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: Silkywhiskers on June 03, 2014, 03:47:14 AM
-
Here are the FACTS -
Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:
pages 55 and 56
The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space;
The situation that concerns the window of the bedroom where MADELEINE slept, together with the jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5385.msg235690.html#msg235690 , which was open, according to KATE. It would be necessary to clarify whether there was a draft, due to the fact that movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which would eventually be clarified through the reconstitution.
. The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal).
. What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.).
Concerning the result of the diligences that were requested from the British authorities, as earlier mentioned, despite the fact that they were almost completely carried out, nothing new was added to the process and, consequentially, to the investigation.
The questioning of the holiday group merely corroborated what had already been established during the investigation, without any detail that could have been reputed as especially relevant being brought forward.
In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.
On the other hand, it should be referred that this investigation moved itself under conditions of exceptional media exposure, with the publication of many "news" of imprecise, inexact or even false contents, which did not help, in the least, the discovery of the truth and created, many times, a climate of unusual commotion and of lack of serenity.
Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.
So. What part of that is in dispute?
No one knows what happened or when, that night.
-
This is pointless, here's the FACTS -
Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:
pages 55 and 56
. The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space;
. The situation that concerns the window of the bedroom where MADELEINE slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to KATE. It would be necessary to clarify whether there was a draft, due to the fact that movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which would eventually be clarified through the reconstitution.
. The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal).
. What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.).
Concerning the result of the diligences that were requested from the British authorities, as earlier mentioned, despite the fact that they were almost completely carried out, nothing new was added to the process and, consequentially, to the investigation.
The questioning of the holiday group merely corroborated what had already been established during the investigation, without any detail that could have been reputed as especially relevant being brought forward.
In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.
On the other hand, it should be referred that this investigation moved itself under conditions of exceptional media exposure, with the publication of many "news" of imprecise, inexact or even false contents, which did not help, in the least, the discovery of the truth and created, many times, a climate of unusual commotion and of lack of serenity.
Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.
So. What part of that is in dispute?
No one knows what happened or when, that night.
All out of date now since Scotland Yard took over, performed a "forensic examination of the timeline" and concluded that there WAS a window of opportunity for an abductor to take away Madeleine. Which part of what I just wrote is in dispute?
-
All out of date now since Scotland Yard took over, performed a "forensic examination of the timeline" and concluded that there WAS a window of opportunity for an abductor to take away Madeleine. Which part of what I just wrote is in dispute?
What part of "digging a hole 300m from 5a" supports your "abduction" theory?
Surely even the densest of McCann supporters must now acknowledge a body is being sought?
-
All out of date now since Scotland Yard took over, performed a "forensic examination of the timeline" and concluded that there WAS a window of opportunity for an abductor to take away Madeleine. Which part of what I just wrote is in dispute?
Opportunity for an abductor ?
Where exactly ?
Where has it been excised that Madeleine did not die in the apartment ?
Do SY get it right all the time ? >@@(*&) >@@(*&)
-
There never was time for an abduction, and Tannerman being blown away made the whole thing even more inexplicable.
Unless of course, they lied...
-
What part of "digging a hole 300m from 5a" supports your "abduction" theory?
Surely even the densest of McCann supporters must now acknowledge a body is being sought?
Do you or do you not dispute that Scotland Yard "forensically examined" the timeline and found that there was an opportunity for an abductor to strike?
The digs in PdL this week support perfectly well the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a local and murdered.
-
There never was time for an abduction, and Tannerman being blown away made the whole thing even more inexplicable.
Unless of course, they lied...
As if they would. >@@(*&)
-
There never was time for an abduction, and Tannerman being blown away made the whole thing even more inexplicable.
Unless of course, they lied...
Well obviously you know better than Scotland Yard who have spent many, many expert man hours arriving at a different conclusion to yours.
-
Do you or do you not dispute that Scotland Yard "forensically examined" the timeline and found that there was an opportunity for an abductor to strike?
The digs in PdL this week support perfectly well the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a local and murdered.
Indeed.
But you must remember this little speech predates Operation Grange.
Current events indicate against abduction.
Current events indicate SY believe (after 4 years of said timeline examination) that Madeleine is 300m away.
Or was.
How do you reconcile THAT with your "timeline'?
-
This is pointless, here's the FACTS -
Addressing now, and specifically, the question relative to the diligence known as the "reconstitution of the facts" (Article 150º of the Penal Process Code), which was not performed due to the refusal of some of the integral members of the holiday group to return to our country (as documented in the Inquiry), the same would have clarified, duly and in the location of the disappearance, the following extremely important details, amongst others:
pages 55 and 56
. The physical, real and effective, proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, at the moment when the former passed them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, from our understanding, as unusual that neither GERALD McCANN nor JEREMY WILKINS did not see her, nor the alleged abductor, despite the small dimensions of the space;
. The situation that concerns the window of the bedroom where MADELEINE slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to KATE. It would be necessary to clarify whether there was a draft, due to the fact that movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which would eventually be clarified through the reconstitution.
. The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal).
. What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.).
Concerning the result of the diligences that were requested from the British authorities, as earlier mentioned, despite the fact that they were almost completely carried out, nothing new was added to the process and, consequentially, to the investigation.
The questioning of the holiday group merely corroborated what had already been established during the investigation, without any detail that could have been reputed as especially relevant being brought forward.
In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.
On the other hand, it should be referred that this investigation moved itself under conditions of exceptional media exposure, with the publication of many "news" of imprecise, inexact or even false contents, which did not help, in the least, the discovery of the truth and created, many times, a climate of unusual commotion and of lack of serenity.
Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.
So. What part of that is in dispute?
No one knows what happened or when, that night.
Why would Gerry remember an exact time of 10:03? Think about it. What does it connect to?
-
Well obviously you know better than Scotland Yard who have spent many, many expert man hours arriving at a different conclusion to yours.
Why are they digging?
-
Indeed.
But you must remember this little speech predates Operation Grange.
Current events indicate against abduction.
Current events indicate SY believe (after 4 years of said timeline examination) that Madeleine is 300m away.
Or was.
How do you reconcile THAT with your "timeline'?
What are you on about "predates Operation Grange"? this was said over a year into Operation Grange!
Mr Redwood said "evidence that she is alive stems from the forensic view of the timeline" that there was the opportunity for her to be taken.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9225801/Scotland-Yard-urges-Portuguese-to-repoen-Madeleine-McCann-search.html
Madeleine may possibly be resting only 300 metres from where she was taken - now tell me the science that makes it impossible for this to be the case and for her to have been abducted beforehand.
-
What are you on about "predates Operation Grange"? this was said over a year into Operation Grange!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9225801/Scotland-Yard-urges-Portuguese-to-repoen-Madeleine-McCann-search.html
Madeleine may possibly be resting only 300 metres from where she was taken - now tell me the science that makes it impossible for this to be the case and for her to have been abducted beforehand.
So where is the evidence she was abducted ?
-
What are you on about "predates Operation Grange"? this was said over a year into Operation Grange!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9225801/Scotland-Yard-urges-Portuguese-to-repoen-Madeleine-McCann-search.html
Madeleine may possibly be resting only 300 metres from where she was taken - now tell me the science that makes it impossible for this to be the case and for her to have been abducted beforehand.
So you're quoting an article that is OVER two years old, as "proof"?
They are digging for her body. In what circumstance would an abductor take her, kill her, return her and bury her, all under the eyes of her parents?
-
So you're quoting an article that is OVER two years old, as "proof"?
They are digging for her body. In what circumstance would an abductor take her, kill her, return her and bury her, all under the eyes of her parents?
LOL. You quoted a report that was even older as "proof". My article proves beyond doubt that a) Redwood and his team spent many man hours forensically examining the timeline and came to the conclusion that there was an opportunity forMadeleine to have been abducted and b) that Operation Grange had already been going a year when Redwood made that statement.
Your "proof" that they think otherwise amounts to the illogical assertion that because they appear to be looking for a body that she therefore cannot have been abducted. This is utter nonsense. What is this "return her and bury her under the eyes of her parents" crap? If she is buried on wasteland on the outskirts of town (where they are also searching remember?) then what leg do you have left to stand on?
-
LOL. You quoted a report that was even older as "proof". My article proves beyond doubt that a) Redwood and his team spent many man hours forensically examining the timeline and came to the conclusion that there was an opportunity forMadeleine to have been abducted and b) that Operation Grange had already been going a year when Redwood made that statement.
Your "proof" that they think otherwise amounts to the illogical assertion that because they appear to be looking for a body that she therefore cannot have been abducted. This is utter nonsense. What is this "return her and bury her under the eyes of her parents" crap? If she is buried on wasteland on the outskirts of town (where they are also searching remember?) then what leg do you have left to stand on?
You don't know why there are searching there so if they find anything it connects with what they know to bring them there. Anything found could change everything very quickly in this case.
-
LOL. You quoted a report that was even older as "proof". My article proves beyond doubt that a) Redwood and his team spent many man hours forensically examining the timeline and came to the conclusion that there was an opportunity forMadeleine to have been abducted and b) that Operation Grange had already been going a year when Redwood made that statement.
Your "proof" that they think otherwise amounts to the illogical assertion that because they appear to be looking for a body that she therefore cannot have been abducted. This is utter nonsense. What is this "return her and bury her under the eyes of her parents" crap? If she is buried on wasteland on the outskirts of town (where they are also searching remember?) then what leg do you have left to stand on?
Actually DCI Redwood was being interviewed when he said:
Quote: We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive'' End quote
I'm sure the video of that interview will still be on Youtube.
-
You don't know why there are searching there so if they find anything it connects with what they know to bring them there. Anything found could change everything very quickly in this case.
So you would agree therefore that the act of searching PdL does not in any way prove or even suggest that Scotland Yard have abandoned the abduction theory, correct?
-
So you would agree therefore that the act of searching PdL does not in any way prove or even suggest that Scotland Yard have abandoned the abduction theory, correct?
I think they may have learned to multi-task ?{)(**
-
Actually DCI Redwood was being interviewed when he said:
Quote: We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive'' End quote
I'm sure the video of that interview will still be on Youtube.
There was a small window of opportunity but nothing adds up to believe that happened. That was the strangest abductor in the world if he existed who had a weird habit of leaving doors half-open, raising noisy shutters and opening windows facing the world for no logical reason when the front door was hidden. A realistic crime scene would have Madeleine's bed in a mess and a wide open door where he left though and not an open window that was never used 8-)(--) The abductor is in and out as quick as possible and has a getaway vehicle ready to go. He is not RUDE Smithman running for his life.
-
So you would agree therefore that the act of searching PdL does not in any way prove or even suggest that Scotland Yard have abandoned the abduction theory, correct?
Only SY know that not me.
-
Only SY know that not me.
Thank you. And so any assumption that they have abandoned the abduction theory is just that - an assumption, based on little more than wishful thinking.
-
Thank you. And so any assumption that they have abandoned the abduction theory is just that - an assumption, based on little more than wishful thinking.
My theory is based on a lot more that wishful thinking. I've connected the contradictions in statements and facts from witness statements to form my own theory. Everything has to be explained and connect on a precise timeline.
-
My theory is based on a lot more that wishful thinking. I've connected the contradictions in statements and facts from witness statements to form my own theory. Everything has to connect on a precise timeline.
Erm...you've drifted from the point somewhat. The point is that Scotland Yard's search of PdL does not indicate that they have abandoned the abduction theory - correct?
And with respect, I'll take the professionals' theories over yours any day. Why? Because they are trained, have years of dealing with criminal investigations, but above all else have way more information about this case and greater access to the key protagonists of this case than you will ever, ever have.
-
Erm...you've drifted from the point somewhat. The point is that Scotland Yard's search of PdL does not indicate that they have abandoned the abduction theory - correct?
And with respect, I'll take the professionals' theories over yours any day. Why? Because they are trained, have years of dealing with criminal investigations, but above all else have way more information about this case and greater access to the key protagonists of this case than you will ever, ever have.
No it doesn't mean they have abandoned the abduction theory but if they find anything that could quickly change. SY have a lot more evidence to look at than I but my theory is based on the official files.
-
No it doesn't mean they have abandoned the abduction theory but if they find anything that could quickly change. SY have a lot more evidence to look at than I but my theory is based on the official files.
Sense at last - hurrah!
-
I find it difficult to believe that all 30+ detectives are pursuing the same single hypothetical line of investigation.
PS. I know they are not all detectives and that some are support staff.
-
I find it difficult to believe that all 30+ detectives are pursuing the same single hypothetical line of investigation.
That makes sense - different teams to cover all possibilities.
-
There was a small window of opportunity but nothing adds up to believe that happened. That was the strangest abductor in the world if he existed who had a weird habit of leaving doors half-open, raising noisy shutters and opening windows facing the world for no logical reason when the front door was hidden. A realistic crime scene would have Madeleine's bed in a mess and a wide open door where he left though and not a open window that was never used 8-)(--) The abductor is in and out as quick as possible and has a getaway vehicle ready to go. He is not RUDE Smithman running for his life.
So after conducting a forensic analysis of the timelines - in which all possible variations of what could have happened would be taken into consideration - SY - the experts - are still wrong?
The only thing that has changed since that statement was made is that now that Tannerman has almost certainly been identified, the opportunities for an abductor to take Madeleine are even greater than before.
There are several logical reasons why the window/shutters were opened - all of which have been posted before but all of which you apparently have chosen to ignore.
1. As a means of a sharp exit if disturbed, which via the window lessens the chances of 'confrontation' with anyone coming in via the patio doors.
2. As a means of checking that no-one was in the carpark - which could not be ascertained from the front door -without actually walking a couple of metres outside it and so risk being caught in the act of abducting Madeleine by someone in the carpark.
3. To take attention away from the fact that a key to the front door may have been used.
What is illogical about any of those reasons?
(have to go out now)
-
So after conducting a forensic analysis of the timelines - in which all possible variations of what could have happened would be taken into consideration - SY - the experts - are still wrong?
The only thing that has changed since that statement was made is that now that Tannerman has almost certainly been identified, the opportunities for an abductor to take Madeleine are even greater than before.
There are several logical reasons why the window/shutters were opened - all of which have been posted before but all of which you apparently have chosen to ignore.
1. As a means of a sharp exit if disturbed, which via the window lessens the chances of 'confrontation' with anyone coming in via the patio doors.
2. As a means of checking that no-one was in the carpark - which could not be ascertained from the front door -without actually walking a couple of metres outside it and so risk being caught in the act of abducting Madeleine by someone in the carpark.
3. To take attention away from the fact that a key to the front door may have been used.
What is illogical about any of those reasons?
(have to go out now)
There is no realistic explanation for an abductor to raise noisy shutters and open that window in full view of the car park and that wasn't used according to forensics when the front door was hidden and much quicker to exit.
-
There is no realistic explanation for an abductor to raise noisy shutters and open that window in full view of the car park and that wasn't used according to forensics when the front door was hidden and much quicker to exit.
"the front door was hidden and much quicker to exit" ~ and so much "quicker to exit" if confident that the coast was clear to do so.
-
Actually DCI Redwood was being interviewed when he said:
Quote: We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive'' End quote
I'm sure the video of that interview will still be on Youtube.
A position that has been superseded by this quote from Redwood :
"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive."
So you see SY's position on certainly one element of the case has changed significantly over the time of their review, who knows what else has changed.
-
"the front door was hidden and much quicker to exit" ~ and so much "quicker to exit" if confident that the coast was clear to do so.
A lot safer it was hidden. The window wasn't 8-)(--)
-
No it doesn't mean they have abandoned the abduction theory but if they find anything that could quickly change. SY have a lot more evidence to look at than I but my theory is based on the official files.
IMO we have never had sight of "the official files" ~ whereas the Met and the PJ have.
-
IMO we have never had sight of "the official files" ~ whereas the Met and the PJ have.
Completely agree with you. Some information was released, but I have reservations as to how accurate the translations of that information is. But certainly, a lot more information has never been made public.
-
Completely agree with you. Some information was released, but I have reservations as to how accurate the translations of that information is. But certainly, a lot more information has never been made public.
Quite rightly, too.
-
A position that has been superseded by this quote from Redwood :
"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive."
So you see SY's position on certainly one element of the case has changed significantly over the time of their review, who knows what else has changed.
Nothing has changed. They have identified a window of opportunity for her to have been removed alive, they have also uncovered information (what we don't know exactly but could relate to the sex attacks in the Algarve that the Met recently brought to the public's attention) which means she may not have left the apartment alive. If the Met think she may have been killed in the apartment it does not follow that they have excluded the possibility that a stranger committed the crime and removed her body. The window of opportunity for a crime to have been committed by a stranger remains the same.
-
Nothing has changed. They have identified a window of opportunity for her to have been removed alive, they have also uncovered information (what we don't know exactly but could relate to the sex attacks in the Algarve that the Met recently brought to the public's attention) which means she may not have left the apartment alive. If the Met think she may have been killed in the apartment it does not follow that they have excluded the possibility that a stranger committed the crime and removed her body. The window of opportunity for a crime to have been committed by a stranger remains the same.
No evidence anyone else in the flat, certainly no forensic evidence.
No evidence of link of sex attacker, just conjecture.
However, the dogs were right the first time it seems.
....and of course
-
More rubbish as expected.
Now state precisely what I stated in my previous post is incorrect.
All you reveal is your attachment to all things in praise of the mccanns. >@@(*&)
I'm not going off on one of your tangents. We were discussing the forensic examination of the timeline by Scotland Yard, which concluded that there was sufficient time for an intruder to commit a criminal act, whether it be abduction or murder and removal of a body. Perhaps you would like to comment on that first and then start a new thread for whatever it is you would rather discuss.
-
I'm not going off on one of your tangents. We were discussing the forensic examination of the timeline by Scotland Yard, which concluded that there was sufficient time for an intruder to commit a criminal act, whether it be abduction or murder and removal of a body. Perhaps you would like to comment on that first and then start a new thread for whatever it is you would rather discuss.
Quick question Alfred. Do you believe that Madeleine not leaving the apartment alive and cadaver dog Edfie alerting in the same apartment are mutually exclusive events ?
-
Tell me where it has been disproved that Madeleine died of an accident in the apartment.
Since it 'appears' that SY are 'considering' her death in the apartment, then the dogs were right in their indications the first time. Would you not agree ?
Once again you fail to address the subject which we were discussing ie: the forensic examination of the timeline by Scotland Yard, which concluded that there was sufficient time for an intruder to commit a criminal act, whether it be abduction or murder and removal of a body. Instead you appear to prefer to discuss the dogs again! I think there may be a thread or two about them elsewhere....
-
Once again you fail to address the subject which we were discussing ie: the forensic examination of the timeline by Scotland Yard, which concluded that there was sufficient time for an intruder to commit a criminal act, whether it be abduction or murder and removal of a body. Instead you appear to prefer to discuss the dogs again! I think there may be a thread or two about them elsewhere....
I'm well aware of what you said.
You are merely evading answering my questions.
-
I'm well aware of what youmsaid.
You are merely evading answering my questions.
In what way do your questions relate to Scotland Yard's forensic examination of the timeline?
-
In what way do your questions relate to Scotland Yard's forensic examination of the timeline?
Try again.
Where has it been stated Madeleine did not die in the apartment in an accident ?
-
Try again.
Where has it been stated Madeleine did not die in the apartment in an accident ?
Well, Scotland Yard got close when they said that they were treating the case as one of stranger abduction. No mention from them at any stage that they are considering the accident angle.
Where has it been stated that Madeleine was not abducted by a stranger by the way (numerous doubter blogs by armchair detectives don't count btw).
-
In what way do your questions relate to Scotland Yard's forensic examination of the timeline?
There are 2 possibilities.
- SY analysed the timelines and calculated a window of opportunity within the rigorous checking regime for someone to enter the apartment and remove M without bumping into a random checker.
- SY analysed the timelines and decided they were very unreliable. Leaving a huge window of opportunity.
Then of course assume the abductee who got clean away disposed of the body of M (who they had been so careful to abduct) 300 yards away.
-
There are 2 possibilities.
- SY analysed the timelines and calculated a window of opportunity within the rigorous checking regime for someone to enter the apartment and remove M without bumping into a random checker.
- SY analysed the timelines and decided they were very unreliable. Leaving a huge window of opportunity.
Then of course assume the abductee who got clean away disposed of the body of M (who they had been so careful to abduct) 300 yards away.
I don't recall them mentioning a huge window of opportunity do you?
-
I don't recall them mentioning a huge window of opportunity do you?
Well if the ABDUCTOR is FACT, why are they digging 300m from 5a?
What abductor steals a corpse?
HOW did he/she/they get in and out in front of the checking eyes of Kate, Gerry, and Tanner?
All unseen....no noise, no smell, no trace left at all, which in itself is unusual.
-
Well if the ABDUCTOR is FACT, why are they digging 300m from 5a?
What abductor steals a corpse?
HOW did he/she/they get in and out in front of the checking eyes of Kate, Gerry, and Tanner?
All unseen....no noise, no smell, no trace left at all, which in itself is unusual.
I can imagine an abductor with an necrophiliac streak stealing the corpse, but I cannot imagine him leaving it 300 meters away from the apartment.
-
"the front door was hidden and much quicker to exit" ~ and so much "quicker to exit" if confident that the coast was clear to do so.
These details are all so obvious to people with logical brains and a smidgen of kindness. But don't worry. The opinions of people on Forums are of no importance.
-
A position that has been superseded by this quote from Redwood :
"Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive."
So you see SY's position on certainly one element of the case has changed significantly over the time of their review, who knows what else has changed.
Who knows what this pervert did to children that he only abused.
-
Who knows what this pervert did to children that he only abused.
Which pervert?
-
Who knows what this pervert did to children that he only abused.
Sorry Eleanor could you make your point a bit clearer ? As far as I am aware there has been no clear link established between the perpetrator who allegedly abused the British children and Madeleine's case.
-
Indeed.
Checking the drains at the OC has come AFTER they started digging...
Which all does tend to indicate something "substantial" has indeed been found.
-
Indeed.
Checking the drains at the OC has come AFTER they started digging...
Which all does tend to indicate something "substantial" has indeed been found.
Can you explain the logic of that please?
-
Sorry Eleanor could you make your point a bit clearer ? As far as I am aware there has been no clear link established between the perpetrator who allegedly abused the British children and Madeleine's case.
Just guessing. Like everybody else.
-
Can you explain the logic of that please?
You are a .....
SY sent a bunch of ILORs which all resulted in them being permission to search ONE place at a time.
Suddenly a SECOND search has popped up out of nowhere in a place that was unexpected even by the media (who have been kept well abreast of developments).
The significance of the sewer search is that it presumably implies that something to do with the disappearance of Madeleine may have been flushed down an OC toilet.
Which in turn means, Madeleine's perp resided at the OC.
8-)(--)
-
These details are all so obvious to people with logical brains and a smidgen of kindness. But don't worry. The opinions of people on Forums are of no importance.
You just go on believing that Eleanor. Public opinion is a powerful motivator.
As far as the thread title is concerned I fear SY still has no idea what the crime is if any...aside from that of conducting an illegal private criminal investigation in Portugal of course!
-
You are a .....
SY sent a bunch of ILORs which all resulted in them being permission to search ONE place at a time.
Suddenly a SECOND search has popped up out of nowhere in a place that was unexpected even by the media (who have been kept well abreast of developments).
The significance of the sewer search is that it presumably implies that something to do with the disappearance of Madeleine may have been flushed down an OC toilet.
Which in turn means, Madeleine's perp resided at the OC.
8-)(--)
The sewers have never been used to flush anything out of the OC toilets.
They were built for a planned new hotel complex on the search site ... which never got off the ground.
I'm not going to provide a cite for you as anyone keeping up to speed with developments can choose from the many media reports on the internet.
-
Sorry Eleanor could you make your point a bit clearer ? As far as I am aware there has been no clear link established between the perpetrator who allegedly abused the British children and Madeleine's case.
http://www.met.police.uk/madeleine-mccann-appeal/
Following an appeal in March, officers from Operation Grange investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have had a positive response to the appeal which has led to a number of new lines of enquiry.
Detectives overseeing the investigation specifically appealed for further information leading to the identification of a suspect who may have been responsible for a potentially linked series of twelve offences on the Western Algarve region between 2004 and 2010.
Clip
I am certain that the Met will be very anxious to locate and prosecute this man for his crimes against British anyway.
However imo there can be no doubt he is being linked with Madeleine's disappearance.
-
http://www.met.police.uk/madeleine-mccann-appeal/
Following an appeal in March, officers from Operation Grange investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have had a positive response to the appeal which has led to a number of new lines of enquiry.
Detectives overseeing the investigation specifically appealed for further information leading to the identification of a suspect who may have been responsible for a potentially linked series of twelve offences on the Western Algarve region between 2004 and 2010.
Clip
I am certain that the Met will be very anxious to locate and prosecute this man for his crimes against British anyway.
However imo there can be no doubt he is being linked with Madeleine's disappearance.
Well, the MET did not say anything like that...
-
Well, the MET did not say anything like that...
The met are investigating the disappearance of maddie...they have not involved in investigating crime in general in Portugal...they are interested in the other assaults mentioned...they MUST think there MAY be a connection...simple
-
Well, the MET did not say anything like that...
Martina, the quote I have used is from the official Met website. There are many newpaper reports which confirm it too, but I deliberately chose the official source.
-
The met are investigating the disappearance of maddie...they have not involved in investigating crime in general in Portugal...they are interested in the other assaults mentioned...they MUST think there MAY be a connection...simple
Indeed, Mr Smith was 60-80% sure it was a pot bellied refuse collector he saw carrying an inert child.
-
The met are investigating the disappearance of maddie...they have not involved in investigating crime in general in Portugal...they are interested in the other assaults mentioned...they MUST think there MAY be a connection...simple
..and of course they could be clutching at straws,having spent now in the region of £7,000,000, not the £5,000,000 mentioned on the program last night.
-
..and of course they could be clutching at straws,having spent now in the region of £7,000,000, not the £5,000,000 mentioned on the program last night.
As they say, leave no stone unturned, no straw unclutched. 8(0(*
-
As they say, leave no stone unturned, no straw unclutched. 8(0(*
Nicely put. 8((()*/ 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Indeed, Mr Smith was 60-80% sure it was a pot bellied refuse collector he saw carrying an inert child.
The 80% was for Gerry.
The 60% was for whoever he carried.
It remains an uncomfortable mathematical equation for the McFanns, in whose world 80% is a bad fail.
-
The 80% was for Gerry.
The 60% was for whoever he carried.
It remains an uncomfortable mathematical equation for the McFanns, in whose world 80% is a bad fail.
In lots of situations 80% is not good enough but you are unable to think outside a very limited box.....
Lets say parachutes were 80% successful...no doubt you would be happy to jump out of the plane..if only
-
In lots of situations 80% is not good enough but you are unable to think outside a very limited box.....
Lets say parachutes were 80% successful...no doubt you would be happy to jump out of the plane..if only
If the alternative was being burned, I expect one would.
-
Martina, the quote I have used is from the official Met website. There are many newpaper reports which confirm it too, but I deliberately chose the official source.
Well in the quote you provided is written (the part in red in my previous post) "potentially linked". That's a far cry for "it must be linked".
And... it's weird... when they were preparing to dig in Luz you said they were just tying the loose ends and eliminating the possible leads. But now it MUST be linked? R'ly?
-
If the alternative was being burned, I expect one would.
not surprisingly you have failed to grasp a very simple point
-
not surprisingly you have failed to grasp a very simple point
No, you chose a bad analogy.
-
No, you chose a bad analogy.
its a very good analogy but you couldnt possibly admit it
-
Indeed, Mr Smith was 60-80% sure it was a pot bellied refuse collector he saw carrying an inert child.
At least YOU got the 60% -80% right. Pity that none of the rest of the group thought that it was Gerry.
Rather undermines your thesis, doesn't it?
Several Smith adults witnessed Smithmen and none of the others thought that the way Gerry carried S*** from the plane was significant. Mr Smith said that his wife agreed with him ... so Amarals lot said, BUT she didn't think it relevant or else she would have been giving a statement like her hubby.
More Chinese Whispers. third party statements. JeeZ!
-
Are they still running with an abduction theory? - seems so according to what they have publically said - (and probably still running with an IMO incorrect removal window too)
-
Are they still running with an abduction theory? - seems so according to what they have publically said - (and probably still running with an IMO incorrect removal window too)
Yes they've run with the abduction theory, all the way down to Spain, across to Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, down to South Africa and Australia, can't forget New Zealand - and ended up 300m from 5a's front door.
-
Yes they've run with the abduction theory, all the way down to Spain, across to Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, down to South Africa and Australia, can't forget New Zealand - and ended up 300m from 5a's front door.
100m, when they start that other area
-
... Smithman was seen at just before 10 ...
So that would mean exit from apartment at about 21:55 which puts you in the same time window as SY?
BTW I don't see why SY would concentrate only on a sighting of someone openly carrying a child.
-
So that would mean exit from apartment at about 21:55 which puts you in the same time window as SY?
BTW I don't see why SY would concentrate only on a sighting of someone openly carrying a child.
Why do you assume they have?
Why don't you assume, like me, that the end result of Operation Grange is that particular sighting, who it was, and where he went?
Why don't you assume they have spent the last 4 years examining every individual that was anywhere near the OC that night, and a stack of others who weren't?
Why don't you believe that the "substantial phase" of Operation Grange is this dig? They have already told us, the investigatory part is done, now they are doing the physical part.
Putting their money where their mouth has been, if you like.
Andy Redmond is standing there, which tells me that they didn't just get a map and throw a dart into for this dig.
They expect to find something.
Which makes it even queerer that the McCanns are in Rothley.
-
I would say this is their last throw of the dice, if they don't come up with anything by the end of next week I fear the Portuguese's patience will be sorely tested.
I still don't believe SY have anything solid to go by and are effectively learning as they go along. What is certain however is that they are desperate for a breakthrough.
-
It would be somewhat embarrassing if, after spending goodly number of Simoleons and Doubloons on the case, all they were able to say at the end was:-
"The Portuguese judiciary called it right"
What do you mean by the Portuguese judiciary called it right...which one of their decisions are you referring to....the one where they said there was no evidence against the mccanns...SY have already said taht
-
What do you mean by the Portuguese judiciary called it right...which one of their decisions are you referring to....the one where they said there was no evidence against the mccanns...SY have already said taht
When did they say taht?
-
I wonder if the UK/PJ team has ever thought to really go back to square one, drop all assumptions, and ask two officers, did you actually look behind there, or not.
-
For Smithman to work timewise, the abduction (if there was one) had to have occurred shortly before 10pm. That would allow the 5 minutes that it would have taken someone on foot carrying a child to get from OC Garden to Rua 25 de Abril and the Smiths.
-
I would say this is their last throw of the dice, if they don't come up with anything by the end of next week I fear the Portuguese's patience will be sorely tested.
I still don't believe SY have anything solid to go by and are effectively learning as they go along. What is certain however is that they are desperate for a breakthrough.
Yes, I agree. If the searches and the interviews don't either turn up anything, or give them new leads, then I suspect Grange will be closed down, and that will, essentially, be the end of the matter. Unfortunately.
-
Yes, I agree. If the searches and the interviews don't either turn up anything, or give them new leads, then I suspect Grange will be closed down, and that will, essentially, be the end of the matter. Unfortunately.
I definitely agree on that.
The case will almost certainly go into limbo and that is unfortunate in every respect, as it won't bring closure to the case and Madeleine's memory.
-
For Smithman to work timewise, the abduction (if there was one) had to have occurred shortly before 10pm. That would allow the 5 minutes that it would have taken someone on foot carrying a child to get from OC Garden to Rua 25 de Abril and the Smiths.
The Smithman abductor would also have had to change Maddies pyjama top, prior to being seen by the Smiths.
That's not likely is it, so, Smithman wasn't an abductor.
-
... the 5 minutes that it would have taken someone on foot carrying a child to get from OC Garden to Rua 25 de Abril and the Smiths.
If you assume the man had come from 5A, and was walking fast, 3 minutes, maybe less, would be adequate, and it would take 5 minutes only if he walked slowly IMO.
I previously thought the Smith sighting was relevant.
But my current thinking is that there was no removal at any time close to 22:00.
The whole investigation seems to be hypnotised by the unconcealed carrying sightings.
-
If you assume the man had come from 5A, and was walking fast, 3 minutes, maybe less, would be adequate, and it would take 5 minutes only if he walked slowly IMO.
I previously thought the Smith sighting was relevant.
But my current thinking is that there was no removal at any time close to 22:00.
The whole investigation seems to be hypnotised by the unconcealed carrying sightings.
Yes indeed. There could be many more witnesses that we simply haven't been told about yet. There is plenty of stuff that isn't available to the general public.
-
Yes indeed. There could be many more witnesses that we simply haven't been told about yet. There is plenty of stuff that isn't available to the general public.
Yes I assume that the SY SmithMan appeal broadcast in the UK would have produced some new witnesses, about whom we know nothing (apart from possibly the hint in PT press of a uk tourist witness of a man carrying a child while talking english on his mobile).
Hypnotised by sightings of unconcealed carrying means: They start with one at 21:20, then suddenly get a revelation, and switch to another one at 22:00, then, if a recent press report is correct, supplement it with yet another one, now adding the even more ridiculous idea, that someone would be conspiring on his mobile while doing it.
Meanwhile I am reading past cases, and point out that unconcealed carrying never happens in these cases, therefore it is likely that removal in this case would be by concealed carrying (carrying in something). All just IMO.
-
If you assume the man had come from 5A, and was walking fast, 3 minutes, maybe less, would be adequate, and it would take 5 minutes only if he walked slowly IMO.
I previously thought the Smith sighting was relevant.
But my current thinking is that there was no removal at any time close to 22:00.
The whole investigation seems to be hypnotised by the unconcealed carrying sightings.
IMO You are mistaken thinking Smithman carried Madeleine from 5A when he passed the Smiths. That didn't happen - he could get there far quicker by running 8)-)))
-
Yes I assume that the SY SmithMan appeal broadcast in the UK would have produced some new witnesses, about whom we know nothing (apart from possibly the hint in PT press of a uk tourist witness of a man carrying a child while talking english on his mobile).
Hypnotised by sightings of unconcealed carrying means: They start with one at 21:20, then suddenly get a revelation, and switch to another one at 22:00, then, if a recent press report is correct, supplement it with yet another one, now adding the even more ridiculous idea, that someone would be conspiring on his mobile while doing it.
Meanwhile I am reading past cases, and point out that unconcealed carrying never happens in these cases, therefore it is likely that removal in this case would be by concealed carrying (carrying in something). All just IMO.
As far as we know, Smithman exists, so are you suggesting it is totally innocent, or a ruse, or indeed something else?
-
As far as we know, Smithman exists, so are you suggesting it is totally innocent, or a ruse, or indeed something else?
IMO, Smithman is just another innocent father with his Maddie lookalike daughter, who just so happen to live in an Amish community & have never heard of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
-
IMO, Just another innocent father with his Maddie lookalike daughter, who just so happen to live in an Amish community & has never heard of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Would an resident of an Amish community have have taken a holiday to such a degenerate place ?
-
He couldn't speak to anybody with that strong accent. Best keep his mouth shut and supress efits 8)-)))
-
But you have the evidence in front of you, that an innocent man carrying a child that night may remain undiscovered by police for many years. And remember that the smithman crimewatch program was never translated into portuguese for broadcast in Portugal. How is smithman supposed to watch it exactly? Hire a translator to translate while he watches the "strictly english language speakers only please" program?
-
Innocent Amishdad also happens to be a deaf mute & he's completely illiterate IMO.
-
But you have the evidence in front of you, that an innocent man carrying a child that night may remain undiscovered by police for many years. And remember that the smithman crimewatch program was never translated into portuguese and broadcast in Portugal.
Still can't get me 'ead round that.
-
IMO, Smithman is just another innocent father with his Maddie lookalike daughter, who just so happen to live in an Amish community & have never heard of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The Crimewatch Smithman Appeal program was not translated into Amish dialects nor into Portuguese.
-
But you have the evidence in front of you, that an innocent man carrying a child that night may remain undiscovered by police for many years. And remember that the smithman crimewatch program was never translated into portuguese for broadcast in Portugal. How is smithman supposed to watch it exactly? Hire a translator to translate while he watches the "strictly english language speakers only please" program?
Do Portuguese holiday in such places, or do they, too go abroad for their holidays?
-
The Crimewatch Smithman Appeal program was not translated into Amish dialects nor into Portuguese.
I thought everyone in Portugal following the case would know about Smithman from Amaral's book/doc and his interviews.
-
Still can't get me 'ead round that.
Apparantly no portuguese version, and then they had the cheek to charge me and probably you over £140 each.
Surprised no-one thought of this:
"Oh, I just had an idea, seems like a long shot, but while we're doing the english version of the Crimewatch program, why don't we run off a portuguese translated version, wouldn't cost much to dub the voices, and license it to SIC or TVI ?
-
Apparantly no portuguese version, and then they had the cheek to charge me and probably you over £140 each.
Surprised no-one thought of this:
"Oh, I just had an idea, seems like a long shot, but while we're doing the english version of the Crimewatch program, why don't we run off a portuguese translated version, wouldn't cost much to dub the voices, and license it to SIC or TVI ?
I read an article before, it's somewhere on here, one of the broadcasters claimed that they wanted to broadcast it but were refused permission by the BBC.
Here:
The BBC, in response to questions from The Portugal News over Crimewatch failing to make it on to the television screens of viewers in the country where Madeleine McCann disappeared, explained: “We have provided clips of the Crimewatch programme to international broadcasters to assist them in their coverage of the appeal, and the Crimewatch film is available on the BBC Crimewatch website to international audiences.
“The decision on broadcasting an appeal on an equivalent programme in Portugal is a matter for the Portuguese broadcasters, Portuguese police and The Metropolitan Police”, the statement read.
The Deputy Director of News at Sic Television was meanwhile reported to have exchanged e-mails with the BBC in the days running up to the Crimewatch programme in order to secure the rights to the full programme, but to no avail.
“The BBC said they are not selling the rights”, Martim Cabral told The Portugal News, “therefore we cannot show it.”
Another Portuguese news channel, TVI, told The Portugal News that it had contacted the British national broadcaster prior to the airing of the show, as it sought to “acquire the programme for Portugal, which was denied.”
“Should the BBC change its position and should TVI continue to show an interest, it is certain that we will look at transmitting the programme in question.
“TVI has also requested the BBC clarify this situation with British media to avoid more erroneous interpretations, such as those claiming Portuguese television channels are not interested in transmitting the programme.”
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/crimewatch-aired-in-uk-ireland-netherlands-germany-but-why-not-portugal/29659
-
Thanks WSpam. Let's ask for our £145.50 back.
-
Apparantly no portuguese version, and then they had the cheek to charge me and probably you over £140 each.
Surprised no-one thought of this:
"Oh, I just had an idea, seems like a long shot, but while we're doing the english version of the Crimewatch program, why don't we run off a portuguese translated version, wouldn't cost much to dub the voices, and license it to SIC or TVI ?
What were you charged £140 for?
-
What were you charged £140 for?
I think that's the licence fee.
-
Well as expected the search in Praia da Luz hasnt even turned up the donkey bones which lie in the last field searched today. Eight days of searching and nothing to show for it but lots of sunburned cops and a huge bill for the taxpayers.
But let's look on the bright side, the McCanns are reportedly happy with progress!
-
Well as expected the search in Praia da Luz hasnt even turned up the donkey bones which lie in the last field searched today. Eight days of searching and nothing to show for it but lots of sunburned cops and a huge bill for the taxpayers.
But let's look on the bright side, the McCanns are reportedly happy with progress!
They have done something that had to be done long time ago. This search would be a part of a normal police procedure like this.
It is not their fault it hasn't been done before. They had to make sure Madeleine was not buried there. IMO they deserve thumbs up. Not only SY but the whole Portuguese team too.. At least some good policing done.
One phase finished.. lets move to another phase.
The taxpayers money this time are well spent. An experienced procedure to be noted down and remembered for all future cases of missing children.
-
...An experienced procedure to be noted down and remembered for all future cases of missing children.
But it was UK police who selected the search sites of late July / early August 2007 and it was UK police and UK cadaver dog who carried out those searches. Are you saying the 2007 UK police did something wrong?
-
But it was UK police who selected the search sites of late July / early August 2007 and it was UK police and UK cadaver dog who carried out those searches. Are you saying the 2007 UK police did something wrong?
How can UK police search in Portugal?
Amaral should have done that. As a part of a proper procedure. I've seen it done in other cases and in other countries.
Instead Amaral preferred sitting in his armchair and making up his UFO theories.
-
How can UK police search in Portugal?
Amaral should have done that. As a part of a proper procedure. I've seen it done in other cases and in other countries.
Instead Amaral preferred sitting in his armchair and making up his UFO theories.
Mr Amaral wisely agreed to accept the assistance of the NPIA and that is why the searches of late July / early August 2007 were so good, it is because Mr Amaral accepted the help of the NPIA, without whose generous assistance there would probably have been no 2007 cadaver dog searches. The UK man who planned these searches for Mr Amaral was one of the world's top search experts.
-
But it was UK police who selected the search sites of late July / early August 2007 and it was UK police and UK cadaver dog who carried out those searches. Are you saying the 2007 UK police did something wrong?
They have just gone over old ground still they have had a nice jolly and according to bar owners have drank the pubs dry in 3 days lol.
Perhaps SY could have spent as much effort in finding suzy Lamplugh and Claudia Lawrence now theres a thought.....
They have found NOTHING, apart from one old sock, 2 cannabis plants probably thrown by the wind, and a partridge in a pear tree .......
Maybe they are just eliminating the theory the child was abducted and murdered outside.
-
The sites checked in 2007 by Eddie, and the sites checked so far in 2014 by Tito and Muzzy, are different sites.
I have seen no rechecking of sites already proven to be clean by Eddie.
If they were going to recheck any outdoors location which Eddie searched, the obvious one to select would be the one where he did signal, JIMO.
-
The sites checked in 2007 by Eddie, and the sites checked so far in 2014 by Tito and Muzzy, are different sites.
I have seen no rechecking of sites already proven to be clean by Eddie.
If they were going to recheck any outdoors location which Eddie searched, the obvious one to select would be the one where he did signal, JIMO.
They will check sites by church once main holiday season is over. Wasteland and possibly cliff face.
-
They will check sites by church once main holiday season is over. Wasteland and possibly cliff face.
Obviously in no hurry then, if this is true.
-
Obviously in no hurry then, if this is true.
I don't know but it's been over 7 years now so waiting a few extra months is hardly going to cause major damage the search.
-
I don't know but it's been over 7 years now so waiting a few extra months is hardly going to cause major damage the search.
Well it should if she was alive and just waiting to be rescued from the clutches of some depraved paedophile
-
The answer is easy (how to search the other areas which warrants have been obtained for):
All the fanfare - the horses - tents - backhoes - spades - forensic peeps - english suits - is unnecessary.
Just go to a selected site at night with Tito and Muzzy and their two handlers, and one or two people to record which square metres the dogs search.
It won't upset the locals - very low profile - no impact on tourist trade.
If Tito and Muzzy don't alert, job done, you know for certain nothing is there.
(If they do alert, then secure and bring in the minimum required to dig just that spot).
Common sense is cheap, why not use it?