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: John on July 06, 2013, 07:46:52 PM
-
The facts: Madeleine McCann is alive and well or a long time deceased.
Whichever way you look at the Madeleine McCann case it always comes down to not three but two scenarios.
Madeleine is either alive and well and being looked after by someone or she is a long time deceased.
(http://i.imgur.com/bOEUgMl.png)
-
Both outcomes are rather bleak for all sorts of reasons.
If she is alive and well and being shielded within some obscure community then she will only be aware of that existence and of those people around her. She will have for all intents and purposes integrated with that community.
Given her tender age at the time of her kidnap she will have few if any memories of her pre abduction existence. She will have moulded a life for herself in a community which she considers to be home and a family which she considers to be her own.
One wonders then if she is eventually found what is crueller, to leave her where she is or to remove her to a life which she will consider alien to her entire existence?
She may also be a long time dead, either way the outcome for Maddie is not all that it is made out to be.
-
Nope, don't agree with that, none of the girls abducted & later found were fine & looked after, neither were they dead. They were snatched & held captives against their will, though these girls were older than Madeleine, that's sadly a possibility that cannot be discarded.
-
Nope, don't agree with that, none of the girls abducted & later found were fine & looked after, neither were they dead. They were snatched & held captives against their will, though these girls were older than Madeleine, that's sadly a possibility that cannot be discarded.
I agree, Mrs B
Unhappily John, what you are saying is also true in that Madeleine will have an awful time trying to readjust. Her family too.
Seems to me that she is bound to be psychologically damaged.
One thing is quite certain, and that is that she cannot be left with people who abduct.
I think that she will have memories of her daddy and possibly her mummy and the twins. Gerry was very involved with all his kids. A noisy boistrous terrific dad.
Kate was a kind and loving mother to Madeleine ... and still is to the twins.
I think she will remember bits, so long as she hasn't been deliberately mind programmed/ treated in any way to forget her past. Pray God she hasn't.
-
Nope, don't agree with that, none of the girls abducted & later found were fine & looked after, neither were they dead. They were snatched & held captives against their will, though these girls were older than Madeleine, that's sadly a possibility that cannot be discarded.
Madeleine was only a few days from her fourth birthday when she was abducted. As such she will have little if any memory of that era now that she has just passed her tenth birthday. The girls which have recently been liberated in the USA were abducted as teenagers with memory faculties which were well developed. Madeleine however falls into a completely different category. She will have little or no memory of her parents or siblings.
Infantile amnesia is the tendency to have few autobiographical memories from below the age of 5. Although autobiographical memories start forming between the ages of 2 and 3 and can be remembered for several months, they are nearly always forgotten by adulthood. This can be attributed to lack of memory rehearsal; young children do not engage in rehearsal of remembered information. There are two theoretical explanations for why this may occur; although they take different approaches, they are not mutually exclusive of each other.
In young children memory properly develops after the age of 5 years.
-
Madeleine was only a few days from her fourth birthday when she was abducted. As such she will have little if any memory of that era now that she has just passed her tenth birthday. The girls which have recently been liberated in the USA were abducted as teenagers with memory faculties which were well developed. Madeleine however falls into a completely different category. She will have little or no memory of her parents or siblings.
Infantile amnesia is the tendency to have few autobiographical memories from below the age of 5. Although autobiographical memories start forming between the ages of 2 and 3 and can be remembered for several months, they are nearly always forgotten by adulthood. This can be attributed to lack of memory rehearsal; young children do not engage in rehearsal of remembered information. There are two theoretical explanations for why this may occur; although they take different approaches, they are not mutually exclusive of each other.
I agree with you, John. Either dead or alive and fine, though for obvious reasons I don't believe in nice people adopting a child abducted on order. Only degenerated people could make a child (a baby is a different case) pass through hell and I'm weighing my words.
-
As support for what I have posted I can add my own personal experience which some might find alarming.
When I was arrested in Spain in August 2003 my youngest son was 5½ years of age. When I next saw him in May 2007 he was barely 9½ years of age and had no prior memory of me even though I effectively spent every day with him since he was born. Thus my reasoning for saying that if Madeleine is ever found she will have little or no recall of her former life.
-
So if Madeleine is held captive we should just leave her there as she might not remember her previous life? Total madness. It's against the law to kidnap children, the people responsible will have to serve long prison sentences. Should the persons responsible be the same who have kept her, she would never be allowed to stay with them anyway.
Also, memory is something very personal, YOU may not remember anything before you were five, a lot of people start having memories from a lot earlier.
-
So if Madeleine is held captive we should just leave her there as she might not remember her previous life? Total madness. It's against the law to kidnap children, the people responsible will have to serve long prison sentences. Should the persons responsible be the same who have kept her, she would never be allowed to stay with them anyway.
Also, memory is something very personal, YOU may not remember anything before you were five, a lot of people start having memories from a lot earlier.
It is most uncommon for anyone to have many memories of their pre school years but don't take my word for it. Just do a simple search as it is all there. Here's a start > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_memory
I didn't say that Madeleine should not be handed back to her parents if she is eventually found. What I did state is that doing so will create a trauma for her all over again. I think its called for the greater good or for the benefit of the child.
-
She is 10 now I think so the longer this goes on the more difficult it will be for her is as you say she is eventually rescued. She wont see it that way though....a no win situation for all involved imo.
It is most uncommon for anyone to have many memories of their pre school years but don't take my word for it. Just do a simple search as it is all there. Here's a start > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_memory
I didn't say that Madeleine should not be handed back to her parents if she is eventually found. What I did state is that doing so will create a trauma for her all over again. I think its called for the greater good or for the benefit of the child.
-
It is most uncommon for anyone to have many memories of their pre school years but don't take my word for it. Just do a simple search as it is all there. Here's a start > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_memory
I didn't say that Madeleine should not be handed back to her parents if she is eventually found. What I did state is that doing so will create a trauma for her all over again. I think its called for the greater good or for the benefit of the child.
I agree, better care for the benefit of the child than condemn a guilty one.
-
If is for the benefit of the child that she has to returned to her parents & family, she has two siblings & an extended family. If, being held captive, she may also be aware that she IS a missing child. Severe forms of punishment for those who are involved in child snatching & trafficking is of paramount importance to society as a whole.
-
If not a captive, but the beloved child of a nice family, how would Solomon judge ?
-
Not the bible again, you are fixated on fiction. We all KNOW what Salomon did. If found, she will be returned to her family, regardless. It's simply the law, live with it.
-
Not the bible again, you are fixated on fiction. We all KNOW what Salomon did. If found, she will be returned to her family, regardless. It's simply the law, live with it.
"regardless" ? I don't think you know what Solomon did. Solomon doesn't give lessons of normative maternity.
-
Not the bible again, you are fixated on fiction. We all KNOW what Salomon did. If found, she will be returned to her family, regardless. It's simply the law, live with it.
Who is *salomon*? And what did he do?
-
Who is *salomon*? And what did he do?
Solomon is the wisest of all kings of Israel according to the Bible, he's the son David made to Bathsheba instead of carrying out the funerary rituals for the death of his child. His famous judgement (he decides in favour of the woman who prefers the child living far from her than dead with her, the woman who lets the other have her rights on that child's life to preserve this child's life) was studied in the theory of games : in the impossibility of establishing the truth, put both parts in an unbearable situation that will force one to change strategy.
-
Who is *salomon*? And what did he do?
He was a wise king in the Bible who decreed that a baby belonged to its natural mother and not to a woman who was falsely claiming the baby was hers.
-
If is for the benefit of the child that she has to returned to her parents & family, she has two siblings & an extended family. If, being held captive, she may also be aware that she IS a missing child. Severe forms of punishment for those who are involved in child snatching & trafficking is of paramount importance to society as a whole.
And if Madeleine wants to stay with her 'adopted' family ?
-
He was a wise king in the Bible who decreed that a baby belonged to its natural mother and not to a woman who was falsely claiming the baby was hers.
Just getting my own back for attacks on spellos, its SOLOMON btw
8)--))
Thanks and to you Anne, but who cares what the stupid bible says, solomon didnt refuse to help the police when his son was missing, even if kate was sooooo devout, she must have thought praying instead of searching will have worked
>@@(*&)
-
He was a wise king in the Bible who decreed that a baby belonged to its natural mother and not to a woman who was falsely claiming the baby was hers.
I'm sorry, Benice, but it's more complex than that. Both women are prostitutes, their babies have no father and are born about the same day, one of the babies dies during the night. How would you know who is the natural mother of the surviving one ?
-
I'm sorry, Benice, but it's more complex than that. Both women are prostitutes, their babies have no father and are born about the same day, one of the babies dies during the night. How would you know who is the natural mother of the surviving one ?
What is the relationship between that story, the 21st century and Madeleine's disappearance?
-
What is the relationship between that story, the 21st century and Madeleine's disappearance?
Well Judeo Christianism is the cradle of our civilisation, the 21st century hasn't popped up from nowhere. Solomon judgement, it seems, really occurred and I think it's an excellent opportunity to meditate on what justice and fairness are. Solomon is only a man who reflects mobilizing all resources that his emotions and his empathy capacities allow.
Even if Madeleine living now in a loving family is very likely fiction.
-
It is a well known phenomenon that abductees often form an affinity with their abductors over a period of time even when kept in poor conditions. As mentioned in another post Madeleine will most probably not even remember her past life or those who were in it. This is where the internet comes into it's own by promoting her image far beyond the reach of the local newspapers. If she is still alive then her best hope is that one day she might come across her image on line and recognise herself, the rest would be up to her.
-
It is a well known phenomenon that abductees often form an affinity with their abductors over a period of time even when kept in poor conditions. As mentioned in another post Madeleine will most probably not even remember her past life or those who were in it. This is where the internet comes into it's own by promoting her image far beyond the reach of the local newspapers. If she is still alive then her best hope is that one day she might come across her image on line and recognise herself, the rest would be up to her.
I think it is called Stockholm Syndrome, John.
-
Well Judeo Christianism is the cradle of our civilisation, the 21st century hasn't popped up from nowhere. Solomon judgement, it seems, really occurred and I think it's an excellent opportunity to meditate on what justice and fairness are. Solomon is only a man who reflects mobilizing all resources that his emotions and his empathy capacities allow.
Even if Madeleine living now in a loving family is very likely fiction.
If Solomon was asked to pronounce on Madeleine now living with another family, I think he would decide that anyone cruel enough to steal another mother's baby was not a fit person to keep her - and just as before - he would decree that she be returned to her rightful mother.
-
I think it is called Stockholm Syndrome, John.
Yes it is, but often caricatured. We're woven with affects. If the human being can't express emotions, if sensitivity is blocked, survival is at risk.
-
If Solomon was asked to pronounce on Madeleine now living with another family, I think he would decide that anyone cruel enough to steal another mother's baby was not a fit person to keep her - and just as before - he would decree that she be returned to her rightful mother.
A woman or a man who steals a child can't be a loving and ethical person. This is why I think this scenario is nothing but fiction.
Solomon had a relatively simple moral case to judge : the mother was the one who preferred having the child alive with another woman than a dead child. His genius was the trick he used (threatening to cut the child in two parts) to determine which of the two women was deserving the child. But the child was a new born, not a 10 yrs old !
I know a case, a new born abducted from a clinic by a woman. When found, the little girl was 2 years old, she was adored by grand parents, aunts and uncles who thought she was theirs. Her biological parents, a very young couple, had just had a new baby... It was a drama. They got help and a sort of modus vivendi was found : the little girl had two families, and still has.
-
Oh my.
gobbledygook, aint it? 8)-)))
sorry Anne, I know that you are not British so certain things can willingly be excused
However, it almost seems that you are trying to blind us with your magnificent knowledge
This aint a thesis to impress the University professors - we are just ordinary guys
Plain, simple english, Anne ... if you dont mind.
Ta !
-
Do you know of any abductees who would prefer to stay with their abductor?
Not personally but I have heard of many such cases over the years. The more recent classic example would be the white girl abducted/captured/stolen by red Indians who went on to live within the reservation out if choice and even when rescued returned to the tribe since she considered them to be her family and not the white man.
-
This is one of the themes of John Ford's Searchers, one of the most beautiful films ever made.
-
This is one of the themes of John Ford's Searchers, one of the most beautiful films ever made.
Abductions are still seen as a way of life in many primitive societies and third world countries even today so lets not pretend that the world is one big harmonious playground. We should not judge other civilisations by our own limited standards.
-
Abductions are still seen as a way of life in many primitive societies and third world countries even today so lets not pretend that the world is one big harmonious playground. We should not judge other civilisations by our own limited standards.
Way of life or mythology ?
Ritual abductions exist nowdays in Chechen society, no primitive society
http://www.fnj-midi-pyrenees.fr/article-l-enlevement-de-jeunes-femmes-une-tradition-tchetchene-80070026.html
-
I have removed a number of posts which have strayed from the thread theme. Please try and keep posts relevant.
PS John Fords film The Searchers has everything to do with child abduction whereas sexual exploitation of 12 year old boys in an ancient Greek society is somewhat remote.
-
Oh my.
I can't understand how a woman who stole a baby could keep in contact with the child when it has been taken back to its real parents.
This woman must have been mentally ill to steal a child, and needs help surely.
If Madeleine is found, even if she has become to love the parents she is with, in my opinion, she should'nt have contact with them, they will be arrested anyway and sent to prison for a very long time.
It will mean Madeleine will obviously be traumatised and will need counseling and will no doubt never get over it, but for her to have contact with people who would snatch another persons child is wrong.
-
I can't understand how a woman who stole a baby could keep in contact with the child when it has been taken back to its real parents.
This woman must have been mentally ill to steal a child, and needs help surely.
If Madeleine is found, even if she has become to love the parents she is with, in my opinion, she should'nt have contact with them, they will be arrested anyway and sent to prison for a very long time.
It will mean Madeleine will obviously be traumatised and will need counseling and will no doubt never get over it, but for her to have contact with people who would snatch another persons child is wrong.
I was going to respond to your post by saying that the people who have Madeleine at the moment (assuming she is still alive) may not be the same individuals who abducted her. But then again is there really anyone in the EU or north Africa who hasn't heard of Madeleine McCann?? For my part I find it very hard to believe that she is with anyone.
-
I was going to respond to your post by saying that the people who have Madeleine at the moment (assuming she is still alive) may not be the same individuals who abducted her. But then again is there really anyone in the EU or north Africa who hasn't heard of Madeleine McCann?? For my part I find it very hard to believe that she is with anyone.
Madeleine's image is so well known that I find it hard to believe that she could live any sort of normal existence within any modern-day westernised community. This does not fare well though with the hope that she is still alive but positively discriminates against it. SY's comments to the effect that they think that she is still alive appear therefore to be based more on semantics than on logic.
As someone posted a while back, the complete absence of any credible sightings or evidence of any sort that she is still alive is not promising.
-
Madeleine's image is so well known that I find it hard to believe that she could live any sort of normal existence within any modern-day westernised community. This does not fare well though with the hope that she is still alive but positively discriminates against it. SY's comments to the effect that they think that she is still alive appear therefore to be based more on semantics than on logic.
As someone posted a while back, the complete absence of any credible sightings or evidence of any sort that she is still alive is not promising.
I wonder how many cases DCI Redwood or his team has dealt with where a child was abducted from their home and was found alive 6 years later ? Not one I'll guess which makes me wonder why, with all his and his team's experience he is insisting it's a very real possibility. It simply does not make sense.
-
I wonder how many cases DCI Redwood or his team have dealt with where a child was abducted from their home and was found alive 6 years later ? Not one I'll guess which makes me wonder why, with all his and his team's experience he is insisting it's a very real possibility. It simply does not make sense.
And it makes even less sense since the incident took place in Portugal and not in London and given that a extensive investigation has already been carried out.
It is interesting to note that Kerry Needham is now calling for other such cases to be given the same attention and resources. Looks like the Yard have opened up a huge can of works this time.
-
I wonder how many cases DCI Redwood or his team has dealt with where a child was abducted from their home and was found alive 6 years later ? Not one I'll guess which makes me wonder why, with all his and his team's experience he is insisting it's a very real possibility. It simply does not make sense.
And yet you are asking for the same treatment to be given to Ben Needham who has been missing for many years longer than Madeleine and whose mother still thinks he may be alive. That doesn't make any sense to me.
-
I wonder how many cases DCI Redwood or his team has dealt with where a child was abducted from their home and was found alive 6 years later ? Not one I'll guess which makes me wonder why, with all his and his team's experience he is insisting it's a very real possibility. It simply does not make sense.
We're constantly told that there are very few abductions in Portugal. So what experience would the PT team have had?
Do you not find it possible that the Met team had access to specialist databases?
-
I was going to respond to your post by saying that the people who have Madeleine at the moment (assuming she is still alive) may not be the same individuals who abducted her. But then again is there really anyone in the EU or north Africa who hasn't heard of Madeleine McCann?? For my part I find it very hard to believe that she is with anyone.
Maybe, maybe not. Even though I find the age-progressed image to be what she may look like - that still relates to a child growing up in a normal home.
If she is alive, she may even be taken out on walks, but could be presented as the daughter of an OH. Cf Amanda Berry's daughter.
-
And yet you are asking for the same treatment to be given to Ben Needham who has been missing for many years longer than Madeleine and whose mother still thinks he may be alive. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Whether alive or dead Ben's mother still needs to find out what happened to him and if the resources are available to do this for the McCanns the same resources should be available to Kerry.
-
Whether alive or dead Ben's mother still needs to find out what happened to him and if the resources are available to do this for the McCanns the same resources should be available to Kerry.
Of course, and I hope that Kerry does find out what happened.
That is what Missing People are trying to promote.
-
Whether alive or dead Ben's mother still needs to find out what happened to him and if the resources are available to do this for the McCanns the same resources should be available to Kerry.
I'm not disputing that - in fact I agree, but that's not what you said.
You don't appear to have any faith (no pun intended) in the review because of what you perceive as SY's 'inexperience' in these cases, and yet you are encouraging the public to demand exactly the same review for Ben by exactly the same people - who you have no faith in. That makes no sense to me.
-
I'm not disputing that - in fact I agree, but that's not what you said.
You don't appear to have any faith (no pun intended) in the review because of what you perceive as SY's 'inexperience' in these cases, and yet you are encouraging the public to demand exactly the same review for Ben by exactly the same people - who you have no faith in. That makes no sense to me.
I don't have any faith in the review because I don't believe that Redwood and his team have any real evidence to justify the claim that Madeleine is alive. That is not to say that reviewing the case was not appropriate.
-
Faithlilly said:-
I don't have any faith in the review because I don't believe that Redwood and his team have any real evidence to justify the claim that Madeleine is alive. That is not to say that reviewing the case was not appropriate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIRC there is no actual evidence that Ben was abducted, but as there is also no evidence that he is dead, then IMO Andy Redwod would hold the same opinion about him as he does about Madeleine - for the same reasons.
-
Faithlilly said:-
I don't have any faith in the review because I don't believe that Redwood and his team have any real evidence to justify the claim that Madeleine is alive. That is not to say that reviewing the case was not appropriate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIRC there is no actual evidence that Ben was abducted, but as there is also no evidence that he is dead, then IMO Andy Redwod would hold the same opinion about him as he does about Madeleine - for the same reasons.
Until there is a review of Ben's case we have no idea what evidence there already is or what evidence the review will uncover.
In the case of the SY review however Redwood and his team have already spent over two years trawling through the amassed evidence and found absolutely nothing to definitively prove Madeleine is alive therefore with his undoubted experience in such cases why is he publicly claiming there is a good chance the child is alive when, in all likelihood, she is long dead.
-
Faithlilly said:-
I don't have any faith in the review because I don't believe that Redwood and his team have any real evidence to justify the claim that Madeleine is alive. That is not to say that reviewing the case was not appropriate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIRC there is no actual evidence that Ben was abducted, but as there is also no evidence that he is dead, then IMO Andy Redwod would hold the same opinion about him as he does about Madeleine - for the same reasons.
I agree with your comments to some extent but there is a huge difference between Ben and Madeleine and that is that the latter has a very distinctive eye defect which can never be covered up. That fact alone means that she can never integrate with the general population for fear of being discovered.
-
I agree with your comments to some extent but there is a huge difference between Ben and Madeleine and that is that the latter has a very distinctive eye defect which can never be covered up. That fact alone means that she can never integrate with the general population for fear of being discovered.
It can be covered, and regularly is by people with that defect, using special lenses. SY are aware
-
I don't have any faith in the review because I don't believe that Redwood and his team have any real evidence to justify the claim that Madeleine is alive. That is not to say that reviewing the case was not appropriate.
I don't have either, simply because the dice were loaded from the very beginning. No decent review would not only bypass the conclusions of the AG but ignore the rejected reconstruction he requested.
The politically correct answer to the PM's order was to find an abducted child who was, as her parents said, very likely alive. It wasn't to keep an open mind.
I observe that more than 2 years after, SY's tone isn't as firm as it was on the alive topic, though the tax payers' opinion requires Mr Redwood's claiming there's a big chance Madeleine's alive (since there's no evidence of her being harmed by the Big Bad Woolf et patati et patata).
-
I don't have either, simply because the dice were loaded from the very beginning. No decent review would not only bypass the conclusions of the AG but ignore the rejected reconstruction he requested.
The politically correct answer to the PM's order was to find an abducted child who was, as her parents said, very likely alive. It wasn't to keep an open mind.
I observe that more than 2 years after, SY's tone isn't as firm as it was on the alive topic, though the tax payers' opinion requires Mr Redwood's claiming there's a big chance Madeleine's alive (since there's no evidence of her being harmed by the Big Bad Woolf et patati et patata).
None of us know for sure whether Madeleine is alive, but there is no reason to believe her dead.
She must be looked for properly ... which is something which didn't happen under Amarals leadership cos he immediately decided that the Mccanns had done it 8()(((@#. Idiot with such golden witnesses.
That's the reason he gives us anyhow.
-
If Madeleine wasn't abducted is there any chance she's alive ? No, unless some she-woolf took her in and she became a wild child.
Is there a problem if she wasn't abducted and unfortunately died ? A big problem.
Who has the courage to face it ?
-
If Madeleine wasn't abducted is there any chance she's alive ? No, unless some she-woolf took her in and she became a wild child.
Is there a problem if she wasn't abducted and unfortunately died ? A big problem.
Who has the courage to face it ?
Rubbish Anne. None of us know for sure whether she is alive, or not. Cant think why you are pushing that unless you dont want her searched for?
Everyone in authority accepts that there is nothing to point to her having been killed, or died .... so why do you keep on?
What's in it for you to keep pushing it?
There has to be a reason for pushing it. There is a reason for everything
Care to enlighten us?
-
I don't have either, simply because the dice were loaded from the very beginning. No decent review would not only bypass the conclusions of the AG but ignore the rejected reconstruction he requested.The politically correct answer to the PM's order was to find an abducted child who was, as her parents said, very likely alive. It wasn't to keep an open mind.
I observe that more than 2 years after, SY's tone isn't as firm as it was on the alive topic, though the tax payers' opinion requires Mr Redwood's claiming there's a big chance Madeleine's alive (since there's no evidence of her being harmed by the Big Bad Woolf et patati et patata).
It would seem that SY agreed with the AG, insomuch as there is no evidence against the McCanns - which is why the status of Arguido was lifted and why SY have ruled them and their friends out of the equation. The same goes for Robert Murat.
SY have done their own 'virtual' reconstruction which has proved there was a window of opportunity for an abduction to have happened. They have the equipment/softwear to do that - so what is the problem?
Personally I would love to know how they do these virtual reconstructions - I remember being very impressed by one many years ago abut JFK's assassination. I'm also presuming the equipment used by SY today is even more superior to what it was then.
-
Rubbish Anne. None of us know for sure whether she is alive, or not. Cant think why you are pushing that unless you dont want her searched for?
Everyone in authority accepts that there is nothing to point to her having been killed, or died .... so why do you keep on?
What's in it for you to keep pushing it?
There has to be a reason for pushing it. There is a reason for everything
Care to enlighten us?
Can't think why you are defending the McCanns if they are no longer accused of anything.
Care to enlighten us ?
-
Can't think why you are defending the McCanns if they are no longer accused of anything.
Care to enlighten us ?
Sure, my pleasure
I see people deliberately besmirching their names. With absolutely nothing to go on, except feelings and myths.
I believe in justice. If the Mccanns did it then they should be taken to task
BUT there is nothing at all to point to them being implicated in any way. In fact the pointers are to an abductor
They are innocent of any wrong doing. FULL stop.
I always will support peeps against injustice. That is my MO.
-
Anne, or Faith
Your turn.
None of us know for sure whether Madeleine is alive, or not. Anne, cant think why you are pushing that unless you dont want her searched for?
Everyone in authority accepts that there is nothing to point to her having been killed, or died .... so why do you keep on?
What's in it for you to keep pushing it?
There has to be a reason for pushing it. There is a reason for everything
Care to enlighten us?
Your turn .......
-
Anne, or Faith
Your turn.
None of us know for sure whether Madeleine is alive, or not. Anne, cant think why you are pushing that unless you dont want her searched for?
Everyone in authority accepts that there is nothing to point to her having been killed, or died .... so why do you keep on?
What's in it for you to keep pushing it?
There has to be a reason for pushing it. There is a reason for everything
Care to enlighten us?
Your turn .......
I enlightened you an hour ago and asked the initial question before that
Care to enlighten us?
Or would you find that too difficult?
-
I enlightened you an hour ago and asked the initial question before that
Care to enlighten us?
Or would you find that too difficult?
No and err no.
-
Everybody has the right to think that Madeleine wasn't abducted, end of.
Everybody has the right to observe how Madeleine's parents misled their family, their friends and, through the media, the public, whether they were involved or not, this point being the competence of the police, end of.
-
Everybody has the right to think that Madeleine wasn't abducted, end of.
Everybody has the right to observe how Madeleine's parents misled their family, their friends and, through the media, the public, whether they were involved or not, this point being the competence of the police, end of.
Exactly, its not a crime to believe, or think, and state those beliefs and thoughts and questions, god forbid
@)(++(*
-
Everybody has the right to think that Madeleine wasn't abducted, end of.
Everybody has the right to observe how Madeleine's parents misled their family, their friends and, through the media, the public, whether they were involved or not, this point being the competence of the police, end of.
Well that's news to me and I'd bet my last penny it's news to their family and friends.
-
Well that's news to me and I'd bet my last penny it's news to their family and friends.
No news at all and better keep you last penny under your mattress ;)
Ms Renwick said : Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn. She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open."
"The shutters had been broken open and they've gone into the room and taken her.
Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone, said Mr Healy. She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open.
Trish Cameron, Mr McCann’s sister, said it appeared that someone had been spying on Madeleine and had targeted her for abduction : The front door was open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open and Madeleine was missing. Nothing had been touched in the apartment, no valuables taken, no passports. They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.
All lying ?
-
No and err no.
So once again, I answer your questions but you chicken out of answering mine.
>@@(*&)Hmmm
Simple question too
None of us know for sure whether she is alive, or not. Cant think why you are pushing that Madeleine is dead, unless you dont want her searched for?
Everyone in authority accepts that there is nothing to point to her having been killed, or died .... so why do you keep on?
What's in it for you to keep pushing it?
There has to be a reason for pushing it. There is a reason for everything
Care to enlighten us?
So you cant give your reason. Are you ashamed what people might think of you?
-
No news at all and better keep you last penny under your mattress ;)
Ms Renwick said : Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn. She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open."
"The shutters had been broken open and they've gone into the room and taken her.
Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone, said Mr Healy. She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open.
Trish Cameron, Mr McCann’s sister, said it appeared that someone had been spying on Madeleine and had targeted her for abduction : The front door was open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open and Madeleine was missing. Nothing had been touched in the apartment, no valuables taken, no passports. They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.
All lying ?
To be honest Anne I don't believe they were lying or intentionally set out to mislead anyone but Gerry was most certainly confused and mistaken initially as to how external window shutters work in Portugal. Unfortunately, that ignorance contributed to the ease in which Madeleine was abducted.
-
Both outcomes are rather bleak for all sorts of reasons.
If she is alive and well and being shielded within some obscure community then she will only be aware of that existence and of those people around her. She will have for all intents and purposes integrated with that community.
Given her tender age at the time of her kidnap she will have few if any memories of her pre abduction existence. She will have moulded a life for herself in a community which she considers to be home and a family which she considers to be her own.
One wonders then if she is eventually found what is crueller, to leave her where she is or to remove her to a life which she will consider alien to her entire existence?
She may also be a long time dead, either way the outcome for Maddie is not all that it is made out to be.
This is a good point, John. However, if this scenario turns out to be the correct one, it amounts to further damage inflicted on her by her abductor. She was snatched from her true, biological family to fulfill the agenda of a criminal. That is the true cruelty of the scenario. No kidnap victim can be left with their abductor.
-
To be honest Anne I don't believe they were lying or intentionally set out to mislead anyone but Gerry was most certainly confused and mistaken initially as to how external window shutters work in Portugal. Unfortunately, that ignorance contributed to the ease in which Madeleine was abducted.
If the window was used, as seems likely, how did Gerry's ignorance contribute to the alleged abduction ?
-
No news at all and better keep you last penny under your mattress ;)
Ms Renwick said : Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn. She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open."
"The shutters had been broken open and they've gone into the room and taken her.
Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone, said Mr Healy. She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open.
Trish Cameron, Mr McCann’s sister, said it appeared that someone had been spying on Madeleine and had targeted her for abduction : The front door was open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open and Madeleine was missing. Nothing had been touched in the apartment, no valuables taken, no passports. They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.
All lying ?
I don't know why you think anyone is lying Anne
I'm sure you already know that when people are re-telling something they have been told, they do not repeat parrot fashion the exact words which they heard - especially if it is something shocking or outrageous - they use their own words - and own interpretations and make assumptions based on what they have been told.
The main gist being conveyed by Kate and Gerry was that they had found Madeleine gone from her bed and the shutters/ window in the bedroom, (which they knew to be closed when they went out) - now both wide open. Their immediate reaction to this horrific discovery was that someone had broken into that room through that window and abducted their child - which of course is the first thing any normal person would think at that point.
We do not know the exact words K&G used, but we do know that they were both in a very distressed state, and the people they phoned would also be extremely shocked at the news. The fact that different people have not all remembered - or precisely repeated word for word like tape recorders - what K&G told them, but may have also have added in their own impressions of what happened is perfectly normal.
It's obvious that K&G did not have identical conversations with each and every person they spoke to. Different people would ask different questions - and so what K&G talked about with one person, they may not have done with another.
None of those people were there - and so they had to try to visualise what had happened:-
If Kate said that someone had broken in through the window, then it's perfectly possible that one of the people she told this to assumed that in that case the shutters must have been jemmied - and so when they related what had happened to someone else - (say a reporter for instance) - then 'jemmied' is the word they would use. IOW they put their own take on it.
There is nothing odd or unusual about any of that. and no-one is lying or trying to mislead. It's perfectly normal human behaviour.
---------
A few years back I had a phone call from a neighbour excitedly telling me that our village PO had been raided in broad daylight and our postmaster had been attacked with a baseball bat and was in hospital. The next time I went to the PO - I was surprised to see him standing there as fit as a fiddle. He told me that there was a bat - but the robbers had not touched him with it - only threatened him. Did I think my neighbour was a liar? No of course I didn't. The story was probably 3rd/4th hand by the time it reached me - and as always happens in these cases - people had put their own take on it along the way - and so inaccuracies had crept in.
-
I don't know why you think anyone is lying Anne
I'm sure you already know that when people are re-telling something they have been told, they do not repeat parrot fashion the exact words which they heard - especially if it is something shocking or outrageous - they use their own words - and own interpretations and make assumptions based on what they have been told.
The main gist being conveyed by Kate and Gerry was that they had found Madeleine gone from her bed and the shutters/ window in the bedroom, (which they knew to be closed when they went out) - now both wide open. Their immediate reaction to this horrific discovery was that someone had broken into that room through that window and abducted their child - which of course is the first thing any normal person would think at that point.
We do not know the exact words K&G used, but we do know that they were both in a very distressed state, and the people they phoned would also be extremely shocked at the news. The fact that different people have not all remembered - or precisely repeated word for word like tape recorders - what K&G told them, but may have also have added in their own impressions of what happened is perfectly normal.
It's obvious that K&G did not have identical conversations with each and every person they spoke to. Different people would ask different questions - and so what K&G talked about with one person, they may not have done with another.
None of those people were there - and so they had to try to visualise what had happened:-
If Kate said that someone had broken in through the window, then it's perfectly possible that one of the people she told this to assumed that in that case the shutters must have been jemmied - and so when they related what had happened to someone else - (say a reporter for instance) - then 'jemmied' is the word they would use. IOW they put their own take on it.
There is nothing odd or unusual about any of that. and no-one is lying or trying to mislead. It's perfectly normal human behaviour.
---------
A few years back I had a phone call from a neighbour excitedly telling me that our village PO had been raided in broad daylight and our postmaster had been attacked with a baseball bat and was in hospital. The next time I went to the PO - I was surprised to see him standing there as fit as a fiddle. He told me that there was a bat - but the robbers had not touched him with it - only threatened him. Did I think my neighbour was a liar? No of course I didn't. The story was probably 3rd/4th hand by the time it reached me - and as always happens in these cases - people had put their own take on it along the way - and so inaccuracies had crept in.
But that's the point Benice, each person interviewed to a man said virtually the same thing,not their interpretation and those facts could only have come from the McCanns.
Can we put another myth to bed. By the time Gerry spoke to any of his family he had, we are told by Kate and Gerry themselves, tried the shutters and knew they didn't have to be jemmied or forced in any way to be opened. Strange therefore how Gerry didn't mention the ease with which the shutters could be opened to any of his relatives by preferred to suggest force had been used.
-
I don't know why you think anyone is lying Anne
I'm sure you already know that when people are re-telling something they have been told, they do not repeat parrot fashion the exact words which they heard - especially if it is something shocking or outrageous - they use their own words - and own interpretations and make assumptions based on what they have been told.
The main gist being conveyed by Kate and Gerry was that they had found Madeleine gone from her bed and the shutters/ window in the bedroom, (which they knew to be closed when they went out) - now both wide open. Their immediate reaction to this horrific discovery was that someone had broken into that room through that window and abducted their child - which of course is the first thing any normal person would think at that point.
We do not know the exact words K&G used, but we do know that they were both in a very distressed state, and the people they phoned would also be extremely shocked at the news. The fact that different people have not all remembered - or precisely repeated word for word like tape recorders - what K&G told them, but may have also have added in their own impressions of what happened is perfectly normal.
It's obvious that K&G did not have identical conversations with each and every person they spoke to. Different people would ask different questions - and so what K&G talked about with one person, they may not have done with another.
None of those people were there - and so they had to try to visualise what had happened:-
If Kate said that someone had broken in through the window, then it's perfectly possible that one of the people she told this to assumed that in that case the shutters must have been jemmied - and so when they related what had happened to someone else - (say a reporter for instance) - then 'jemmied' is the word they would use. IOW they put their own take on it.
There is nothing odd or unusual about any of that. and no-one is lying or trying to mislead. It's perfectly normal human behaviour.
---------
A few years back I had a phone call from a neighbour excitedly telling me that our village PO had been raided in broad daylight and our postmaster had been attacked with a baseball bat and was in hospital. The next time I went to the PO - I was surprised to see him standing there as fit as a fiddle. He told me that there was a bat - but the robbers had not touched him with it - only threatened him. Did I think my neighbour was a liar? No of course I didn't. The story was probably 3rd/4th hand by the time it reached me - and as always happens in these cases - people had put their own take on it along the way - and so inaccuracies had crept in.
Benice, in this case it was first hand !
There's no reasonable explanation for the coincidence they all got it wrong about the doors locked, the broken shutters and the open window. People awoken in the middle of the night by a phone call saying a little girl has gone don't start asking how, who etc., they're shocked.
They disguised the truth and they had a good reason for doing so : escape blame. The guilty one was a man without a face, then for ever without identity.
If their words exceeded their convictions, given the horrible situation of having lost the child they had so much longed for, how do you explain they were careful to tell the police only they had found the shutters open ? And how do you justify they left the media repeat, innocently, the spectacular and false story of the broken shutters that miraculously turned them into victims ?
Had Madeleine had an accident when searching for them or even had she been abducted when searching for them, would people have thought the parents were victims ? Would you, Benice ? Or would you, if, by chance (the media wouldn't have reported it) you heard of the drama, simply feel compassion for parents who made a mistake with such cruel consequences ?
No doubt that readers of the UK newspapers, which all sang a song they didn't invent, thought the police was incompetent: doors locked, broken shutters and open window, what could it be unless a predator ? Why would the police lose precious time looking for a little girl who obviously hadn't wandered off ? Would they be trying to protect tourism, etc.
Though I find inappropriate to consider abduction as a fact, I'm not excluding the possibility Madeleine was abducted. Nevertheless, this hypothesis raises many questions, the first being why her parents didn't say the truth. The one and only reasonable explanation I can find is denying reality.
-
But that's the point Benice, each person interviewed to a man said virtually the same thing,not their interpretation and those facts could only have come from the McCanns.
Can we put another myth to bed. By the time Gerry spoke to any of his family he had, we are told by Kate and Gerry themselves, tried the shutters and knew they didn't have to be jemmied or forced in any way to be opened. Strange therefore how Gerry didn't mention the ease with which the shutters could be opened to any of his relatives by preferred to suggest force had been used.
Faith, we only know the gist of what Kate and Gerry said to their friends and family. We do not know their exact words and to attribute other people's words and interpretations of what they had been told - to Kate and Gerry is unfair. Once again you are not making any allowances for the emotional state everybody involved would be in during those conversations. Everyone said what a dreadful state of fear and distress K&G were in and you are expecting Gerry to be having rational conversations??? You cannot be serious.
Once again I come back to the major sticking point in this case. Why would Gerry and Kate decide to come up with such a complicated, convoluted cover story, involving disposing of the body early on when people were around, thinking up all kinds of stories, getting someone to give them an alibi - and involving loads of other people, who they would then have to rely on for the rest of their lives - when all they had to do was dispose of Madeleine's body in the dead of the night, get up in the morning, leave the front door ajar - call the police and say that someone must have come in during the night and abducted their child. No-one else involved, no stories to think up, and no alibis required.
The McCanns are intelligent well educated people and if they were so calculating and stoney-hearted that they could dispose of their own daughter in cold blood, they would have no difficulty at all in calmly sitting down and working out a cover story a million times simpler, easier and better than the one the sceptics claim they did.
How anyone can keep missing this massive elephant in the room I have no idea.
-
Just a question, Benice. Do you admit Madeleine could have been abducted just before 10pm?
-
But that's the point Benice, each person interviewed to a man said virtually the same thing,not their interpretation and those facts could only have come from the McCanns.
Can we put another myth to bed. By the time Gerry spoke to any of his family he had, we are told by Kate and Gerry themselves, tried the shutters and knew they didn't have to be jemmied or forced in any way to be opened. Strange therefore how Gerry didn't mention the ease with which the shutters could be opened to any of his relatives by preferred to suggest force had been used.
faith
Have you ever played the game where you all arrange yourself in a line, and the first person whispers a message into the ear of the next person? That person whispers the same message into the ear of the next person and so on.... and so on all along the line?
By the end the message can be quite jumbled.
In this case, a message was given to one of a group of people by Gerry. Then another similar but possibly slightly different message was given, by Gerry, to another person .... different because Gerry remembered different things as he went along ... and as people talked with him, his perception of what had happened adjusted accordingly. He was also in shock with his mind either racing or blank. Either thing can happen in a severe crisis
Additionally, because each person would ask different questions of Gerry, so the answers inevitably would include different facts.
What do you think would happen to these family members when Gerry stopped talking to them?
Each would immediately phone other family members and go over what Gerry had said. A big family. It would only take one member to suggest Jemmying .... and very rapidly as they cross conversed, they would all be using the word.
Nothing sinister there... just normal human conversations getting mixed up as in the party game.
Simples
-
Benice, in this case it was first hand !
There's no reasonable explanation for the coincidence they all got it wrong about the doors locked, the broken shutters and the open window. People awoken in the middle of the night by a phone call saying a little girl has gone don't start asking how, who etc., they're shocked.
They disguised the truth and they had a good reason for doing so : escape blame. The guilty one was a man without a face, then for ever without identity.
If their words exceeded their convictions, given the horrible situation of having lost the child they had so much longed for, how do you explain they were careful to tell the police only they had found the shutters open ? And how do you justify they left the media repeat, innocently, the spectacular and false story of the broken shutters that miraculously turned them into victims ?
Had Madeleine had an accident when searching for them or even had she been abducted when searching for them, would people have thought the parents were victims ? Would you, Benice ? Or would you, if, by chance (the media wouldn't have reported it) you heard of the drama, simply feel compassion for parents who made a mistake with such cruel consequences ?
No doubt that readers of the UK newspapers, which all sang a song they didn't invent, thought the police was incompetent: doors locked, broken shutters and open window, what could it be unless a predator ? Why would the police lose precious time looking for a little girl who obviously hadn't wandered off ? Would they be trying to protect tourism, etc.
Though I find inappropriate to consider abduction as a fact, I'm not excluding the possibility Madeleine was abducted. Nevertheless, this hypothesis raises many questions, the first being why her parents didn't say the truth. The one and only reasonable explanation I can find is denying reality.
They did not lie about the shutters. When they left 5A the shutters and window were closed as they had been all week and as far as they knew they couldn't be opened from the outside. Madeleine was asleep in her bed. When Kate returned the shutters and window were open and Madeleine was gone. Any normal person on being confronted with that scene would immediately think that someone had broken in through that window and taken their child. They would have been abnormal if they had NOT thought that is what happened.
Later they realised that the window was only ONE way the abductor could have got in. But that doesn't mean they lied when they first told people what they thought had happened. It was their opinion based on the evidence of their own eyes. An opinion is not a lie. The fact that Gerry discovered the shutters could be raised from the outside did not change their opinon at the time - and for all we know he may have thought the only reason they could now be raised from the outside was because they had been interfered with in some way by the abductors. Who knows.
-
@ Benice
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Faith, we only know the gist of what Kate and Gerry said to their friends and family. We do not know their exact words and to attribute other people's words and interpretations of what they had been told - to Kate and Gerry is unfair. Once again you are not making any allowances for the emotional state everybody involved would be in during those conversations. Everyone said what a dreadful state of fear and distress K&G were in and you are expecting Gerry to be having rational conversations??? You cannot be serious.
Once again I come back to the major sticking point in this case. Why would Gerry and Kate decide to come up with such a complicated, convoluted cover story, involving disposing of the body early on when people were around, thinking up all kinds of stories, getting someone to give them an alibi - and involving loads of other people, who they would then have to rely on for the rest of their lives - when all they had to do was dispose of Madeleine's body in the dead of the night, get up in the morning, leave the front door ajar - call the police and say that someone must have come in during the night and abducted their child. No-one else involved, no stories to think up, and no alibis required.
The McCanns are intelligent well educated people and if they were so calculating and stoney-hearted that they could dispose of their own daughter in cold blood, they would have no difficulty at all in calmly sitting down and working out a cover story a million times simpler, easier and better than the one the sceptics claim they did.
How anyone can keep missing this massive elephant in the room I have no idea.
The story is not convoluted, it's very simple really. The story is Madeleine was abducted, the window was open to prove it was an abduction and not a walk and wandered and Tanner had to see Gerry and the abductor together, at a time when there was an independent witness present, as it gave Gerry an alibi just in case Martin Smith came forward to identify him.
-
faith
Have you ever played the game where you all arrange yourself in a line, and the first person whispers a message into the ear of the next person? That person whispers the same message into the ear of the next person and so on.... and so on all along the line?
By the end the message can be quite jumbled.
In this case, a message was given to one of a group of people by Gerry. Then another similar but possibly slightly different message was given, by Gerry, to another person .... different because Gerry remembered different things as he went along ... and as people talked with him, his perception of what had happened adjusted accordingly. He was also in shock with his mind either racing or blank. Either thing can happen in a severe crisis
Additionally, because each person would ask different questions of Gerry, so the answers inevitably would include different facts.
What do you think would happen to these family members when Gerry stopped talking to them?
Each would immediately phone other family members and go over what Gerry had said. A big family. It would only take one member to suggest Jemmying .... and very rapidly as they cross conversed, they would all be using the word.
Nothing sinister there... just normal human conversations getting mixed up as in the party game.
Simples
Except Kate spoke to her friends, who had no connection to Gerry's family and they reported also being told about broken/forced shutters. Now how do you think that happened ? >@@(*&)
-
They did not lie about the shutters. When they left 5A the shutters and window were closed as they had been all week and as far as they knew they couldn't be opened from the outside. Madeleine was asleep in her bed. When Kate returned the shutters and window were open and Madeleine was gone. Any normal person on being confronted with that scene would immediately think that someone had broken in through that window and taken their child. They would have been abnormal if they had NOT thought that is what happened.
Later they realised that the window was only ONE way the abductor could have got in. But that doesn't mean they lied when they first told people what they thought had happened. It was their opinion based on the evidence of their own eyes. An opinion is not a lie. The fact that Gerry discovered the shutters could be raised from the outside did not change their opinon at the time - and for all we know he may have thought the only reason they could now be raised from the outside was because they had been interfered with in some way by the abductors. Who knows.
I don't know how many was I can say this Benice. By the time Gerry spoke to any of his relatives he had, according to him, tried the shutters and knew they could be opened without forcing or jemmying anything so why didn't he say that to any of those relatives instead of implying they had been forced ?
-
Except Kate spoke to her friends, who had no connection to Gerry's family and they reported also being told about broken/forced shutters. Now how do you think that happened ? >@@(*&)
The two families would have had a hot line going between them in such a dire emergency. It is just like the party game with the words getting changed as they are passed down the line See reply #75 above
You are making too much of it Faith.
-
BUMPED
Rachel quotation:
I just cannot get my head around people, some of whom didn't really know the McCanns that well, all agreeing to take part in the cover-up of a child's death. Why? Why expose yourself to possible criminal charges for perverting the course of justice?
I don't think we have a reliable source for Jane Tanner and Rusell O'Brien wanting to change their statements?
-
@sadie
'I don't think we have a reliable source for Jane Tanner and Rusell O'Brien wanting to change their statements?'
Jeez you're right sadie. It wasn't posted by some member of the 3As somewhere back in antiquity therefore it can't be true, right ? 8)-)))
-
@sadie
'I don't think we have a reliable source for Jane Tanner and Rusell O'Brien wanting to change their statements?'
Jeez you're right sadie. It wasn't posted by some member of the 3As somewhere back in antiquity therefore it can't be true, right ? 8)-)))
So can you provide a reliable cite for this claim about them wanting to change their stories then, Faithlilly?
-
@sadie
'I don't think we have a reliable source for Jane Tanner and Rusell O'Brien wanting to change their statements?'
Jeez you're right sadie. It wasn't posted by some member of the 3As somewhere back in antiquity therefore it can't be true, right ? 8)-)))
Well there will have been reliable witnesses to what I saw on 3A's. Maybe I should ask B**n or B**ny to confirm what I was saying ... or someone else who was there?
Maybe I should involve sn**p, instead? I tghink he was there. Would be fun to have him on this forum
Doncha think?
-
I don't know how many was I can say this Benice. By the time Gerry spoke to any of his relatives he had, according to him, tried the shutters and knew they could be opened without forcing or jemmying anything so why didn't he say that to any of those relatives instead of implying they had been forced ?
That's a good point, Faithlilly.
One more time I reckon that sceptics are accused to suspect the group of covering up. This wasn't needed and usually "dirty clothes are washed within the family" as we say in France (le linge sale se lave en famille, for Rachel).
Mrs Tanner saw someone, she couldn't invent such a strange sighting, someone whose face she couldn't describe, if not refused to.
The first story telling is vague and amazes Silvia Bastista, the interpret : when she saw this man, the lady (JT) was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.
Mrs Tanner's sighting sounds consciously or not complacent because it implies kind of believing in Santa Claus. The implications of such a sighting are not plausible : the abductor and Mr McCann leaning on each side of an open door without the second suspecting the presence of the first, without hearing him breathing ? The abductor walking with Mr McCann's daughter 20 m far without again Mr McCann seeing him ? The abductor walking around PDL during 50 minutes, as if the child he stole had no family to check on her? A little girl deeply sleeping against a stranger's body, with a light pyjama on in the 12°C windy night ?
Madeleine, if abducted, couldn't have been abducted then. This was clearly the crucial point to clear up in the reconstruction requested by the AG.
-
Jane Tanner is not "Mrs Tanner." She is not married to a Mr Tanner. Tanner is the name she was born with, so "Ms Tanner" is correct - not "Mrs."
-
Jane Tanner is not "Mrs Tanner." She is not married to a Mr Tanner. Tanner is the name she was born with, so "Ms Tanner" is correct - not "Mrs."
Nothing like a bit of irrelevant pedantry, as if it changes anything of import, just nitpicking for nothing
You should also know that in certain languages the Mrs epithet is directed at unmarried women in any relationship and the Miss epithet to married women, its not a big deal, really it isnt
-
That's a good point, Faithlilly.
One more time I reckon that sceptics are accused to suspect the group of covering up. This wasn't needed and usually "dirty clothes are washed within the family" as we say in France (le linge sale se lave en famille, for Rachel).
Mrs Tanner saw someone, she couldn't invent such a strange sighting, someone whose face she couldn't describe, if not refused to.
The first story telling is vague and amazes Silvia Bastista, the interpret : when she saw this man, the lady (JT) was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.[/i]
That is absolute rubbish. She was walking straight up the hill as Bundleman suddenly appeared from the left. She had a full side view, from about 8-10 metres, but he looked away. From the image produced, it seems that she only got a proper view of a third of his face. As he carried on crossing the road in an easterly direction, he got closer and closer to the street lamp until he was virtually under it and then beyond ... but still in her visibility for a while.
As he moved east, Jane moved north, so assuming they were walking at the same speed they kept a distance of about .8 -10 metres between them.
From the images drawn, it appears that he was hurrying Maybe Jane was too, but we do not know that for certain.
Please can you give the exact cite for your extract. Anne, cos it sounds funny that you have only mentioned Silvia Bastista, when presumably it is supposed to be part of one of JT's statements. Exactly which one please.
It is clearly wrong. She could see the location and VERY WELL. It seems very strange that it should have beeen interpreted so badly to the extent that it is totally untrue
.... and what do you mean by
Mrs Tanner saw someone, she couldn't invent such a strange sighting, someone whose face she couldn't describe, if not refused to
Are you intimating that Jane Tanner refused to give evidence? I am sure that you didn't mean to say that, did you?
Mrs Tanner's sighting sounds consciously or not complacent because it implies kind of believing in Santa Claus.
The implications of such a sighting are not plausible.
They clearly are very plausible and where does Santa Claus come into this? @)(++(* You are droll Anne, bet your students love you !
: the abductor and Mr McCann leaning on each side of an open door without the second suspecting the presence of the first, without hearing him breathing ?
Just a question mark in Gerry head. He wondered if the abductor was there when he was there. He wondered if he could have been in the Mccanns bedroom, I think he mentioned the kitchen too, or possibly behind the door. Anne, he was just trying to fathom things out and this dreadful, feeling came over him that bundleman might have been there when he was in the apartment. That's all. Just a niggling feeling - nothing more.
I fear you are making too much out of nothing
The abductor walking with Mr McCann's daughter 20 m far without again Mr McCann seeing him ?
Lets be accurate Anne. Bundleman was 31 metres away, NOT 20 metres, as close as I can measure it and it wasn't daylight. Check it yourself using GEarth.
The abductor walking around PDL during 50 minutes, as if the child he stole had no family to check on her? A little girl deeply sleeping against a stranger's body, with a light pyjama on in the 12°C windy night ?.
As has been poiinted out on here several times, the kids were
1) Checked visually at about 9.05 - 9.15 by Gerry
2) Checked visually again by Matt at about 9,40 (unhappily Madeleines bed was around the corner so only the twins were visually checked by Matt but no unusual sounds)
3) And checked visually by Kate at 10.00
How come you haven't seen that before, on here. Did you read the statements? It was clear on there too.
Where did you get your 50 minutes Anne? ... and the insinuation that no family checked her is gawd awful. It is totally untrue. You have got too many facts wrong on this one Anne
Madeleine, if abducted, couldn't have been abducted then.
Clearly she could have been and almost certainly was. There were two witnesses , Jane Tanner and Caroline Carpenter
This was clearly the crucial point to clear up in the reconstruction requested by the AG.
Why did the PJ chicken out of it? The Mccanns were up for it
Up for it, right until after that dreadful day in September in Portimao when Amaral and Co told Gerry lies about finding evidence that proved they did it. SWINE 8()(((@#
After that it was clear they were being fitted up.
-
Jane Tanner is not "Mrs Tanner." She is not married to a Mr Tanner. Tanner is the name she was born with, so "Ms Tanner" is correct - not "Mrs."
Thank you, Chinagirl, yes, it's surely better to say Ms, when one doesn't know whether a marital status exists or not and, if there is, how the person wishes to be designated.
I knew it was in use in the US, but thought it had vanished from the UK.
In France, everybody is "Madame", "Mademoiselle", when you're not a teen, has become pejorative (sort of synonym of spinster). Old times, old customs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/29/gender.uk
-
Jane Tanner is not "Mrs Tanner." She is not married to a Mr Tanner. Tanner is the name she was born with, so "Ms Tanner" is correct - not "Mrs."
As Russell O'Brien was at pains to point out in his rogatory interview.
-
If the window was used, as seems likely, how did Gerry's ignorance contribute to the alleged abduction ?
he didn't know that the shutters can be locked in the down position yet still allow them to be expanded to let air into the room with the window open.
-
The abductor was not to know that it would take so long for a search to be organised involving the police so why take the chance of wandering around the town for 45 minutes...it just doesn't add up.
On the other hand, two similar looking men were seen carrying a young girl around PDL within a space of 45 minutes yet not one of them saw fit to come forward. Very strange? >@@(*&)
-
The abductor was not to know that it would take so long for a search to be organised involving the police so why take the chance of wandering around the town for 45 minutes...it just doesn't add up.
On the other hand, two similar looking men were seen carrying a young girl around PDL within a space of 45 minutes yet not one of them saw fit to come forward. Very strange? >@@(*&)
There is no way that the man Jane Tanner says she saw ... and the man the Smith family say they saw almost an hour later were one and the same
That is one of the most nonsense theories put forward in this case
It simply makes no sense
-
The story is not convoluted, it's very simple really. The story is Madeleine was abducted, the window was open to prove it was an abduction and not a walk and wandered and Tanner had to see Gerry and the abductor together, at a time when there was an independent witness present, as it gave Gerry an alibi just in case Martin Smith came forward to identify him.
So as part of the cover up plan they decided to open the window and shutters and say they'd been smashed/jemmied/forced (whatever) - but were both so simpleminded that it didn't occur to them that in order for that to be believed - the shutters would actually have to show some signs of being smashed/jemmied/forced? You really think they were that stupid??
As Gerry could have no idea that Jez Wilkins was going to turn up - then when did he find the time after that chance meeting to hatch a plot with JT (who he hardly knew) - and convince her to lie and say she had seen them and then immediately afterwards had seen the abductor - to give G an alibi? And then after going to all that trouble, why did he ruin the whole 'story' by saying HE hadn't seen JT - thus casting doubt on his own alibi?
I have no idea what use JT would be to Gerry re the Smith sighting, as JT was in her own apartment at 10.00 o'clock - so how could she give Gerry an alibi if M. Smith came forward and identified him?
I can't believe anyone would think that K&G would do all this complicated plotting and planning with windows shutters, arranging alibi stories with JT and all the others having to lie for them, when they could have so easily thought up a much simpler and much safer plan to protect themselves without involving another soul.
And anyway, why would they decide to have a cover-up story which 'commenced' at 10.00 at night, at the end of a long activity filled day when they would all be tired? Like all the rest of this 'theory' - that makes no sense at all.
If you think this is all ''very simple really'' Faith, then I beg to differ - in fact this particular elephant in the room just gets bigger and bigger. imo.
-
Faith
The story is not convoluted, it's very simple really. The story is Madeleine was abducted, the window was open to prove it was an abduction and not a walk and wandered and Tanner had to see Gerry and the abductor together, at a time when there was an independent witness present, as it gave Gerry an alibi just in case Martin Smith came forward to identify him.
So as part of the cover up plan they decided to open the window and shutters and say they'd been smashed/jemmied/forced (whatever) - but were both so simpleminded that it didn't occur to them that in order for that to be believed - the shutters would actually have to show some signs of being smashed/jemmied/forced? You really think they were that stupid??
As Gerry could have no idea that Jez Wilkins was going to turn up - then when did he find the time after that chance meeting to hatch a plot with JT (who he hardly knew) - and convince her to lie and say she had seen them and then immediately afterwards had seen the abductor - to give G an alibi? And then after going to all that trouble, why did he ruin the whole 'story' by saying HE hadn't seen JT - thus casting doubt on his own alibi?
I have no idea what use JT would be to Gerry re the Smith sighting, as JT was in her own apartment at 10.00 o'clock - so how could she give Gerry an alibi if M. Smith came forward and identified him?
I can't believe anyone would think that K&G would do all this complicated plotting and planning with windows shutters, arranging alibi stories with JT and all the others having to lie for them, when they could have so easily thought up a much simpler and much safer plan to protect themselves without involving another soul.
And anyway, why would they decide to have a cover-up story which 'commenced' at 10.00 at night, at the end of a long activity filled day when they would all be tired? Like all the rest of this 'theory' - that makes no sense at all.
If you think this is all ''very simple really'' Faith, then I beg to differ - in fact this particular elephant in the room just gets bigger and bigger. imo.
Brilliant analyses Benice ... and clearly put. 8@??)(
-
So as part of the cover up plan they decided to open the window and shutters and say they'd been smashed/jemmied/forced (whatever) - but were both so simpleminded that it didn't occur to them that in order for that to be believed - the shutters would actually have to show some signs of being smashed/jemmied/forced? You really think they were that stupid??
Nobody said the forced shutters etc. were part of a cover up plan. They didn't need to smash the shutters since the misled family and friends had no opportunity of checking whether it was true or not.
To the police they only said they had left the shutters, the window, the curtains closed and they found them open. They didn't offer any explanation for what was the job of the police to investigate.
-
Nobody said the forced shutters etc. were part of a cover up plan. They didn't need to smash the shutters since the misled family and friends had no opportunity of checking whether it was true or not.
To the police they only said they had left the shutters, the window, the curtains closed and they found them open. They didn't offer any explanation for what was the job of the police to investigate.
Make your mind up Anne, according to recent posts the McCanns lied about the windows and shutters, claiming they had been smashed/jemmied/forced. Now you're saying they only said that to their friends and families
What could they possibly achieve by lying to their friends and families? That makes no sense.
-
Make your mind up Anne, according to recent posts the McCanns lied about the windows and shutters, claiming they had been smashed/jemmied/forced. Now you're saying they only said that to their friends and families
What could they possibly achieve by lying to their friends and families? That makes no sense.
Read my post again, Benice, I never said the story was told to others than the people close to them in the UK. And I said why they did so, imo.
-
So as part of the cover up plan they decided to open the window and shutters and say they'd been smashed/jemmied/forced (whatever) - but were both so simpleminded that it didn't occur to them that in order for that to be believed - the shutters would actually have to show some signs of being smashed/jemmied/forced? You really think they were that stupid??
As Gerry could have no idea that Jez Wilkins was going to turn up - then when did he find the time after that chance meeting to hatch a plot with JT (who he hardly knew) - and convince her to lie and say she had seen them and then immediately afterwards had seen the abductor - to give G an alibi? And then after going to all that trouble, why did he ruin the whole 'story' by saying HE hadn't seen JT - thus casting doubt on his own alibi?
I have no idea what use JT would be to Gerry re the Smith sighting, as JT was in her own apartment at 10.00 o'clock - so how could she give Gerry an alibi if M. Smith came forward and identified him?
I can't believe anyone would think that K&G would do all this complicated plotting and planning with windows shutters, arranging alibi stories with JT and all the others having to lie for them, when they could have so easily thought up a much simpler and much safer plan to protect themselves without involving another soul.
And anyway, why would they decide to have a cover-up story which 'commenced' at 10.00 at night, at the end of a long activity filled day when they would all be tired? Like all the rest of this 'theory' - that makes no sense at all.
If you think this is all ''very simple really'' Faith, then I beg to differ - in fact this particular elephant in the room just gets bigger and bigger. imo.
A good post Benice. The claim that Gerry was the man the Smiths saw or that Jane made up the story of seeing a man carrying a child falls down on credibility alone.
-
There is no way that the man Jane Tanner says she saw ... and the man the Smith family say they saw almost an hour later were one and the same
That is one of the most nonsense theories put forward in this case
It simply makes no sense
A reconstruction could have proven it.
-
A reconstruction could have proven it.
HOW ?
And why didn't Amaral do it at the time? The Mccanns were willing at that time and until early september
But it all changed after Amarals crew lied to Gerry when he was made an arquido.
His lot told Gerry that the dogs had proved that they (the Mccanns) had carried Madeleine in the hire car.
Gerry knew that to be untrue. At that stage, the Mccanns realised that they were definitely being fixed up.
-
HOW ?
And why didn't Amaral do it at the time? The Mccanns were willing at that time and until early september
But it all changed after Amarals crew lied to Gerry when he was made an arquido.
His lot told Gerry that the dogs had proved that they (the Mccanns) had carried Madeleine in the hire car.
Gerry knew that to be untrue. At that stage, the Mccanns realised that they were definitely being fixed up.
Rebelo was co-ordinator at the time of the reconstruction request and wasn't he, according to you supporters, appalled at Amaral's handling of the case so what did they have to fear from him ?
-
His lot told Gerry that the dogs had proved that they (the Mccanns) had carried Madeleine in the hire car.
Gerry knew that to be untrue.
I agree with that. A big relief for the McCanns and a fatal mistake from the PJ (difficulty to admit a funerary ritual could be bypassed ?).
-
Did it change or was there simply more added to it ?
No. Your statement was from the 4th May, mine was from 8th May. You complain about the McCann's and Tapas group, changing their statements. Whats the difference? You can't have it both ways!
-
No. Your statement was from the 4th May, mine was from 8th May. You complain about the McCann's and Tapas group, changing their statements. Whats the difference? You can't have it both ways!
She didn't change it, she added to it. Gerry saying he used his key in his first statement then the patio doors in his second is 'changing' his statement.
Do you see the difference ?
-
I agree with that. A big relief for the McCanns and a fatal mistake from the PJ (difficulty to admit a funerary ritual could be bypassed ?).
So we have got a funeral now, have we Faith Anne?
that seems libellous to me.
Sorry Faith.
-
So we have got a funeral now, have we Faith?
that seems libellous to me.
Not my post sadie.
-
The group spontaneously started to timeline their checks on the kids. They obviously felt they had to show they weren't irresponsible parents though they left their children alone in a strange place. It didn't pass their minds, nor the PJ's minds, to timeline eventual leaving of the table for some other motive, like suddenly remembering to have left sunglasses near the pool or not hearing well a cell phone communication or going to the bathroom, etc. Who would remember such details and moreover acknowledge them, since nobody then doubted the child had been snatched by a stranger ?
So we have a very limited view of that fatal dinner. Even what they talked about is unknown, except for the crying episode and dubious humour about Ms T and Mr OB
-
Just an aside. Both Gerry and Kate are entitled to be called Dr, and NOT Mr or Mrs.
It is my understanding that Gerry is a consultant physician and as such he keeps the title Dr,
Kate is a Dr too.
Thought that would clear it up for you Anne. It is a bit confusing, I know
Consultant surgeons, on the other hand, having been Dr. during their earlier years, become Mr again
As a woman of the world, I thought that you would want to get that right 8((()*/
-
Amaral is talking nonsense. The beaches are to the south, not the east, or west.
Start off going east, turn right and you are going south to the beach.
Start off going west, turn left and you are going south to the beach
Amaral is talking absolute rubbish. Waffle
I must admit that I am surprised if you are taken in by that Faith
-
Amaral is talking nonsense. The beaches are to the south, not the east, or west.
Start off going east, turn right and you are going south to the beach.
Start off going west, turn left and you are going south to the beach
Amaral is talking absolute rubbish. Waffle
I must admit that I am surprised if you are taken in by that Faith
Both ways eventually go to the beach but east would have taken the carrier in the dirction of Murat's, west to the to the point where the Smith's saw him.
-
Correct
-
Correct
That's what Amaral said.
-
Both ways eventually go to the beach but east would have taken the carrier in the dirction of Murat's, west to the to the point where the Smith's saw him.
In fact the translation isn't good : Ms Tanner would have indicated the opposite direction (east) in order to protect Mr McCann (who went west and then south to cross the Smith family).
I still wonder whether Ms Tanner, seeing a sort of Mr McCann lookalike (cf. Martin Smith) and convinced she couldn't be spotting Mr McCann abducting his own daughter, found it better to make sure the police wouldn't lose time following a false lead.
-
Anne seems to know an awful about this abduction. Even what the statements must have meant, not what they actually said 8-)(--)
Posting Libel comments, about Jane and Gerry, too.
-
In fact the translation isn't good : Ms Tanner would have indicated the opposite direction (east) in order to protect Mr McCann (who went west and then south to cross the Smith family).
I still wonder whether Ms Tanner, seeing a sort of Mr McCann lookalike (cf. Martin Smith) and convinced she couldn't be spotting Mr McCann abducting his own daughter, found it better to make sure the police wouldn't lose time following a false lead.
Anne you know damned well what you are saying isn't true.
The time that Gerry was away has been established by all sorts of people. Thoroughly discussed in earlier threads. Jane Tanner and Caroline Carpenter establish the time as well. Are you saying that Caroline is INIT too?
You are committing libel again by at best accusing Dr Gerry Mccann of telling lies in his statement; at worst getting rid of Madeleines body.
You are also libelling Jane Tanner.
What is it, that makes you say all these things with no proof or indications at all?
Tell us your theory, if you have one
-
Anne you know damned well what you are saying isn't true.
The time that Gerry was away has been established by all sorts of people. Thoroughly discussed in earlier threads. Jane Tanner and Caroline Carpenter establish the time as well. Are you saying that Caroline is INIT too?
You are committing libel again by at best accusing Dr Gerry Mccann of telling lies in his statement; at worst getting rid of Madeleines body.
You are also libelling Jane Tanner.
What is it, that makes you say all these things with no proof or indications at all?
Tell us your theory, if you have one
Caroline Carpenter. We have no idea what she said as her statement is not in the released files.
Her husband in his statement says she heard someone calling Madeleine softly as they walked home at approx 9.30. Could this have been Gerry or one of his friends looking for Madeleine after discovering she was not in her bed ?
-
You are committing libel again by at best accusing Dr Gerry Mccann of telling lies in his statement; at worst getting rid of Madeleines body.
You are also libelling Jane Tanner.
What is it, that makes you say all these things with no proof or indications at all?
Tell us your theory, if you have one
I'm not libelling, I'm wondering. It's not prohibited to wonder. My wondering has not the power to turn Mr McCann into an abductor nor Ms Tanner into an impostor.
-
Caroline Carpenter. We have no idea what she said as her statement is not in the released files.
Her husband in his statement says she heard someone calling Madeleine softly as they walked home at approx 9.30. Could this have been Gerry or one of his friends looking for Madeleine after discovering she was not in her bed ?
CCs husband saying she heard someone calling for Madeleine is odd
They left the tapas bar between 9.15 and 9.30
Who would be calling her name and why?
They said they so noone in the road, or at least they didnt see anyone, I originally thought they might have heard Gerry and Jez speaking or Matt and Russell chatting as they went for their check, so who was calling her name and why
>@@(*&)
-
I'm not libelling, I'm wondering. It's not prohibited to wonder. My wondering has not the power to turn Mr McCann into an abductor nor Ms Tanner into an impostor.
Well said, thoughts beliefs and opinions and wonderings and thinking are not crimes, ..... just yet, though many want them to be lol
8)--))
-
CCs husband saying she heard someone calling for Madeleine is odd
They left the tapas bar between 9.15 and 9.30
Who would be calling her name and why?
They said they so noone in the road, or at least they didnt see anyone, I originally thought they might have heard Gerry and Jez speaking or Matt and Russell chatting as they went for their check, so who was calling her name and why
>@@(*&)
When translated by Maria (J4) the callling came out as Caroline heard someone murmuring/whispering. That is very different from calling.
-
Why do you suggest people had been told Madeleine was dead ? Do you think, Benice, that David and Matthew who were spotted looking anxiously around the Tapas esplanade were simulating ?
-
Why do you suggest people had been told Madeleine was dead ? Do you think, Benice, that David and Matthew who were spotted looking anxiously around the Tapas esplanade were simulating ?
I was following Faith's theory. i.e. That Gerry found Madeleine dead in the apartment on the 3rd. and decided to dispose of her body - and after his chance meeting with Jez - Jane Tanner agreed to lie to give him an alibi and tell the police that she had passed them - and immediately afterwards saw the abductor. And also to give him an alibi if the Smiths later identified him. How he knew in advance he was going to bump into the Smiths isn't clear. The only time he had to plot that plan with JT was at the Tapas after his meeting with Jez W. He couldn't do that without telling the others as well - as they would have to remember the details/times of the 'pretend' check JT did.
I could have got bits wrong - it's all so illogical, and complicated - not to mention physically impossible in the time available, that it's not easy to follow or remember all the details.
-
I was following Faith's theory. i.e. That Gerry found Madeleine dead in the apartment on the 3rd. and decided to dispose of her body - and after his chance meeting with Jez - Jane Tanner agreed to lie to give him an alibi and tell the police that she had passed them - and immediately afterwards saw the abductor. And also to give him an alibi if the Smiths later identified him. How he knew in advance he was going to bump into the Smiths isn't clear. The only time he had to plot that plan with JT was at the Tapas after his meeting with Jez W. He couldn't do that without telling the others as well - as they would have to remember the details/times of the 'pretend' check JT did.
I could have got bits wrong - it's all so illogical, and complicated - not to mention physically impossible in the time available, that it's not easy to follow or remember all the details.
Have you got a quote for this theory, Benice ? I must have missed it, because I have no idea Faithlilly wondered whether Mr McCann had plotted with Ms Tanner when they all were having dinner.
I personally can't figure out that Ms Tanner "agreed to lie", but, after having watched the McCann "reconstruction" and the pressure upon Ms Tanner about the side of the street, I can imagine her being manipulated about the time and place of her sighting.
-
[/b]
Of course he wasn't COMPELLED to. Like any other sensible person he recognised that there was no sane reason to believe that 7 perfectly normal intelligent people, some of whom hardly knew the McCanns, would put their own families lives in jeopardy and agree to pervert the course of justice by aiding and abetting the disposal of a dead child's body.
That would make them all simple-minded nutters - and they clearly were not.
And thankfully neither was the AG.
I don't think the prosector came to his decision because he felt that the McCanns friends 'could' not be lying ... just that he had no other choice ( in law ) other than to accept what they said as being truthful ( there being no evidence to the contrary )
That is by-the-by though, the discussion was whether or not any witnesses ( other than the McCann's friends ) had said Gerry was definately at the table at 10pm
The fact is, of course, that none did
-
When translated by Maria (J4) the callling came out as Caroline heard someone murmuring/whispering. That is very different from calling.
I don't see that, Sadie, but the English translation appears to be based on the Portuguese translation of the rogatory interview, which would have obviously been in English.
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance".
The PT translation, from which it was retranslated back into English is here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CR3/cr3_40.jpg
Personally, I wouldn't put great store on that.
- It was what her husband understood from a discussion with his wife involving a vague memory. It could have been anyone calling someone else and she wondered if she'd heard anything potentially significant.
- Her statement doesn't appear to be accessible.
-
I don't see that, Sadie, but the English translation appears to be based on the Portuguese translation of the rogatory interview, which would have obviously been in English.
My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance".
The PT translation, from which it was retranslated back into English is here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CR3/cr3_40.jpg
Personally, I wouldn't put great store on that.
- It was what her husband understood from a discussion with his wife involving a vague memory. It could have been anyone calling someone else and she wondered if she'd heard anything potentially significant.
- Her statement doesn't appear to be accessible.
Why would it be re translated into English, Carana. Isn't this the original?
If it is, its a Rogatory statement, taken by Leicestershire Police Force. The first one was taken by a UK police officer on the 17th May. There was no Portuguese statement taken, from the Carpenters.
-
Why would it be re translated into English, Carana. Isn't this the original?
If it is, its a Rogatory statement, taken by Leicestershire Police Force. The first one was taken by a UK police officer on the 17th May. There was no Portuguese statement taken, from the Carpenters.
I retract that as I'd checked it too quickly.
What's odd is that the accompanying official document is the PT version in the original layout.
I'd agree, upon rereading it, that the English seems authentic. But still no indication of murmuring/whispering.
-
I retract that as I'd checked it too quickly.
What's odd is that the accompanying official document is the PT version in the original layout.
I'd agree, upon rereading it, that the English seems authentic. But still no indication of murmuring/whispering.
No Indication of murmuring/whispering, from who, SC or PJ statement?
-
No Indication of murmuring/whispering, from who, SC or PJ statement?
I've never seen anything about this "murmuring/whispering" issue from SC. No idea what his wife said as her statement doesn't seem to be accessible.
I don't see any mention of it in either the PT or GB versions.
-
I've never seen anything about this "murmuring/whispering" issue from SC. No idea what his wife said as her statement doesn't seem to be accessible.
I don't see any mention of it in either the PT or GB versions.
SC: Humm... vaguely, I think it was what was put in the statement, the same, the leaving the restaurant, the way back to the apartment, looking to my left to check that the way was clear and I didn't see anything....My wife vaguely remembers hearing "Madeleine, Madeleine" and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.
-
I've never seen anything about this "murmuring/whispering" issue from SC. No idea what his wife said as her statement doesn't seem to be accessible.
I don't see any mention of it in either the PT or GB versions.
Yes, I do remember it.
It caused quite a stir when Stephen Carpenter's statement first emerged (late, as I recall ...)
-
Having read ferrymans words above I have scored out my just posted retraction.
Thank you ferryman ?{)(**
The word Maria used was either murmured or whispered .... and as I cant remember which I always say murmured/whispered
I have been into J4, searching, but do not have full access. IIRC, it was in Alroys section on Theories of what happened ... or maybe in a special Stephen and Caroline Carpenter thread? We also discussed the laundryman and the garage that he used as mentioned by Stephen. A garage next to Murats house that was fitted out inside as ?temporary living accomodation for a young man ... and Stephen thought that it was strange that there were toys in there. This may have been discussed straight from the PT files, before the Leicestershire Police interview in April 2008. Dianeh was there, in the same thread, and may remember it.
Re Caroline Carpenters words, we had a discussion with maria (PT, I think) on translations and the fact that the English Language has many more words to describe something, than most languages. I think she originally said that it translated to being called, or talked. <<<< something like that.
but after I had mentioned that the English Language had such a multitude of words that effectively equated to one word in PT, she agreed and came back with a translation of either murmured, or whispered, saying that seemed closer.
Anyway seems that we need not have translated the Portuguese, cos seems Stephen Carpenter has affirmed the translatioin "called": Statement number S87B
This was read back to Stephen Carpenter by Leicestershire Police Officer DCFerguson on 21st April 2008 /SNIP/-
Because I am sadly unable to verify murmured/whispered, I retract those words.
#
See next post
-
Deleted. Accidentally posted in the wrong place.
-
This is it, Sadie, from Stephen Carpenter's rogatory interview:
. My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance". OK, before going on the next part, do you remember at what time you left'
SC: Humm... vaguely, I think it was what was put in the statement, the same, the leaving the restaurant, the way back to the apartment, looking to my left to check that the way was clear and I didn't see anything....My wife vaguely remembers hearing "Madeleine, Madeleine" and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.
DCF: Yes, and where you state that it was on GMTV.
SC:: Yes..
DCF: I think that it was reported that it was a three year old child and probably thought who could it be and knew that Kate and Gerry were from Leicestershire and assumed that it was one of their children seeing that they had small children'
SC: Ah.
-
Thanks ferryman