfigured=ask&o=APN12179&prt=ngc&ver=22.21.8.62&tpr=111&chn=1004670&guid=ccebe8f8-5cbf-4655-8944-9ec975308183&doi=2021-09-29&q=madeleine+mccann+cutting+edge+video&geo=en_GB&ctype=videos&ueid=3d553e2c-8832-4639-918e-747fa0cdd88f&videoId=atfDV7imHHY&p2=%5EET%5Efd00gb%5E&rch=606518&rtb=29050&askid=d338fece-fcd0-4b7e-8325-a6291f8ba8fc-0-us_gsb
Why so many PIRATE versions? Just to spread confusion and make the case more difficult to be solved. IMO
Ms Tanner told investigators she saw a man walking away from the area of the McCanns' apartment in Praia da Luz but did not realise the significance of what she had seen until Madeleine was reported missing an hour later.
_______________________________________________________________________
"We believe that this was Madeleine being carried away by a man from the apartment, so we place great importance on having these pictures produced," Mr Mitchell said.
"Anyone who knows this man should contact our confidential phone line immediately."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
I think the only individuals who dismissed the evidence given by Jane Tanner were the Portuguese investigators of thee time.
Jane was convinced she had witnessed Madeleine's abduction and has said so.
Quite often in stranger abduction cases eye witness evidence is all that there is to go on. Kate's evidence was rubbished as was Jane's without any real attempt made by the investigating police to find and eliminate him apart from sanctioning the use of the efit Jane worked on with an FBI artist.
Why are these elementary facts still bones of contention for some?
-
Thank you, Redwood wasn't interested so in all likely hood it was not Madeleine.
But the new team leader was.
If you remember, Redwoods idea didn't work. The man was walking in the wrong direction from the crech.
The man Witness Jane saw was walking in the right direction from Madeleines bedroom in 5A ... and Jane very obviously thought the little girl looked like Madeleine.
Did you look at the video and see her distress, barrrier ? Now hows about agreeing that as far as the witness Jane was concerned, the little girl WAS Madeleine.
Are you big enough to do that?
-
The law will prevail irrespective of what lay people think. We saw this both in the Portuguese and European courts, where certain persons were sure of their opinions and were proved utterly wrong.
German law certainly did prevail in getting justice for two of Bruecker's victims. One sees no reason for it not to do the same for the victims of the five crimes for which Brueckner has already been indicted.
The link provided by Gunit suggests to me that Brueckner's legal team having had access to all the evidence have plumped for laying the grounds for a legal challenge in the event the five cases will be found against him.
Unfortunately there are no get out clauses for victims of aggravated rape or sexual abuse to constrain their assailant. Criminals do whatever takes their fancy - absolutely no rules there.
The mark of a civilised society is that prosecutors have to comply with legal constraints in accordance with the law of the land. Put simply ~ RULES. My opinion is that Brueckner is being well served by his legal team and that is how it should be.
-
(https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann)
-
(https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Why did my previous post come out as a blank page? But in reality the webpage above with instructions to open the image up was there.
Someone on the forum doesn't want this page printed and showing to all. Why?
Now it just needs a wizard to come along and show it on the previous post by me. Why? To wrong foot me and make me seem an idiot. It has been done before.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/26/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Why did my previous post come out as a blank page? But in reality the webpage above with instructions to open the image up was there.
Someone on the forum doesn't want this page printed and showing to all. Why?
Now it just needs a wizard to come along and show it on the previous post by me. Why? To wrong foot me and make me seem an idiot. It has been done before.
Can anyone else get Briettas webpage picture to open up?
What is especially interesting is that Jane mentioned noticing something at the bottom of the pyjama trousers, and it turned out that there was something at the bottom of Madeleines trousers.
I believe that man was carrying Madeleine. He was in the process of abducting her.
-
Who called him a loose cannon or a maverick? Who said he was going to be sacked? You're not exaggerating are you? One of the reasons Brueckner's lawyer is trying to get the trial moved away from Braunschweig is because he believes a fair trial isn't possible there, and has already submitted a written complaint about statements being made which prejudged the outcome. A reprimand could be issued, which could be used as the basis for an appeal if Brueckner was convicted.
https://regionalheute.de/fall-maddie-braunschweig-gar-nicht-zustaendig-braunschweig-gifhorn-goslar-harz-helmstedt-peine-salzgitter-wolfenbuettel-wolfsburg-1674209768/
No I'm not exaggerating. It seems some people have a short memory. The General was ALWAYS going on about HCW being demoted to "traffic cop" for some stupid and illogical reason, Holly Goodhead complained that he was a maverick or loose cannon or words to that effect. I'm pretty sure others appeared to be in agreement.
-
Where is Holly these days? Did she die off after John gave her a good pruning?
-
Particularly for non-lawyers without a good grounding in German Law.
That's me for sure 8)--)). The Germans do, however, have to comply with the ECHR.
The ECHR has established that the presumption of innocence protected under Article 6(2) ECHR will be
violated if a judicial decision or a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with
a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according
to law.
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2022/01/Presumption-of-Innocence-Toolkit_2.pdf
I think Wolters is a public official and he did state his belief that CB is guilty of killing Madeleine McCann.
-
Can anyone else get Briettas webpage picture to open up?
What is especially interesting is that Jane mentioned noticing something at the bottom of the pyjama trousers, and it turned out that there was something at the bottom of Madeleines trousers.
I believe that man was carrying Madeleine. He was in the process of abducting her.
Yup, everybody can open up that webpage picture... except you! I wonder why that is?
-
That name rings a bell from earlier in the investigation. Quite possibly Wolters was just the spokesman, and boy did he speak!
The BKA headquarters is in Wiesbaden. They also have branches in Berlin and Meckenheim. HCW is the public prosecutor in Braunschweig. Ute Lindemann is the chief prosecutor, presumably at the headquarters in Wiesbaden. And ranked higher than Hans Wolters.
-
Yup, everybody can open up that webpage picture... except you! I wonder why that is?
Oh, I can open it but I can't present the open image per the norm. It refuses to be exhibited. I wonder why I can't ?. Please will you present the open image that Brietta mentioned.
I would like the image showing to demonstrate the detail at the bottom of the trousers that Jane mentioned. This confirms that the little girl being carried was almost certainly Madeleine.
I have been missing you Ret and very worried about you. Have been watching reports and do hope that any damage was minimal. We had a similar problem (not as huge and catastrophic) and a neighbour very nearly died. Personally with the old MC additional potential problems, I would cut my losses and start afresh. But I know that you will make up your own mind.
Good to see you safe.
sadie x
-
Where is Holly these days? Did she die off after John gave her a good pruning?
I think she's busy stalking Mrs Fenn's niece somewhere, hoping to amass enough evidence that she kidnapped Madeleine.
-
That's me for sure 8)--)). The Germans do, however, have to comply with the ECHR.
The ECHR has established that the presumption of innocence protected under Article 6(2) ECHR will be
violated if a judicial decision or a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with
a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according
to law.
https://www.fairtrials.org/app/uploads/2022/01/Presumption-of-Innocence-Toolkit_2.pdf
I think Wolters is a public official and he did state his belief that CB is guilty of killing Madeleine McCann.
If he has committed a serious breach of the law I wonder why he has not been sacked?
-
Yup, everybody can open up that webpage picture... except you! I wonder why that is?
I don't know Myster but I attempted to start a new thread about technical difficulties I have experienced myself on this forum but it was ignored for some reason. 8(8-))
-
Oh, I can open it but I can't present the open image per the norm. It refuses to be exhibited. I wonder why I can't ?. Please will you present the open image that Brietta mentioned.
I would like the image showing to demonstrate the detail at the bottom of the trousers that Jane mentioned. This confirms that the little girl being carried was almost certainly Madeleine.
I have been missing you Ret and very worried about you. Have been watching reports and do hope that any damage was minimal. We had a similar problem (not as huge and catastrophic) and a neighbour very nearly died. Personally with the old MC additional potential problems, I would cut my losses and start afresh. But I know that you will make up your own mind.
God to see you safe.
sadie x
Can't log into Imgur hosting site because I forgot my password 8(8-)) , so the attached image will have to suffice for now.
No need to worry about me, Sadie! Reports of what?... if you mean this freezing weather, the only problem I had was a burst cold water supply pipe in my garage and no fresh tap water for a few days.
-
Why are you so racist?
I can't follow your thought processes at all. What on earth makes you think I'm racist?
-
Oh, I can open it but I can't present the open image per the norm. It refuses to be exhibited. I wonder why I can't ?. Please will you present the open image that Brietta mentioned.
I would like the image showing to demonstrate the detail at the bottom of the trousers that Jane mentioned. This confirms that the little girl being carried was almost certainly Madeleine.
I have been missing you Ret and very worried about you. Have been watching reports and do hope that any damage was minimal. We had a similar problem (not as huge and catastrophic) and a neighbour very nearly died. Personally with the old MC additional potential problems, I would cut my losses and start afresh. But I know that you will make up your own mind.
Good to see you safe.
sadie x
As Jane said she saw something at the bottom of the trousers and as she knew what they looked like by the time she did the sketch it's hardly surprising they matched, is it?
-
Can't log into Imgur hosting site because I forgot my password 8(8-)) , so the attached image will have to suffice for now.
No need to worry about me, Sadie! Reports of what?... if you mean this freezing weather, the only problem I had was a burst cold water supply pipe in my garage and no fresh tap water for a few days.
Thank you for the image, but why won't it repeat so that others can use it? It will vanish altogether in a few days at a guess.
So glad you are OK. Am glad that you got the " burst water pipe " @)(++(* fixed. Glad all are safe. I have had the " Burst water pipe " @)(++(* experience 3 times now so in a small way I am a bit of an expert. I know you are safe so I can stop watching the news now.
Welcome back, Ret
-
I can't follow your thought processes at all. What on earth makes you think I'm racist?
I'm intrigued now too, what the heck is sadie talking about?! @)(++(*
-
I think she's busy stalking Mrs Fenn's niece somewhere, hoping to amass enough evidence that she kidnapped Madeleine.
😂
-
Can anyone else get Briettas webpage picture to open up?
What is especially interesting is that Jane mentioned noticing something at the bottom of the pyjama trousers, and it turned out that there was something at the bottom of Madeleines trousers.
I believe that man was carrying Madeleine. He was in the process of abducting her.
Hi Sadie, this is what Jane Tanner saw, and a replica of MM’s pyjamas, and Julian Totman’s daughter’s pyjamas.
-
Hi Sadie, this is what Jane Tanner saw, and a replica of MM’s pyjamas, and Julian Totman’s daughter’s pyjamas.
Oh Thank you Anthro. You always come up with the goods.
Unfortunately the images on forum now seem to be engineered so that they no longer copy on to the next post in quotations. They very often seem to be left on the page before, so it is nigh impossible to compare . At least these posts ae adjacent.
As anyone can see there are frills at the bottom of the pjays from Janes sighting recollections and frills at the bottom of the actual copy pjays. That is a big pointer to me that Jane very likely was correct in that she saw Madeleine being whisked away.
The harsh contrast of colours on Dr Totmans daughters pjays, bright red against pale blue, would have been so great as to have been the main defining feature that Jane would have remembered. She did not remember that.
It is clear that Jane did NOT see Dr Totman go by with his daughter.
Jane saw Madeleine being abducted, almost without any doubt.
It was almost immediately after Gerry left the apartment, but before Matt checked. Madeleine was gone before Matt checked and the open shutters allowing the yellow street lights to shine through blue curtains giving a green glow verifies this.
-
Oh Thank you Anthro. You always come up with the goods.
Unfortunately the images on forum now seem to be engineered so that they no longer copy on to the next post in quotations. They very often seem to be left on the page before, so it is nigh imposible to compare images
As anyone can see there are frills at the bottom of the pjays from Janes sighting recollections and frills at the bottom of the actual copy pjays. That is a big pointer to me that Jane very likely was correct in that she saw Madeleine being whisked away.
The harsh contrast of colours on Dr Totmans daughters pjays, bright red against pale blue, would have been so great as to have been the main defining feature that Jane would have remembered. She did not remember that.
It is clear that Jane did NOT see Dr Totman go by with his daughter.
Jane saw Madeleine being abducted, almost without any doubt.
It was almost immediately after Gerry left the apartment, but before Matt checked. Madeleine was gone before Matt checked and the open shutters allowing the yellow street lights to shine through blue curtains giving a green glow verifies this.
Until it is proven otherwise and I don't think it ever will be, I agree that Jane witnessed Madeleine being abducted.
-
Until it is proven otherwise and I don't think it ever will be, I agree that Jane witnessed Madeleine being abducted.
So, the abductor was hiding inside the apartment during Gerry's check. Also, it wasn't Brueckner, unless he was wearing a wig. So, Brueckner's accomplice maybe?
-
So, the abductor was hiding inside the apartment during Gerry's check. Also, it wasn't Brueckner, unless he was wearing a wig. So, Brueckner's accomplice maybe?
Abductor could have been hiding in flat during Gerry's check, but unlikely.
Immediately after a children check was the safest and most likely time for an abduction. Gerry left and watcher /director on balcony immedately opposite gave the go ahaead. IMO
Unknown to the watcher/director, Gerry was still chatting with Jez. Given easy entrance (with a front door key?) the abduction could have taken place in less than 2 minutes IMO.
Jane just happened to be walking past.
Seems likely that Brueckner may have worn a wig cos a bundle of wigs and make up was found in Breuckners villa, was it not? However, owning those wigs does not prove the man was Brueckner. As far as I am concerned, that is an open question atm.
-
Abductor could have been hiding in flat during Gerry's check, but unlikely.
Immediately after a children check was the safest and most likely time for an abduction. Gerry left and watcher /director on balcony immedately opposite gave the go ahaead. IMO
Unknown to the watcher/director, Gerry was still chatting with Jez. Given easy entrance (with a front door key?) the abduction could have taken place in less than 2 minutes IMO.
Jane just happened to be walking past.
Seems likely that Brueckner may have worn a wig cos a bundle of wigs and make up was found in Breuckners villa, was it not? However, owning those wigs does not prove the man was Brueckner. As far as I am concerned, that is an open question atm.
But what about the window? No, I'm sorry sadie, but this all sounds a bit *** to me.
-
Please explain this comment Sadie.
-
Abductor could have been hiding in flat during Gerry's check, but unlikely.
Immediately after a children check was the safest and most likely time for an abduction. Gerry left and watcher /director on balcony immedately opposite gave the go ahaead. IMO
Unknown to the watcher/director, Gerry was still chatting with Jez. Given easy entrance (with a front door key?) the abduction could have taken place in less than 2 minutes IMO.
Jane just happened to be walking past.
Seems likely that Brueckner may have worn a wig cos a bundle of wigs and make up was found in Breuckners villa, was it not? However, owning those wigs does not prove the man was Brueckner. As far as I am concerned, that is an open question atm.
At one stage there was a suggestion that Brueckner might have worked with an accomplice https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8739347/Madeleine-McCann-chief-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-ACCOMPLICE.html
-
According to this, information, caveat press and google translate.
https://regionalheute.de/fall-maddie-braunschweig-gar-nicht-zustaendig-braunschweig-gifhorn-goslar-harz-helmstedt-peine-salzgitter-wolfenbuettel-wolfsburg-1674209768/
Maddie is still wanted
Then 3-year-old Madeleine "Maddie" McCann disappeared from a hotel room in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on May 3, 2007. The girl is still being searched for. In Germany, too, a public search is still being carried out by the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and the Braunschweig public prosecutor's office. A reward of 10,000 euros is being offered for information leading to the investigation of the crime. The BKA takes tips on 0 611/55-18444 or any other police station.
Sounds like German thinking has changed. No longer are they saying that Madeleine is dead.
I wonder if SY have finally shared their thinking and facts with the BKA. Have the BKA now seen the video which I believe shows a very much living Madeleine in 2012 ? And read the multitude of facts that few are aware of ?
Sounds promising to me
-
But what about the window? No, I'm sorry sadie, but this all sounds a bit *** to me.
Purleaze, WS. This has been gone through at least 6 times by me personally and by others over and over. There were at least 6 sensible reasons why the window was open:
1) to have someone outside who could give verbal support to the lifter and pass things such as chloroform through the window
2) that someone only had to take on step back in the walkway and he could be in visual contact with the watcher on the balcony across the road. A signal could easily be given such as a glowing fag or even a torch beam, if someone was coming. With the window open the lifter had two choices of rapid exit . Either through the front door or out through the window.
3) To clear the bedroom of any scent of Chloroform
4) To give the impression that Madeleine had left of her own volition
5) If a key had been "lent" to the perps, then having an open window would persuade the investigators that the window was the means of entry and let the O.C. staff member key-lender off the hook. The window wasn't used for entry or exit; the front door was
6) I can't recall any other reasons that the window was open but there were at least another.
now WS you have the possibilities and likelyhoods.
Please DO NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME repeatedly re-asking this question.
Annoying and time wasting, but it did give me an opportunity to tell people new to studying the case, the likely reasons that the window was open. So thankyou for that (&^&
You scored an own goal, didn't ya!
-
The watcher, the lifter, the anesthestatist & the getaway driver. All sounds rather convoluted to me.
Where does the murderer fit in to all this?
-
At one stage there was a suggestion that Brueckner might have worked with an accomplice https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8739347/Madeleine-McCann-chief-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-ACCOMPLICE.html
Yeah. He had about 3 accomplices apparently.
-
The BKA headquarters is in Wiesbaden. They also have branches in Berlin and Meckenheim. HCW is the public prosecutor in Braunschweig. Ute Lindemann is the chief prosecutor, presumably at the headquarters in Wiesbaden. And ranked higher than Hans Wolters.
Ute Lindemann is the head of the department for sexual offenses at the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig.
https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/salzgitter/article231340930/Expertin-So-haeufig-ist-sexuelle-Belaestigung.html
-
Ute Lindemann is the head of the department for sexual offenses at the public prosecutor's office in Braunschweig.
https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/salzgitter/article231340930/Expertin-So-haeufig-ist-sexuelle-Belaestigung.html
Yes, you are correct. Dr Lindemann is currently stationed in Brünswick. She used to be at Wiesbaden headquarters.
-
The watcher, the lifter, the anesthestatist & the getaway driver. All sounds rather convoluted to me.
Where does the murderer fit in to all this?
The list I produced shows some of the sensible reasons why the window might have been open. It s unlikely that all of the reasons shown actually happened, but a selection is likely.
The Balcony Watcher was also the get away driver.
Madeleine quite possibly knew the lifter, or else she was deliberately overcome by chloroform without waking
The person outside the window was Tannerman.
Immediately the lifter had done the job, Madeleines head was on the lifters right arm. S/he passed Madeleine over to Tannerman who walked away with her.
Madeleines head was then on Tannermans left arm as WITNESS Jane noted. The lifter had scarpered.
So there werre two people at that stage.
Meanwhile the balcony watcher had exited Block 6 at the rear, walked thru the garden gate and got into the get away vehicle on the car park there.
He had seen Gerry going down the rear steps and he thought that Gerry was back at the table. He had the shock of his life when he saw Gerry chatting with Jez in his path. He shot off in the opposite southward direction
Meanwhile anxious Tannerman, holding Madeleine, was waiting in the bushes for a car that was expected to arrive immediately, but didn't. In panick he set off to walk the alleyway route to where the car had been parked, to find it gone.
1) He went in an Easterly direction, not south easterly into Block 6 as Dr Totman must have done..
2) As a father, Dr Totman was an experienced carrier of children and he would never have used the cross arms carrying position that Tannerman did; too exhausting. Tannerman had no children.
3) The pyjamas didn't match up either,
Tannerman, carrying Madeleine, was not Dr Totman carrying his daughter.
WITNESS Jane saw Madeleine being abducted. Little doubt about it.
There is no murderer. Madeleine still lives and if the perp is wise he will keep her alive and well looked after, then he cannot be done on a murder charge. He will also maintain that she was found wandering and he rescued her.
Now I have been able to count since I was little and I make the people involved just 3 people, NOT 4, ... 4 people is a downright lie.
Why is it so important ti you that people do not believe that Madeleine was abducted?
Just why? Please give a sensible answer
.... And NEVER again say that I said there were 4 people involved. Get yourself sorted or pull out.
All IMO
-
The list I produced shows some of the sensible reasons why the window might have been open. It s unlikely that all of the reasons shown actually happened, but a selection is likely.
The Balcony Watcher was also the get away driver.
Madeleine quite possibly knew the lifter, or else she was deliberately overcome by chloroform without waking
The person outside the window was Tannerman.
Immediately the lifter had done the job, Madeleines head was on the lifters right arm. S/he passed Madeleine over to Tannerman who walked away with her.
Madeleines head was then on Tannermans left arm as WITNESS Jane noted. The lifter had scarpered.
So there werre two people at that stage.
Meanwhile the balcony watcher had exited Block 6 at the rear, walked thru the garden gate and got into the get away vehicle on the car park there.
He had seen Gerry going down the rear steps and he thought that Gerry was back at the table. He had the shock of his life when he saw Gerry chatting with Jez in his path. He shot off in the opposite southward direction
Meanwhile anxious Tannerman, holding Madeleine, was waiting in the bushes for a car that was expected to arrive immediately, but didn't. In panick he set off to walk the alleyway route to where the car had been parked, to find it gone.
1) He went in an Easterly direction, not south easterly into Block 6 as Dr Totman must have done..
2) As a father, Dr Totman was an experienced carrier of children and he would never have used the cross arms carrying position that Tannerman did; too exhausting. Tannerman had no children.
3) The pyjamas didn't match up either,
Tannerman, carrying Madeleine, was not Dr Totman carrying his daughter.
WITNESS Jane saw Madeleine being abducted. Little doubt about it.
There is no murderer. Madeleine still lives and if the perp is wise he will keep her alive and well looked after, then he cannot be done on a murder charge. He will also maintain that she was found wandering and he rescued her.
Now I have been able to count since I was little and I make the people involved just 3 people, NOT 4, ... 4 people is a downright lie.
Why is it so important ti you that people do not believe that Madeleine was abducted?
Just why? Please give a sensible answer
.... And NEVER again say that I said there were 4 people involved. Get yourself sorted or pull out.
All IMO
Totman stayed in Block 4, why would he go into Block 6?
Was there access to the rear car park behind Block 6 via the public areas, or do you think your 'watcher' was occupying one of the flats?
-
The list I produced shows some of the sensible reasons why the window might have been open. It s unlikely that all of the reasons shown actually happened, but a selection is likely.
The Balcony Watcher was also the get away driver.
Madeleine quite possibly knew the lifter, or else she was deliberately overcome by chloroform without waking
The person outside the window was Tannerman.
Immediately the lifter had done the job, Madeleines head was on the lifters right arm. S/he passed Madeleine over to Tannerman who walked away with her.
Madeleines head was then on Tannermans left arm as WITNESS Jane noted. The lifter had scarpered.
So there werre two people at that stage.
Meanwhile the balcony watcher had exited Block 6 at the rear, walked thru the garden gate and got into the get away vehicle on the car park there.
He had seen Gerry going down the rear steps and he thought that Gerry was back at the table. He had the shock of his life when he saw Gerry chatting with Jez in his path. He shot off in the opposite southward direction
Meanwhile anxious Tannerman, holding Madeleine, was waiting in the bushes for a car that was expected to arrive immediately, but didn't. In panick he set off to walk the alleyway route to where the car had been parked, to find it gone.
1) He went in an Easterly direction, not south easterly into Block 6 as Dr Totman must have done..
2) As a father, Dr Totman was an experienced carrier of children and he would never have used the cross arms carrying position that Tannerman did; too exhausting. Tannerman had no children.
3) The pyjamas didn't match up either,
Tannerman, carrying Madeleine, was not Dr Totman carrying his daughter.
WITNESS Jane saw Madeleine being abducted. Little doubt about it.
There is no murderer. Madeleine still lives and if the perp is wise he will keep her alive and well looked after, then he cannot be done on a murder charge. He will also maintain that she was found wandering and he rescued her.
Now I have been able to count since I was little and I make the people involved just 3 people, NOT 4, ... 4 people is a downright lie.
Why is it so important ti you that people do not believe that Madeleine was abducted?
Just why? Please give a sensible answer
.... And NEVER again say that I said there were 4 people involved. Get yourself sorted or pull out.
All IMO
I think there are loads of anomalies of which we are aware and I imagine there may just as many if not more, of which we are unaware.
For example, I find the account from the
OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTS - GEORGE BURKE BROOKS LAGOS MARINA SIGHTINGS http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GEORGE_BURKE_BROOKS.htm
to be quite disturbing. Given that it seems a witness report detailing extraordinary behaviour involving a small child which those investigating Madeleine's disappearance appear to have disregarded.
The account only appears in the police files because Rebelo tried to check it out, possibly as a result of information from the McCann family.
"Regarding the facts in question, he states that he had already contacted the OH in May of 2007 and at this time relayed to the police that at around 06H00 in the morning on the 4th May, 2007, he saw a couple passing the Marina de Lagos. The man was carrying the child. It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation."
There you have it: two eye witness reports of what could have been Madeleine McCann neither of which were given any credence by the police investigators.
One could be forgiven for wondering ~ did the investigating police really want this child to be found.
-
Totman stayed in Block 4, why would he go into Block 6?
Was there access to the rear car park behind Block 6 via the public areas, or do you think your 'watcher' was occupying one of the flats?
My opinion - Totman wasn't witness to anything unless he had inadvertently bumped into Tannerman en route and I'm sure had he done so, Scotland Yard already know all about it!
One forgets so many snippets of information though. Take the other eye witness account of a distressed little girl being dragged along in the wee small hours after Madeleine's disappearance by a man and a woman
She was described as resembling Madeleine.
The man was described as vicious-looking.
It was dark, around 6.00 am with only that group and the witness out and about.
The observer thought the demeanour of the pair was highly suspicious. But at that time he did not know about Madeleine.
Their direction of travel was towards the Lagos marina and railway station.
The witness informed the police, but they didn't take the incident seriously.- time given (6.00am)
- the description given (a toddler aged under 4)
- the alarm engendered in the witness as a result of the circumstances and the general threatening impression given by the accompanying male
Bearing in mind that information like that must surely have been highly significant in the area where they were looking for a missing child.
Doesn't really appear to have attracted too much interest at the time though. Quite extraordinary.
-
Totman stayed in Block 4, why would he go into Block 6?
Was there access to the rear car park behind Block 6 via the public areas, or do you think your 'watcher' was occupying one of the flats?
If Totman stayed in block 4 then he was walking in totally the opposite direction to Tannerman. Block 4 was way to the west of the Tannerman sighting. He was coming from East to West.
WITNESS Jane Tanner saw Tannerman walk from west to east. The opposite direction,
This proves that Totman should NOT be confused with Janes sighting of Tannerman likely carrying Madleine.
Thank you Gunit. Onc again you have helped me prove something. Well done 8((()*/
-
If Totman stayed in block 4 then he was walking in totally the opposite direction to Tannerman. Block 4 was way to the west of the Tannerman sighting. He was coming from East to West.
WITNESS Jane Tanner saw Tannerman walk from west to east. The opposite direction,
This proves that Totman should NOT be confused with Janes sighting of Tannerman likely carrying Madleine.
Thank you Gunit. Onc again you have helped me prove something. Well done 8((()*/
No need to thank me, just try to remember what I say because I've given you this information before. I assume you
don't know if the garden gates at the back of Block 6 could be used by non-residents, as you've ignored that question (again). As there's no actual evidence that any of your cast of characters existed I don't think you can claim to have proved anything.
-
No need to thank me, just try to remember what I say because I've given you this information before. I assume you
don't know if the garden gates at the back of Block 6 could be used by non-residents, as you've ignored that question (again). As there's no actual evidence that any of your cast of characters existed I don't think you can claim to have proved anything.
Heri provided a comprehensive portfolio of photographs of Luz ~ I wonder if he took any which would resolve your question regarding garden gates at the back of Block 6.
I seem to remember SIL trying out a new camera and posting photos on the forum. You might get lucky there.
Just there is so much information posted on the forum then immediately forgotten that my interest was piqued somewhat by a reference you made which nobody even picked up on at the time. https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8487.msg424645#msg424645
The 2008 report in the files re the Trevor Francis sighting of a child he was pretty sure was Madeleine was quite compelling.
Do you have any idea what steps were taken to check it out?
-
Heri provided a comprehensive portfolio of photographs of Luz ~ I wonder if he took any which would resolve your question regarding garden gates at the back of Block 6.
I seem to remember SIL trying out a new camera and posting photos on the forum. You might get lucky there.
Just there is so much information posted on the forum then immediately forgotten that my interest was piqued somewhat by a reference you made which nobody even picked up on at the time. https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8487.msg424645#msg424645
The 2008 report in the files re the Trevor Francis sighting of a child he was pretty sure was Madeleine was quite compelling.
Do you have any idea what steps were taken to check it out?
I'm asking Sadie because her watcher and getaway driver theory can't work if the car park can't be reached through those gates.
Venezuela? Why is that of interest? There were thousands of reported sightings, many of them based on the flimsiest of reasons. All those reporting them were convinced they had seen Madeleine.
-
I'm asking Sadie because her watcher and getaway driver theory can't work if the car park can't be reached through those gates.
Venezuela? Why is that of interest? There were thousands of reported sightings, many of them based on the flimsiest of reasons. All those reporting them were convinced they had seen Madeleine.
Oh, I see.
I would have thought the simplest approach if you disagree would have been to check out your supposition and make your argument refuting Sadie's theory if you could, not suggesting Sadie does the research for you.
However, everyone has their own debating style.
-
I'm asking Sadie because her watcher and getaway driver theory can't work if the car park can't be reached through those gates.
Venezuela? Why is that of interest? There were thousands of reported sightings, many of them based on the flimsiest of reasons. All those reporting them were convinced they had seen Madeleine.
Which gates are you talking about?
A bird's eye view of Block 6... rotate the view by pressing down your CTRL key simultaneously with the left mouse button, then move the mouse around to see if you can find any gate(s) to the southern car park (top of screen)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0890523,-8.7308561,68a,35y,122.79h,31.41t/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0890523,-8.7308561,68a,35y,122.79h,31.41t/data=!3m1!1e3)
Unless you've got a still photo of said gates to post instead?
-
I'm asking Sadie because her watcher and getaway driver theory can't work if the car park can't be reached through those gates.
Venezuela? Why is that of interest? There were thousands of reported sightings, many of them based on the flimsiest of reasons. All those reporting them were convinced they had seen Madeleine.
I would imagine professionals use a systemic approach to reported sightings of a missing child whether in thousands - in hundreds - or in single figures - I am sure one of which is not to disregard them all on the basis of volume or prejudice.
Certainly Leicestershire Constabulary took Trevor Francis' statement as being anything but "the flimsiest of reasons" classing it for High Priority Action.
From : Prior Stuart
Date : 9th June 2008 19.34
To : Ricardo Manuel Goncalves Paiva
Cc : Baraclough Nigel
Subject : FW : High priority Action 3895 re possible sighting of Madeleine McCann.
Sensitivity : Confidential.
And having read the hand written witness statement it is my opinion that there should indeed have been investigative "action" carried out on what at that time remained an active inquiry into a child's disappearance.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TREVOR_FRANCIS.htm
Any idea what happened to this detailed and concise evidence concerning a direct sea route from from Portugal.
Operation Grange seem to have inherited responsibility for sightings when they opened their inquiry ~ quite amazing how many of the sightings revealed under FOI did not release details into the public domain. Read into that what you will.
Snip
Potential sightings of the British three-year old – snatched in 2007 in Portugal – total 8,685 across 101 countries and territories, a Freedom of Information request for the figures showed.
Many of the sightings were collated by Portuguese cops and stamped “NFA” – No Further Action – as they believed the youngster was dead. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1989265/world-maddie-hunt-8685-potential-sightings-of-madeleine-mccann-in-101-countries/
100. VENEZUELA: May 2008: Brit Trevor Francis said he saw a girl like Madeleine with a blemish in her eye on the Island of Margarita.
-
Which gates are you talking about?
A bird's eye view of Block 6... rotate the view by pressing down your CTRL key simultaneously with the left mouse button, then move the mouse around to see if you can find any gate(s) to the southern car park (top of screen)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0890523,-8.7308561,68a,35y,122.79h,31.41t/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0890523,-8.7308561,68a,35y,122.79h,31.41t/data=!3m1!1e3)
Unless you've got a still photo of said gates to post instead?
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0886314,-8.7303574,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk_ML80cmyIU1GKAphda6OQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
-
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0886314,-8.7303574,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk_ML80cmyIU1GKAphda6OQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Block 6 is across the road from Block 5.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/zzpdlmap.jpg
-
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0886314,-8.7303574,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk_ML80cmyIU1GKAphda6OQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
You've lost me a bit there. I see a public footpath continuing towards another block of flats.
-
You've lost me a bit there. I see a public footpath continuing towards another block of flats.
Sadie insists that there was a watcher on this (1st floor or higher?) balcony to a Block 6 apartment...
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0884853,-8.7303983,3a,49.3y,320.36h,97.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3twElVDNGxJwpjnd47Musg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0884853,-8.7303983,3a,49.3y,320.36h,97.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3twElVDNGxJwpjnd47Musg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Any watcher would first have to gain access via the garden gate to that apartment, which is highly unlikely imo. Far too complicated a theory! Why just not watch 5A from street level.
-
Totman stayed in Block 4, why would he go into Block 6?
Was there access to the rear car park behind Block 6 via the public areas, or do you think your 'watcher' was occupying one of the flats?
You are right Gunit. According to *The Digital Labyrinth* which appears thoroughly researched and written by Kyal Shepard from Adelaide, South Australia ...
Dr. Totman’s apartment was G4M.. How come that so much time was wasted with us thinking that he stayed in block 6? Reams have been written about The Totman Scenario using , it seems, misinformation.
https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/tag/madeleine-mccann/ ( Thank you, Ret )
I have only read a little of this paper but I was impressed by a man who is thorough and appears to possess Lateral thinking as well as the more common Vertical thinking.
Scroll down about 60% of the report and there is a very comprehensive analysis of the Totman situation compared to waht Jane saw . Like me, Kyal is convinced that Jane DID NOT see Dr Totman. Jane saw Tannerman walk East. Dr Totman would have been walking in a westerly direction,
FGS, had it been Dr Totman, then Jane would have been closed following behid him for a fair distance in a westerly direction.
Jane WITNESSED Tannerman abducting Madeleine. This was in the couple of minutes or so after Gerry had finished his check and had been seen leaving the flat by the Watcher on the balcony of block 6.
Immediately after a children check: ,,, The Optimum time for an abduction.
Thanks for your help Gunit. Sometimes (very occasionally) you are a sweetie pie ?{)(**
-
Why not give the link, Sadie? Enough reading there to keep this place quiet for many a month...
https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide/ (https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide/)
BTW, I hope Eleanor is OK?... not witnessed her usual daily presence here since last week.
-
I'm asking Sadie because her watcher and getaway driver theory can't work if the car park can't be reached through those gates.
Venezuela? Why is that of interest? There were thousands of reported sightings, many of them based on the flimsiest of reasons. All those reporting them were convinced they had seen Madeleine.
The Watcher area being linked via Block 6 building to the rear garden and gate?
To me, it is common sense for economy of building costs and prime usage of land space, that there is only one flight of stairs for the multiple flats. These stairs will have to connect both car park at the front and also the rear communal garden with its gate directly on to the public car park immediately behind. These stairs appear to be at the front of the building so at least at ground level they will have a hallway/landing going through the building to a rear opening into the back garden. The balconies come directly off these stairs.
For economy again, if I were designing them, I would give the stack of flats next door(to the east) access to the same stairs and way through to the rear garden and parking.
Gunit. There has to be access for all flats to that rear gate and parking beyond. Also route to Baptista supermarket, town and the sea.
Yes, there is a way through. Think about it You will agree
-
Why not give the link, Sadie? Enough reading there to keep this place quiet for many a month...
https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide/ (https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide/)
BTW, I hope Eleanor is OK?... not witnessed her usual daily presence here since last week.
I Pm'd Elli about 3 days ago asking if she was OK. No responce, but I just see that it appears she logged in on the 20th. That is strange because I have been checking her log ins every day, I think without missing any.
Do hope that Elli is OK. Moon phases are against her, if I am understanding them correctly. My police sargeant told me that crime rates increase with the moon phases. It really does mess some people up.
Anyone know how she is?
-
Which gates are you talking about?
A bird's eye view of Block 6... rotate the view by pressing down your CTRL key simultaneously with the left mouse button, then move the mouse around to see if you can find any gate(s) to the southern car park (top of screen)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0890523,-8.7308561,68a,35y,122.79h,31.41t/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0890523,-8.7308561,68a,35y,122.79h,31.41t/data=!3m1!1e3)
Unless you've got a still photo of said gates to post instead?
If you go into GE Street scene, and follow the blue line until it is immediately behind Block 6, then look at the back garden wall, you will see the gate. I think it probably serves two stacks of flats (on either side of the rear exit from the block)
-
You are right Gunit. According to *The Digital Labyrinth* which appears thoroughly researched and written by Kyal Shepard from Adelaide, South Australia ...
Dr. Totman’s apartment was G4M.. How come that so much time was wasted with us thinking that he stayed in block 6? Reams have been written about The Totman Scenario using , it seems, misinformation.
I have only read a little of this papaer but I was impressed by a man who is thorough and appears to possess Lateral thinking as well as the more common Vertical thinking.
Scroll down about 60% of the report and there is a very comprehensive analysis of the Totman situation compared to waht Jane saw . Like me, Kyal is convinced that Jane DID NOT see Dr Totman. Jane saw Tannerman walk East. Dr Totman would have been walking in a westerly direction,
FGS, had it been Dr Totman, then Jane would have been closed following behid him for a fair distance in a westerly direction.
Jane WITNESSED Tannerman abducting Madeleine. This was in the couple of minutes or so after Gerry had finished his check and had been seen leaving the flat by the Watcher on the balcony of block 6.
Immediately after a children check: ,,, The Optimum time for an abduction.
Thanks for your help Gunit. Sometimes (very occasionally) you are a sweetie pie ?{)(**
There's a very good body of information named the PJ Files. That's where I learned where peope stayed, rather than consulting some random blogger.
If everyone in Block 6 could use the back gates, nobody told Neil Berry. He managed to still be using the front entrance to the block after 6 days;
I was not in block 5, but had to pass by it in order to arrive at my apartment. It is possible that I was on the other side of the street opposite block five.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm
He would then enter Block 6 from it's car park at the front and use one of it's two sets of stairs to reach his apartment.
-
There's a very good body of information named the PJ Files. That's where I learned where peope stayed, rather than consulting some random blogger.
If everyone in Block 6 could use the back gates, nobody told Neil Berry. He managed to still be using the front entrance to the block after 6 days;
I was not in block 5, but had to pass by it in order to arrive at my apartment. It is possible that I was on the other side of the street opposite block five.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm
He would then enter Block 6 from it's car park at the front and use one of it's two sets of stairs to reach his apartment.
That describes Block 6. We always thought that his flat was the one furthest east in that block, so he would use the second set of stairs. To go the front route, past 5A, would entail walking about 15 feet, or so, extra to walking the back route. We always understood his flat to be the RH one of the two with the big semicircular balcony
-
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm
Neil Berry ... When we left with the meal we took the same walk back, along the pool, crossing the road back to the apartment. I think that our apartment was 4G.
This route leads to Block 6, not block 4.
BLOCK 6 is where he always used to be
Has this webpage been altered to give flat number 4G?
Today, Gunit guided, we have learned that Dr Julien Totman stayed in Block 4. The new webpage that I quoted says in G4M. BLOCK 6 is where he always used to be
So, seems Dr Totmans family shared apartment No. 4G with Neil Berrys family ? I don't think so !
What’s going on here? Both apartments used to be in BLOCK 6. and now all of a sudden both apartments are in one flat, 4G. ... RUBBISH !!!
The police need informing of this disinformation. They are causing chaos and confusion. This could affect Justice
The website that I mentioned earlier,
https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide/
now has a warning on it that it is not safe. You will see a black triangle by the https on the top address line
Unless, of course, it has been changed back overnight in an attempt to derail and discredit me [/b] 8)-)))
-
That describes Block 6. We always thought that his flat was the one furthest east in that block, so he would use the second set of stairs. To go the front route, past 5A, would entail walking about 15 feet, or so, extra to walking the back route. We always understood his flat to be the RH one of the two with the big semicircular balcony
Yes, you have identified Berry's apartment. There's no evidence at all that he could enter at the back of Block 6.
-
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm
Neil Berry
This route leads to Block 6, not block 4.
BLOCK 6 is where he always used to be
Has this webpage been altered to give flat number 4G?
Today, Gunit guided, we have learned that Dr Julien Totman stayed in Block 4. The new webpage that I quoted says in G4M. BLOCK 6 is where he always used to be
So, seems Dr Totmans family shared apartment No. 4G with Neil Berrys family ? I don't think so !
What’s going on here? Both apartments used to be in BLOCK 6. and now all of a sudden both apartments are in one flat, 4G. ... RUBBISH !!!
The police need informing of this disinformation. They are causing chaos and confusion. This could affect Justice
The website that I mentioned earlier,
https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide/
now has a warning on it that it is not safe. You will see a black triangle by the https on the top address line
Unless, of course, it has been changed back overnight in an attempt to derail and discredit me [/b] 8)-)))
Berry misremembered, don't get excited. Berry stayed in 606 and Totman in G4M. Both entered their blocks from R Agostinho da Silva, crossing the car parks at the front to do so.
-
The website that I mentioned earlier,
https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide/ (https://somerandomstuff1.wordpress.com/2020/05/14/was-madeleine-mccann-really-abducted-the-internets-most-detailed-guide/)
now has a warning on it that it is not safe. You will see a black triangle by the https on the top address line
Unless, of course, it has been changed back overnight in an attempt to derail and discredit me 8)-)))
Ruth "Bash'em" Bashford in the comments section could be the malevolent gremlin responsible!
When I visit the site now using Firefox my default browser, the padlock with a black triangle and exclamation mark upon it appears, whereas it was fully secure yesterday. It might be something to do with hundreds of the images on that site. Scroll down for info on the black triangle here...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/mixed-content-blocking-firefox (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/mixed-content-blocking-firefox)
(https://assets-prod.sumo.prod.webservices.mozgcp.net/media/uploads/gallery/images/2021-05-06-04-55-22-88c82d.png): A padlock with a triangle indicates that Firefox is not blocking insecure passive content, such as images. By default, Firefox does not block mixed passive content; you will simply see a warning that the page isn't fully secure. Attackers may be able to manipulate parts of the page like displaying misleading or inappropriate content, but they should not be able to steal your personal data from the site.
If I visit the site using Chrome or Opera it's secure (locked padlock only), so it might be something to do with the browser you're using.
-
Here is the evidence from the PJ files of who stayed where. Berry was in 606, Curtis Brain in 607, and Nicola Cox (Balu's partner) was in 603.
-
Totman was in G4M
-
Ruth "Bash'em" Bashford in the comments section could be the malevolent gremlin responsible!
When I visit the site now using Firefox my default browser, the padlock with a black triangle and exclamation mark upon it appears, whereas it was fully secure yesterday. It might be something to do with hundreds of the images on that site. Scroll down for info on the black triangle here...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/mixed-content-blocking-firefox (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/mixed-content-blocking-firefox)
(https://assets-prod.sumo.prod.webservices.mozgcp.net/media/uploads/gallery/images/2021-05-06-04-55-22-88c82d.png): A padlock with a triangle indicates that Firefox is not blocking insecure passive content, such as images. By default, Firefox does not block mixed passive content; you will simply see a warning that the page isn't fully secure. Attackers may be able to manipulate parts of the page like displaying misleading or inappropriate content, but they should not be able to steal your personal data from the site.
If I visit the site using Chrome or Opera it's secure (locked padlock only), so it might be something to do with the browser you're using.
(https://assets-prod.sumo.prod.webservices.mozgcp.net/media/uploads/gallery/images/2021-05-06-04-55-22-88c82d.png): A padlock with a triangle indicates that Firefox is not blocking insecure passive content, such as images. By default, Firefox does not block mixed passive content; you will simply see a warning that the page isn't fully secure. Attackers may be able to manipulate parts of the page like displaying misleading or inappropriate content, but they should not be able to steal your personal data from the site.
I wonder why it is that the thread to do with Mccann finances * : Madeleine's Fund Accounts * has this image on it?
(https://assets-prod.sumo.prod.webservices.mozgcp.net/media/uploads/gallery/images/2021-05-06-04-55-22-88c82d.png):
Also every time Angelo posts (recently) this image of a padlock with a black triangle comes up at the top of the webpage.
SPOOKY!
-
There's a very good body of information named the PJ Files. That's where I learned where peope stayed, rather than consulting some random blogger.
If everyone in Block 6 could use the back gates, nobody told Neil Berry. He managed to still be using the front entrance to the block after 6 days;
I was not in block 5, but had to pass by it in order to arrive at my apartment. It is possible that I was on the other side of the street opposite block five.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm
The back entrance to Block 6, meaning almost opposite the OC Tapas reception? I believe SIL posted pictures, amongst others, showing the small gates leading to Block 6 apartments, from the back (?)
[/quote]
-
The back entrance to Block 6, meaning almost opposite the OC Tapas reception? I believe SIL posted pictures, amongst others, showing the small gates leading to Block 6 apartments, from the back (?)
Yes that's right, but could anyone use them or just those in the attached apartments as in Block 5?
-
Yes that's right, but could anyone use them or just those in the attached apartments as in Block 5?
We can't be sure of that Gunit, but we do know that in block 6 there is a connecting area between the front and the back joining the stairs and balcony areas to the rear garden and garden gate. This joining area might only be at ground level though. So someone on the first or second floor balcony might have to go downstairs before going thru'to the rear garden
The flats in block 5 are rather different, I think, maybe that is because there is a large difference in ground level between the fronts and backs of these flats. Kate and gerry were ground level at the front but first floor level at the back, with a void underneath at the rear. We do know from Mrs Fenns burglary that hat anyone cheeky enough could go up the stairs to the front doors of each flat.
I think that Block 5 is a symetrical building and the stairs appear to go up the middle. We know that Mrs Fenn had quite a walk along a balcony walkway to her flat. Presumably there is likewise a long walk at upper levels to opposite end of Block 5.
I am tired and am struggling to work out the exits at the rear, but each of the elevated ground floor flats appears to have its own steps down to their own garden and gateway. I am feeling that there is a common exit /entrance to the rear from the staircase, which is in the middle of the front of Block 5, I think. THere would be a passageway through at ground level at least. but would ask if someone would check the situation out please.
Block 5 situation is not as important as that in block 6, I think.
-
We can't be sure of that Gunit, but we do know that in block 6 there is a connecting area between the front and the back joining the stairs and balcony areas to the rear garden and garden gate. [/b]]we do know that in block 6 there is a connecting area between the front and the back joining the stairs and balcony areas to the rear garden and garden gate. (ftp://[b) This joining area might only be at ground level though. So someone on the first or second floor balcony might have to go downstairs before going thru'to the rear garden
The flats in block 5 are rather different, I think, maybe that is because there is a large difference in ground level between the fronts and backs of these flats. Kate and gerry were ground level at the front but first floor level at the back, with a void underneath at the rear. We do know from Mrs Fenns burglary that hat anyone cheeky enough could go up the stairs to the front doors of each flat.
I think that Block 5 is a symetrical building and the stairs appear to go up the middle. We know that Mrs Fenn had quite a walk along a balcony walkway to her flat. Presumably there is likewise a long walk at upper levels to opposite end of Block 5.
I am tired and am struggling to work out the exits at the rear, but each of the elevated ground floor flats appears to have its own steps down to their own garden and gateway. I am feeling that there is a common exit /entrance to the rear from the staircase, which is in the middle of the front of Block 5, I think. THere would be a passageway through at ground level at least. but would ask if someone would check the situation out please.
Block 5 situation is not as important as that in block 6, I think.
I don't know if it's possible for a non-resident to enter at the front of Block 6 and exit at the back. What makes you think it can be done?
-
I don't know if it's possible for a non-resident to enter at the front of Block 6 and exit at the back. What makes you think it can be done?
Short cut to the Tapas area and Baptistas etc.for residents of th eupper flats would be desirable. If there is any interest in this perhaps someone else can count the gates andsee if there is an extra gate to those of tghe ground floor flats.
Perhaps you can do it Gunit. 8(0(* You seem the only one interested.
-
Short cut to the Tapas area and Baptistas etc.for residents of th eupper flats would be desirable. If there is any interest in this perhaps someone else can count the gates andsee if there is an extra gate to those of tghe ground floor flats.
Perhaps you can do it Gunit. 8(0(* You seem the only one interested.
Short cuts may be desirable but it doesn't mean they exist.
My interest lies in showing that there's no evidence that a watcher exited Block 6 at the back. If he couldn't then he couldn't carry out the actions ascribed to him.
-
Short cuts may be desirable but it doesn't mean they exist.
My interest lies in showing that there's no evidence that a watcher exited Block 6 at the back. If he couldn't then he couldn't carry out the actions ascribed to him.
And this amounts to what exactly?
-
Short cuts may be desirable but it doesn't mean they exist.
My interest lies in showing that there's no evidence that a watcher exited Block 6 at the back. If he couldn't then he couldn't carry out the actions ascribed to him.
As far as I can make out from your posts your interest appears to lie in rehashing Amaral's long ago discredited theories.
If Amaral gave a passing thought to 'a criminal act by a passing stranger' it was as a precursor to getting it out of the way to allow him and his like minded team to pin the crime on his target.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary he not only remains obsessed with his obsession to the extent of writing another book centred on it. Totally weird.
Your interest in what might have happened to Madeleine appears to be constrained within the parameters of Amaral's thesis which remains unproven after fifteen years. And if not why the concentration on events and individuals who were Amaral's 2007 targets instead of strangers apparently ignored by investigators but whose CV would raise the hairs on the back of one's neck if they decided to move into the neighbourhood,
-
As far as I can make out from your posts your interest appears to lie in rehashing Amaral's long ago discredited theories.
If Amaral gave a passing thought to 'a criminal act by a passing stranger' it was as a precursor to getting it out of the way to allow him and his like minded team to pin the crime on his target.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary he not only remains obsessed with his obsession to the extent of writing another book centred on it. Totally weird.
Your interest in what might have happened to Madeleine appears to be constrained within the parameters of Amaral's thesis which remains unproven after fifteen years. And if not why the concentration on events and individuals who were Amaral's 2007 targets instead of strangers apparently ignored by investigators but whose CV would raise the hairs on the back of one's neck if they decided to move into the neighbourhood,
Really? I don't share your obsession with Amaral, sorry.
-
Really? I don't share your obsession with Amaral, sorry.
Right having got that off your chest ~ is there anything at all you would care to share regarding "The Evidence Madeleine Was Taken In A Criminal Act By A Stranger."
-
I don't know if it's possible for a non-resident to enter at the front of Block 6 and exit at the back. What makes you think it can be done?
Observation of the stair positions and the rear exit positions. An understanding of architecture; I draw plans for major extensions to present to the planning Depts,.+ common sense.
-
Observation of the stair positions and the rear exit positions. An understanding of architecture; I draw plans for major extensions to present to the planning Depts,.+ common sense.
None of which means it was possible for anyone to exit into the gardens behind Block 6. If it was possible then Berry would have used that route.
-
Where did we get to on the possibilities for TEMWTIACABAS?
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it.
3) Jane Tanner's sighting of a man, whom the police are almost certain was not Madeleine's abductor.
Please feel free to add to the list of what possible evidence the police could have, that MWTIACABAS.
-
Where did we get to on the possibilities for TEMWTIACABAS?
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it.
3) Jane Tanner's sighting of a man, whom the police are almost certain was not Madeleine's abductor.
Please feel free to add to the list of what possible evidence the police could have, that MWTIACABAS.
It sounds to me as if you have no faith in the Metropolitan Police. All you have to do is accept that they have the expertise and the evidence even if they won't share it. 8**8:/:
-
It sounds to me as if you have no faith in the Metropolitan Police. All you have to do is accept that they have the expertise and the evidence even if they won't share it. 8**8:/:
Or you can keep on making cheap, snidey posts on a backwater forum - let me guess which course of action you and the troll are going to choose.... *%87
-
Or you can keep on making cheap, snidey posts on a backwater forum - let me guess which course of action you and the troll are going to choose.... *%87
Why not just give an example of what possible EMWTIACABAS the police could have?
I mean, they must have something, right?
-
None of which means it was possible for anyone to exit into the gardens behind Block 6. If it was possible then Berry would have used that route.
Well Neil Berry and Raj Balu were out on that Big semi-circular balcony when they heard Gerry shouting as he searched. They went down to discuss it with him IIRC. Are you suggesting that they walked all the long way round?
I think not, cos Gerry was so panicky he would have rushed off searching in the time that took
Please correct me if I am remembering the fact that they went down to talk with Gerry incorrectly. There's a darling.
-
Well Neil Berry and Raj Balu were out on that Big semi-circular balcony when they heard Gerry shouting as he searched. They went down to discuss it with him IIRC. Are you suggesting that they walked all the long way round?
I think not, cos Gerry was so panicky he would have rushed off searching in the time that took
Please correct me if I am remembering the fact that they went down to talk with Gerry incorrectly. There's a darling.
Neither of them said in the police statements available that they heard Gerry shouting.
-
Where did we get to on the possibilities for TEMWTIACABAS?
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it.
3) Jane Tanner's sighting of a man, whom the police are almost certain was not Madeleine's abductor.
Please feel free to add to the list of what possible evidence the police could have, that MWTIACABAS.
1) The Mccanns know Madeleine was abducted. Proving it is the problem.
The video that I sent to OG showing a little girl who, with almost 100% certainty, was Madeleine, dancing at a Carnival event, may have convinced them. The very special thing about it was that it was exactly, EXACTLY, where from my research, I had concluded that she was likely to be.
An area less than the size of a football pitch out of the whole World and she was there. There had been talk about Madeleine having changed as she grew older and that she was now out and about. I decided to look at masked Carnivals etc in this special area and voila she was at the most important part. This was in 2012 and she wasn't masked but wore a big hat that hid her hair except for a tiny wisp.
2) You have seen the situation near Madeleines window. A window wall with a long bed then a chair with space between for just one foot possibly. Any one looking out would have had to have placed her hand on the window for support and even then have been relatively unsupported
3) It appears that the only one that thought Dr Totman was WITNESS Janes man, was Andy Redwood. What a bloomer (imo) to make, if we know the full story. He was walking in the same direction as Jane and she would have followed him for quite a distance. Andy retired soon after.
Now WS, I have explained the situation to you
PURLEAZE pack it in on these scores. They have been explained to you (over and over actually) and now personally. They should remain in your head for ever now.
Pack it in.
-
Neither of them said in the police statements available that they heard Gerry shouting.
They said it somewhere.
-
Neither of them said in the police statements available that they heard Gerry shouting.
Mysteriously, IIRC, the Neil Berry and the Raj Balu statements both went missing. I wonder why ? *%6^
Later statements seem to have been given the ole " treatment " because when you open them up, you see that the webpage is no longer secure, no *s* on the http ! Also, the padlock has an orange scoring out line. Information on that page has been tampered with, it seems.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm .... www missing!
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RAJ_BALU.htm
I am a computer ignoramus , but I do wonder why Neilo Berrys statement doesn't have the www bit in its addie like iRaj Balus does.
I rather feel that there is some dirty work afoot here Gunit. I wonder WHY?
To me, it seems as though someone wants tghe fact that Gerry was searching and was talking with Balu and Berry hiding. I wonder WHY?
Now , am I remembering it correctly that Caroline Carpenters statement also went missing. I wonder WHY? $65* &%^^
-
Mysteriously, IIRC, the Neil Berry and the Raj Balu statements both went missing. I wonder why ? *%6^
Later statements seem to have been given the ole " treatment " because when you open them up, you see that the webpage is no longer secure, no *s* on the http ! Also, the padlock has an orange scoring out line. Information on that page has been tampered with, it seems.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm .... www missing!
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RAJ_BALU.htm
I am a computer ignoramus , but I do wonder why Neilo Berrys statement doesn't have the www bit in its addie like iRaj Balus does.
I rather feel that there is some dirty work afoot here Gunit. I wonder WHY?
To me, it seems as though someone wants tghe fact that Gerry was searching and was talking with Balu and Berry hiding. I wonder WHY?
Now , am I remembering it correctly that Caroline Carpenters statement also went missing. I wonder WHY? $65* &%^^
I'm not into conspiracy theories, so I have no thoughts about insecure websites. I also have no idea why some people's early statements are missing. Not just Berry, Balu and Caroline Carpenter's, but Steven Carpenter and Carole Tranmer's also. My thoughts are; they weren't passed on by LP, they were mislaid by the PJ, they were withheld by the PJ for one of the reason listed, or they were withheld by request of the UK police's lawyers. Take your pick.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm
-
I'm resurrecting this thread.
I'm interested what can be added to the list of possible evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
To recap, the question is...
What possible evidence could there be, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
The evidence thus far..
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it
3) Jane Tanner's sighting of a man, whom the police are almost certain was not Madeleine's abductor.
Anyone care to add to this list?
And remember, insults are not evidence.
-
I'm interested what can be added to the list of possible evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
To recap, the question is...
What possible evidence could there be, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
The evidence thus far..
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it
3) Jane Tanner's sighting of a man, whom the police are almost certain was not Madeleine's abductor.
Anyone care to add to this list?
And remember, insults are not evidence.
Büsching?
-
Büsching?
No sorry. I forgot to mention that this evidence must have existed pre 2010. Because Redwood told us circa 2010 that the expert investigators believed, on the evidence, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
Buschings testimony belongs on the evidence against Christian Brueckner thread.
-
No sorry. I forgot to mention that this evidence must have existed pre 2010. Because Redwood told us circa 2010 that the expert investigators believed, on the evidence, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
Buschings testimony belongs on the evidence against Christian Brueckner thread.
Oops! Okay.
-
No sorry. I forgot to mention that this evidence must have existed pre 2010. Because Redwood told us circa 2010 that the expert investigators believed, on the evidence, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
Buschings testimony belongs on the evidence against Christian Brueckner thread.
Something badly wrong with your dates here WS.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
Met Police logo
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
-
Something badly wrong with your dates here WS.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
Met Police logo
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
2011, yes sorry, one year out. I was only going from memory, it was late & I'd taken my sedative drugs ready for bedtime. Anyway, as of 2011, we're expected to believe that the MET found EMWTIACABAS. The question remains, what possible EMWTIACABAS could the police have discovered?
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted.
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it.
3) Jane Tanner's sighting of a man, whom the police are almost certain was not Madeleine's abductor.
I'm going to add....
4) 8000 sightings of Madeleine
5) Helpful information from psychics
6) Various, dubious confessions e.g Raymond Hewlett
-
I'm resurrecting this thread.
I'm interested what can be added to the list of possible evidence Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
To recap, the question is...
What possible evidence could there be, that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
The evidence thus far..
1) The McCanns claim Madeleine was abducted
2) An allegedly open window, that had Kate's prints on it
3) Jane Tanner's sighting of a man, whom the police are almost certain was not Madeleine's abductor.
Anyone care to add to this list?
And remember, insults are not evidence.
Smithman. (Gerry was in Tapas bar at time of this sighting)
PJ believed Madeleine had been abducted 7/5/07
https://www.portugalresident.com/the-pj-give-details-of-suspect/ (who was that suspect?)
-
Not sure that Smithman is evidence that Madeleine was taken by a stranger, only evidence that some as yet unidentified man was seen carrying a small child.
-
Not sure that Smithman is evidence that Madeleine was taken by a stranger, only evidence that some as yet unidentified man was seen carrying a small child.
So Smithman is only evidence if he's Gerry carrying a (dead) Madeleine but not if he's an unidentified man carrying a child who resembled Madeleine? Righty-ho...
-
So Smithman is only evidence if he's Gerry carrying a (dead) Madeleine but not if he's an unidentified man carrying a child who resembled Madeleine? Righty-ho...
Never mentioned Gerry. Read more carefully next time.
-
Never mentioned Gerry. Read more carefully next time.
I know you didn't mention Gerry. Smithman being Gerry is crucial to the PJ hypothesis, though - so when is evidence not actually evidence?
-
I know you didn't mention Gerry. Smithman being Gerry is crucial to the PJ hypothesis, though - so when is evidence not actually evidence?
When it can't be Proven. Which it cannot.
-
Never mentioned Gerry. Read more carefully next time.
But you never actually remark that "Smithman isn't evidence Gerry dumped Madeleine a bin, only evidence of some yet unidentified man carrying a small child" do you? Odd that...
-
When it can't be Proven. Which it cannot.
So you'd agree there's no evidence Madeleine was abducted?
-
So you'd agree there's no evidence Madeleine was abducted?
Loads of pointers that in other cases would be considered evidence
But for some strange reason, in this case, they are are not
I wonder why there is a different set of rules for this case?
Have you forgotten the list of pointers, I gave you, WS? So soon.
Why, WS ? What's the reason?
-
Loads of pointers that in other cases would be considered evidence
But for some strange reason, in this case, they are are not
I wonder why there is a different set of rules for this case?
Have you forgotten the list of pointers, I gave you, WS? So soon.
Why, WS ? What's the reason?
No, your pointers are not evidence. Furthermore, evidence is only evidence when it can be proven, according to misty & Eleanor.
-
No, your pointers are not evidence. Furthermore, evidence is only evidence when it can be proven, according to misty & Eleanor.
Jane Tanners sighting is evidence that Madeleine was abducted.
My video is extremely strong evidence that Madeleine still lived in 2012. A moving picture of her over a period.
Psychics all agreeing that Madeleine still lives. They know when someone dies.
-
Jane Tanners sighting is evidence that Madeleine was abducted.
My video is extremely strong evidence that Madeleine still lived in 2012. A moving picture of her over a period.
Psychics all agreeing that Madeleine still lives. They know when someone dies.
No, I'm sorry sadie. Derek Acorah's spirit guide, Sam, said Madeleine is dead. The evidence against Christian B confirms that. Derek Acorah is now dead too. I wonder if he saw that coming?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-is-dead-derek-acorah-833385
-
No, I'm sorry sadie. Derek Acorah's spirit guide, Sam, said Madeleine is dead. The evidence against Christian B confirms that. Derek Acorah is now dead too. I wonder if he saw that coming?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-is-dead-derek-acorah-833385
Talking if BS..
I've heard Grimes trained a new dog that detects BS....he's having difficulty using him though because every time Grime goes near him he won't stop barking
-
Jane Tanners sighting is evidence that Madeleine was abducted.
My video is extremely strong evidence that Madeleine still lived in 2012. A moving picture of her over a period.
Psychics all agreeing that Madeleine still lives. They know when someone dies.
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child, that's all. Your video showed a child you thought looked like Madeleine, just as thousands of other people thought they saw her. Psychic's opinions have no evidential value.
-
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child, that's all. Your video showed a child you thought looked like Madeleine, just as thousands of other people thought they saw her. Psychic's opinions have no evidential value.
You're absolutely right on this occasion but what you say supports the McCann's.
Martin Smith saw a man carrying a child who he thought could be GN and MM. As reliable as any other sighting
-
You're absolutely right on this occasion but what you say supports the McCann's.
Martin Smith saw a man carrying a child who he thought could be GN and MM. As reliable as any other sighting
What I said shows that Sadie's 'evidence' isn't actually evidence.
-
What I said shows that Sadie's 'evidence' isn't actually evidence.
Sadie's seeing a video which she thought may be Maddie is evidence...that's fact not opinion. After 15 years you still don't understand what evidence is...which doesn't say a lot for your opinions
-
Sadie's seeing a video which she thought may be Maddie is evidence...that's fact not opinion. After 15 years you still don't understand what evidence is...which doesn't say a lot for your opinions
No, according to Eleanor, & the 4 members who liked her comment, evidence isn't evidence unless it can be proven. Maybe have a chat with your lot about when evidence is & isn't evidence, because they don't understand either.
-
Sadie's seeing a video which she thought may be Maddie is evidence...that's fact not opinion. After 15 years you still don't understand what evidence is...which doesn't say a lot for your opinions
It's Sadie's opinion, of no use whatsoever in a criminal investigation.
-
It's Sadie's opinion, of no use whatsoever in a criminal investigation.
Is Martin Smith's claim not an opinion then?
-
It's Sadie's opinion, of no use whatsoever in a criminal investigation.
Or your opinion either. Or mine for that matter. So what are we all doing here?
It's actually the nastiness that I find difficult to cope with.
-
Or your opinion either. Or mine for that matter. So what are we all doing here?
It's actually the nastiness that I find difficult to cope with.
Maybe stop being nasty then.
-
Is Martin Smith's claim not an opinion then?
His opinion that the man he saw could have been Gerry McCann? Just like Sadie's opinion that she saw a video of Madeleine McCann it would need to be proved.
-
It's Sadie's opinion, of no use whatsoever in a criminal investigation.
Both Sadie's and Smith's were opinion..
Neither seem important to the investigation
-
What I said shows that Sadie's 'evidence' isn't actually evidence.
You tie yourself up in oxymoron with every post.
Sadie's video is evidence. It might prove relevant or it might prove irrelevant when checked. But nonetheless it is evidence.
One wonders how many cases would ever be solved if witness reports of events are to be summarily ignored and derided instead of being evaluated.
-
His opinion that the man he saw could have been Gerry McCann? Just like Sadie's opinion that she saw a video of Madeleine McCann it would need to be proved.
Is it of any use to the investigation though? You seem to be the arbiter so do tell…
-
His opinion that the man he saw could have been Gerry McCann? Just like Sadie's opinion that she saw a video of Madeleine McCann it would need to be proved.
The files give an almost mirrored rendition of the McCluskey and Smith mistaken identification.
One wonders why two witness statements voicing almost identical opinions didn't provide slam dunk verification.
I've seen it alleged that the expert on scape goats was prevented from carrying on with his investigation. Interesting thought, that one!
-
It's Sadie's opinion, of no use whatsoever in a criminal investigation.
We won't mention the Rif Mountains in Morocco for obvious reasons 8(8-))
-
Is Martin Smith's claim not an opinion then?
He made a genuine observation and went out of his way to report it to the PJ via the Irish Garda.
Unfortunately, he was vilified for doing the right thing.
-
He made a genuine observation and went out of his way to report it to the PJ via the Irish Garda.
Unfortunately, he was vilified for doing the right thing.
could you point out who has vilified him...he reported what he belived he saw. the criticis is for those who see his statement as a fairly certain ID of Gerry...it isnt
-
He made a genuine observation and went out of his way to report it to the PJ via the Irish Garda.
Unfortunately, he was vilified for doing the right thing.
Who in this case hasn’t been vilified by one side or the other?! Every single member of the Tapas group, the nannies, the police of every nationality, the reporters, the pastor, the McCanns family and backers Tasmin Sillence, her father, Mrs Fenn, her niece, need I go on?
-
The files give an almost mirrored rendition of the McCluskey and Smith mistaken identification.
One wonders why two witness statements voicing almost identical opinions didn't provide slam dunk verification.
I've seen it alleged that the expert on scape goats was prevented from carrying on with his investigation. Interesting thought, that one!
As I recall the people McClusky saw were identified. Despite the woman speaking in Portuguese, Mr McClusky thought she could be Kate McCann too!
-
Sadie's seeing a video which she thought may be Maddie is evidence...that's fact not opinion. After 15 years you still don't understand what evidence is...which doesn't say a lot for your opinions
Yep and it seems that SY thought a good deal of it because it was the only file actually featured on the Crimewatch special Madeleine edition.
And seems that they still have an interest there because even now, they are searching for a MISSING Madeleine, Not a dead Madeleine, like the German and the Portuguese police.. And did I recently read that the BKA are no longer searching solely for a dead Madeleine
Maybe, OG have shared my video and my reasonings (facts and logic) with them? Is that the reason why their searching is no longer JUST for a dead Madeleine?
Also respected psychics such as Matt James believe her to still be alive.
BTW, Many Anthropologists study the phenomena of psychics and witchcraft /wizardry/ancient religions (particularly Eastern/ African /Egyptian /Scandiwegian-German / other Ancient religions) etc.at University as part of their degree course.
Witchcraft /Wizardry largely disappeared in Europe in the late 1600's, when it had been rife for a couple of Centuries. On the internet there are reports that it is rearing its ugly head again.
J K Rowling experienced sorcery and I have too, in recent months. Very nasty. The work of weak individuals who crave power IMO ... Bullies.
-
As I recall the people McClusky saw were identified. Despite the woman speaking in Portuguese, Mr McClusky thought she could be Kate McCann too!
Mr MCluskey and Mr Smith made almost identical assertions regarding the male carrying the female child. Worth bearing in mind that no-one else backed Mr Smith's opinion which was made some time after Mr McCluskey made his.
-
No, according to Eleanor, & the 4 members who liked her comment, evidence isn't evidence unless it can be proven. Maybe have a chat with your lot about when evidence is & isn't evidence, because they don't understand either.
The video is with SY. There is a known place and a known date/time. This place was logically worked out before I searched for Madeleine and it came up virtually immediately when I put the relevant words into Google.
Maybe, SY have checked it out and someone has squealed ? *%6^
Dunno, but it is interesting that they too, think it likely that Madeleine is still alive. It is also interesting that there was a wizard in the video, sneaking in at the last moment. $65*
-
We won't mention the Rif Mountains in Morocco for obvious reasons 8(8-))
Why are you so keen that the identification of Madeleine (and seemingly Joana C) at Zinat in the Rif Mountains are ridiculed, John ?
-
Why are you so keen that the identification of Madeleine (and seemingly Joana C) at Zinat in the Rif Mountains are ridiculed, John ?
I think that particular fake news was well and truly debunked Sadie.
Or to put it another way, that particular ship has sailed.
-
I think that particular fake news was well and truly debunked Sadie.
A huge attempt was made, John.
But it was never debunked. The obvoius shone out at people when they saw the photo of that little girl on The wo/mans back
Why has the article thyat I twice posted on here about *European Business Men keeping Harems of children in N Africa* been wiped from the forum?
It has also been wiped from the internet as far as I can see.
Why ??
-
Mr MCluskey and Mr Smith made almost identical assertions regarding the male carrying the female child. Worth bearing in mind that no-one else backed Mr Smith's opinion which was made some time after Mr McCluskey made his.
In his 13/09/07 statement McClusky said;
Having viewed recent media coverage regarding the investigation, Mr McClusky now states that the female he saw and described is Mrs McCann( the missing child's mother). He states he is "almost certain" that they are the same person and has agonised for days over what to do and whether to contact Police.
Smith reported his thoughts to the police a week later, on 20/09/07.
-
In his 13/09/07 statement McClusky said;
Having viewed recent media coverage regarding the investigation, Mr McClusky now states that the female he saw and described is Mrs McCann( the missing child's mother). He states he is "almost certain" that they are the same person and has agonised for days over what to do and whether to contact Police.
Smith reported his thoughts to the police a week later, on 20/09/07.
I am familiar with Mr and Mrs McCluskey's statements. As I said already "Mr MCluskey and Mr Smith made almost identical assertions regarding the male carrying the female child. Worth bearing in mind that no-one else backed Mr Smith's opinion which was made some time after Mr McCluskey made his."
Worth noting from the original statements of both is that ~- neither was capable of describing the child carrier
- both "recognised" the similarity of the method of carrying from television news broadcasts of the family disembarking from a plane
The dates of reporting are also interesting. And not only due to the fact that having watched tv news covering the same event the McCluskey statement was in police hands a full week before Mr Smith's, who seems to operate a time gap method between observation and reporting as this supplementary addition and the original attest.
Mr McCluskey witnessed an incident involving a child carrying man which he went to great pains to inform the police about immediately knowing that a child had gone missing days before.
Mr Smith witnessed a churlish child carrier who did not return his wife's greeting on passing. It took a fortnight before that was reported to the police.
-
I am familiar with Mr and Mrs McCluskey's statements. As I said already "Mr MCluskey and Mr Smith made almost identical assertions regarding the male carrying the female child. Worth bearing in mind that no-one else backed Mr Smith's opinion which was made some time after Mr McCluskey made his."
Worth noting from the original statements of both is that ~- neither was capable of describing the child carrier
- both "recognised" the similarity of the method of carrying from television news broadcasts of the family disembarking from a plane
The dates of reporting are also interesting. And not only due to the fact that having watched tv news covering the same event the McCluskey statement was in police hands a full week before Mr Smith's, who seems to operate a time gap method between observation and reporting as this supplementary addition and the original attest.
Mr McCluskey witnessed an incident involving a child carrying man which he went to great pains to inform the police about immediately knowing that a child had gone missing days before.
Mr Smith witnessed a churlish child carrier who did not return his wife's greeting on passing. It took a fortnight before that was reported to the police.
The PJ were able to identify the couple seen by the McClusky's. The man seen by the Smiths has never been identified.
-
The PJ were able to identify the couple seen by the McClusky's. The man seen by the Smiths has never been identified.
Quite.
-
TIMELINESS
PJ continues to assist German authorities in investigation of maddie mccann's disappearance
German MP claims that charges against the prime suspect in Maddie's murder will not be ready until 2024.
Morning Mail| 11:47
Facebook
Twitter
Send by email
...More sharing options
The Judicial Police continues to assist the German authorities in the case of Madeleine McCann, the girl who disappeared in the Algarve in 2007, while still maintaining a team in Porto that is dedicated to the investigation.
The indictment against Christian Brückner, the prime suspect in Maddie's murder, won't be ready until 2024. "The investigation is ongoing, but it will take much longer. Maybe we won't finish it this year," German Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told the Express. The delay in prosecuting the suspect is related to the fact that steps are still taking place in different countries, sources close to the case say.
Hans Christian Wolters even claimed that he was sure brückner "is Maddie's killer".
Christian Brückner, 45, was convicted in 2019 of a rape of an older woman. The crime occurred in Portugal and the rapist is serving a seven-year prison sentence in Germany. Brückner had previously been convicted of various crimes, including child sexual abuse.
https://www.cm-tv.pt/atualidade/detalhe/pj-continua-a-ajudar-as-autoridades-alemas-na-investigacao-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-mccann?ref=Atualidade_DestaquesPrincipais
-
TIMELINESS
PJ continues to assist German authorities in investigation of maddie mccann's disappearance
German MP claims that charges against the prime suspect in Maddie's murder will not be ready until 2024.
Morning Mail| 11:47
Facebook
Twitter
Send by email
...More sharing options
The Judicial Police continues to assist the German authorities in the case of Madeleine McCann, the girl who disappeared in the Algarve in 2007, while still maintaining a team in Porto that is dedicated to the investigation.
The indictment against Christian Brückner, the prime suspect in Maddie's murder, won't be ready until 2024. "The investigation is ongoing, but it will take much longer. Maybe we won't finish it this year," German Prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told the Express. The delay in prosecuting the suspect is related to the fact that steps are still taking place in different countries, sources close to the case say.
Hans Christian Wolters even claimed that he was sure brückner "is Maddie's killer".
Christian Brückner, 45, was convicted in 2019 of a rape of an older woman. The crime occurred in Portugal and the rapist is serving a seven-year prison sentence in Germany. Brückner had previously been convicted of various crimes, including child sexual abuse.
https://www.cm-tv.pt/atualidade/detalhe/pj-continua-a-ajudar-as-autoridades-alemas-na-investigacao-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-mccann?ref=Atualidade_DestaquesPrincipais
Website will not open for me Brie,
https://www.cm-tv.pt/atualidade/detalhe/pj-continua-a-ajudar-as-autoridades-alemas-na-investigacao-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-mccann?ref=Atualidade_DestaquesPrincipais
Could there be information on the website about which other countries are still investigating and maybe in what directions? If so, that would be interesting.
-
Website will not open for me Brie,
https://www.cm-tv.pt/atualidade/detalhe/pj-continua-a-ajudar-as-autoridades-alemas-na-investigacao-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-mccann?ref=Atualidade_DestaquesPrincipais
Could there be information on the website about which other countries are still investigating and maybe in what directions? If so, that would be interesting.
Eureka! This morning the above webpage opens as normal