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: sadie on June 13, 2013, 12:12:10 PM
Title: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2013, 12:12:10 PM
Luz
You live locally to PdL
Who was it that was bragging about defacing all the posters put up in PdLuz about Madeleine being missing? About three years ago ... or so
Posters put up in an effort to find her, but deliberately defaced.
Someone was even trying to paint out the address of who to contact, so that information could NOT get through to the PI's /Mccann team?
Any idea who that was?
Thank you
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2013, 12:23:00 PM
Well well well
Have just sent Luz a PM about this thread asking him to answer it on the thread ..... and he has vanished !!!
Wonder why? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 13, 2013, 12:32:12 PM
Have you put a poster in your local supermarket ? And if so for how long was it kept there ?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2013, 12:36:28 PM
I have put posters up in Tenerife and in the little island of La palma.
Both likely spots for Madeleine to have possibly been taken.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2013, 12:41:22 PM
This is about who defaced the posters put up about Madeleine in PdL, especially by blotting out the Mccann contact number.
Didn't want her found OR didn't want the perp found
Toerag
And why has Luz suddenly vanished? Without answering my question? Why did she vansh immediately the PM went?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: DCI on June 13, 2013, 01:30:15 PM
I have put posters up in Tenerife and in the little island of La palma.
Both likely spots for Madeleine to have possibly been taken.
If for instance you lived in Leeds, could you put a poster in the local supermarket without asking permission and for how long would the permission last ?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 13, 2013, 02:31:56 PM
If for instance you lived in Leeds, could you put a poster in the local supermarket without asking permission and for how long would the permission last ?
Can you answer this, Sadie ? Luz is likely enjoying Santo Antonio's day. Saint Anthony was born in Lisbon and died in Padua. Though he was an intellectual in his time, he's prayed in particular for helping recovering what has been lost. Like Madeleine and Joana.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2013, 03:06:59 PM
Can you answer this, Sadie ? Luz is likely enjoying Santo Antonio's day. Saint Anthony was born in Lisbon and died in Padua. Though he was an intellectual in his time, he's prayed in particular for helping recovering what has been lost. Like Madeleine and Joana.
I have no idea Anne
Irrelevant to someone setting out to maliciously destroying posters of a missing child.
And especially obliterating the contact address for anyoine who saw anything.
NOW THAT IS SUSPICIOUS
Dontcha think?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 13, 2013, 04:05:42 PM
I answered your question and you promised to answer mine immediately, but nothing so far
The question
Are you a mother, Anne? Do you have children?
And I will, but you didn't answer my question, sorry ! If for instance you lived in Leeds, could you put a poster in the local supermarket without asking permission and for how long would the permission last ?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Mrs. B on June 13, 2013, 08:03:13 PM
The defacing of the posters was a disgraceful activity & some equally disgraceful people supported it.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 13, 2013, 08:09:05 PM
Is paranoia the new in thing? how do you know a few yobs just didnt deface a poster, and suggesting that poster was defaced to prevent people knowing the number to call to protect the perpetrator is utterly ridiculous at best, as anyone who wanted to call police or even the mccanns could soooo easily find the info online or by ringing their local police
You are so entertainly funny sometimes, bless, but sometimes you are make disgusting veiled suggestions, its not funny at all 8((()*/
I know that becos [ censored word] boasted about it at the time.
Luz is local she tells us.
because of that she is likely to know who did it. I am only asking her who it was that did it.
simples
Why get all hot under the collar about it, Red?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Mrs. B on June 13, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
As I said, disgraceful people, disgraceful acts.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Jazzy on June 14, 2013, 07:43:29 PM
I remember that happening. Sickening.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: stephen25000 on June 14, 2013, 08:38:28 PM
Tell me which is worse. What these people did, or what the mccanns did, for several nights in a row, leaving their children undefended and unprotected, whilst they wined and dined ?
Tough choice isn't it ?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Redblossom on June 14, 2013, 09:00:05 PM
It was obviously a protest against the parents and what their campaign had done to the country, OR a random chav attack, no big deal, just another poster, after all the mccanns spent 80 grand for posters in the iberian peninsula, im sure this particular one didnt stop the perpetrator getting caught, doh
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 15, 2013, 12:46:41 AM
Tell me which is worse. What these people did, or what the mccanns did, for several nights in a row, leaving their children undefended and unprotected, whilst they wined and dined ?
Tough choice isn't it ?
If you faced reality Stephen. Many families leave their children with a regular checking system in hotels. Most trust the hotel or holiday camp staff to do it for them and I believe the staff only listen outside the door.
The Mccanns thought that the window and shutters were safe and the front door was locked. You conveniently keep forgetting that the Mccns were within sight of the only door, the patio door, that was unlocked .... and at 50 metres were well within hailing distance.
I know what it was like. I have been there and eaten a meal in that outside restaurant.
It was just like in our own back garden which was exactly 50 metres long. We could stand chatting over the fence with our backs to the house and hear immediately if we were called. We lived on the main ring road and there were road noises in the background. But no probs.
A mother hears the sound of her own children above everything else
edited: correcting spacings and spelling
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 15, 2013, 12:57:08 AM
And I will, but you didn't answer my question, sorry ! If for instance you lived in Leeds, could you put a poster in the local supermarket without asking permission and for how long would the permission last ?
Anne, I have no idea, but I have successfully put up Madeleine posters in Tenerife and on the little Canarian island of La palma ... with no problems from anyone and no defacing.
Seems you dont have children, and seems that you think it is OK to deface posters put up by grieving parents to try and find their much loved little girl. The welfare of this little girl and her parents doesn't seem to matter to you.
Why? you are human are you not?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Jazzy on June 15, 2013, 11:20:53 AM
Tell me which is worse. What these people did, or what the mccanns did, for several nights in a row, leaving their children undefended and unprotected, whilst they wined and dined ?
Tough choice isn't it ?
What would make it a tough choice?
Leaving young children alone, especially at night, is reprehensible.
It happened and the consequence was one of them went missing.
In an attempt to find her, posters were placed in the area. Defaced by strangers who bragged about it online. They defaced posters pleading for help in returning a missing child, obscured phone numbers.
Equally reprehensible.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Jazzy on June 15, 2013, 11:36:22 AM
It was obviously a protest against the parents and what their campaign had done to the country, OR a random chav attack, no big deal, just another poster, after all the mccanns spent 80 grand for posters in the iberian peninsula, im sure this particular one didnt stop the perpetrator getting caught, doh
A protest over what the parent's campaign had done to the country? What was that then? Economic ruin? Civil war? The brink of collapse?
It wasn't just one, was it? It was an attempt to show contempt for the Mccanns and their please to find their missing child. Their missing child at that point was irrelevant. A missing four year old girl, early days into the case, real hope she could be found. Not even factored into the equation when those posters were defaced.
It wasn't random at all, it was boasted about, congratulated and championed in certain parts of cyberspace.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 20, 2013, 09:43:20 PM
LUZ
The opening post bumped for you
======================================
Luz
You live locally to PdL
Who was it that was bragging about defacing all the posters put up in PdLuz about Madeleine being missing? About three years ago ... or so
Posters put up in an effort to find her, but deliberately defaced.
Someone was even trying to paint out the address of who to contact, so that information could NOT get through to the PI's /Mccann team?
Any idea who that was?
Thank you
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 20, 2013, 10:26:15 PM
Luz Pm'd me few days ago and said she would answer it, but she didn't and she has vanished again!
Seems she has something to hide.
Was it Luz that was behind all the posters being defaced in Pdl, then?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Mrs. B on June 21, 2013, 12:42:19 PM
Sadie I have reported your crass smear campaign against Luz. You may be old and foolish but that is really no excuse for your disgusting insinuations. Not so long ago you were telling me I was Portuguese and possibly involved in Madeleine's abduction @)(++(*
Faithlilly I could have reported you for five things in that post above, but I have only reported three things
1) Your accusations that I had a Smear campaign against Luz and had made supposedly disgusting insinuations. Seems that several of us read about it and that Luz WAS a main perpetrator. Swanking about it on the 3A's, or MM. Somebody will have screen shots of that. 2) Foolish, I am not .... abusive words to try and win an argument ... an argument that was lost. 3) Infering that I said you were Portuguese on the forum. I have no idea whether you are, or not... and have never said that. Please prove that statement Nothing to be ashamed of tho' being Portuguese ... the vast majority are lovely people 4) Stating that I had implied that you might be involved in Madeleines abduction. Again I have never thought that, becos' i think I know who did it ... and it wasn't you, unless you are a certain person. Nah, I dont think so. Please prove that statement of yours too.
5) And, of course, deliberately taking this thread off course, to hide its real purpose. Obfuscation by making stuff up and trying to put me down in several ways.. To take the readers eye off what is really important.
Luz lives locally. Did she have anything to do with the defacement of the posters, put up and showing a little missing girl, Madeleine Mccann?
Worse still, did she deliberately paint spray / deface the contact number from the posters, the number for the Mccann investigators?
If so, why? Did she want them NOT to find her? There has to be a reason.
Who would do such a thing?
Waiting for Luz to make her explanations ... or deny everything.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on June 22, 2013, 12:04:54 AM
@ sadie
You really are deluded enough to think that Luz owes you an explanation about anything, aren't you ?
That you can't remember our previous encounter and the accusations you levelled at me at that time says it all really.
...... moderated .....
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on June 22, 2013, 12:26:22 AM
Bottom line is Luz has chosen not to answer Sadie's question, that is her choice and it is unacceptable behaviour for Sadie to badger Luz because of it.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Chinagirl on June 22, 2013, 12:34:34 AM
Tell me which is worse. What these people did, or what the mccanns did, for several nights in a row, leaving their children undefended and unprotected, whilst they wined and dined ?
Tough choice isn't it ?
No it isn't a tough choice Stephen.
Who ever defaced the poster's of Madeleine were hitting out at a missing child.
Kate said they can take criticism aimed at them, but here you have people aiming it at Madeleine. As Madeleine is the one who lost out by what they did.
If the public cannot see her face and the phone number to which to place their call if they see her, then it is Madeleine who was not given the opportunity of being found.
It was a really disgusting act to deface the poster's to get back at the McCann's for something they believed they had done. BELIEVED they had done, that is, they were not charged for the crime, not put on trial for the crime, not sentenced for the crime, but these people just BELIEVED they were guilty of the crime.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 22, 2013, 12:29:12 PM
It's certainly bad taste to deface the posters but it isn't good taste either to force people seeing them : the image of Madeleine has been sufficiently hammered in people's brains and call simply the 112 will do.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Mrs. B on June 22, 2013, 01:10:51 PM
FGS What normal people go around defacing posters because they don't want to see them? If you don't want to see, don't LOOK! Defending the indefensible.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: DCI on June 22, 2013, 01:18:03 PM
It's certainly bad taste to deface the posters but it isn't good taste either to force people seeing them : the image of Madeleine has been sufficiently hammered in people's brains and call simply the 112 will do.
Well, that disgusting remark, just about takes the biscuit 8()(((@# So you would rather Madeleine not be found, Anne?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 22, 2013, 02:21:12 PM
Well, that disgusting remark, just about takes the biscuit 8()(((@# So you would rather Madeleine not be found, Anne?
I can't even reply you overinterpretate, DCI. I find this just monstrous.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Chinagirl on June 22, 2013, 11:34:06 PM
Agree with the above posters. Don't press this point any further, Sadie. The offensive comment we reported has been moderated by John, so there is no longer an issue.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on June 23, 2013, 12:10:06 AM
Who was it that was bragging about defacing all the posters put up in PdLuz about Madeleine being missing? About three years ago ... or so
Posters put up in an effort to find her, but deliberately defaced.
Someone was even trying to paint out the address of who to contact, so that information could NOT get through to the PI's /Mccann team?
Any idea who that was?
Thank you
When I posted that i knew that Luz lived locally and had some interest in what went on, but I wasn't totally sure what.
The very fact that she has immedaitely run away from all my Pm's and posts, points to the fact that she was heavily involved. In fact it now seems that she is the one who bragged about doing it.
If that is the case and she defaced posters of Madeleine and most especially the contact number to the Mccann Investigators, then she obviously didn't want Madeleine found. Didn't want a little missing girl found. Sheesh.
If she is responsible, then she should be prepared for a visit from Carter Ruck and SY officers ... becos the destruction of the posters (some would have been extremely expensive) was a criminal act .... and that is the kindest thing that can be said about it.
On the other hand, on a humane level it is deplorable. Why bully the family of a little missing girl? Why bully the little girl herself? Why try and prevent her being found?
There has to be a reason why she did this if, in fact, it happened ... and with so many witnesses, it seems it did. If I were a SY Officer, I would be very interested in that reason.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 23, 2013, 01:08:54 AM
As to the defacing of the posters, SY have no power in Portugal, Carter Ruck even less so I really can't see how they'd be much help bringing the perpetrators to justice.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 23, 2013, 01:26:21 AM
As to the defacing of the posters, SY have no power in Portugal, Carter Ruck even less so I really can't see how they'd be much help bringing the perpetrators to justice.
So SY do have some power in PT. Have you read yesterdays Telegraph?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: John on June 23, 2013, 01:31:40 AM
So SY do have some power in PT. Have you read yesterdays Telegraph?
Scotland Yard have no authority outside of their own jurisdiction and certainly not outside of England. They can seek the assistance of another police force in another country but that is where it ends regardless of the idiots at the Telegraph.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: icabodcrane on June 23, 2013, 01:40:25 AM
Scotland Yard have no authority outside of their own jurisdiction and certainly not outside of England. They can seek the assistance of another police force in another country but that is where it ends regardless of the idiots at the Telegraph.
So what does that mean with regard to the CPS Head and her deputy being in Portugal in April
Do you think the 'telegraphed' shift of authority from the Portuguese police to Scotland Yard is an indication that the 'persons of interest' identified are in the UK ?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on June 23, 2013, 01:47:03 AM
So what does that mean with regard to the CPS Head and her deputy being in Portugal in April
Do you think the 'telegraphed' shift of authority from the Portuguese police to Scotland Yard is an indication that the 'persons of interest' identified are in the UK ?
I think that's exactly what it indicates Icabod.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: ferryman on June 23, 2013, 01:30:19 PM
So what does that mean with regard to the CPS Head and her deputy being in Portugal in April
Do you think the 'telegraphed' shift of authority from the Portuguese police to Scotland Yard is an indication that the 'persons of interest' identified are in the UK ?
It looks like the CPS are attempting to salvage something from the ashes of the former investigation and are merely pursuing a damage limitation exercise.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Jazzy on June 23, 2013, 02:50:28 PM
Possibly, but it also possible that the information released by SY and the CPS that there are new avenues of investigation to be persued means that collaboration/discussion/information is required.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Carana on June 23, 2013, 04:03:11 PM
Possibly, but it also possible that the information released by SY and the CPS that there are new avenues of investigation to be persued means that collaboration/discussion/information is required.
I would have thought that a joint investigation would warrant a meeting by homologues at prosecution level at some point as well. What's odd about that?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Mrs. B on June 24, 2013, 07:59:55 PM
I would have thought that a joint investigation would warrant a meeting by homologues at prosecution level at some point as well. What's odd about that?
Nothing at all IMO, could also be persons of interest may have dual nationalities.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on June 28, 2013, 11:02:25 PM
Not when you're daughter is missing assumed abducted.
But the lawyer's point of view is different. His/her mission is first to protect his/her client. Whether this concept of protection extends to his/her client's affects is another issue.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on June 29, 2013, 11:44:27 AM
Not when you're daughter is missing assumed abducted.
Unfortunately the 48 questions had nothing to do with Madeleine being ''missing assumed abducted'' - but everything to do with fitting up her mother. Her lawyer was correct to advise her not to answer them.
If you actually read the questions, it is quite clear that many of them had already been asked and answered before.
IIRC one question was... 'Do you work shift work'.... (or words to that effect). What bearing has that got on Madeleine's abduction Faith, if you really think the questions were being asked in relation to her abduction?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on June 29, 2013, 12:02:58 PM
Unfortunately the 48 questions had nothing to do with Madeleine being ''missing assumed abducted'' - but everything to do with fitting up her mother. Her lawyer was correct to advise her not to answer them.
If you actually read the questions, it is quite clear that many of them had already been asked and answered before.
IIRC one question was... 'Do you work shift work'.... (or words to that effect). What bearing has that got on Madeleine's abduction Faith, if you really think the questions were being asked in relation to her abduction?
Her lawyer was correct, as was Gerry's. He however decided to answer his questions. Seems he suffered no further adverse constraints to his freedom because of it.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 29, 2013, 12:07:30 PM
The first questions had to do with the discovery of Madeleine's disappearance. It was interesting to know where Mrs McCann had searched.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 29, 2013, 12:18:38 PM
Her lawyer was correct, as was Gerry's. He however decided to answer his questions. Seems he suffered no further adverse constraints to his freedom because of it.
Wasn't it the same lawyer ? I always thought that he wanted essentially to avoid conflicting answers or self incriminating ones, which could mean he wasn't convinced his clients weren't involved. He chose the cautious and not the audacious way, was he right ? A good lawyer doesn't contemplate whether his/her client is telling a truthful story or not, his/her job is to defend his/her client's position, whatever it is.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on June 29, 2013, 12:19:55 PM
Her lawyer was correct, as was Gerry's. He however decided to answer his questions. Seems he suffered no further adverse constraints to his freedom because of it.
This is true Faith, but if Kate's lawyer had even the tiniest inkling that it was the mother who they were gunning for rather than Gerry, then it was his duty to legally protect her and take no chances.
Kate did not refuse to answer the questions because she couldn't or she didn't want to - she was following her lawyer's advice, and as he had all the knowledge about Portugese law and she didn't - then she was very wise to do so imo.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 29, 2013, 12:53:36 PM
Certainly "very wise" in the short term (they freely went back to the UK when they decided to). Perhaps not in the long run, because, though most of these questions were in fact answered through dozens of interviews, the general feeling remains that an uninvolved mother wouldn't have feared for herself first thing. Besides it seems difficult to understand why, when the hated inspector Amaral was dismissed, she didn't spontaneously offer to answer the questions instead of writing to the new coordinator a letter that wasn't even answered.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on June 29, 2013, 01:03:42 PM
Certainly "very wise" in the short term (they freely went back to the UK when they decided to). Perhaps not in the long run, because, though most of these questions were in fact answered through dozens of interviews, the general feeling remains that an uninvolved mother wouldn't have feared for herself first thing. Besides it seems difficult to understand why, when the hated inspector Amaral was dismissed, she didn't spontaneously offer to answer the questions instead of writing to the new coordinator a letter that wasn't even answered.
As far as I am concerned Anne, the 48 questions is just another stick to beat Kate with. For all we know SY may have gone over those questions with Kate - and anyone reading them would know she would have no trouble in answering them. Personally I doubt that has happened - but if it has, then we wouldn't know.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 29, 2013, 01:28:27 PM
Unfortunately the 48 questions had nothing to do with Madeleine being ''missing assumed abducted'' - but everything to do with fitting up her mother. Her lawyer was correct to advise her not to answer them.
If you actually read the questions, it is quite clear that many of them had already been asked and answered before.
IIRC one question was... 'Do you work shift work'.... (or words to that effect). What bearing has that got on Madeleine's abduction Faith, if you really think the questions were being asked in relation to her abduction?
Which were the questions of the *many* as you alledge, that she had already answered? As far as I read and comprehend, the only questions she replied to with *as I said before* were to do withthedog findings, not any other questions
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 29, 2013, 06:07:11 PM
Which were the questions of the *many* as you alledge, that she had already answered? As far as I read and comprehend, the only questions she replied to with *as I said before* were to do withthedog findings, not any other questions
We know where she didn't search at least. She didn't look into the parking, either from the window or from the corridor nor did call Madeleine's name. This is what amazed me from the very beginning. Her daughter could be there, harmed, and wouldn't answer unless hearing mum's voice.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on June 29, 2013, 06:22:47 PM
Which were the questions of the *many* as you alledge, that she had already answered? As far as I read and comprehend, the only questions she replied to with *as I said before* were to do withthedog findings, not any other questions
Well look at the first one for a start Red - are you telling me that at that late stage of the game, this was the first time they'd ever asked Kate those questions? Surely they couldn't be THAT inept.
Quote 1. 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? End quote
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Rachel Granada on June 29, 2013, 07:01:36 PM
This is true Faith, but if Kate's lawyer had even the tiniest inkling that it was the mother who they were gunning for rather than Gerry, then it was his duty to legally protect her and take no chances.
Kate did not refuse to answer the questions because she couldn't or she didn't want to - she was following her lawyer's advice, and as he had all the knowledge about Portugese law and she didn't - then she was very wise to do so imo.
Indeed, Benice. I would have done exactly the same thing myself, followed my lawyer's advice. Kate McCann must have been terrified, and in my opinon, had she been guilty of anything she would have broken down and confessed when confronted with the "forensic evidence" (that the PJ didn't actually have....)
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: DCI on June 29, 2013, 07:09:45 PM
Indeed, Benice. I would have done exactly the same thing myself, followed my lawyer's advice. Kate McCann must have been terrified, and in my opinon, had she been guilty of anything she would have broken down and confessed when confronted with the "forensic evidence" (that the PJ didn't actually have....)
Yes Rachel, but only if she had been on her own, at the police station. 8(>((
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Rachel Granada on June 29, 2013, 07:25:28 PM
We know where she didn't search at least. She didn't look into the parking, either from the window or from the corridor nor did call Madeleine's name. This is what amazed me from the very beginning. Her daughter could be there, harmed, and wouldn't answer unless hearing mum's voice.
You weren't there when Kate discovered Madeleine was missing - nobody was - so how do you know she didn't call out for Madeleine, or look into the car park from the window?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on June 30, 2013, 08:58:48 AM
Indeed, Benice. I would have done exactly the same thing myself, followed my lawyer's advice. Kate McCann must have been terrified, and in my opinon, had she been guilty of anything she would have broken down and confessed when confronted with the "forensic evidence" (that the PJ didn't actually have....)
I agree with you Rachel. I have slightly mixed feelings over whether it is right for police officers to lie to 'suspects' to elicit a confession, but on balance I think it's acceptable - as it involves no physical violence.
The McCanns would both know that a 100% DNA match would be irrefutable evidence, and if they were guilty of disposing of Madeleine's body then I am sure they would have realised the game was up at that moment. They would know there was no point in trying to get round such evidence. A 100 percent DNA match would have been 'game over' and they would know that to deny it would only be delaying the inevitable.
The fact that they did not break down and confess but continued to insist on their innocence even after that irrefutable 'evidence' was claimed to exist, should have told Amaral that he was barking up the wrong tree.
Unfortunately even if Amaral did realise that - he was simply not prepared to admit it as 'saving his face' was more important to him - and so he was not going to back down. You only have to read his book to know that. IMHO.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on June 30, 2013, 10:53:05 AM
I agree with you Rachel. I have slightly mixed feelings over whether it is right for police officers to lie to 'suspects' to elicit a confession, but on balance I think it's acceptable - as it involves no physical violence.
The McCanns would both know that a 100% DNA match would be irrefutable evidence, and if they were guilty of disposing of Madeleine's body then I am sure they would have realised the game was up at that moment. They would know there was no point in trying to get round such evidence. A 100 percent DNA match would have been 'game over' and they would know that to deny it would only be delaying the inevitable.
The fact that they did not break down and confess but continued to insist on their innocence even after that irrefutable 'evidence' was claimed to exist, should have told Amaral that he was barking up the wrong tree.
Unfortunately even if Amaral did realise that - he was simply not prepared to admit it as 'saving his face' was more important to him - and so he was not going to back down. You only have to read his book to know that. IMHO.
The more you post Benice the more it becomes clear that you know nothing about DNA or human nature.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on June 30, 2013, 11:13:06 AM
The more you post Benice the more it becomes clear that you know nothing about DNA or human nature.
I don't have to know anything about DNA Faith, I have the Forensic Reports by the experts to go by.
Funny you should mention human nature, as I've noticed that you seem to think it's perfectly normal human nature for NINE people to change from being decent, ordinary, law abiding, loving parents one minute - into criminally insane sociopathic monsters the next and for no credible believable reasons whatsoever. If in your life experience that is an example of human nature - then I'm surprised.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on June 30, 2013, 11:44:47 AM
I don't have to know anything about DNA Faith, I have the Forensic Reports by the experts to go by.
Funny you should mention human nature, as I've noticed that you seem to think it's perfectly normal human nature for NINE people to change from being decent, ordinary, law abiding, loving parents one minute - into criminally insane sociopathic monsters the next and for no credible believable reasons whatsoever. If in your life experience that is an example of human nature - then I'm surprised.
As I said you seem to know nothing about human nature.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 30, 2013, 11:53:41 AM
And I would say this is notwithstanding the unique interesting point here.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Rachel Granada on June 30, 2013, 05:27:26 PM
I agree with you Rachel. I have slightly mixed feelings over whether it is right for police officers to lie to 'suspects' to elicit a confession, but on balance I think it's acceptable - as it involves no physical violence.
The McCanns would both know that a 100% DNA match would be irrefutable evidence, and if they were guilty of disposing of Madeleine's body then I am sure they would have realised the game was up at that moment. They would know there was no point in trying to get round such evidence. A 100 percent DNA match would have been 'game over' and they would know that to deny it would only be delaying the inevitable.
The fact that they did not break down and confess but continued to insist on their innocence even after that irrefutable 'evidence' was claimed to exist, should have told Amaral that he was barking up the wrong tree.
Unfortunately even if Amaral did realise that - he was simply not prepared to admit it as 'saving his face' was more important to him - and so he was not going to back down. You only have to read his book to know that. IMHO.
Hi Benice, I agree with you on all points apart from the police lying to elicit a confession from suspects.
I really believe that had Kate and Gerry McCann been guilty of anything, then they would have cracked when confronted with the "100% DNA match". The McCanns are not hardened master criminals, they are ordinary people who have probably never seen the inside of a police station before all this. As you have said, had they been guilty then they would have known that the game was up if they were told that a 100% DNA match had been found.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Rachel Granada on June 30, 2013, 05:29:23 PM
What are the possible results of mutations resulting in different triplet codes ?
You can try to bamboozle the forum all you like with what you may fondly imagine to be enigmatic posts... however, the cold, hard truth is that the PJ got it wrong with their interpretation of the DNA results.
Are we now going to have to suffer more 15/19 marker rubbish?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Rachel Granada on June 30, 2013, 07:11:21 PM
You can try to bamboozle the forum all you like with what you may fondly imagine to be enigmatic posts... however, the cold, hard truth is that the PJ got it wrong with their interpretation of the DNA results.
Are we now going to have to suffer more 15/19 marker rubbish?
I agree with you Rachel. I have slightly mixed feelings over whether it is right for police officers to lie to 'suspects' to elicit a confession, but on balance I think it's acceptable - as it involves no physical violence.
The McCanns would both know that a 100% DNA match would be irrefutable evidence, and if they were guilty of disposing of Madeleine's body then I am sure they would have realised the game was up at that moment. They would know there was no point in trying to get round such evidence. A 100 percent DNA match would have been 'game over' and they would know that to deny it would only be delaying the inevitable.
The fact that they did not break down and confess but continued to insist on their innocence even after that irrefutable 'evidence' was claimed to exist, should have told Amaral that he was barking up the wrong tree.
Unfortunately even if Amaral did realise that - he was simply not prepared to admit it as 'saving his face' was more important to him - and so he was not going to back down. You only have to read his book to know that. IMHO.
An excellent post Benice. 8@??)(
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Rachel Granada on June 30, 2013, 07:51:48 PM
You were taking the pizz out of the PJ, when you clearly know nothing at all.
As to 'genetic markers', would you care to explain precisely what is meant by this term ?
I will not reply to you after this, stephen. You consistently swerve difficult questions, and your "enigmatic" posts add nothing to the the debate, as far as I am concerned. Cold hard facts again - the so-called DNA evidence that the PJ thought they had were worthless. Not even enough to arrest the McCanns.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: DCI on June 30, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
I will not reply to you after this, stephen. You consistently swerve difficult questions, and your "enigmatic" posts add nothing to the the debate, as far as I am concerned. Cold hard facts again - the so-called DNA evidence that they PJ
Its just another tactic, Rachel, with the intention, to wreck threads.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Rachel Granada on June 30, 2013, 07:59:57 PM
I will not reply to you after this, stephen. You consistently swerve difficult questions, and your "enigmatic" posts add nothing to the the debate, as far as I am concerned. Cold hard facts again - the so-called DNA evidence that the PJ thought they had were worthless. Not even enough to arrest the McCanns.
No what you don't get amongst others, is that the dogs indicated something occurred in the apartment.
The results of the D.N.A. were inconclusive.
Just to remind you, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEAN A CRIME DIDN'T OCCUR.
The abductor scenario, is just hot air, without an ounce of proof.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: stephen25000 on June 30, 2013, 08:02:12 PM
No what it is, is the alternative you can't bear to hear, due to your almost religious support of the Mccanns, which I find quite disturbing.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/swearing/talk-to-the-hand-text-smiley-emoticon.gif) (http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html) Cos the face ain't listening!
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: stephen25000 on June 30, 2013, 08:15:30 PM
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/swearing/talk-to-the-hand-text-smiley-emoticon.gif) (http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html) Cos the face ain't listening!
You did.
You replied. @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Redblossom on June 30, 2013, 08:16:16 PM
Well look at the first one for a start Red - are you telling me that at that late stage of the game, this was the first time they'd ever asked Kate those questions? Surely they couldn't be THAT inept.
Quote 1. 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? End quote
Kate Mccann was only originally interviewed on May 4 when she gave an initial general rudimentary account of events in general, as did most others, she was never interviewed in detail on May 10 or so when the others all were, it seems the PJ never had the chance to interview her in detail, so your assertion that she gave answers to most of those questions already is just not true, thats all.
She did though by some accounts,as well as Gerry, get interrogated some time in August after the dogs were brought in, before the arguido interviews, what was asked then and what was said no one knows, but fact remains, You cant say with no evidence that she answered most of the questions before. In fact, logically, if she had, she would have no problem answering them again. Clearly MOST questions in the arguido interview had not been asked before, thats all Im saying.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Jazzy on June 30, 2013, 08:17:38 PM
No what you don't get amongst others, is that the dogs indicated something occurred in the apartment.
The results of the D.N.A. were inconclusive.
Just to remind you, ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEAN A CRIME DIDN'T OCCUR.
The abductor scenario, is just hot air, without an ounce of proof.
If you believe that - then why do you keep claiming (ad nauseum) that as there is ''no evidence of an abduction'' - that crime didn't occur? You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: John on June 30, 2013, 08:44:17 PM
Her lawyer advised her not to respond to the questions during the arguido interview.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Redblossom on June 30, 2013, 09:54:46 PM
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 30, 2013, 10:36:23 PM
Quote
Benice on Today at 08:58:48 AM A 100 percent DNA match would have been 'game over' and they would know that to deny it would only be delaying the inevitable.
The fact that they did not break down and confess but continued to insist on their innocence even after that irrefutable 'evidence' was claimed to exist, should have told Amaral that he was barking up the wrong tree.
If you believe that - then why do you keep claiming (ad nauseum) that as there is ''no evidence of an abduction'' - that crime didn't occur? You can't have it both ways.
So I assume that this would be acceptable to Steve
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION DOES NOT MEAN AN ABDUCTION DIDN'T OCCUR
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on June 30, 2013, 10:54:45 PM
It must be - as he has gone to the trouble to remind us twice tonight that :
Absence of Evidence does not mean a crime didn't occur.
Why don't you keep in mind what the AG said -- the crime (if any) couldn't be determined -- and stop assuming there was an abduction. Everything could have been.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on June 30, 2013, 11:26:07 PM
Why don't you keep in mind what the AG said -- the crime (if any) couldn't be determined -- and stop assuming there was an abduction. Everything could have been.
Well why don't you tell me what you think happened Anne - if you don't think Madeleine was abducted.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on June 30, 2013, 11:34:07 PM
Well why don't you tell me what you think happened Anne - if you don't think Madeleine was abducted.
I of course don't know, Benice, what happened to Madeleine. I find it difficult to believe she was abducted from bed, but she could have been abducted from a public place. I prefer to stick to the AG's report : we ignore the nature of the crime which resulted in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This means that the abduction from bed is only one hypothesis, there are many others. The trouble with the pro, isn't that they're pro (I have nothing against it) but that they only believe in the abduction from bed.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 01, 2013, 01:37:59 AM
I of course don't know, Benice, what happened to Madeleine. I find it difficult to believe she was abducted from bed, but she could have been abducted from a public place. I prefer to stick to the AG's report : we ignore the nature of the crime which resulted in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This means that the abduction from bed is only one hypothesis, there are many others. The trouble with the pro, isn't that they're pro (I have nothing against it) but that they only believe in the abduction from bed.
give us some other hypotheses please Anne, with a few facts thrown in.
Am listening.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: John on July 01, 2013, 01:51:48 AM
The case wasn't closed, merely shelved, if new evidence emerges.
Meanwhile arguido status can be invoked up to 20 years after the event.
A small child went missing from that apartment, the rest is police business.
The case was shelved in Portugal, but Scotland Yard are investigating now.
Amaral worked so hard to get those parents arrested for the disappearance of their child and even with his bias, he couldn't do it, there was nothing to implicate them.
Let's wait and see if the arguido status is invoked in the coming decade.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: stephen25000 on July 01, 2013, 07:38:24 AM
A small child went missing from that apartment, the rest is police business.
The case was shelved in Portugal, but Scotland Yard are investigating now.
Amaral worked so hard to get those parents arrested for the disappearance of their child and even with his bias, he couldn't do it, there was nothing to implicate them.
Let's wait and see if the arguido status is invoked in the coming decade.
Not just Amaral, as you well know. It was the view of the PJ.
Try to remember it was the UK police who told the PJ to investigate the Mccanns.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on July 01, 2013, 07:51:13 AM
Not just Amaral, as you well know. It was the view of the PJ.
Try to remember it was the UK police who told the PJ to investigate the Mccanns.
The family are always the first to be investigated in order to be 'ruled in' or 'ruled out'. It's basic police procedure. The fact that course of action had to be suggested to him by the UK police, is even more proof of his ineptitude imo.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: stephen25000 on July 01, 2013, 07:53:13 AM
The family are always the first to be investigated in order to be 'ruled in' or 'ruled out'. It's basic police procedure. The fact that course of action had to be suggested to him by the UK police, is even more proof of his ineptitude imo.
How do you know that ?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on July 01, 2013, 10:09:45 AM
The family are always the first to be investigated in order to be 'ruled in' or 'ruled out'. It's basic police procedure. The fact that course of action had to be suggested to him by the UK police, is even more proof of his ineptitude imo.
How do you know that ?
It's common knowledge. It's also common sense.
It was because of the trained observations made by the Family Liaison officer of Shannon Matthews' mother that she was found out and charged.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 01, 2013, 11:13:08 AM
It shouldn't be forgotten that the PJ is under the control of the MP. And it shouldn't be forgotten that there are occurrences of bodies disposed of in bins in the UK, not in Portugal. The PJ is certainly better equipped, mentally, to deal with crimes committed by or on Portugueses than with crimes perpetrated by or on foreigners. See for example the difficulties the French had in the Dominici case or in the Dickinson case.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on July 01, 2013, 12:31:30 PM
It shouldn't be forgotten that the PJ is under the control of the MP. And it shouldn't be forgotten that there are occurrences of bodies disposed of in bins in the UK, not in Portugal. The PJ is certainly better equipped, mentally, to deal with crimes committed by or on Portugueses than with crimes perpetrated by or on foreigners. See for example the difficulties the French had in the Dominici case or in the Dickinson case.
My own view is that the PJ were overwhelmed and under extreme pressure to come up with the goods Anne. When the preliminary DNA tests came through Amaral must have thought all his Christmas's had come at once but when he later learned that they were inconclusive he must have been devastated. Poor guy.....he really never ever did come back from that. 8(8-))
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 01, 2013, 05:08:10 PM
My own view is that the PJ were overwhelmed and under extreme pressure to come up with the goods Anne. When the preliminary DNA tests came through Amaral must have thought all his Christmas's had come at once but when he later learned that they were inconclusive he must have been devastated. Poor guy.....he really never ever did come back from that. 8(8-))
Did he ever realise that the dogs were just an asset in order to localise where physical traces might have been? And that the subsequent DNA results didn't substantiate anything at all?
If he had, why did he write a book, followed by dozens of interviews, plus feature as the hero in a documentary in which no such thing was proven? And insisted that the child died in the apartment, amongst other allegations?
He could have written his book from a different perspective (a provincial cop overwhelmed by the situation, etc). If he had, he might have seemed more authentic with a poignant story to tell and thus have retained more dignity at the end of the day... and could still have made money out of it.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 01, 2013, 05:49:03 PM
As any anti-hero Mr Amaral was very useful to make up the heroes, the McCanns. Hadn't he existed, they should have invented him. Though, whatever the fatality, Mr Amaral wasn't even aware Madeleine existed when it happened to her, all fairies tales need a big bad wolf.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on July 01, 2013, 06:59:35 PM
As any anti-hero Mr Amaral was very useful to make up the heroes, the McCanns. Hadn't he existed, they should have invented him. Though, whatever the fatality, Mr Amaral wasn't even aware Madeleine existed when it happened to her, all fairies tales need a big bad wolf.
A very perceptive post Anne and one with which I agree wholeheartedly.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Jazzy on July 01, 2013, 07:46:45 PM
As any anti-hero Mr Amaral was very useful to make up the heroes, the McCanns. Hadn't he existed, they should have invented him. Though, whatever the fatality, Mr Amaral wasn't even aware Madeleine existed when it happened to her, all fairies tales need a big bad wolf.
Good post! Lotsof bad wolves in this fairytale, big ones, middle sized ones, little ones.....the amount of blame,suspicion, and derision Kate Mccann put on a whole sundry of people and events, many of them who were there to help is astonishing 8)--))
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Angelo222 on July 01, 2013, 08:41:17 PM
Good post! Lotsof bad wolves in this fairytale, big ones, middle sized ones, little ones.....the amount of blame,suspicion, and derision Kate Mccann put on a whole sundry of people and events, many of them who were there to help is astonishing 8)--))
Spot on. Pointing the finger at the Murat's who only wanted to help was deplorable IMO.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Jazzy on July 01, 2013, 08:53:20 PM
As any anti-hero Mr Amaral was very useful to make up the heroes, the McCanns. Hadn't he existed, they should have invented him. Though, whatever the fatality, Mr Amaral wasn't even aware Madeleine existed when it happened to her, all fairies tales need a big bad wolf.
Wasn't he a leading Police Officer, in charge of locating a missing child? He wasn't aware of her before she went missing is a given, but he already had history. His book? Where would that stand with a professional police officer? One with an unblemished history even?
In your own words, is he the "wolf"? His history?
Can you clarify "the fatality" please, Anne?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: DCI on July 01, 2013, 08:56:23 PM
Wasn't he a leading Police Officer, in charge of locating a missing child? He wasn't aware of her before she went missing is a given, but he already had history. His book? Where would that stand with a professional police officer? One with an unblemished history even?
In your own words, is he the "wolf"? His history?
Can you clarify "the fatality" please, Anne?
And who was it first pointed the finger at Murat? Don't say Jane Tanner, because she didn't, another Amaral lie ?>)()<
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 01, 2013, 09:01:07 PM
A fatality is an accident or disaster on which the subject has no control.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Rachel Granada on July 01, 2013, 09:12:27 PM
As any anti-hero Mr Amaral was very useful to make up the heroes, the McCanns. Hadn't he existed, they should have invented him. Though, whatever the fatality, Mr Amaral wasn't even aware Madeleine existed when it happened to her, all fairies tales need a big bad wolf.
Amaral is corrupt, Anne. Deal with it.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: ferryman on July 01, 2013, 09:17:24 PM
And who was it first pointed the finger at Murat? Don't say Jane Tanner, because she didn't, another Amaral lie ?>)()<
Wasn't it DCI ? Pray tell me how you know ? Ah I know, because Jane says so, though not very forcefully if you read her rogatory statement. Of course she will know that Bob Small knows the truth so perhaps her waffling non-answer was really the only course of action open to her.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: ferryman on July 01, 2013, 10:59:54 PM
Wasn't it DCI ? Pray tell me how you know ? Ah I know, because Jane says so, though not very forcefully if you read her rogatory statement. Of course she will know that Bob Small knows the truth so perhaps her waffling non-answer was really the only course of action open to her.
They met Robert Murat en route to the van.
The entire exercise was nul and void from that point.
And there is nothing in the file to indicate Jane pointed the finger at Murat, although there is documented evidence to suggest Martin Smith (inadvertently) did ...
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: DCI on July 01, 2013, 11:06:30 PM
Jane clearly states in her rogatory interview that, at the crucial point she was about to make the sighting, a car pulled out and blocked her view.
She never made a sighting.
That aside, meeting Murat en route to the van rendered the whole exercise nul and void ...
And Amaral say's:
Before searching his house, we wanted to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked police car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she says she was on the night of May 3rd.
Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?
See bottom page 42 "The truth about the lie".
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on July 01, 2013, 11:26:02 PM
The entire exercise was nul and void from that point.
And there is nothing in the file to indicate Jane pointed the finger at Murat, although there is documented evidence to suggest Martin Smith (inadvertently) did ...
There are a lot of things that aren't in the files as you well know so perhaps Tanner's identification s simply one of those.
As to Martin Smith 'inadvertently pointing the finger at Murat' the documentation you are speaking of are newspaper articles, aren't they and, worse still your interpretation of newspaper articles ?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on July 01, 2013, 11:27:52 PM
Before searching his house, we wanted to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked police car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she says she was on the night of May 3rd.
Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?
Ho hum who to believe ? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 01, 2013, 11:51:56 PM
Whether JT recognized or not, it couldn't be used as evidence in court. You can't ask someone to hide in order to spot another without that other being aware he's spotted. JT was very disturbed, she imagined some threat of abduction on her... She would have recognized anyone, just to see the end of it. Imo.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Benice on July 01, 2013, 11:52:55 PM
Before searching his house, we wanted to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked police car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she says she was on the night of May 3rd.
Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?
A downright lie by Amaral. If JT had identified Murat she would not have been sent home and told there was no need for her to go back to the police station to make a witness statement - that would have been a ridiculous thing for a policeman to tell her.
If she HAD made a positive identification of Murat as the abductor - then getting a signed statement from her to that effect would have been of paramount importance.
The other major reason why we know she didn't is because if she had identified him and made a statement, that statement would definitely have been referred to by the AG in his report about Robert Murat as one of the main reasons - if not THE main reason why he was made an Arguido. IIRC JT is not mentioned at all.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Chinagirl on July 02, 2013, 12:35:22 AM
Yes indeed, Benice.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 02, 2013, 12:48:26 AM
Still waiting for yours with regard to the Smith sighting sadie ?{)(**
Too big to do the lot at present, with family staying. but this will suffice for now
If you remember you were insisting that the man went west. Well he didn't
Aoife's statement
Quote
....— The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex. — She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
The Smiths came up these steps. The road that Aoife was walking towards is the one called Rua da Escola and it is partially shown opposite the top of the steps. Rua de Escola is the road that bundleman walked down and where he was sighted by the Smiths.
The staff quarters are about 70 metres up the rua de Escola from the main Rua 25 de Abril. Rua da Escola is over 5 metres wide for much of its lower length, opening up to over 8 metres wide where it joins the main road Rua 25 de Abril
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/smith1.jpg)
The Smiths were a large group and they were well spaced out . Aofie was towards the back, but had others following.
The junction is partially dog-legged as you will see from the photo above and the GEarth image below.
(http://i.imgur.com/3bg1cX4.jpg?1)
The images below show the spot that Aoife was supposed to be when she saw the man with the little girl, having ascended the steps and about to cross the main road. From her statement * she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres SO she looked to her left (which is approx west, or North west) and saw the man carrying the little girl coming towards her on the pavement at a distance of give or take 2 metres. In other words he was traveling in an easterly direction
A = Aoife, M = Martin Smith, P = Peter Smith
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/smith4.jpg)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/smith3.jpg)
Think about it Faith. Where ever she was facing the direction she was travelling before crossing the road, if she looked left and saw him coming towards her, on the poavement and only two metres or so away, then he was walking in an easterly direction. Wherever she stood/walked on that side of the road and going in the direction she was, this applies,
If he was coming from the left, the west, then he was going east at that time ... NOT west as you keep saying for some reason.
Sorry Faith, but you got it wrong. Sorry if it ruins your theory.
Dont expect that you are able to apologise, Faith, as I did when I was wrong, or acknowledge that i am correct. ? Would be appreciated if you could.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on July 02, 2013, 01:15:06 AM
Too big to do the lot at present, with family staying. but this will suffice for now
If you remember you were insisting that the man went west. Well he didn't
Aoife's statement
The Smiths came up these steps. The road that Aoife was walking towards is the one called Rua da Escola and it is partially shown opposite the top of the steps. Rua de Escola is the road that bundleman walked down and where he was sighted by the Smiths.
The staff quarters are about 70 metres up the rua de Escola from the main Rua 25 de Abril. Rua da Escola is over 5 metres wide for much of its lower length, opening up to over 8 metres wide where it joins the main road Rua 25 de Abril
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/smith1.jpg)
The Smiths were a large group and they were well spaced out . Aofie was towards the back, but had others following.
The junction is partially dog-legged as you will see from the photo above and the GEarth image below.
(http://i.imgur.com/3bg1cX4.jpg?1)
The images below show the spot that Aoife was supposed to be when she saw the man with the little girl, having ascended the steps and about to cross the main road. From her statement * she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres SO she looked to her left (which is approx west, or North west) and saw the man carrying the little girl coming towards her on the pavement at a distance of give or take 2 metres. In other words he was traveling in an easterly direction
A = Aoife, M = Martin Smith, P = Peter Smith
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/smith4.jpg)
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/smith3.jpg)
Think about it Faith. Where ever she was facing the direction she was travelling before crossing the road, if she looked left and saw him coming towards her, on the poavement and only two metres or so away, then he was walking in an easterly direction. Wherever she stood/walked on that side of the road and going in the direction she was, this applies,
If he was coming from the left, the west, then he was going east at that time ... NOT west as you keep saying for some reason.
Sorry Faith, but you got it wrong. Sorry if it ruins your theory.
Dont expect that you are able to apologise, Faith, as I did when I was wrong, or acknowledge that i am correct. ? Would be appreciated if you could.
The last photograph shows the view down rua de Escola with Aofie standing directly opposite facing rua de Escola.When Aofie first saw the carrier he was 2 m away coming towards her. To see him she had to look to her left meaning the carrier was coming down the street bearing to his right ( if he was bearing to his left Aofie would have had to have looked to her right ).
ETA In the documentary of the Truth of the Lie the carrier bears to the right when coming down Rua de Escola and the party loses sight of him after they have passed so it is entirely possible, in fact probable, that he turned right at the end of the street.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 02, 2013, 01:38:38 AM
The last photograph shows the view down rua de Escola with Aofie standing directly opposite facing rua de Escola.When Aofie first saw the carrier he was 2 m away coming towards her. To see him she had to look to her left meaning the carrier was coming down the street bearing to his right ( if he was bearing to his left Aofie would have had to have looked to her right ).
ETA In the documentary of the Truth of the Lie the carrier bears to the right when coming down Rua de Escola and the party loses sight of him after they have passed so it is entirely possible, in fact probable, that he turned right at the end of the street.
You are wrong. She looked left. He was on the pavement and coming towards her about 2 metres or so away
If she looked left and he was coming towards her, then he was coming from the west and walking easterly
faith. Think about it. Draw it on a bit of paper if you cant understand it
An acknowledgement that I am right after all the jibes would be appreciated and an apology would be appreciated as I apologised to you, when I was mistaken
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: John on July 02, 2013, 03:08:28 AM
I don't see what the problem is here. We know the man carrying an infant came down Rua da Escola Primaria walking towards Aoife who was standing at the top of the steps. If he approached Aoife only two metres away and from her left then he either went down the steps or east along Rua 25 de Abril.
Had he been intending to turn right and go west along Rua 25 de Abril he would have been nowhere near the steps or Aoife.
Gonçalo Amarals video reconstruction depicts the man almost running down the street with the child and heading towards the steps.
Watch video from 8.50 to end.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Carana on July 02, 2013, 07:39:25 AM
Angelo: "My own view is that the PJ were overwhelmed and under extreme pressure to come up with the goods Anne. When the preliminary DNA tests came through Amaral must have thought all his Christmas's had come at once but when he later learned that they were inconclusive he must have been devastated. Poor guy.....he really never ever did come back from that."
I don't see what the problem is here. We know the man carrying an infant came down Rua da Escola Primaria walking towards Aoife who was standing at the top of the steps. If he approached Aoife only two metres away and from her left then he either went down the steps or east along Rua 25 de Abril.
Had he been intending to turn right and go west along Rua 25 de Abril he would have been nowhere near the steps or Aoife.
Gonçalo Amarals video reconstruction depicts the man almost running down the street with the child and heading towards the steps.
Watch video from 8.50 to end.
You are simply wrong John. This is from Peter Smith :
'He also says that when he passed the individual, the individual was descending to his right, and walked past the witness in the middle of the street, given that at that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.'
The carrier was descending to his right and Aofie had to look to her left to see him which means in all probability he didn't go left to the church/beach but right and carried on up Rua 25 Abril.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Carana on July 02, 2013, 04:00:08 PM
You are simply wrong John. This is from Peter Smith :
'He also says that when he passed the individual, the individual was descending to his right, and walked past the witness in the middle of the street, given that at that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.'
The carrier was descending to his right and Aofie had to look to her left to see him which means in all probability he didn't go left to the church/beach but right and carried on up Rua 25 Abril.
Peter and Martin were already walking up the street when the carrier passed them. Aoife had only just struggled up the steps and was pausing at the top when the carrier approached her. Had he been going to the right he would have been going away from Aoife and not closing in on her.
Even Amaral shows this in his reconstruction and says so on the video so let's stop this silliness please.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: AnneGuedes on July 02, 2013, 06:16:38 PM
Do your gifts in informatics allow you to establish where were Mr and Mrs Smith when the carrier went around Peter Smith and his wife ?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: DCI on July 02, 2013, 07:41:03 PM
Peter and Martin were already walking up the street when the carrier passed them. Aoife had only just struggled up the steps and was pausing at the top when the carrier approached her. Had he been going to the right he would have been going away from Aoife and not closing in on her.
Even Amaral shows this in his reconstruction and says so on the video so let's stop this silliness please.
If the carrier was on Peter Smiths right, surely thats the left hand side of the road.
Quote
States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.
The carrier could have easily gone down the same steps, as the Smiths came up, on to Rua da Calheta, past The Dolphin and Kellys bar. Turn left or right, easy access to the beach. Where was Mrs Smith's position? No statement from her, just hearsay, she agreed with Martin. Seems odd she wasn't walking close to any of them shown, in the video.
If the carrier was on Peter Smiths right, surely thats the left hand side of the road.
The carrier could have easily gone down the same steps, as the Smiths came up, on to Rua da Calheta, past The Dolphin and Kellys bar. Turn left or right, easy access to the beach. Where was Mrs Smith's position? No statement from her, just hearsay, she agreed with Martin. Seems odd she wasn't walking close to any of them shown, in the video.
Aofie is shown in the file photograph as standing slightly to the left of the steps when she saw the carrier and she also had to look to her left to see him which means it is very possible he was heading to the right. I think people here are putting her too far to her right. Of course it is an advantage to actually have seen the location involved.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 04, 2013, 12:34:39 AM
Aofie is shown in the file photograph as standing slightly to the left of the steps when she saw the carrier and she also had to look to her left to see him which means it is very possible he was heading to the right. I think people here are putting her too far to her right. Of course it is an advantage to actually have seen the location involved.
Faith. You are swerving the issue.
If Aoife is moving in a generally northern direction, and she looks left, (towards the west),.... then if bundleman was coming from that direction, (the west), and walking towards her .... then he MUST be walking towards the East
HE MUST BE WALKING EAST .... sorry to shout but you seem very deaf on this point
You are wrong Faith.
Surely you are not yet another anti/[ censored word ] who cannot do mathematics? I find that peeps who are hopeless at mathematics cannot do logic. Tony Bennett is such.
As I apologised to you, I would appreciate an apology from you .
ETA: Have sent you a private message to make sure that you dont miss this post. Look forward to your apology after all your sneering at me
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on July 04, 2013, 01:36:04 AM
If Aoife is moving in a generally northern direction, and she looks left, (towards the west),.... then if bundleman was coming from that direction, (the west), and walking towards her .... then he MUST be walking towards the East
HE MUST BE WALKING EAST .... sorry to shout but you seem very deaf on this point
You are wrong Faith.
Surely you are not yet another anti/[ censored word ] who cannot do mathematics? I find that peeps who are hopeless at mathematics cannot do logic. Tony Bennett is such.
As I apologised to you, I would appreciate an apology from you .
ETA: Have sent you a private message to make sure that you dont miss this post. Look forward to your apology after all your sneering at me
Please do not ever send me a private message again.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: faithlilly on July 04, 2013, 01:50:38 AM
Amaral had the advantage that he and his men interrogated the Smiths so according to him the carrier went down the steps towards the beach.
I am happy with that John, either he went east or South
But for Faith, who seems to have a mental blockage, to maintain that he was going west is ludicrous. He came towards Aoife from the west or at least the North west cos she had looked left (west) to see him
THe evidence is against you Faith ... and it is solid evidence.
Give up and acknowledge that you were mistaken .... or better still do the cultured thing and give up, then admit it and apologise for being wrong.
Cos you are wrong and making a fool of yourself pushing it. tbh
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: stephen25000 on July 04, 2013, 08:58:41 AM
I am happy with that John, either he went east or South
But for Faith, who seems to have a mental blockage, to maintain that he was going west is ludicrous. He came towards Aoife from the west or at least the North west cos she had looked left (west) to see him
THe evidence is against you Faith ... and it is solid evidence.
Give up and acknowledge that you were mistaken .... or better still do the cultured thing and give up, then admit it and apologise for being wrong.
Cos you are wrong and making a fool of yourself pushing it. tbh
Solid evidence ? 8-)(--) @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 04, 2013, 06:07:18 PM
Amaral had the advantage that he and his men interrogated the Smiths so according to him the carrier went down the steps towards the beach.
I don't think he would have risked the steps carrying a child with apparent discomfort. I think he went towards the church, lots of opportunities to hide.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 06, 2013, 01:39:19 AM
I don't think he would have risked the steps carrying a child with apparent discomfort. I think he went towards the church, lots of opportunities to hide.
yep, he went east or maybe south towards the beach.
Aoifes statement shows that he definitely did not go west ... as Faith tries to make us believe.
Going East leads back towards the centre of PdL where any people being around, would likely be. No-one reported seeing him. Also to the east there is the church, the Fontezala Restaurant and much closer at hand Malinkas apartment and the possibility of a car pick up on, or in a hidden area close to that main road, Rua 25 de Abril.
If he went South he would have to negotiate the steps, which whilst being a bit uneven were divided up into flights. The bottom flight being 7 steps and the one above being just a couple of steps it appears and the top flight not too many steps either(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn315/itsonlyme_08/Gonc%20crap/smith1.jpg) Gerry carried S*** in a similar manner down a steeper set of steps from the aircraft For a man in a panic they are unlikely to have presented too much of a problem.
From the bottom of the steps, where did he go?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 06, 2013, 09:04:00 AM
From the bottom of the steps, where did he go?
A 1) Heri suggests he went west along the front before coming to a quiet spot. There to put Madeleine in a boat? I haven't explored there. A fair walk. B 2) A lot of peeps think he went down to the tiny beach, which is very close, again to a boat ... or maybe to a tunnel there. It is in in a rocky inlet.
C There is a tricky narrow pathway down, hidden away at the back of the Bull public house. To get there he would have had to negotiate this tricky set of rocky steps and sloping paths. I wouldn't have liked to do that. in just the moonlight and carrying a child
D Alternatively there appears to be a tunnel coming out onto the rocks at the back of this beach. Could that be a smugglers tunnel linked to such a place as the Bull, a fishermans cottage or the Fortezela restaurant? (Old Fort)? Maybe that might provide an easier way down? Has anyone here explored that tunnel? .... Heri maybe?
There is another problem.
About 5 years ago I thoroughly researched weather, tides etc. IIRC it had just been high tide and the tide had recently turned. ETA. I am wondering if I remembered that incorrectly
Further editing: It had been low tide at 10pm, not high tide ... my apologies
However, from GEarth images, at high tide there was no beach.
E Would it be difficult to lauch a boat in such circumstances? Also the weather was worsening along with sea conditions. Any sea boating experts here?
It is possible that a small boat might have rendezvoused with a larger powered boat out at sea ... and transferred Madeleine at sea before setting sail .... but these are only my thoughts
F A boat was recorded as having moved out of Lagos marina"gates just before they were locked for the night, This boat moored up in the long entrance to the marina, and was free to set sail at a moments notice.
I believe that there was some telephone linkage between this boat and either Malinka or Fazackerley.
Maybe someone can remember if I have remembered that correctly? Both men were of interest to the PJ, but may not have been involved in any way.
John, at the moment I am very pushed for time, but if I am able, will try and sort some images out and I would be grateful if you would post for me. Have put indicating letters in to mark the spots where I would like them posted.
THat is if I am able to do the search and send the photos
No problem.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 09, 2013, 03:05:41 PM
See you are here again Luz
BUMPED O.P.
Luz
You live locally to PdL
Who was it that was bragging about defacing all the posters put up in PdLuz about Madeleine being missing? About three years ago ... or so
Posters put up in an effort to find her, but deliberately defaced.
Someone was even trying to paint out the address of who to contact, so that information could NOT get through to the PI's /Mccann team?
Any idea who that was?
Thank you
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Luz on July 09, 2013, 03:35:50 PM
Who was it that was bragging about defacing all the posters put up in PdLuz about Madeleine being missing? About three years ago ... or so
Posters put up in an effort to find her, but deliberately defaced.
Someone was even trying to paint out the address of who to contact, so that information could NOT get through to the PI's /Mccann team?
Any idea who that was?
Thank you
No. I have no idea who destroyed the posters but I can understand the why. People got fed up with the lies that were printed in the british press, namely accusing the inhabitants of criminal activities and not helping. I don't live in PDL but I have family there and go frequently to that place. I remember people complaining about the attitude of the McCann and friends. They would parade to the media for heir photo sessions with no regard to people that had their lives going on - people would be expelled from the streets in order for the photos to be taken. They would invade the church with no regard for the usual services that parishioners were used to have, they were rude except when posing for the photographs. But most of all people resent them for never taking any action in searching for the child, instead they (and the relatives and friends that visited them) would kept their holiday activities, and in the press the portuguese were portrayed as the "bad" people.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 09, 2013, 03:47:49 PM
It has taken weeks, but thank you for responding, Luz
Strange isn't it, that someone was using your name bragging about defacing and pulling the posters down.
I thought that I had seen it all those years ago, but wasn't sure. However several here have confirmed it.
Can you imagine, Luz, that anyone would be so hateful to a greiving family that they would tear down and deface the picture of their missing daughter.
And almost worse, that someone would brag about it? .....OMG, in your name too.
And do you find it sinister that on some posters the contact address for information to help find Madeleine had been deliberately painted out? What motive could anyone have to do that Luz?
Do you think there was an agenda there?
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Luz on July 09, 2013, 03:48:38 PM
P.S.
I failed to explain the WHY those posters may have been destroyed.
You see. After observing the McCann behaviour for months, the majority of the people in PDL suspected the parents had to be involved in the child's disappearence, and that long before they were made arguidos. When the results about the dogs were known, almost everyone was convinced the little girl was dead and the parents had something to do with it or knew who had done it. So, putting up those huge posters, making all those fake events for media consuming was an insult for the population. I repeat, I don't know who destroyed the posters, but I can easily understand some people wanting them down.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: Luz on July 09, 2013, 03:52:56 PM
It has taken weeks, but thank you for responding, Luz
Strange isn't it, that someone was using your name bragging about defacing and pulling the posters down.
I thought that I had seen it all those years ago, but wasn't sure. However several here have confirmed it.
Can you imagine, Luz, that anyone would be so hateful to a greiving family that they would tear down and deface the picture of their missing daughter.
And almost worse, that someone would brag about it? .....OMG, in your name too.
And do you find it sinister that on some posters the contact address for information to help find Madeleine had been deliberately painted out? What motive could anyone have to do that Luz?
Do you think there was an agenda there?
It doesn't surprise me that someone would use my name to try to denigrate me. There are a few posters in this forum that I can see very well doing it.
I may have a tendency to call the bulls by their names but I don't destroy property, don't harm people and don't judge and punish even those that I may find culpable of wrong doing.
Title: Re: Locally to PdL
Post by: sadie on July 09, 2013, 04:02:01 PM
Well that is good to hear. Luz.
Strange that someone should use your name, and on your usual forum. With your dogged interest in the case I am surprised you didn't see it at the time, and stop it. Talk about it went on for weeks ... and you were about all the time