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: Mr Gray on February 10, 2014, 05:12:01 PM
-
Evidence will only be found if it was looked for properly and from what I have read the pj didn't do this.
The blanket/sheet on Maddies bed was only examined for visible stains...there was no dna sweep of the blanket...furthermore blankets and sheets were then sent to the laundry...no wonder there's no evidence of abduction..that was appalling police work
-
the evidence will only be found if it was looked for properly and from what I have read the pj didn't do this.
The blanket/sheet on Maddies bed was only examined for visible stains...there was no dna sweep of the blanket...furthermore blankets and sheets were then sent to the laundry...no wonder there's no evidence of abduction..that was appalling police work
Can you point out your sources for that?
-
Can you point out your sources for that?
Why?...Do you find it unbelievable?
-
the evidence will only be found if it was looked for properly and from what I have read the pj didn't do this.
The blanket/sheet on Maddies bed was only examined for visible stains...there was no dna sweep of the blanket...furthermore blankets and sheets were then sent to the laundry...no wonder there's no evidence of abduction..that was appalling police work
I would submit sir it will only be found if it is there to be found.
-
I would submit sir it will only be found if it is there to be found.
But you must agree that it would not have been found if the search was deficient..even if it was there
-
But you must agree that it would not have been found if the search was deficient..even if it was there
For sure; so we have two possibilities.
The evidence wasn't there in the first place.
The evidence was there but it was overlooked for reasons of deficiency in or of resources available.
-
For sure; so we have two possibilities.
The evidence wasn't there in the first place.
The evidence was there but it was overlooked for reasons of deficiency in or of resources available.
agreed
-
the evidence will only be found if it was looked for properly and from what I have read the pj didn't do this.
The blanket/sheet on Maddies bed was only examined for visible stains...there was no dna sweep of the blanket...furthermore blankets and sheets were then sent to the laundry...no wonder there's no evidence of abduction..that was appalling police work
More poignantly, the mccanns and associates messed up the apartment prior to the arrival of the police, which made verification impossible.
As to appalling, the MCCANNS first and always.
-
More poignantly, the mccanns and associates messed up the apartment prior to the arrival of the police, which made verification impossible.
As to appalling, the MCCANNS first and always.
Why should this stop the police to pick up the sheet.. and send them to the labs?
It is easy to identify the DNA of anyone who that nigh was known to be in the room.
And even to send the blind rope to the labs! IMO in this case the blind rope was more important than the sheets.. it could have identified who opened the shutters!
-
Can you point out your sources for that?
I watched the video interview with the maid who saw the McCanns leave the apartment on the last day they were there and she was obviously there to tidy up what was effectively a crime scene...unbelievable!
-
I watched the video interview with the maid who saw the McCanns leave the apartment on the last day they were there and she was obviously there to tidy up what was effectively a crime scene...unbelievable!
yes any decent police force would have maintained the scene
-
Could you point to where Kate is supposed to have opened the shutters?
where ?
-
I watched the video interview with the maid who saw the McCanns leave the apartment on the last day they were there and she was obviously there to tidy up what was effectively a crime scene...unbelievable!
How could this possibly have been allowed? It does indeed beggar belief.
The PJ were on the scene at this point as well as the GNR and between them no-one thought to section off the apartment as a crime scene? Basic protocol?
-
Was she allowed to do this, or was she sent away ?
-
Was she allowed to do this, or was she sent away ?
She turned up as normal on the Friday morning (obviously not aware of events) and was turned away
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm
-
Why should this stop the police to pick up the sheet.. and send them to the labs?
It is easy to identify the DNA of anyone who that nigh was known to be in the room.
And even to send the blind rope to the labs! IMO in this case the blind rope was more important than the sheets.. it could have identified who opened the shutters!
Any DNA forensics will have probably been quite useless anyway as the scene was tampered with after the disappearance making the melding of prints and DNA of others and any stranger probable
Fiona Paynes fingerprints on the webbing cord of the shutters
Diane Websters, Gerry Mccanns, Kate Mccanns fingerprints on the shutters, they all "tested" them to see if they can be opened from outside!
Fingerprints and footprints all over the apartment by friends and nursery staff
Etc etc
All this from tapas 9 interviews
-
Any DNA forensics will have probably been quite useless anyway as the scene was tampered with after the disappearance making the melding of prints and DNA of others and any stranger probable
Fiona Paynes fingerprints on the webbing cord of the shutters
Diane Websters, Gerry Mccanns, Kate Mccanns fingerprints on the shutters, they all "tested" them to see if they can be opened from outside!
Fingerprints and footprints all over the apartment by friends and nursery staff
Etc etc
All this from tapas 9 interviews
And, of course,all this prancing around was done long before the police were able to get to the scene.
-
Was she allowed to do this, or was she sent away ?
Good point, and thanks for the clarification, Redblossom.
Wasn't the only example of the crime scene being left open, however....
-
And, of course,all this prancing around was done long before the police were able to get to the scene.
Yes, almost an hours worth
PS I forgot Gerrys fingerprints on the webbing too when he lowered the shutters
Good point, and thanks for the clarification, Redblossom.
Wasn't the only example of the crime scene being left open, however....
You're welcome, the cleaner didn't go anywhere near 5a so it isnt an example of the crime scene beng open. Can you give me an example of how the "crime scene" was left open by police? Remember also at first the local police thought the child may have wandered, so of course they didn't come in with white bodysuits slippers and masks! It wasn't a murder scene....
-
Yes, almost an hours worth
PS I forgot Gerrys fingerprints on the webbing too when he lowered the shutters
You're welcome, the cleaner didn't go anywhere near 5a so it isnt an example of the crime scene beng open. Can you give me an example of how the "crime scene" was left open by police? Remember also at first the local police thought the child may have wandered, so of course they didn't come in with white bodysuits slippers and masks! It wasn't a murder scene....
A crime scene doesn't have to be a murder scene to be sectioned off.
The fact they thought that she had wandered was a conclusion they chose to come to. Minds should have been far more open at that point. No-one apart from police should have been allowed anywhere near the apartment or garden from minute one.
-
A crime scene doesn't have to be a murder scene to be sectioned off.
The fact they thought that she had wandered was a conclusion they chose to come to. Minds should have been far more open at that point. No-one apart from police should have been allowed anywhere near the apartment or garden from minute one.
You didn't give me an example of how it was left open? IE who did the police allow in? You also seem to be ignoring the fact of the contamination that happened from 10pm or so by all and sundry, before police got there, something the Public Prosecutor lamented in his legal summary as something making forensic collation inviable
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
>@@(*&)
AS for sealing off a crime scene, this is normally done when it's thought a crime has happened, not if it might have happened, its never automatic in a missing child case is it?
PS that was a question not a statement
-
And, of course,all this prancing around was done long before the police were able to get to the scene.
Seemingly about an hour from the alarm being raised until the GNR appeared. Then about another two hours before the PJ arrived. For what ever reasons. But plenty of time to "rummage" the scene as was said.
-
You didn't give me an example of how it was left open? IE who did the police allow in? You also seem to be ignoring the fact of the contamination that happened from 10pm or so by all and sundry, before police got there, something the Public Prosecutor lamented in his legal summary as something making forensic collation inviable
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
>@@(*&)
AS for sealing off a crime scene, this is normally done when it's thought a crime has happened...it's never automatic in a missing child case is it?
PS that was a question not a statement
I am looking for examples of whom police let in after their arrival....just wanted to get back to you promptly now.
It's true that the crime scene was contaminated already, and that that must have posed a serious problem for gathering of reliable forensics. However, most crime scenes will have a certain degree of contamination before police arrive. That does not mean that there is no point in sealing of the scene or otherwise treating the place as a crime scene thereafter. There could still be important information left.
Yes, perhaps it is with hindsight that we describe 5A as a crime scene. I have seen houses cordoned off over here in America after a child's disappearance. In one example just round the corner a couple of years ago, the whole street was sectioned off for days (until, sadly, the child was found dead after having being abducted). But perhaps there was more solid evidence for criminality in these cases.
Perhaps sectioning off is a bit excessive, I don't know. Certainly nothing to suggest it happened at 5A.
-
Clearly states here that the GNR were presiding over a scene in which friends of the McCanns and others were circulating freely in and around the apartment.
It was not until the arrival of the Criminology specialist employed by the PJ that instructions were given - at the criminologist's behest - to have the apartment closed off.
The criminologist and the colleague accompanying him arrived between 00:40 and 00: 50 and the scene was closed off shortly after that:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html
-
Clearly states here that the GNR were presiding over a scene in which friends of the McCanns and others were circulating freely in and around the apartment.
It was not until the arrival of the Criminology specialist employed by the PJ that instructions were given - at the criminologist's behest - to have the apartment closed off.
The criminologist and the colleague accompanying him arrived between 00:40 and 00: 50 and the scene was closed off shortly after that:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html
Yes that's what the gnr found when they got there, doesn't answer my question of WHO the gnr let in independently apart from all these people already there, ie your claim that the scene was left OPEN
So scene was closed off after PJ the professionals arrived after midnight, puts a bunt into certain posters alleging crime scene wasn't closed off for two days too
-
yes, that's what the gnr found when they got there, doesn't answer my question of WHO the gnr let in independently apart from all these people already there
There is nothing in this particular statement about who specifically was let in and at what time, but read this carefully:
He states that the people inside the apartment and close to it, entered and left the building and circulated in the whole apartment, completely freely, in other words, without there being any restriction or care in preserving the scene.
He said that these people were the friends of the parents of the missing girl and a lady responsible for the resort called Silvia.
He was shown the room the child had disappeared from, having noticed that people also entered and left that room without any care in the sense of preserving traces. Inside this room there were two children, babies, sleeping in two cots placed in the middle of the room.
People are described as 'circulating freely' in and around the apartment, i.e. moving in and out.
That means that the GNR were watching people walking into the apartment. Whether there were new people, or if it was the same set of people walking in and out, does not matter. GNR did not at that point close the scene off.
-
Could you point to where Kate is supposed to have opened the shutters?
Carana, can you point to cast iron evidence to show where the shutters were seen (not said), but actually physically seen. to be open an independent party ?
-
There is nothing in this particular statement about who specifically was let in and at what time, but read this carefully:
He states that the people inside the apartment and close to it, entered and left the building and circulated in the whole apartment, completely freely, in other words, without there being any restriction or care in preserving the scene.
He said that these people were the friends of the parents of the missing girl and a lady responsible for the resort called Silvia.
He was shown the room the child had disappeared from, having noticed that people also entered and left that room without any care in the sense of preserving traces. Inside this room there were two children, babies, sleeping in two cots placed in the middle of the room.
People are described as 'circulating freely' in and around the apartment, i.e. moving in and out.
That means that the GNR were watching people walking into the apartment. Whether there were new people, or if it was the same set of people walking in and out, does not matter. GNR did not at that point close the scene off.
Maybe they had no power to do so? Did you ever think of that? Point is crime scene was trashed long before police got there.
-
The GNR also checked whether she could have been somewhere in the apartment there before contacting the PJ.
They aren't the CID, they get called out to deal with lesser incidents, and refer up to the PJ when necessary.
So, yes, the parents, friends and OC staff had gone into the apartment, but so had the GNR, and the PJ later.
As far as I'm aware, few people actually went into the children's bedroom that evening, and there are hairs from Madeleine's bed that were noted by by the scientific people, but never seem to have made it to the lab, and a few other hairs found in the apartment with haplotypes that didn't correspond to anyone who was known to have had access. There is at least one thread on this issue somewhere here.
-
Carana, can you point to cast iron evidence to show where the shutters were seen (not said), but actually physically seen. to be open an independent party ?
There is no witness at all to seeing the shutters and window open! Apart from KM of course so Carana cannot have a positive reply to that question
-
It is always worth going back to the beginning and reading the GNR statements.
-
Carana, can you point to cast iron evidence to show where the shutters were seen (not said), but actually physically seen. to be open an independent party ?
I was responding to your assertion that Kate had opened the shutters, and I simply asked you to point me to the pages in the files where that is supposedly established as fact.
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 10, 2014, 06:56:23 PM
Who opened the shutters ?
Ah yes, kate mccann.
ETA: While you search for that, perhaps you could also point where in the files any forensic report actually mentioned that Kate's fingerprints of two fingers on the inside of the window indicated that she had even opened the window.
And any report of any attempt to find fingerprints on the outside of that window.
-
Maybe they had no power to do so? Did you ever think of that? Point is crime scene was trashed long before police got there.
What do you mean, had no power? You mean no legal power or no physical power?
And the fact that the crime scene was trashed is only half of the story. If it made no difference to the collection of forensics that it had already been left open, the criminologist from the PJ would not have bothered giving an order to have it sealed off:
After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents.
The witness carried out finger print testing on the inside of the bedroom window, where the girl had been sleeping, leaving other examinations for the following day given that on that occasion these tests could not be carried out in the best technical conditions. For this reason, the apartments and the surrounding area were sealed off, watched over by the GNR officers who remained on site.
As far as he knows, after the first examination, other members from the finger print detection service and also officers from the LPC Crime Scene arrived at the scene.
Furthermore, more forensic officers would not have been summoned to the scene if there was nothing of forensic value there. Rather, more members of the finger print detective service and other forensic experts arrived.
-
I was responding to your assertion that Kate had opened the shutters, and I simply asked you to point me to the pages in the files where that is supposedly established as fact.
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 10, 2014, 06:56:23 PM
Who opened the shutters ?
Ah yes, kate mccann.
She did attempt to open the shutters from outside, see FPs rogatory
-
Maybe they had no power to do so? Did you ever think of that? Point is crime scene was trashed long before police got there.
You say that as if they purposely trashed it. They searched the apartment to see if Madeleine was hiding.
Checked the shutters to see if they could be opened from outside, if not, they could have wondered if Madeleine had opened them couldn't they?
-
I was responding to your assertion that Kate had opened the shutters, and I simply asked you to point me to the pages in the files where that is supposedly established as fact.
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 10, 2014, 06:56:23 PM
Who opened the shutters ?
Ah yes, kate mccann.
kate said the shutters were open..in order to show kate was lying we would need a statement saying the shutters were not open...is there such a statement...no
-
I was responding to your assertion that Kate had opened the shutters, and I simply asked you to point me to the pages in the files where that is supposedly established as fact.
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 10, 2014, 06:56:23 PM
Who opened the shutters ?
Ah yes, kate mccann.
So basically, as far as you are concerned, no one altered the shutters or window ?
-
You say that as if they purposely trashed it.
No that's just you reading into things
Checked the shutters to see if they could be opened from outside, if not, they could have wondered if Madeleine had opened them couldn't they?
That doesn't make sense since they've said she couldn't have
Eta
If the mccanns knew instantly MM was abducted they wil have had the nous NOT to let all and sundry in and they let a LOAD of all and sundry in...not 2 or 3 peole but over a dozen, careless and confusing as Gerry said on panorama in nov 07 he was careful not to let people into the bedroom, as IF the abductors footprint DNA or anything else were not in any other part of the apartment!!!!
>@@(*&)
-
kate said the shutters were open..in order to show kate was lying we would need a statement saying the shutters were not open...is there such a statement...no
Schrödinger's Shutters >@@(*&)
-
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2322.jpg)
-
What do you mean, had no power? You mean no legal power or no physical power?
And the fact that the crime scene was trashed is only half of the story. If it made no difference to the collection of forensics that it had already been left open, the criminologist from the PJ would not have bothered giving an order to have it sealed off:
After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents.
The witness carried out finger print testing on the inside of the bedroom window, where the girl had been sleeping, leaving other examinations for the following day given that on that occasion these tests could not be carried out in the best technical conditions. For this reason, the apartments and the surrounding area were sealed off, watched over by the GNR officers who remained on site.
As far as he knows, after the first examination, other members from the finger print detection service and also officers from the LPC Crime Scene arrived at the scene.
Furthermore, more forensic officers would not have been summoned to the scene if there was nothing of forensic value there. Rather, more members of the finger print detective service and other forensic experts arrived.
Err I'm sure military soldier police have the physical power SH!!! yes I was thinking legal power but that was just a thought, and a question, as I dont know,the fact that PJ ordered sealing off the place completely does not negate the loss of forensic evidence, just salvaging the bloody situation IMO
-
Schrödinger's Shutters >@@(*&)
Meow!
@)(++(*
-
Schrödinger's Shutters >@@(*&)
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
There are several police forces in Portugal.
-
Err I'm sure military soldier police have the physical power SH!!! yes I was thinking legal power but that was just a thought, and a question, as I dont know,the fact that PJ ordered sealing off the place completely does not negate the loss of forensic evidence, just salvaging the bloody situation IMO
That's what I couldn't work out.. in what sense would they not have the legal power?
Not as if the owner of the property was there and objected to people milling around.
I suppose that was part of the problem. Owner absent; OC only managers; McCanns temporary guests. The apartment was under no-one's real jurisdiction; a free for all.
-
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
8)-)))
Nobody knows what's true and what's drama added afterwards do they.
Probably the first police on the scene couldn't tell either.
-
Who allowed 5A to be relet several times before the dogs were brought over?
-
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
so no one stated the shutters were closed...looks like kate was telling the truth
-
8)-)))
Nobody knows what's true and what's drama added afterwards do they.
I bet the abductor can't believe his luck that so much confusion reigned and the forensics so obscured that his very presence has gone completely undetected.
-
That's what I couldn't work out.. in what sense would they not have the legal power?
Not as if the owner of the property was there and objected to people milling around.
I suppose that was part of the problem. Owner absent; OC only managers; McCanns temporary guests. The apartment was under no-one's real jurisdiction; a free for all.
LOL SH you surprise me now, stop being silly
Nothing to do with apartments, owners or mark Warner or guests, Or who has jurisdiction over personally owned concrete, legal power as in if it's in their police powers to seal off crime scenes as part of the gnr and not the PJ, that's all I asked
-
so no one stated the shutters were closed...looks like kate was telling the truth
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Just like she said no one else was searching for Madeleine. >@@(*&)
To jemmy or not to jemmy, that is the question ? 8((()*/
-
I bet the abductor can't believe his luck that so much confusion reigned and the forensics so obscured that his very presence has gone completely undetected.
the scarlet pimpernel is famously very lucky
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Just like she said no one else was searching for Madeleine. >@@(*&)
To jemmy or not to jemmy, that is the question ? 8((()*/
Well, as we have been told anyone who says the mccanns said the window was jemmied is a liar but it's been proven gerrys sister used his relayed words on tv
Oh and of course no one was looking is an ungrateful comment as half the village was looking till 4 or 5 am...people not allowed to sleep? Considering KM didn't go out looking at all! Until that is when she rewrote history in her "book" and said she did go sprinting up and down the road
Eta
OK had enough of another day full of posts here say how crap the PT police are/were, what a bad bloke Amaral is, how Portugal is such a corrupt country, how SY are so much better and they will solve the case,people coming out in lesions and fumigating at the mouth at the suggestion that parents might be hiding something when it's perfectly possible they are, others insisting judges and juries got it all wrong when convicting leonor cipriano and her rancid brother of murder,though offering no evidence of why they did get it wrong, all getting so trifly boring, lets see shall we? What happens?
>@@(*&)
Laters
-
That's what I couldn't work out.. in what sense would they not have the legal power?
Not as if the owner of the property was there and objected to people milling around.
I suppose that was part of the problem. Owner absent; OC only managers; McCanns temporary guests. The apartment was under no-one's real jurisdiction; a free for all.
As far as I can gather, the GNR seem to be the local rural police. They're not the CID, they seem to deal with what are potentially minor incidents. If a serious crime is suspected, they refer up to the PJ.
-
so no one stated the shutters were closed...looks like kate was telling the truth
A lot could have been cleared up in the book, davel, if explanations existed. But not for the first time (or last) nothing was.
-
If you look at the graphic of the forensic search which I posted just above or a page ago, it concentrated on the children's bedroom and the path towards both door exits. In the immediate aftermath, that seems fair enough. However, I'm not aware that a further, complete, forensic sweep was ever ordered, e.g., the parents' bedroom, the bathroom, kitchen, etc.
-
kate said the shutters were open..in order to show kate was lying we would need a statement saying the shutters were not open...is there such a statement...no
Try trawling through the GNR statements
-
LOL SH you surprise me now, stop being silly
Nothing to do with apartments, owners or mark Warner or guests, Or who has jurisdiction over personally owned concrete, legal power as in if it's in their police powers to seal off crime scenes as part of the gnr and not the PJ, that's all I asked
All I meant, Red,was that no-one was really taking charge of the situation (or so it appeared).
Police would have had full authority to control who was going in or out but did not appear to exercise it. THe fact that the apartment was an essentially empty shell, rather than a private home where the homeowner was resident, added to the sense of free for all that allowed so many people to walk in and out.
-
For a start The McCanns had no real right to tell Mark Warner staff to get out. And they would have been in no fit state to stop other people who were supposedly trying to help.
-
For a start The McCanns had no real right to tell Mark Warner staff to get out. And they would have been in no fit state to stop other people who were supposedly trying to help.
That's right. They would hardly be thinking at that level anyway. Too traumatised. Open house it was.
-
That's right. They would hardly be thinking at that level anyway. Too traumatised. Open house it was.
Wrong again, Gerry at least WAS thinking at that level, he was very conscious he said of keeping people out of the kids bedroom
It's in the panorama programme
see from 14 55
Just google panorama mystery of Madeleine McCann
Oh hang on
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1286.0
Here you go
-
Carana, can you point to cast iron evidence to show where the shutters were seen (not said), but actually physically seen. to be open an independent party ?
Amy Tierney
Date: 2007-05-06
Place: P da L
Occupation: Head of the Baby Club and Mini Club
Place of Work: Ocean Club
She comes to the process as a witness.
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
End quote
-
That wasn't at 10pm Benice.
-
Wrong again, Gerry at least WAS thinking at that level, he was very conscious he said of keeping people out of the kids bedroom
It's in the panorama programme
see from 14 55
Just google panorama mystery of Madeleine McCann
Oh hang on
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1286.0
Here you go
You're amazing, Redblossom!
So many details...
Better go away and do my homework...
-
The PJ were useless, waste of time, they took no notes or evidence of anything.
The two years of files and paperwork that Scotland Yard has had to trawl through was purely copies of recipes, interesting facts on CSI, and poams, and some naughty stories.
-
The PJ were useless, waste of time, they took no notes or evidence of anything.
The two years of files and paperwork that Scotland Yard has had to trawl through was purely copies of recipes, interesting facts on CSI, and poams, and some naughty stories.
did they include the recipie for sebass sean did love that didnt he??
-
did they include the recipie for sebass sean did love that didnt he??
How about the sardines ? @)(++(*
-
That wasn't at 10pm Benice.
It wasn't long after according to Amy T.
Anyone to do with the tapas group would be disallowed by you sceptics. Cos you refuse to believe anything stated by them 8)-)))
The main Reception was alerted in the first 15 minutes ... earlier IIRC by someone to do with the Tapas restaurant ... and she came right away. Seems she was first independant witness on the scene ?
She witnessed the window and shutters open.
Please correct me if Iam remembering incorrectly.
-
That wasn't at 10pm Benice.
The 'time' wasn't the question being asked Lyall - it was independent confirmation of the open window/shutters that was requested - and provided.
-
How about the sardines ? @)(++(*
LOL @)(++(*
-
It wasn't long after according to Amy T.
Anyone to do with the tapas group would be disallowed by you sceptics. Cos you refuse to believe anything stated by them 8)-)))
The main Reception was alerted in the first 15 minutes ... earlier IIRC by someone to do with the Tapas restaurant ... and she came right away. Seems she was first independant witness on the scene ?
She witnessed the window and shutters open.
Please correct me if Iam remembering incorrectly.
I wouldn't dare correct you, Sadie.
But you know what the problem is. Not only did nobody see the window open before 10pm, but they also seem reluctant to say they saw it open at 10 (or shortly after).
How could they not see it?
(http://s13.postimg.org/3m99vupo7/car_park.jpg)
-
I wouldn't dare correct you, Sadie.
But you know what the problem is. Not only did nobody see the window open before 10pm, but they also seem reluctant to say they saw it open at 10 (or shortly after).
How could they not see it?
(http://s13.postimg.org/3m99vupo7/car_park.jpg)
That photo was taken in daylight and doesn't appear to reflect anything that could have drawn their attention at dusk (or beyond dusk). It doesn't reflect where they would would have been looking to access the communal entrance and quickly check on their own children, either.
Heri has many interesting photos on this.
-
I find that photo to be misleading as to the circumstances that evening. She didn't disappear in broad daylight for a start. Why would anyone doing a quick check have that angle of view - between 9-10 pm when they would have been quickly walking towards a central lobby, with hopefully a light to guide them?
-
I find that photo to be misleading as to the circumstances that evening. She didn't disappear in broad daylight for a start. Why would anyone doing a quick check have that angle of view - between 9-10 pm when they would have been quickly walking towards a central lobby, with hopefully a light to guide them?
They're all valid points but it remains a big question mark, and one of many. There's no escaping the absurdities of the scenario claimed.
Of course after Crimewatch the theory may no longer actually be that the window was open from 9.15 onwards, but that still doesn't explain the apparent reluctance of the crucial witnesses to say they saw it open immediately after the alarm was raised.
Nothing much has really been confirmed or denied by them in all the years since, which does inevitably mean the same questions that were asked at the time are still important.
-
Jane Tanner would have had sight of the window just a few moments after she encountered bundleman carrying a child. Remember, we are told that the shutter was fully up, the window fully open and we are also told that the curtains were fully drawn back. The bedroom door was also fully open.
If that was the case there would have been light emanating through that window in what was normally a pitch black background. There was no floodlight above the apartment in May 2007. I fail to see how Jane couldn't have noticed that all was not as it should have been especially when she saw that Gerry had left the apartment.
-
Jane Tanner would have had sight of the window just a few moments after she encountered bundleman carrying a child. Remember, we are told that the shutter was fully up, the window fully open and we are also told that the curtains were fully drawn back. The bedroom door was also fully open.
If that was the case there would have been light emanating through that window in what was normally a pitch black background. There was no floodlight above the apartment in May 2007. I fail to see how Jane couldn't have noticed that all was not as it should have been especially when she had seen that Gerry had left the apartment.
The GNR patrol that first attended at 23:00 said the window was closed and the shutter up a hand width. Begs the question who closed them had they been open. GNR patrol also said there were no signs of a break in.
-
That photo was taken in daylight and doesn't appear to reflect anything that could have drawn their attention at dusk (or beyond dusk). It doesn't reflect where they would would have been looking to access the communal entrance and quickly check on their own children, either.
Heri has many interesting photos on this.
The point is that the door can't be seen as it's hidden from view. You would exit that way. An abductor wouldn't open the window unless he was going to use it as a means of entry but that didn't happen.
-
Jane Tanner would have had sight of the window just a few moments after she encountered bundleman carrying a child. Remember, we are told that the shutter was fully up, the window fully open and we are also told that the curtains were fully drawn back. The bedroom door was also fully open.
If that was the case there would have been light emanating through that window in what was normally a pitch black background. There was no floodlight above the apartment in May 2007. I fail to see how Jane couldn't have noticed that all was not as it should have been especially when she saw that Gerry had left the apartment.
There was no direct light in the bedroom - and anyone looking straight ahead - in the direction they were going - i.e. diagonally across the car park to the central entrance would never have that window in their line of sight. JT had no reason to look across to that window - she was hurrying to her own apartment.
p.s. I agree with Carana - that photograph is very misleading. Heri's' aerial photograph with arrows showing the diagonal path taken by anyone returning to their apartments across the car park gives a much clearer idea of why they could so easily have missed the open shutters. Especially in the dark. IMO
-
could the abductor have opened the window from the inside to let a little light into the room
-
There was no direct light in the bedroom - and anyone looking straight ahead - in the direction they were going - i.e. diagonally across the car park to the central entrance would never have that window in their line of sight. JT had no reason to look across to that window - she was hurrying to her own apartment.
p.s. I agree with Carana - that photograph is very misleading. Heri's' aerial photograph with arrows showing the diagonal path taken by anyone returning to their apartments across the car park gives a much clearer idea of why they could so easily have missed the open shutters. Especially in the dark. IMO
>@@(*&) A photograph taken at ground level is misleading but an aerial one is much clearer?
-
Alternatively, he could have kept the shutters down and turned the light on.
-
Central lobby ? Do please elaborate !
What else would you call a central area within a building leading to various apartment entrances?
-
Here are two photos showing the site in daylight and at night. Remember there was no floodlight when Madeleine disappeared.
In the lower picture 1 denotes the children's bedroom window and 2 denotes Jane Tanner's route.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AG/Extras_do_livro_Page_3.jpg)
-
Alternatively, he could have kept the shutters down and turned the light on.
8)-)))
-
An escape route in case he got trapped in the bedroom. Seems obvious to me.
-
Get Real! Why would an abductor waste precious time and take the unnecessary risk of squeezing past cots, chair, bed to then open noisy shutters and window in the dark. An abductor never opened the window - do you think he wanted to get caught? An abductor would quickly exit through the door. That open window is either 1. Staging 2. Burglar who never entered. I know which one I think it is.
-
>@@(*&) A photograph taken at ground level is misleading but an aerial one is much clearer?
That particular photograph only shows a small part of the whole scene - and is taken from a position where none of the group would walk in from. The direct line of sight from the Photographers point of view to the window is not the one the group would see. The aerial photograph gives a much better perspective. I think Sadie might have the piccie Heri originally posted. If so maybe she would be kind enough to post it.
-
Photo showing the car park in May 2007.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PDL/pdl%20(43)_small.jpg)
-
>@@(*&) A photograph taken at ground level is misleading but an aerial one is much clearer?
Both. If you are walking quickly to check on your kids, coming from the left, around the corner from the wall with 5A written on it, with your eye on the central entrance area in a relatively dark area, there is no reason to notice a potentially lifted shutter to your left in the shadows.
That photo was taken in broad daylight, by someone with a camera pointing towards the left from a position on the right. IF various members of T9 had approached from the right, heading towards a hypothetical entrance to the left in floodlight conditions, then I'd agree that people might have noticed open shutters or any other abnormality.
However, I'm still left with the impression that this photo doesn't reflect the circumstances that evening, and therefore I find it misleading.
-
That particular photograph only shows a small part of the whole scene - and is taken from a position where none of the group would walk in from. The direct line of sight from the Photographers point of view to the window is not the one the group would see. The aerial photograph gives a much better perspective. I think Sadie might have the piccie Heri originally posted. If so maybe she would be kind enough to post it.
The arrow in the one Angelo posted makes the same point I expect, but I'm not convinced. Heriberto is not a neutral observer either.
-
An escape route in case he got trapped in the bedroom. Seems obvious to me.
Me too. It is also the only window from where a clear view of the carpark can be seen. The front door is recessed so far back that a person would have to be physically a couple of metres out of the apartment via the door before they could know if the car park was clear. That would mean showing themselves.
-
Here are two photos showing the site in daylight and at night. Remember there was no floodlight when Madeleine disappeared.
In the lower picture 1 denotes the children's bedroom window and 2 denotes Jane Tanner's route.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AG/Extras_do_livro_Page_3.jpg)
When were those spotlights added? As far as I'm aware, this bright lighting wasn't there at that time, although perhaps you have evidence to the contrary.
ETA: You did actually point out that the lighting wasn't the same at the time.
I've just remembered that that was an extract from Amaral's book. Did he ever point out that the lighting had changed after her disappearance... or were readers supposed to assume that those photos reflected the conditions on that night?
-
Alternatively, he could have kept the shutters down and turned the light on.
light would have been too bright whilst a shutter opened would let a minimal amount of light in
-
The floodlight was added after the disappearance and all the trees removed.
(http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/may2011/1/7/the-ocean-club-appartments-in-praia-da-luz-image-1-218418668.jpg)
-
light would have been too bright whilst a shutter opened would let a minimal amount of light in
Too bright for what?
-
The following photos adequately depict the scene outside the children's bedroom window on 4th May 2007 and after Pat Brown's visit some time later.
The photo on the left clearly shows that had it not been for the photographers flashgun the scene would have been very dark.
Looking at the photo on the left again, does anyone really believe an abductor could get out of that window carrying a nearly 4-year-old child in his arms?
(http://img1.imagilive.com/0212/spotlight.jpg)
-
Look at the small window width. Must have been skinny spotty man 8)--))
-
I have not been to Praia da Luz yet and therefore don't have a feel for things on the ground near the apartment,
but it is clear and has been mentioned several times that the apartment is built on a slope. The ground level of the car park to the front is significantly higher than that of the house.
It seems to me that in order for a person inside that window to have a reasonable view of the car park, particularly in the dark, given that the car park is at a higher level than the house and that the view of it from inside the house is partially obscured by the little wall in front of the path, the shutter would have to be right up to the top and the person inside the house possibly kneeling or bending down slightly and looking upwards out of the window.
In other words, not something easy or comfortable to achieve, especially with a bed in the way and time not on one's side.
Can anyone with knowledge of the block confirm these angles?
-
The arrow in the one Angelo posted makes the same point I expect, but I'm not convinced. Heriberto is not a neutral observer either.
Why not, Lyall?
-
Why not, Lyall?
I just mean he has a very definite opinion on what happened to Madeleine. And not much doubt about it I'd wager, if any.
-
I just mean he has a very definite opinion on what happened to Madeleine. And not much doubt about it I'd wager, if any.
Yes, see what you mean.
Perhaps he has reason to be so sure?
-
Yes, see what you mean.
Perhaps he has reason to be so sure?
Only one way he could be so certain 8(0(*
-
Only one way he could be so certain 8(0(*
That's cute.
In reality of course there is no such thing in being objective, so we cannot in all honesty pretend that we are.
-
Yes, see what you mean.
Perhaps he has reason to be so sure?
If anyone was "sure" then the police would be sure too
>@@(*&)
maybe "convinced would be a better word here
-
Look at the small window width. Must have been skinny spotty man 8)--))
The image is forteshortened Pathfinder. The window is too narrow for a man to climb thru, without a huge struggle and marks/ fibres left. Personally I dont think any wo/man went thru there. I also prefer to think that Madeleine went thru the front door with the lifter; it is the logical route for me.
But Heri puts forward a sound enough theory and he might be right.
-
I wouldn't dare correct you, Sadie.
Good, but I didn't think you were a wimp?
But you know what the problem is. Not only did nobody see the window open before 10pm, but they also seem reluctant to say they saw it open at 10 (or shortly after).
How could they not see it?
(http://s13.postimg.org/3m99vupo7/car_park.jpg)
Several reasons are possible lyall.
It was really dark in there.
Crossing from the car park entrance to the end of the walled pathway every flat tenant had to use, meant that the eye of the walker going in or out was always at a point that the periferal vision did not pick up the window at all. That is assuming that the walker was looking at the light in the direction they were walking
Once in the walled pathway it was curved so that even when walking towards that window, the window was out of sight behind the curve of the apartments walls.
No-one walked past the lobby to the other apartments .... so no-one ever noticed whether the shutters were raised or not.
Additionally the shutters are very close in colour to the walls of the building, so in poor light would likely blend with each other
Please also notice that the bottom of the shutter is hidden by the wall. Do we know how far open the shutter was? Maybe it was only open a few centimetres and the opening was out of sight anyway, behind the pathway wall?
-
The image is forteshortened Pathfinder. The window is too narrow for a man to climb thru, without a huge struggle and marks/ fibres left. Personally I dont think any wo/man went thru there. I also prefer to think that Madeleine went thru the front door with the lifter; it is the logical route for me.
But Heri puts forward a sound enough theory and he might be right.
(http://s13.postimg.org/3m99vupo7/car_park.jpg)
As you can see, even in full daylight, when someone walks thru the car park entrance gap, the front door is out of sight. Completely hidden, behind the apartment block wall.
The front door is also very recessed so almost no light would illuminate it at night. It is so obviously the way into (and out of) the apartment for an intruder. Using a key, so no finger prints.
-
Good, but I didn't think you were a wimp?
Several reasons are possible lyall.
It was really dark in there.
Crossing from the car park entrance to the end of the walled pathway every flat tenant had to use, meant that the eye of the walker going in or out was always at a point that the periferal vision did not pick up the window at all. That is assuming that the walker was looking at the light in the direction they were walking
Once in the walled pathway it was curved so that even when walking towards that window, the window was out of sight behind the curve of the apartments walls.
No-one walked past the lobby to the other apartments .... so no-one ever noticed whether the shutters were raised or not.
Additionally the shutters are very close in colour to the walls of the building, so in poor light would likely blend with each other
Please also notice that the bottom of the shutter is hidden by the wall. Do we know how far open the shutter was? Maybe it was only open a few centimetres and the opening was out of sight anyway, behind the pathway wall?
Of course we don't.
But maybe, just maybe, instead of your physics (which surely can't work when people are walking in two different directions? Into the carpark and then out again - how can the same explanation work twice?) maybe the window wasn't open at all when everyone was passing by it?
That seems to be what DCI Redwood thinks.
And if it wasn't open after the last of the diners had passed it and gone back to the Tapas, who's to say it was ever open at all before the alarm was raised?
-
Of course we don't.
But maybe, just maybe, instead of your physics (which surely can't work when people are walking in two different directions? Into the carpark and then out again - how can the same explanation work twice?) maybe the window wasn't open at all when everyone was passing by it?
That seems to be what DCI Redwood thinks.
And if it wasn't open after the last of the diners had passed it and gone back to the Tapas, who's to say it was ever open at all before the alarm was raised?
This has all been gone over before Lyall. Most unlikely that anyone walking to and fro from the appartments would have seen the raised shutter in their periferal vision.
Most especially so as little street light would have been able to penetrate the canopy of the tree tops and the place was very dimly lit. Also with the gusty conditions the trees would be swaying about a good bit and would be a further distraction. 20mph gusts at about that time according to the info I posted in an earlier thread ... and taken from official records
Am tired now.
Nigh night Lyall ... and anyone else still up
According to the statement of GNR officer Antonio Henrique de Conceicao Duarte the shutters were open at about 11.30pm
'When questioned he replies that he remembers that the blinds of the window of the child's room were open, but inclined (the lower part, at about a hand's width). He does not remember if the window was open or what the state of the curtains was. He did not enter the room because he was told, he does not remember by whom, that the twins were sleeping.'
-
Having previously thought that the shutter and window were opened (or claimed to be open) to deliberately fake an abduction, I later studied the finger/thumb print evidence, and came to the conclusion that KM genuinely found the window and shutter already open, and moreover it was not any group member who opened them to fake an abduction, but rather an unconnected third party who opened them. This does not mean the third party was responsible for the disappearance, nor that E was lying. It does mean that KM is honest. All just IMO.
-
And an abductor would risk waking the twins by opening shutters. An open window so if Madeleine started screaming everyone could hear. No abductor opened them. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense and too much to lose.
-
Not at all..what you choose to believe is based on faith..
truth is what you arrive at after looking at all the available evidence..
It doesn't make me popular to say that those who come from a scientific background..like myself...have learnt how to assess evidence to reach a valid conclusion. A lot of posters on here just accept the evidence that fits their agenda without criticism...thats why they have come to the wrong conclusion
8@??)( 8@??)(
And they enjoy putting the boot in ... not all but a sizeable group. Seems it gives them a feeling of power
-
@ Sadie
It would indeed be hard to see if the shutters were raised from the car park, particularly in the dark - if they were only raised a few inches.
But doesn't Kate McCann paint a picture of the shutters being much further open? She describes the shutters as being 'raised', which implies more than just a small amount. And as for the gust of wind that was strong enough to blow the curtains as dramatically as she describes? How could there be such a gust through only a small gap at the bottom of the shutters? The window was also somewhat protected by the small wall in front whose level was above the bottom of the window frame. So hard to understand how gusts of wind would reach all the way inside that window unless the shutters were much further open.
Kate also imagined an abductor having left the apartment with Madeleine when she saw those shutters - so they would have had to be more than an inch or two open for her to imagine such a thing.
-
If anyone was "sure" then the police would be sure too
>@@(*&)
maybe "convinced would be a better word here
Convinced is a good word, yes.
And he certainly seems to be so...
-
@ Sadie
It would indeed be hard to see if the shutters were raised from the car park, particularly in the dark - if they were only raised a few inches.
But doesn't Kate McCann paint a picture of the shutters being much further open? She describes the shutters as being 'raised', which implies more than just a small amount. And as for the gust of wind that was strong enough to blow the curtains as dramatically as she describes? How could there be such a gust through only a small gap at the bottom of the shutters? The window was also somewhat protected by the small wall in front whose level was above the bottom of the window frame. So hard to understand how gusts of wind would reach all the way inside that window unless the shutters were much further open.
Kate also imagined an abductor having left the apartment with Madeleine when she saw those shutters - so they would have had to be more than an inch or two open for her to imagine such a thing.
How would she know, anyway? Others had been in the apartment since she left it at 8.30 and might have altered things.
-
@ Sadie
It would indeed be hard to see if the shutters were raised from the car park, particularly in the dark - if they were only raised a few inches.
But doesn't Kate McCann paint a picture of the shutters being much further open? She describes the shutters as being 'raised', which implies more than just a small amount. And as for the gust of wind that was strong enough to blow the curtains as dramatically as she describes? How could there be such a gust through only a small gap at the bottom of the shutters? The window was also somewhat protected by the small wall in front whose level was above the bottom of the window frame. So hard to understand how gusts of wind would reach all the way inside that window unless the shutters were much further open.
Kate also imagined an abductor having left the apartment with Madeleine when she saw those shutters - so they would have had to be more than an inch or two open for her to imagine such a thing.
the shutters described as beng paritally open by inches as late as 11.30 by a policeman have nothng to do with anything
they had been lowered and raised and lowered again long before then
-
Convinced is a good word, yes.
And he certainly seems to be so...
We know, but he can't be sure that what he s convnced of is true can he? two different things entirely, opinion /conviction and fact/truth
-
We know, but he can't be sure that what he s convnced of is true can he? two different things entirely, opinion /conviction and fact/truth
An opinion is a personal view that is based on fact. There has to be a factual element. Otherwise it's not an opinion - just a statement of little value.
Whatever you want to call it, SY and others do seem to be following a similar line of logic.
-
@ Sadie
It would indeed be hard to see if the shutters were raised from the car park, particularly in the dark - if they were only raised a few inches.
But doesn't Kate McCann paint a picture of the shutters being much further open? She describes the shutters as being 'raised', which implies more than just a small amount. And as for the gust of wind that was strong enough to blow the curtains as dramatically as she describes? How could there be such a gust through only a small gap at the bottom of the shutters? The window was also somewhat protected by the small wall in front whose level was above the bottom of the window frame. So hard to understand how gusts of wind would reach all the way inside that window unless the shutters were much further open.
Kate also imagined an abductor having left the apartment with Madeleine when she saw those shutters - so they would have had to be more than an inch or two open for her to imagine such a thing.
A hands width at the bottom, but inclined (so a hurried departure?)
According to the statement of GNR officer Antonio Henrique de Conceicao Duarte the shutters were open at about 11.30pm.
From his statement below
'When questioned he replies that he remembers that the blinds of the window of the child's room were open, but inclined (the lower part, at about a hand's width). He does not remember if the window was open or what the state of the curtains was. He did not enter the room because he was told, he does not remember by whom, that the twins were sleeping.'
-
A hands width at the bottom, but inclined (so a hurried departure?)
According to the statement of GNR officer Antonio Henrique de Conceicao Duarte the shutters were open at about 11.30pm.
From his statement below
'When questioned he replies that he remembers that the blinds of the window of the child's room were open, but inclined (the lower part, at about a hand's width). He does not remember if the window was open or what the state of the curtains was. He did not enter the room because he was told, he does not remember by whom, that the twins were sleeping.'
But what about at 10 pm (or thereabouts) when Kate came into the room?
Could a gust and a 'whoooosh' of the dramatic proportions she describes from just a few inches of open window?
I understand that it was indeed a chilly, somewhat blustery night. Do we know anything about wind direction and so on, in relation to the house and the window? Remember reading it on here somewhere...
-
the shutters described as beng paritally open by inches as late as 11.30 by a policeman have nothng to do with anything
they had been lowered and raised and lowered again long before then
Bump
-
An opinion is a personal view that is based on fact. There has to be a factual element. Otherwise it's not an opinion - just a statement of little value.
Whatever you want to call it, SY and others do seem to be following a similar line of logic.
now that's juicy SH lol
Obviously opinions are based on some facts but it never makes the opinions fact! that's why they are two different words, ie fact and opinion
@)(++(*
Sy are following what line of logic??
-
But what about at 10 pm (or thereabouts) when Kate came into the room?
Could a gust and a 'whoooosh' of the dramatic proportions she describes from just a few inches of open window?
I understand that it was indeed a chilly, somewhat blustery night. Do we know anything about wind direction and so on, in relation to the house and the window? Remember reading it on here somewhere...
I posted the climatic conditions at nearby Lagos and also at Faro.
Cant remember the details but I can remember that there were 20mph gusts at 10 pm... and that the weather was worsening.
The curtains looked very cheap and thin to me, and I would think in a gust such as mentioned above they may flutter and whoosh to a certain extent. I have no idea of the direction of the wind. I dont think direction was mentioned.
Will see if I can find the details.
-
Here we go.
Thread: Weather, Tides, Moon etc near PdL around the time of the abduction.
It is in four sections.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1986.msg63530#msg63530'
-
3rd May 2007 approximate conditions IMO:
Sun set = 2022hrs
Moon rise = 2150hrs
Moon phase = 99% full.
Low Tide = 2200hrs
Av wind (Faro) =16km/h
Max wind (Faro) = 30km/h
Back to the PJ search - did the PJ in the early hours of 4th May actually search fully: (A) in the bag, (B) under the pile, (C) under the two beds (in same room as bag and pile)?
Three very silly questions you might think, unless you happen to have read a recent UK case, and an earlier USA case, in both cases police big error was to assume that their target was not inside the property and therefore did not bother searching inside the property fully.
-
the shutters described as beng paritally open by inches as late as 11.30 by a policeman have nothng to do with anything
they had been lowered and raised and lowered again long before then
Quite right
It is pointless to debate the degree to which the blinds were raised when the police arrived, given that the McCanns admit Gerry had tampered with them before the police were even called
-
Gerry stated the shutter was fully raised and he saw it just after Kate reported Madeleine gone.
-
Gerry stated the shutter was fully raised and he saw it just after Kate reported Madeleine gone.
He also said ( in his first statement ) that the curtains were open too ... as did Kate
They changed their minds about that later though
-
Re how complete are police searches of property where a child is missing from.
1. Detroit, June 2012: a 17 month old child is reported missing. Police search the property but fail to find her that day.
2. South London, August 2012: a 12 year old child is reported missing. Police search the property but fail to find her that day nor during several following days.
If at the time, in either of those cases, you or me had claimed "oh I bet what they are looking for is still inside the property and the police searches inside the property missed it" we would have been laughed off the forum.
Wrongly laughed off, as it happens, for it was the correct solution in both those cases.
-
But what about at 10 pm (or thereabouts) when Kate came into the room?
Could a gust and a 'whoooosh' of the dramatic proportions she describes from just a few inches of open window?
I understand that it was indeed a chilly, somewhat blustery night. Do we know anything about wind direction and so on, in relation to the house and the window? Remember reading it on here somewhere...
Blustery suggests strong winds, yet on a the video by BBC etc, it shows a calm normal night even not cold as no one was wearing jumpers or jackets. I have been on holiday in europe end of March/April and its flipping freezing at night, and no way would anyone be sat with T shirts on or carrying children through streets without blankets at least or coats.
IF the wind was going to whoosh it would have done the minute the patio door was opened as it creates a VACUUM....so she would have heard the door slam before she set foot into the apartment, the same with any other errrr checker of children.
-
Gerry stated the shutter was fully raised and he saw it just after Kate reported Madeleine gone.
Gerry also says that he closed the shutters and then went outside to see if they could be raised from the outside
-
Quite right
It is pointless to debate the degree to which the blinds were raised when the police arrived, given that the McCanns admit Gerry had tampered with them before the police were even called
you don't look at things objectively but try to make the facts fit in with your ideas...the use of the words admit and tampered are totally the wrong words to use here but you use them to try and strengthen your very weak case
-
3rd May 2007 approximate conditions IMO:
Sun set = 2022hrs
Moon rise = 2150hrs
Moon phase = 99% full.
Low Tide = 2200hrs
Av wind (Faro) =16km/h
Max wind (Faro) = 30km/h
Back to the PJ search - did the PJ in the early hours of 4th May actually search fully: (A) in the bag, (B) under the pile, (C) under the two beds (in same room as bag and pile)?
Three very silly questions you might think, unless you happen to have read a recent UK case, and an earlier USA case, in both cases police big error was to assume that their target was not inside the property and therefore did not bother searching inside the property fully.
As far as I know the beds were divans - and so there was no 'underneath' to speak of.
-
As far as I know the beds were divans - and so there was no 'underneath' to speak of.
Madeleines bed and presumably its twin is the same. No space under there.(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzapartment5ad.jpg)
-
Well this is what "bent d**o Officer Roque" thought of it.
Then, while his colleague remained in the hall, and the others were in the living room, the witness went through the entire apartment. He opened all the cupboards in the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and checked under the beds and inside the washing machine. He did not see the fridge.
During the search he did not find anything strange apart from the bedclothes on Madeleine's bed, which were too tidy, it appeared that she had been picked up from or had left the bed with great care.
When questioned about the windows in the bedroom, he only remembers that the window in the girl's bedroom was closed with the blind raised up the space of the width of a hand. He does not remember the existence of curtains. The father indicated, through the translator, alleging that when the disappearance was discovered, the windows and blinds were open.
Whatever happened to the crow bar?
-
Officer Roque statement
the witness went through the entire apartment. He opened all the cupboards in the bedrooms, living room and kitchen and checked under the beds and inside the washing machine.
He does not state he pulled the sofa to away from the wall to look if there was anything on the floor behind it.
He does not state he pulled out the pile of clothes to look if there was anything beneath the pile.
He does not state he opened and searched inside the luggage bag.
So that's 3 places not searched
-
I posted the climatic conditions at nearby Lagos and also at Faro.
Cant remember the details but I can remember that there were 20mph gusts at 10 pm... and that the weather was worsening.
The curtains looked very cheap and thin to me, and I would think in a gust such as mentioned above they may flutter and whoosh to a certain extent. I have no idea of the direction of the wind. I dont think direction was mentioned.
Will see if I can find the details.
Thanks for this, Sadie. I'm sorry, I seem to have missed it until now.
It was indeed a windy night and the curtains were flimsy. My original point was regarding how much the shutter was raised when Kate found it. I do remember Gerry's description of the window being wide open and this seems to correlate with Kate's description of the whooosh.
However, knowing these shutters well from my travels (not to PT but other med countries, and also the Middle East where they are used in all but the newest apartments) a considerable amount of air (and light) can come in between the slats and through the little holes even when the shutters are nearly closed. So perhaps flimsy curtains could indeed blow around quite a lot even if the shutters were only a few inches open.
-
Thanks for this, Sadie. I'm sorry, I seem to have missed it until now.
It was indeed a windy night and the curtains were flimsy. My original point was regarding how much the shutter was raised when Kate found it. I do remember Gerry's description of the window being wide open and this seems to correlate with Kate's description of the whooosh.
However, knowing these shutters well from my travels (not to PT but other med countries, and also the Middle East where they are used in all but the newest apartments) a considerable amount of air (and light) can come in between the slats and through the little holes even when the shutters are nearly closed. So perhaps flimsy curtains could indeed blow around quite a lot even if the shutters were only a few inches open.
Instead of studying the wind, blowing from the North but weaker than the night before, why don't you try to decipher the mystery of the "all open" of the first statements and the "all shut" (except for the bedroom door) of the second ones ?
-
Instead of studying the wind, blowing from the North but weaker than the night before, why don't you try to decipher the mystery of the "all open" of the first statements and the "all shut" (except for the bedroom door) of the second ones ?
Or how the whooshing curtains managed to tuck themselves neatly back behind the bed & chair.
-
Is it possible that there was something in the apartment even while GNR officer was searching it and he missed it?
And even while PJ were sitting at the table?
Did they really search every nook and cranny?
-
Is it possible that there was something in the apartment even while GNR officer was searching it and he missed it?
And even while PJ were sitting at the table?
Did they really search every nook and cranny?
What kind of "something" do you mean, a corpse ?
-
Re how complete are police searches of property where a child is missing from.
1. Detroit, June 2012: a 17 month old child is reported missing. Police search the property but fail to find her that day.
2. South London, August 2012: a 12 year old child is reported missing. Police search the property but fail to find her that day nor during several following days.
If at the time, in either of those cases, you or me had claimed "oh I bet what they are looking for is still inside the property and the police searches inside the property missed it" we would have been laughed off the forum.
Wrongly laughed off, as it happens, for it was the correct solution in both those cases.
Smithman was seen running with a child that matched Madeleine's description. Do you think there was another Madeleine lookalike running through the streets at 10pm? It's no coincidence that this man has never came forward or his efits were not featured in Madeleine "Leaving No Stone Unturned" Book.
-
IF the wind was going to whoosh it would have done the minute the patio door was opened as it creates a VACUUM....so she would have heard the door slam before she set foot into the apartment, the same with any other errrr checker of children.
Of course and especially because the wind was blowing from the North. This is one of the points the AG was interested in clarifying.
-
Smithman was seen running with a child that matched Madeleine's description. Do you think there was another Madeleine lookalike running through the streets at 10pm? It's no coincidence that this man has never came forward or his efits were not featured in Madeleine "Leaving No Stone Unturned" Book.
IMO there is a strong possibility that what the Smiths saw was the removal. But to cover the possibility it wasn't, I look also at an alternative, and basically if both sightings turn out to be not the target, then it is logical IMO that the target is likely to have been still at the property even as police arrive, that is not physically impossible is it?
Not ruling out the Smith sighting, far from it, just like to have all bases covered.
-
IMO there is a strong possibility that what the Smiths saw was the removal. But to cover the possibility it wasn't, I look also at an alternative, and basically if both sightings turn out to be not the target, then it is logical IMO that the target is likely to have been still at the property even as police arrive, that is not physically impossible is it?
Not ruling out the Smith sighting, far from it, just like to have all bases covered.
The blue holdall then... I see.
I wish you a lot of courage to explain how it left the flat.
-
IMO there is a strong possibility that what the Smiths saw was the removal. But to cover the possibility it wasn't, I look also at an alternative, and basically if both sightings turn out to be not the target, then it is logical IMO that the target is likely to have been still at the property even as police arrive, that is not physically impossible is it?
Not ruling out the Smith sighting, far from it, just like to have all bases covered.
Thanks for the response. It's best to cover all possibilities but don't miss the forest for the trees. It will be interesting to see if they discover a missing bag like the missing pink blanket. It would be interesting to find out what luggage Gerry flew back to England with on SUN 20 MAY 2007 and any difference on his return with Clarence Mitchell (TUE 22 MAY). Maybe certain clothes stayed in England.
-
Maybe certain clothes stayed in England.
Beige pants with buttons most certainly stayed there. Never seen again.
-
Looked at from a prior cases point of view, removal by open carrying is extremely unlikely.
Yet there is no witness report of concealed removal that night.
And we know it can't be any earlier than that night.
hmmm
-
Beige pants with buttons most certainly stayed there. Never seen again.
How could you possibly know they were ''never seen again''?
-
How could you possibly know they were ''never seen again''?
Have you seen them ?
-
Did the PJ conduct a proper search for evidence at OC
No, obviously.
If/when another child is abducted from Portugal, will the PJ be more prepared to deal with the situation? Will they have altered any of their procedures? Would they do things differently? Would their searches be more thorough? Would they seal off the crime scene etc. I could go on. I am sure the answer to these questions is Yes.
If it does ever happen again I'm sure they'll be on the ball, unfortunately where Madeleine is concerned, they didn't have a clue where to begin. IMO
-
Have you seen them ?
Why would I? I didn't live with the McCanns - so can't say what they wore after the 3rd May. Or do you think they only possessed the clothes we saw them wearing in photographs. Surely not.
-
Looked at from a prior cases point of view, removal by open carrying is extremely unlikely.
Yet there is no witness report of concealed removal that night.
And we know it can't be any earlier than that night.
hmmm
Yes well I've believed in a bag being used as concealment but Smithman was seen carrying a child without a bag towards the church. So he didn't have time to dig a hole so he knew of one already around the church area that he used for concealment or bin. Any possible later move to indoors was definitely done with a bag and the first move is a good possibility and bag brought back so it was not missing when PJ arrived. Smithman carried a bag to put inside a bin rather than a dumping a body without concealment in a bin - very risky.
-
No way.. Amaral checked all of the bins >@@(*&)
-
Did the PJ conduct a proper search for evidence at OC
No, obviously.
If/when another child is abducted from Portugal, will the PJ be more prepared to deal with the situation? Will they have altered any of their procedures? Would they do things differently? Would their searches be more thorough? Would they seal off the crime scene etc. I could go on. I am sure the answer to these questions is Yes.
If it does ever happen again I'm sure they'll be on the ball, unfortunately where Madeleine is concerned, they didn't have a clue where to begin. IMO
There's no evidence it happened in the first place! So if methods are improved it could be down to taught by false abduction???
Couldn't make it up
@)(++(*
-
Instead of studying the wind, blowing from the North but weaker than the night before, why don't you try to decipher the mystery of the "all open" of the first statements and the "all shut" (except for the bedroom door) of the second ones ?
Yes, I appreciate that, Anne.
I have looked at the statements but as we can't say for sure that they are accurate, I am therefore considering the matter from another angle.
-
Yes, I appreciate that, Anne.
I have looked at the statements but as we can't say for sure that they are accurate, I am therefore considering the matter from another angle.
Are you thinking that when Kate entered the room someone behind her back left the apartment through the patio doors, causing draft?
-
No way.. Amaral checked all of the bins >@@(*&)
I believe the bin was the first move. Smithman retrieved from there and was then seen passing the Smiths heading towards the church. Body was concealed around the church area due to time constraint. If it's not a bin the body was buried. They were laying pipes there at the time so who knows what holes were there. There was also a building site behind the church.
-
as we can't say for sure that they are accurate
@)(++(*
-
I believe the bin was the first move. Smithman retrieved from there and was then seen passing the Smiths heading towards the church. Body was concealed around the church area due to time constraint. If it's not a bin the body was buried. They were laying pipes there at the time so who knows what holes were there. There was also a building site behind the church.
How do you know where he was going to?
He could have been going towards the church, towards the beach, towards a boat, towards his own home which is near the beach, towards Rocha Negra..
The dogs passed there and there was no sign of Madeleine.
IMO Madeleine was transformed by a car, parked opposite to OC, stopped near Smiths sighting and continued on foot..
-
I believe the bin was the first move. Smithman retrieved from there and was then seen passing the Smiths heading towards the church. Body was concealed around the church area due to time constraint. If it's not a bin the body was buried. They were laying pipes there at the time so who knows what holes were there. There was also a building site behind the church.
But IMO the man coming from Rua Escola crosses Rua 25 Abril and goes down the Travessa steps (not towards church).
-
How do you know where he was going to?
He could have been going towards the church, towards the beach, towards a boat, towards his own home which is near the beach, towards Rocha Negra..
The dogs passed there and there was no sign of Madeleine.
IMO Madeleine was transformed by a car, parked opposite to OC, stopped near Smiths sighting and continued on foot..
Eddie checked all around the church? Well I would like to see that report. I would get cadaver dogs around that church vicinity because that is where she was last seen heading towards. It's not rocket science.
-
Eddie checked all around the church? Well I would like to see that report. I would get cadaver dogs around that church area.
There were search and recsue dogs brought in from Lisbon. I remember reading these are among the best search dogs in the world.. the second in the world after the Canadians but I cannot remember where I read this..
Portugal is very trained for the rescue missions.. I think they agreed to be on call for the large area of the world.. I remember reading this somewhere too..
So, you cannot really put Eddie's ability above these dogs.. these dogs were good too..
-
But IMO the man coming from Rua Escola crosses Rua 25 Abril and goes down the Travessa steps (not towards church).
The steps going down to Kelly's bar where the Smiths came from? No he didn't go down those steps.
-
There were search and recsue dogs brought in from Lisbon. I remember reading these are among the best search dogs in the world.. the second in the world after the Canadians but I cannot remember where I read this..
Portugal is very trained for the rescue missions.. I think they agreed to be on call for the large area of the world.. I remember reading this somewhere too..
So, you cannot really put Eddie's ability above these dogs.. these dogs were good too..
It has to be cadaver dogs to find scent of anyone buried or who was at one point. They wanted those church keys so that vicinity needs to be checked.
-
I believe the bin was the first move. Smithman retrieved from there and was then seen passing the Smiths heading towards the church. Body was concealed around the church area due to time constraint. If it's not a bin the body was buried. They were laying pipes there at the time so who knows what holes were there. There was also a building site behind the church.
Why don't you think simple ? The shortest the best in those abominable tasks.
The bins were looked in by the PJ three days later during which time the bin truck emptied them every night. Nobody ever lifts the lid, except to put the bags in, an act nobody does in the middle of the night. A few Jews managed to escape from camps hiding in the garbage.
-
The steps going down to Kelly's bar where the Smiths came from? No he didn't go down those steps.
He didn't seem to head towards the steps when Aoife and Tad saw him. The bottom of the steps was well illuminated and with people around whereas 25 de Abril was deserted.
-
Why don't you think simple ? The shortest the best in those abominable tasks.
The bins were looked in by the PJ three days later during which time the bin truck emptied them every night. Nobody ever lifts the lid, except to put the bags in, an act nobody does in the middle of the night. A few Jews managed to escape from camps hiding in the garbage.
Because it comes back to the church keys. Last sighting near church then keys are obtained days later. That area should be fully searched by cadaver dogs for any evidence. Night Anne.
-
Because it comes back to the church keys. Last sighting near church then keys are obtained days later. That area should be fully searched by cadaver dogs for any evidence. Night Anne.
But the church keys are a mania of them. They do have their village church's keys!
Good night, Pathfinder.
-
Because it comes back to the church keys. Last sighting near church then keys are obtained days later. That area should be fully searched by cadaver dogs for any evidence. Night Anne.
How could Smithman bury anything - especially in a big hurry. He didn't have a spade.
-
How could Smithman bury anything - especially in a big hurry. He didn't have a spade.
Had he had a spade, buryiing is quite a tough job, especially when the ground is all paved.
-
No need to bury or use bins, PDL is full of cesspits, even Murat's house has one..
-
No need to bury or use bins, PDL is full of cesspits, even Murat's house has one..
Has one what? Did you donate to Stephen birches fund? To dig up murats back yard? Where he says Madeleine is buried
He only wants a pound
for his stay in a psychiatric clinic, not that they charge but he does
>>>>>>
-
He didn't seem to head towards the steps when Aoife and Tad saw him. The bottom of the steps was well illuminated and with people around whereas 25 de Abril was deserted.
Where witness AS saw him is consistent with him then going down steps.
From the steps before he reaches dolphin he can turn right and go along a small lane
-
Are you thinking that when Kate entered the room someone behind her back left the apartment through the patio doors, causing draft?
No I hadn't thought of that, actually. Is that a theory of yours?
-
No I hadn't thought of that, actually. Is that a theory of yours?
No, not really but I thought of that..
To me the most confusing are the description of the children's bedrooms doors.. and about the doors I thought a lot..
The logical conclusion that comes from my own thinking is that someone was in that apartment for a long time.. and the question then comes why.. couldn't they just grab Madeleine and leave? But no, the door shows they were there.. the door left ajar, then Gerry at 9.05 finds them slightly open, then he closes them to 'ajar' again.Then comes M Oldfield and he doesn't touch the door but his description of the door is that he could see the twins through them, meaning they were lo longer 'ajar', the way Gerry left them.. then comes Kate and finds them 'open' -- and this is the biggest confusion to me..
If there was a thief, anyone, wouldn't he-she just grab Madeleine and go.. but no.. this person it seems was waiting.. and the open window at the time Kate came also seems to add to this.. the person was in and was waiting.. waiting for what?
So, could it be the OC worker who was on duty that night, someone that couldn't be seen with 'holding' Madeleine .. or anyone really just standing there and waiting to hand Madeleine to someone else? And then if all of this is true, then the question is again... why?
The person had the key and didn't want to give the key to other person? The key had to go back? etc..etc,,
Then if the person wasn't 'in' all of the time, then what happened to the doors, why they were 'moving'?
Maybe things weren't going according to the plan?
And, nothing else was missing from the property? Why?
And if this person was all the time 'in' then his-her mobile phone would show it?
Or maybe this person wasn't physically strong enough to carry Madleiene?
This is why I thought this could have been a woman of a light built, not able to carry, but able to pass?
-
No, not really but I thought of that..
To me the most confusing are the description of the children's bedrooms doors.. and about the doors I thought a lot..
The logical conclusion that comes from my own thinking is that someone was in that apartment for a long time.. and the question then comes why.. couldn't they just grab Madeleine and leave? But no, the door shows they were there.. the door left ajar, then Gerry at 9.05 finds them slightly open, then he closes them to 'ajar' again.Then comes M Oldfield and he doesn't touch the door but his description of the door is that he could see the twins through them, meaning they were lo longer 'ajar', the way Gerry left them.. then comes Kate and finds them 'open' -- and this is the biggest confusion to me..
If there was a thief, anyone, wouldn't he-she just grab Madeleine and go.. but no.. this person it seems was waiting.. and the open window at the time Kate came also seems to add to this.. the person was in and was waiting.. waiting for what?
So, could it be the OC worker who was on duty that night, someone that couldn't be seen with 'holding' Madeleine .. or anyone really just standing there and waiting to hand Madeleine to someone else? And then if all of this is true, then the question is again... why?
The person had the key and didn't want to give the key to other person? The key had to go back? etc..etc,,
Then if the person wasn't 'in' all of the time, then what happened to the doors, why they were 'moving'?
Maybe things weren't going according to the plan?
And, nothing else was missing from the property? Why?
And if this person was all the time 'in' then his-her mobile phone would show it?
Or maybe this person wasn't physically strong enough to carry Madleiene?
This is why I thought this could have been a woman of a light built, not able to carry, but able to pass?
...a simpler answer is that the witnesses statements of how open the doors were not an accurate measurement but purely a perception. One person's ajar is another person's open.
-
Evidence will only be found if it was looked for properly and from what I have read the pj didn't do this.
The blanket/sheet on Maddies bed was only examined for visible stains...there was no dna sweep of the blanket...furthermore blankets and sheets were then sent to the laundry...no wonder there's no evidence of abduction..that was appalling police work
Indeed.
But you forgot to mention that the clothing was taken to the laundry by K McCann/Healy ( as if she was a complete moron that didn't know that crime scene evidence had to be preserved) and the police didn't take the clothes immediately as a special favour to the British Council, that was afraid that by doing so the McCann could be looked at as suspects. Quite telling, I would say.
-
No, not really but I thought of that..
To me the most confusing are the description of the children's bedrooms doors.. and about the doors I thought a lot..
The logical conclusion that comes from my own thinking is that someone was in that apartment for a long time.. and the question then comes why.. couldn't they just grab Madeleine and leave? But no, the door shows they were there.. the door left ajar, then Gerry at 9.05 finds them slightly open, then he closes them to 'ajar' again.Then comes M Oldfield and he doesn't touch the door but his description of the door is that he could see the twins through them, meaning they were lo longer 'ajar', the way Gerry left them.. then comes Kate and finds them 'open' -- and this is the biggest confusion to me..
If there was a thief, anyone, wouldn't he-she just grab Madeleine and go.. but no.. this person it seems was waiting.. and the open window at the time Kate came also seems to add to this.. the person was in and was waiting.. waiting for what?
So, could it be the OC worker who was on duty that night, someone that couldn't be seen with 'holding' Madeleine .. or anyone really just standing there and waiting to hand Madeleine to someone else? And then if all of this is true, then the question is again... why?
The person had the key and didn't want to give the key to other person? The key had to go back? etc..etc,,
Then if the person wasn't 'in' all of the time, then what happened to the doors, why they were 'moving'?
Maybe things weren't going according to the plan?
And, nothing else was missing from the property? Why?
And if this person was all the time 'in' then his-her mobile phone would show it?
Or maybe this person wasn't physically strong enough to carry Madleiene?
This is why I thought this could have been a woman of a light built, not able to carry, but able to pass?
The door was not ajar at 9.05 - it was half-open the way it was when Matt saw it at 9.30. There was no moving door.
-
The swinging doors is the most ridiculous arguments used by the McCann, especially because there was plenty inconsistencies, and nobody in their right mind could know how a door could have been left after a partener allegedly had been there.
I particularly appreciate Ms Kate's wooshed curtains in a place where the curtains were stuck behind a bed and a chair.
PJ missed a chance for a thorough investigation when they prioritized the "hurting" parents feelings and the pressure of the british diplomacy over the search for the truth in a crime against a child. Nevertheless, under the constraints, there are still plenty indications that made the General Prosecutor to archive the case in 2008 (in order to suspend time counting) and not close it.
The Final Report presents plenty of indications that there was a very intensive investigation despite the initial obstruction presented by McCann and OC. Let's recall that OC had a risk management guy called in from day one.
-
How could Smithman bury anything - especially in a big hurry. He didn't have a spade.
He didn't have time to dig a hole so the only possibility is an already made hole which he covered. You aren't going to find it - you would have to use cadaver dogs to try and discover something. Any cadaver trace in that area will be connected to Madeleine. If there's no body then it was quickly moved inside someplace after getting the keys.
-
Mr. Gerry McCann was seen entering a building in Praia da Luz that was going to be fully searched by Amaral.
Strangely the witness never made the files and the search was never followed by Paulo Rebelo ( I wonder why he left the PJ!!!!). This happened a day or two before Amaral was sent back to faro's drug squad.
-
Mr. Gerry McCann was seen entering a building in Praia da Luz that was going to be fully searched by Amaral.
Strangely the witness never made the files and the search was never followed by Paulo Rebelo ( I wonder why he left the PJ!!!!). This happened a day or two before Amaral was sent back to faro's drug squad.
"With regard to the possible sighting of arguido Gerry McCann next to a pink coloured block of apartments at a site opposite the Luz cemetery, we can inform you that this an establishment called "St James Portuguesa Lda", lots 1 and 2 being situated in the positions mentioned, from the outside the spaces corresponding to Lot 1 can be seen of a total of apartment designated as follows: 101-104, 111-114, 121-124, 105-109, 115-119, 125-129."
I would get a list of the 2007 owners of these apartments and start from there.
-
Indeed.
But you forgot to mention that the clothing was taken to the laundry by K McCann/Healy ( as if she was a complete moron that didn't know that crime scene evidence had to be preserved) and the police didn't take the clothes immediately as a special favour to the British Council, that was afraid that by doing so the McCann could be looked at as suspects. Quite telling, I would say.
On Sat 5th May it was not KM who took the clothes to the OC laundry.
It was employee of MW.
Source: Processos 3 page 564-566.
-
The swinging doors is the most ridiculous arguments used by the McCann, especially because there was plenty inconsistencies, and nobody in their right mind could know how a door could have been left after a partener allegedly had been there.
I particularly appreciate Ms Kate's wooshed curtains in a place where the curtains were stuck behind a bed and a chair.
PJ missed a chance for a thorough investigation when they prioritized the "hurting" parents feelings and the pressure of the british diplomacy over the search for the truth in a crime against a child. Nevertheless, under the constraints, there are still plenty indications that made the General Prosecutor to archive the case in 2008 (in order to suspend time counting) and not close it.
The Final Report presents plenty of indications that there was a very intensive investigation despite the initial obstruction presented by McCann and OC. Let's recall that OC had a risk management guy called in from day one.
The swinging doors are not used by the McCanns.. Matt Oldfield is involved too..
I assume the McCanns have given the truthful account about the doors.
Why shouldn't they and this was hours after Madeleine went missing.
IMO someone was there all of the time!
-
The swinging doors are not used by the McCanns.. Matt Oldfield is involved too..
I assume the McCanns have given the truthful account about the doors.
Why shouldn't they and this was hours after Madeleine went missing.
IMO someone was there all of the time!
Read the first statements. Matt has always maintained that the door was half-open and that was the usual door position according to Gerry in his first statement. That changed to ajar in his second statement to promote the abductor inside theory. Also the door to enter changed - this is when Amaral said Control Risks got involved and the lies started e.g. the key being left on the kitchen counter which is even more incriminating. Not having a key with you but who believes that nonsense - Gerry said he used it to enter in his first statement. This was a week later so it's a wonder how they were treated with kid gloves for so long when all these contradictions were happening so early on. Why would someone be there all the time?
-
Read the first statements. Matt has always maintained that the door was half-open and that was the usual door position according to Gerry in his first statement. That changed to ajar in his second statement to promote the abductor inside theory. Also the door to enter changed - this is when Amaral said Control Risks got involved and the lies started e.g. the key being left on the kitchen counter which is even more incriminating. Not having a key with you but who believes that nonsense - Gerry said he used it to enter in his first statement. This was a week later so it's a wonder how they were treated with kid gloves for so long when all these contradictions were happening so early on. Why would someone be there all the time?
I don't believe McCanns 'invented' the abduction theory and forced it in their statements.
That is a conspiracy theory!
Both police forces reviewed the files several times and the McCanns are not suspects.
Trying to find SYs and PJs mistakes this time, by suspecting parents for me personally is a waste of time..
-
The swinging doors are not used by the McCanns.. Matt Oldfield is involved too..
I assume the McCanns have given the truthful account about the doors.
Why shouldn't they and this was hours after Madeleine went missing.
IMO someone was there all of the time!
So you think a planned abduction, with the family movements being watched for days and seeing half hourly checks were being done, and not only by the Mccanns, resulted in the abductor sitting in the flat for half an hour? What for? What was he doing? makes no sense. By this reckoning Tanners man automatically is neither the abductor.
-
I don't believe McCanns 'invented' the abduction theory and forced it in their statements.
That is a conspiracy theory!
Both police forces reviewed the files several times and the McCanns are not suspects.
Trying to find SYs and PJs mistakes this time, by suspecting parents for me personally is a waste of time..
4 May: Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant. At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT (a member of the group) went to his apartment where his own children were, and on his way he went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked. He went into the room, saw the twins and didn’t even notice if Madeleine was there, as everything was quiet, the shutters closed and the bedroom door half-open as usual. Then MATT went back to the restaurant.
10 May: He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room. He adds that he did not enter any other part of the residence, where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the back door, that he closed but did not lock.
-
Mr. Gerry McCann was seen entering a building in Praia da Luz that was going to be fully searched by Amaral.
Strangely the witness never made the files and the search was never followed by Paulo Rebelo ( I wonder why he left the PJ!!!!). This happened a day or two before Amaral was sent back to faro's drug squad.
Perhaps Rebelo was in on it
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Perhaps Rebelo was in on it
Don't know about that, but he certainly didn't seem to get any further despite his apparent diligence
-
4 May: Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant. At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT (a member of the group) went to his apartment where his own children were, and on his way he went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked. He went into the room, saw the twins and didn’t even notice if Madeleine was there, as everything was quiet, the shutters closed and the bedroom door half-open as usual. Then MATT went back to the restaurant.
It's "ajar" in the translation (entreaberto in Português) and in the (third) time-line, Mr McCann found at 9:05 the door slightly ajar (about 45 degrees) which is unusual.
-
It's "ajar" in the translation (entreaberto in Português) and in the (third) time-line, Mr McCann found at 9:05 the door slightly ajar (about 45 degrees) which is unusual.
Thanks why does it say half-open as usual re Matt?
-
Thanks why does it say half-open as usual re Matt?
He doesn't say "half open", but "ajar".
-
He doesn't say "half open", but "ajar".
Matt said it was half-open so why did he say Matt said it was ajar? This is getting confusing lol. Anyway that door was half-open.
-
Matt said it was half-open so why did he say Matt said it was ajar? This is getting confusing lol. Anyway that door was half-open.
Which means someone was in:
1. between times of McCanns leaving the apartment and Gerry coming for the first ckeck up.
2. between times Gerry left and times Matt Oldfield comes to check.
3. between times Matt leaves and Kate comes to check
i.e all of the time!
-
Which means someone was in:
1. between times of McCanns leaving the apartment and Gerry coming for the first ckeck up.
2. between times Gerry left and times Matt Oldfield comes to check.
3. between times Matt leaves and Kate comes to check
i.e all of the time!
No it doesn't that's total fantasy. Someone who was gone for ages and those unaccounted minutes will show you the way to what was really going on. Then you will understand the door and why the key was used.
-
No it doesn't that's total fantasy. Someone who was gone for ages and those unaccounted minutes will show you the way to what was really going on. Then you will understand the door and why the key was used.
I don't understand your point.
Nothing else matches. If Gerry, who was the only one who said he used the front door left it open by mistake and Madeleine exited this way on the street then who opened the window?
IMO, someone was in.. and as I said before, I suspect this person wasn't able ( for a reason) to get Madeleine and go out.. this person had to 'hand' Madeleine to someone else..
-
I don't understand your point.
Nothing else matches. If Gerry, who was the only one who said he used the front door left it open by mistake and Madeleine exited this way on the street then who opened the window?
IMO, someone was in.. and as I said before, I suspect this person wasn't able ( for a reason) to get Madeleine and go out.. this person had to 'hand' Madeleine to someone else..
You are easily manipulated. Let's play a game of setting up the abductor being present i.e. changing the door position. You think a real abductor was hiding in there for 45 minutes. Does that happen in the real world? No.
-
You are easily manipulated. Let's play a game of setting up the abductor being present i.e. changing the door position. You think a real abductor was hiding in there for 45 minutes. Does that happen in the real world? No.
There could be different reasons why an abductor would be in the apartment.
For example:
1. A peado
2. An OC worker who was on duty that night and had a key, promised to be paid if delivers Madeleine, his job wasn't to carry Madeleine.. didn't want to give the key to anyone, he-she was a middle man, just delivering..
3. A burglar, who occidentally kills Madeleine, while making her quiet.. he then is scared to leave the body in, waits for a help ..
4. unbalanced- crazy person
-
There could be different reasons why an abductor would be in the apartment.
For example:
1. A peado
2. An OC worker who was on duty that night and had a key, promised to be paid if delivers Madeleine, his job wasn't to carry Madeleine.. didn't want to give the key to anyone, he-she was a middle man, just delivering..
3. A burglar, who occidentally kills Madeleine, while making her quiet.. he then is scared to leave the body in, waits for a help ..
4. unbalanced- crazy person
Crossword Man? >@@(*&)
Well he must have brought some entertainment with him to pass the time.
-
I know you don't actually believe this stuff, Vixte.
The police no longer seem to think anyone was in the apartment at 9.15. I guarantee that won't be the last change to the story. Why not just wait and see what happens?
-
There could be different reasons why an abductor would be in the apartment.
For example:
1. A peado
2. An OC worker who was on duty that night and had a key, promised to be paid if delivers Madeleine, his job wasn't to carry Madeleine.. didn't want to give the key to anyone, he-she was a middle man, just delivering..
3. A burglar, who occidentally kills Madeleine, while making her quiet.. he then is scared to leave the body in, waits for a help ..
4. unbalanced- crazy person
Kate would be impressed - maybe she will hire you as their new private detective. Number 4 could be the answer.
"Clarence spoke to us about a possible visit to the Vatican. Rome is already preparing itself." (Kate McCann, 27 May)
-
DCI Redwood's 'revelation moment' in Crimewatch didn't actually make that much difference because few believed in that part of the story anyway.
Guess what: few believe the 9.30 part either. So it would not be a massive leap for that to also change at some point.
-
If the 'moving doors' facts were dismissed by SY I would like to know why.
Do they think GM lied. Do they think it was the draft causing the doors to move..
Do they think it was Madeleine
What was it?
As if they dismissed the doors, they can as well dismiss anything else..
Re 9.15-9.30.. wasn't there on Crimewatch mentioned that a man was seen in the hallway..
-
I know you don't actually believe this stuff, Vixte.
The police no longer seem to think anyone was in the apartment at 9.15. I guarantee that won't be the last change to the story. Why not just wait and see what happens?
Do you know I was just going to amend my message with the same stuff.. my mind works similar to yours @)(++(*
-
DCI Redwood's 'revelation moment' in Crimewatch didn't actually make that much difference because few believed in that part of the story anyway.
Guess what: few believe the 9.30 part either. So it would not be a massive leap for that to also change at some point.
It doesn't really mattered who 'believed' the McCann story that an 'abductor' was hiding in the apartment when Gerry was in there making his 9.05pm check, to be seen by Jane Tanner momemts later making off with their missing child ... Scotland Yard don't believe it
That is encouraging
-
Do you know I was just going to amend my message with the same stuff.. my mind works similar to yours @)(++(*
I hope so 8)-))) You're welcome to cross the floor anytime 8((()*/
-
It doesn't really mattered who 'believed' the McCann story that an 'abductor' was hiding in the apartment when Gerry was in there making his 9.05pm check, to be seen by Jane Tanner momemts later making off with their missing child ... Scotland Yard don't believe it
That is encouraging
8((()*/ But almost nobody believed it was an abductor anyway did they? Including fanatical supporters. CM himself destroyed any remaining credibility when he declared JT was 80% on Creepyman being 9.15 man: it was farcical after that.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the solution is somewhere half way >@@(*&)
-
8((()*/ But almost nobody believed it was an abductor anyway did they? Including fanatical supporters. CM himself destroyed any remaining credibility when he declared JT was 80% on Creepyman being 9.15 man: it was farcical after that.
I don't know what to say about that Lyall ... the McCann version of events ... that an abductor was already in the apartment, hiding, when Gerry made his 9.05pm check and that he ( the 'abductor' ) was seen just moments later making off with Madeleine in his arms by their friend Jane Tanner ... appears to have been dismissed by Scotland Yard
Why would anyone still believe the McCanns relentlessly promoted 'theory' ? ... indeed, why would the McCanns, themselves, still cling to it when Scotland Yard have effectively scotched it ?
-
Where witness AS saw him is consistent with him then going down steps.
From the steps before he reaches dolphin he can turn right and go along a small lane
No, Pegasus. If he intended to go down the steps he would have started turning right when AS saw him (she wouldn't have seen the buttons).
Yes, there a street, not a lane, passing by a large area full of weed. Do you think he could live there ?
-
I don't know what to say about that Lyall ... the McCann version of events ... that an abductor was already in the apartment, hiding, when Gerry made his 9.05pm check and that he ( the 'abductor' ) was seen just moments later making off with Madeleine in his arms by their friend Jane Tanner ... appears to have been dismissed by Scotland Yard
Why would anyone still believe the McCanns relentlessly promoted 'theory' ? ... indeed, why would the McCanns, themselves, still cling to it when Scotland Yard have effectively scotched it ?
I don't know, Icabod, it's a puzzle. Only they will know (and the lawyers more than likely). They can always rely on the newspapers not being the slightest bit interested in anything but chasing phantoms can't they.
-
Why would anyone still believe the McCanns relentlessly promoted 'theory' ? ... indeed, why would the McCanns, themselves, still cling to it when Scotland Yard have effectively scotched it ?
Don't they have to cling to something ?
-
I don't know, Icabod, it's a puzzle. Only they will know (and the lawyers more than likely). They can always rely on the newspapers not being the slightest bit interested in anything but chasing phantoms can't they.
For how long will phantoms be compatible with the best police of the planet ?
-
For how long will phantoms be compatible with the best police of the planet ?
Are the Scandinavians involved now?
Topical joke 8)--))
-
Are the Scandinavians involved now?
Topical joke 8)--))
They've been there, done that, and got the T shirt already ... remember that little Swedish girl at a car show ?
-
Do you think he could live there ?
Has Mr Amaral checked that? 8)--))
Or he was busy with phantoms too?
-
They've been there, done that, and got the T shirt already ... remember that little Swedish girl at a car show ?
8()-000( No.
I was meaning fictional cops (so many shows now).
-
DCI Redwood's 'revelation moment' in Crimewatch didn't actually make that much difference because few believed in that part of the story anyway.]
Guess what: few believe the 9.30 part either. So it would not be a massive leap for that to also change at some point.
Wishful thinking IMO All the evidence says that SY do believe JT and MO and there is not a scrap of evidence to say they don't.
I'm interested to know how you can claim as a fact that ... ''few people believe....'' etc etc. How could you possibly know that to be true?
-
I don't know what to say about that Lyall ... the McCann version of events ... that an abductor was already in the apartment, hiding, when Gerry made his 9.05pm check and that he ( the 'abductor' ) was seen just moments later making off with Madeleine in his arms by their friend Jane Tanner ... appears to have been dismissed by Scotland Yard
Why would anyone still believe the McCanns relentlessly promoted 'theory' ? ... indeed, why would the McCanns, themselves, still cling to it when Scotland Yard have effectively scotched it ?
I think, Icabod, they have to cling to the JT sighting. Without it the house of cards collapses. Below are two quotes by DCI Redwood off the MPS website.
"We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive; and the second that she is sadly dead".
"We believe we have identified the man who was seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child at about 21.15 near the apartment G5A".
The curious thing is that the PJ ran a media appeal for "Tannerman" but no one contacted PJ.
-
I think, Icabod, they have to cling to the JT sighting. Without it the house of cards collapses. Below are two quotes by DCI Redwood off the MPS website.
"We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive; and the second that she is sadly dead".
"We believe we have identified the man who was seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child at about 21.15 near the apartment G5A".
The curious thing is that the PJ ran a media appeal for "Tannerman" but no one contacted PJ.
When and where? Tannerman, (if he truly exists) may not have seen it.
-
Wishful thinking IMO All the evidence says that SY do believe JT and MO and there is not a scrap of evidence to say they don't.
I'm interested to know how you can claim as a fact that ... ''few people believe....'' etc etc. How could you possibly know that to be true?
The reaction after CW shows you everything you need to know about how much faith was put in the 9.15 sighting being an abductor, because there barely was any reaction after Redwood's 'revelation moment'. In fact I'd say there was none expressed publicly: the only reaction was - from very few people - incredulity about one sighting being dismissed and immediately replaced by another (10pm).
9.30 is more difficult to demonstrate, I'll give you that.
-
9.30 is more difficult to demonstrate, I'll give you that.
9:30's interest was always limited to show regularity of checks' intervals since it could confirm neither Tannerman (open shutters/window) nor Madeleine (empty bed).
-
When and where? Tannerman, (if he truly exists) may not have seen it.
2007 in Portugal. If T'man was in deep space or on a 6 year spelunking trip he would have missed all the hooha.
More likely he is the man who never was.
-
9:30's interest was always limited to show regularity of checks' intervals since it could confirm neither Tannerman (open shutters/window) nor Madeleine (empty bed).
True, good point. He didn't really say anything else.
-
The reaction after CW shows you everything you need to know about how much faith was put in the 9.15 sighting being an abductor, because there barely was any reaction after Redwood's 'revelation moment'. In fact I'd say there was none expressed publicly: the only reaction was - from very few people - incredulity about one sighting being dismissed and immediately replaced by another (10pm).
9.30 is more difficult to demonstrate, I'll give you that.
There is not a scrap of evidence to show that ''few people'' who watched the CW programme believed JT was telling the truth about her sighting. You cannot possibly know what each and every one of millions of viewers thought. Wishful thinking doesn't count.
-
There is not a scrap of evidence to show that ''few people'' who watched the CW programme believed JT was telling the truth about her sighting. You cannot possibly know what each and every one of millions of viewers thought. Wishful thinking doesn't count.
Show me any shock that followed Redwood's 'revelation moment'. Even you guys didn't show any.
You're mixing two issues. I'm saying few people thought it was an abductor who was seen: that's not the same as people believing JT hadn't seen anyone (they just didn't think she'd seen someone carrying Madeleine).
-
Show me any shock that followed Redwood's 'revelation moment'. Even you guys didn't show any.
You're mixing two issues. I'm saying few people thought it was an abductor who was seen: that's not the same as people believing JT hadn't seen anyone (they just didn't think she'd seen someone carrying Madeleine).
You're claiming to know what millions of people think on the ground that there was no enormous reaction. Why would there be? IMO most of the general public watched the programme and believed it to portray the current updated position of SY in light of new evidence.
I wasn't shocked by the 'revelation' - why would I be? I was very pleased that it exonerated JT who has been called a fantasist and a liar. The programme proved that she is neither - and confirmed that she HAD seen a man carrying a child - but it now turns out that there is compelling evidence that he was a tourist. That must have been very welcome news for JT - who has said the best news she could ever hear, apart from Madeleine being found - was that if the man she saw came forward and was not the abductor - and then she could stop beating herself up.
-
You're claiming to know what millions of people think on the ground that there was no enormous reaction. Why would there be? IMO most of the general public watched the programme and believed it to portray the current updated position of SY in light of new evidence.
I wasn't shocked by the 'revelation' - why would I be? I was very pleased that it exonerated JT who has been called a fantasist and a liar. The programme proved that she is neither - and confirmed that she HAD seen a man carrying a child - but it now turns out that there is compelling evidence that he was a tourist. That must have been very welcome news for JT - who has said the best news she could ever hear, apart from Madeleine being found - was that if the man she saw came forward and was not the abductor - and then she could stop beating herself up.
That is only and only PJs fault.
That man should have been found back in 2007 if they only looked at the creche lists and spoke to these people.
-
Is it possible that SY may one day have a further "revelation" that removal was even later?
-
Is it possible that SY may one day have a further "revelation" that removal was even later?
They might have many already.. but it is not their job to tell us that..
They tell us only when they need help from public.
-
I was very pleased that it exonerated JT who has been called a fantasist and a liar. The programme proved that she is neither - and confirmed that she HAD seen a man carrying a child - but it now turns out that there is compelling evidence that he was a tourist.
No, the program didn't prove that Ms Tanner had seen the tourist carrying his child or do you consider as a proof the pyjama described by Ms Tanner vs the pyjama of the tourist ?
Why should Ms Tanner be exonerated after all ? Would you say that Mr McCann was exonerated since no abductor was behind the door more open than they left it ?
-
No, the program didn't prove that Ms Tanner had seen the tourist carrying his child or do you consider as a proof the pyjama described by Ms Tanner vs the pyjama of the tourist ?
Why should Ms Tanner be exonerated after all ? Would you say that Mr McCann was exonerated since no abductor was behind the door more open than they left it ?
AGREED.
I think the sighting was made into something huge by the McCanns and their pink team and simply swamped the investigation. EVERYWHERE you went you saw the image of the ABDUCTOR being held up by pink team.
IF this sighting had been allowed to be dropped (as the PJ did anyway from the very beginning, and I dont believe for one minute this guy only just came forward to SY no way....), and the smith sighting had been pushed we might have had a different outcome who knows.
Sadly all we seem to do is go around and around in circles.......its like ground hog day isnt it?
NOTHING NEW, just the same stuff churned up over and over again.
JT sighting was NEVER taken seriously by the police thats why they didnt bother pushing it.
I think we forget that the investigation was being handled by the PJ and the BRITISH POLICE at the time, not the McCanns......
-
No, the program didn't prove that Ms Tanner had seen the tourist carrying his child or do you consider as a proof the pyjama described by Ms Tanner vs the pyjama of the tourist ?
Why should Ms Tanner be exonerated after all ? Would you say that Mr McCann was exonerated since no abductor was behind the door more open than they left it ?
The pyjamas were the items that SY used as an example on Crimewatch of something that had been used in their ruling out of Tannerman as suspect. They were a strong visual for a TV slot.
That does not mean that they were the main or only reason Jane Tanner's person was ruled out. Clearly there were several other details as well - many of which must have been provided by the suspect himself, in order that his account could be matched with that of Jane Tanner.
SY could not and would not rule out a suspect merely on the basis that a pair of pyjamas, barely visible to Ms Tanner, were supposedly similar to those of another young girl that night.
-
PJ and SY inspectors having in common to be police officers, they likely shared the reasons to doubt Tannerman's presence behind the door and at the junction, spotted by an invisible witness (consider that his presence on the scene was the first topic for the reconstitution). The PJ couldn't put Tannerman in the bin without a scandal (trying to destroy the one and only evidence of abduction), but SY had the authority to do it, even so it took them more than 2 years.
-
PJ and SY inspectors having in common to be police officers, they likely shared the reasons to doubt Tannerman's presence behind the door and at the junction, spotted by an invisible witness (consider that his presence on the scene was the first topic for the reconstitution). The PJ couldn't put Tannerman in the bin without a scandal (trying to destroy the one and only evidence of abduction), but SY had the authority to do it, even so it took them more than 2 years.
Amaral was quite happy to believe JT's sighting when he thought she was going to identify Murat as the man she saw. It was only after she failed to do that, and he had decided to blame the parents that suddenly JT's sighting became inconvenient to his thesis. His answer to that little problem was to spread lies about her in order to discredit her. He does it in his book too - yet another example of false claims uncorroborated by the files.
It's clear that SY have always believed JT's sighting. The only thing which has changed is that the man who they believe she saw is amost certainly an innocent tourist.
-
Yes, Amaral was rather keen on the Tanner Sighting when he thought he could stitch up Robert Murat.
-
PJ and SY inspectors having in common to be police officers, they likely shared the reasons to doubt Tannerman's presence behind the door and at the junction, spotted by an invisible witness (consider that his presence on the scene was the first topic for the reconstitution). The PJ couldn't put Tannerman in the bin without a scandal (trying to destroy the one and only evidence of abduction), but SY had the authority to do it, even so it took them more than 2 years.
That is a very convoluted explanation for this development...
-
That is a very convoluted explanation for this development...
What matters is that neither the PJ, the MP believed nor SY believes that Tannerman abducted. The rest is reputation management.
-
What matters is that neither the PJ, the MP believed nor SY believes that Tannerman abducted. The rest is reputation management.
That's true.
Only took seven years to build a consensus!
-
That's true.
Only took seven years to build a consensus!
There was a serious McCanns' implicit opposition. Ref. "Madeleine".
-
I don't understand that. Could you clarify?
-
There was a serious McCanns' implicit opposition. Ref. "Madeleine".
A bit too cryptic for me as well, Anne!
-
The main complaint of the McCanns concerning the PJ, was the lack of publicity on Tannerman. The British ambassador had to insist. Meanwhile the shutters/window had definitively lost their evidence potentiality. As soon as they were made arguidos, the famous sketch was done, the abductor had a kind of materiality, it was crucial because he was the unique evidence of abduction.
It's obvious that destroying it would affect the McCanns, they weren't not prepared to let him vanish into Innocentman (as proved by the fact that Tannerman is still on the official site).
And SY was aware of it.
-
The main complaint of the McCanns concerning the PJ, was the lack of publicity on Tannerman. The British ambassador had to insist. Meanwhile the shutters/window had definitively lost their evidence potentiality. As soon as they were made arguidos, the famous sketch was done, the abductor had a kind of materiality, it was crucial because he was the unique evidence of abduction.
It's obvious that destroying it would affect the McCanns, they weren't not prepared to let him vanish into Innocentman (as proved by the fact that Tannerman is still on the official site).
And SY was aware of it.
Even though in many ways this exonerates Ms Tanner?
-
If I found a door in my house more open than I had previously remembered it to be. The last thing I would think was that someone might be standing behind it.
Now you'd better change your mind ! Ah no, sorry, Tannerman vanished..
-
PJ and SY inspectors having in common to be police officers, they likely shared the reasons to doubt Tannerman's presence behind the door and at the junction, spotted by an invisible witness (consider that his presence on the scene was the first topic for the reconstitution). The PJ couldn't put Tannerman in the bin without a scandal (trying to destroy the one and only evidence of abduction), but SY had the authority to do it, even so it took them more than 2 years.
Or they simply questioned the parents who used creche that night.. something that hasn't been done in 2007.. and should have been done..
There are reports that SY re-questioned or questioned a big number of people..
-
Or they simply questioned the parents who used creche that night.. something that hasn't been done in 2007.. and should have been done..
There are reports that SY re-questioned or questioned a big number of people..
Could you explain why users of the night creche specifically should have been questioned in 2007? The creche wasn't implicated in Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Could you explain why users of the night creche specifically should have been questioned in 2007? The creche wasn't implicated in Madeleine's disappearance.
Maybe because there was a person seen carrying a child, and this child was believed to be Madeleine?
Shouldn't the have been an interest to identify this man?
-
Maybe because there was a person seen carrying a child, and this child was believed to be Madeleine?
Shouldn't the have been an interest to identify this man?
But this person was heading in the wrong direction to be a creche user, so why should the PJ think he was?
-
Could you explain why users of the night creche specifically should have been questioned in 2007? The creche wasn't implicated in Madeleine's disappearance.
But parents carrying children could have been. As it now appears that at least one of them was.
Actually, this failure is a disgrace. And it never crossed my mind that The PJ hadn't done this.
Two men, TWO, that is, were seen carrying a child at night, but let's not bother to look at the one place they are most likely to have come from if they weren't actually abducting the child.
-
I think you speak with the wisdom of hindsight. The PJ didn't know about Smithman until later, by which time many of the holidaymakers had gone home. No police force can do everything simultaneously, they have to prioritise their lines of investigation.
-
But parents carrying children could have been. As it now appears that at least one of them was.
Actually, this failure is a disgrace. And it never crossed my mind that The PJ hadn't done this.
Two men, TWO, that is, were seen carrying a child at night, but let's not bother to look at the one place they are most likely to have come from if they weren't actually abducting the child.
And now the Met believe they have identified the man does it actually advance them one inch?
In May 2007 whether they believed the witness or not the police were looking for a hopefully alive Madeleine all over the country and world, and not a few feet from the apartment she disappeared from.
You really ought to write that police training manual you know. You have more answers than Jane Tennison!
-
I think you speak with the wisdom of hindsight. The PJ didn't know about Smithman until later, by which time many of the holidaymakers had gone home. No police force can do everything simultaneously, they have to prioritise their lines of investigation.
Yer, blame the parents. So much easier than doing a bit of detecting, don't you think?
-
If the identification had been stronger, Eleanor, I expect they would have paid a great deal more attention to it. But it was weak.
-
Yer, blame the parents. So much easier than doing a bit of detecting, don't you think?
Judging by the dossier they finally published, I believe they did a lot of investigation - just not enough to satisfy you.
-
And now the Met believe they have identified the man does it actually advance them one inch?
In May 2007 whether they believed the witness or not the police were looking for a hopefully alive Madeleine all over the country and world, and not a few feet from the apartment she disappeared from.
You really ought to write that police training manual you know. You have more answers than Jane Tennison!
I think you might be right. I certainly seem to have more basic common sense that The PJ.
And then there was always The Phone Pings. But The PJ were more interested in the phone traffic between The McCanns and Friends.
Did they even look elsewhere? I don't think so somehow. And this was all basic detective work.
I don't understand why you can't see what a cock up they made of it all.
-
I agree they could have done more, like for example, insisted on an immediate reconstruction of that night's events, but by the time they got around to it, it was too late.
-
But this person was heading in the wrong direction to be a creche user, so why should the PJ think he was?
It was 9pm.. What is the wrong direction?
And the 'direction' was never clarified..
-
The truth of the matter is that Amaral wasn't interested in anything outside of The Family, so to say the least any attempts he made were very half hearted.
And then he went on to write a book saying exactly that. In his own words.
And according to his last Interview what is happening now is just propaganda.
Someone is making it all up then, are they?
-
I think you might be right. I certainly seem to have more basic common sense that The PJ.
And then there was always The Phone Pings. But The PJ were more interested in the phone traffic between The McCanns and Friends.
Did they even look elsewhere? I don't think so somehow. And this was all basic detective work.
I don't understand why you can't see what a cock up they made of it all.
Wasn't the phone work done by British police?
-
I agree they could have done more, like for example, insisted on an immediate reconstruction of that night's events, but by the time they got around to it, it was too late.
Well, at least we can agree on that.
The McCanns asked for a Reconstruction, so there was no need to insist.
-
Well, at least we can agree on that.
The McCanns asked for a Reconstruction, so there was no need to insist.
Yes, insist was the wrong word. They should have just organised and staged it without discussion.
-
Yes, insist was the wrong word. They should have just organised and staged it without discussion.
No way it would be in front of cameras with actors !
-
Wasn't the phone work done by British police?
I don't actually know for sure, but it wasn't the job of British Police to trace Portuguese phone users, or to peruse their criminal records since they won't have had access to those.
But if you are right then it is even more awful. The PJ had the analysis and then ignored it.
-
Yes, insist was the wrong word. They should have just organised and staged it without discussion.
Who should have organized it? Amaral actively refused.
Sorry, I am trying not to be aggressive, but it is mortal hard at times.
However, I would like to say that when someone, you on this occasion, treats my posts with respect, then I am much less likely to be aggressive.
So thank you for that.
-
I think you might be right. I certainly seem to have more basic common sense that The PJ.
And then there was always The Phone Pings. But The PJ were more interested in the phone traffic between The McCanns and Friends.
Did they even look elsewhere? I don't think so somehow. And this was all basic detective work.
I don't understand why you can't see what a cock up they made of it all.
Find us a perfect investigation then. The truth is there never has been one.
If it was easy we wouldn't need professionals. But you missed the most important part of my post: they were looking for a child they hoped was still alive. That was the priority, not checking everything about an identification that was weak in any case.
-
Find us a perfect investigation then. The truth is there never has been one.
If it was easy we wouldn't need professionals. But you missed the most important part of my post: they were looking for a child they hoped was still alive. That was the priority, not checking everything about an identification that was weak in any case.
The PJ needed things like that to track down the passage of Madeleine. How weak they might have thought it was was irrelevant.
-
they were looking for a child they hoped was still alive. That was the priority, not checking everything about an identification that was weak in any case.
Although one reckons this easily when reading the PJ Files, this is usually ignored. Just because Madeleine wasn't found.
-
I think you might be right. I certainly seem to have more basic common sense that The PJ.
And then there was always The Phone Pings. But The PJ were more interested in the phone traffic between The McCanns and Friends.
Did they even look elsewhere? I don't think so somehow. And this was all basic detective work.
I don't understand why you can't see what a cock up they made of it all.
The phone analytics were done by Brit experts.
Including the Met's top phone person was in PDL doing this work for the PJ in May 2007.
Here is a link
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/01/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
So are you saying the UK experts did a rubbish job of the phone work?
And yes the PJ followed up on many UK expert phone analytics not related to the parents.
-
The PJ needed things like that to track down the passage of Madeleine. How weak they might have thought it was was irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant because she didn't see the face, hence it's not much use to the police.
I expect they considered that the 9.15 witness may have seen the child being carried away, and worked on that basis. May have, which is exactly how everyone else should have considered it. What good would it have done them to prove she hadn't when their priority is to find a live child? Perhaps they thought of the creche but knew the holidaymakers would be back in the UK by now?
It's more complicated than your PJ bad, SY good analysis allows.
-
The phone analytics were done by Brit experts.
Including the Met's top phone person was in PDL doing this work for the PJ in May 2007.
Here is a link
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/01/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
So are you saying the UK experts did a rubbish job of the phone work?
And yes the PJ followed up on many UK expert phone analytics not related to the parents.
No, I am not saying that The UK Experts did a rubbish job. Just that The UK Police were not in a position to follow up on the details like Criminal Records, even assuming that they had the names of any subscribers.
And if The PJ followed up on people other than The McCanns, how come they missed the phone traffic that we are now talking about?
-
No, I am not saying that The UK Experts did a rubbish job. Just that The UK Police were not in a position to follow up on the details like Criminal Records, even assuming that they had the names of any subscribers.
And if The PJ followed up on people other than The McCanns, how come they missed the phone traffic that we are now talking about?
There is no certainty that this will lead anywhere, either. Merely another stone turned over to see what might crawl out.
-
Although one reckons this easily when reading the PJ Files, this is usually ignored. Just because Madeleine wasn't found.
8((()*/ That ought to be the starting point of every narrative about May 2007: the urgency of trying to find a live child. Of course mistakes are made, but it's the same in any investigation in any country when police are desperate to find children they hope are still alive. They didn't have the luxury of being able to take things slowly and work methodically like the British police do now.
And they say no media for a reason, Eleanor. A reason that every police force in the world will understand.
-
No, I am not saying that The UK Experts did a rubbish job. Just that The UK Police were not in a position to follow up on the details like Criminal Records, even assuming that they had the names of any subscribers.
And if The PJ followed up on people other than The McCanns, how come they missed the phone traffic that we are now talking about?
The current investigation is going over again the phone records which Mr Amaral and the UK experts working with him wisely requisitioned from the phone network providers.
Yes the original investigation did check out the mobile phone locations of OC employees.
For example in this way they highlighted and checked out an OC driver.
And another OC worker at Millenium.
Yes the original investigation did check out ALL mobile activity within PDL especially at the time of the JT sighting, and at the time of the Smith sighting, the tables produced by Mr Amarals team with expert UK help are in the files.
-
When collecting the phone data police has to contact many phone traffic providers and they also have to request 'the right' data.. Getting the phone data from the providers is a long process, I believe this has to be authorised by the courts. The EU providers have an obligation to keep the phone data for a certain period of time ( 7 years comes to mind but this needs to be checked out)..
Out of this it is possible that not all of the data was collected and analysed in 2007 and that there was additional data acquired.. possibly even some data arrived after McCanns were made arguidos and this data was no longer of interest..
I think the SY and PJ now have a fuller picture of the phone data.. and that this was acquired additionally.
-
There is no certainty that this will lead anywhere, either. Merely another stone turned over to see what might crawl out.
Yes, I know that. But I don't think that there is much doubt that a bunch of known Criminal Associates of the dead TractorMan were crawling around PdL that night, and communicating with each other.
Make what you will of that. But it is at least suspicious, especially as there doesn't seen to have been any burglaries that night. Those of which would have happened before anyone knew that Madeleine was missing.
Actually, the fuss itself would have been an ideal opportunity for burglars since everyone else was preoccupied.
Is there any record of burglaries happening that night? Or did The PJ miss that as well?
-
8((()*/ That ought to be the starting point of every narrative about May 2007: the urgency of trying to find a live child. Of course mistakes are made, but it's the same in any investigation in any country when police are desperate to find children they hope are still alive. They didn't have the luxury of being able to take things slowly and work methodically like the British police do now.
And they say no media for a reason, Eleanor. A reason that every police force in the world will understand.
Such a pity they didn't find time to close the Borders of check the Marinas.
They never say No Media in France in a possible Abduction situation. And I don't think they say it in UK either.
-
The current investigation is going over again the phone records which Mr Amaral and the UK experts working with him wisely requisitioned from the phone network providers.
Yes the original investigation did check out the mobile phone locations of OC employees.
For example in this way they highlighted and checked out an OC driver.
And another OC worker at Millenium.
Yes the original investigation did check out ALL mobile activity within PDL especially at the time of the JT sighting, and at the time of the Smith sighting, the tables produced by Mr Amarals team with expert UK help are in the files.
How come they missed Tractor Man and his known Criminal Associates?
-
That ought to be the starting point of every narrative about May 2007: the urgency of trying to find a live child. Of course mistakes are made, but it's the same in any investigation in any country when police are desperate to find children they hope are still alive. They didn't have the luxury of being able to take things slowly and work methodically like the British police do now.
See what they did when wee Mikaeel disappeared. The idée fixe was not losing a second, because it could be a second too late.
This is why GNR officers, in Lisbon, were woken up at 2am to get prepared to go to PDL with the best dogs they had.
-
Such a pity they didn't find time to close the Borders of check the Marinas.
They never say No Media in France in a possible Abduction situation. And I don't think they say it in UK either.
Different situation here. A child from another country, and that country just happens to be a country with a notoriously wild tabloid press. If a child goes missing in the UK the police can rely on the papers working with them: I doubt the Portuguese had any such expectation.
If there are procedures in place, like the Amber alert, that's one thing: but if sightings from Timbuktu to Taiwan are going to be splashed across the front pages, that's something else altogether. No police force in the world wants that happening.
-
Such a pity they didn't find time to close the Borders of check the Marinas.
They never say No Media in France in a possible Abduction situation. And I don't think they say it in UK either.
Check the report made for The Sun by Ian Horrocks: he says this 'closing the borders' just doesn't happen and wouldn't have happened in the UK either.
-
See what they did when wee Mikaeel disappeared. The idée fixe was not losing a second, because it could be a second too late.
This is why GNR officers, in Lisbon, were woken up at 2am to get prepared to go to PDL with the best dogs they had.
I agree with this. This part of the search for Madeleine was great.
But the other parts, i.e securing the crime scene, DNA samples collecting such as Madeleine's bedding at the first moment, bin collections stopping, depths of questioning anyone else except the T9 group, dealing with Tannerman sightings, searching the spot where Portuguese dogs lost the scent etc.. these were not up to the standard level.
-
Such a pity they didn't find time to close the Borders of check the Marinas.
They never say No Media in France in a possible Abduction situation. And I don't think they say it in UK either.
The original investigation did contact marinas and obtained arrival/departure dates of large numbers of boats.
-
Check the report made for The Sun by Ian Horrocks: he says this 'closing the borders' just doesn't happen and wouldn't have happened in the UK either.
The UK doesn't have Borders.
But you seem to agree that The Portuguese Press is crap.
-
The UK doesn't have Borders.
But you seem to agree that The Portuguese Press is crap.
UK papers I meant 8(0(*
It was a child from another country. That's the point.
-
Different situation here. A child from another country, and that country just happens to be a country with a notoriously wild tabloid press. If a child goes missing in the UK the police can rely on the papers working with them: I doubt the Portuguese had any such expectation.
If there are procedures in place, like the Amber alert, that's one thing: but if sightings from Timbuktu to Taiwan are going to be splashed across the front pages, that's something else altogether. No police force in the world wants that happening.
Of course. The abducted child European alert is launched only if abduction is certain, or highly probable. The huge publicity lasts only for a few hours, it is counterproductive after a rather short time.
In Portugal, like in France where instruction is under the same principle of secrecy, those missing children cases are treated very discreetly in order to protect the child.
-
The original investigation did contact marinas and obtained arrival/departure dates of large numbers of boats.
I often don't understand your ideas, Pegasus, but I must reckon that you read the PJ Files. And we are not so many.
-
Of course. The abducted child European alert is launched only if abduction is certain, or highly probable. The huge publicity lasts only for a few hours, it is counterproductive after a rather short time.
In Portugal, like in France where instruction is under the same principle of secrecy, those missing children cases are treated very discreetly in order to protect the child.
Not in my experience of France. Portugal just leaks to The Press.
-
Not in my experience of France. Portugal just leaks to The Press.
An international media specialist too, I see.
Tell me, where did you get your degree?
-
Anyone any idea why the pj didn't examine the sheets and blankets on the bed for dna...nothing in the files for the results of a dna sweep of the bedclothes
-
I often don't understand your ideas, Pegasus, but I must reckon that you read the PJ Files. And we are not so many.
Yes Mr Amarals team checked with Lagos Portimao Vilamoura and other marinas, for each they obtained lists of all boat departures and arrivals, dates, details of all the people on board, their ages, nationalities, over a hundred boats are listed in the files, not bad for a detective who was accused on this thread of not checking marinas :)
-
Different situation here. A child from another country, and that country just happens to be a country with a notoriously wild tabloid press. If a child goes missing in the UK the police can rely on the papers working with them: I doubt the Portuguese had any such expectation.
If there are procedures in place, like the Amber alert, that's one thing: but if sightings from Timbuktu to Taiwan are going to be splashed across the front pages, that's something else altogether. No police force in the world wants that happening.
I more or less agree with you on that.
My caveat is that the sightings from A to Z took place later, from the equally wild UK press.
However, I do agree that the idea of closing borders wouldn't have been feasible in the middle of the night. Half the country (or more) is open to the sea, and the other half has permeable borders with Spain. Alerting any on-duty border patrols, yes, including the airport, but that's about it.
-
It would be a ludicrous thing to criticise Mr Amaral for not closing the borders.
That would involve cancelling hundreds of flights at the various international airports, completely stopping international trade, bringing the army in to police the ever growing queues of cars and trucks at hundreds of border crossings with Spain.
-
The FBI has a Child Abduction Plan which is in standard use worldwide.
The first on the agenda is to clear the parents.
This was never able to be done, 7 years later nothing's changed.
Investigations have to start at the closest point to the victim and work outwards (parents, then to lorry drivers and borders) not outwards working in (lorry drivers, borders, then finally parents).
-
It would be a ludicrous thing to criticise Mr Amaral for not closing the borders.
That would involve cancelling hundreds of flights at the various international airports, completely stopping international trade, bringing the army in to police the ever growing queues of cars and trucks at hundreds of border crossings with Spain.
Im surprised no one has blamed him for not babysitting in the first place! I mean we have had the insinuations from some posters in this forum he was involved and/or protecting the abductors, whats a little more schizophrenia to add to the mix!
Gnite all
8((()*/
-
The FBI has a Child Abduction Plan which is in standard use worldwide.
The first on the agenda is to clear the parents.
This was never able to be done, 7 years later nothing's changed.
Investigations have to start at the closest point to the victim and work outwards (parents, then to lorry drivers and borders) not outwards working in (lorry drivers, borders, then finally parents).
wasnt done at the time but according Redwood the parents are in the clear now
-
This is silly. There are Police Posts at the borders into Spain and some of them are manned, so it would not have been a massive operation to put a check on these. In fact some vague attempt was made later on, but the Police were more interested in listening to chat shows on the radio than checking cars.
As for boats, they might have checked to see which boats left but they didn't follow through to see where these boats went.
-
This is silly. There are Police Posts at the borders into Spain and some of them are manned, so it would not have been a massive operation to put a check on these. In fact some vague attempt was made later on, but the Police were more interested in listening to chat shows on the radio than checking cars.
As for boats, they might have checked to see which boats left but they didn't follow through to see where these boats went.
completely pointless waste of money. The Algarve is surrounded by sea, how on earth are you going to check all the boats leaving the 1000's of kms of shoreline daily?
-
completely pointless waste of money. The Algarve is surrounded by sea, how on earth are you going to check all the boats leaving the 1000's of kms of shoreline daily?
It's International Law. Sheesh.
-
It would be a ludicrous thing to criticise Mr Amaral for not closing the borders.
That would involve cancelling hundreds of flights at the various international airports, completely stopping international trade, bringing the army in to police the ever growing queues of cars and trucks at hundreds of border crossings with Spain.
Of course, that ridiculous idea reveals they didn't well know where they were. They would never have dreamed of having the borders of France or Germany closed, had this occurred in Honfleur or in Dornumersiel.
-
completely pointless waste of money. The Algarve is surrounded by sea, how on earth are you going to check all the boats leaving the 1000's of kms of shoreline daily?
This abduction from bed is so exceptional (first case in Europe "since" the (staged) abduction of Savile Kent, sorry to repeat it), that it is treated as if the Joconde had been stolen from the Louvre ! A little girl that BOD couldn't distinguish from others on the tennis court !
-
completely pointless waste of money. The Algarve is surrounded by sea, how on earth are you going to check all the boats leaving the 1000's of kms of shoreline daily?
Sorry (well I am not really but I am being polite) to be picky old top but is there another Algarve I have missed?
The one I went to is, from Sagres to Vila Real San Antonio, about 130km.
-
Sorry (well I am not really but I am being polite) to be picky old top but is there another Algarve I have missed?
The one I went to is, from Sagres to Vila Real San Antonio, about 130km.
That is if they searched the road.
I said shoreline. The area off which boats can launch.
The SHORELINE itself is hundreds of kilometres. You do understand that walking along the beach from point A to point B is not the same as taking a shortcut (road)?
-
This is silly. There are Police Posts at the borders into Spain and some of them are manned, so it would not have been a massive operation to put a check on these. In fact some vague attempt was made later on, but the Police were more interested in listening to chat shows on the radio than checking cars.
If you had been Mr Amaral would you have put troops at every border crossing and stopped every vehicle? And would you have searched inside every luggage bag?
As for boats, they might have checked to see which boats left but they didn't follow through to see where these boats went.
The PJ did find the destinations of boat departures from the marinas, see the dozens of pages in the files about checks on boats.
-
If you have the footprints of a wild bear, you're not going to go out searching for a cat.
-
That is if they searched the road.
I said shoreline. The area off which boats can launch.
The SHORELINE itself is hundreds of kilometres. You do understand that walking along the beach from point A to point B is not the same as taking a shortcut (road)?
I know what I said and I know what you said. You said 1000's of kms of shore line. Demonstrate that your assertion is correct ie the shore line of the Algarve is more than 2000km. P**s or get off the pot.
-
The south facing coast line of The Algarve is 155 kilometres, so maximum 200 kilometres in total.
-
The south facing coast line of The Algarve is 155 kilometres, so maximum 200 kilometres in total.
Do you think Mr Amaral's team should have searched every boat on the Algarve coast?
If not then where is the substance for this nautical attack on his competence?
Where would you have searched that Mr Amaral did not?
-
Do you think Mr Amaral's team should have searched every boat on the Algarve coast?
If not then where is the substance for this nautical attack on his competence?
Where would you have searched that Mr Amaral did not?
No, I don't think he should have searched every boat. It was too late for that because some of them have left. But I do think he should have checked on where they went. There are International Laws of Customs and Excise which Amaral will have known about, him being the great Drug Hunter.
Boats can't just swan around where ever they please.
-
No, I don't think he should have searched every boat. It was too late for that because some of them have left. But I do think he should have checked on where they went. There are International Laws of Customs and Excise which Amaral will have known about, him being the great Drug Hunter.
Boats can't just swan around where ever they please.
LOL!
They can and they do!
The fact remains, there is hundreds of km of coastline and it is physically impossible to police all of it.
-
All this is academic if the McCanns are to be believed
They say Madeleine was abducted at 9.10pm ( just after Gerry's check )
They didn't check on her again till 10.00pm
Police weren't contacted until 10.40pm
That's an hour and a half lost
Any boat would have been miles out to sea, or any vehicle already across the Spanish border, before the police had even been made aware that the child was missing
-
No, I don't think he should have searched every boat. It was too late for that because some of them have left. But I do think he should have checked on where they went. There are International Laws of Customs and Excise which Amaral will have known about, him being the great Drug Hunter.
Boats can't just swan around where ever they please.
I am not sure about the low on this in Portugal, I researched this for my book for another country.. It seems that the bigger boats have to inform the authority if they like to leave the port but the small boats like fishemen's boats don't . They only have to have a sailing permit, which is renewed yearly. If stopped by the sea police or the inspections they have to show the permit..
This is how I understand it.. maybe this doesn't apply to Portugal, I don't know..
-
I am not sure about the low on this in Portugal, I researched this for my book for another country.. It seems that the bigger boats have to inform the authority if they like to leave the port but the small boats like fishemen's boats don't . They only have to have a sailing permit, which is renewed yearly. If stopped by the sea police or the inspections they have to show the permit..
This is how I understand it.. maybe this doesn't apply to Portugal, I don't know..
I think you will find that this is correct, even in Portugal.
Fishing boats are always going to return to port shortly.
-
Different situation here. A child from another country, and that country just happens to be a country with a notoriously wild tabloid press. If a child goes missing in the UK the police can rely on the papers working with them: I doubt the Portuguese had any such expectation.
If there are procedures in place, like the Amber alert, that's one thing: but if sightings from Timbuktu to Taiwan are going to be splashed across the front pages, that's something else altogether. No police force in the world wants that happening.
I hadn't thought of this, Lyall.
Come to think of it there seems to have been a dearth of bizarre sightings lately.
-
No, I don't think he should have searched every boat. It was too late for that because some of them have left. But I do think he should have checked on where they went. There are International Laws of Customs and Excise which Amaral will have known about, him being the great Drug Hunter.
Boats can't just swan around where ever they please.
But Mr Amaral's team did check where boats went to.
An example: a boat called "*****" arrived at Lagos marina on 3rd May having come from Portimao. On 4th May it departed from Lagos, called in at Vilamoura, and on 5th May arrived at Albufeira. Many more examples are in the files.
-
Eh, it is 200kms by virtue of effect a multiple of hundreds times 2 !!!
Different ways of measuring a coastline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
-
I hadn't thought of this, Lyall.
Come to think of it there seems to have been a dearth of bizarre sightings lately.
Permission to be cynical?
(The papers have the new investigation to create the headlines now).
-
200 kilometres IS hundreds... In simplistic arithmetic it is 100 times 2, irregardless of coastline linear measurements etc etc
It was Thousands not very long ago. How does Thousands equate to 200?
-
It was Thousands not very long ago. How does Thousands equate to 200?
Two methods of measuring (see box further down which says 'method 1' and 'method 2', and note the amazing disparity in numbers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_coastline
-
All this is academic if the McCanns are to be believed
They say Madeleine was abducted at 9.10pm ( just after Gerry's check )
They didn't check on her again till 10.00pm
Police weren't contacted until 10.40pm
That's an hour and a half lost
Any boat would have been miles out to sea, or any vehicle already across the Spanish border, before the police had even been made aware that the child was missing
Precisely.
It's irrelevant anyway.
Just another way of distracting from the REAL news - which no one has commented on yet -
The suppressed efit
The case with the CPS
The word "murder" from BHH
-
... there is no evidence whatsoever that she ever left Praia da Luz.
Distance.
Precisely Holmes. Investigation logically starts at the location last definitely known to be seen (which is IMO the north bedroom of the apartment), and advances carefully outwards from there.
-
Precisely Holmes. Investigation logically starts at the location last definitely known to be seen (which is IMO the north bedroom of the apartment), and advances carefullly outwards from there.
4 different GNR dogs indicated Madeleine left that apartment and she left it though the front- main door..
-
4 different GNR dogs indicated Madeleine left that apartment and she left it though the front- main door..
But the trail didn't go all the way to India..
-
But the trail didn't go all the way to India..
it went to a car park.. and by there it could have gone anywhere..
PJ never investigated who exactly used to park their car there.. and they could have done that..
-
it went to a car park.. and by there it could have gone anywhere..
PJ never investigated who exactly used to park their car there.. and they could have done that..
These things are all true.
But Gerry McCann takes us all far away from Praia da Luz, not in an investigative sense, but in a psychological.
-
4 different GNR dogs indicated Madeleine left that apartment and she left it though the front- main door..
Yes interesting. If we had no other indications or evidence, only those GNR dog trails, would it imply being put into a vehicle next to that lamppost in that car park?
-
Yes interesting. If we had no other indications or evidence, only those GNR dog trails, would it imply being put into a vehicle next to that lamppost in that car park?
Getting back to topic, this is surely the most likely scenario in any case.
-
Yes interesting. If we had no other indications or evidence, only those GNR dog trails, would it imply being put into a vehicle next to that lamppost in that car park?
If I was a policeman and if I had the search dog the next day after the disappearance and the 4 dogs stopping at the same spot I would at least knock on the doors of the people living in the building next to that car park and ask what car they usually see there and if they had seen it that particular day.
To me that sounds natural.
And since that is across the road of the OC reception I would ask the reception workers which car they usually see parked there and if they saw any car parked there that day..
-
Getting back to topic, this is surely the most likely scenario in any case.
Even if we could prove being put into a vehicle where the GNR dog trails end, it would surely be an error in logic to assume that the vehicle then goes to outside PDL.
-
Even if we could prove being put into a vehicle where the GNR trails end, it would surely be an error in logic to assume that the vehicle then goes to outside PDL.
IMO Madeleine was put ito a vehicle near the 5A and dropped off near the Smiths sighting.
Although the near Lagos pulling of a girl in the early hours seen by witness Burke was never fully investigated. PJ went there and took the statement and that was all..
-
Even if we could prove being put into a vehicle where the GNR dog trails end, it would surely be an error in logic to assume that the vehicle then goes to outside PDL.
That's a good point.
But I certainly don't think that it's an error of logic to assume there was a car - even though there is no physical evidence of it.
In fact I think it is an error of logic to imagine an abduction without a car.
-
IMO Madeleine was put ito a vehicle near the 5A and dropped off near the Smiths sighting.
Although the near Lagos pulling of a girl in the early hours seen by witness Burke was never fully investigated. PJ went there and took the statement and that was all..
Yes, the Burke sighting is interesting.
But how do you imagine Madeleine got to Lagos if she was dropped off near the Smith sighting? And why not take her straight to Lagos?
-
Yes, the Burke sighting is interesting.
But how do you imagine Madeleine got to Lagos if she was dropped off near the Smith sighting? And why not take her straight to Lagos?
I think Burke's sighting was in Lagos marina. So I imagine she was took to Lagos by boat.. from near Smiths sighting and this boat could have been a small boat..
Also if I remember well on the Smiths sighting route towards the beach there is a restaurant.. and the person carrying the girl would have passed next to this restaurant.. but not sure about this, this is somewhere on the back of my mind..
It was never concluded who Burke saw.
-
I think Burke's sighting was in Lagos marina. So I imagine she was took to Lagos by boat.. from near Smiths sighting and this boat could have been a small boat..
Also if I remember well on the Smiths sighting route towards the beach there is a restaurant.. and the person carrying the girl would have passed next to this restaurant.. but not sure about this, this is somewhere on the back of my mind..
It was never concluded who Burke saw.
Yes, it was Lagos marina.
What does the little restaurant have to do with it?
-
IMO if someone is risking transporting something secret, there are big risks driving to some distant and unknown rural location, so the person may be more likely to drive to a place which is nearby and which they are familiar with and where it is completely unsuspicious if they are seen.
-
Yes, it was Lagos marina.
What does the little restaurant have to do with it?
People using the restaurant that night wouldn't be aware of it.. there should be a media call for them to ask them if they saw anything suspicious.
But I am not sure about the restaurant tough.. as I said, it is somewhere on the back of my mind that he had to pass the restaurant and cannot go any other way..
-
IMO if someone is risking transporting something secret, there are big risks driving to some distant and unknown rural location, so the person may be more likely to drive to a place which is nearby and which they are familiar with and where it is completely unsuspicious if they are seen.
Is this the 'hiding in plain sight' idea, pegasus?
Because the Smith sighting was very close to the social area in PdL. Carrier had to walk across that road with several restaurants and bars, and probably walked near or past the little restaurant that VIXTE refers to (The Dolphin restaurant on Rua da Calheta, is that right, VIXTE?).
-
Is this the 'hiding in plain sight' idea, pegasus?
Because the Smith sighting was very close to the social area in PdL. Carrier had to walk across that road with several restaurants and bars, and probably walked near or past the little restaurant that VIXTE refers to (The Dolohin restaruant on Rua da Calheta, is that right, VIXTE?).
Yes, I think you are right.
That, actually would be very brave. Why would he do that?
Although if he was a thief that wouldn't be unusual.
When I was younger we had a thief living in our building. He once asked my ex boyfriend if he could give him a lift to pick up a huge gas bottle ' from his grandma' and my ex being naive said 'yes why not' and he drove him to his 'grandma's house' and my ex naively waited for the guy and the guy went into the house, took the gas bottle, opened the car, put the gas bottle in the car.. and this is when my ex saw a guy from the house running and shouting.. but the thief just said 'drive' .. my ex did not drive.. he stopped.. and he discussed the situation with the owner.. that was so funny.. we were laughing for years but it could be something similar with Madeleine.. if he was a thief he would not be afraid like.. they just go..
My family has a holiday home and we use one particular guy for handy jobs and we were warned by several people to not to use him but he does excellent job and he is very cheap and kind of able and friendly so we continued to use him.. once the police came to our door, they said the followed him to our house and he might have left a stolen goods in our home.. we let them search but they found nothing.. although the guy ended up in prison that time and we never saw him again.. he did hide the stolen goods but not in our house, he left it next door.. that guy was also cool, who would say he was a thief.. and he just stole something and 10 minutes later came to us to do his work..
-
Yes, I think you are right.
That, actually would be very brave. Why would he do that?
Although if he was a thief that wouldn't be unusual.
When I was younger we had a thief living in our building. He once asked my ex boyfriend if he could give him a lift to pick up a huge gas bottle ' from his grandma' and my ex being naive said 'yes why not' and he drove him to his 'grandma's house' and my ex naively waited for the guy and the guy went into the house, took the gas bottle, opened the car, put the gas bottle in the car.. and this is when my ex saw a guy from the house running and shouting.. but the thief just said 'drive' .. my ex did not drive.. he stopped.. and he discussed the situation with the owner.. that was so funny.. we were laughing for years but it could be something similar with Madeleine.. if he was a thief he would not be afraid like.. they just go..
My family has a holiday home and we use one particular guy for handy jobs and we were warned by several people to not to use him but he does excellent job and he is very cheap and kind of able and friendly so we continued to use him.. once the police came to our door, they said the followed him to our house and he might have left a stolen goods in our home.. we let them search but they found nothing.. although the guy ended up in prison that time and we never saw him again.. he did hide the stolen goods but not in our house, he left it next door..
Yes, it's certainly something that is done. Very funny about the gas bottle!
There are many thefts from shops where the thief simply walks brazenly out of the shop with a large object in their arms and no-one thinks to stop and ask if they actually paid for it.
However in Madeleine's case, it would have been a profound concern that the alarm was surely about to be raised and a search of the town was imminent.
Seems strange to me that in that case Madeleine would be exposed in this way.
-
........In fact I think it is an error of logic to imagine an abduction without a car.
That might seem logical to us but in reality there have been cases where no motor transport was involved.
-
wasnt done at the time but according Redwood the parents are in the clear now
Redwood has never said that anyone was in the clear. His repeated line is that they are not suspects or persons of interest.
-
Redwood has never said that anyone was in the clear. His repeated line is that they are not suspects or persons of interest.
So where in his following statement does he even hint that the McCanns or their friends are not in the clear?
Quote
''Neither her parents or any members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects''
DCI Redwood
Unquote.
That seems as clear as crystal to me.
-
Redwood has never said that anyone was in the clear. His repeated line is that they are not suspects or persons of interest.
Why are certain people worries if they believe the mccanns are in the 'clear' ?
Why the need for repeated posts on the issue if there is nothing to worry about ?
-
Why are certain people worries if they believe the mccanns are in the 'clear' ?
Why the need for repeated posts on the issue if there is nothing to worry about ?
LOL at the supreme irony of you of all people making that comment.
-
LOL at the supreme irony of you of all people making that comment.
Strange, I don't recall Stephen worrying very much about the apparent non suspect status of the McCanns.
He usually appears to be more concerned by their complete abscence of parenting skills prior to May the 4th.
-
Redwood has never said that anyone was in the clear. His repeated line is that they are not suspects or persons of interest.
that's because in a legal sense there is no such thing as being cleared
-
Strange, I don't recall Stephen worrying very much about the apparent non suspect status of the McCanns.
He usually appears to be more concerned by their complete abscence of parenting skills prior to May the 4th.
Precisely the point, Wonderfulspam.
-
That might seem logical to us but in reality there have been cases where no motor transport was involved.
In this case, because we are talking about a village.. it is possible to establish the phone number who were in PDL all up to the night of the 3rd May and not later..
I.e. it is possible to technically establish which mobile phone numbers have left the area that night..
-
If I was a policeman and if I had the search dog the next day after the disappearance and the 4 dogs stopping at the same spot I would at least knock on the doors of the people living in the building next to that car park and ask what car they usually see there and if they had seen it that particular day.
To me that sounds natural.
And since that is across the road of the OC reception I would ask the reception workers which car they usually see parked there and if they saw any car parked there that day..
What gives you the idea that none of this was done?
-
Is this the 'hiding in plain sight' idea, pegasus?
Because the Smith sighting was very close to the social area in PdL. Carrier had to walk across that road with several restaurants and bars, and probably walked near or past the little restaurant that VIXTE refers to (The Dolphin restaurant on Rua da Calheta, is that right, VIXTE?).
He was heading straight towards the church so if he went past that he was going towards the rocks. The ones Kate calls "My Rocks".
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_01/mccannDM0409_468x288.jpg)
"Gerry and I were able to seek solace at Nossa Senhora da Luz. We then walked down to the rocks on the beach, with its crashing waves and sense of vastness and freedom - another place where I've always felt able to reach out to Madeleine and find a little solace."
-
What gives you the idea that none of this was done?
It is not in the files and it was never mentioned in the files..
-
It is not in the files and it was never mentioned in the files..
There will have been lots of events not documented in the files. Are policemen's notebooks in the files? The sad reality is that Madeleine could very well have been taken shortly after Gerry's last visit to the apartment and been a long way away by the time the first police searches were conducted hours later. How far can a car travel in 3 hours?
-
There will have been lots of events not documented in the files. Are policemen's notebooks in the files? The sad reality is that Madeleine could very well have been taken shortly after Gerry's last visit to the apartment and been a long way away by the time the first police searches were conducted hours later. How far can a car travel in 3 hours?
I am not sure what you are trying to say.. What I am saying is that the result could have been in front of their noses, if they just looked a bit deeper. Like that parking place. All dogs stopping exactly there is significant.
The logical question is who parks there..Is it the OC worker, is it a person who lives in the building, and that is very easy to find out. Then it is easy to find out ( according to person's mobile phone) where that person was that night.Has he-she driven that car, has he-she driven outside of PDL? And once all of this is checked and solved then and person cleared that is where the line of inquiry stops. Not just assuming this or that.. like PJ in most cases did..
-
that's because in a legal sense there is no such thing as being cleared
In reality its because he would look really stupid if they ended up as suspects again in Portugal after him saying they were cleared. After the Dando/George fiasco Redwood isn't going to go down that particularly slippery road again and jeopardise his pension.
-
I am not sure what you are trying to say.. What I am saying is that the result could have been in front of their noses, if they just looked a bit deeper. Like that parking place. All dogs stopping exactly there is significant.
The logical question is who parks there..Is it the OC worker, is it a person who lives in the building, and that is very easy to find out. Then it is easy to find out ( according to person's mobile phone) where that person was that night.Has he-she driven that car, has he-she driven outside of PDL? And once all of this is checked and solved then and person cleared that is where the line of inquiry stops. Not just assuming this or that.. like PJ in most cases did..
How can you be sure that all this hasn't already been done?
-
I am not sure what you are trying to say.. What I am saying is that the result could have been in front of their noses, if they just looked a bit deeper. Like that parking place. All dogs stopping exactly there is significant.
The logical question is who parks there..Is it the OC worker, is it a person who lives in the building, and that is very easy to find out. Then it is easy to find out ( according to person's mobile phone) where that person was that night.Has he-she driven that car, has he-she driven outside of PDL? And once all of this is checked and solved then and person cleared that is where the line of inquiry stops. Not just assuming this or that.. like PJ in most cases did..
The car would have waited just along from where Tannerman was seen. Sadie went into a bit of detail about this months back and together with John posted several photos of the area. From there it was only a matter of minutes to the main road and safety. Imo the Smiths sighting is nothing more than Irish mist.
There was a discussion last night about closing the borders. That would have caused so much chaos to transport that heads would have rolled. To do a proper search every single frontier road would have required a checkpoint with personnel searching every vehicle, an impossible task. In any event, the Portuguese just didn't have the resources to undertake such a mammoth task or dare I say it, the will to do so.
Just imagine if they had closed down the frontier and then the girl turned up somewhere near Praia da Luz?
-
The car would have waited just along from where Tannerman was seen. Sadie went into a bit of detail about this months back and together with John posted several photos of the area. From there it was only a matter of minutes to the main road and safety.
That is your opinion but the dogs the day after the disappearance stopped in-next to that car park..IMO this is a big clue..
You don't make a theory and then fit the clues into a theory. You first look at a clue and then form a theory.
-
That is your opinion but the dogs the day after the disappearance stopped in-next to that car park..IMO this is a big clue..
You don't make a theory and then fit the clues into a theory. You first look at a clue and then form a theory.
Air scent only lasts a short while, minutes. If Maddie was abducted she was carried out, her feet never touched the ground. Simples!!
What the GNR dogs found was her trail part way to the junior club and to the supermercado.
-
Air scent only lasts a short while, minutes. If Maddie was abducted she was carried out, her feet never touched the ground. Simples!!
What the GNR dogs found was her trail part way to the junior club and to the supermercado.
That is your opinion. But the fact is that this 'spot' was never investigated. In the UK the spot would be surrounded by tents and checked fine comb..
-
That is your opinion. But the fact is that this 'spot' was never investigated. In the UK the spot would be surrounded by tents and checked fine comb..
No abductor is going to walk down the very road where Jez, Gerry and Jane were moments earlier. Common sense my dear Watkins!!
-
No abductor is going to walk down the very road where Jez, Gerry and Jane were moments earlier. Common sense my dear Watkins!!
We don't know what happened and when.. this is why things like this.. the search dog lead hours after disappearance should have been checked out.. they could have found something.. a paper from his pocket, a cigarette, Madeleine's hair, hair band, anything really and that would be a real lead..
-
We don't know what happened and when.. this is why things like this.. the search dog lead hours after disappearance should have been checked out.. they could have found something.. a paper from his pocket, a cigarette, Madeleine's hair, hair band, anything really and that would be a real lead..
You have seen the map havent you showing the identical dog trail on two separate days?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddietrail.jpg&target=tlx_picqfob
It ran from the apartment westward and down the alleys, back out to the main street.....so you think an abductor took this route? To the car park? Opposite the Tapas restaraunt? Why? As Angelo mentioned, this was exactly the route Gerry Mccann described his kids running around a day or so earlier, and going theuh the car patk was a shortcut to Madeleines nursery.
Theres an old thread on it somewhere.
-
You have seen the map havent you showing the identical dog trail on two separate days?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddietrail.jpg&target=tlx_picqfob
It ran from the apartment westward and down the alleys, back out to the main street.....so you think an abductor took this route? To the car park? Opposite the Tapas restaraunt? Why? As Angelo mentioned, this was exactly the route Gerry Mccann described his kids running around a day or so earlier, and going theuh the car patk was a shortcut to Madeleines nursery.
Theres an old thread on it somewhere.
I've always found it odd that people keep going on about theories that the McCanns don't even believe in themselves. They are continually going way beyond what's written in their book, and even disputing some of it.
All very curious >@@(*&)
-
You have seen the map havent you showing the identical dog trail on two separate days?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddietrail.jpg&target=tlx_picqfob
It ran from the apartment westward and down the alleys, back out to the main street.....so you think an abductor took this route? To the car park? Opposite the Tapas restaraunt? Why? As Angelo mentioned, this was exactly the route Gerry Mccann described his kids running around a day or so earlier, and going theuh the car patk was a shortcut to Madeleines nursery.
Theres an old thread on it somewhere.
I could have sworn that Angelo said that the scent would disappear in minutes. But now we have two days.
-
I've always found it odd that people keep going on about theories that the McCanns don't even believe in themselves. They are continually going way beyond what's written in their book, and even disputing some of it.
All very curious >@@(*&)
Lyall, unless every millimetre was examined in any place where something was supposed to be, or could have been, some will always just criticise the whole investigation, and as giu say, even contradict what the parents themselves have said to create myths.
-
You have seen the map havent you showing the identical dog trail on two separate days?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddietrail.jpg&target=tlx_picqfob
It ran from the apartment westward and down the alleys, back out to the main street.....so you think an abductor took this route? To the car park? Opposite the Tapas restaraunt? Why? As Angelo mentioned, this was exactly the route Gerry Mccann described his kids running around a day or so earlier, and going theuh the car patk was a shortcut to Madeleines nursery.
Theres an old thread on it somewhere.
So you never take Gerry for granted but this time you do?
If I was a policeman I wouldn't leave it like that.. The next day, hours after the disappearance I had dog)s) pointing me out at a route of the missing person, and it stopped at a certain place.. I would have it cordoned and comb checked and I am sure many of the inspectors in the UK would do the same..
-
So you never take Gerry for granted but this time you do?
If I was a policeman I wouldn't leave it like that.. The next day, hours after the disappearance I had dog)s) pointing me out at a route of the missing person, and it stopped at a certain place.. I would have it cordoned and comb checked and I am sure many of the inspectors in the UK would do the same..
Listen to what youre saying
Gerry described the exact same route his kids took as the dogs did,after Madeleines disappearance, because?...AND which would be a wierd route for any abductor to take....
8-)(--)
Oh hang on....
And yes, we get the message, the PJ were rubbish and the British would have solved it, end of story
Think Im done with you
-
Listen to what youre saying
Gerry described the exact same route his kids took as the dogs did,after Madeleines disappearance, because?...AND which would be a wierd route for any abductor to take....
8-)(--)
Oh hang on....
And yes, we get the message, the PJ were rubbish and the British would have solved it, end of story
Think Im done with you
Team McCann are not concerned with accuracy.
-
Listen to what youre saying
Gerry described the exact same route his kids took as the dogs did,after Madeleines disappearance, because?...AND which would be a wierd route for any abductor to take....
8-)(--)
Oh hang on....
And yes, we get the message, the PJ were rubbish and the British would have solved it, end of story
Think Im done with you
I thought this was a topic of whether the PJ have done a proper search of evidence..
And on my list this is one of the omissions...and it has always been.. since the day 2
-
That is your opinion but the dogs the day after the disappearance stopped in-next to that car park..IMO this is a big clue..
You don't make a theory and then fit the clues into a theory. You first look at a clue and then form a theory.
And you can't totally dismiss the dogs in one post then use them when it suits you to prove a point.
Your position is that the dogs are unreliable except when you choose to believe them.
See the flaw in this?
-
And you can't totally dismiss the dogs in one post then use them when it suits you to prove a point.
Your position is that the dogs are unreliable except when you choose to believe them.
See the flaw in this?
I don't choose to to believe them, they cannot talk.. The dogs are only pointers to evidence.. their findings needs to be investigated..and in this case it wasn't.
-
I don't choose to to believe them, they cannot talk.. The dogs are only pointers to evidence.. their findings needs to be investigated..and in this case it wasn't.
No, you have outright dismissed their "findings" and the results of the "investigation" into those findings which revealed Madeleine's DNA at the cadaver sites.
Make up your mind. They're either a reliable investigative tool or they're not.
-
No, you have outright dismissed their "findings" and the results of the "investigation" into those findings which revealed Madeleine's DNA at the cadaver sites.
Make up your mind. They're either a reliable investigative tool or they're not.
I have dismissed nothing. I am just trusting the police and my sane mind instead being lured off by the conspiracy theorists..
-
There are also a number of ‘more obvious’ suspects who already appear in the Portuguese files but who British police feel haven’t been ‘bottomed out’ properly and therefore warrant further investigation.
“There are a lot of people who could be explored further, if only to be eliminated,” said Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, head of Scotland Yard’s Homicide and Serious Crime Command.
But officers face having to tackle Portuguese resistance to re-opening the inquiry, after officials in Lisbon said they can reopen the case only if there is new evidence – although it has been claimed that the new leads could, if properly explored, result in new evidence and possibly solve the Madeleine mystery.
Detectives examining the Portuguese files were alarmed that the original inquiry had not traced and interviewed all the staff and holidaymakers who were at the Ocean Club when the three-year-old went missing.
Last year the Met said that it had identified 195 fresh leads that should have been investigated either by conducting further witness interviews, eliminating suspects or carrying out forensic tests that were missing from the 2007 inquiry.
Officers found unexplained gaps in the investigation timeline, with a complete lack of forensic examination of mobile phone activity in the area on the night Madeleine disappeared.
Mr Campbell said it was “perfectly probable” that information which could identify the suspect responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance was already in the Portuguese files, and reiterated a claim that she could still be alive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10066822/Police-hunt-six-British-cleaners-in-search-for-Madeleine-McCann.html
Here.. it is very clear from SY quote what was missing from the 2007th investigation
-
I could have sworn that Angelo said that the scent would disappear in minutes. But now we have two days.
He is spot on, a carried child simply leaves an airborne scent which disperses within minutes. A child walking will leave a scent which in certain circumstances will remain for several days unless it rains.
It is therefore to be expected that the GNR dogs scented Madeleine's trail as she walked to the kiddie club near the tapas bar with her siblings, to her own junior club above main reception and down to the central supermarket. Where the scent disappears she was obviously lifted and carried.
The dogs would not find any scent where she was carried by an abductor and especially so if it was a breezy night.
-
He is spot on, a carried child simply leaves an airborne scent which disperses within minutes. A child walking will leave a scent which in certain circumstances will remain for several days unless it rains.
It is therefore to be expected that the GNR dogs scented Madeleine's trail as she walked to the kiddie club near the tapas bar with her siblings, to her own junior club above main reception and down to the central supermarket. Where the scent disappears she was obviously lifted and carried.
The dogs would not find any scent where she was carried by an abductor and especially so if it was a breezy night.
Good post - there's nothing strange about the dogs following her usual route to the kids club where she passes through that G6 car park or to the supermarket. Gerry did say Kate and the kids went in the back patio entrance at 5.40 and only he the front way. Gerry did know about the dog tracking before he made that statement. Kate later said she went through the front way with Madeleine which corresponds with one of the dogs finding her trail at the entrance leading to the tapas bar. The McCann's don't miss a trick but ultimately mistakes occur.
-
Good post - there's nothing strange about the dogs following her usual route to the kids club where she passes through that G6 car park or to the supermarket. Gerry did say Kate and the kids went in the back patio entrance at 5.40 and only he the front way. Gerry did know about the dog tracking before he made that statement. Kate later said she went through the front way with Madeleine which corresponds with one of the dogs finding her trail at the entrance leading to the tapas bar. The McCann's don't miss a trick but ultimately mistakes occur.
I've noticed that. ?{)(**
There's always an explanation, often retrofitted into the narrative, to explain whatever situation the McCanns happen to find themselves in. Uncanny that.
-
He is spot on, a carried child simply leaves an airborne scent which disperses within minutes. A child walking will leave a scent which in certain circumstances will remain for several days unless it rains.
It is therefore to be expected that the GNR dogs scented Madeleine's trail as she walked to the kiddie club near the tapas bar with her siblings, to her own junior club above main reception and down to the central supermarket. Where the scent disappears she was obviously lifted and carried.
The dogs would not find any scent where she was carried by an abductor and especially so if it was a breezy night.
Do you suppose she met someone near the lamp post who carried her from there ?
Imo the dogs stopped (one crossed the street again) near the lamp post because there were scents around and he was trying to discriminate. The first dog (4 hours after the disappearance) lost interest at the end of the alley path.
I wonder from where you say that a carried person doesn't leave a trail. Only if the person is inside a bag, a plastic one, because one leaves a scent trail thanks to all body cells. The best is of course to be barefoot.
-
Do you suppose she met someone near the lamp post who carried her from there ?
Imo the dogs stopped (one crossed the street again) near the lamp post because there were scents around and he was trying to discriminate. The first dog (4 hours after the disappearance) lost interest at the end of the alley path.
I wonder from where you say that a carried person doesn't leave a trail. Only if the person is inside a bag, a plastic one, because one leaves a scent trail thanks to all body cells. The best is of course to be barefoot.
I thought a carried child does leave scent....
I still think if she was taken she went willingly outside with the pretence of looking for mummy and daddy...and then carried to a car...
-
Good post - there's nothing strange about the dogs following her usual route to the kids club where she passes through that G6 car park or to the supermarket. Gerry did say Kate and the kids went in the back patio entrance at 5.40 and only he the front way. Gerry did know about the dog tracking before he made that statement. Kate later said she went through the front way with Madeleine which corresponds with one of the dogs finding her trail at the entrance leading to the tapas bar. The McCann's don't miss a trick but ultimately mistakes occur.
No dog followed Madeleine's route through the public carpark (the G6's carpark is on the other side of the building) nor to the supermarket. The dogs followed the route that Mr McCann said Madeleine (and the twins) took two mornings before, along the paved corridor and around the G5. He said he found them in a patio's bushes, the corridor in fact leads to quite a large patio with bushes (private property). Instead of going back, they headed to the alley path through that patio's gate.
After the tea, on the 3rd of May, they entered home through the patio-door, according to Mr McCann, or through the main door with the key according to Mrs McCann who was carrying Madeleine.
It seems they never agreed about the door they used. ?{)(**
-
No dog followed Madeleine's route through the public carpark (the G6's carpark is on the other side of the building) nor to the supermarket. The dogs followed the route that Mr McCann said Madeleine (and the twins) took two mornings before, along the paved corridor and around the G5. He said he found them in a patio's bushes, the corridor in fact leads to quite a large patio with bushes (private property). Instead of going back, they headed to the alley path through that patio's gate.
After the tea, on the 3rd of May, they entered home through the patio-door, according to Mr McCann, or through the main door with the key according to Mrs McCann who was carrying Madeleine.
It seems they never agreed about the door they used. ?{)(**
Well if they were returning home Anne, Gerry would have had to in through the main door in order to open the Patio doors, so Gerry went to the front door, Kate to the Patio doors.
-
I thought a carried child does leave scent....
I still think if she was taken she went willingly outside with the pretence of looking for mummy and daddy...and then carried to a car...
I can imagine her leaving the flat through the (main) door, looking for Mum and Dad (the corridor has permanent lights), I can't imagine her crossing the dark carpark that scared Mrs Oldfield, but I can imagine her doing the route she had explored two mornings before. However the last patio is dark and so is the alley path, I can't imagine she would have gone further than that, unless being hunted.
-
No dog followed Madeleine's route through the public carpark (the G6's carpark is on the other side of the building) nor to the supermarket. The dogs followed the route that Mr McCann said Madeleine (and the twins) took two mornings before, along the paved corridor and around the G5. He said he found them in a patio's bushes, the corridor in fact leads to quite a large patio with bushes (private property). Instead of going back, they headed to the alley path through that patio's gate.
After the tea, on the 3rd of May, they entered home through the patio-door, according to Mr McCann, or through the main door with the key according to Mrs McCann who was carrying Madeleine.
It seems they never agreed about the door they used. ?{)(**
One dog crossed the road from the car park and went to the entrance that leads to the tapas bar and was sniffing there. It was locked so they never entered. This I think was Madeleine's 5.30-40 scent when leaving the tapas bar with Kate and going back to 5A. Probably path route IMO as Kate later said in her interview. It does bring into question whether Madeleine was in fact walking when leaving the tapas bar and not being carried. You would carry someone if you wanted to make out that they were dead tired - Kate's explanation for the routine change. Kate must have been tired herself after that run and still in her running gear. You would think she would want to shower straight away and get out of those sweaty clothes when returning to 5A? Any independent witnesses see her being carried?
-
Well if they were returning home Anne, Gerry would have had to in through the main door in order to open the Patio doors, so Gerry went to the front door, Kate to the Patio doors.
Logically, yes, moreover because Mrs McCann was carrying Madeleine. That's exactly what Mr McCann says he did (entering through the north door to open the south door for the rest of the family), but Mrs McCann says all the family entered through the north door with the key.
-
One dog crossed the road from the car park and went to the entrance that leads to the tapas bar and was sniffing there. It was locked so they never entered. This I think was Madeleine's 5.30-40 scent when leaving the tapas bar with Kate and going back to 5A.
Only one dog and the best for sure. This indicates the trail was weak. But the dogs don't go backwards, always from the oldest towards the freshest. Crossing from the public carpark towards the Tapas reception was the route from the creche at 17pm.
-
Only one dog and the best for sure. This indicates the trail was weak. But the dogs don't go backwards, always from the oldest towards the freshest. Crossing from the public carpark towards the Tapas reception was the route from the creche at 17pm.
Yes well that brings into question why they never started from the tapas bar - the start of the last known outdoor route Madeleine took back to 5A. I'm not sure how it works but if I came in the house through the front door and was found dead inside and they wanted to find my last outdoor route? How do they do it? Wouldn't they track my scent from the door and follow it backwards? They can't do that?
-
Any independent witnesses see her being carried?
No, the tiredness and carrying "occurred" in September and only Mrs McCann mentions it. It doesn't match the sending of Mr Payne to help Mrs McCann with the kids to the playground.
-
Yes well that brings into question why they never started from the tapas bar - the start of the last known outdoor route Madeleine took back to 5A. I'm not sure how it works but if I came in the house through the front door and was found dead inside and they wanted to find my last outdoor route? How do they do it? Wouldn't they track my scent from the door and follow it backwards? They can't do that?
What they could have done, if they had doubted the McCann narrative on time (remember they looked for an alive Madeleine), was launching the dog from the area where the kids had tea, leaving both doors of the reception open.
-
No, the tiredness and carrying "occurred" in September and only Mrs McCann mentions it. It doesn't match the sending of Mr Payne to help Mrs McCann with the kids to the playground.
Exactly and the interesting thing is DP said the kids were fine, didn't look tired - standing up when he was there. He even said he was astonished that Kate was getting them ready for bed after Gerry told him to help Kate bring them out. Very strange. But we could be here all day talking about the contradictions of Kate and DP in regards to that visit 8)-)))
-
Clearly, GNR dogs route wasn't fully investigated. In a case like this you cannot leave things to a chance and to orally explained solutions.. you have to have a scientific back up..
-
I thought a carried child does leave scent....
I still think if she was taken she went willingly outside with the pretence of looking for mummy and daddy...and then carried to a car...
Just think about it for a moment. Why do you think escapees being followed by bloodhounds (Cool hand Luke comes to mind) take to water? It's because airborne scent dissipates quickly whereas ground scent does not.
-
No dog followed Madeleine's route through the public carpark (the G6's carpark is on the other side of the building) nor to the supermarket. The dogs followed the route that Mr McCann said Madeleine (and the twins) took two mornings before, along the paved corridor and around the G5. He said he found them in a patio's bushes, the corridor in fact leads to quite a large patio with bushes (private property). Instead of going back, they headed to the alley path through that patio's gate.
After the tea, on the 3rd of May, they entered home through the patio-door, according to Mr McCann, or through the main door with the key according to Mrs McCann who was carrying Madeleine.
It seems they never agreed about the door they used. ?{)(**
The dogs followed her ground scent from the patio to the car park opposite mini reception where they stopped at a lamp post. As already stated she was probably carried after that. Sorry if this has already been stated.
The GNR scent dogs would only have found her had she scampered off on foot. They weren't brought in to follow an abductor carrying a child imo.
-
Exactly and the interesting thing is DP said the kids were fine, didn't look tired - standing up when he was there. He even said he was astonished that Kate was getting them ready for bed after Gerry told him to help Kate bring them out. Very strange. But we could be here all day talking about the contradictions of Kate and DP in regards to that visit 8)-)))
Oh yes, the celestial episode !
Actually I'm afraid too celestial in a way.
-
The dogs followed her ground scent from the patio to the car park opposite mini reception where they stopped at a lamp post. As already stated she was probably carried after that. Sorry if this has already been stated.
The GNR scent dogs would only have found her had she scampered off on foot. They weren't brought in to follow an abductor carrying a child imo.
No and no ! Sorry, Angelo... ?{)(**
-
Just think about it for a moment. Why do you think escapees being followed by bloodhounds (Cool hand Luke comes to mind) take to water? It's because airborne scent dissipates quickly whereas ground scent does not.
What about the shoes that normally someone has on ?
-
The dogs followed her ground scent from the patio to the car park opposite mini reception where they stopped at a lamp post. As already stated she was probably carried after that. Sorry if this has already been stated.
The GNR scent dogs would only have found her had she scampered off on foot. They weren't brought in to follow an abductor carrying a child imo.
IMO You cannot really guess.. this had to be investigated further..
-
We all leave a trail of dead skin cells everywhere we go.
Walking, or carried, makes no difference IMO.
A child walking, or a child carried, both leave similar intensity scent trail.
-
We all leave a trail of dead skin cells everywhere we go.
Walking, or carried, makes no difference IMO.
A child walking, or a child carried, both leave similar intensity scent trail.
Yes, walking barefoot is the best.
-
I was thinking about GNR dogs route last night while getting to sleep. I was wondering why Kate and Gerry never pushed this lead.. maybe because this could indicate Madeleine went out on her own and they never believed it?
Anyway, GNR did a very professional job here.. and PJ did not.. they did not trust Kate and Gerry's statements, so why trust this one?
-
Yes, walking barefoot is the best.
Weren't her sandals left behind and later worn by Amelie?
-
Weren't her sandals left behind and later worn by Amelie?
Yes, she never had any shoes when she disappeared.
-
The dogs followed her ground scent from the patio to the car park opposite mini reception where they stopped at a lamp post. As already stated she was probably carried after that. Sorry if this has already been stated.
The GNR scent dogs would only have found her had she scampered off on foot. They weren't brought in to follow an abductor carrying a child imo.
No and no ! Sorry, Angelo... ?{)(**
What do you mean no and no??
What I have stated is known fact. A carried child and especially one bundled up in someone's arms leaves no discernible trace on the ground. Such a scenario only generates 'airborne' scent which will blow away almost immediately on a windy night.
To repeat, the GNR were initially searching for a straying child, not an abducted one.
-
Weren't her sandals left behind and later worn by Amelie?
There was no checking of the clothes, which remained, which had gone. Someone asked about her shoes and was told they were there. But which shoes exactly ? It's like the pyjamas she had on, the short sleeves/pants or the long ones ?
She might have opened the door and gone a few steps in the paved corridor without shoes, but she wouldn't have shut the door nor gone very far barefoot.
-
No and no ! Sorry, Angelo... ?{)(**
What do you mean no and no??
What I have stated is known fact. A carried child and especially one bundled up in someone's arms leaves no discernible trace on the ground. Such a scenario only generates 'airborne' scent which will blow away almost immediately on a windy night.
To repeat, the GNR were initially searching for a straying child, not an abducted one.
The GNR would first and foremost have sent the dogs in to search for a child who might have strayed and even fallen down a manhole. We know this happened since the culverts and outfall drains were all checked the following day. They weren't searching for an abducted child. Such things never happened in Praia da Luz so it was the least likely scenario.
My own view on the search dogs is that they were excellent and did what was asked of them. They successfully found Madeleine's scent but that related merely to her goings and comings each day with her parents.
-
No and no ! Sorry, Angelo... ?{)(**
What do you mean no and no??
What I have stated is known fact. A carried child and especially one bundled up in someone's arms leaves no discernible trace on the ground. Such a scenario only generates 'airborne' scent which will blow away almost immediately on a windy night.
To repeat, the GNR were initially searching for a straying child, not an abducted one.
First no : the dogs didn't follow the trail "from the patio".
Second no : the VOCs that compose your scent signature fall from all you body on the ground. The fact you're walking doesn't change that, except it you're barefoot, the best for the dogs.
-
The GNR would first and foremost have sent the dogs in to search for a child who might have strayed and even fallen down a manhole. We know this happened since the culverts and outfall drains were all checked the following day. They weren't searching for an abducted child.
Those dogs were rescue ones, they're trained to pick up any human living scent. Time helps them (whereas time is fatal for trailer dogs), because of the intensity of scent produced by an immobilized person.
-
The interesting thing about the GNR dogs though is that no reference is made to the scent around the patio area. I wonder did the two dog handlers discount this area completely on the basis that Kate and the children used it regularly and as a consequence Madeleine's scent would be all over it? In reality, there wasn't much point in them searching an area where Madeleine was known to have been regularly. Were the two handlers working on the basis that she walked out the front door?
-
The interesting thing about the GNR dogs though is that no reference is made to the scent around the patio area. I wonder did the two dog handlers discount this area completely on the basis that Kate and the children used it regularly and as a consequence Madeleine's scent would be all over it? In reality, there wasn't much point in them searching an area where Madeleine was known to have been regularly. Were the two handlers working on the basis that she walked out the front door?
@22.50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
@22.50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
?? relevance WS?
-
Oh that godam awful interview where gerry when asked about blood and cadaver dogs deflects it and says well actually it was at OUR request they were brought in for a more thorough search! No, he asked for dogs on the night not the cadaver dog three mnths later, the brass neck of the man!
8-)(--)
-
Oh that godam awful interview where gerry when asked about blood and cadaver dogs deflects it and says well actually it was at OUR request they were brought in for a more thorough search! No, he asked for dogs on the night not the cadaver dog three mnths later, the brass neck of the man!
8-)(--)
Was it the British police who suggested bringing Martin Grime and his dogs in? I can't see the PJ suggesting it since they wouldn't have necessarily known about them.
-
?? relevance WS?
Were the two handlers working on the basis that she walked out the front door?
She couldn't get out the back so no need to search there.
"Well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."
-
Was it the British police who suggested bringing Martin Grime and his dogs in? I can't see the PJ suggesting it since they wouldn't have necessarily known about them.
It was Prof Harrison's suggestion concerning specifically Mr Grime. But the UK POs had told to their PT colleagues about the existence of cadaver dogs.
-
Were the two handlers working on the basis that she walked out the front door?
She couldn't get out the back so no need to search there.
"Well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."
Thanks WS. So what she is saying effectively is that Madeleine couldn't have got out the back (patio door) because of the gates? So the GNR were directed towards the front door?
Thus no scent was detected and more importantly, recorded, between the patio and the street because they never checked it?
-
Thanks WS. So what she is saying effectively is that Madeleine couldn't have got out the back (patio door) because of the gates? So the GNR were directed towards the front door?
Thus no scent was detected and more importantly, recorded, between the patio and the street because they never checked it?
According to her father, Madeleine had gone out twice through the south door on that day. In the morning to go to the creche and after lunch to go to the pool.
It might explain why Numi, who went inside of the flat, spent some time by the south door.
-
The interesting thing about the GNR dogs though is that no reference is made to the scent around the patio area. I wonder did the two dog handlers discount this area completely on the basis that Kate and the children used it regularly and as a consequence Madeleine's scent would be all over it? In reality, there wasn't much point in them searching an area where Madeleine was known to have been regularly. Were the two handlers working on the basis that she walked out the front door?
I would think the dogs found her freshest outdoor scent at the front door so they started from there and not the patio door which indicates to me that Madeleine came in the front way at 5.40 and not the patio way as Gerry claimed - Kate later contradicted him. I don't know if very small kids would be using those dangerous steep steps much at all. Maybe Gerry is playing more games with the dogs but one thing is clear from the book is that they were initially more nervous about the dogs evidence than anything else. But instead of inquiring more about it in regards to their missing daughter they ridiculed the dogs which says a lot.
@22.50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
24:40 Gerry loves banging on about I can't/couldn't talk about the details because of secrecy laws when he's rattled.
26:50 Gerry is moving, he's not comfortable about the dogs. And Yes it was very suspicious to clean CC.
-
I would think the dogs found her freshest outdoor scent at the front door so they started from there and not the patio door which indicates to me that Madeleine came in the front way at 5.40 and not the patio way as Gerry claimed - Kate later contradicted him. I don't know if very small kids would be using them dangerous steep steps much at all. Maybe Gerry is playing more games with the dogs but one thing is clear from the book is that they were initially more nervous about the dogs evidence than anything else. But instead of inquiring more about it in regards to their missing daughter they ridiculed the dogs which says a lot.
24:40 Gerry loves banging on about I can't/couldn't talk about the details because of secrecy laws when he's rattled.
26:50 Gerry is moving, he's not comfortable about the dogs. And Yes it was very suspicious to clean CC.
24:40 Gerry loves banging on about I can't/couldn't talk about the details because of secrecy laws when he's rattled.
He had that irritating itch behind the ear again.
-
Thanks WS. So what she is saying effectively is that Madeleine couldn't have got out the back (patio door) because of the gates? So the GNR were directed towards the front door?
Thus no scent was detected and more importantly, recorded, between the patio and the street because they never checked it?
Ironically although they may have been directed to the front door , they were still being lead up the garden path.
-
Oh that godam awful interview where gerry when asked about blood and cadaver dogs deflects it and says well actually it was at OUR request they were brought in for a more thorough search! No, he asked for dogs on the night not the cadaver dog three mnths later, the brass neck of the man!
8-)(--)
This is not true. They asked for British search dogs in July but PJ would not allow it.. there was a petition they organised, many people signed and the Cadaver dogs arrival was a result of this
-
Ironically although they may have been directed to the front door , they were still being lead up the garden path.
I thought they went straight out through the main-front doors.. they did not got towards the patio but towards the front door.. I have seen this in files..
-
According to her father, Madeleine had gone out twice through the south door on that day. In the morning to go to the creche and after lunch to go to the pool.
It might explain why Numi, who went inside of the flat, spent some time by the south door.
The south door Anne...which one's that?
-
I would think the dogs found her freshest outdoor scent at the front door so they started from there and not the patio door which indicates to me that Madeleine came in the front way at 5.40 and not the patio way as Gerry claimed - Kate later contradicted him.
No, Pathfinder, only Numi was admitted inside of the flat (I guess the forensics prohibited Rex' entry on the 4th). Numi went close to the south door (lots of dog hairs were found there), but it was closed. Another, likely oldest but well preserved thanks to the walls, scent was picked up at the north door, and followed.
Rex started from the corridor the central hall, he found a trail up to the 5A and there picked up another one which made him turn up and follow Numi's route.
-
Posters don't want to admit that there are errors in the translation and then posts this...
According to her father, Madeleine had gone out twice through the south door on that day. In the morning to go to the creche and after lunch to go to the pool.
It might explain why Numi, who went inside of the flat, spent some time by the south door.
Are we really to believe that Gerry referred to the "south" door...this PROVES there are errors in the translations...particularly re the dooors
-
Pedro Miguel Esteves Fernandes: • That after the dogs were given this scent from the towel and near apartment 5A of block 5, the first sniffer dog headed to the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he turned to block 5, using a circumvented route to block 5, and came to the road between this block and the leisure area of the resort (pools, restaurant, etc), and turned to the left, or around the referred to apartment and headed to the main road. Having reached there, he crossed the road and next to a wall of block 6, crossed the road again, turned right and headed to the parking zone of the resort. More specifically, the dog went next to the light post and began smelling that location. After searching that zone, he again crossed the road and headed toward the entrance to the pool and restaurant area, and smelled the door which was closed at that hour. He turned again to the parking zone and stopped or lost the scent at this point.
• When he effected the same operation with the second dog, in general, this dog took the same route and headed to the light post and showed interest there and ended by losing the scent at this point. It should be stated that the one difference is that this second dog did not head toward the entrance to the restaurant and pool zone. But he does state that the dogs followed a 'scent trail', a signal for the animal who was working. He is certain that they were not conditioned in any direction.
• None of the dogs used in this search action, after having smelled the towel, went into block 5 but headed to the zone which gives access to the road between the apartment and the leisure area. He states it should be noted that the second dog may have been conditioned by the original path taken by the first sniffer dog as he may have smelled the first dog's path taken.
• Taking into account the aforementioned result, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing minor passed that location, on the day of the events or before that date. This situation can be explained by the configuration/layout of the area. That space is reduced and flanked by walls. This helps to conserve scents that may otherwise be affected by winds, etc. He would like to clarify that these sniffer dogs are more used to effecting this type of work in rural settings where there is not such a great concentration of odours.
• Yesterday (08/05/07) around 23h45, this search action was repeated but was centred on the dogs inside blocks 5 and 4 of the resort. He adds that in this type of operation, given the time that had lapsed, and with the heat that could already be felt, the results obtained may be highly relative given that the dog will confirm all the scents it comes across. It is certain the dog will react to more active scents, namely because the apartment is occupied. Also, any noise perceived by the dog in the apartment may make the dog loose interest.
• Initiating the diligence, the first sniffer dog, after having smelled the towel used in the previous operation, began searching, it being certain that next to the doors of some apartment he demonstrated major interest whilst he did not even approach others. In none of these actions did the dog give him a signal that he had caught the scent of the missing child. It is certain however, that near apartment 5J, 5H and 4G, that the dog showed major interest in smelling the doors and the immediate areas. He states that next to 5H, there were two bags of rubbish which may condition the dog. Just outside apartment 4G was a tray with plates, cutlery and cloth napkins, apparently used. It is certain that this apartment is the one where the missing child's parents were lodged (at the time). In relation to the dog's interest at doorway 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people inside the apartment.
• After completing the search in the interior of block 5, verandas and apartment access, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route he had taken on 04/05/07, being the road between that apartment and the leisure area - pool sand restaurant, and headed toward the same parking area. There he lost the scent of the search. This situation may be explained by the fact that the biggest concentration of odours in that location have been preserved and protected from the winds due to the adjoining walls. When this dog got to the main road, he turned right where a large dispersion of odours existed. Here the dog lost the scent.
• The second dog was submitted to the same operation. He too showed interest in the door of apartment 5J. Here he got up on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head in such a way as to catch the odour. As mentioned previously, this interest may be due to various factors but it is certain that at this location the dog scented an intense odour. In the exterior, the sniffer-dog immediately took the first road, heading toward the parking area next to block 6, and there lost the scent.
• He clarifies that a search in a rural area, where a scent is much more intense is immediately noted by the sniffer dog but in an urban area, the great concentration of external odours make it possible to confuse the dog, This makes searching difficult as does the time passed between the event and the search.
• When questioned, he states that in relation to an action of this nature, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the dogs, even though he is well aware what these dogs are capable of. The conditions that surrounded this search made the degree of uncertainty that much greater. The dogs may have signified or confirmed intense odours in that zone, however, they may have also merely have given a confirmation of a scent. They did not demonstrate that they had detected the odour in question.
-
Thus no scent was detected and more importantly, recorded, between the patio and the street because they never checked it?
You have to realise that the south door isn't a door (in Portuguese a door-window) since you can't open it from both sides. The mechanism to open it isn't as simple as pulling the latch of the door lock.
-
Is it possible that these dogs were following Kate's scent? Didn't she mention somewhere that on the night of the disappearance she went out around the pool and to the main road next to the reception?
Edit:
In her book, Kate says - after the PJ left saying they will be back at 9am in the morning: I walked briskly up and down Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, sometimes breaking into a jog, clinging to the hope I'd spot something in the dark.'
So, this road where the dogs stopped, is this the same road?
And it was Kate who touched Madeleine's blanket, giving it to the GNR officers..
-
One thing I've just seen in Kate's book that I don't remember ever seeing before:
"4 May
A lady from an apartment across Rua Dr Gentil Martins, overlooking our little side gate, came over to speak to us. She said that the previous night she had seen a car going up the Rocha Negra - the black, volcanic cliff that dominates the village. There was a track leading to Rocha Negra, but nobody noticed any vehicle that far up in the day time, let alone in night..... I went to tell one of the police officers who was able to speak a little English. He was quite dissmissive. It would have been one of GNR men checking the area, he said."
-
I am repeating this.. I am terrible in map reading - just wanted to know if this is the same road where the GNR dogs stopped?
In her book, Kate says - after the PJ left saying they will be back at 9am in the morning: I walked briskly up and down Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, sometimes breaking into a jog, clinging to the hope I'd spot something in the dark.'
-
I am repeating this.. I am terrible in map reading - just wanted to know if this is the same road where the GNR dogs stopped?
In her book, Kate says - after the PJ left saying they will be back at 9am in the morning: I walked briskly up and down Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, sometimes breaking into a jog, clinging to the hope I'd spot something in the dark.'
Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva runs along the north side of blocks 5 and 4.
The GNR dogs did not track to that road.
-
Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva runs along the north side of blocks 5 and 4.
The GNR dogs did not track to that road.
Thank you so much!