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: Redblossom on May 02, 2013, 08:24:36 PM
-
What is the evidence?
Discuss
BBL
-
The most potent evidence is 7 or 8 sightings of a man seen carrying a child at least one of whom (Afoe Smith) believes, with a fairly high degree of probability, might have been Madeleine -- at a time when Gerry is established as having been in the restaurant.
There was also unattributed DNA from the apartment that conceivably might have been from the abductor, and the fact that the McCanns were prompt in raising the alarm.
The McCanns were also widely attested to be relaxed and jovial during the evening, not at all the demeanours of a couple hiding some dreadful secret.
-
The McCanns say so
... and that is all there is
-
The McCanns say so
... and that is all there is
For someone who supports Debunker's definition re: evidence being all information pertaining to the case, even false information, I'm surprised to read what you have written above.
I am not dismissing evidence for abduction, I am pointing out that the McCanns are, invariably, it's source
The open window, for instance, is certainly evidence of an intruder in the apartment
How do we know the window was open ? ... the McCanns say so
Jane tanner spotting a child wearing the same pyjamas Madeleine was weraing when she went to bed that night, is evidence of a possible abduction
How do we know they were the same pyjamas Madeleine was wearing ? ... because the McCanns say so
Any evidence of abduction always come back to the McCanns as it's source
-
The McCanns say so
... and that is all there is
For someone who supports Debunker's definition re: evidence being all information pertaining to the case, even false information, I'm surprised to read what you have written above.
I am not dismissing evidence for abduction, I am pointing out that the McCanns are, invariably, it's source
The open window, for instance, is certainly evidence of an intruder in the apartment
How do we know the window was open ? ... the McCanns say so
Jane tanner spotting a child wearing the same pyjamas Madeleine was weraing when she went to bed that night, is evidence of a possible abduction
How do we know they were the same pyjamas Madeleine was wearing ? ... because the McCanns say so
Any evidence of abduction always come back to the McCanns as it's source
They might be right, but all those are McCann facts.
-
Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?
Total hypocrisy on their part.
-
The most potent evidence is 7 or 8 sightings of a man seen carrying a child at least one of whom (Afoe Smith) believes, with a fairly high degree of probability, might have been Madeleine -- at a time when Gerry is established as having been in the restaurant.
Unfortunately there is no evidence of this, partly because the alert time isn't well established.
-
The McCanns say so
... and that is all there is
For someone who supports Debunker's definition re: evidence being all information pertaining to the case, even false information, I'm surprised to read what you have written above.
I am not dismissing evidence for abduction, I am pointing out that the McCanns are, invariably, it's source
The open window, for instance, is certainly evidence of an intruder in the apartment
How do we know the window was open ? ... the McCanns say so
Jane tanner spotting a child wearing the same pyjamas Madeleine was weraing when she went to bed that night, is evidence of a possible abduction
How do we know they were the same pyjamas Madeleine was wearing ? ... because the McCanns say so
Any evidence of abduction always come back to the McCanns as it's source
But what evidence do you have that the McCanns are not telling the truth?
Incidentally one of the Warner staff also saw the open window. Anne someone? Sorry can't recall her other name at the moment.
-
Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?
Total hypocrisy on their part.
Are we ignoring ? Total provocation on your part.
-
The McCanns say so
... and that is all there is
For someone who supports Debunker's definition re: evidence being all information pertaining to the case, even false information, I'm surprised to read what you have written above.
I am not dismissing evidence for abduction, I am pointing out that the McCanns are, invariably, it's source
The open window, for instance, is certainly evidence of an intruder in the apartment
How do we know the window was open ? ... the McCanns say so
Jane tanner spotting a child wearing the same pyjamas Madeleine was weraing when she went to bed that night, is evidence of a possible abduction
How do we know they were the same pyjamas Madeleine was wearing ? ... because the McCanns say so
Any evidence of abduction always come back to the McCanns as it's source
But what evidence do you have that the McCanns are not telling the truth?
Incidentally one of the Warner staff also saw the open window. Anne someone? Sorry can't recall her other name at the moment.
I know who you mean, she was someone Tierney, we don't know which time she saw the shutters open nor how open they were. Remember Mr McCann immediately checked whether the shutters were openable from outside, destroying partly the crime scene.
-
of course it was all discussed here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1158.0
icabodcrane
Abduction ... what is the evidence ?
« on: April 06, 2013, 04:58:59 PM »
-
Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?
Total hypocrisy on their part.
Are we ignoring ? Total provocation on your part.
What provocation? Are you accusing me of something?
-
The McCanns say so
... and that is all there is
For someone who supports Debunker's definition re: evidence being all information pertaining to the case, even false information, I'm surprised to read what you have written above.
I am not dismissing evidence for abduction, I am pointing out that the McCanns are, invariably, it's source
The open window, for instance, is certainly evidence of an intruder in the apartment
How do we know the window was open ? ... the McCanns say so
Jane tanner spotting a child wearing the same pyjamas Madeleine was weraing when she went to bed that night, is evidence of a possible abduction
How do we know they were the same pyjamas Madeleine was wearing ? ... because the McCanns say so
Any evidence of abduction always come back to the McCanns as it's source
But what evidence do you have that the McCanns are not telling the truth?
Incidentally one of the Warner staff also saw the open window. Anne someone? Sorry can't recall her other name at the moment.
I know who you mean, she was someone Tierney, we don't know which time she saw the shutters open nor how open they were. Remember Mr McCann immediately checked whether the shutters were openable from outside, destroying partly the crime scene.
Yes - thankyou for that Anne. I believe Miss Tierney was one of the first to enter 5A. and IIRC she also made a search? I think we can forgive Gerry McCann for not regarding the scene through cold clinical eyes as a crime scene in those first few moments. Well I can anyway. Unfortunately we cannot say the same about the GNR/dogs etc who also contributed to the contamination of 5A but were not in the same emotional state as the McCanns and their friends and as police officers should have known better.
-
Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?
Total hypocrisy on their part.
The Smiths did not see an abductor ... they saw a man carrying a child
The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw
-
I think we can forgive Gerry McCann for not regarding the scene through cold clinical eyes as a crime scene in those first few moments. Well I can anyway. Unfortunately we cannot say the same about the GNR/dogs etc who also contributed to the contamination of 5A but were not in the same emotional state as the McCanns and their friends and as police officers should have known better.
Well, Benice, for the same reason you forgive Mr McCann, I'm amazed a cultured man manipulated a piece of evidence instead of running like a mad man sobbing and screaming his adored daughter's name.
Numi, if I may, was brought inside in order to find a trail ! Unfortunately they didn't open the patio doors, so we don't know where the freshest trail started.
-
Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?
Total hypocrisy on their part.
The Smiths did not see an abductor ... they saw a man carrying a child
The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw
Exactly as I stated, a "potential abductor".
Your deliberate ignorance of the other evidence of a potential abductor is very interesting.
Your deliberate over emphasis of what Mr Smith said is also very interesting. He did not say he thinks it was Gerry. He says that he believes it was possibly Gerry McCann.
The way you have treated this evidence of a potential abductor for your own purposes is absolutely despicable. My own view is that all the Smith testimony is valid evidence of a potential abduction.
-
Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?
Total hypocrisy on their part.
The Smiths did not see an abductor ... they saw a man carrying a child
The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw
Exactly as I stated, a "potential abductor".
Your deliberate ignorance of the other evidence of a potential abductor is very interesting.
Your deliberate over emphasis of what Mr Smith said is also very interesting. He did not say he thinks it was Gerry. He says that he believes it was possibly Gerry McCann.
The way you have treated this evidence of a potential abductor for your own purposes is absolutely despicable. My own view is that all the Smith testimony is valid evidence of a potential abduction.
Gilet, how can you insist on this ? The nine members of the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl ! Had they seen an abductor, they would have stopped him for sure !
-
Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?
Total hypocrisy on their part.
The Smiths did not see an abductor ... they saw a man carrying a child
The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw
Exactly as I stated, a "potential abductor".
Your deliberate ignorance of the other evidence of a potential abductor is very interesting.
Your deliberate over emphasis of what Mr Smith said is also very interesting. He did not say he thinks it was Gerry. He says that he believes it was possibly Gerry McCann.
The way you have treated this evidence of a potential abductor for your own purposes is absolutely despicable. My own view is that all the Smith testimony is valid evidence of a potential abduction.
Gilet, how can you insist on this ? The nine members of the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl ! Had they seen an abductor, they would have stopped him for sure !
Are you really asking such a ludicrous question? I can hardly believe it.
As a lecturer in languages, surely you can read clearly enough to realise that at no point have I said this family saw an abductor? I have stated that they saw a potential abductor.
At the time they saw this man carrying a child they had no idea that a child was missing.
By asking such a silly question you really not contributing to debate here.
And by deliberately playing down this clear evidence of a potential abductor without giving any reason for that dismissal, then you are showing your lack of interest in real truth.
-
Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?
Total hypocrisy on their part.
The Smiths did not see an abductor ... they saw a man carrying a child
The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw
Exactly as I stated, a "potential abductor".
Your deliberate ignorance of the other evidence of a potential abductor is very interesting.
Your deliberate over emphasis of what Mr Smith said is also very interesting. He did not say he thinks it was Gerry. He says that he believes it was possibly Gerry McCann.
The way you have treated this evidence of a potential abductor for your own purposes is absolutely despicable. My own view is that all the Smith testimony is valid evidence of a potential abduction.
Gilet, how can you insist on this ? The nine members of the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl ! Had they seen an abductor, they would have stopped him for sure !
Are you really asking such a ludicrous question? I can hardly believe it.
As a lecturer in languages, surely you can read clearly enough to realise that at no point have I said this family saw an abductor? I have stated that they saw a potential abductor.
At the time they saw this man carrying a child they had no idea that a child was missing.
By asking such a silly question you really not contributing to debate here.
And by deliberately playing down this clear evidence of a potential abductor without giving any reason for that dismissal, then you are showing your lack of interest in real truth.
Really sad to read this.
Try and experiment asking Aoife whether she saw or not a potential abductor ! And why not a potential undertaker ?
-
Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.
If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.
Why are you posting such nonsense?
The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.
The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.
-
Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.
If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.
Why are you posting such nonsense?
The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.
The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.
Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !
-
Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.
If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.
Why are you posting such nonsense?
The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.
The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.
Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !
You can bet your head or your feet. Of course at the moment of the sighting I would have seen only a man carrying a child.
But I bet both my head and my feet that immediately on hearing of the disappearance of a missing child I would have considered (and the vast majority of people would have considered) the possibility that such a man carrying a child in a direction away from the place where a child disappeared at almost exactly the same time as the disappearance might have been an abductor. In English that would be a potential abductor.
The more you try to pretend that he was not a potential abductor the more ludicrous you appear. And if you really think it is funny to throw in the idea of an undertaker carrying a young child's body around the streets in his arms at 10pm then I am glad that I do not share your sense of humour.
-
Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.
If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.
Why are you posting such nonsense?
The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.
The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.
Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !
You can bet your head or your feet. Of course at the moment of the sighting I would have seen only a man carrying a child.
But I bet both my head and my feet that immediately on hearing of the disappearance of a missing child I would have considered (and the vast majority of people would have considered) the possibility that such a man carrying a child in a direction away from the place where a child disappeared at almost exactly the same time as the disappearance might have been an abductor. In English that would be a potential abductor.
The more you try to pretend that he was not a potential abductor the more ludicrous you appear. And if you really think it is funny to throw in the idea of an undertaker carrying a young child's body around the streets in his arms at 10pm then I am glad that I do not share your sense of humour.
Gilet, your sense of humour has to go to bed, meiner Ansicht nach.
The question of whether an abductor or a father or an uncle or... no I'm not saying it this time, I'm sparing you..., isn't the witness' problem. The witness is supposed to say what he/she saw, not to interpret it. Got it ?
-
Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.
If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.
Why are you posting such nonsense?
The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.
The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.
Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !
You can bet your head or your feet. Of course at the moment of the sighting I would have seen only a man carrying a child.
But I bet both my head and my feet that immediately on hearing of the disappearance of a missing child I would have considered (and the vast majority of people would have considered) the possibility that such a man carrying a child in a direction away from the place where a child disappeared at almost exactly the same time as the disappearance might have been an abductor. In English that would be a potential abductor.
The more you try to pretend that he was not a potential abductor the more ludicrous you appear. And if you really think it is funny to throw in the idea of an undertaker carrying a young child's body around the streets in his arms at 10pm then I am glad that I do not share your sense of humour.
Gilet, your sense of humour has to go to bed, meiner Ansicht nach.
The question of whether an abductor or a father or an uncle or... no I'm not saying it this time, I'm sparing you..., isn't the witness' problem. The witness is supposed to say what he/she saw, not to interpret it. Got it ?
But didn't Mr. Smith put his own interpretation on the way Gerry was carrying his child from the plane? You don't seem to have a problem with that.
-
Isn't it remarkable that Anne Guedes and Icabodcrane are ignoring the clear evidence of a potential abductor from the Smith family?
Total hypocrisy on their part.
The Smiths did not see an abductor ... they saw a man carrying a child
The only significance in their evidence in probative terms is that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw
...that Mr Smith thinks it was Gerry he saw
I'll lay odds that's the wrong tense.
I doubt he thinks the same now ...
-
I think we can forgive Gerry McCann for not regarding the scene through cold clinical eyes as a crime scene in those first few moments. Well I can anyway. Unfortunately we cannot say the same about the GNR/dogs etc who also contributed to the contamination of 5A but were not in the same emotional state as the McCanns and their friends and as police officers should have known better.
Well, Benice, for the same reason you forgive Mr McCann, I'm amazed a cultured man manipulated a piece of evidence instead of running like a mad man sobbing and screaming his adored daughter's name.
Numi, if I may, was brought inside in order to find a trail ! Unfortunately they didn't open the patio doors, so we don't know where the freshest trail started.
I think you will find there is ample evidence of GM's escalating panic and fear as he searched frantically for his daughter - from several witnesses.
I'm amazed that anyone would expect him to think and behave like a policeman at such a time.
IMO that was the GNR's sole responsibility.
-
AnneGuedes
Numi, if I may, was brought inside in order to find a trail ! Unfortunately they didn't open the patio doors, so we don't know where the freshest trail started.
I am struggling to understand that.
-
Your questions are becoming even more ludicrous.
If you believe undertakers carry children's bodies around the streets in their arms then I don't think even feeling sad about your post expresses my contempt for such idiocy.
Why are you posting such nonsense?
The witness statements of the Smith family could relate to a potential abductor of a child who had gone missing at almost the same time as the man was seen.
The fact that you are trying to suggest otherwise is pointless unless you can express good reasons as to why it could not have been an abductor. To bring in the idiotic claim about undertakers as your logic is pathetic.
Gilet, your sense of humour needs some brushing and your propensity to insult some limitation. I repeat and will always repeat it : the Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl. End point. Now if you had been there I bet you also would only have seen a man carrying a little girl. I bet my head !
You can bet your head or your feet. Of course at the moment of the sighting I would have seen only a man carrying a child.
But I bet both my head and my feet that immediately on hearing of the disappearance of a missing child I would have considered (and the vast majority of people would have considered) the possibility that such a man carrying a child in a direction away from the place where a child disappeared at almost exactly the same time as the disappearance might have been an abductor. In English that would be a potential abductor.
The more you try to pretend that he was not a potential abductor the more ludicrous you appear. And if you really think it is funny to throw in the idea of an undertaker carrying a young child's body around the streets in his arms at 10pm then I am glad that I do not share your sense of humour.
Gilet, your sense of humour has to go to bed, meiner Ansicht nach.
The question of whether an abductor or a father or an uncle or... no I'm not saying it this time, I'm sparing you..., isn't the witness' problem. The witness is supposed to say what he/she saw, not to interpret it. Got it ?
But didn't Mr. Smith put his own interpretation on the way Gerry was carrying his child from the plane? You don't seem to have a problem with that.
Mr Smith had a feeling, Benice, that the man he had seen could be X. As this is not a fact, it can't be interpreted. Unless Mr X says "it was me", Mr Smith's feeling has no value in court, but could orientate the police towards an abductor with Mr X's gait. Too late.
-
There were sightings of a man hanging around the apartment seen by witnesses.
Where is this man? why hasn't he come forward?
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child.
The Smiths saw a man carrying a child.
Both Jane Tanner and the Smiths describe the man and the child, that they saw. The description of the man and child are almost the same. Same light coloured trousers. Same dark top. The man didn't look like a tourist. The child was blonde, the child was not a baby about 3/4 years old. The child was barefoot. These sightings are therefore evidence that it could have been Madeleine being abducted.
There are witnesses to say that Gerry McCann was at the Tapas Bar when the Smiths saw the man carrying the child. That rules Gerry out as being the man that the Smiths saw.