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: Admin on July 22, 2013, 04:09:16 PM
-
This subject appears to come back time and time again so I have started this new topic to review the facts.
I will first of all state for the record that their is no more evidence to suggest that Madeleine is alive than there is that she is dead.
There is also no evidence to suggest that she died on 3rd May 2007 or any other day for that matter although this is entirely possible.
-
There exists no proof of abduction whatsoever, forensically or otherwise.
Madeleine could have had an accident occurring in the apartment, but blindly accept an abduction.
The bottom line remains the same.
The Mccanns deliberately and repeatedly left their children on their own with infrequent checks which go against all logic, reason and those rules enshrined by the NSPCC.
You represent blind faith in the Mccanns and nothing more, and that leads to other questions.
-
If you are going to imply that Madeleine died having met an accident in the apartment, you have to conclude that her parents concealed ("occulted" as the strange translation has it) her body somehow somewhere, which is a crime. However, the final report states that no evidence for any crime committed by the parents was found.
We are told that abduction by a stranger is the crime being investigated presently by Scotland Yard, and that the parents are considered not to be suspects or persons of interest.
ETA: Anne Guedes sent me a PM to point out that I had omitted the word 'not" from the last sentence. I tried to reply, but she has blocked PMs, so I take this opportunity to say thank you, Anne! 8()-000(
-
If you are going to imply that Madeleine died having met an accident in the apartment, you have to conclude that her parents concealed ("occulted" as the strange translation has it) her body somehow somewhere, which is a crime. However, the final report states that no evidence for any crime committed by the parents was found.
We are told that abduction by a stranger is the crime being investigated presently by Scotland Yard, and that the parents are considered to be suspects or persons of interest.
You are also aware of what the dogs indicated. It wasn't backed up by the forensics, but it doesn't mean it has no value at all.
It comes down to that old adage, Absence of evidence does not mean a crime did not take place, and that I'm fully aware works both ways.
-
From another source................................
'Imagine a scenario:
You and your partner decide to go out for the evening. You arrange for a family friend to babysit for your three infant children.
You have a nice evening and arrive back home some time later to find the place in uproar. It appears that your babysitter decided to meet up with friends in a nearby pub, and has spent the evening there, popping back once to check on the children, with another friend popping in too, half an hour later. The pub is about 70 yards away.
''But how did you get back in?'' you say, aware that you didn't give them a key. It transpires they left a door on the latch. The friend who checked says that he didn't actually see the child who is now missing, so doesn't know whether she was there or not. A second friend says she saw a man carrying a child, but she is unable to say whether it was your child or not. They have all been drinking alcohol. The babysitter says she found a window open, the police can find no sign of forced entry.
Question 1 - Who would you expect the police to regard as suspects?
Some weeks afterwards, the babysitter claims that she thought the other two children might have been drugged, as she had been unable to wake them. You asked what she did about it, and why she didn't tell someone straight away so they could be checked out? She replies that she checked for signs of life.
Question 2 - Who would you expect the police to regard as a suspect?
Some months go by. Police bring in specialist dogs, trained to alert to the smell of human decomposition. They identify this smell in your house and on clothes belonging to the babysitter, recovered from her house. There are, however, no recoverable biological residues to prove what the source of those alerts is. They bring the babysitter in. She refuses to answer any questions.
Question 3 - Who would you expect the police to regard as a suspect?
The police decide there are inconsistencies in the accounts given by the babysitter and her friends and ask them to participate in a reconstruction. They make it quite clear that it requires all of them to co-operate, but the only one they can force is the babysitter.
All the friends, including the one who did the check where he didn't see your child, and the one who saw a child being carried away, refuse to co-operate. Their refusal means the police cannot progress the investigation any further.
Question 4 - Who would you expect the police to regard as suspects?
A year down the line, the police shelve the investigation. They say they have been unable to even show what crime has been committed, let alone find evidence against any individual.
Question 5 - Who do you think the police still regard as suspects, but simply have no evidence to make a case?
Question 6 - Has the babysitter been ''cleared of any involvement''?
(Any similarity between this hypothetical scenario and any actual persons, living or dead, is of course completely accidental) '
-
Therein lies the fatal law in your statements.
'abduction'
Need you and others be reminded there exists no proof of abduction whatsoever, forensically or otherwise.
You ignore that Madeleine could have had an accident occurring in the apartment, but blindly accept an abduction.
The bottom line remains the same.
The Mccanns deliberately and repeatedly left their children on their own with infrequent checks which go against all logic, reason and those rules enshrined by the NSPCC.
You represent blind faith in the Mccanns and nothing more, and that leads to other questions.
And therein lies the fatal flaw in your claim.
There exists no proof of the death of Madeleine McCann, whatsoever.
You have misread my post completely. At no time do I accept abduction. I simply say "an abduction would have been more difficult". I am making no statement of fact as you have done. I am simply saying that your statement cannot be proven and therefore is at best speculation and at worst a deliberate lie.
Your incorrect assumption that I "accept an abduction" is a serious flaw in your post.
Another serious flaw in your post is your bizarre and completely wrong idea that there is any evidence of "blind faith in the McCanns in my post". There is no such implication or claim in my post as those reading without blinkers will realise.
Finally, I repeat that my assertion that you are spamming this forum with your off-topic obsession about the McCanns neglecting the children is both tedious and actually against forum rules.
The McCanns have admitted their error of judgement. They are living with the consequences of that. Your constant harping on about this demonstrates a kind of vigilante approach to the case which does not make your posts read like those of a person with a charitable heart or any understanding of the nature of forgiveness and its beneficial both to the individual and to society.
You may or may not be aware that the one specific crime that the McCanns were completely cleared of having been guilty of was in fact "exposicao ou abandono" the Portuguese equivalent of neglect or the worse crime of abandoning a child. I suggest you read the Archival report instead of remaining fixated on your uncharitable and rather sad repetitive chant about something you don't appear to know the truth about.
I would also suggest that your constant disruption of threads with this mantra of yours does not take into account the fact that the legal authorities and the social authorities (with far greater knowledge of the case, the family, etc. than you have), have not in six years made any effort to charge the McCanns.
Perhaps those reading here without blinkers will understand that there probably are good reasons for this lack of charges and those reasons may well be far closer to the legal reasons offered by the Attorney General of Portugal for his decision not to charge rather than some fanciful notions that have been proffered by anti McCanns such as the amazing influence of Clarence Mitchell or the McCanns themselves to control the courts, the media and just about everybody else.
When you explain why there have been no charges (and such would be possible for crimes committed against a UK citizen even when abroad) then your mantra may have meaning or even purpose. Till then, it remains the sad mantra of someone who is showing himself to be both uncharitable and rather vindictive.
-
This is a new thread composed of posts which have been previously moved as being off topic on the triathlon thread.
-
To me, the accident-and-covered-up scenario just does not hold water. We are being expected to believe that in a time=frame of 4.5 hrs Madeleine had a fatal accident, and the McCanns grieved, cleaned up and disposed of her remains so well that they have never been found. Then went to dinner and behaved normally. We are being asked to believe that they did all this in 4.5 hours in a foreign country without access to a car.
I just don't believe it.
-
To me, the accident-and-covered-up scenario just does not hold water. We are being expected to believe that in a time=frame of 4.5 hrs Madeleine had a fatal accident, and the McCanns grieved, cleaned up and disposed of her remains so well that they have never been found. Then went to dinner and behaved normally. We are being asked to believe that they did all this in 4.5 hours in a foreign country without access to a car.
I just don't believe it.
I don't buy this "behaved normally" line.
From another source:
There is primary source evidence that when required or considered to be necessary the parents, particularly Kate McCann, are extremely skilled at masking their real feelings very successfully even when under enormous emotional and other stress. (Footnote 1)
This ability to mask, or deaden, the emotional response to the loss of their daughter, on request,was the subject of widespread remark by commentators and observers of the case who had watched their performances on television.(2)
Had the parents been incapable of masking their emotions effectively then they would have been unable, by definition, to follow the advice they were given.So they have a proven and recorded ability to do so. (3)
And:
The previously unknown primary source evidence provided by Kate McCann in Madeleine regarding events on August 8 provides a second, quite separate, series of examples of the parents coolly misinforming the media and the public – lying – about their situation while giving no clues in their demeanour to the enormous stress the police had already placed them under and which, away from the public and the cameras, was resulting in despair and hysteria. (4).
Finally, the parents behaviour after the disappearance cannot be slotted into this defence, although poor Mr Menezes didn't notice. There is no normal template for behaviour in such circumstances that would distinguish it either from acting or from genuine emotional distress at events unknown to us.(5)
(1) The claims by the parents that they were advised to try and conceal their feelings in public are well attested. See Oprah transcript:
'Four days after Madeleine's disappearance, the McCanns held another press conference pleading for their daughter's safe return. Kate remained calm as she spoke, but the tabloids would use her appearance against her, saying her lack of emotion implied guilt. "I'd spent 72 hours crying, and you suddenly almost feel a little bit numb," Kate says. She'd also spoken with a behavioural expert who'd given specific advice on how to act at the press conference, Kate says. "They said, 'It's quite important that you don't show any emotion, because the abductor could get some kind of adverse kick out of it,'" she says. "When you get the feeling that if you do [something] it could be detrimental in some way to your daughter, there's a huge pressure on you to do well."
Though it may have done more harm than good, Kate says she doesn't regret taking the behavioural expert's advice. "It was advice given with the best intention," she says.'
And from Madeleine, page 112:
'In fact I would soon be advised by British police experts to try and stay as calm as possible and not to show any emotion in public, so it was probably no bad thing that my feelings seemed to be temporarily on holiday that day. The thinking behind this advice was that Madeleine's abductor might get some kind of perverted kick pout of my distress and perhaps change his behaviour in some way.'
She adds: 'Of course we were terrified by the implications of this theory. It meant that quite natural actions or expressions of emotion caught on camera could potentially jeopardise Madeleine's safety.'
(2) Googling the subject will produce numerous newspaper examples of how successful their dissimulation was. So successful, indeed, that she was accused of being "emotionless".
(3) Self-evidently they could only have been witnessed dissimulating after advice if they had the innate ability to do so. By (2) above they have it in spades. Clearly it was already there, not grown overnight – and present on May 3 2007.
(4) On pages 210 – 214 of Madeleine Kate McCann describes the events of August 8, which we have cited before. Two days previously their car had been seized by the police. During the interviews the police told Kate McCann outright that they didn't believe her and made serious accusations about her behaviour on May 3 which left her hysterical. To Gerry McCann it was made quite clear that further meetings with them would no longer be as parents of the child but as potential suspects.
Since M/S McCann maintains that until that time she had not seen warning signs of such accusations the shock must have been immense. Yet examination of the television interviews of the period shows the couple effortlessly dissimulating about their situation for a full week after August 8. Leaving aside the point that we now know that their comments that week, like those on the GM blog at the same time (see Gerry McCann's blogs website), are thoroughly dishonest and intentionally misleading without any Portuguese secrecy claims to justify them, they also betray few or no signs of the events in which they had been involved, behaviour startlingly akin to their conduct on and after May 3. In other words they are not just capable of concealing their feelings and acting normally after trauma but demonstrably expert at it.
(5) Self-evidently except to Mr Menezes, the behaviour of the couple after 10PM on May 3 is to be sharply distinguished in its implications. Rolling on the floor and screaming, punching walls, throwing themselves to the ground when the police appear etc. – leaving aside the "masking" effect which such loud and unusual conduct might possess, is not evidence of "normal" behaviour at the hands of an abductor nor does it say anything either way about a person's ability to deceive or dissimulate. And it could result from very different events. Drawing up timelines doesn't strike us as strictly normal under the circumstances either, but that's another story.
-
I understand that their friends, some of whom know them well, attested that they were there normal selves during dinner, Albertini.
I don't buy that someone could find their child deceased and then go out to dinner, as if nothing had happened, having concealed the remains so well that have never been found. All in 4.5 hours in a foreign land without access to a car.
-
Albertini, what is the source for your post above about the McCanns' emotional abilities?
-
I understand that their friends, some of whom know them well, attested that they were there normal selves during dinner, Albertini.
I don't buy that someone could find their child deceased and then go out to dinner, as if nothing had happened, having concealed the remains so well that have never been found. All in 4.5 hours in a foreign land without access to a car.
Before I go on to reveal what really happened to Madeleine ask yourself was their reactions really normal? Was their reactions as evidenced by the two Portuguese GNR officers for example conducive with a sudden death or an abduction?
-
This subject appears to come back time and time again so I have started this new topic to review the facts.
I will first of all state for the record that their is no more evidence to suggest that Madeleine is alive than there is that she is dead.
There is also no evidence to suggest that she died on 3rd May 2007 or any other day for that matter although this is entirely possible.
John, this forum is being back in time ... in Level I, so to say ?{)(**
Level I: Discussing to demonstrate "McCanns did it", ie, losing time.
Level II: Searching for Madeleine and her abductor (the present level).
And very soon SY will be in Level III: identifying the stranger abductor or how he did it.
It's time to move on to level II at least ?{)(**
Heri.
-
Before I go on to reveal what really happened to Madeleine ask yourself was their reactions really normal? Was their reactions as evidenced by the two Portuguese GNR officers for example conducive with a sudden death or an abduction?
Go on then, reveal what really happened to Madeleine.
-
Madeleine is dead Heriberto and the sooner you realise this the better. There is no possible way a child with her physical characteristics could elude detection for six years. Let's not kid ourselves.
-
John, this forum is being back in time ... in Level I, so to say ?{)(**
Level I: Discussing to demonstrate "McCanns did it", ie, losing time.
Level II: Searching for Madeleine and her abductor (the present level).
And very soon SY will be in Level III: identifying the stranger abductor or how he did it.
It's time to move on to level II at least ?{)(**
Heri.
Heri, you have done a lot of good investigative work on this case so why spoil it now with speculation?? Do you really believe for a minute that SY has any interest in bringing someone to justice let alone find Madeleine??
-
Madeleine is dead Heriberto and the sooner you realise this the better. There is no possible way a child with her physical characteristics could elude detection for six years. Let's not kid ourselves.
Have you not heard of the lenses designed and often worn by victims of Coloboma
http://www.clspectrum.com/articleviewer.aspx?articleid=13095
Think again insider
-
Have you not heard of the lenses designed and often worn by victims of Coloboma
http://www.clspectrum.com/articleviewer.aspx?articleid=13095
Think again insider
How long must we wait for insider to reveal "what really happened to Madeleine".
Have you sent this information to DCI Redwood, insider?
-
Madeleine is dead Heriberto and the sooner you realise this the better. There is no possible way a child with her physical characteristics could elude detection for six years. Let's not kid ourselves.
Nobody knows here if Madeleine present state is "dead" or "alive". There is no proof for any of the two exclusive states.
There is a lot of plausible abductor theories, but nobody here was able to show a plausible "McCanns didi it" theory, ie without using paranormal phenomena like bilocation, time travel or telepathy ... or Madeleine's clones.
So, it is up to you, Admin, to continue in Level I, or being serious and jump to Level II ...
Heri ?{)(**
PS: Level I: Discussing to demonstrate "McCanns did it", ie, losing time.
Level II: Searching for Madeleine and her abductor (the present level).
And very soon SY will be in Level III: identifying the stranger abductor or how he did it.
-
Heri, you have done a lot of good investigative work on this case so why spoil it now with speculation?? Do you really believe for a minute that SY has any interest in bringing someone to justice let alone find Madeleine??
why are you so anti SY Angelo? Have you personally had a bad experience, or something?
According to my intensive research, which might have some flaw that I haven't found:
I must admit, this man is extraordinarily elite and backed by such a mega whiter than white organisation, that they might have their hands tied. To reveal them might have sweeping and, in some ways, undesirable global effects.
Hopefully they can and will stop him, and them. And hopefully the stolen children will be returned.
Whether anything else is revealed is another question. Maybe with the power of this Organisation, they will not be able to do anything. Hopefully they will find a way.
-
Nobody knows here if Madeleine present state is "dead" or "alive". There is no proof for any of the two exclusive states.
There is a lot of plausible abductor theories, but nobody here was able to show a plausible "McCanns didi it" theory, ie without using paranormal phenomena like bilocation, time travel or telepathy ... or Madeleine's clones.
So, it is up to you, Admin, to continue in Level I, or being serious and jump to Level II ...
Heri ?{)(**
PS: Level I: Discussing to demonstrate "McCanns did it", ie, losing time.
Level II: Searching for Madeleine and her abductor (the present level).
And very soon SY will be in Level III: identifying the stranger abductor or how he did it.
It's time to move on to level II at least ?{)(**
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
As soon as some of us try to take it to level II we are blocked by silly comments, twisting of words and quite often downright lies. Also by rapid changing of topic. This has to be stopped.
-
why are you so anti SY Angelo? Have you personally had a bad experience, or something?
According to my intensive research, which might have some flaw that I haven't found:
I must admit, this man is extraordinarily elite and backed by such a mega whiter than white organisation, that they might have their hands tied. To reveal them might have sweeping and, in some ways, undesirable global effects.
Hopefully they can and will stop him, and them. And hopefully the stolen children will be returned.
Whether anything else is revealed is another question. Maybe with the power of this Organisation, they will not be able to do anything. Hopefully they will find a way.
Is there an English version of your post sadie for those of us who aren't fluent in absolutenonsense ?
-
Albertini, what is the source for your post above about the McCanns' emotional abilities?
Would you please answer this question. Thank you.
-
Madeleine is dead Heriberto and the sooner you realise this the better. There is no possible way a child with her physical characteristics could elude detection for six years. Let's not kid ourselves.
Is that your opinion, or do you know that for a fact?
-
Would you please answer this question. Thank you.
Given the assertions are supported by referenced sources there is no need, the author is irrelevent.
Rebut the assertions and the supporting evidence please.
As i have said before, debunk the writing not the writer.
-
The Portuguese coordinator in the case was closer to the truth than even he could have dared to imagine in his wildest dreams. He allowed himself to be distracted when he couldn't fit the pieces into the puzzle. The problem he was faced with was that he had too many pieces and so when pressured tried to fit the wrong pieces resulting in ridicule and ultimately dismissal.
Most people who have studied the files have a reasonable grasp of the facts but for one reason or another always fail to join up the dots.
-
Madeleine is dead Heriberto and the sooner you realise this the better. There is no possible way a child with her physical characteristics could elude detection for six years. Let's not kid ourselves.
Jaycee Dugard
Elizabeth Smart
Sabine Dardenne
Steven Stayner
Colleen Stan
Tanya Kach
Erica Pratt
Shawn Hornbeck
Danielle Cramer
Gina DeJesus
Michelle Knight
Amanda Berry
These people (listed above) will all disagree with you.
-
Jaycee Dugard
Elizabeth Smart
Sabine Dardenne
Steven Stayner
Colleen Stan
Tanya Kach
Erica Pratt
Shawn Hornbeck
Danielle Cramer
Gina DeJesus
Michelle Knight
Amanda Berry
These people (listed above) will all disagree with you.
Couldn't have put it better myself. Unless remains are found, we must always have hope.
-
Given the assertions are supported by referenced sources there is no need, the author is irrelevent.
Rebut the assertions and the supporting evidence please.
As i have said before, debunk the writing not the writer.
For information the source of that piece of turgid prose was THE BLACKSMITH BUREAU (8/09/2011). What has been posted here is merely the notes at the end of one of his articles.
-
Jaycee Dugard
Elizabeth Smart
Sabine Dardenne
Steven Stayner
Colleen Stan
Tanya Kach
Erica Pratt
Shawn Hornbeck
Danielle Cramer
Gina DeJesus
Michelle Knight
Amanda Berry
These people (listed above) will all disagree with you.
And which one of those were the subject of a worldwide six year publicity campaign ?
-
Given the assertions are supported by referenced sources there is no need, the author is irrelevent.
Rebut the assertions and the supporting evidence please.
As i have said before, debunk the writing not the writer.
If you want your post to be taken seriously Albertini, please provide a source.
-
And which one of those were the subject of a worldwide six year publicity campaign ?
Some were found only a few miles from the place they disappeared. The point you make is totally redundant.
-
The Portuguese coordinator in the case was closer to the truth than even he could have dared to imagine in his wildest dreams. He allowed himself to be distracted when he couldn't fit the pieces into the puzzle. The problem he was faced with was that he had too many pieces and so when pressured tried to fit the wrong pieces resulting in ridicule and ultimately dismissal.
Most people who have studied the files have a reasonable grasp of the facts but for one reason or another always fail to join up the dots.
Do you believe Madeleine was kept in a fridge then transported in the Scenic...
-
If you want your post to be taken seriously Albertini, please provide a source.
As Albertini is rightly too embarrassed to provide a source for the partial article he has posted, I shall relieve him of the burden.
Thursday, 8/09/2011
Deprivation symptoms
Cheap, flimsy & empty
Special Freight
In a few weeks time a cupboard labelled Evidence Supporting the Parents' Claims since 2007 will be delivered to a Lisbon court, there to sit making its own silent statement. A thin and angry M/S Isabel Duarte will attempt to get it draped with grey cloth in order, she will shout, "not to distract the court". Having failed to do so she will refer to its bulging contents throughout the rest of the libel trial but will be unable to find a way of opening it.
After that the cupboard will be air-freighted to Scotland Yard to be inspected at intervals by the forty five or so officers undertaking a case review. The review will end with the cupboard still empty and the officers retracing the PJ's steps since there are, literally, no other tracks to follow.
Special Diet
It is the lack of sustenance on the cupboard shelves that is slowly but surely turning the activist supporters of the parents to the edge of hysteria, as a glance at their blogs, social postings and forum contributions will easily confirm: starvation rations always end up having that effect. Most of their postings now avoid any pretence of dealing with factual matters concerning the loss of the child, concentrating instead on a stream of invective against anyone who doesn't share their obsessions. The rants, threats and evasions, together with the increasing use of shouting text like This (a symptom of the loss of an argument) communicate a toxic mix of perverted joy at the punishments awaiting Bennett, Amaral et al (they list them in drooling detail) and a curious sense of fragile edginess. What are they worried about and why do they seem to sense coming pain?
As Gerry McCann might say, "ask them": the Blacksmith Bureau doesn't do counselling. The only reason they matter is that they are reflecting reality - the reality of the parents' increasingly desperate situation and the dreadful fact of the ever-empty cupboard. The same sense of unbalanced aggression to enemies entwined with suppressed pessimism - or in her case actual foreboding about her future - is to be found in Kate McCann's Madeleine.
Enter the big brains
Still, a little way back from the toad-filled cauldron, we have the more "intellectual" of the supporters attempting to make some sort of case for the pair, although the same neurotic note is present. In the absence of anything factual to counter the rising din against the parents they have turned to the last-ditch "they couldn't be guilty of anything because..." hand book, digging up stuff from the past - what other source do they have? - and laying it out yet again, perhaps in the hope that, like my daughter, if they say something often enough and loudly enough it will come true. Two of these threadbare claims are worth examining for how they stand up to the evidence, particularly the evidence from that four- -and-a-half-year-in-the-filling comfort box labelled The Other Cupboard.
The first such claim is that little wonder, "nobody could have carried on acting naturally if they had..." As well as being put forward extensively by commentators in 2007 it has the final imprimatur of the demon prosecutor himself, Menezes, where he states in the archiving summary that their non-involvement in any criminal activity was demonstrated by, among things, "the normal behaviour that they adopted until the disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements."
In other words if the parents had been involved in some dreadful event early in the evening of May 3 then they would have been quite unable to mask the emotions which one would expect to result from such a situation.
What, one wonders, might legal counsel in a libel case, say, make of this claim?
Classy, full, healthy - and ours
He simply reaches into the overflowing cupboard, pats his tummy comfortably and begins.
There is primary source evidence that when required or considered to be necessary the parents, particularly Kate McCann, are extremely skilled at masking their real feelings very successfully even when under enormous emotional and other stress. (Footnote 1)
This ability to mask, or deaden, the emotional response to the loss of their daughter, on request,was the subject of widespread remark by commentators and observers of the case who had watched their performances on television.(2)
Had the parents been incapable of masking their emotions effectively then they would have been unable, by definition, to follow the advice they were given.So they have a proven and recorded ability to do so. (3)
And:
The previously unknown primary source evidence provided by Kate McCann in Madeleine regarding events on August 8 provides a second, quite separate, series of examples of the parents coolly misinforming the media and the public - lying - about their situation while giving no clues in their demeanour to the enormous stress the police had already placed them under and which, away from the public and the cameras, was resulting in despair and hysteria. (4).
Finally, the parents behaviour after the disappearance cannot be slotted into this defence, although poor Mr Menezes didn't notice. There is no normal template for behaviour in such circumstances that would distinguish it either from acting or from genuine emotional distress at events unknown to us.(5)
Clearly, the lawyer would conclude, the Menezes claim cannot be used in their defence in the way he suggested: the couple can fairly be described as expert at disguising their true feelings, however great the stress.
And down goes another
The second claim is that the parents, by keeping themselves at the centre of public attention, have behaved in a way that is quite counter to the expected behaviour of people with something to hide. Had the latter been the case, the claim runs, then they would surely have sought privacy in the hope that their notoriety and hence their suspected actions would be forgotten. Instead they stand proudly in the public eye.
In which case it is down to the advocates of this view to demonstrate just when the parents have ever been free to withdraw from the limelight. In summer 2007? Nope, they tried and failed. (6) In autumn and winter of that year? No, again - their defence team shut the newspapers up while they hid behind those awful Rothley redbrick walls, certainly, but they saw it as essential for the pair to stay in the lights to propagandize as part of Project Expunge, the counter to an EAW. (7)
In the first half of 2008? What, when they made their absurd Eurostar trip with accompanying photographs to try and counter the fall-out from the rogatory interviews? (8) Or later, when they span the archiving report to the UK media so dementedly to try and strengthen the so-called exoneration? (9) Or when the media caught them out using confidential Family Court proceedings to get at the Leicester police evidence?
And that's it, because shortly thereafter the Truth of the Lie was published and with it went any chance of the McCanns retreating from the lights as long as Amaral remained alive: silence in the face of his claims would have been treated as acceptance and thus they had to sue. Ever since then Amaral has given them no choice but to remain in the news, either defending themselves against the increasingly convincing claims being made against them in court or by fund raising to maintain the litigation effort.
The claim doesn't stand up when the record, rather than the hope, is examined. The fact is that since May 3 2007 the couple have held a wolf by the ears: passive silence and withdrawal has never been an option.
The louder they shout the thinner they get
Notes, reference, evidence (the boring bit)
(1) The claims by the parents that they were advised to try and conceal their feelings in public are well attested. See Oprah transcript:
`Four days after Madeleine's disappearance, the McCanns held another press conference pleading for their daughter's safe return. Kate remained calm as she spoke, but the tabloids would use her appearance against her, saying her lack of emotion implied guilt. "I'd spent 72 hours crying, and you suddenly almost feel a little bit numb," Kate says. She'd also spoken with a behavioural expert who'd given specific advice on how to act at the press conference, Kate says. "They said, 'It's quite important that you don't show any emotion, because the abductor could get some kind of adverse kick out of it,'" she says. "When you get the feeling that if you do [something] it could be detrimental in some way to your daughter, there's a huge pressure on you to do well."
Though it may have done more harm than good, Kate says she doesn't regret taking the behavioural expert's advice. "It was advice given with the best intention," she says.'
And from Madeleine, page 112:
`In fact I would soon be advised by British police experts to try and stay as calm as possible and not to show any emotion in public, so it was probably no bad thing that my feelings seemed to be temporarily on holiday that day. The thinking behind this advice was that madeleine's abductor might get some kind of perverted kick pout of my distress and perhaps change his behaviour in some way.'
She adds: `Of course we were terrified by the implications of this theory. It meant that quite natural actions or expressions of emotion caught on camera could potentially jeopardise Madeleine's safety."
(2) We don't cite news reporters as authorities on the BB. Googling the subject will produce numerous newspaper examples of how successful their dissimulation was. So successful, indeed, that she was accused of being "emotionless".
(3) Self-evidently they could only have been witnessed dissimulating after advice if they had the innate ability to do so. By (2) above they have it in spades. Clearly it was already there, not grown overnight - and present on May 3 2007.
(4) On pages 210 - 214 of Madeleine Kate McCann describes the events of August 8, which we have cited before. Two days previously their car had been seized by the police. During the interviews the police told Kate McCann outright that they didn't believe her and made serious accusations about her behaviour on May 3 which left her hysterical. To Gerry McCann it was made quite clear that further meetings with them would no longer be as parents of the child but as potential suspects.
Since M/S McCann maintains that until that time she had not seen warning signs of such accusations the shock must have been immense. Yet examination of the television interviews of the period shows the couple effortlessly dissimulating about their situation for a full week after August 8. Leaving aside the point that we now know that their comments that week, like those on the GM blog at the same time (see Gerry McCann's blogs website), are thoroughly dishonest and intentionally misleading without any Portuguese secrecy claims to justify them, they also betray few or no signs of the events in which they had been involved, behaviour startlingly akin to their conduct on and after May 3. In other words they are not just capable of concealing their feelings and acting normally after trauma but demonstrably expert at it.
(5) Self-evidently except to Mr Menezes, the behaviour of the couple after 10PM on May 3 is to be sharply distinguished in its implications. Rolling on the floor and screaming, punching walls, throwing themselves to the ground when the police appear etc. - leaving aside the "masking" effect which such loud and unusual conduct might possess, is not evidence of "normal" behaviour at the hands of an abductor nor does it say anything either way about a person's ability to deceive or dissimulate. And it could result from very different events. Drawing up timelines doesn't strike the Blacksmith Bureau as strictly normal under the circumstances either, but that's another story.
(6) Madeleine, page 190, "We had made a strategic decision to signal to the media that we would be withdrawing from the spotlight."
Gerry McCann STV interview August 24 2007, "We could not avoid the publicity; we never asked for it, we never wished we were in this situation. What we've done is to try and use it in a positive way to affect the outcome. In terms of the campaign, we said 60 or 70 days ago that we would be stepping back from it, and we've done very very little offensive media in terms of us coming out to campaign for Madeleine."
(7) Project Expunge, Smethurst on BBC Panorama transcript, winter 2007. See Assange extradition proceedings for examples of how, despite the theoretical limitations on the right to challenge a European Arrest Warrant, public opinion can be used to pressure or delay a verdict up to cabinet level.
(8) High level media spin for the Eurostar Brussels trip complete with photographs of KM on the railway platform before departing. "It just so happened," writes KM in Madeleine, page 298, "that the PJ's trip to the UK [for the rogatory interviews] coincided with our visit to Brussels." Indeed.
Connoisseurs of McCann-speak will relish KM's description of the origin of those interviews. Rather than the culmination of a lengthy and complex stage in the investigation into the two arguidos, prepared over months by the Portuguese prosecutors' department and established under international treaty agreements, we have her breezy version of how they really came about earlier on the same page 298:
"You'll recall that, back in October, we had supplied the Portuguese public prosecutor with a list of people whom we felt statements should have been taken. In response the Portuguese police had decided to come to Leicester to be present while the British police interviewed Fiona... [and the others]. The questions to be asked were those Gerry and I had suggested to the prosecutor (obvious and pertinent ones, I hasten to add) with a few additions from the PJ."
(9) McCann Files et al.Various synchronised newspaper reports mocking the PJ and strengthening the "exoneration" in July 2008 previously cited in the BB.
Posted by john blacksmith at 16:42
-
And which one of those were the subject of a worldwide six year publicity campaign ?
And how does the answer change the fact that each one of them was found alive years later, campaign or not. Each one of them would have been happy not to be written off as dead. Each one of them still looked for by their families even though others insisted they were dead.
-
The Portuguese coordinator in the case was closer to the truth than even he could have dared to imagine in his wildest dreams. He allowed himself to be distracted when he couldn't fit the pieces into the puzzle. The problem he was faced with was that he had too many pieces and so when pressured tried to fit the wrong pieces resulting in ridicule and ultimately dismissal.
Most people who have studied the files have a reasonable grasp of the facts but for one reason or another always fail to join up the dots.
Interesting.
How would you know that?
And I'm also curious as to how you have moderator status as a newbie with only 91 posts.
-
I have briefly re-read the article and am unable to continue for the moment because I am laughing so much at one of the references that Blacksmith has given.
I am looking at this.
(2) We don't cite news reporters as authorities on the BB. Googling the subject will produce numerous newspaper examples of how successful their dissimulation was. So successful, indeed, that she was accused of being "emotionless".
which he uses as his evidence for the claim above in the article that:
This ability to mask, or deaden, the emotional response to the loss of their daughter, on request,was the subject of widespread remark by commentators and observers of the case who had watched their performances on television.(2)
So Blacksmith gives as evidence sources he won't cite because presumably he believes them to be unreliable.
They are his evidence but he won't give them to you, you have to go and Google.
And this is what Albertini takes as properly-researched material?
It would be laughed out of a first year A level class as shoddy referencing.
-
why are you so anti SY Angelo? Have you personally had a bad experience, or something?
According to my intensive research, which might have some flaw that I haven't found:
I must admit, this man is extraordinarily elite and backed by such a mega whiter than white organisation, that they might have their hands tied. To reveal them might have sweeping and, in some ways, undesirable global effects.
Hopefully they can and will stop him, and them. And hopefully the stolen children will be returned.
Whether anything else is revealed is another question. Maybe with the power of this Organisation, they will not be able to do anything. Hopefully they will find a way.
Don't post such nonsense Sadie. SY won't be stopping anyone since they are merely guests when in Portugal and have no authority to do anything. People must stop thinking that SY have a golden bullet in this case because they don't.
-
The Portuguese coordinator in the case was closer to the truth than even he could have dared to imagine in his wildest dreams. He allowed himself to be distracted when he couldn't fit the pieces into the puzzle. The problem he was faced with was that he had too many pieces and so when pressured tried to fit the wrong pieces resulting in ridicule and ultimately dismissal.
Most people who have studied the files have a reasonable grasp of the facts but for one reason or another always fail to join up the dots.
This is simply a pile of waffle.
The job of a detective (especially that of a senior detective co-ordinating a tricky case) is always to make sense of the overload of too many pieces of information. That this man failed in that task is quite evident. But it wasn't because of that why he was dismissed.
His dismissal was entirely due to the fact that he was caught mouthing off to a reporter about things he should not have been saying.
Amaral was not just incompetent in his management of the case but he was responsible for his own dismissal (he clearly tells us all about the events in his book) as well.
The fact that you have said nothing about this 'truth' you claim he was close to suggests you are playing a game trying to pretend you know things. Well, I'm not fooled.
Either spit it out or forever hold your peace. Your making of juvenile quips about inside knowledge or superior intelligence is of no real value to any forum thread.
-
Do you believe Madeleine was kept in a fridge then transported in the Scenic...
I don't think that Insider suggests that, precisely..
-
Jaycee Dugard
Elizabeth Smart
Sabine Dardenne
Steven Stayner
Colleen Stan
Tanya Kach
Erica Pratt
Shawn Hornbeck
Danielle Cramer
Gina DeJesus
Michelle Knight
Amanda Berry
These people (listed above) will all disagree with you.
How many of these young people were under 4 years of age when abducted?
How many were abducted in Portugal?
How many were abducted while on holiday?
-
People must stop thinking that SY have a golden bullet in this case because they don't.
On this I agree, Angelo, but why are people thinking the yard has a golden bullet ? What makes them hope so ? SY's fame ?
-
I don't think that Insider suggests that, precisely..
I just asked the question, Anne. Insider seems to be hinting that he "knows what really happened".
-
How many of these young people were under 4 years of age when abducted?
How many were abducted in Portugal?
How many were abducted while on holiday?
Can you explain how any of those questions are pertinent to the point made?
How does being abducted in Portugal make such a disappearance different to one in any other country for example?
How does being abducted on holiday make it different to being abducted going to the shops?
-
How many of these young people were under 4 years of age when abducted?
How many were abducted in Portugal?
How many were abducted while on holiday?
How many from bed ?
How many through broken/open shutters and window ?
How many from a flat where a cadaver dog smelled death ?
-
I just asked the question, Anne. Insider seems to be hinting that he "knows what really happened".
Yes, Rachel, but I thought I understood the fridge idea was frozen for good.
-
Yes, Rachel, but I thought I understood the fridge idea was frozen for good.
Not according to Amaral it isn't, Anne!
Anyway, still waiting for someone to come up with a way that the McCanns could have "done it" within the 4.5 hour timeframe that we are being expected to believe.
-
How many of these young people were under 4 years of age when abducted?
How many were abducted in Portugal?
How many were abducted while on holiday?
How does any of the answers to your questions change the fact that these people (no matter what age they were when abducted, no matter in which country they were when abducted, no matter what the circumstances where when abducted) WERE abducted and WERE found alive years later?
No case is exactly the same, yet these people were found alive years later. To speculate and say the same can't happen for Madeleine because she disappeared at age 3 on holiday in Portugal, is ludicrous.
-
Do you believe Madeleine was kept in a fridge then transported in the Scenic...
This is the sort of nonsense I had in mind in my last post. You answer your own question in many ways but no, she was never in any fridge or transported in a Renault Scenic or by any other vehicle by the McCanns. After Madeleine was carried from the apartment she was never seen again by her parents.
-
How many from bed ?
How many through broken/open shutters and window ?
How many from a flat where a cadaver dog smelled death ?
Possibly none. What is your point?
How instance were there of people being taken in Austria by a father? Would that be one?
That would be the same number of instances as this one in PDL?
-
How many from bed ?
How many through broken/open shutters and window ?
How many from a flat where a cadaver dog smelled death ?
Whether they were taken from their beds, baths, playgrounds, schools, walking to and from school or the shops, the fact still remains; they were found alive years later.
Cadaver dog findings not backed up by forensics is NO evidence of any death.
-
This is the sort of nonsense I had in mind in my last post. You answer your own question in many ways but no, she was never in any fridge or transported in a Renault Scenic or by any other vehicle by the McCanns. After Madeleine was carried from the apartment she was never seen again by her parents.
You make yourself look very foolish when posting your claims as absolute facts when you know as well as we all do that you cannot prove any of what you are claiming.
Your ID of insider is very telling. Why are you pretending to inside knowledge or are you pretending that you are superior intellectually to everyone else and have managed to solve this case by those means?
-
How does any of the answers to your questions change the fact that these people (no matter what age they were when abducted, no matter in which country they were when abducted, no matter what the circumstances where when abducted) WERE abducted and WERE found alive years later?
No case is exactly the same, yet these people were found alive years later. To speculate and say the same can't happen for Madeleine because she disappeared at age 3 on holiday in Portugal, is ludicrous.
But there is no precedent for a three year old being taken by a stranger and returned or rescued years later, unless you have an example
-
This is the sort of nonsense I had in mind in my last post. You answer your own question in many ways but no, she was never in any fridge or transported in a Renault Scenic or by any other vehicle by the McCanns. After Madeleine was carried from the apartment she was never seen again by her parents.
Glad to hear that you don't lend any credence to Amaral's execrable fridge/Scenic nonsense. JK Rowling couldn't have topped that one!
-
Whether they were taken from their beds, baths, playgrounds, schools, walking to and from school or the shops, the fact still remains; they were found alive years later.
Cadaver dog findings not backed up by forensics is NO evidence of any death.
Excellent point. Anne Guedes is showing a basic lack of understanding of the role of the dogs and what their findings indicate.
They indicate the potential trace of cadaver odour, and cannot be in any way taken as direct evidence of the death of Madeleine McCann.
-
Whether they were taken from their beds, baths, playgrounds, schools, walking to and from school or the shops, the fact still remains; they were found alive years later.
Cadaver dog findings not backed up by forensics is NO evidence of any death.
No one ever said it was. It can be indicative and most police forces treat such finds as justifiable suspicion.
-
But there is no precedent for a three year old being taken by a stranger and returned or rescued years later, unless you have an example
I don't think there was a precedent for the Josef Fritzl crimes in Austria? But they happened....
-
Angelo 222
You beat me to it 8()(((@# @)(++(*
From what I've seen, there are a lot of people who think they know a lot of things, slate the Portuguese investigators and other posters. If you're so cock sure you can do better, then either call SY or go to PDL and solve it. And furthermore I can understand why the idea of making 2 moderators from the Madeleine Mccann boards was dropped, it's like an mexican standoff now and ever decreasing circles. I think my wig might blast off at any time.
You should change your username SHW since the lady has now done with it all??
-
But there is no precedent for a three year old being taken by a stranger and returned or rescued years later, unless you have an example
There is no precedence for many events but they happen. Are you saying just because no such event has taken place previously that it is impossible? If not then it is possible and Madeleine may be alive.
Till there is evidence to the contrary it is the position of most normal people, whilst accepting that it is possibly unlikely they will hold out at least a minimal hope of recovery.
I cannot understand those who simply on the basis of statistics declare openly that Madeleine is dead. Its possible, maybe probable but it is not as they claim a certainty.
And without that certainty then no parent will ever give up and no charitable person should give up supporting those parents however limited the hope might be.
-
But there is no precedent for a three year old being taken by a stranger and returned or rescued years later, unless you have an example
Since when does the outcome of Madeleines case depend on a set precedence? Since when do abductors work according to a set pattern for all victims? Not one case's circumstances are the same. Trying to prove Madeleine is dead by claiming the circumstances don't fit the pattern of other victims found alive years later, is ludicrous.
-
On this I agree, Angelo, but why are people thinking the yard has a golden bullet ? What makes them hope so ? SY's fame ?
People may think they have but the Lawrence and Dando cases prove otherwise.
-
But there is no precedent for a three year old being taken by a stranger and returned or rescued years later, unless you have an example
Where?
-
I don't think there was a precedent for the Josef Fritzl crimes in Austria? But they happened....
I am sure there were similar cases if not exact in all details, discovered or not, incest and pregnancy from it is not uncommon
-
You make yourself look very foolish when posting your claims as absolute facts when you know as well as we all do that you cannot prove any of what you are claiming.
Your ID of insider is very telling. Why are you pretending to inside knowledge or are you pretending that you are superior intellectually to everyone else and have managed to solve this case by those means?
Insider is a long standing member of this forum with a proven track record for revealing inside information. What I would like to know is why are you so threatened by him?? @)(++(*
-
I am sure there were similar cases if not exact in all details, discovered or not, incest and pregnancy from it is not uncommon
Fair enough. There was no precedent for terrorists crashing planes into buildings but sadly it happened on 9/11.
-
No one ever said it was. It can be indicative and most police forces treat such finds as justifiable suspicion.
Do people get arrested and prosecuted for something being "indicative" or "justifiable suspicion"? Or are they arrested and prosecuted on evidence that can stand up in a court of law?
The only reason why the "cadaver dogs" are continually mentioned in any of the posts is to imply that someone died in the apartment. Why else knowingly post it when you and others have indicated that they understand that a dog alert or indication not backed by forensic findings, is no evidence of death?
-
Insider is a long standing member of this forum with a proven track record for revealing inside information. What I would like to know is why are you so threatened by him?? @)(++(*
I don't think anyone is threatened, Angelo. It's just that when people hint that they "know what really happened" and then don't reply properly when challenged it becomes rather tedious. JMO.
-
There is no precedence for many events but they happen. Are you saying just because no such event has taken place previously that it is impossible? If not then it is possible and Madeleine may be alive.
Till there is evidence to the contrary it is the position of most normal people, whilst accepting that it is possibly unlikely they will hold out at least a minimal hope of recovery.
I cannot understand those who simply on the basis of statistics declare openly that Madeleine is dead. Its possible, maybe probable but it is not as they claim a certainty.
And without that certainty then no parent will ever give up and no charitable person should give up supporting those parents however limited the hope might be.
Never said anythng of the sort
-
Don't post such nonsense Sadie. SY won't be stopping anyone since they are merely guests when in Portugal and have no authority to do anything. People must stop thinking that SY have a golden bullet in this case because they don't.
Angelo, you do not know what I know. Please rermember that.
Did I mention arresting anyone in PT? This man is truly global.
-
Since when does the outcome of Madeleines case depend on a set precedence? Since when do abductors work according to a set pattern for all victims? Not one case's circumstances are the same. Trying to prove Madeleine is dead by claiming the circumstances don't fit the pattern of other victims found alive years later, is ludicrous.
Never claimed anything, just asked you if you have any examples. And where was I tryong to *prove* anything at all. Nowhere.
But to suggest that Madeleines alledged abduction can fit in with any patterns from babies to adults going missing, from their own volition, taken by enstranged parents, abduction for sexual slavery, trafficking, and whatever the circumstances and reasons, is well, in your own words, a little ludicrous.
But thanks for accepting there is no precedent.
-
Angelo, you do not know what I know. Please rermember that.
Did I mention arresting anyone in PT? This man is truly global.
Not the pope surely?
A Prime Minister? Head of the UN? Who are you accusing now?
>@@(*&)
-
I am sure there were similar cases if not exact in all details, discovered or not, incest and pregnancy from it is not uncommon
The incest father/daughter is the most common of all and occurs in all social levels. Most of the time it remains a family secret. Sometimes, yes, the child's daughter is educated as her brother/sister.
The precedent argument isn't pertinent imo, except for statistics.
It can be considered that, since the door was open, the "from her bed" is not so much spectacular.
The crucial element is Madeleine's age. Just question paediatricians about resilience ! She could have survived if a nice person had taken an exceptional care of her very rapidly. This is a contradiction in terms : she was stolen and people who steal children are sordid.
-
Not the pope surely?
A Prime Minister? Head of the UN? Who are you accusing now?
>@@(*&)
I have made no accusations even to SY, but I have drawn their attention to someone with about 18 -20 pointers, some of which are very powerful, others less so. This is not a man that is generally thought of as being involved.
I shall not give you any names. Sorry Red.
-
The incest father/daughter is the most common of all and occurs in all social levels. Most of the time it remains a family secret. Sometimes, yes, the child's daughter is educated as her brother/sister.
The precedent argument isn't pertinent imo, except for statistics.
It can be considered that, since the door was open, the "from her bed" is not so much spectacular.
The crucial element is Madeleine's age. Just question paediatricians about resilience ! She could have survived if a nice person had taken an exceptional care of her very rapidly. This is a contradiction in terms : she was stolen and people who steal children are sordid.
Erm.... who is the childs daughter?
-
I have made no accusations even to SY, but I have drawn their attention to someone with about 18 -20 pointers, some of which are very powerful, others less so. This is not a man that is generally thought of as being involved.
I shall not give you any names. Sorry Red.
Wasnt asking for any, but what are you doing here, posting about someone who you suspect and have forwarded your suspicions on to scotland yard? IE whats the point?
-
As Albertini is rightly too embarrassed to provide a source for the partial article he has posted, I shall relieve him of the burden.
Not embarrassed at all. Just testing a theory.
That theory is that supporters of the McCann's rather than answer the points raised say:
"he/She/they have no credibility so we aren't looking at it".
So they then very neatly excuse themselves from actually countering the points an article makes.
In this case the assertions were supported by direct evidence, which makes the author irrelevent.
Thanks for proving my theory though guys!
8((()*/
-
Some were found only a few miles from the place they disappeared. The point you make is totally redundant.
How so ?
-
Where?
Sorry Carana, dont understand your question
-
Fair enough. There was no precedent for terrorists crashing planes into buildings but sadly it happened on 9/11.
Err, I think you might be wrong on that one
-
Do people get arrested and prosecuted for something being "indicative" or "justifiable suspicion"? Or are they arrested and prosecuted on evidence that can stand up in a court of law?
The only reason why the "cadaver dogs" are continually mentioned in any of the posts is to imply that someone died in the apartment. Why else knowingly post it when you and others have indicated that they understand that a dog alert or indication not backed by forensic findings, is no evidence of death?
You are putting words into my mouth. I made no mention of arrests or prosecutions on dog evidence.All I said was that police consider cadaver dog alerts as justifiable suspicion, it is intelligence and information to be explored.
Suspicion is the name of the game in any policemans work, he would be lapse in his basic duties if he lacked it!
-
On this I agree, Angelo, but why are people thinking the yard has a golden bullet ? What makes them hope so ? SY's fame ?
Oh that's an interesting phrase to use!
Quite reminded me of Amaral and that tape with him threatening to shoot people between the eyes with golden bullets which Joana Morais inadvertently confirmed was genuine.
And I would like to know where you get the idea of a SY golden bullet?
Even I could see anomalies in the files where Amaral and Rebelo's teams did not follow up enquiries. I am really not surprised that SY also found such anomalies and loose ends to be tied up.
Perhaps you are not thinking of a golden bullet but an ace up the sleeve. Though again I think you would be referring to Amaral who has consistently failed at every opportunity to provide this ace which he claimed to have.
-
Excellent point. Anne Guedes is showing a basic lack of understanding of the role of the dogs and what their findings indicate.
They indicate the potential trace of cadaver odour, and cannot be in any way taken as direct evidence of the death of Madeleine McCann.
Gilet, you can't resist judging not what people effectively said but what you arbitrarily decide they said.
I never said the dog alerted to Madeleine McCann's body. Bodies smell all the same, whether this fact delights you or not.
-
I have briefly re-read the article and am unable to continue for the moment because I am laughing so much at one of the references that Blacksmith has given.
I am looking at this.
which he uses as his evidence for the claim above in the article that:
So Blacksmith gives as evidence sources he won't cite because presumably he believes them to be unreliable.
They are his evidence but he won't give them to you, you have to go and Google.
And this is what Albertini takes as properly-researched material?
It would be laughed out of a first year A level class as shoddy referencing.
And if you looked on Google you will see interviews from Kate McCann in 2011 where she says::
How dare they call me cold
“People can judge however they want but unless you’ve been in the situation we’ve been in, it’s impossible to know what someone feels. Why do people feel they have the right to judge when this judgment is based on ignorance?”
So she is specifcally responding to those allegations.
Now about the other evidence. Why have you chosen to ignroe those points taken direct from the book?
You are proving my little theory that i laid out in my last post.
-
You are putting words into my mouth. I made no mention of arrests or prosecutions on dog evidence.All I said was that police consider cadaver dog alerts as justifiable suspicion, it is intelligence and information to be explored.
Suspicion is the name of the game in any policemans work, he would be lapse in his basic duties if he lacked it!
Actually suspicion is not the name of the game at all. The name of the game is detection and though suspicion may be an early part of the game, the later stages include evidence, arrests, and proof. And when the game is over the real work of prosecution begins based on the evidence, not on the suspicion. So cadaver dog alerts might arouse suspicion but they do not make a case on their own.
-
Err, I think you might be wrong on that one
I'm happy to be corrected. However, people saying that Madeleine cannot have been abducted from her bed on holiday etc because there is no precedent, are wrong. There was no precedent for an off-duty British soldier being mown down by a car and hacked to death in broad daylight on the streets of London by terrorists but sadly it happened to Drummer Lee Rigby in May.
-
Gilet, you can't resist judging not what people effectively said but what you arbitrarily decide they said.
I never said the dog alerted to Madeleine McCann's body. Bodies smell all the same, whether this fact delights you or not.
And if you looked on Google you will see interviews from Kate McCann in 2011 where she says::
So she is specifcally responding to those allegations.
Now about the other evidence. Why have you chosen to ignroe those points taken direct from the book?
You are proving my little theory that i laid out in my last post.
I am not proving any theory. I have just had a very pleasant lunch if you must know. I am not at your beck and call.
I shall respond in my own good time. Once I have got over the humour of you bringing only part of the article here, being too embarrassed to own up to its origin, and the nonsense which the author uses as non-citations.
-
Oh that's an interesting phrase to use!
Quite reminded me of Amaral and that tape with him threatening to shoot people between the eyes with golden bullets which Joana Morais inadvertently confirmed was genuine.
And I would like to know where you get the idea of a SY golden bullet?
Even I could see anomalies in the files where Amaral and Rebelo's teams did not follow up enquiries. I am really not surprised that SY also found such anomalies and loose ends to be tied up.
Perhaps you are not thinking of a golden bullet but an ace up the sleeve. Though again I think you would be referring to Amaral who has consistently failed at every opportunity to provide this ace which he claimed to have.
Libel trial coming up soon gilet ?
'Your mission, if you chose to accept it, is to blacken Amaral's name at every opportunity across all forms of social media'
-
Actually suspicion is not the name of the game at all. The name of the game is detection and though suspicion may be an early part of the game, the later stages include evidence, arrests, and proof. And when the game is over the real work of prosecution begins based on the evidence, not on the suspicion. So cadaver dog alerts might arouse suspicion but they do not make a case on their own.
Which is exactly what I said
@)(++(*
-
It is a pity, John, this forum promised to be different, serious ...
Scotland Yard working with Polícia Judiciária Oporto established:
1. Madeleine McCann may be alive.
2. She was abducted by a stranger.
3. There is 38 persons of interest (many in the PJ Main File and the rogatory letters).
4. The case can not be open in Portugal for judiciary reasons, the solution was SY open its own investigation.
So the forum is in Level I ...
Level I: Discussing to demonstrate "McCanns did it", ie, losing time.
Level II: Searching for Madeleine and her abductor (the present level).
And very soon SY will be in Level III: identifying the stranger abductor or how he did it.
It's time to move on to Level II ...
It is a pity, the forum promised to be serious, different ...
Heri.
-
Gilet, you can't resist judging not what people effectively said but what you arbitrarily decide they said.
I never said the dog alerted to Madeleine McCann's body. Bodies smell all the same, whether this fact delights you or not.
Don't be so ridiculous.
What on earth was the point of you introducing the notion of dogs alerting to cadaver scent in a post about the precedences in the Madeleine McCann case if it wasn't referring to Madeleine McCann?
If you were not referring to her body then why did you introduce it as an example of a non-precedence in her disappearance? What purpose did you have in referring to the dog alerting to a cadaver if not to suggest that it was that of Madeleine McCann.
-
Which is exactly what I said
@)(++(*
No it is not what you said. I suggest you re-read your own post more carefully. You remained stuck at the stage of suspicion in your post. I explained that the suspicion must lead to evidence, arrests and proof.
Your were ignoring this fact.
-
Sorry Carana, dont understand your question
Quote from: Redblossom on Today at 02:20:11 PM
But there is no precedent for a three year old being taken by a stranger and returned or rescued years later, unless you have an example
Did you mean no precedents anywhere in the world?
There are examples of young children being kidnapped and found years later. Just because we can't easily find them on Google, depending on our abilities to search in various languages, doesn't mean that there are no precedents, even though the principal reasons why kids are kidnapped may be different from one setting to another.
http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic3890.html
-
Glad to hear that you don't lend any credence to Amaral's execrable fridge/Scenic nonsense. JK Rowling couldn't have topped that one!
Poor Amaral, he was, yes, very close to the truth, but his unconscious stopped him.. and finally made him the victim of the farce.
-
Poor Amaral, he was, yes, very close to the truth, but his unconscious stopped him.. and finally made him the victim of the farce.
Close to the truth - what with, the so-called forensics?
I'd say the only victims of the farce were Madeleine, Kate and Gerry McCann. A farce created by a corrupt cop.
-
Poor Amaral, he was, yes, very close to the truth, but his unconscious stopped him.. and finally made him the victim of the farce.
How does his dismissal from the case which was as he tells us in his book directly linked to his mouthing off to a journalist make him a victim?
The very fact that a person under suspicion of abetting a torture of the parent of a missing child (an arguido even) would have disbarred him from ever being involved in the McCann case in most civilised countries because he would have been under suspension. His role in the case will I am sure come under very close scrutiny by the authorities eventually.
Your clear support for this convicted ex-cop who disgraced his profession by his actions tells me a lot about your stance regarding this case.
-
Quote from: Redblossom on Today at 02:20:11 PM
But there is no precedent for a three year old being taken by a stranger and returned or rescued years later, unless you have an example
Did you mean no precedents anywhere in the world?
There are examples of young children being kidnapped and found years later. Just because we can't easily find them on Google, depending on our abilities to search in various languages, doesn't mean that there are no precedents, even though the principal reasons why kids are kidnapped may be different from one setting to another.
http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic3890.html
There are cases of babies stolen by frustrated women. Had one twin or both (much better for them, then easier for the abductor) disappeared, then adoption could have been contemplated.
-
No it is not what you said. I suggest you re-read your own post more carefully. You remained stuck at the stage of suspicion in your post. I explained that the suspicion must lead to evidence, arrests and proof.
Your were ignoring this fact.
I am ignoring nothing. All I said was dog alerts raise police suspicion as police know what they are trained to alert to. THATS WHY they send themin in the first place, because the suspicion is already there!
proof, courts, evidence,? That had nothing to do with my post.
-
Quote from: Redblossom on Today at 02:20:11 PM
But there is no precedent for a three year old being taken by a stranger and returned or rescued years later, unless you have an example
Did you mean no precedents anywhere in the world?
There are examples of young children being kidnapped and found years later. Just because we can't easily find them on Google, depending on our abilities to search in various languages, doesn't mean that there are no precedents, even though the principal reasons why kids are kidnapped may be different from one setting to another.
http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic3890.html
So do you have an example of a three year old taken by a stranger and returned years later? Surely, if they were it would make the NEWS
-
I am not proving any theory. I have just had a very pleasant lunch if you must know. I am not at your beck and call.
I shall respond in my own good time. Once I have got over the humour of you bringing only part of the article here, being too embarrassed to own up to its origin, and the nonsense which the author uses as non-citations.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/248068/Kate-McCann-How-dare-they-call-me-cold
Same article 2011.
Amaral say's.
Last night he said: “I knew about the statement from the British woman but the photofit was not sent through. I believe it is important that this line of inquiry is investigated.”
The woman who drew up the image was a relative of Pamela Fenn, an elderly woman who lived above the McCanns’ apartment. She died recently. Her relative said that on the afternoon of the kidnap, she was on the balcony of Mrs Fenn’s apartment when she looked down and saw a man pushing a gate to a neighbouring apartment to and fro possibly to find out how much noise it made.
When she realised Madeleine was taken the same evening she gave a statement to British police and helped them compile the photofit. However, the first time the public was aware of her potentially crucial evidence was its mention in Kate’s book.
So how did that information get in the files
Speaking to the Sunday Express Mr Amaral said: “I don’t think it would be useful to criticise the British detectives but I would be interested to hear why certain material was not sent to Portugal while I was on the case.”
Ian Robertson, who has an apartment in the same block, said from his home at Neyland, Pembrokeshire: “There seemed to be a group of local thieves targeting the apartments. I have a theory that they had criminal contacts and that Madeleine might have been stolen to order.”
Mr Amaral said: “One of the theories considered was that a thief got into the apartment and something happened with Madeleine. I am sure the review will examine that theory.”
-
I am ignoring nothing. All I said was dog alerts raise police suspicion as police know what they are trained to alert to. THATS WHY they send themin in the first place, because the suspicion is already there!
proof, courts, evidence,? That had nothing to do with my post.
If I had been told that Prof Harrison would send a cadaver dog in a flat left by Madeleine's parents 3 months before and meanwhile inhabited by other people, I would have found it very, very weird.
-
If I had been told that Prof Harrison would send a cadaver dog in a flat left by Madeleine's parents 3 months before and meanwhile inhabited by other people, I would have found it very, very weird.
Exactly, Harrison saw the need and directed it, and if dogs cant scent death after thirty days as kate mccann claims he must be an idiot wasting time and money
@)(++(*
-
Exactly, Harrison saw the need and directed it, and if dogs cant scent death after thirty days as kate mccann claims he must be an idiot wasting time and money
@)(++(*
An idiot MBE, isn't it contradictory in terms ?
-
I am not proving any theory. I have just had a very pleasant lunch if you must know. I am not at your beck and call.
I shall respond in my own good time. Once I have got over the humour of you bringing only part of the article here, being too embarrassed to own up to its origin, and the nonsense which the author uses as non-citations.
No your responses are proving my theory. I did not ask you to be at my beck and call.
Good for you on your lunch, glad you enjoyed it!
I brought over part of the article relating to a specific point about "normal behaviour" that a poster had made in defence of the McCann's.
It was highly relevent to the thread and the poster's point and indeed the proving that Kate was hiding her emotions was sourced from evidence Kate herself has given both to the newspapers and indeed in her own book.
But as ususal the supporters screech "it's Blacksmith!!" so as to avoid the issues.
Shall i tell you what i find amusing?
I find it amusing the first question in reply to the article from supporters of the pair is: "who's the author, who's the author", rather than arguing with the logic and evidence.
Utterly bizarre.
-
An idiot MBE, isn't it contradictory in terms ?
LOL
some mbes are idiots but the british police recommended the dogs to help in the scenario of death
They were tasked by mr g to do a report on possible death/murder of madeleine mccann, as the PJ had worked on abduction only until then, it threw no leads so it was time for a new stage
Sorry i can never remember mr gs name or how to spell it
This is him and what the british press had to say
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/i-hope-mr-robert-mendick-will-die-soon.html
-
Mr Encarnação. It means "incarnation, embodiment".
-
LOL
some mbes are idiots but the british police recommended the dogs to help in the scenario of death
They were tasked by mr g to do a report on possible death/murder of madeleine mccann, as the PJ had worked on abduction only until then, it threw no leads so it was time for a new stage
Sorry i can never remember mr gs name or how to spell it
This is him and what the british press had to say
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/i-hope-mr-robert-mendick-will-die-soon.html
That is not the true article, nor does the article say i-hope-mr-robert-mendick-will-die-soon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
-
That is not the true article, nor does the article say i-hope-mr-robert-mendick-will-die-soon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
paulo reiss blog did say that, as for the telegraph article, mendick said exactly that, that an obstacle has been removed,referring to his death, its documented and captured, end of
nasty old scrunt wasnt he?
mendick of course
-
Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance
The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
By Robert Mendick
9:00PM GMT 06 Mar 2010
The move follows the release of 2,000 pages of evidence last week which Portuguese detectives are accused of having failed to fully investigate.
According to sources close to the McCanns, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has ordered officials to examine the 'feasibility' of British or Portuguese detectives looking afresh at all the evidence.
Kate and Gerry McCann met with Mr Johnson last year to plead for help in their search for Madeleine, who vanished without trace in May 2007 from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
The couple have also met with John Yates, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, who has headed up a number of high profile inquiries in recent years.
He is said to be "sympathetic" and to have made "general offers of assistance".
The source said: "The latest we have heard from the Home Office is officials are undertaking a 'scoping exercise' to look into the possibility of a review of the case.
"They are looking at all the options. It is basically a feasibility study.
"Kate and Gerry met with Alan Johnson to request a review is done. Hopefully any political intervention can unlock obstructions that might be in the way."
Pressure is now being put on Portuguese authorities to agree in the first instance to a three-day review of the case that could be held at Interpol's headquarters in Lyon in France.
The McCanns will hope the Home Office can persuade their Portuguese counterparts to co-operate in a case review.
The review – were it to go ahead – would involve British police working with Portuguese counterparts as well as experts in child abduction across other European forces.
The Portuguese police have been heavily criticised for their handling of the case which led to detectives naming the McCanns, both doctors from Leicestershire, as arguidos – or suspects – in the case and accusing them of involvement in her disappearance.
Their arguido status was subsequently lifted and the police investigation shelved.
But with the senior officer in charge Goncalo Amaral now widely discredited and facing financial ruin after being sued for libel by the McCanns over a book he wrote, it may become harder for the Portuguese to refuse the request for a thorough review.
The revelation that possible leads – many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives – had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour.
Last week, details emerged of a series of possible sightings of Madeleine, who was just three when she vanished.
Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve, died two weeks ago from stomach cancer.
Mr Encarnacao was convinced Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment and was a major source of a series of off the record briefings to journalists against the McCanns.
A Home Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann.
"Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete enquiries if further information comes to light in the UK; or if requested to do so by the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation."
The spokesman refused to discuss what talks took place at the meeting or whether there was the chance of a review of the evidence at Interpol.
The spokesman added: "We are not going to comment on the outcome of any private meeting with the McCanns."
Mr Yates was unavailable for comment. He led the cash for honours investigation and was also involved in a new inquiry into the murder of Julie Ward, who was murdered in Kenya in 1988.
-
A further obstacle was removed with the death from stomach cancer two weeks ago of Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve.
Mr Encarnacao was convinced Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment and was a major source of a series of off the record briefings to journalists against the McCanns.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post97436.html#p97436
you see some capture articlea before theyare changed
Daily Telegraph
Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance
The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
By Robert Mendick
Published: 9:00PM GMT 06 Mar 2010
Missing Madeleine McCann Photo: PA
The move follows the release of 2,000 pages of evidence last week which Portuguese detectives are accused of having failed to fully investigate.
According to sources close to the McCanns, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has ordered officials to examine the 'feasibility' of British or Portuguese detectives looking afresh at all the evidence.
'Madeleine McCann leads ignored'
Kate and Gerry McCann met with Mr Johnson last year to plead for help in their search for Madeleine, who vanished without trace in May 2007 from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
The couple have also met with John Yates, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, who has headed up a number of high profile inquiries in recent years.
He is said to be "sympathetic" and to have made "general offers of assistance".
The source said: "The latest we have heard from the Home Office is officials are undertaking a 'scoping exercise' to look into the possibility of a review of the case.
"They are looking at all the options. It is basically a feasibility study.
"Kate and Gerry met with Alan Johnson to request a review is done. Hopefully any political intervention can unlock obstructions that might be in the way."
Pressure is now being put on Portuguese authorities to agree in the first instance to a three-day review of the case that could be held at Interpol's headquarters in Lyon in France.
The McCanns will hope the Home Office can persuade their Portuguese counterparts to co-operate in a case review.
The review – were it to go ahead – would involve British police working with Portuguese counterparts as well as experts in child abduction across other European forces.
The Portuguese police have been heavily criticised for their handling of the case which led to detectives naming the McCanns, both doctors from Leicestershire, as arguidos – or suspects – in the case and accusing them of involvement in her disappearance.
Their arguido status was subsequently lifted and the police investigation shelved.
But with the senior officer in charge Goncalo Amaral now widely discredited and facing financial ruin after being sued for libel by the McCanns over a book he wrote, it may become harder for the Portuguese to refuse the request for a thorough review.
The revelation that possible leads – many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives – had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour.
Last week, details emerged of a series of possible sightings of Madeleine, who was just three when she vanished.
A further obstacle was removed with the death from stomach cancer two weeks ago of Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve.
Mr Encarnacao was convinced Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment and was a major source of a series of off the record briefings to journalists against the McCanns.
A Home Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann.
"Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete enquiries if further information comes to light in the UK; or if requested to do so by the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation."
The spokesman refused to discuss what talks took place at the meeting or whether there was the chance of a review of the evidence at Interpol.
The spokesman added: "We are not going to comment on the outcome of any private meeting with the McCanns."
Mr Yates was unavailable for comment. He led the cash for honours investigation and was also involved in a new inquiry into the murder of Julie Ward, who was murdered in Kenya in 1988.
-
Insider is a long standing member of this forum with a proven track record for revealing inside information. What I would like to know is why are you so threatened by him?? @)(++(*
I'm not threatened by him at all - I find his secretive' ''I know something you don't know'' posts quite comical. Is his other name 'The Black Shadow? 8(>((
Now listen carefully I shall only say this once: Why doesn't he just tell us what he thinks instead of creeping in and out of the thread dropping veiled hints. LOL
-
Writing but with the senior officer in charge Goncalo Amaral now widely discredited and facing financial ruin after being sued for libel by the McCanns over a book he wrote, it may become harder for the Portuguese to refuse the request for a thorough review reveals some intellectual disturbance.
-
I'm not threatened by him at all - I find his secretive' ''I know something you don't know'' posts quite comical. Is his other name 'The Black Shadow? 8(>((
Now listen carefully I shall only say this once: Why doesn't he just tell us what he thinks instead of creeping in and out of the thread dropping veiled hints. LOL
It would be "comical", eventually, if Insider had just pretended to know what others didn't. But this is not what s/he said. Insider said we should try to join the dots. This is totally different. Too many informations kill the information. Lots of elements in this mystery have no relevance at all and function like trees hiding the forest.
-
So do you have an example of a three year old taken by a stranger and returned years later? Surely, if they were it would make the NEWS
Sometimes they do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326175/Chinese-man-abducted-5-year-old-reunited-parents-using-GOOGLE-MAPS.html
-
From Wikipaedia
Steven Gregory Stayner (April 18, 1965 – September 16, 1989) was an American kidnap victim. Stayner was abducted from the Northern California city and county of Merced, California at the age of seven and held until he was 14, when he escaped and rescued another victim, Timothy White, in 1980. Stayner died in 1989 in a motorcycle accident while driving home from work.
Unquote
Timothy White was 5 when he was abducted.
-
Sometimes they do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326175/Chinese-man-abducted-5-year-old-reunited-parents-using-GOOGLE-MAPS.html
This little boy was snatched not from bed but on his way to the creche by a professional abductor in order to be sold to a family who had no boy. It seems this practice was not unusual at the time. As you know families were limited to one child and every family wanted a boy in order to be sustained in their old days.
-
From Wikipaedia
Steven Gregory Stayner (April 18, 1965 – September 16, 1989) was an American kidnap victim. Stayner was abducted from the Northern California city and county of Merced, California at the age of seven and held until he was 14, when he escaped and rescued another victim, Timothy White, in 1980. Stayner died in 1989 in a motorcycle accident while driving home from work.
Unquote
Timothy White was 5 when he was abducted.
I'd forgotten about Steven - watched a dramatization a few years ago. So very sad that Steven was killed in an accident after being reunited with his family. Steven was a very brave young man.
-
Sometimes they do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326175/Chinese-man-abducted-5-year-old-reunited-parents-using-GOOGLE-MAPS.html
Oh thats interesting, thanks, sort of
-
And again, no one said that
Eta still you cant just blank all statistics, and many are kept in cases of missing people as it is a worldwide phenomenon, unlike some rabid muslim beheading someone inthe uk street whichis rarer than rare
Would you like to produce a stat that shows all 3 year olds abducted while on holiday from their beds are as a result of parent murder-involvement-coverup.
-
This little boy was snatched not from bed but on his way to the creche by a professional abductor in order to be sold to a family who had no boy. It seems this practice was not unusual at the time. As you know families were limited to one child and every family wanted a boy in order to be sustained in their old days.
I'm sure whoever abducted Madeleine had their motive/s to do so as well.
-
Would you like to produce a stat that shows all 3 year olds abducted while on holiday from their beds are as a result of parent murder-involvement-coverup.
No will leave that to you
good luck as there ARE no statistics of any 3 yr olds being foundafter years murdered or not, ie NONE
Cheers
-
No will leave that to you
good luck as there ARE no statistics of any 3 yr olds being foundafter years murdered or not, ie NONE
Cheers
So you agree then, it can't be said that Madeleine is dead?
-
Why on earth do some people insist that Madeleine must necessarily be dead? She might well be, but why insist that she is without any proof?
Even if she is, her family still deserves to be given the best chances of finding out what happened.
And if there is some creep out there, that person could strike again against other children.
-
I'm still waiting for a credible scenario as to how the McCanns "did it" within the 4.5 hour time-frame that we are being expected to believe.
-
I'm still waiting for a credible scenario as to how the McCanns "did it" within the 4.5 hour time-frame that we are being expected to believe.
You too?
-
You too?
Yup. Been waiting a while now Carana!
-
So you agree then, it can't be said that Madeleine is dead?
if youhad read my posts properly u wouldnt need to ask that
-
Why on earth do some people insist that Madeleine must necessarily be dead? She might well be, but why insist that she is without any proof?
Even if she is, her family still deserves to be given the best chances of finding out what happened.
And if there is some creep out there, that person could strike again against other children.
No one INSISTS she is dead, why exaggerate? And the CREEP has not struck again since 2007 has he? Any 3 yr olds been snatched since then by a stranger creep?
-
No one INSISTS she is dead, why exaggerate? And the CREEP has not struck again since 2007 has he? Any 3 yr olds been snatched since then by a stranger creep?
Could be he was aware that he might be a person of interest or was physically ill and couldn't repeat his crime or he committed suicide. Raymond Hewlett and Urs Hans von Aesch come to mind.
-
Could be he was aware that he might be a person of interest or was physically ill and couldn't repeat his crime or he committed suicide. Raymond Hewlett and Urs Hans von Aesch come to mind.
Interesting points, Mo. I hadn't thought about that angle before. Both had form, both now dead.
-
Could be he was aware that he might be a person of interest or was physically ill and couldn't repeat his crime or he committed suicide. Raymond Hewlett and Urs Hans von Aesch come to mind.
oh get real
-
oh get real
What are you reasons for poo-poo ing a perfectly good post from Mo? Hewlett and von Aesch could easily be in the frame, IMO.
-
oh get real
I am serious. And if you stopped for a minute with your insults you would also see it does make sense.
-
oh get real
I've been wondering whether they'll exit pointing to the only possibly good perpetrator i.e the one who's dead.
-
What are you reasons for poo-poo ing a perfectly good post from Mo? Hewlett and von Aesch could easily be in the frame, IMO.
Get real rg
-
Get real rg
You haven't answered my question, Redblossom.
-
I am serious. And if you stopped for a minute with your insults you would also see it does make sense.
No it does not make sense LOL and quit the accusation of insults just because u dont like me answering you back LOL
now, lets hear your theory of von aeschbeing the abductor and the evidence for it or even hewlett if u have the time
-
I've been wondering whether they'll exit pointing to the only possibly good perpetrator i.e the one who's dead.
You clearly have misunderstood the point of the posts. The possible reason why the abductor hasn't struck again could be because he is dead. It's a fact, not an excuse or "pointing to the only possible good perpetrator". Your attempt to use a deliberately misinterpreted post to show some sort of wrong doing on the McCann's part, has failed.
-
No it does not make sense LOL and quit the accusation of insults just because u dont like me answering you back LOL
now, lets hear your theory of von aeschbeing the abductor and the evidence for it or even hewlett if u have the time
They both had motive, means and opportunity.
-
They both had motive, means and opportunity.
do extrapolate
And did either if them have longblack hair? Or looked around 35 yrs old
If u want a patsy you will have to try much much harder
-
do extrapolate
And did either if them have longblack hair? Or looked around 35 yrs old
If u want a patsy you will have to try much much harder
Hewletts wife looks a lot like one of those photo's released.
-
Hewletts wife looks a lot like one of those photo's released. The one carrying a child.
Jesus wept
Ok
Pls show it
-
(http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1895658.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/An-artists-impression-of-the-man-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-believe-abducted-their-daughter-1895658.jpg)
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hewlettmarianna.jpg)
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/22/article-1186788-050F9209000005DC-513_468x577.jpg)
-
No one INSISTS she is dead, why exaggerate? And the CREEP has not struck again since 2007 has he? Any 3 yr olds been snatched since then by a stranger creep?
I never said that YOU had insisted. Some people do, however.
Here's one, just as an example, from recent posts here:
Madeleine is dead Heriberto and the sooner you realise this the better. There is no possible way a child with her physical characteristics could elude detection for six years. Let's not kid ourselves.
But Insider is, no doubt, about to tell us exactly what did happen:
Before I go on to reveal what really happened to Madeleine ask yourself was their reactions really normal? Was their reactions as evidenced by the two Portuguese GNR officers for example conducive with a sudden death or an abduction?
I don't know, do you?
A creep could be living a dual life close by to PdL, or could have gone elsewhere in the country, or could be in a different country.
Have there been no stranger abductions / abuse / rapes anywhere in the world since 2007?
There are around 150 missing kids on the Interpol site:
http://www.interpol.int/Missing-Persons/%28offset%29/144?missing_search=¤t_age_mini=0¤t_age_maxi=19
Many others may not have even been reported to Interpol.
There can be local/national alerts in languages we don't understand. I, for one, hadn't heard of many of the missing kids prior to their rescue.
-
It seems you are wrong again, Red.
How can both articles be the same date and time Published: 9:00PM GMT 06 Mar 2010 but be changed. It would usually say, updated.
So Reis used it from http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post97436.html#p97436, on the Sunday, 7 March 2010, who seemed to added something not in the article.
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/i-hope-mr-robert-mendick-will-die-soon.html
Link from Reis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
Bit of a difference in article title, and what Reis uses.
nothing to do with reiss
Guardian printed the prick mendicks comments and then deleted them
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/05/22/article-1186788-050F9209000005DC-513_468x577.jpg)
and this is supposed to mean?? That is a pic of hewlett a decade and more ago, someone obviously skewed the sketch to make creepy gail cooper a witness to him dear god ye gods LOL
@)(++(*
you do realise hewlett was 60 plus at the time with a few streaks of grey hair and not a 30 yr old with a long black glossy BOB! As in Tanners sketch!
Suppose he could have worn hair extensions though LOL
A patsy should NEVER be any form of justice
-
nothing to do with reiss
Guardian printed the prick mendicks comments and then deleted them
So why post the Reis link? Which links to the Telegraph. @)(++(* @)(++(*
So lets see the Guardian article. You did say it was documented, but not shown it! 8-)(--)
-
So why post the Reis link? Which links to the Telegraph. @)(++(* @)(++(*
So lets see the Guardian article. You did say it was documented, but not shown it! 8-)(--)
go to specsaver i posted it hours ago
-
Suppose he could have worn hair extensions though LOL
@)(++(*
-
@)(++(*
Hewlett loooked like davos from dr who without the mask LOL
he had form and convictions for sexual assaults on teenagers in the 1970s
His MO was not abducting 3 yr olds but some people think anyone goes re Madeleine Mccann including men who preyed on boys only
-
Hewlett loooked like davos from dr who without the mask LOL
Didn't Mrs McCann say Madeleine adored watching Dr Who (no idea of who is who) ?
-
Why all these lies?
rubbish as always
I didnt insert anything
It was a copy and paste of the article at the time, FACT
Can be found in many places
Fact
-
It is quite normal for the Telegraph and others to change the text in on-line articles without referencing them to the reader. A recent example of this was yet another article in the Telegraph by Katy Brand in which she claimed that the McCanns marriage was over before making a hasty retreat some hours later.
Read the original article and the altered one here (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1909.msg60155#msg60155)
-
rubbish as always
I didnt insert anything
It was a copy and paste of the article at the time, FACT
Can be found in many places
Fact
It was a copy and paste of an articlle printed where? By which publication? The Telegraph itself, or....?
Show me the original article with web address attached so that I can see the original.
Sorry to be so untrusting, but I have reason to be.
-
It was a copy and paste of an articlle printed where? By which publication? The Telegraph itself, or....?
Show me the original article with web address attached so that I can see the original.
Sorry to be so untrusting, but I have reason to be.
There is no original article with the web address attached as it has been changed!
Any telegraph link will take you to the changed article!
People logging articles copied and pasted them as is when published.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/35march10/TELEGRAPH_06_03_10.htm
also down this page
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id314.html
also here http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post97436.html#p97436
There you go, happy now?
I would have given you the waybackmachine link as well, so you could not lay accusations of doctoring, but they captured every single day in March 2010 except for the 6th March
@)(++(*
have a nice day now
8((()*/
PS Thanks John for the example