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: icabodcrane on May 29, 2014, 03:11:14 PM
-
It has been claimed that the police are working on the hypothesis that a burglar killed Madeleine and subsequently buried her body
How would that work then ?
What scenario could adequately accomodate that presumption ... and what evidence is there to support it ?
-
It has been claimed that the police are working on the hypothesis that a burglar killed Madeleine and subsequently buried her body
How would that work then ?
What scenario could adequately accommodate that presumption ... and what evidence is there to support it ?
I don't think they really know all that much even now but since the Portuguese have agreed to excavations they are going to make the best of them.
I fear that in the absence of a body there is no evidence let alone evidence of murder.
-
It has been claimed that the police are working on the hypothesis that a burglar killed Madeleine and subsequently buried her body
How would that work then ?
What scenario could adequately accomodate that presumption ... and what evidence is there to support it ?
It could just have been an accident in an attempt to silence a woken child who was about to start screaming her head off.
It is only one of several hypotheses. But it has to be considered.
There is no real evidence. But then there is no real evidence of anything.
-
It could just have been an accident in an attempt to silence a woken child who was about to start screaming her head off.
It is only one of several hypotheses. But it has to be considered.
There is no real evidence. But then there is no real evidence of anything.
But if the hypothesis that a burglar murdered Madeleine is nothing more than a random possibility, why would a Portuguese Judge have sanctioned the digging up of Praia de Luz ?
I mean how would that appeal by the Met have gone ?
Redwood "We think a burglar could have murdered Madeleine McCann and buried her body in PDL"
Judge Why do you think that ? what evidence is there ?
Redwood "Well we don't actually have any evidence, it's just a random possibility"
Judge "What leads you to think a body would be buried in the locations you are requesting to be dug up ?"
Redwood "um, there's no particular reason ... they just look like good spots to bury a body"
Judge "OK then, permission granted"
It just doesn't play, does it ?
-
But if the hypothesis that a burglar murdered Madeleine is nothing more than a random possibility, why would a Portuguese Judge have sanctioned the digging up of Praia de Luz ?
I mean how would that appeal by the Met have gone ?
Redwood "We think a burglar could have murdered Madeleine McCann and buried her body in PDL"
Judge Why do you think that ? what evidence is there ?
Redwood "Well we don't actually have any evidence, it's just a random possibility"
Judge "What leads you to think a body would be buried in the locations you are requesting to be dug up ?"
Redwood "um, there's no particular reason ... they just look like good spots to bury a body"
Judge "OK then, permission granted"
It just doesn't play, does it ?
It isnt a random possibility...its based on the balance of probabilities...totally differrent
-
It isnt a random possibility...its based on the balance of probabilities...totally differrent
So what makes a burglar murdering Madeleine and burying her body 'probable' ?
-
So what makes a burglar murdering Madeleine and burying her body 'probable' ?
never said it was probable..its possible...look at the possibilities....
parental involvement
burglar/abductor
maddie leaving the flat herself
one of these has to have happened...therefore they are all possible but SY will have decided which is most probable
-
It plays for me. In Britain this would have been done as a matter of course, and generally is. Okay, Portugal isn't Britain, but this should have been done in the beginning. They comprehensively searched Robert Murat's garden, so obviously they were capable.
Praia da Luz is hardly vast, so there are a very limited number of places in the immediate vicinity where a body could have been buried.
Let's just suppose for a minute that The McCanns did this. How far from Praia da Luz do you think they would have gotten with a dead body in tow, and no car? And sorry, I don't believe that they put the body in some imaginary freezer. And even if they did, how did they bury Madeleine with everyone watching them?
This is actually a good thread, but please let's have some common sense and logic.
-
never said it was probable..its possible...look at the possibilities....
parental involvement
burglar/abductor
maddie leaving the flat herself
one of these has to have happened...therefore they are all possible but SY will have decided which is most possible
But we are being told that the Met are planning to dig up Praia de Luz because they think a burglar might have murdered Madeleine in the apartment and buried her body nearby
What reason could they have for thinking that ?
I mean, there is no evidence of burglary at all ... nothing taken, or even disturbed and no sign of forced entry (that's another thing, why would this murdering burglar open the window from the inside ? )
So the Met presume that a burglar was in the McCanns' apartment that night ... based on no more than a random possibility ... and then go on to presume that he murdered a child there ( again, based on nothing more than a random possibility )
I just don't believe it
I don't believe the Met think that's what happened at all
... and I don't think these digs have anything to do with murdering burglars
-
It plays for me. In Britain this would have been done as a matter of course, and generally is. Okay, Portugal isn't Britain, but this should have been done in the beginning. They comprehensively searched Robert Murat's garden, so obviously they were capable.
Praia da Luz is hardly vast, so there are a very limited number of places in the immediate vicinity where a body could have been buried.
So you are saying that the planned digs are merely 'routine' police work ?
But to what purpose ?
What would digging up PDL achieve, exactly, if it were just a matter of routine police work ?
The only thing it would establish is that Madeleine wasn't buried there, there ... or there
What's next then, 'routinely' speaking ? Digging up a few other random spots ? and when they yield nothing, digging up a few more ... and on and on ?
There must be some intelligence behind the planned digs ... I just don't see how it can relate to a burglary that doesn't even appear to have happened
-
So you are saying that the planned digs are merely 'routine' police work ?
But to what purpose ?
What would digging up PDL achieve, exactly, if it were just a matter of routine police work ?
The only thing it would establish is that Madeleine wasn't buried there, there ... or there
What's next then, 'routinely' speaking ? Digging up a few other random spots ? and when they yield nothing, digging up a few more ... and on and on ?
There must be some intelligence behind the planned digs ... I just don't see how it can relate to a burglary that doesn't even appear to have happened
And why is it so important that McCann supporters portray it as such ? 8(0(*
-
But we are being told that the Met are planning to dig up Praia de Luz because they think a burglar might have murdered Madeleine in the apartment and buried her body nearby
What reason could they have for thinking that ?
I mean, there is no evidence of burglary at all ... nothing taken, or even disturbed and no sign of forced entry (that's another thing, why would this murdering burglar open the window from the inside ? )
So the Met presume that a burglar was in the McCanns' apartment that night ... based on no more than a random possibility ... and then go on to presume that he murdered a child there ( again, based on nothing more than a random possibility )
I just don't believe it
I don't believe the Met think that's what happened at all
... and I don't think these digs have anything to do with murdering burglars
What Scotland Yard are planning to do, for which they have gained permission, is just common practice in the case of any missing person in Britain.
It wasn't done in Praia da Luz at the time. And now it is being done
I don't really care about how badly The PJ cocked up any more, or if Amaral was largely responsible. Things have to be eliminated. That is what Scotland Yard are doing. And with the permission of The Portuguese Judiciary.
And Scotland Yard are doing this. Not The PJ.
-
And why is it so important that McCann supporters portray it as such ? 8(0(*
it isnt important...nothing on this forum is important..a recent guardian article supports the view that the digs are routine
-
What Scotland Yard are planning to do, for which they have gained permission, is just common practice in the case of any missing person in Britain.
Things have to be eliminated.
That is what I trying to get at Eleanor
Suppose these digs go ahead and nothing is uncovered ... what will have been 'eliminated' exactly, other than that the missing child's body wasn't buried in any of those three locations ?
In terms of the investigation what will that mean ... in what way will it be advanced ?
-
So you are saying that the planned digs are merely 'routine' police work ?
But to what purpose ?
What would digging up PDL achieve, exactly, if it were just a matter of routine police work ?
The only thing it would establish is that Madeleine wasn't buried there, there ... or there
What's next then, 'routinely' speaking ? Digging up a few other random spots ? and when they yield nothing, digging up a few more ... and on and on ?
There must be some intelligence behind the planned digs ... I just don't see how it can relate to a burglary that doesn't even appear to have happened
Do you believe that small, girl children were assault in their beds? Even in Praia da Luz?
If you don't, then nothing I say will make any difference.
-
JCBs, to reach depths only one man and his shovel trying to bury the body of a small child in a hurry could also reach ...
-
So you are saying that the planned digs are merely 'routine' police work ?
But to what purpose ?
What would digging up PDL achieve, exactly, if it were just a matter of routine police work ?
The only thing it would establish is that Madeleine wasn't buried there, there ... or there
What's next then, 'routinely' speaking ? Digging up a few other random spots ? and when they yield nothing, digging up a few more ... and on and on ?
There must be some intelligence behind the planned digs ... I just don't see how it can relate to a burglary that doesn't even appear to have happened
If the media had been saying that they were closing in on the T9, would you have an objection to digs? At least one person here who appears to think that this is the case seems quite ecstatic at these digs.
-
JCBs, to reach depths only one man and his shovel trying to bury the body of a small child in a hurry could also reach ...
To be fair, a JCB could be employed to archive breadth as much as depth. If you've ever watched Time Team you would see how quickly they can open up a nice long but fairly shallow trench.
-
JCBs, to reach depths only one man and his shovel trying to bury the body of a small child in a hurry could also reach ...
Not sure about this, now you mention it. But they could wish to dig deep enough under the site of a possible body to avoid breaking it up.
-
Do you believe that small, girl children were assault in their beds? Even in Praia da Luz?
If you don't, then nothing I say will make any difference.
Yes I do believe it, and it's an awful thing ... but what has that got to do with the discussion we are having here about whether or not these planned digs are merely 'routine' police work ?
-
JCBs, to reach depths only one man and his shovel trying to bury the body of a small child in a hurry could also reach ...
One of the planned digs is the area behind the church. It has been made into a car park , so I suppose the heavy machinery will be needed to demolish it
Doesn't sound much like 'routine police work' does it ?
-
If the media had been saying that they were closing in on the T9, would you have an objection to digs? At least one person here who appears to think that this is the case seems quite ecstatic at these digs.
I don't 'object' to the digs ... I just don't see how they can have anything to do with the hypothesis that a burglar murdered Madeleiene
-
One of the planned digs is the area behind the church. It has been made into a car park , so I suppose the heavy machinery will be needed to demolish it
Doesn't sound much like 'routine police work' does it ?
Indeed not. Sounds more like specific targeting.
-
Yes I do believe it, and it's an awful thing ... but what has that got to do with the discussion we are having here about whether or not these planned digs are merely 'routine' police work ?
If there is a possible incident of a sexual abuser loose in PdL or anywhere else on The Algarve then it becomes routine Police Work, and incidentally, always was.
It was also routine Police Work if The PJ suspected that The McCanns done it.
Can't you see this?
-
Indeed not. Sounds more like specific targeting.
Sounds like the result of geographic profiling to me.
-
Sounds like the result of geographic profiling to me.
Does it matter?
-
Sounds like the result of geographic profiling to me.
What does that mean ?
Is it some kind of routine police work ?
-
Does it matter?
Yes.
-
I don't 'object' to the digs ... I just don't see how they can have anything to do with the hypothesis that a burglar murdered Madeleiene
It never had to be a Burglar. It could have been a passing pervert who took the body away because he was worried about DNA from direct contact.
Everybody knows about DNA these days.
-
Sounds like the result of geographic profiling to me.
No it's tracking Smithman.
-
It has been claimed that the police are working on the hypothesis that a burglar killed Madeleine and subsequently buried her body
How would that work then ?
What scenario could adequately accomodate that presumption ... and what evidence is there to support it ?
Do you accept the possibility that Scotland Yard have some evidence which they have chosen not to share with you that might support their theory?
Would you feel happier if the words "predatory paedophile" were used instead of burglar? Would that make more sense to you?
-
It never had to be a Burglar. It could have been a passing pervert who took the body away because he was worried about DNA from direct contact.
Everybody knows about DNA these days.
Well, that makes more sense than the murdering burglar hypothesis
Still doesn't tie in with these planned digs though
Supposing it happened the way you suggest, and this monster takes the body away to ensure his DNA will not be found on it
What would you expect him to do next ... or, rather, what would the police expect him to do next ?
Dispose of the body at sea perhaps ? Or bury it a long distance from the crime scene ? Or take it somewhere isolated and burn it ? ( He's determined to dispose of his own DNA more than the body remember )
Or would he bury the body a matter metres away from the apartment, knowing that a search of the area will be underway immediately ?
I just don't think these digs are related to any intruder theory
-
Do you accept the possibility that Scotland Yard have some evidence which they have chosen not to share with you that might support their theory?
Would you feel happier if the words "predatory paedophile" were used instead of burglar? Would that make more sense to you?
That is what it is sounding like to me. But the fact remains that permission has been granted. So there must be a reason.
-
Well, that makes more sense than the murdering burglar hypothesis
Still doesn't tie in with these planned digs though
Supposing it happened the way you suggest, and this monster takes the body away to ensure his DNA will not be found on it
What would you expect him to do next ... or, rather, what would the police expect him to do next ?
Dispose of the body at sea perhaps ? Or bury it a long distance from the crime scene ? Or take it somewhere isolated and burn it ? ( He's determined to dispose of his own DNA more than the body remember )
Or would he bury the body a matter metres away from the apartment, knowing that a search of the area will be underway immediately ?
I just don't think these digs are related to any intruder theory
So what theory does make sense to you then, seeing as you've discounted the possibility of a criminal burying Madeleine so close to the place she went missing knowing a search of the area would be underway immediately?
-
That is what it is sounding like to me. But the fact remains that permission has been granted. So there must be a reason.
Well normally in the case of a missing person, you dig to search for a body.
-
Well, that makes more sense than the murdering burglar hypothesis
Still doesn't tie in with these planned digs though
Supposing it happened the way you suggest, and this monster takes the body away to ensure his DNA will not be found on it
What would you expect him to do next ... or, rather, what would the police expect him to do next ?
Dispose of the body at sea perhaps ? Or bury it a long distance from the crime scene ? Or take it somewhere isolated and burn it ? ( He's determined to dispose of his own DNA more than the body remember )
Or would he bury the body a matter metres away from the apartment, knowing that a search of the area will be underway immediately ?
I just don't think these digs are related to any intruder theory
Ah, well, I don't actually go with this theory anyway. Just trying to help with your Thread because you seem to be trying. Very trying, actually. But that is by the by.
You were once vaguely pleasant to me, so I was returning the the favour by hopefully kick starting your Thread. I never forget a kindness, however long ago.
And I so like Icabode Crain. Anyone who knows about him has to have some saving graces.
-
So what theory does make sense to you then, seeing as you've discounted the possibility of a criminal burying Madeleine so close to the place she went missing knowing a search of the area would be underway immediately?
I think the police are digging up PDL because they have intelligence that suggests Madeleine died in the apartment
I think that 'intelligence' is the cadaver dog alert
That makes sense to me
-
No it isn't.
What other reason would the Met have for thinking Madeleine died in the apartment ?
I mean, what, other than the cadaver dog alert, is 'suggestive' of that ?
-
It's the most rational explanation for the digs
So Madeleine was lying around dead for at least two hours. I hardly think so.
-
So what exactly do you think happened? How convoluted and improbable do you want it? Something like this?
Carried dead body through town, in full view of witnesses. Buried it in a bit of wasteland. Waited a bit. Dug it back up again and put it in a freezer. Waited a bit. Took it out of freezer and stuck it in a car. Drove to Spain. Buried it again. Waited a bit. Buried freezer.
Gosh, that sounds plausible. But we are not allowed to put into words what are in the doubter's minds, it upsets them.
-
How do you know what opportunities were available to the "intruder" out of interest?
Well, first of all, let me make it clear that I do not believe an intruder ( of any description ) got into the McCanns' apartment, murdered a child and then took her dead body away with him
It just doesn't make sense
But let's assume, for the sake of debate, that is what happened
You ask what opportunity I think an intruder would have in those unlikely circumstances of disposing of the body he has inexplicably taken with him
He would surely have TRANSPORT! ... a murderer would be unlikely to take a body unless he had transport, wouldn't you agree ?
Afterall, if this intruder had no transport then there really wouldn't be much point in taking the body in the first place ... only to have it discovered buried practically on the doorstep
So there is the 'opportunity ... because transport means distance ... and any disposal of the body would be as far as way as possible from the scene of the crime and imminent search
That's why I don't think the digging in Praia de Luz has anything to with an intruder
-
Perhaps sadie you need to be reminded the 'abduction' is merely an idea, with nae proof.
-
That's not how this works on a hunch. They know for certain Smithman was carrying Madeleine away so these are to find clues on where she was taken. Starting from the wasteland where he was coming from past the Smiths onto Rua de 25 Abril and to the church vicinity.
-
Well, first of all, let me make it clear that I do not believe an intruder ( of any description ) got into the McCanns' apartment, murdered a child and then took her dead body away with him
It just doesn't make sense
But let's assume, for the sake of debate, that is what happened
You ask what opportunity I think an intruder would have in those unlikely circumstances of disposing of the body he has inexplicably taken with him
He would surely have TRANSPORT! ... a murderer would be unlikely to take a body unless he had transport, wouldn't you agree ?
Afterall, if this intruder had no transport then there really wouldn't be much point in taking the body in the first place ... only to have it discovered buried practically on the doorstep
So there is the 'opportunity ... because transport means distance ... and any disposal of the body would be as far as way as possible from the scene of the crime and imminent search
That's why I don't think the digging in Praia de Luz has anything to with an intruder
Why would you assume an intruder HAD to have transport? What if he was a local who took the child back to his home to abuse and/or murder? What if he did not have access to transport for body disposal? Where would he put the body then? Did Fred West dispose of bodies as far away as possible from the scene of his crimes?
-
Why would you assume an intruder HAD to have transport? What if he was a local who took the child back to his home to abuse and/or murder? What if he did not have access to transport for body disposal? Where would he put the body then? Did Fred West dispose of bodies as far away as possible from the scene of his crimes?
You're moving the goal posts aren't you ?
The hypothesis we have been presented with is that a burglar murdered Madeleine and took her dead body away with him ... not someone taking a living child away to abuse and murder some time later ( that would be straight forward abduction and not the 'burglary gone wrong' we are being told is behind the digs )
-
You're moving the goal posts aren't you ?
The hypothesis we have been presented with is that a burglar murdered Madeleine and took her dead body away with him ... not someone taking a living child away to abuse and murder some time later ( that would be straight forward abduction and not the 'burglary gone wrong' we are being told is behind the digs )
Can you please provide me the link where Scotland Yard have announced that their hypothesis is that Madeleine died in the apartment. I have obviously missed that announcement.
-
Can you please provide me the link where Scotland Yard have announced that their hypothesis is that Madeleine died in the apartment. I have obviously missed that announcement.
I don't have a link, I'm sorry
Do you think Andy Redwood meant something other than Madeleine dying in the apartment when he said ; "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" ?
-
I don't have a link, I'm sorry
Do you think Andy Redwood meant something other than Madeleine dying in the apartment when he said ; "Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive" ?
The operative word there is "may".
-
It has been claimed that the police are working on the hypothesis that a burglar killed Madeleine and subsequently buried her body
How would that work then ?
What scenario could adequately accomodate that presumption ... and what evidence is there to support it ?
1. If Madeleine had known the intruder he had to take her with him.. if he wanted to continue living or working in the area of PDL he had to get rid of Madeleine
2. If he accidentally killed her while trying to burglar the apartment again he had to take her with him and hid his act.
3. Even if she was alive he could not have let her go.. leave her in church etc as Kate begged for.. because she'd come to PDL and recognise him..
If you underline all above IMO the person who took Madeleine is a resident of PDL and also is often seen among the visitors of OC..
3.
-
That's not how this works on a hunch. They know for certain Smithman was carrying Madeleine away so these are to find clues on where she was taken. Starting from the wasteland where he was coming from past the Smiths onto Rua de 25 Abril and to the church vicinity.
"They know for certain Smithman was carrying Madeleine away" - um...what? I don't think anyone knows that for certain at all.
-
Indeed.
So if one line of thought/investigation is that possibly she may not have left the apartment alive what propositions are there for the manner of her death inside the apartment ?
That would entail rather gruesome speculation which I believe has already occurred on less reputable sites.
IMO that is not what this site is about.
-
"They know for certain Smithman was carrying Madeleine away" - um...what? I don't think anyone knows that for certain at all.
That's right.
However, if Madeleine's body is discovered and found to be wearing pajamas similar to those described by the Smiths, then there would be little doubt.
-
Indeed.
So if one line of thought/investigation is that possibly she may not have left the apartment alive what propositions are there for the manner of her death inside the apartment ?
Anyone can make propositions about the way someone MAY have died .... but there is NOTHING to indicate death ... except your communal imaginations.
Do you still NOT UNDERSTAND the irrelevance of the dog alerts? They proved NOTHING
With NOTHING to indicate death, why do you guys keep banging on about it?
Do you get a ghoulish pleasure from it?
-
Anyone can make propositions about the way someone MAY have died .... but there is NOTHING to indicate death ... except your communal imaginations.
Do you still NOT UNDERSTAND the relevance of the dog alerts? They proved NOTHING
With NOTHING to indicate death, why do you guys keep banging on about it?
Do you get a ghoulish pleasure from it?
The forensics were inconclusive sadie.
We know that.
However, the dogs indicated, and there is nothing else which comes close in this case.
-
Anyone can make propositions about the way someone MAY have died .... but there is NOTHING to indicate death ... except your communal imaginations.
Do you still NOT UNDERSTAND the relevance of the dog alerts? They proved NOTHING
With NOTHING to indicate death, why do you guys keep banging on about it?
Do you get a ghoulish pleasure from it?
Eddie solved many cases after he'd alerted for cadaver where missing people were actually found to be deceased. Maybe that would give a normal person a good clue as to what may have happened especially when a child matching Madeleine's description was in a deep sleep (not screaming for her life) and being carried away close to the crime scene and hasn't been seen since that night.
-
Anyone can make propositions about the way someone MAY have died .... but there is NOTHING to indicate death ... except your communal imaginations.
Do you still NOT UNDERSTAND the relevance of the dog alerts? They proved NOTHING
With NOTHING to indicate death, why do you guys keep banging on about it?
Do you get a ghoulish pleasure from it?
You left out two vital letters, Sadie, ir, that should have gone in front of the word relevance ...
-
Here's the ironic thing: if remains are found, DNA might provide the oft-demanded proof of the innocence of the McCanns ...
-
Anyone can make propositions about the way someone MAY have died .... but there is NOTHING to indicate death ... except your communal imaginations.
Do you still NOT UNDERSTAND the relevance of the dog alerts? They proved NOTHING
With NOTHING to indicate death, why do you guys keep banging on about it?
Do you get a ghoulish pleasure from it?
You are getting very confused between indicate and prove.
-
the vast majority of police work is routine and turns up nothing...the idea is that if you investigate enough something will turn up...I think this is a fishing exercise to look for evidence...possibly remains
Well, they'd all look a bit dim if she had, in fact, been dead and buried all that time under their feet without checking.
The Met haven't excluded that she could still be alive, but checking out the possibility that someone (quite possibly on foot) could have buried her nearby needs to be eliminated. A search of what may be a field is hardly comprehensive (if, indeed, the search area reported is correct, which it may not be), but it's a step forward.
My thoughts are with the family. On the one hand, it's constructive as something concrete is happening, yet it must be terribly stressful wondering if your hope that she could still be alive may be dashed.
-
You left out two vital letters, Sadie, ir, that should have gone in front of the word relevance ...
Thanks Ferryman. My English is awful. I knew something was caggy about it, but couldn't put my finger on it.!
-
Evidence for burglary ~ the recent burglary at 5L and the attempted burglary described by Mrs Fenn when the intruder gained entry via the window ~ supports the evidence of the raised shutter and the open window being either an entry or an emergency exit point.
The man who gained entry to the holiday homes of other Britons did not seem to be particularly interested in stealing objects.
The forensic examination leaves more questions than answers.
The apparent reluctance of the police to link burglaries and assualts on children imo closed down a viable line of inquiry which should have been pursued to its conclusion.
Evidence for murder ~ none.
The forensic examination provided no evidence to sustain this theory.
Similarly ~ Eddie and Keela’s alerts do not support this theory.
IMO there is neither evidence for burglary or murder ~ the window and shutter indicate unauthorised interference by person unknown.
-
My post was aimed at the "How" and the "Who" rather than the detail of the "What". Clearly you chose the more fanciful interpretation.
Your post was an invitation to speculate on methods in which a child might have been killed.
-
Evidence for burglary ~ the recent burglary at 5L and the attempted burglary described by Mrs Fenn when the intruder gained entry via the window ~ supports the evidence of the raised shutter and the open window being either an entry or an emergency exit point.
The man who gained entry to the holiday homes of other Britons did not seem to be particularly interested in stealing objects.
The forensic examination leaves more questions than answers.
The apparent reluctance of the police to link burglaries and assualts on children imo closed down a viable line of inquiry which should have been pursued to its conclusion.
Evidence for murder ~ none.
The forensic examination provided no evidence to sustain this theory.
Similarly ~ Eddie and Keela’s alerts do not support this theory.
IMO there is neither evidence for burglary or murder ~ the window and shutter indicate unauthorised interference by person unknown.
Evidence for burglary of mccann apartment, NONE.
'Nothing of value was taken'
Now who said that ?
As for the shutter and window.....................
Well no proof either had been jemmied or opened. >@@(*&)
-
Evidence for burglary of mccann apartment, NONE.
'Nothing of value was taken'
Now who said that ?
As for the shutter and window.....................
Well no proof either had been jemmied or opened. >@@(*&)
There you have it when you pick up on the statement ~ 'Nothing of value was taken' ~ proof of abduction, not murder ~ as Madeleine McCann is obviously a very valued member of the McCann household and extended family.
Your use of the 'jemmied' situation is rather tiresome.
Neither Dr Kate McCann or Dr Gerry McCann used that phrase. It is attributed to another person many miles removed from the event in time and geography.
Of course you know, but choose to ignore that in preference of reinforcing discredited forum myths.
-
There you have it when you pick up on the statement ~ 'Nothing of value was taken' ~ proof of abduction, not murder ~ as Madeleine McCann is obviously a very valued member of the McCann household and extended family.
Your use of the 'jemmied' situation is rather tiresome.
Neither Dr Kate McCann or Dr Gerry McCann used that phrase. It is attributed to another person many miles removed from the event in time and geography.
Of course you know, but choose to ignore that in preference of reinforcing discredited forum myths.
As you well know the jemmied phrase comes from clan mccann, and is not a forum myth, unlike the abduction.
Now Brietta, who has said on here Madeleine was murdered ?
is that one of your forum myths ? >@@(*&)
'Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.'
-
According to Kate's father, you are wrong Brietta.
Brian Healey 05/05/07: "Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone. She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open."
A chalet huh? Maybe that's where the fridge was kept!
Or maybe, in the heat of the moment, fairly understandable mistakes were made, things miscommunication and misremembered...
-
OK here we go
DCI Redwood of the MPS suggested that Madeleine McCann may not have left the apartment alive.
That presupposes the possibility she died in the apartment.
Her death may have been due to: Natural causes, accidental death self inflicted, accidental death inflicted by person or persons unknown, manslaughter by person or persons unknown or murder by person or persons unknown. The first two seem unlikely.
So if the cause is by person or persons unknown by what manner or means did they enter the apartment.
unlocked patio door...
spare key to locked front door
Shutter forced up from outside...it has been shown this can be done without any damage..and window opened
-
Everyone the McCanns spoke to on the phone that night uniformly told the press that the shutters had been tampered with in some way ... jemmied, broken, and even 'smashed' were the descriptions given
The only logical explanation for this 'uniformity' is that the McCanns told everyone they spoke to that is what happened
It's silly to pretend otherwise
-
In Glasgow, "Jemmied" simply means broken into. It always has.
-
As a further reminder for some, whether you use the word 'jemmied' or the equivalent thereof, the source for that has come from the mccanns.
It has become a hallmark of this case, that when things don't go their way, we have the usual cliches of the mccanns or associates being 'misquoted' or it was 'out of context'.
It really doesn't wash, in any sense.
-
As a further reminder for some, whether you use the word 'jemmied' or the equivalent thereof, the source for that has come from the mccanns.
It has become a hallmark of this case, that when things don't go their way, we have the usual cliches of the mccanns or associates being 'misquoted' or it was 'out of context'.
It really doesn't wash, in any sense.
Or my personal favorite, "mistranslated".
This despite most Portugese can speak and read English, and the lawyers the McCanns hired were bilingual.
But no, we still have "lost in translation" floated as some sort of wierd 18th century explanation for the mysterious goings on.
Please. 8-)(--)