UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on March 17, 2014, 10:13:40 AM
-
Portuguese investigators attempted to organise a reconstruction (reconstitution) of events which occurred on 3rd May 2007 but were thwarted in their efforts prior to abandoning the initiative.
The issue was referred to by the Appeal Court which deliberated the Amaral book ban.
This statement by the appellate court is worth repeating...
In possession of that new data, and crossing it with the data that had been collected before, the Portuguese authorities - the Public Ministry and the Judiciary Police - tried to perform a reconstitution of the facts, they did and tried everything, but due to the lack of availability of the McCann couple and their friends, who did not show up, said diligence could not be performed and those facts still remain to be clarified.
Concerning that matter, it is written in the final dispatch that "(…) despite the fact that the national authorities took all measures to render their travelling to Portugal possible, due to motives that are unknown, after the many doubts that they raised concerning the need and the opportunity of their travelling were clarified several times, they chose not to show up, which rendered the diligence impossible to perform.
We believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (…)".
-
This statement by the appellate court is worth repeating...
In possession of that new data, and crossing it with the data that had been collected before, the Portuguese authorities - the Public Ministry and the Judiciary Police - tried to perform a reconstitution of the facts, they did and tried everything, but due to the lack of availability of the McCann couple and their friends, who did not show up, said diligence could not be performed and those facts still remain to be clarified.
Concerning that matter, it is written in the final dispatch that "(…) despite the fact that the national authorities took all measures to render their travelling to Portugal possible, due to motives that are unknown, after the many doubts that they raised concerning the need and the opportunity of their travelling were clarified several times, they chose not to show up, which rendered the diligence impossible to perform.
We believe that the main damaged party were the McCann arguidos, who missed the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also hindered, because said facts remain unclear (…)".
The McCann Couple never refused to go to Portugal for a reconstitution.
Was it mentioned that Amaral refused to do a reconstitution at the beginning, for reasons that didn't appear to exist at the later date?
-
The McCann Couple never refused to go to Portugal for a reconstitution.
Was it mentioned that Amaral refused to do a reconstitution at the beginning, for reasons that didn't appear to exist at the later date?
Apensos IX Vol I
Page 139
Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS
Dear Sir
Public prosecutor
Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.
Rogério Alves
Lawyer
(Sent by email)
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic24-30.html
-
Apensos IX Vol I
Page 139
Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS
Dear Sir
Public prosecutor
Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.
Rogério Alves
Lawyer
(Sent by email)
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic24-30.html
Well done anna. You always come up with the goods.
Some good points above 8((()*/
-
...or more importantly, the witnesses who refused to take part.
Table of Contents : Processo Vol 16..(PDF page 223)...Page 4354—"Email from Rebelo to Prior re: Prosecutor Decision"
Vol 16 Page 4354 (Page 1 of 1)
Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo.
Date : 27th May 2008 10.25 a.m.
To : "Prior Stuart"
Subject : Re-enactment cancelation
(( Inserted here is an attachment labelled : Anulação da reconstitutiçã0.doc....))
Dear Stuart :
As agreed, here I send the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment cancelation. In a few words, it says that due the absence of the wittnesses Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner, there are no conditions to perform the diligence.
I kindly request you to urgently transmit this decision to each one of the witnesses (Matthew, Rachael, Russell, Jane, Dianne, David, Fiona and Jeremy).
Thank you, again, for your cooperation.
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC
-
...or more importantly, the witnesses who refused to take part.
Table of Contents : Processo Vol 16..(PDF page 223)...Page 4354—"Email from Rebelo to Prior re: Prosecutor Decision"
Vol 16 Page 4354 (Page 1 of 1)
Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo.
Date : 27th May 2008 10.25 a.m.
To : "Prior Stuart"
Subject : Re-enactment cancelation
(( Inserted here is an attachment labelled : Anulação da reconstitutiçã0.doc....))
Dear Stuart :
As agreed, here I send the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment cancelation. In a few words, it says that due the absence of the wittnesses Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner, there are no conditions to perform the diligence.
I kindly request you to urgently transmit this decision to each one of the witnesses (Matthew, Rachael, Russell, Jane, Dianne, David, Fiona and Jeremy).
Thank you, again, for your cooperation.
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC
And why for at least them
Thanks to MCXLIII for typing up the following posts:
[Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P106 ]
Vol XVI p. 4237
xx xxxxxx xxxx
Exeter
Devon
xxx xxx
23rd April 2008
Re: Re-enactment of Events of 3/5/2008
Dear Stuart, Many thanks for your email, and for forwarding the reply from Senhor Rebelo. Also, thanks to you and your colleagues for arranging the re-interviews.
It is somewhat reassuring to see in writing from the PJ that there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." However, we heard something similar in the weeks before Kate and Gerry were made arguidos! Additionally, the thrust of the PJ's closed questions during the re-interviews seemed only to focus on Kate and Gerry's culpability, suspicion about our written timeline or who involved the media.
After a year of lies, accusations and intrusion, I am sure that the Mr Rebelo can appreciate our complete revulsion at what Kate and Gerry have been forced to endure. Furthermore, we cannot help but feel that the re-interviews and re-enactment are all too little and far too late.
However, the last thing we would ever want is a standoff between us and the PJ, something that would only delight and benefit the press. Kate and Gerry desperately need the cloud of suspicion over them to be emphatically lifted, and the PJ need to complete their investigation. We also appreciate the legal obstacles to removing Kate and Gerry's arguido status, but would request that prior to us agreeing to the re-enactment the PJ:
• publicly dispels the damaging and disturbing lies churned out by the Portuguese press regarding alleged changes to statements, re-interviews or alleged lack of co-operation.
• publicly states there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." This in no way compromises judicial secrecy.
This in no way compromises judicial secrecy. But without some official intervention on their part, a return for the re-enactment seems little more than a perfect opportunity for the press to speculate and libel us all once again.
We are very keen to help an investigation aiming to establish what's happened to Madeleine, but have no desire to assist one that seeks only to d**n our innocent friends. By actively restoring the focus on Madeleine and robustly dispelling the countless speculation, the PJ can expect our continued co- operation.
Yours sincerely,
Russell O'Brien & Jane Tanner
PS: We certainly do not request any specific reimbursement for travel or accommodation.
-
Interesting...witnesses dictating the terms whereby investigators may conduct a criminal investigation. Would a witness in the UK get away with such arrogance?
The Portuguese should have demanded they be brought back, in shackles if necessary.
Remind me...who obstructed the search for Madeleine?
-
Interesting...witnesses dictating the terms whereby investigators may conduct a criminal investigation. Would a witness in the UK get away with such arrogance?
The Portuguese should have demanded they be brought back, in shackles if necessary.
Remind me...who obstructed the search for Madeleine?
A witness in the UK would never be invited to take part in a reconstruction intended to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.
That is why the Portuguese term (more accurately describing its intended purpose) is reconstitution rather than reconstruction.
That is, an attempt to replicate, as accurately as possible, a sequence of events that actually happened earlier.
Certainly, to a standard that ought to be required for determining guilt or innocence, that is mission impossible, even with the best will in the world.
-
Interesting...witnesses dictating the terms whereby investigators may conduct a criminal investigation. Would a witness in the UK get away with such arrogance?
The Portuguese should have demanded they be brought back, in shackles if necessary.
Remind me...who obstructed the search for Madeleine?
If it happened in UK ,Yes you are correct John, they would probably have been forced to take part, but the Portuguese authorities have no Authority in the UK.
However if this was a Portuguese citizen, it would all have been a very different ball game and the McCanns would be in prison by now despite the evidence being non existent .
I would like to add that the term “McCann supporters” on here, is offensive, since I do not particularly like the McCanns, but Maddie was a child and she deserves Justice.
I am simply checking out the facts associated with Maddie’s disappearance and trying (as most rational human beings would) to determine all the possibilities of what could have happened.
The way I see it , this is a forum meant for people to debate and investigate any possibilities that could be associated with the crime (in a civilised, adult manner) and not as some seem to assume, for achieving popularity with any particular persons.
-
One judges people by their deeds not their words. Whatever anyone may or may not have said T9 were a "no show" for the reconstitution that Sr. Rebelo wanted.
It's a bit like Mitchell "Kate and Gerry are prepared to take a polygraph test at anytime; but it is inadmissible in court so they will not bother" paraphrased of course.
-
Interesting...witnesses dictating the terms whereby investigators may conduct a criminal investigation. Would a witness in the UK get away with such arrogance?
The Portuguese should have demanded they be brought back, in shackles if necessary.
Remind me...who obstructed the search for Madeleine?
Not legally possible to force them to return. None of them were Arguidos. And The PJ would have been laughed out of court if they had attempted to make them so at that late stage.
-
Not legally possible to force them to return. None of them were Arguidos. And The PJ would have been laughed out of court if they had attempted to make them so at that late stage.
Mr Redwood now has legal authority to interview any persons in the UK he wishes.
-
Mr Redwood now has legal authority to interview any persons in the UK he wishes.
Of course he does. I expect he already has. Has he arrested anyone yet?
-
Of course he does. I expect he already has. Has he arrested anyone yet?
I suspect that is not on the cards for anyone.
-
I suspect that is not on the cards for anyone.
He certainly isn't going backwards and forwards to PdL to question or arrest the tapas friends. There is likely someone in Portugal that he is interested in. Could be Portuguese. Could be British. Could be anything actually.
-
Of course he does. I expect he already has. Has he arrested anyone yet?
Agreed it seems likely IMO he will have already interviewed seperately all nine.
-
Mr Redwood now has legal authority to interview any persons in the UK he wishes.
I forgot to go back and add to my post. This wasn't a lost camera or a watch we are talking about but the life of a 4-year-old child in 2008. I find the attitude of the four who wouldn't go back quite despicable. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for putting preconditions in the way of a child's life.
-
I forgot to go back and add to my post. This wasn't a lost camera or a watch we are talking about but the life of a 4-year-old child in 2008. I find the attitude of the four who wouldn't go back quite despicable. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for putting preconditions in the way of a child's life.
A year later? One might ask oneself why Amaral refused to hold a reconstruction in the beginning when it was still fresh in people's minds.
-
A year later? One might ask oneself why Amaral refused to hold a reconstruction in the beginning when it was still fresh in people's minds.
But it is easy to prove that the witnesses in Spring 2008 still had detailed memory of that evening.
-
A year later? One might ask oneself why Amaral refused to hold a reconstruction in the beginning when it was still fresh in people's minds.
I still have no idea how a reconstruction could be carried out. Apart from Gerry's 9.05 time, all the times given by the other 8 people were approximate. Jez Wilkins said he was with Gerry for 3 to 5 minutes - so which timeline would they use? Normally a few minutes adrift would not make any difference in a reconstruction, but in this particular case accuracy of timing was essential - and that is the one thing they couldn't guarantee - especially after 12 months.
-
... They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for putting preconditions in the way of a child's life.
I hope someone addresses this
-
Far better than reconstruction would be careful reinterviews IMO.
When you searched apartment did you look behind this bit of furniture?
Which of these till records are yours?
Where did so and so go after this?
(Basically filling in missing details)
-
Far better than reconstruction would be careful reinterviews IMO.
When you searched apartment did you look behind this bit of furniture?
Which of these till records are yours?
Where did so and so go after this?
(Basically filling in missing details)
Absolutely agree pegasus
So many obvious questions that appear to have never been asked
One of those questions, I have always felt, should have been put to Gerry McCann
"When you went into the apartment and saw, immediately, that the children's bedroom door was open wider than you had left it half an hour before ( knowing that no-one else had been there in the meanwhile ) why did you go back to the tapas bar without having an explanation for it ?"
-
Far better than reconstruction would be careful reinterviews IMO.
When you searched apartment did you look behind this bit of furniture?
Which of these till records are yours?
Where did so and so go after this?
(Basically filling in missing details)
Impossible questions to answer. Like what till receipts? which so and so? How many pieces of furniture? The questions would be endless and achieve what exactly?
-
Absolutely agree pegasus
So many obvious questions that appear to have never been asked
One of those questions, I have always felt, should have been put to Gerry McCann
"When you went into the apartment and saw, immediately, that the children's bedroom door was open wider than you had left it half an hour before ( knowing that no-one else had been there in the meanwhile ) why did you go back to the tapas bar without having an explanation for it ?"
What explanation? Madeleine was there and all was well. It's a hindsight observation.
-
Impossible questions to answer. Like what till receipts? which so and so? How many pieces of furniture? The questions would be endless and achieve what exactly?
I gave just a few example questions of hundreds which would fill missing details of 2007/8 statements.
The till records question would be to irish witnesses it would accuratly time their sighting
-
I gave just a few example questions of hundreds which would fill missing details of 2007/8 statements.
The till records question would be to irish witnesses it would accuratly time their sighting
There is a till receipt for The Smiths, but there seems to be some doubt about it. I have no idea when The PJ obtained that.
-
What explanation? Madeleine was there and all was well. It's a hindsight observation.
No Eleanor, that doesn't work
Gerry goes into the apartment and sees, immediately, that the children's bedroom door is open wider than he left it half an hour before ( and he knows that no-one else has been there in the meanwhile )
So concerned is Gerry about the open bedroom door that he does not even look into the room ... he immediately assumes that Madeleien must have woken up and gone into his and Kate's bedroom
And that's where he looks first
Having found that the explanation for the open bedroom door was NOT that Madeleine had woken and gone into their room Gerry does what anyone might have been expected to do in the first place, and looks in the children's room
There was Madeleiene, safe and sound ... and beautiful ... he says
So what happened then ?
He forgot about that open bedroom door ?
It didn't matter anymore ?
The fact that there was now no explanation for it ( Madeleine having not gotten out of bed ) did not alarm him ?
He just had a pee and went back to the tapas bar without another thought ?
-
What explanation? Madeleine was there and all was well. It's a hindsight observation.
It is obvious door angle would change when child goes to bathroom.
Why on earth should door angle changes indicate any intruder whatsoever?
-
I think that it probably wouldn't matter any more if all was well.
I deal with holiday property which is often empty, and sometimes I feel that someone has been in a house between my visits, mainly because something is not where I expect it to be. But as long as nothing is missing and nothing is damaged then I don't lose sleep over it, although I do put checks in place these days. But I didn't in the beginning. I just put it down to my imagination.
-
It is obvious door angle would change when child goes to bathroom.
Why on earth should door angle changes indicate any intruder whatsoever?
But pegasus, Gerry was alerted to the open bedroom door ... immediately so ... he said so himself !
He sought an explanation for it by going into his and Kate's bedroom before going into the children's room ( on the assumption that Madeleine had woken up and gone in there )
When he found that was NOT the explanation for the open bedroom door ... he just 'let it go' ... no thought of, " Well hang on, if Madeleine didn't wake up and go into our room, why the hell is this door open ? "
... could it be an intruder ? ... a burglar ? ... they'd left the patio doors unlocked afterall
Nope
None of that crossed Gerry's mind
He just had a pee and went back to the tapas bar
It makes no sense
-
Why assume it was an intruder who altered the door angle when there is a millionfold more likely explanation?
For example child gets up walks to bathroom and walks backs to bed. That changes the door angle.
Or a child gets up and walks to lounge or other bedroom. That changes the door angle.
I see no evidence whatsoever that any intruder got as far as actually entering the apartment.
-
But pegasus, Gerry was alerted to the open bedroom door ... immediately so ... he said so himself !
He sought an explanation for it by going into his and Kate's bedroom before going into the children's room ( on the assumption that Madeleine had woken up and gone in there )
When he found that was NOT the explanation for the open bedroom door ... he just 'let it go' ... no thought of, " Well hang on, if Madeleine didn't wake up and go into our room, why the hell is this door open ? "
... could it be an intruder ? ... a burglar ? ... they'd left the patio doors unlocked afterall
Nope
None of that crossed Gerry's mind
He just had a pee and went back to the tapas bar
It makes no sense
It makes sense to me. But then I don't assume the worst. And no one told them that there were burglaries going on, or that children were being interfered with.
-
But pegasus, Gerry was alerted to the open bedroom door ... immediately so ... he said so himself !
He sought an explanation for it by going into his and Kate's bedroom before going into the children's room ( on the assumption that Madeleine had woken up and gone in there )
When he found that was NOT the explanation for the open bedroom door ... he just 'let it go' ... no thought of, " Well hang on, if Madeleine didn't wake up and go into our room, why the hell is this door open ? "
... could it be an intruder ? ... a burglar ? ... they'd left the patio doors unlocked afterall
Nope
None of that crossed Gerry's mind
He just had a pee and went back to the tapas bar
It makes no sense
It makes no sense to you..it makes sense to others
-
It makes sense to me. But then I don't assume the worst. And no one told them that there were burglaries going on, or that children were being interfered with.
What has this to do with the thread title
The tapas-9 members who refused to take part in a reconstruction in PdL.
Can you provide links other than to the gutter press to substantiate your statement.
-
What has this to do with the thread title
The tapas-9 members who refused to take part in a reconstruction in PdL.
Can you provide links other than to the gutter press to substantiate your statement.
As you have already quoted Russell you will understand that your request for Eleanor to prove a negative is a very poor argument
-
the Tapas group had already seen the McCanns made arguidos on trumped up evidence...is it not surprising that they did not want to co operate with such a corrupt force which was investigating the disappearance
-
As you have already quoted Russell you will understand that your request for Eleanor to prove a negative is a very poor argument
I was asking Eleanor not you!
By inference you accept his/her comments are relevant to the thread.
-
I was asking Eleanor not you!
By inference you accept his/her comments are relevant to the thread.
We all have the right to reply...Eleanors post was in direct response to one by icad and therefore perfectly valid
-
As you have already quoted Russell you will understand that your request for Eleanor to prove a negative is a very poor argument
Please explain why? Or are you one of those who subscribe to theory "you cannot prove a negative" without analysing it thoroughly?
-
the Tapas group had already seen the McCanns made arguidos on trumped up evidence...is it not surprising that they did not want to co operate with such a corrupt force which was investigating the disappearance
If Kate and Gerry were prepared to cooperate with a new investigation team and take part in a 'reconstitution' then the dissenters had no excuse.
-
If Kate and Gerry were prepared to cooperate with a new investigation team and take part in a 'reconstitution' then the dissenters had no excuse.
I wonder if the Mccanns asked their friends to take part? It would seem strange if they didn't discuss it with them at all....
-
I wonder if the Mccanns asked their friends to take part? It would seem strange if they didn't discuss it with them at all....
Without a doubt...remember too that Jane Tanner did go back and take part in a TV programme with Gerry, Matthew and Dave Edgar.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x3fwyq_CGNk/Ul_raODsoUI/AAAAAAAAG6M/gQ38wokH7Fk/s1600/Edgar.jpg)
-
Without a doubt...remember too that Jane Tanner did go back and take part in a TV programme with Gerry, Matthew and Dave Edgar.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-x3fwyq_CGNk/Ul_raODsoUI/AAAAAAAAG6M/gQ38wokH7Fk/s1600/Edgar.jpg)
Yes, made with their overseeing of events.
i.e. Not independent.
-
This lot is worth another read if anyone is any doubt about how T7 bent over backwards to cooperate with law enforcement agencies........ he said sarcastically
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id279.html
-
This would appear to be the 'straw which broke the camel's back'!
Email to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo
29th April 2008
Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P111 ]
Vol XVI p. 4241
From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 29th April 2008 12.39 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions
Dear Stuart,
In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Polícia Judiciária, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.
In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.
Following the messages sent by the witnesses, I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses to have been properly answered.
Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, could the witnesses inform you, by noon tomorrow, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.
Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation.
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC
-
This would appear to be the 'straw which broke the camel's back'!
Email to Stuart Prior from Paulo Rebelo
29th April 2008
Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P111 ]
Vol XVI p. 4241
From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 29th April 2008 12.39 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions
Dear Stuart,
In Portugal, the criminal investigation is conducted by the Polícia Judiciária, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any criminal inquiry acts lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.
In fact, according to Portuguese law (article 132, section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a witness summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the authorities so that any action mentioned in the summons may take place.
Following the messages sent by the witnesses, I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses to have been properly answered.
Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, could the witnesses inform you, by noon tomorrow, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.
Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation.
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC
All the more reason for Team GA to have organised it when the protagonists that they were interested in were still in the country - early May 2007.
-
I think some of them left almost immediately, so they might not all have been there, even fairly early on.
-
I think some of them left almost immediately, so they might not all have been there, even fairly early on.
But the very few that weren't still there would have gone back at that stage, including Jeremy Wilkins. Have I got his name right? The one who stopped to talk to Gerry. He also was unable to return at the later date.
-
I think some of them left almost immediately, so they might not all have been there, even fairly early on.
Could you confirm when T7 left?
-
To be fair, by the time the 2008 reconstruction was requested, one of the T7 had seen her veracity doubted re seeing a carrier (incorrectly doubted IMO for she genuinly saw an innocent carrier) also 3 others of the T7 had seen their veracities doubted re person they saw during early search (incorrectly doubted IMO because they genuinely saw a different person but of similar appearance and bilinguality).
-
Could you confirm when T7 left?
No. I know that the Paynes stayed on for a week or two, but unsure about the others. However they did all have their own lives to get on with and the MCCanns were surrounded by family almost immediately, so I can't imagine the Tapas group stayed around for long. After all, some of them barely knew the McCanns.
-
No. I know that the Paynes stayed on for a week or two, but unsure about the others. However they did all have their own lives to get on with and the MCCanns were surrounded by family almost immediately, so I can't imagine the Tapas group stayed around for long. After all, some of them barely knew the McCanns.
Then who left "almost immediately", as per your previous post, and what do you mean by that (as in when they left, compared to who else)?
-
Then who left "almost immediately", as per your previous post, and what do you mean by that (as in when they left, compared to who else)?
No doubt Diane left and I think possibly also the Oldfields.
If you are able to demonstrate otherwise, I'm more than happy to go along with that.
-
Oh Good. I'm glad we have sorted that one out. It is highly unlikely that The Tapas Seven were involved.
As to The McCanns being able to accomplish this alone, and without even the passing knowledge of their companions, this is also highly unlikely.
-
Oh Good. I'm glad we have sorted that one out. It is highly unlikely that The Tapas Seven were involved.
As to The McCanns being able to accomplish this alone, and without even the passing knowledge of their companions, this is also highly unlikely.
It is most unlikely that all of them could have been involved.
-
Oh Good. I'm glad we have sorted that one out. It is highly unlikely that The Tapas Seven were involved.
As to The McCanns being able to accomplish this alone, and without even the passing knowledge of their companions, this is also highly unlikely.
There is a fundamental flaw in your logic. Can you spot it?
-
There is a fundamental flaw in your logic. Can you spot it?
No. Do tell.
-
There is a fundamental flaw in your logic. Can you spot it?
Perhaps if you point it out we may all see that the flaw in logic is with you.
-
Perhaps if you point it out we may all see that the flaw in logic is with you.
Hardly old stick I am far too bright for you @)(++(*
-
Oh Good. I'm glad we have sorted that one out. It is highly unlikely that The Tapas Seven were involved.
As to The McCanns being able to accomplish this alone, and without even the passing knowledge of their companions, this is also highly unlikely.
But it is only you who have suggested the McCanns' friends would have to have been involved
What do you base that judgement on ?
In what way, exactly, would a lack of involvement by the all their friends have made it impossible for the McCanns, themselves, to have been involved in their child's disappearance ?
-
But it is only you who have suggested the McCanns' friends would have to have been involved
What do you base that judgement on ?
In what way, exactly, would a lack of involvement by the all their friends have made it impossible for the McCanns, themselves, to have been involved in their child's disappearance ?
Oh. Sorry. I thought you thought they were. My mistake. En y Var.
-
Hardly old stick I am far too bright for you @)(++(*
do you have the cojones to put that to the test...post the flaw in logic
-
do you have the cojones to put that to the test...post the flaw in logic
Do you mean Bollox? Sorry, sorry.
-
Do you mean Bollox? Sorry, sorry.
Of course
-
No doubt Diane left and I think possibly also the Oldfields.
If you are able to demonstrate otherwise, I'm more than happy to go along with that.
I don't know when Diane Left. The Oldfields were still present for their interviews on 10/11 May.
-
I don't know when Diane Left. The Oldfields were still present for their interviews on 10/11 May.
Don't know if this will help
Mouth swabs from Healey, Mc’cann, oldfield, O’brian, Mamphly, Tanner, Payne and Webster taken on 10th & 11th
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic2-30.html