UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Moderator on November 26, 2014, 01:57:39 PM
-
Was Madeleine McCann run over by accident and then carried off?
The recent news of a letter alleged found outside apartment 5a exactly one year after Madeleine disappeared might well turn out to have more significance than first realised. This find could very well be the development which everyone has sought but has for some reason remained as yet another obscure non event.
The question being asked at the top of this thread is there for a very good reason. The woke and wandered theory as it is called has been touched on here for some time but never completely explained, this letter could very well complete the puzzle.
What happened to Madeleine McCann could in reality be very simple. A tired child is put to bed early and wakes to find herself alone with her siblings. The evidence as we know it reveals that this was not the first time that the youngster woke to find her parents in absentsia. There was nothing to stop the child venturing out in an attempt to find her parents. Again, the child's own mother suggested that this could occur, a reason having been given as to why the patio door was left unlocked.
The question is then posed as to how did she get out? Was it by opening the curtains in her bedroom, sliding open the window pane and opening a shutter by heaving it up by a strap? The evidence collected from the scene by Portuguese CSI suggests not.
We are then left with two possibilities, she either opened the front door or she slid open the patio door. First of all I must point out that we only have Kate McCanns say so as to the state she found the apartment and in particular the doors when she made that first check on her children at around 10pm. There is no reference to the roadside gate having been left open, similarly, there is no reference to the child's safety gate being open. There is also no reference to the patio door or the front door being open.
Consider this for a moment. The simplest and quickest way for a child to get out of that apartment was the route Madeleine had taken every day since arriving at the resort. Out the front door and into the car park. Again, we know from the statements that the family locked the patio door from the inside every morning before heading off to the two children's clubs. Madeleine would have been very familiar with this routine, it would have been etched on her memory.
420
-
I will continue the intro shortly, please consider the following,
The open window
The slamming door
The GNR sniffer dog
No trace of an intruder
Absence of any sightings
The letter of conscience
-
If she didn't open the window then who did?
-
I believe the description of the child bedroom to be truthful.
So how do you explain the open window and shutter in your theory?
BTW there have been elsewhere a sad case of this type (RTA followed by concealment), but I do not think it is what happened in PDL, there are no witnesses to any RTA, and to make it work you would have to add a plausible connection between it and the open window.
-
According to Kate, there is no way Maddie could have wandered off.
Kate isn't lying about the window & shutters being open. (honest guv!)
The back gate was closed.
The childgate was closed (with the childlock).
The sliding patio door was closed.
The long curtains were closed.
I struggle to believe that Maddie opened the window & shutters then climbed out & legged it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WLvnfcl-Zkg#t=1371
-
Even if we accept your premise, it would still beg the question - who carried her off? It doesn't necessarily follow that it would be the car driver, as if it happened, it could have been a hit & run.
-
I fail to see the benefit of taking the body away and concealing it if Madeleine had been killed in an RTA. Can someone please explain ?
-
What is it about this alleged note that makes you think woke and wandered is more likely than abduction?
-
I fail to see the benefit of taking the body away and concealing it if Madeleine had been killed in an RTA. Can someone please explain ?
Might depend on who found and removed her
-
Even if we accept your premise, it would still beg the question - who carried her off? It doesn't necessarily follow that it would be the car driver, as if it happened, it could have been a hit & run.
More than likely a slow speed impact just outside mini reception. Driver panics for all sorts of reasons, carries child to the car park and puts her in his car. Realising the child is beyond help he removes her from the scene.
-
I didn't say the abduction was staged. I said that by blaming an abduction they were getting themselves off the hook.
-
More than likely a slow speed impact just outside mini reception. Driver panics for all sorts of reasons, carries child to the car park and puts her in his car. Realising the child is beyond help he removes her from the scene.
Why? Accidents happen. Easier to report it or to do a runner leaving child in road.
-
Might depend on who found and removed her
Can you expand on that please jassi ?
-
Can you expand on that please jassi ?
Not on an open forum @)(++(* I'll send you a PM
-
Why? Accidents happen. Easier to report it or to do a runner leaving child in road.
Or simply to drive off. A quiet road, no obvious CCTV, what could be simpler ?
-
Not on an open forum @)(++(* I'll send you a PM
Thanks
-
The evidence reveals that self preservation was a high priority within the group. Their failed attempts to persuade detectives of their checking regime were very noticeable.
-
What is it about this alleged note that makes you think woke and wandered is more likely than abduction?
Unless as happens in many cases, a good Samaritan changes his mind when reality and the consequences of his actions begin to dawn on him. He wouldn't have known where this kid came from so what to do? Take her to hospital which was miles away and risk being done for it??
-
Unless as happens in many cases, a good Samaritan changes his mind when reality and the consequences of his actions begin to dawn on him. He wouldn't have known where this kid came from so what to do? Take her to hospital which was miles away and risk being done for it??
By taking her away he creates more problems - disposal of body. Better to leave her & do a runner.
-
@ Mr Mod in your hypothesis what would be reason for leaving the apartment?
-
I have always had sympathy with the woke and wandered theory for many reasons some of which are mentioned in the intro.
Remember too, had a local ran her over and lifted her in an attempt to seek out medical attention there was every likelihood that that he would hear that an abductor was being sought. Would he really have wanted to be tarred with that particular brush?
-
I didn't say the abduction was staged. I said that by blaming an abduction they were getting themselves off the hook.
What hook would that be? They admitted they left their kids alone so...?
-
I have always had sympathy with the woke and wandered theory for many reasons some of which are mentioned in the intro.
Remember too, had a local ran her over and lifted her in an attempt to seek out medical attention there was every likelihood that that he would hear that an abductor was being sought. Would he really have wanted to be tarred with that particular brush?
Who opened the bedroom windows then?
-
I have always had sympathy with the woke and wandered theory for many reasons some of which are mentioned in the intro.
Remember too, had a local ran her over and lifted her in an attempt to seek out medical attention there was every likelihood that that he would hear that an abductor was being sought. Would he really have wanted to be tarred with that particular brush?
Not likely to happen if he was taking her to a hospital, as that would have happened before any alarm was raised.
-
No independent witnesses to the windows being open, not even their friends who passed by them in a regular stream the hour before.
-
What hook would that be? They admitted they left their kids alone so...?
Yes, but only in the context of the existence of an abductor.
If she had been found dead in the middle of the road, for example, they would have been much more likely to have faced neglect charges.
-
Who opened the bedroom windows then?
Window! Whose fingerprint was found?
Who was first at the scene?
Who howled 'ABDUCTION'?
-
The evidence for wandered out is very strong. The very first place Gerry and Matt searched was to the crèche and the kids club. Curiously, I don't think you would find an abductor or an abducted child there!
Add in the failure to initially contact police and you can immediately see that they were looking for an escaped child and were hoping for a good outcome WITHOUT INVOLVING POLICE!
The GNR sniffer dogs sudden trail ending in the residents car park is I agree very strong evidence of a sudden removal from the location by probably being loaded into a car.
-
Something else I have just realised is that the opening of the patio door would have caused a draught sufficient to close the front door and Kate McCann being outside would have been none the wiser.
-
The evidence for wandered out is very strong. The very first place Gerry and Matt searched was to the crèche and the kids club. Curiously, I don't think you would find an abductor or an abducted child there!
Add in the failure to initially contact police and you can immediately see that they were looking for an escaped child and were hoping for a good outcome WITHOUT INVOLVING POLICE!
The GNR sniffer dogs sudden trail ending in the residents car park is I agree very strong evidence of a sudden removal from the location by probably being loaded into a car.
John, please be sensible. I'm really rather disappointed in you. What you are suggesting is ludicrous. You seem to be suggesting that Gerry and Matt should not have been searching anywhere, because Kate felt straight away that it was an abduction. Is this what you are saying? Do you actually think they were being unreasonable in hoping for a good outcome without involving police?
-
Window! Whose fingerprint was found?...
The 5 prints of KM were all on the glass as clearly stated in the files, and inconsistent with any opening action.
If you find a photo in the files of any print of hers not on glass and indicative of opening please post page number and Foto number,.
-
John, please be sensible. I'm really rather disappointed in you. What you are suggesting is ludicrous. You seem to be suggesting that Gerry and Matt should not have been searching anywhere, because Kate felt straight away that it was an abduction. Is this what you are saying? Do you actually think they were being unreasonable in hoping for a good outcome without involving police?
The evidence answers your question Alfred. Kates first utterances were that Madeleine was gone, not that she had been abducted...very telling don't you think??
-
The evidence answers your question Alfred. Kates first utterances were that Madeleine was gone, not that she had been abducted...very telling don't you think??
What does it tell you Angelo?
-
What does it tell you Angelo?
As you very well know it reveals that Madeleine was initially thought to have got out and wandered off. The 'paedophiles have taken her' claim came later conveniently supported by an open window and shutter.
Remember Matt's check at 9.30? No open window or shutter, not even a curtain out of place.
-
Reading some of Kate's maybe Gerry's blogs from the early days was really quite touching recently. Nearly dipped my opinion in favor of them being completely innocent. I think any talk of anything other then abduction and the psychology of this case becomes huge.
This book here from just reading the sample I found quite eye opening:
http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Why_Mothers_Kill_A_Forensic_Psychologist.html?id=Yp9sosaS3ioC (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Why_Mothers_Kill_A_Forensic_Psychologist.html?id=Yp9sosaS3ioC)
What kind of person(s) would cover this up? What kind of emotional problems would they have to have to do so? Then take into account the huge campaign they have mounted. Why would they write a letter to David Cameron begging for him to reopen the investigation?
-
I thought Kate's first words were "they've taken her" or was it "we've let her down".
-
I thought Kate's first words were "they've taken her" or was it "we've let her down".
I believe it was "she's gone!!"
-
Then take into account the huge campaign they have mounted. Why would they write a letter to David Cameron begging for him to reopen the investigation?
Two reasons. First being their desire to find Madeleine and secondly to deflect attention from the simulated abduction allegation.
-
As you very well know it reveals that Madeleine was initially thought to have got out and wandered off. The 'paedophiles have taken her' claim came later conveniently supported by an open window and shutter.
Remember Matt's check at 9.30? No open window or shutter, not even a curtain out of place.
Matt's check at 9.30 from the rogatory interviews he could not say for certain whether the windows/curtains/shutters were opened or closed. I believe he said when he recollected the check that it seemed brighter in the room then was usual...
-
Two reasons. First being their desire to find Madeleine and secondly to deflect attention from the simulated abduction allegation.
hmmm. 2nd reason - did they really need to do this? Everything seemed to be going quiet. Why stir things up again? Does not your first reason then contradict the 2nd reason if they wished to divert attention? I assume you believe they may know something?
-
Kate only made a big fuss about the apartment being unlocked was on the night her daughter disappeared! Fenn heard Maddy crying for 90 minutes until 11:45pm so if the patio door was unlocked you'd think she'd try and get out on the Tuesday. Maddy not sleeping would be more of a concern for them.
-
Two reasons. First being their desire to find Madeleine and secondly to deflect attention from the simulated abduction allegation.
so you accept they don't know where maddie is
-
Kate only made a big fuss about the apartment being unlocked was on the night her daughter disappeared! Fenn heard Maddy crying for 90 minutes until 11:45pm so if the patio door was unlocked you'd think she'd try and get out on the Tuesday. Maddy not sleeping would be more of a concern for them.
I have thought about that. Children tend to get more adventurous as time goes on. Maybe she ddnt have the confidence to venture out on any previous night. Remember also that Maddie had a rebellious streak evidenced again by her running off one day as soon as they had exited the apartment.
-
... 90 minutes ...
75 actually
-
I have thought about that. Children tend to get more adventurous as time goes on. Maybe she ddnt have the confidence to venture out on any previous night.
Conversations at the table are very suspicious before she disappeared. Her best friend Fiona didn't even know they had left the apartment unlocked at night until Kate told her about the crying episode. It all leads to one place and with the dog alerts I doubt SY are spending 10 million + just to find a dead child.
-
If there is evidence to suggest Madeleine left the apartment and was the victim of a hit and run, why are SY issuing letters of request to interview numerous witnesses and arguidos?
-
Conversations at the table are very suspicious before she disappeared. Her best friend Fiona didn't even know they had left the apartment unlocked at night until Kate told her and the crying episode. It all leads to one place and with the dog alerts I doubt SY are spending 10 million + just to find a dead child.
Is it recorded that anyone else at the table heard this conversation, or is it just what Fiona says that Kate said?
-
Conversations at the table are very suspicious before she disappeared. Her best friend Fiona didn't even know they had left the apartment unlocked at night until Kate told her and the crying episode. It all leads to one place and with the dog alerts I doubt SY are spending 10 million + just to find a dead child.
I don't give much credit to any abduction theory, that sort of thing never happened in PdL before Maddie disappeared and there have never been any cases ever since. If anyone needs a parallel just look at the Cipriano case. Another claimed abduction but nothing to support it.
-
I don't give much credit to any abduction theory, that sort of thing never happened in PdL before Maddie disappeared and there have never been any cases ever since. If anyone needs a parallel just look at the Cipriano case. Another claimed abduction but nothing to support it.
Good points, everybody shouts abduction but more often than not there is something else going on in the background. Neither the abduction claim nor the simulated abduction theory as promoted by Gonçalo Amaral hold up to scrutiny. If this letter found next to the apartment on 3rd May 2008 is indeed genuine the first part of the mystery will be solved. The sniffer dogs were the key to this case but for some reason conveniently overlooked?
-
I don't give much credit to any abduction theory, that sort of thing never happened in PdL before Maddie disappeared and there have never been any cases ever since. If anyone needs a parallel just look at the Cipriano case. Another claimed abduction but nothing to support it.
... and we have the assurances of Paul Luckman that neither did burglaries happen in the Algarve as a whole and Praia Da Luz in particular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKx0ND1jBwA
Until very recently there was total denial that British holidaymakers children were being assaulted in their beds while their parents slept in the room next door.
-
Good points, everybody shouts abduction but more often than not there is something else going on in the background. Neither the abduction claim nor the simulated abduction theory as promoted by Gonçalo Amaral hold up to scrutiny. If this letter found next to the apartment on 3rd May 2008 is indeed genuine the first part of the mystery will be solved. The sniffer dogs were the key to this case but for some reason conveniently overlooked?
Am I being particularly obtuse, John? In what way does the existence of this letter solve the mystery?
-
Is it recorded that anyone else at the table heard this conversation, or is it just what Fiona says that Kate said?
Fiona was sat next to Kate at the table.
"I know that on Thursday night when we sat down at the table, Kate said that to Madeleine and Sean had you know, said they'd been crying on the Wednesday night and asking where erm, they'd said they'd been crying."
McCANNS said, oh well I wonder whether on the Wednesday, you know somebody had tried to get in perhaps or had got in and they'd seen something, erm you know and I was next door in the apartment but I mean I didnt hear any, well you know, I didnt hear anything, (Rachel Oldfield)
-
just a thought about the OP could maddie have been hit by a car had internal injuries was in shock crawled into the flowerbed which the dogs picked up on and then somehow got inside and curled up behind the sofa? and cried until the internal injuries stopped her breathing???
-
just a thought about the OP could maddie have been hit by a car had internal injuries was in shock crawled into the flowerbed which the dogs picked up on and then somehow got inside and curled up behind the sofa? and cried until the internal injuries stopped her breathing???
In a word, No.
-
I don't give much credit to any abduction theory, that sort of thing never happened in PdL before Maddie disappeared and there have never been any cases ever since. If anyone needs a parallel just look at the Cipriano case. Another claimed abduction but nothing to support it.
Does this mean you don't believe Ben Needham was abducted either?
-
Good points, everybody shouts abduction but more often than not there is something else going on in the background. Neither the abduction claim nor the simulated abduction theory as promoted by Gonçalo Amaral hold up to scrutiny. If this letter found next to the apartment on 3rd May 2008 is indeed genuine the first part of the mystery will be solved. The sniffer dogs were the key to this case but for some reason conveniently overlooked?
I've asked this earlier but I will ask again in the hope of a response this time: why does this supposed letter suggest "woke and wandered" and not "abduction" to you?
-
Does this mean you don't believe Ben Needham was abducted either?
As it stands nobody knows but I don't think he was run over as it was daytime and at a place with little traffic.
-
I've asked this earlier but I will ask again in the hope of a response this time: why does this supposed letter suggest "woke and wandered" and not "abduction" to you?
If I might answer that question, an abductor would not in my opinion want to leave any clue whereas some innocent person who might have accidentally knocked her down would have a conscience and would want to appease their own guilt by leaving a clue as to her whereabouts. It doesn't take a genius to work these things out so try applying a modicum of savvy Alfred.
eta. If I didn't know you better I would be wondering why you are so keen to protect the abduction claim and especially when there isn't an iota of evidence to support it.
-
If I might answer that question, an abductor would not in my opinion want to leave any clue whereas some innocent person who might have accidentally knocked her down would have a conscience and would want to appease their own guilt by leaving a clue as to her whereabouts. It doesn't take a genius to work these things out so try applying a modicum of savvy Alfred.
Please stop insulting my intelligence. It doesn't also take a genius to work out that it is not only hit and run drivers who might have developed a conscience in seven years, how about an abductor? they are human beings too after all. But if that is too far fetched for you and you feel like reaching for the insults again, stop and consider - is it not possible that the note was left by someone who knows someone or something about someone? Have you ever heard about convicted criminals boasting about their crimes to other criminals whist in prison? See, that's what a modicum of savvy looks like when properly applied!
-
If I might answer that question, an abductor would not in my opinion want to leave any clue whereas some innocent person who might have accidentally knocked her down would have a conscience and would want to appease their own guilt by leaving a clue as to her whereabouts. It doesn't take a genius to work these things out so try applying a modicum of savvy Alfred.
eta. If I didn't know you better I would be wondering why you are so keen to protect the abduction claim and especially when there isn't an iota of evidence to support it.
For your information I am not "keen to protect the abduction claim" as you so quaintly put it, what I am keen to do is to point out the absurd absence of logic and joined up thinking in those that absolutely and obstinately REFUSE to countenance the possibility that Madeleine was abducted and in so doing contort their thought processes into all sorts of daft shapes in order to try and make their own theories fit the evidence.
-
For your information I am not "keen to protect the abduction claim" as you so quaintly put it, what I am keen to do is to point out the absurd absence of logic and joined up thinking in those that absolutely and obstinately REFUSE to countenance the possibility that Madeleine was abducted and in so doing contort their thought processes into all sorts of daft shapes in order to try and make their own theories fit the evidence.
You have a really strange notion of what constitutes an insult. You asked a question which you then answered thus proving my point as to why you asked it in the first place.
Your insistence that the abduction claim should usurp every other theory on the basis of nil evidence is the biggest joke. The McCanns shout abduction so we should believe them? Not flipping likely.
-
Alfred, maybe you will answer my question about Kate McCann and her admission that telling fibs on occasion was not a unique phenomena to her?
Back to the op. There is no evidence whatsoever that Kate McCann found an open window and raised shutter, only her say so. I find the woke and wandered theory the most plausible all considered and plenty of former English detectives have gone on record to agree.
-
As it stands nobody knows but I don't think he was run over as it was daytime and at a place with little traffic.
I believe it was one of the theories ... specifically involving his uncle's motorbike ... put forward by the police when the Needhams too suffered accusation in relation to Ben's disappearance.
-
I believe it was one of the theories ... specifically involving his uncle's motorbike ... put forward by the police when the Needhams too suffered accusation in relation to Ben's disappearance.
Yes, I recall that being voiced at the time. People will do strange things when their neck is on the line.
-
The evidence Alfred, follow the evidence and leave the semantics at the 'front door'. 8((()*/
-
Is it recorded that anyone else at the table heard this conversation, or is it just what Fiona says that Kate said?
In the published files only group members mention it, no other diner mentions hearing it.
However one diner in the restaurant that evening did state that he and his wife and young children were sitting at the next table which was close enough to converse with the group.
-
The evidence Alfred, follow the evidence and leave the semantics at the 'front door'. 8((()*/
Show us the abundant evidence for woke and wandered then. There must be loads more of it than for the abduction theory. So what is it? An alleged letter that couldn't possibly have been written by anyone other than a hit and run driver, a sniffer dog trail that couldn't possibly have been following Madeleine accompanied by an abductor and what else?
-
... crying for 90 minutes ...
Checked statement, it says 10.30pm-11.45pm.
75 minutes not 90 minutes.
-
Is there any evidence or any suggestion that a vehicle had been involved in an accident with a pedestrian in the vicinity of the McCann apartment on the night of the third?
For example was any blood or tissue found ... broken headlight glass discovered ... broken windscreen glass or mirrors ... skid marks on the road ... damage to walls or street furniture?
Is there any evidence that a vehicle which might have had damage suggestive of collision with a pedestrian been found abandoned or burned out?
Has there been a witness report of such an accident near to the apartment or any event involving a vehicle, bearing in mind expert opinion is that had Madeleine exited the apartment of her own volition her likely route would have taken her downhill to the lighted entrance of the tapas restaurant; a route which was on the pavement all the way.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the notion that Madeleine may have been the victim of an RTA is speculation without a shred of evidence to support it.
-
Show us the abundant evidence for woke and wandered then. There must be loads more of it than for the abduction theory. So what is it? An alleged letter that couldn't possibly have been written by anyone other than a hit and run driver, a sniffer dog trail that couldn't possibly have been following Madeleine accompanied by an abductor and what else?
At the moment we have no idea if such a letter exists as there has been no official statement to that effect.
If it does exist, we have no idea of content nor if its author is some sort of crank.
That it seems to have been promoted as another stick to beat the Madeleine's parents with ... I find incredibly sad ... particularly when it is obvious that as far as the Met is concerned, they are the victims of a criminal act.
-
Is there any evidence or any suggestion that a vehicle had been involved in an accident ...
Not that I know of.
Here are two minor road incidents that evening (not in published files)
At about 8pm at a nearby junction (but not the T junction next to 5A) a small brown car, with just one English-looking man in it, reportedly swung round and nearly hit witness's car.
At about 8.30pm a black saloon car reversed sharply, exact location not stated but somewhere vaguely near 5A, there were two male occupants, witness had not seen them before, and thought they were acting strangely.
-
Not that I know of.
Here are two minor road incidents that evening (not in published files)
At about 8pm at a nearby junction (but not the T junction next to 5A) a small brown car, with just one English-looking man in it, reportedly swung round and nearly hit witness's car.
At about 8.30pm a black saloon car reversed sharply, exact location not stated but somewhere vaguely near 5A, there were two male occupants, witness had not seen them before, and thought they were acting strangely.
So nothing which confirms a hit and run.
-
This was actually my first idea when it all happened.
But then someone says the accident would be heard by the local residents.
The other things are: closed patio doors and the gate and the pulled patio curtain. Madeleine would have never done this herself.
-
No run but premeditated kidnapping as Redwood stated just listen him carefully when he speaks . With the following occurrence this is my theory and some parts have already been posted here by some forum members and very soon SY might prove or reject very soon: This is just educated guess and some of the parts I read on this forum ....with which I agree and re-order them here.
1 Predators were scanning and taking pictures of young children near PDL on 29April 2007 Until late on 29 they didnt have the target(according to the witness report). Witness saw them and reported to the police.
2. McCain family on 30th travel to this place near PDL. Maddie was spotted marked and picture of her was sent for approval to start kidnapping plans.
3. Buy the late evening on "someone" approved the picture and they started building PDL kidnapping crew.
4. One of the key persons who was supposed to be logistic was abroad and was ordered to come as fast as he can.He took the next morning flight from country X to PDL.
5. Kidnapping occurred. Some important arrest were made but police didnt want to publish unprocessed evidence they keep them secret until today so they have let go some of the interviewees after 6 months hopping one day evidence can match the offender.
6. SY got involved after couple of years they were ready to face new suspects with the new old evidence. Suddenly breakthrough. One of the people involved in kidnapping start negotiation for his status if he tells the whole story what happened that night and who and how is involved. SY and PDL might accept this offer for lesser punishment( I got this from newspaper reporter taking statements from people involved ) he said something very important from legal aspect).
-
Not likely to happen if he was taking her to a hospital, as that would have happened before any alarm was raised.
Maybe he carried her off with good intention but on realising she was beyond help and cheating that a paedophile child abductor was being sought he decided to cut his losses and hide her body.
-
If there is evidence to suggest Madeleine left the apartment and was the victim of a hit and run, why are SY issuing letters of request to interview numerous witnesses and arguidos?
Why indeed? Maybe they are really looking for the motorist who ran her over.
As far as evidence is concerned, there is definitely support for the woke and wandered theory but little for any other now that SY has put the kibosh on Tannerman. In fact, it has already been pointed out on another thread that several former British detectives have gone on record to support the woke and wandered theory, something they would never have done had there been no evidence to support it. Ultimately it is the evidence which counts and it is the evidence which will determine the outcome of this case. That open window and shutter is sure to feature in any resolution imo.
-
Why indeed? Maybe they are really looking for the motorist who ran her over.
As far as evidence is concerned, there is definitely support for the woke and wandered theory but little for any other now that SY has put the kibosh on Tannerman. In fact, it has already been pointed out on another thread that several former British detectives have gone on record to support the woke and wandered theory, something they would never have done had there been no evidence to support it. Ultimately it is the evidence which counts and it is the evidence which will determine the outcome of this case. That open window and shutter is sure to feature in any resolution imo.
I'm not sure they have entirely discarded Tannerman ... I think the DCI was enigmatic about that.
-
This was actually my first idea when it all happened.
But then someone says the accident would be heard by the local residents.
The other things are: closed patio doors and the gate and the pulled patio curtain. Madeleine would have never done this herself.
I don't think she would have gone off walking anywhere in her bare feet. It would be too painful.
Also according to Kate - she had never been in the habit of waking during the first few hours after going to bed - only in the middle of the night - and that night she was particularly tired.
-
Alfred, maybe you will answer my question about Kate McCann and her admission that telling lies on occasion was not a unique phenomena to her?
Back to the op. There is no evidence whatsoever that Kate McCann found an open window and raised shutter, only her say so. I find the woke and wandered theory the most plausible all considered and plenty of former English detectives have gone on record to agree.
I notice that you totally believe Kate when she says anything that suits you - i.e. (re telling lies) - and yet when she makes a claim that doesn't suit you i.e. (the window was open) - you question her veracity?
Anyone can make a case about anything using those tactics.
Thank goodness the real professional detectives investigating this case do not take that blinkered approach.
-
I notice that you totally believe Kate when she says anything that suits you - i.e. (re telling lies) - and yet when she makes a claim that doesn't suit you i.e. (the window was open) - you question her veracity?
Anyone can make a case about anything using those tactics.
Thank goodness the real professional detectives investigating this case do not take that blinkered approach.
Unfortunately, IMO the lead detectives in the initial investigation did exactly that and took a one dimensional blinkered approach to Madeleine's disappearance ... which is why we are where we are now.
Reading between the lines of the present tack being taken ... it seems apparent that all the groundwork had been done by dedicated officers and the evidence was there ready to be collated to enable the case to be solved and the real perpetrators taken off the streets.
-
Checked statement, it says 10.30pm-11.45pm.
75 minutes not 90 minutes.
That's correct. Probably Kate talking about football at the table was on my mind 8)--))
-
Why indeed? Maybe they are really looking for the motorist who ran her over.
As far as evidence is concerned, there is definitely support for the woke and wandered theory but little for any other now that SY has put the kibosh on Tannerman. In fact, it has already been pointed out on another thread that several former British detectives have gone on record to support the woke and wandered theory, something they would never have done had there been no evidence to support it. Ultimately it is the evidence which counts and it is the evidence which will determine the outcome of this case. That open window and shutter is sure to feature in any resolution imo.
Does the open window and shutter support the "woke and wandered" theory in your view?
-
Does the open window and shutter support the "woke and wandered" theory in your view?
To answer that question you have to look at the facts and facts based on evidence. I haven't come across a single detective, serving or retired, who is of the opinion that the children's bedroom window was used in an abduction. One has therefore to question this entire situation.
* The evidence reveals no attempt to force the shutter and the only prints thereon are consistent with some one person having lifted it from the outside. For the record, Gerry McCann claimed to have done just that after the discovery that Madeleine was missing.
* Several identifiable prints were also lifted from the window, later shown to be those of Kate McCann.
* No footprints or any sign of an intruder having climbed in that window were found.
To answer your question therefore, the evidence reveals that only the parents of the missing child had any contact with the bedroom window and shutter so draw your own conclusion.
Either the entire CSI operation was a complete load of bollocks or someone is telling fibs.
-
What motive would the parents have to mess with the window in this scenario? If that's what you suspect...
There are conditions I imagine like if they gave her some medication plus the leaving her in an unlocked apartment which might impel them to tell lies. I just can't conceive of them hiding the body etc if she wandered and they found it. I guess being a policeman you see some strange sh1t.
-
What motive would the parents have to mess with the window in this scenario? If that's what you suspect...
There are conditions I imagine like if they gave her some medication plus the leaving her in an unlocked apartment which might impel them to tell lies. I just can't conceive of them hiding the body etc if she wandered and they found it. I guess being a policeman you see some strange sh1t.
Maybe the missing child had a go, who knows since the scene was tampered with before witnesses arrived. Witnesses found the window closed but the shutter up.
-
No neglect because it's an abduction child not wandered out through unlocked door. Abduction was screamed from the start - there was no other possibility. There's no other possibility 8)-))) Oh yes I know. What goes around comes around!
-
If this is the case I find the psychology of this situation interesting. These are not poor, uneducated individuals, which imo would correlate more with this type of crime. They come from a high socioeconomic background. Kate and Gerry would have to display narcissistic or even psychopathic tendencies. There would imo be some sort of personality disorder.
Also, they have relentlessly campaigned since day 1 to find Madeline or the "abductor" and when the campaign seemed to be running cold petitioned the authories to reopen the investigation. What is their motive for doing this if they were involved in some way? I know it is not uncommon for criminals of this type to revel in the attention and seek out TV interviews, but they have been going at this for 7 years now! Would love to hear what a forensic psychologist makes of this whole situation.
-
Maybe the missing child had a go, who knows since the scene was tampered with before witnesses arrived. Witnesses found the window closed but the shutter up.
I believe the window was closed because the twins were still sound asleep in the room and the night air was cold.
-
Maybe the missing child had a go, who knows since the scene was tampered with before witnesses arrived. Witnesses found the window closed but the shutter up.
The first GNR officer who arrived also searched the entire apartment looking for Madeleine. Would you describe his actions as 'tampering' with the scene?
It was not a crime scene until it was established that Madeleine was not in the apartment - and that could not be established without first searching every inch of it - which is what any normal person would do. imo.
-
The first GNR officer who arrived also searched the entire apartment looking for Madeleine. Would you describe his actions as 'tampering' with the scene?
It was not a crime scene until it was established that Madeleine was not in the apartment - and that could not be established without first searching every inch of it - which is what any normal person would do. imo.
Tampering with shutters has nothing to do with finding Madeleine. Instead of examining shutters and thinking they're Sherlock Holmes they should be out looking for a missing child!
-
I believe the window was closed because the twins were still sound asleep in the room and the night air was cold.
Yes, for all anyone knows it was never open in the first place.
-
Tampering with shutters has nothing to do with finding Madeleine. Instead of examining shutters and thinking they're Sherlock Holmes they should be out looking for a missing child!
Why do you use the word ' tampering'. That implies a sinister reason. Gerry was checking to see if the shutters COULD be opened from the outside - as he previously believed they could not be. Once he found that they could be opened that reinforced his belief in those first few minutes that an intruder had entered the apartment via that window. I see nothing odd in that.
IMO your comment regarding Sherlock Holmes indicates that you have no ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
-
Why do you use the word ' tampering'. That implies a sinister reason. Gerry was checking to see if the shutters COULD be opened from the outside - as he previously believed they could not be. Once he found that they could be opened that reinforced his belief in those first few minutes that an intruder had entered the apartment via that window. I see nothing odd in that.
IMO your comment regarding Sherlock Holmes indicates that you have no ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
I find it very odd, his kid has just disappeared in a strange resort in the dark and he has time to play with a shutter. How utterly foolish!
-
I believe the window was closed because the twins were still sound asleep in the room and the night air was cold.
Where does that leave Kate's statement regarding the open window, the curtains moving, the door slamming shut then?
-
I find it very odd, his kid has just disappeared in a strange resort in the dark and he has time to play with a shutter. How utterly foolish!
Play? You think Gerry was playing?
-
Play? You think Gerry was playing?
Try answering this question Alfred. Gerry said he pushed up the shutter from the outside in order to establish that it could be done.
Who dropped it in the first place????
-
I find it very odd, his kid has just disappeared in a strange resort in the dark and he has time to play with a shutter. How utterly foolish!
How long do you think it took him to find out whether the shutters could be opened from the outside? 10 seconds? 20 seconds?
You sound like other people who think they know how they would react - and if Kate and Gerry didn't do exactly what they would do - they should be sneered at and criticised. Utterly unrealistic IMO as no-one knows how they would react to being suddenly plunged into every parent's worst nightmare - unless they have experienced it themselves. They only think they do.
-
How long do you think it took him to find out whether the shutters could be opened from the outside? 10 seconds? 20 seconds?
You sound like other people who think they know how they would react - and if Kate and Gerry didn't do exactly what they would do - they should be sneered at and criticised. Utterly unrealistic IMO as no-one knows how they would react to being suddenly plunged into every parent's worst nightmare - unless they have experienced it themselves. They only think they do.
Everybody is wrong and you are right, is that it?
First off we have a window which was supposed to have been open but was closed. Now we have a shutter which was supposed to be fully up but which someone had to lower so that Gerry could play with it before someone pulled it fully up again. &%&£(+ @)(++(*
No flaming wonder the cops didn't buy it.
-
Everybody is wrong and you are right, is that it?
First off we have a window which was supposed to have been open but was closed. Now we have a shutter which was supposed to be fully up but which someone had to lower so that Gerry could play with it before someone pulled it fully up again?
No flaming wonder the cops didn't buy it.
The keystone cops didn't buy it but SY have
-
Why do you use the word ' tampering'. That implies a sinister reason. Gerry was checking to see if the shutters COULD be opened from the outside - as he previously believed they could not be. Once he found that they could be opened that reinforced his belief in those first few minutes that an intruder had entered the apartment via that window. I see nothing odd in that.
IMO your comment regarding Sherlock Holmes indicates that you have no ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
Why is Gerry a detective - he could have accidentally broken the shutters - god forbid lol. Nobody saw Gerry lowering the shutters. Dianne tried to raise them within 10 minutes of the alarm (Gerry wasn't there!) and she couldn't do it so somebody lowered them before her if they were lowered. No proof that happened because they compromised the crime scene.
-
The keystone cops didn't buy it but SY have
Seems nobody can answer the question as to who let the shutters down and then pulled them up again while Gerry was standing outside the window? No wonder that story is seen as a load of cobblers.
-
Where does that leave Kate's statement regarding the open window, the curtains moving, the door slamming shut then?
Sorry Alfred, I should have worded that differently.
The window was closed later ... only after it was discovered that Madeleine was gone and the alarm raised.
Kate McCann's statement about the door slamming, the curtains blowing which led to her noticing the open window and the raised shutter is 100% kosher.
-
Sorry Alfred, I should have worded that differently.
The window was closed later ... only after it was discovered that Madeleine was gone and the alarm raised.
Kate McCann's statement about the door slamming, the curtains blowing which led to her noticing the open window and the raised shutter is 100% kosher.
Wishful thinking more like, it probably goes something like this..
GNR officer enters bedroom to find window closed and a shutter which had been up and down several times in the last hour now deployed in the fully up position.
GNR officer: Allo Allo Allo... What have we here then?
-
Why is Gerry a detective - he could have accidentally broken the shutters - god forbid lol. Nobody saw Gerry lowering the shutters. Dianne tried to raise them within 10 minutes of the alarm (Gerry wasn't there!) and she couldn't do it so somebody lowered them before her if they were lowered. No proof that happened because they compromised the crime scene.
Oh pathfinder, you state that as though Dianne was first on the scene.
She wasn't.
She was sitting on her own at the tapas restaurant because all the others ... Madeleine's father in the lead ... had run to the apartment as soon as Kate raised the alarm.
-
Try answering this question Alfred. Gerry said he pushed up the shutter from the outside in order to establish that it could be done.
Who dropped it in the first place????
Is it rocket science to suppose that finding the shutter up as described ... he lowered it ... to test if it could be raised from outside because he believed it couldn't be.
1 ... shutter up
2 ... shutter lowered by Madeleine's father, probably using the mechanism although we are not told
3 ... to his dismay shutter easily pushed up from outside
-
Seems nobody can answer the question as to who let the shutters down and then pulled them up again while Gerry was standing outside the window? No wonder that story is seen as a load of cobblers.
Page 73 "Madeleine"
"Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she'd been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones. Fear was shivering through my body.
In the children's room, Gerry lowered the shutter at the open window. Rushing outside, he made the sickening discovery that it could be raised from this side, too, not just from the inside as we'd thought"
Dianne was still at the Tapas at the time.
-
Wishful thinking more like, it probably goes something like this..
GNR officer enters bedroom to find window closed and a shutter which had been up and down several times in the last hour now deployed in the fully up position.
GNR officer: Allo Allo Allo... What have we here then?
The mystery would be ... having very carefully 'staged' a scenario ... why on earth would you interfere with the object of your efforts at duplicity before the police had a chance to gaze in awe and take photographs?
-
Is it rocket science to suppose that finding the shutter up as described ... he lowered it ... to test if it could be raised from outside because he believed it couldn't be.
1 ... shutter up
2 ... shutter lowered by Madeleine's father, probably using the mechanism although we are not told
3 ... to his dismay shutter easily pushed up from outside
So instead of just leaving it down he decided to pull it up again, just to ensure that visual impact and not to mention every onlooker in the car park peering in.
-
Why is Gerry a detective - he could have accidentally broken the shutters - god forbid lol. Nobody saw Gerry lowering the shutters. Dianne tried to raise them within 10 minutes of the alarm (Gerry wasn't there!) and she couldn't do it so somebody lowered them before her if they were lowered. No proof that happened because they compromised the crime scene.
If they lied about the shutters and windows and it was all part of a cunning plan then IMO -
(a) they would have made damn sure some damage or evidence of a break in was there for the police to find
and
(b) they would have made damn sure no-one got near those shutters to compromise the evidence they had purposely left there - as that would ruin the most important part of this cunning plan.
As it happens SY do believe the McCanns description of how they found the window/shutters open - because if they didn't believe them - then there is absolutely no way they would have ruled them out of their enquiries in the way they have.
I'll go with the trained, professional experts who have all the available facts to hand - rather than amateur armchair detectives who only have some of them.
-
The mystery would be ... having very carefully 'staged' a scenario ... why on earth would you interfere with the object of your efforts at duplicity before the police had a chance to gaze in awe and take photographs?
But you wouldn't, that's the whole point. The window and shutter story is complete and utter poppycock in my humble opinion of course.
-
Oh pathfinder, you state that as though Dianne was first on the scene.
She wasn't.
She was sitting on her own at the tapas restaurant because all the others ... Madeleine's father in the lead ... had run to the apartment as soon as Kate raised the alarm.
Yes and he had more important things to do than waste time with shutters. It is abnormal and not believable. You look for your daughter end of. The crime scene was compromised so the police won't believe a word they say about the window.
-
If they lied about the shutters and windows and it was all part of a cunning plan then IMO -
(a) they would have made damn sure some damage or evidence of a break in was there for the police to find
and
(b) they would have made damn sure no-one got near those shutters to compromise the evidence they had purposely left there - as that would ruin the most important part of this cunning plan.
As it happens SY do believe the McCanns description of how they found the window/shutters open - because if they didn't believe them - then there is absolutely no way they would have ruled them out of their enquiries in the way they have.
I'll go with the trained, professional experts who have all the available facts to hand - rather than amateur armchair detectives who only have some of them.
You conveniently overlook all the detectives who have already given their professional opinion on this and all agree that the window and shutter have no relevance to any intruder. Fact is the only identifiable marks left on them were left by the parents as they time wasted instead of being out there searching.
I don't have enough superlatives to describe this nonsense. A three year old girl out in the dark in a strange area in a foreign country and all the parents can do is to play with a frigging shutter!
-
But you wouldn't, that's the whole point. The window and shutter story is complete and utter poppycock.
... you may consider the open window and raised shutter 'utter poppycock' ... but if that was how it was that is how it had to be reported
-
Yes and he had more important things to do than waste time with shutters. It is abnormal and not believable. You look for your daughter end of. The crime scene was compromised so the police won't believe a word they say about the window.
Exactly what he was doing ... and the failure of the police to secure the crime scene is a scandal ... but has little impact on the real investigation being carried out now.
-
You conveniently overlook all the detectives who have already given their professional opinion on this and all agree that the window and shutter have no relevance to any intruder.
Of course the window and shutters being found open is relevant. If Kate and Gerry did not open them then it is undisputable proof that either Madeleine opened them or an intruder did. I very much doubt they believe Madeleine was capable of doing that - therefore an intruder did.
-
Exactly what he was doing ... and the failure of the police to secure the crime scene is a scandal ... but has little impact on the real investigation being carried out now.
What crime scene? What crime?
-
So now you're claiming it's perfectly feasible that Madeleine opened the windows and shutter, yet moments ago you claimed that them being discovered open by Kate as "poppycock" - so, which is it?
I believe I may have covered this on another thread previously. The shutter mechanism is operated by pulling down on a strap which an almost four-year-old could easily reach. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that she did pull the strap and open the shutter. Similarly the sliding window, if it was unlocked I don't see any reason why she couldn't have climbed up on the bed and slid it open. Personally I don't see her wanting to do either but I can see no reason whatsoever why she couldn't open the front door and simply walk out as she had done every single morning since arriving at the resort.
I doubt however that we will ever know what happened.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4941423621_a72f26c2a5_z.jpg)
The shutter mechanism pull strap as fitted at Ocean Club Garden complex.
-
Gerry, just said ‘Look, let’s just’, erm, ‘let’s just split up and find’, erm, you know, ‘see if we can find her, see if she’s just wandered out’. (ROB)
So there we have it, the woke and wandered theory initially took precedence regardless of the alleged gang of roaming paedophiles.
-
Gerry, just said ‘Look, let’s just’, erm, ‘let’s just split up and find’, erm, you know, ‘see if we can find her, see if she’s just wandered out’. (ROB)
So there we have it, the woke and wandered theory initially took precedence regardless of the alleged gang of roaming paedophiles.
A colleague of mine recently mislaid an important set of keys. He was 90% certain he'd left them in a drawer at work but because they were so important it didn't stop him panicking and turning the house upside down and then retracing his steps from the station to see if he'd accidentally pulled them out of his pocket when pulling out his gloves. Turns out his initial thought was right - they were in the work drawer. Was he acting suspiciously or wrongly by conducting the initial searches?
-
Gerry, just said ‘Look, let’s just’, erm, ‘let’s just split up and find’, erm, you know, ‘see if we can find her, see if she’s just wandered out’. (ROB)
So there we have it, the woke and wandered theory initially took precedence regardless of the alleged gang of roaming paedophiles.
Kate:
'Somebodys taken her, Madeleines gone'
'From the way I found the room it (abduction) was obvious.'
Gerry: 'The way the room was, with the shutter up & the window open, theres no way that Madeleine could have done that at that age.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xNI5up44Nho#t=1071
Quite why or how Mr McCann thought she could have 'just wandered out', when he already had no doubt that there was no way that she could have, only he can explain.
(Well, actually, I can. It's because she wasn't abducted, nor did she wander out.)
-
A colleague of mine recently mislaid an important set of keys. He was 90% certain he'd left them in a drawer at work but because they were so important it didn't stop him panicking and turning the house upside down and then retracing his steps from the station to see if he'd accidentally pulled them out of his pocket when pulling out his gloves. Turns out his initial thought was right - they were in the work drawer. Was he acting suspiciously or wrongly by conducting the initial searches?
Perfectly normal human behaviour IMO. In Gerry's case I think that although he knew in his heart Madeleine had been taken - he was still hoping against hope that he was wrong. That would also be perfectly normal human behaviour IMO, but for some inexplicable reason the McCanns have been excluded from the rest of the human race by some people - who have decided instead that everything the McCanns do and everything they say is automatically wrong. Incomprehensible logic IMO.
-
Perfectly normal human behaviour IMO. In Gerry's case I think that although he knew in his heart Madeleine had been taken - he was still hoping against hope that he was wrong. That would also be perfectly normal human behaviour IMO, but for some inexplicable reason the McCanns have been excluded from the rest of the human race by some people - who have decided instead that everything the McCanns do and everything they say is automatically wrong. Incomprehensible logic IMO.
Cobblers.
To Kate it was obvious, Gerry was in no doubt either.
Kate: 'Somebodys taken her, Madeleines gone'
'From the way I found the room it (abduction) was obvious.'
Gerry: 'The way the room was, with the shutter up & the window open, theres no way that Madeleine could have done that at that age.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xNI5up44Nho#t=1071
That'll be why neither of them bothered to phone the police.
-
Cobblers.
To Kate it was obvious, Gerry was in no doubt either.
Kate: 'Somebodys taken her, Madeleines gone'
'From the way I found the room it (abduction) was obvious.'
Gerry: 'The way the room was, with the shutter up & the window open, theres no way that Madeleine could have done that at that age.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xNI5up44Nho#t=1071
That'll be why neither of them bothered to phone the police.
Yep.
It's pure bullshitte.
IMO , of course.
After all, they were too busy writing their timelines for that.
-
Yep.
It's pure bullshitte.
IMO , of course.
After all, they were too busy writing their timelines for that.
Large organisation CYA exercise IMO.
-
Cobblers.
To Kate it was obvious, Gerry was in no doubt either.
Kate: 'Somebodys taken her, Madeleines gone'
'From the way I found the room it (abduction) was obvious.'
Gerry: 'The way the room was, with the shutter up & the window open, theres no way that Madeleine could have done that at that age.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xNI5up44Nho#t=1071
That'll be why neither of them bothered to phone the police.
You continue to make this arrogant assumption that the whole world speaks English. They do not!
When trying to make an emergency call in a foreign country where you do not speak the language, just one of the very sensible reasons for finding someone who does is mentioned in the following statement.
"We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
When a child is missing, the couple of minutes spent running to reception where you know you will be able to communicate with someone who will contact the emergency services without delay far outweighs wasting a lot of time sobbing into a handset to someone who hasn't a clue what you are on about.
We have done this subject to death in another thread ... and you still don't get it?
-
I believe I may have covered this on another thread previously. The shutter mechanism is operated by pulling down on a strap which an almost four-year-old could easily reach. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that she did pull the strap and open the shutter. Similarly the sliding window, if it was unlocked I don't see any reason why she couldn't have climbed up on the bed and slid it open. Personally I don't see her wanting to do either but I can see no reason whatsoever why she couldn't open the front door and simply walk out as she had done every single morning since arriving at the resort.
I doubt however that we will ever know what happened.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4941423621_a72f26c2a5_z.jpg)
The shutter mechanism pull strap as fitted at Ocean Club Garden complex.
I think the possibility that Madeleine may have operated the mechanism of the shutters would have been more feasible if it had been an everyday occurrence with which she was familiar ... but the family left the shutters in situ from day one.
I also think had she done so, she would have been unable to slide the window open without leaving prints.
I suspect that there was a clean-up or why was the window so forensically clear of useable prints, anyway?
-
You continue to make this arrogant assumption that the whole world speaks English. They do not!
When trying to make an emergency call in a foreign country where you do not speak the language, just one of the very sensible reasons for finding someone who does is mentioned in the following statement.
"We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
When a child is missing, the couple of minutes spent running to reception where you know you will be able to communicate with someone who will contact the emergency services without delay far outweighs wasting a lot of time sobbing into a handset to someone who hasn't a clue what you are on about.
We have done this subject to death in another thread ... and you still don't get it?
The tapas group would be well aware which waiters did or didn't speak English. Jeronimo Salcedas, for example, had an excellent command of the English language yet none of the group considered asking him to make a call to the police, stranger still as Gerry actually crossed paths with him when searching around the pool.
-
You continue to make this arrogant assumption that the whole world speaks English. They do not!
When trying to make an emergency call in a foreign country where you do not speak the language, just one of the very sensible reasons for finding someone who does is mentioned in the following statement.
"We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
When a child is missing, the couple of minutes spent running to reception where you know you will be able to communicate with someone who will contact the emergency services without delay far outweighs wasting a lot of time sobbing into a handset to someone who hasn't a clue what you are on about.
We have done this subject to death in another thread ... and you still don't get it?
Of course Spammie knows, Brietta. He is just trying to wind us up and spread suspicion about The Mccanns at the same time.
IIRC it was 268 metres to the Main Recption and downhill. That could have been run by a fit man like Matt in well under a minute including the corners that had to be negotiated. So seconds rather than minutes .... and such a fuss about less than a minute
Really, you would not believe what some of you keep pushing had you not read all the rubbish you guys have spieled out.about going to the main reception.
Much better to spend less than a minute going to the main reception with its ever present reception staff, and with its knowledge of contacting the Police and language fluencies, than even consider running to the Tapas restaurant and hoping to find Jeronimo easily. Anyone who hotels regularly KNOWS that the recption is their first porrt of call in emergency.
And it was a matter of seconds, less than a minute, away.
Jeez !
What bigotted rot some of you talk.
-
You continue to make this arrogant assumption that the whole world speaks English. They do not!
When trying to make an emergency call in a foreign country where you do not speak the language, just one of the very sensible reasons for finding someone who does is mentioned in the following statement.
"We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
When a child is missing, the couple of minutes spent running to reception where you know you will be able to communicate with someone who will contact the emergency services without delay far outweighs wasting a lot of time sobbing into a handset to someone who hasn't a clue what you are on about.
We have done this subject to death in another thread ... and you still don't get it?
The didn't even bother trying to phone the police, language barrier or otherwise.
-
The didn't even bother trying to phone the police, language barrier or otherwise.
They thought that it had been done already. Within the first 5 -10 minutes or so.
-
They thought that it had been done already. Within the first 5 -10 minutes or so.
According to whom?
Kate & Gerry?
Wow.
-
They thought that it had been done already. Within the first 5 -10 minutes or so.
@)(++(* Smithman was doing something important at that time so don't call the cops.
-
@)(++(* Smithman was doing something important at that time so don't call the cops.
Remind me ... what exactly was Smithman doing ... couldn't have been much since it took the Smiths thirteen days to remember him.
-
Remind me ... what exactly was Smithman doing ... couldn't have been much since it took the Smiths thirteen days to remember him.
Oh but it could - it just wasn't important to the Smith family as they weren't aware of Madeleine's disappearance at that time.
To them, it was just another father carrying a child home.
-
Oh but it could - it just wasn't important to the Smith family as they weren't aware of Madeleine's disappearance at that time.
According to Mr Smith ... prior to his departure on the ninth ... Madeleine's disappearance was important enough to terrify his grandchildren ... so by definition the Smiths were well aware there was a child missing from an apartment very close to their accomodation.
-
But not at the time of the sighting, so any family concern was not related to that sighting, but to the fact that a child had disappeared.
-
But not at the time of the sighting, so any family concern was not related to that sighting, but to the fact that a child had disappeared.
According to Mr Smith ... his daughter phoned on the morning of the fourth to tell him a blonde haired child had gone missing in his near vicinity.
According to Mr Smith ... it was thirteen days later that his son phoned to ask if he was dreaming that they had passed a man carrying a blonde child ... after discussion, they decided they had.
Thank goodness Mr Smith was able to confirm that the man was not Mr Murat, who had been made an arguido a couple of days before.
-
According to Mr Smith ... his daughter phoned on the morning of the fourth to tell him a blonde haired child had gone missing in his near vicinity.
According to Mr Smith ... it was thirteen days later that his son phoned to ask if he was dreaming that they had passed a man carrying a blonde child ... after discussion, they decided they had.
Thank goodness Mr Smith was able to confirm that the man was not Mr Murat, who had been made an arguido a couple of days before.
Thank goodness indeed.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/irish-couple-may-hold-key-evidence-in-madeleine-mccann-case-29397648.html
-
Thank goodness indeed.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/irish-couple-may-hold-key-evidence-in-madeleine-mccann-case-29397648.html
Very good.
Evidence provided at the time by members of the Smith family, from Maple Drive, Drogheda, Co Louth, was considered credible by the review officers.
The Smith family told police how they had left Kelly's Bar in the resort at around 10pm
They then passed a man walking down the middle of the street who was carrying a girl aged about three to four years old.
It was claimed that the child's head was lying against the man's left shoulder and her arms were hanging down alongside her body.
-
Very good.
Evidence provided at the time by members of the Smith family, from Maple Drive, Drogheda, Co Louth, was considered credible by the review officers.
The Smith family told police how they had left Kelly's Bar in the resort at around 10pm
They then passed a man walking down the middle of the street who was carrying a girl aged about three to four years old.
It was claimed that the child's head was lying against the man's left shoulder and her arms were hanging down alongside her body.
This is the quote that interests me most :
"Martin Smith and his wife Mary revealed to investigators how they saw a man carrying a young child through the streets of Praia da Luz in Portugal on the night Madeleine went missing."
Of course it was Mr Smith and his wife who agreed that the man they saw could have been Gerry.
-
This is the quote that interests me most :
"Martin Smith and his wife Mary revealed to investigators how they saw a man carrying a young child through the streets of Praia da Luz in Portugal on the night Madeleine went missing."
Of course it was Mr Smith and his wife who agreed that the man they saw could have been Gerry.
Emphasis on past tense.
The inference that (after initial refusal!) Smith (eventually!) agreed to produce an e-fit of the man he saw because he had changed his mind about the man being Gerry.
And, of course, from the outset, none of Mr Smith's children agreed with their father that the man might have been Gerry.
-
Emphasis on past tense.
The inference that (after initial refusal!) Smith (eventually!) agreed to produce an e-fit of the man he saw because he had changed his mind about the man being Gerry.
And, of course, from the outset, none of Mr Smith's children agreed with their father that the man might have been Gerry.
Nope. The part before the quote I have just posted :
"Evidence provided at the time by members of the Smith family, from Maple Drive, Drogheda, Co Louth, was considered credible by the review officers."
So very much in the present.
-
Nope. The part before the quote I have just posted :
"Evidence provided at the time by members of the Smith family, from Maple Drive, Drogheda, Co Louth, was considered credible by the review officers."
So very much in the present.
Credible that the Smiths had seen a man.
No one disputes that.
-
Credible that the Smiths had seen a man.
No one disputes that.
Indeed but we both know what else Mr Smith and his wife believed and have no reason to think that they had changed their minds before talking to OG.
-
Indeed but we both know what else Mr Smith and his wife believed and have no reason to think that they had changed their minds before talking to OG.
It stands out a mile that Martin Smith would not have produced an e-fit of a man he considered was Gerry McCann.
-
And, of course, from the outset, none of Mr Smith's children agreed with their father that the man might have been Gerry.
...though of course they didn't disagree with him either.
-
...though of course they didn't disagree with him either.
Yes they did.
None of Martin Smith's children thought the same as their father.
At the end of January 2008 Mr Smith said this to the Irish Gardia police:
He [Martin Smith] has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
Why did Martin Smith (later) change his mind and agree to produce an e-fit?
Because release of the files persuaded him he was wrong to suppose he had seen Gerry?
-
It stands out a mile that Martin Smith would not have produced an e-fit of a man he considered was Gerry McCann.
Why not ?
-
Why not ?
Because Gerry McCann is not a man in need of identification.
-
Because Gerry McCann is not a man in need of identification.
Mr Smith would have been asked to describe the man he saw, not whether it was Gerry McCann.
Obviously SY have found his and his wife's evidence so credible that they based their whole Crimewatch slot around it.
-
If the Met considered it credible that Smith and his wife had seen Gerry carrying a child then it would be Gerry who was their chief suspect. Any evidence to suggest that he is?
-
The Met to Mr Smith: describe the man you saw.
Mr Smith to the Met: it was Gerry McCann (I think), google his name and you'll probably find a few million images.
The met to Mr Smith: OK thanks.
-
Mr Smith would have been asked to describe the man he saw, not whether it was Gerry McCann.
Obviously SY have found his and his wife's evidence so credible that they based their whole Crimewatch slot around it.
Sounds as if you might be coming round to the (sensible!) view that the Smiths did not see Gerry.
-
Sounds as if you might be coming round to the (sensible!) view that the Smiths did not see Gerry.
On the contrary ferryman. I believe it is possible given the now accepted timeline that the man the Smith's saw was Gerry. Of course if you can provide just one independent witness who can place Gerry in the tapas bar from 9.50-10.13 I will gladly reconsider my stance.
-
These are all speculations. You realise that, right?
There is no even proof that the girl seen by Smiths was Madeleine, let alone that that someone carrying the girl was Gerry..
The GNR dogs lost her scent next to a lamp post across the road to OC reception.. it is more probable that she was put into a car right on this spot.
-
These are all speculations. You realise that, right?
There is no even proof that the girl seen by Smiths was Madeleine, let alone that that someone carrying the girl was Gerry..
The GNR dogs lost her scent next to a lamp post across the road to OC reception.. it is more probable that she was put into a car right on this spot.
The dog were trained to scent a live human not a dead child.
-
Because Gerry McCann is not a man in need of identification.
Madeleine's parents were on every front page in Portugal, Britain and Eire.
Similarly they were constantly being portrayed in news broadcasts and Mr Smith said they followed the news closely in the hope that Madeleine would be found.
Mr Smith was unable to give the police a description of the man he saw ... in particular ... he did not recognise the man whose image he had been exposed to seeing constantly for the fortnight before his initial contact with An Garda Síochána and the intervening period before making his statement to the PJ on the 26th May.
That makes twenty three days of unprecedented coverage showing Madeleine's father including images of him walking while carrying one of the twins.
Mr Smith did not identify Dr McCann ... a man whose image he could not fail to have seen ... as the man carrying the child.
Caption:Lagos, PORTUGAL: Kate (L) and Gerry (R) Mccann, the parents of four-year-old Madeleine McCann, carry their twins as they walk 16 May 2007 outside The Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, Lagos, in the Portuguese southern province of Algarve
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/kate-and-gerry-mccann-the-parents-of-four-year-old-news-photo/74163358
Caption:PRAIA DA LUZ, PORTUGAL: Kate (R) and Gerry (L) Mccann, the parents of four-year-old Madeleine McCann, carry their twins 17 May 2007 outside The Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, Lagos,
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/kate-and-gerry-mccann-the-parents-of-four-year-old-news-photo/74172984
**snip**
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
On the contrary ferryman. I believe it is possible given the now accepted timeline that the man the Smith's saw was Gerry. Of course if you can provide just one independent witness who can place Gerry in the tapas bar from 9.50-10.13 I will gladly reconsider my stance.
I will be kind and gloss over your ignorance of what an independent witness is.
If Gerry was anywhere other than in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting, where is the commentary in the files on efforts to find Gerry to tell him what had happened, including where he was when found and who found him?
-
I will be kind and gloss over your ignorance of what an independent witness is.
If Gerry was anywhere other than in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting, where is the commentary in the files on efforts to find Gerry to tell him what had happened, including where he was when found and who found him?
The Tapas friends were known to the McCanns and could have been implicated in the disappearance so would not be considered independent.
As to Gerry, he was certainly in the bar at the time of the alert, so no need to find him, but as that wasn't to at least 10.13 according to Gerry himself that gives him time to be seen by the Smiths and at the tapas at the alert.
-
The Tapas friends were known to the McCanns and could have been implicated in the disappearance so would not be considered independent.
As to Gerry, he was certainly in the bar at the time of the alert, so no need to find him, but as that wasn't to at least 10.13 according to Gerry himself that gives him time to be seen by the Smiths and at the tapas at the alert.
Gerry was certainly in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert, which roughly coincided with the time of the Smith sighting, thus ruling out Gerry as the man the Smiths saw, later acknowledged by Martin Smith himself, as reflected in his (altered) decision to produce an e-fit.
Glad we've got that sorted.
And, of course, an independent witness is anyone who risks ruining their own reputation and going to jail by providing a false alibi for another witness.
-
Gerry was certainly in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert, which roughly coincided with the time of the Smith sighting, thus ruling out Gerry as the man the Smiths saw, later acknowledged by Martin Smith himself, as reflected in his (altered) decision to produce an e-fit.
Glad we've got that sorted.
And, of course, an independent witness is anyone who risks ruining their own reputation and going to jail by providing a false alibi for another witness.
Smiths left Kelly's Bar at 10 - that's after the alarm.
-
Gerry was certainly in the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert, which roughly coincided with the time of the Smith sighting, thus ruling out Gerry as the man the Smiths saw, later acknowledged by Martin Smith himself, as reflected in his (altered) decision to produce an e-fit.
Glad we've got that sorted.
And, of course, an independent witness is anyone who risks ruining their own reputation and going to jail by providing a false alibi for another witness.
Martin Smith's 'altered ' decision ? Not the claim put forward in the now discredited Times article for which the McCanns were paid a hefty sum in damages ? You can't be talking about that claim as it was unsupported by any direct quote from Martin Smith.
As to giving Gerry a false alibi I think that by being rather vague as to who was at the table at certain times and obviously claiming correctly that Gerry was with them at the time of the alert, their friends left themselves just enough wriggle room if the questioning got really heavy.
-
Smiths left Kelly's Bar at 10 - that's after the alarm.
Recently you said (I might be wrong if so please correct) that in your theory the child the irish group saw was not the missing child but was some other child.
So why is this sighting still in your theory?
-
Recently you said (I might be wrong if so please correct) that in your theory the child the irish group saw was not the missing child but was some other child.
So why is this sighting still in your theory?
I've got a thread on my theory. What's this substitute child nonsense I'm hearing today. Madeleine was seen with Smithman after the alarm. A Madeleine lookalike was sarcasm.
-
I've got a thread on my theory. What's this substitute child nonsense I'm hearing today. Madeleine was seen with Smithman after the alarm. A Madeleine lookalike was sarcasm.
...Evidence leads to Smithman with a Madeleine lookalike ...
OK, I was assuming you were posting your theory.
-
There's a thread in the Members Only Section.
-
Let's consider this: Faithlilly firmly believes Gerry McCann to be a liar, right? She doubts pretty much everything he says, figures he's lying to cover his arse, correct? However the ONLY time she believes he is telling the truth is when he estimates the time Kate raises the alarm at around 10.13pm (he being the only person putting it that late) and in so doing cancelling out his own alibi for the Smith sighting. This is the insane absence of logic we are dealing here with this particular "sceptic".
-
Let's consider this: Faithlilly firmly believes Gerry McCann to be a liar, right? She doubts pretty much everything he says, figures he's lying to cover his arse, correct? However the ONLY time she believes he is telling the truth is when he estimates the time Kate raises the alarm at around 10.13pm (he being the only person putting it that late) and in so doing cancelling out his own alibi for the Smith sighting. This is the insane absence of logic we are dealing here with this particular "sceptic".
Unfortunately, the mccanns have been caught lying and have admitted to telling them as well.
That says everything.
-
Let's consider this: Faithlilly firmly believes Gerry McCann to be a liar, right? She doubts pretty much everything he says, figures he's lying to cover his arse, correct? However the ONLY time she believes he is telling the truth is when he estimates the time Kate raises the alarm at around 10.13pm (he being the only person putting it that late) and in so doing cancelling out his own alibi for the Smith sighting. This is the insane absence of logic we are dealing here with this particular "sceptic".
If the time was 10.13, would he not have been sitting at the table with his friends? There is his alibi - how can he possibly be Smithman, when he was at the table ?
On the other hand, if the alert time was earlier and he is out & about by 10.00 his alibi is weaker.
-
If the time was 10.13, would he not have been sitting at the table with his friends? There is his alibi - how can he possibly be Smithman, when he was at the table ?
On the other hand, if the alert time was earlier and he is out & about by 10.00 his alibi is weaker.
You'd be better off addressing that question to Faithlilly - presumably she believes Gerry paraded his daughter's corpse through town to find a spot where he hoped it would soon be discovered BEFORE returning to the table and moments later getting Kate to raise the alarm, but don't take my word for it - Flilly gets a bit shirty when I try and explain her theory.
-
It seems to me that the whole hinges on timings and everyone is delightfully vague about exactly what happened, when.
-
You'd be better off addressing that question to Faithlilly - presumably she believes Gerry paraded his daughter's corpse through town to find a spot where he hoped it would soon be discovered BEFORE returning to the table and moments later getting Kate to raise the alarm, but don't take my word for it - Flilly gets a bit shirty when I try and explain her theory.
Raises the question of why did they go to all that bother ... why 'drop themselves in it' immediately Madeleine was found to be missing ... why not just wait till the morning, giving themselves far more time to 'stage' a scene?
It defies logic that strangers to a holiday resort would have been able to conceal a child's body so well that volunteer searchers, professionals and search and rescue dogs or scavengers were unable to find it.
When someone comes up with a plausible scenario of how they achieved that ... I'll lend an ear to whatever else they may have to say.
-
I put it all down to luck that the perpetrator got away unseen - or perhaps he didn't.
-
Martin Smith's 'altered ' decision ? Not the claim put forward in the now discredited Times article for which the McCanns were paid a hefty sum in damages ? You can't be talking about that claim as it was unsupported by any direct quote from Martin Smith.
As to giving Gerry a false alibi I think that by being rather vague as to who was at the table at certain times and obviously claiming correctly that Gerry was with them at the time of the alert, their friends left themselves just enough wriggle room if the questioning got really heavy.
The Times article stated that Martin Smith had changed his mind and no longer believed the man he saw was Gerry, That's a massive lie to publish if it was untrue - in fact the complete opposite of the truth.
In the past Martin Smith has always been swift to take action against newspapers who got it wrong - but there was no retraction and no apology issued regarding this truly momentous claim about him. IMO common sense dictates that can only be because he had made no complaint about it - because it was accurate.
-
msg202937 date=1417254976]
Raises the question of why did they go to all that bother ... why 'drop themselves in it' immediately Madeleine was found to be missing ... why not just wait till the morning, giving themselves far more time to 'stage' a scene?
[/b]It defies logic that strangers to a holiday resort would have been able to conceal a child's body so well that volunteer searchers, professionals and search and rescue dogs or scavengers were unable to find it.
When someone comes up with a plausible scenario of how they achieved that ... I'll lend an ear to whatever else they may have to say.
Because if they'd staged an abduction for during the night they would not have had an alibi, see? That's why they had to adopt the insanely risky strategy of moving a corpse around 2 or 3 times that night (including parading it through town in open view for all to see) immediately before or just after raising the alarm, because of course that's far less likely to lead to them being caught than if they'd allowed themselves plenty of time to do the dastardly deed hours before raising the alarm. And the fact that no one (except the police, but we'll gloss over that bit) seems to believe their actual alibi anyway means that they went to all that trouble for nowt! *&*%£
-
You'd be better off addressing that question to Faithlilly - presumably she believes Gerry paraded his daughter's corpse through town to find a spot where he hoped it would soon be discovered BEFORE returning to the table and moments later getting Kate to raise the alarm, but don't take my word for it - Flilly gets a bit shirty when I try and explain her theory.
If Gerry was seen it was after the alarm had been raised not when they were sat at the table. Gerry left to check at around 9pm and the timeline said 9:15. That's 15 minutes later and incorrect (first move). So if that is BS then another time could be and is i.e. the time Kate raised the alarm! Gerry trying to get the perfect alibi has backfired spectacularly!
-
Martin Smith's 'altered ' decision ? Not the claim put forward in the now discredited Times article for which the McCanns were paid a hefty sum in damages ? You can't be talking about that claim as it was unsupported by any direct quote from Martin Smith.
As to giving Gerry a false alibi I think that by being rather vague as to who was at the table at certain times and obviously claiming correctly that Gerry was with them at the time of the alert, their friends left themselves just enough wriggle room if the questioning got really heavy.
Claims in articles?
The (very clear) indication that Martin Smith changed his mind is that he produced an e-fit. He would not, of a man he considered to be Gerry McCann, because Gerry McCann does not need identification.
And if you (now) accept that Gerry was at the table when Kate alerted, then Kate's alert was at just about the same time as the Smith sighting, very obviously ruling out Gerry as the man the Smith's saw.
-
The Times article stated that Martin Smith had changed his mind and no longer believed the man he saw was Gerry, That's a massive lie to publish if it was untrue - in fact the complete opposite of the truth.
In the past Martin Smith has always been swift to take action against newspapers who got it wrong - but there was no retraction and no apology issued regarding this truly momentous claim about him. IMO common sense dictates that can only be because he had made no complaint about it - because it was accurate.
Can you provide a cite for bit of the Times article?
-
If Gerry was seen it was after the alarm had been raised not when they were sat at the table. Gerry left to check at around 9pm and the timeline said 9:15. That's 15 minutes later and incorrect (explains first move). So if that is BS then another time could be and is i.e. the time Kate raised the alarm! Gerry trying to get the perfect alibi has backfired spectacularly!
So who was eating Gerry's dinner whilst he was away? 9 meals ordered, 9 meals served.
Would any normal person even feel like eating at a time like that?
And why would Diane Webster confirm that Gerry was at the table when Kate raised the alarm? She hardly knew him and had no children to be responsible for. And would Fiona Payne really allow her elderly mother to perjure herself to the police in a foreign country? Not a chance IMO.
-
Are we now taking as fact what was said in a times article given they have just been successfully sued for the efit suppression claim? That is interesting in itself as I searched in vain for the reason the efits were not in the public domain. Gerry even wrote a piece for the guardian which did not go into that particular detail but rather focused on the conduct of the press. If he had a legitimate reason I was surprised he did not take that opportunity to let us know why rather then leaving a vacuum for further speculation...
-
So who was eating Gerry's dinner whilst he was away? 9 meals ordered, 9 meals served.
Would any normal person even feel like eating at a time like that?
And why would Diane Webster confirm that Gerry was at the table when Kate raised the alarm? She hardly knew him and had no children to be responsible for. And would Fiona Payne really allow her elderly mother to perjure herself to the police in a foreign country? Not a chance IMO.
Because he was, it was 9.50, not 10:03, or 10:15.
-
Because if they'd staged an abduction for during the night they would not have had an alibi, see? That's why they had to adopt the insanely risky strategy of moving a corpse around 2 or 3 times that night (including parading it through town in open view for all to see) immediately before or just after raising the alarm, because of course that's far less likely to lead to them being caught than if they'd allowed themselves plenty of time to do the dastardly deed hours before raising the alarm. And the fact that no one (except the police, but we'll gloss over that bit) seems to believe their actual alibi anyway means that they went to all that trouble for nowt! *&*%£
'The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared.....'
-
So who was eating Gerry's dinner whilst he was away? 9 meals ordered, 9 meals served.
Would any normal person even feel like eating at a time like that?
And why would Diane Webster confirm that Gerry was at the table when Kate raised the alarm? She hardly knew him and had no children to be responsible for. And would Fiona Payne really allow her elderly mother to perjure herself to the police in a foreign country? Not a chance IMO.
Starters didn't arrive until 9:15. Russell and Matt left to check after they'd finished starters at 9:25. You really need to work the timeline out if you have any chance of solving this case. SY have done so. If they haven't they should all be sacked.
-
Starters didn't arrive until 9:15. Russell and Matt left to check after they'd finished starters at 9:25. You really need to work the timeline out if you have any chance of solving this case. SY have done so. If they haven't they should be all sacked.
Yes they have PF :-
Quote from DCI Redwood.
''We have conducted a Forensic Analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive.'
Unquote
-
Can you provide a cite for bit of the Times article?
I'm afraid I haven't got the full Times article anymore - but here is the relevant part of it re Martin Smith.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote
-
The Times article stated that Martin Smith had changed his mind and no longer believed the man he saw was Gerry, That's a massive lie to publish if it was untrue - in fact the complete opposite of the truth.
In the past Martin Smith has always been swift to take action against newspapers who got it wrong - but there was no retraction and no apology issued regarding this truly momentous claim about him. IMO common sense dictates that can only be because he had made no complaint about it - because it was accurate.
Do you have links to reports of the action Martin Smith took Benice ?
-
So who was eating Gerry's dinner whilst he was away? 9 meals ordered, 9 meals served.
Would any normal person even feel like eating at a time like that?
And why would Diane Webster confirm that Gerry was at the table when Kate raised the alarm? She hardly knew him and had no children to be responsible for. And would Fiona Payne really allow her elderly mother to perjure herself to the police in a foreign country? Not a chance IMO.
But Gerry was at the table.
As to Fiona Payne allowing her mother to perjure herself, in her first interview Diane was adamant that she hadn't seen anyone on her way to the tapas on the third yet a year later, and with a little help from her son-in-law, her memory suddenly becomes better and she remembers seeing Oldfield ! Really ?
-
Do you have links to reports of the action Martin Smith took Benice ?
There is a letter somewhere in the files from the Irish Garda which talks about the action MS took against newspapers. I'm no good with links/searches Faith - but I will try to find it - when I get time. Must go now - visitors are imminent.
-
Yes they have PF :-
Quote from DCI Redwood.
''We have conducted a Forensic Analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive.'
Unquote
I know Benice Kate left at 9:51 to check not 10:03. That time will haunt him.
-
Yes they have PF :-
Quote from DCI Redwood.
''We have conducted a Forensic Analysis of the timelines and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive.'
Unquote
There was always the opportunity, you didn't need a forensic analysis to tell you that but that's not proof that it actually happened.
Hypothetical situation. ( no individuals have been libelled in the manufacture of this scenario )
A couple's are given something to help them sleep. Couple go out but one child sustains a fatal injury while alone. Couple can't alert the authorities because they know sedative will be found. A faked abduction is decided upon with a concealment of the body with the intention of it being found during searches and the sedation blamed on the abductor. Unfortunately the place of concealment, say a large bin, is not searched properly and the bin is collected and taken to landfill. The landfill site is never subsequently searched.
Your thoughts ?
-
But Gerry was at the table.
As to Fiona Payne allowing her mother to perjure herself, in her first interview Diane was adamant that she hadn't seen anyone on her way to the tapas on the third yet a year later, and with a little help from her son-in-law, her memory suddenly becomes better and she remembers seeing Oldfield ! Really ?
Have you any conception of punctuation and sentences? Please try harder.
-
Are we now taking as fact what was said in a times article given they have just been successfully sued for the efit suppression claim? That is interesting in itself as I searched in vain for the reason the efits were not in the public domain. Gerry even wrote a piece for the guardian which did not go into that particular detail but rather focused on the conduct of the press. If he had a legitimate reason I was surprised he did not take that opportunity to let us know why rather then leaving a vacuum for further speculation...
Why do you suppose the police and the victims of a crime need to explain in minute detail anything at all to do with the ongoing investigation into a missing child case?
I doubt it is legitimate or reasonable to give out detailed information which I am sure the perpetrator would be delighted to have ... just to avoid armchair detectives having to speculate, which they would do anyway whatever they were told.
-
There is a letter somewhere in the files from the Irish Garda which talks about the action MS took against newspapers. I'm no good with links/searches Faith - but I will try to find it - when I get time. Must go now - visitors are imminent.
16-Processos, Volume XVI, pg 4134 to 4139
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
Forwarded please
Sergeant
Liam Hogan
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p16p4134
-
16-Processos, Volume XVI, pg 4134 to 4139
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
Forwarded please
Sergeant
Liam Hogan
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p16p4134
Thank you Carana. Then we can only assume Mr Smith has decided not to react.
-
Thank you Carana. Then we can only assume Mr Smith has decided not to react.
Decided not to react to what? Is Martin Smith in the game, or is he not?
Oh gosh, you didn't like what he said, or didn't say.
-
....
Your thoughts ?
Crap, and a disgrace that this board allows such malicious tittle-tattle.
-
Crap, and a disgrace that this board allows such malicious tittle-tattle.
Oh do come on. Most of it is malicious title tattle. Even from Mccann Supporters on occasions.
-
Oh do come on. Most of it is malicious title tattle. Even from Mccann Supporters on occasions.
Yep people on both sides claiming white is black and black is white...
-
Thank you Carana. Then we can only assume Mr Smith has decided not to react.
He [Martin Smith] has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
Why did Martin Smith change his mind and, after all, give a photofit?
-
Why do you suppose the police and the victims of a crime need to explain in minute detail anything at all to do with the ongoing investigation into a missing child case?
I doubt it is legitimate or reasonable to give out detailed information which I am sure the perpetrator would be delighted to have ... just to avoid armchair detectives having to speculate, which they would do anyway whatever they were told.
I don't think the point you make is relevant here because I can't see what info he would be giving away to a perpetrator. Maybe there is perhaps, yet what that is is hard to fathom in regard to the efits not being released. On another note it could simply be that the dodgy detectives(unknown to them at the time but I'm pretty sure one was a fraudster) they hired did not pass it on or maybe they did not want to distract from the tanner sighting...
-
He [Martin Smith] has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.
Why did Martin Smith change his mind and, after all, give a photofit?
Maybe he did not change his mind exactly because after all he did not clearly see the face of the guy, but rather he suspected it could be Gerry McCann I believe from his walk + carrying style(that is exactly how I would carry a child BTW. How else would you?) So if he wasn't sure it was Gerry, but only suspected given his 60-80% statement why wouldn't he make an efit on his recollection from a dark street?
I do agree in general that it might indicate he has had a change of heart or is very unsure. Are there any other reports apart from the times claiming this?
-
I don't think the point you make is relevant here because I can't see what info he would be giving away to a perpetrator. Maybe there is perhaps, yet what that is is hard to fathom in regard to the efits not being released. On another note it could simply be that the dodgy detectives(unknown to them at the time but I'm pretty sure one was a fraudster) they hired did not pass it on or maybe they did not want to distract from the tanner sighting...
...yet what that is is hard to fathom in regard to the efits not being released
I disagree.
That's not hard to fathom at all.
You can release an e-fit of a man carrying a child in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine is known to have been abducted only against the backdrop of a live and on-going police enquiry, because otherwise you risk implicating a potentially innocent man.
Remember that these e-fits were in the possession of British and Portuguese police for at least a couple of years before the Crimewatch programme.
They (not the McCanns!) chose the moment of the crimewatch programme to release the e-fits.
Anyone who wants to have a toot should have a toot at the police, not the McCanns, if they believe the e-fits should have been unveiled publicly before ...
-
In regards to the police being in possession of the efits - ok noted.
Though the McCanns not releasing the efits themselves makes no sense to me as they were copiously releasing many efits without regard to implicating an innocent person - see their website.
-
The critical bit is that the other e-fits they released were not of people in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was known to have been abducted.
In other words, it is hypothetically possible that a couple with no direct involvement in Madeleine's abduction might, technically, have somehow have secured custody of a child in good faith that just so happened to turn out to be Madeleine.
Separation in time and geography from the original incident (in Praia da Luz on May 3rd 2007) does not, automatically, carry the same pejorative connotation for the adult seen with a child hypothesised to be Madeleine.
The other point is that we simply don't know when the McCanns themselves came to be in possession of the e-fits.
We know, only, that Kate devoted considerable space to the Smith e-fit in her book (and, indeed, was/is of the view that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the same man.
-
Bleeding Hell. Could we please get back to The Topic. There are other topics within which to go.
Just don't give me a hard time when I, or some other Mod deletes this.
-
Does anyone remember "Turtles Progress". Turtle had a minder named Razor Eddy.
I have reason to believe he [Razor Eddy] had a sister who seems to have turned up here.
Eraser Ellie............... 8(0(*
-
Does anyone remember "Turtles Progress". Turtle had a minder named Razor Eddy.
I have reason to believe he [Razor Eddy] had a sister who seems to have turned up here.
Eraser Ellie............... 8(0(*
You could well be right, Sweetie. Don't push your luck.
-
You could well be right, Sweetie. Don't push your luck.
The worst that can that happen is I will banned. As I have observed elsewhere this is not real life.
I will observe the rules of the forum notionally, but threats if I do not ? oh dear! how infra dig.
-
The critical bit is that the other e-fits they released were not of people in close proximity to apartment 5a at just about the time Madeleine was known to have been abducted.
In other words, it is hypothetically possible that a couple with no direct involvement in Madeleine's abduction might, technically, have somehow have secured custody of a child in good faith that just so happened to turn out to be Madeleine.
Separation in time and geography from the original incident (in Praia da Luz on May 3rd 2007) does not, automatically, carry the same pejorative connotation for the adult seen with a child hypothesised to be Madeleine.
The other point is that we simply don't know when the McCanns themselves came to be in possession of the e-fits.
We know, only, that Kate devoted considerable space to the Smith e-fit in her book (and, indeed, was/is of the view that Jane Tanner and the Smiths saw the same man.
What a load of poppycock. A man seen carrying a child that matched Madeleine McCann around the same time as she was reported missing and efits the McCanns own investigation team produced in 2008 weren't released until SY got their hands on them and made them the new focus of the joint investigation case being reopened in Portugal. The McCanns went and did their own documentary and reconstruction months later where 1. they lied about how Smithman was carrying the child i.e. the same way as Tannerman 2. That the Smiths were all bunched to together when he passed 3. 9:50 sighting time ruling Gerry out 4. Didn't reveal the efits to try and identify this man. And two years later in 2011 their leaving no stone unturned book didn't have them in either. This man has never come forward and he won't until SY come knock knocking on his door.
-
The worst that can that happen is I will banned. As I have observed elsewhere this is not real life.
I will observe the rules of the forum notionally, but threats if I do not ? oh dear! how infra dig.
What makes you think that you are important enough to be banned? No one ever gets banned from this Forum.
Just don't give me a hard time. Just get back to the Notional, which I have to say is terminally boring on your part. Do you have to work at it, or does it come naturally?
-
I don't think the point you make is relevant here because I can't see what info he would be giving away to a perpetrator. Maybe there is perhaps, yet what that is is hard to fathom in regard to the efits not being released. On another note it could simply be that the dodgy detectives(unknown to them at the time but I'm pretty sure one was a fraudster) they hired did not pass it on or maybe they did not want to distract from the tanner sighting...
It is not of the slightest concern for me why the efits were not released ... I do find it par for the course that only Madeline's parents received excoriating criticism.
-
Maybe he did not change his mind exactly because after all he did not clearly see the face of the guy, but rather he suspected it could be Gerry McCann I believe from his walk + carrying style(that is exactly how I would carry a child BTW. How else would you?) So if he wasn't sure it was Gerry, but only suspected given his 60-80% statement why wouldn't he make an efit on his recollection from a dark street?
I do agree in general that it might indicate he has had a change of heart or is very unsure. Are there any other reports apart from the times claiming this?
No there isn't and the claim is not underpinned by a direct quote, a sure pointer to deceit according to Ferryman in the past.
-
A black saloon car reversed sharply at about 8.30pm that evening, near the supermarket, witness said there were two men in the car and says they were acting strangely
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453015/Sniffer-dogs-tracked-Maddy-supermarket.html
-
Another vehicle event that evening near 5A, this one at about 8pm.
"As I approached another junction a small, brown car, with just one English-looking man in it swung round and nearly hit mine.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/100071/EXCLUSIVE-Who-was-the-woman-outside-Maddie-s-flat
-
Another vehicle event that evening near 5A, this one at about 8pm.
"As I approached another junction a small, brown car, with just one English-looking man in it swung round and nearly hit mine.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/100071/EXCLUSIVE-Who-was-the-woman-outside-Maddie-s-flat
My goodness I thought PDL was a quiet, sleepy little place. If you belueve all the eyewitness accounts of suspicious characters seen that night it sound more like Oxford Circus on a Saturday than an out of season Algarve bolt hole.
-
Crap, and a disgrace that this board allows such malicious tittle-tattle.
Then rebut it.
-
I'm afraid I haven't got the full Times article anymore - but here is the relevant part of it re Martin Smith.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote
The article from whence that quote was taken can be found in full on McCannfiles http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
-
Then rebut it.
what do you mean by rebut it..prove it wrong....that isn't how justice works...but perhaps you are not interested in justice
-
what do you mean by rebut it..prove it wrong....that isn't how justice works...but perhaps you are not interested in justice
I'd happily rebut it but in the correct forum - Members Only.
-
My goodness I thought PDL was a quiet, sleepy little place. If you belueve all the eyewitness accounts of suspicious characters seen that night it sound more like Oxford Circus on a Saturday than an out of season Algarve bolt hole.
Agreed, but I am trying to help Eleanor by getting thread back on topic, so I posted two vehicle events that evening.
Those two vehicle events, at 8pm and at 8.30pm, are IMO too early, becuse IMO we know the "disapperance" (whatever form it took) happened after about 9.10pm
I can't find any definite vehicle events after 9.10pm, although there is this:
Reportedly a woman heard a "crashing noise" near 5A at "around the time of the disappearance" (presumably sometime between 9.15pm and 10pm????). A crashing noise could be furniture falling over, could be someone raising or lowering a shutter, or many other things, just mentioning it because of the hypothetical possibility it might have been a vehicular crash.
Sorry have lost source, it was not in files, it was in a newspaper report, the witness was reportedly a woman who told someone else about it in tapas on a following day.
-
Agreed, but I am trying to help Eleanor by getting thread back on topic, so I posted two vehicle events that evening.
Those two events, at 8pm and at 8.30pm, are IMO too early, becuse IMO we know the "disapperance" (whatever form it took) happened after about 9.10pm
I can't find any vehicle events after 9.10pm, although there was reportedly a woman who heard a "crashing noise" near 5A at "around the time of the disappearance". A crashing noise could be furniture falling over, could be someone raising or lowering a shutter, or many other things just mentioning it because of the hypothetical possibility it might have been a vehicular crash.
Sorry have lost source, it was not in files, it was in a newspaper report, the witness was reportedly a woman who told someone else about it in tapas on a following day.
Newspaper articles are always contentious Pegasus. Best avoided whenever possible.
-
My goodness I thought PDL was a quiet, sleepy little place. If you belueve all the eyewitness accounts of suspicious characters seen that night it sound more like Oxford Circus on a Saturday than an out of season Algarve bolt hole.
Not only that night - daytime as well, according to certain people who came forward to make statements and yet the parents suspected nothing. Perhaps they were too busy playing tennis to notice.
-
Newspaper articles are always contentious Pegasus. Best avoided whenever possible.
Good point but
For both the two vehicle events (at 8pm and at 8.30) I confirmed the witness identity, confirmed they were in PDL, their addresses, and in one case cross matched with the files to confirm, and deduced probable exact event location. Therefore I have no doubt whatsoever that both those events (irrelevant as they may be) did happen.
-
So it seems all trace of my hypothertical scenario has been removed. The faithful ask us to post our theories and when we do they pull them. Where's the sense in that ?
I did notice before it was whooshed however that there was not one coherent rebuttal of by the faithful of its content so I'll start off.
I don't think an disappearance could have happened in the way you posted because...............?
I look forward to your answers.
-
So it seems all trace of my hypothertical scenario has been removed. The faithful ask us to post our theories and when we do they pull them. Where's the sense in that ?
I did notice before it was whooshed however that there was not one coherent rebuttal of by the faithful of its content so I'll start off.
I don't think an disappearance could have happened in the way you posted because...............?
I look forward to your answers.
As you are ignoring me you won't see this, but there is a forum where your idiotic theories can be discussed in detail - it's in the Members Only forum. Funny how you've changed your tune from a week ago when you were urging Pathfinder not to commit libel by discussing his / her theory on this forum! anyway, would you like me to set up a separate thread so we can discuss your ideas in depth?
-
No libel committed as no names mentioned. Of course if certain poster wish to imagine that I was posting about specific individuals, that is their choice.
-
No libel committed as no names mentioned. Of course if certain poster wish to imagine that I was posting about specific individuals, that is their choice.
What horseshit, pardon mon francais. I think you'll find the implications of your post speak loud and clear and your "no names mentioned" defence on a forum set up specifically to discuss the disappearance of Madeleine McCann would hold zero weight in a libel court *innocent face* 8**8:/:
-
What horseshit, pardon mon francais. I think you'll find the implications of your post speak loud and clear and your "no names mentioned" defence on a forum set up specifically to discuss the disappearance of Madeleine McCann would hold zero weight in a libel court *innocent face* 8**8:/:
I'll expect a letter from CR any day then. @)(++(*
-
I'll expect a letter from CR any day then. @)(++(*
What a hoot. Do tell.
-
What a hoot. Do tell.
Nothing to tell........yet ! Eh Alfie 8(0(*
-
So it seems all trace of my hypothertical scenario has been removed. The faithful ask us to post our theories and when we do they pull them. Where's the sense in that ?
I did notice before it was whooshed however that there was not one coherent rebuttal of by the faithful of its content so I'll start off.
I don't think an disappearance could have happened in the way you posted because...............?
I look forward to your answers.
The bottom line remains with these McCann supporters.......
With No abduction, all roads lead to the McCann's.
-
Right. Well that lot of old rubbish is going in a minute.
-
I'll expect a letter from CR any day then. @)(++(*
Nervous laughter Flilly? I thought you woz ignawing me... 8)><(
-
Found it.
"A British man at the tapas bar where the McCanns dined gave a statement saying how he spoke to an English woman who told him she had heard a “breaking noise” about the time that Madeleine was taken."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/248068/Kate-McCann-How-dare-they-call-me-cold
Just posting in case vehicular related?
-
What breaking noise would that be when nothing was found broken? It would say a vehicle if it was.
-
Then rebut it.
I have already done so, though I'm not the slightest bit surprised that passed you by.
I've also been ticked off for going off-topic.
You want to be wiped out completely, start a separate thread on the subject and see if you can get it past the board censors.
I'll wipe the floor with you again ...
-
I have already done so, though I'm not the slightest bit surprised that passed you by.
I've also been ticked off for going off-topic.
You want to be wiped out completely, start a separate thread on the subject and see if you can get it past the board censors.
I'll wipe the floor with you again ...
Be sure to get right around the back of the sofa won't you.
-
I have already done so, though I'm not the slightest bit surprised that passed you by.
I've also been ticked off for going off-topic.
You want to be wiped out completely, start a separate thread on the subject and see if you can get it past the board censors.
I'll wipe the floor with you again ...
You said my hypothetical theory was 'crap' etc etc. You didn't at any point put forward any rebuttal. If you think my scenario is impossible, tell me why.
-
The bottom line remains with these McCann supporters.......
With No abduction, all roads lead to the McCann's.
not according to SY
-
What breaking noise would that be when nothing was found broken? It would say a vehicle if it was.
IMO the woman did not know the cause of the "breaking noise" she heard.
Maybe glass or crockery? They can easily produce what would be described as a "breaking noise"
If an RTA made a "breaking noise" it would suggest glass but no-one found any glass outdoors so that rules it out.
-
You said my hypothetical theory was 'crap' etc etc. You didn't at any point put forward any rebuttal. If you think my scenario is impossible, tell me why.
Start a new thread and I'll tell you why.
-
not according to SY
Well they have found F.A.
-
Well they have found F.A.
Indeed. Perhaps they are on the wrong track. They have seemed a little single-minded.
-
Scotland Yard are not giving a running commentary ...
-
Start a new thread and I'll tell you why.
Alfred has kindly opened a thread on the Members Only section for theories perhaps instead of snaring up the public board with another needless thread you could use that instead.
-
Scotland Yard are not giving a running commentary ...
Yet they tell people they want to investigate them.
Doesn't sound like good policing, does it.
IMO of course. 8)-)))
-
Yet they tell people they want to investigate them.
Doesn't sound like good policing, does it.
IMO of course. 8)-)))
Might be deliberate .... to put the wind up them
-
Might be deliberate .... to put the wind up them
What if they panic & murder Maddie?
-
Might be deliberate .... to put the wind up them
This investigation has become nothing more than a pathetic witch hunt which is damaging businesses in the Algarve and especially in Luz.
-
This investigation has become nothing more than a pathetic witch hunt which is damaging businesses in the Algarve and especially in Luz.
Precisely.
and let's not forget, merely as always to distract from the mccanns themselves.
-
Might be deliberate .... to put the wind up them
I don't think it is deliberate.
I think it is the difficulty of everything having to be conducted by letters of request to the authorities.
I am sure things would have been far more discrete and the business conducted much more efficiently but for that.
It does however seem apparent that SY are going through absolutely everything with a fine tooth comb ... so I think there will be people in the Algarve who for the first time in over seven years are very definitely having the wind put up them.
-
I don't think it is deliberate.
I think it is the difficulty of everything having to be conducted by letters of request to the authorities.
I am sure things would have been far more discrete and the business conducted much more efficiently but for that.
It does however seem apparent that SY are going through absolutely everything with a fine tooth comb ... so I think there will be people in the Algarve who for the first time in over seven years are very definitely having the wind put up them.
I cant wait to see Redwoods final report and how he justifies the huge costs incurred on this witchhunt.
-
I cant wait to see Redwoods final report and how he justifies the huge costs incurred on this witchhunt.
Do you think the Portuguese police team are conducting a witchhunt? They have also ruled the McCanns out of the investigation.
-
If she'd been run over, wouldn't there have been a screech of brakes? If the driver hadn't stopped until further on, wouldn't there have been traces left behind?
-
What if they panic & murder Maddie?
If they have kept her alive this long and in the protected and priviledged [in some ways] way that i think they have, then she is part of "the familly. And I dont think they would bump her off after 7 years
In any case blood lines are everything to these people. I think she may well be of the same blood line as someone they worship. They will protect her and keep her hidden at all costs IMO
Only IMO, I might add, but pointers.
-
If they have kept her alive this long and in the protected and priviledged [in some ways] way that i think they have, then she is part of "the familly. And I dont think they would bump her off after 7 years
In any case blood lines are everything to these people. I think she may well be of the same blood line as someone they worship. They will protect her and keep her hidden at all costs IMO
Only IMO, I might add, but pointers.
'The family.'
A gardener, 3 burglars & a refuse collector.
-
'The family.'
A gardener, 3 burglars & a refuse collector.
In all this time, you have not bothered to read my posts.
I believe and have a multitude of pointers that the Mastermind behind this (and the other stranger abductions in PT) is an elite
If the gardener, burglars and refuse collectors are involved at 5A, then they were commisioned, paid help ... or doing it for a cause they profoundly believe in. I doubt that my man was anywhere near 5A when it happened .... unless he was on "fag end" balcony directing things ... but I doubt that .
-
In all this time, you have not bothered to read my posts.
I believe and have a multitude of pointers that the Mastermind behind this (and the other stranger abductions in PT) is an elite
If the gardener, burglars and refuse collectors are involved at 5A, then they were commisioned, paid help ... or doing it for a cause they profoundly believe in. I doubt that my man was anywhere near 5A when it happened .... unless he was on "fag end" balcony directing things ... but I doubt that .
'I believe and have a multitude of pointers that the Mastermind behind this (and the other stranger abductions in PT) is an elite.'
...
No I don't think I've seen that.
But please, spare me, I have but so many ribs.
-
'I believe and have a multitude of pointers that the Mastermind behind this (and the other stranger abductions in PT) is an elite.'
...
No I don't think I've seen that.
But please, spare me, I have but so many ribs.
How does the Twilight Zone theme go...
-
I cant wait to see Redwoods final report and how he justifies the huge costs incurred on this witchhunt.
There are people who know the cost of everything ... and the value of nothing ...
What sort of person is it who calls the search for a missing child and the perpetrators of the heinous crime of taking her ... a witch hunt?
Shameful!
-
'I believe and have a multitude of pointers that the Mastermind behind this (and the other stranger abductions in PT) is an elite.'
...
No I don't think I've seen that.
But please, spare me, I have but so many ribs.
Scoff all you like Spammy.
So because of YOUR preconceived ideas, you would NEVER consider anyone but the Gardener, the burglars, the refuse collectors then?
Oh .. I forgot, you think it was the Mccanns wot dunit .... no proofs, no pointers, but gut instinct based entirely on disinformation given out.
Open your mind Spammie
BTW,
He who laughs last, laughs longest ?{)(**
-
Scoff all you like Spammy.
So because of YOUR preconceived ideas, you would NEVER consider anyone but the Gardener, the burglars, the refuse collectors then?
Oh .. I forgot, you think it was the Mccanns wot dunit .... no proofs, no pointers, but gut instinct based entirely on disinformation given out.
Open your mind Spammie
BTW,
He who laughs last, laughs longest ?{)(**
The laughs are at your pointers and absurd theories.
As to the bloodlines, you're as bad as a certain party on stm.
-
If she'd been run over, wouldn't there have been a screech of brakes? If the driver hadn't stopped until further on, wouldn't there have been traces left behind?
Not in a low speed environ. A kid can be knocked down and killed without leaving any visible traces.
-
There are people who know the cost of everything ... and the value of nothing ...
What sort of person is it who calls the search for a missing child and the perpetrators of the heinous crime of taking her ... a witch hunt?
Shameful!
Me for one because that is exactly what it is and whats more the butcher the baker and uncle Tim Cobbly would agree. Since neither you I or SY dont even know if a crime was committed your argument is a bit academic.
-
Me for one because that is exactly what it is and whats more the butcher the baker and uncle Tim Cobbly would agree. Since neither you I or SY dont even know if a crime was committed your argument is a bit academic.
I think you will find that both SY and PJ believe that a crime has been committed. And both forces have ruled out the McCanns & co. as the perpetrators of that crime.
So if SY are conducting a witchhunt - then the PJ team must be doing same. Why and against whom?
-
I think you will find that both SY and PJ believe that a crime has been committed. And both forces have ruled out the McCanns & co. as the perpetrators of that crime.
So if SY are conducting a witchhunt - then the PJ team must be doing same. Why and against whom?
Do you agree Benice that it is not out with the realms of possibility that since voicing his opinion that the McCanns were not persons of interest or suspects, information could have come into his team that puts the McCanns more firmly in the frame ?
-
I think you will find that both SY and PJ believe that a crime has been committed. And both forces have ruled out the McCanns & co. as the perpetrators of that crime.
So if SY are conducting a witchhunt - then the PJ team must be doing same. Why and against whom?
I have some sympathy with Mat as to it being a bit of a witchhunt. The damage being done to those innocent witnesses in Praia da Luz can never be imagined. Just put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You happen to be a Luz resident and used your phone on the night Madeleine disappeared and now you are being suspected of having been involved in her abduction. WTF?
-
Not in a low speed environ. A kid can be knocked down and killed without leaving any visible traces.
Absolutely, and that is why I find the woke and wandered theory to be so compelling. A child of three hit by a car will sustain head trauma since their head is at the same height as a cars bumper/bonnet. Blood loss does not always occur in blunt force RTA's so that would explain why no trace was found.
The speed of traffic on the streets adjacent to Ocean Club Garden complex was probably about 20 mph so screeching brakes is a non starter.
-
I have some sympathy with Mat as to it being a bit of a witchhunt. The damage being done to those innocent witnesses in Praia da Luz can never be imagined. Just put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You happen to be a Luz resident and used your phone on the night Madeleine disappeared and now you are being suspected of having been involved in her abduction. WTF?
Indeed, it is truly pathetic.
SY and others appear to be looking for easy targets to blame.
-
I have some sympathy with Mat as to it being a bit of a witchhunt. The damage being done to those innocent witnesses in Praia da Luz can never be imagined. Just put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You happen to be a Luz resident and used your phone on the night Madeleine disappeared and now you are being suspected of having been involved in her abduction. WTF?
I think it's a bit of an assumption to say they are definitely being suspected of involvement. It could also be that these folk are considered to be people who were not involved themselves, but could have information which might give a clue to who was involved.
It's not uncommon for loads of 'innocent' people to be interviewed when a crime is committed. The Yorkshire Ripper case is one example IMO where IIRC hundreds of people who turned out to be uninvolved were interviewed - some more than once. I don't recall any of them suffering any 'damage' because of it.
AFAIK most people regard this as normal policing procedure in cases like this.
-
I think it's a bit of an assumption to say they are definitely being suspected of involvement. It could also be that these folk are considered to be people who were not involved themselves, but could have information which might give a clue to who was involved.
It's not uncommon for loads of 'innocent' people to be interviewed when a crime is committed. The Yorkshire Ripper case is one example IMO where IIRC hundreds of people who turned out to be uninvolved were interviewed - some more than once. I don't recall any of them suffering any 'damage' because of it.
AFAIK most people regard this as normal policing procedure in cases like this.
I totally agree Benice but they don't all have their personal details plastered all over the newspapers. I can see the AG bringing this entire investigation to an end soon if there isn't any significant progress, I don't think the people of Luz will put up with much more of this.
-
Indeed, it is truly pathetic.
SY and others appear to be looking for easy targets to blame.
I think they're simply covering themselves by covering every possible lead so when this is over people can't say well they didn't investigate this lead or that one and rushed to judgement. They can confidently say we investigated every possible lead and nothing was found except one!
-
The laughs are at your pointers and absurd theories.
As to the bloodlines, you're as bad as a certain party on stm.
As I said before, he that laughs last laughs longest
Now purleaze dont get me onto bloodlines. Gawd what they reveal that most on here are not even aware of.
I think you are tho.
-
As I said before, he that laughs last laughs longest
Now purleaze dont get me onto bloodlines. Gawd what they reveal that most on here are not even aware of.
I think you are tho.
Your theories have been there for some time and look where they have got you. NOWHERE.
-
Your theories have been there for some time and look where they have got you. NOWHERE.
What about your bloodlines Stephen?
Are they interesting ?
My main theories have been shown nowhere except to SY. What happens here is like a game in comparison to the depth of my main theories. You, nor anyone on here, has any concept of what went into them.
Far more important than what happened on May 3rd is what happened afterwards. And that is my main area of research.
Tough if you dont believe it. YOU are not important in the grand scheme of things ... and neither am I, nor anyone on here.
What is important is getting these abducted children back and stopping the perpetrator from repeating his acts. Also putting a curb on an Organisation that has been making mega millions for centuries out of drugs and human slave trafficking.
-
What about your bloodlines Stephen?
Are they interesting ?
My main theories have been shown nowhere except to SY. What happens here is like a game in comparison to the depth of my main theories. You, nor anyone on here, has any concept of what went into them.
Far more important than what happened on May 3rd is what happened afterwards. And that is my main area of research.
Tough if you dont believe it. YOU are not important in the grand scheme of things ... and neither am I, nor anyone on here.
What is important is getting these abducted children back and stopping the perpetrator from repeating his acts. Also putting a curb on an Organisation that has been making mega millions for centuries out of drugs and human slave trafficking.
Go on, it's the Templars isn't it?
-
Go on, it's the Templars isn't it?
I thought Pope Clement the something and King Philip the something else of France fixed their wagon about 800 years ago?
-
What about your bloodlines Stephen?
Are they interesting ?
My main theories have been shown nowhere except to SY. What happens here is like a game in comparison to the depth of my main theories. You, nor anyone on here, has any concept of what went into them.
Far more important than what happened on May 3rd is what happened afterwards. And that is my main area of research.
Tough if you dont believe it. YOU are not important in the grand scheme of things ... and neither am I, nor anyone on here.
What is important is getting these abducted children back and stopping the perpetrator from repeating his acts. Also putting a curb on an Organisation that has been making mega millions for centuries out of drugs and human slave trafficking.
Do SY believe your bloodlines tale ?
Or do they think you are ready for a stint on the Comedy Channel ?
-
Go on, it's the Templars isn't it?
The Templars vanished in 1307, although a good number escaped to mainly Scotland and PT.
-
The Templars vanished in 1307, although a good number esacped to mainly Scotland and PT.
Now there's a coincidence !
-
The Templars vanished in 1307, although a good number esacped to mainly Scotland and PT.
Including Glasgow ?
-
Me for one because that is exactly what it is and whats more the butcher the baker and uncle Tim Cobbly would agree. Since neither you I or SY dont even know if a crime was committed your argument is a bit academic.
By definition ... if a child is missing in the circumstances that Madeleine is ... a crime has been committed.
I think that having examined all the evidence ... SY have sent letters of request to the Portuguese authorities in the furtherance of tracking down the perpetrators of that crime.
-
Including Glasgow ?
Possibly but with the blues rather than the greens (or in Liverpool, the reds rather than the blues) I would imagine. There having been bad blood between The Papacy and the Templars ; end of history lesson 8(0(*
-
Possibly but with the blues rather than the greens (or in Liverpool, the reds rather than the blues) I would imagine. There having been bad blood between The Papacy and the Templars ; end of history lesson 8(0(*
and the mccans are devout Catholics. *&*%£
-
By definition ... if a child is missing in the circumstances that Madeleine is ... a crime has been committed.
I think that having examined all the evidence ... SY have sent letters of request to the Portuguese authorities in the furtherance of tracking down the perpetrators of that crime.
That's blindingly obvious. Whether they will achieve their objective is another matter entirely.
-
That's blindingly obvious. Whether they will achieve their objective is another matter entirely.
I've no doubt you hope they do ...
-
I've no doubt you hope they do ...
Indeed I do do hope they achieve what they are seeking
-
That's blindingly obvious. Whether they will achieve their objective is another matter entirely.
Yes, one would have thought so ... but apparently there are those who disagree.
I sincerely hope SY and the PJ succeed in achieving the objective of finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Proper official investigation has been a long time coming with many opposed to them even starting let alone achieving it. I can understand that sentiment being held by the perpetrators but wonder at the motives of others.
-
Absolutely, and that is why I find the woke and wandered theory to be so compelling. A child of three hit by a car will sustain head trauma since their head is at the same height as a cars bumper/bonnet. Blood loss does not always occur in blunt force RTA's so that would explain why no trace was found.
The speed of traffic on the streets adjacent to Ocean Club Garden complex was probably about 20 mph so screeching brakes is a non starter.
I think it is is implausible that Madeleine wandered off on her own and was hit by a vehicle.
If she had left via the front door, despite the darkness, and walked round the building using the route followed by the sniffer dogs, there was no vehicular access.
Had she left by the patio doors the first lighted area was at reception a few yards downhill and she would have headed there without having to cross the road.
If she had been hit by a slow moving vehicle it didn't necessarily have to have been a fatal collision as can be seen from the following article from a driver involved in a collision with a three year old child.
** snip**
In an instant, a few yards in front of me was a small child. He was followed by an adult. I remember thinking "WHAT THE..." and then reflexively hit my brakes. The car skidded and I ran into both of them. The child flew through the air, caught in the beam of my headlights. I didn't see the adult.
Traffic stopped behind me and on the other side of the road ahead of me. For a few seconds everything was still. The child, who looked about three years old, was crying in a heap a few yards in front of my car; the adult had been thrown further.
** snip**
I was then told that no action would be taken against me and I was taken home by one of the young policemen. He told me to ring him if I needed to talk. He rang me a day or two later and told me that the aunt and the child had no broken bones and were both at home nursing some bruising.
The aunt wanted to talk to me and he asked whether he could give her my phone number. She rang me a few minutes later to tell me that she and her nephew were both well and to thank me for not driving fast. I told her that it was brave of her to try to save the child, and she laughed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-day-i-hit-a-child-at-20mph-ndash-and-realised-the-speed-limit-must-be-cut-1985069.html
-
I think it is is implausible that Madeleine wandered off on her own and was hit by a vehicle.
If she had left via the front door, despite the darkness, and walked round the building using the route followed by the sniffer dogs, there was no vehicular access.
Had she left by the patio doors the first lighted area was at reception a few yards downhill and she would have headed there without having to cross the road.
** snip**
Well thought out Brietta 8@??)(
An excellent analysis !
So either from the front of the building or from the back she was likely to have headed for the Tapas Reception and the restaurant. Well lighted area and very close.
No roads to cross.
The PT dogs indicated that Madeleine had gone around the building the last time she left by that front door. We dont know whether that was that night, the day before, or a couple of days previously, do we?
-
Well thought out Brietta 8@??)(
An excellent analysis !
So either from the front of the building or from the back she was likely to have headed for the Tapas Reception and the restaurant. Well lighted area and very close.
No roads to cross.
The PT dogs indicated that Madeleine had gone around the building the last time she left by that front door. We dont know whether that was that night, the day before, or a couple of days previously, do we?
and what if Madeleine did get out of an unlocked apartment by herself, either that night on on another ?
-
and what if Madeleine did get out of an unlocked apartment by herself, either that night on on another ?
To be totally honest I do not believe she did. I believe she was abducted.
But if she by some miracle did, then she did not get run over as so succinctly explained by Brietta. Cos from back or front, she would have ended up at the tapas Reception, which was brightly lit.
No roads to cross to get there from back or front of 5A
-
A potential accident scene is at Quinta dos Figos, around 500m north of 5A.
Summary. Blood was found beside a main road. It was picked up 6 May (I think). It was tested at the spot and found to be human. It went into the evidence chain then seems to have disappeared.
Details at shininginluz.wordpress.com. Google shiningluz "human blood at quinta dos figos" Apologies for the lack of a link, but I'm not an expert re wordpress and find the format fairly awkward.
Was it Madeleine's? Probably not but I don't know.
-
The Barragem Da Bravura note is a figment of imagination.
I can see there is a thread devoted to that topic, so I'll explain why there.
This does not make any substantial change to the idea she may have wandered off, as the note is not central to the concept.
-
A potential accident scene is at Quinta dos Figos, around 500m north of 5A.
Summary. Blood was found beside a main road. It was picked up 6 May (I think). It was tested at the spot and found to be human. It went into the evidence chain then seems to have disappeared.
Details at shininginluz.wordpress.com. Google shiningluz "human blood at quinta dos figos" Apologies for the lack of a link, but I'm not an expert re wordpress and find the format fairly awkward.
Was it Madeleine's? Probably not but I don't know.
I never did find the final outcome of the human blood found .....Below is part of the link contents
------------------------------------------------------------
I consign to the case files that I proceeded to the withdrawal of vestige nº 3 (evidence bag nº 022917) to which the previous report refers, with the aim of depositing it later.
Conclusion
Portimão
12th June 2007
Signed
Inspector João Carlos
Doc linked in TOC.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic171-70.html
-
Perhaps another of these inconclusive profiles.
-
Perhaps another of these inconclusive profiles.
Possibly ... but weren't other inconclusive results put on record?
-
Possibly ... but weren't other inconclusive results put on record?
Good point Brietta
-
Not all records have been released.
-
Not all records have been released.
That is, of course true, Jassie.
-
Not all records have been released.
Very true ... but Operation Grange are working from all the files on record ... so it doesn't really matter as far as we are concerned.
Don't you find it strange that this sample alone from all traces collected has vanished ... and if this one has ... what others may there be?
-
Very true ... but Operation Grange are working from all the files on record ... so it doesn't really matter as far as we are concerned.
Don't you find it strange that this sample alone from all traces collected has vanished ... and if this one has ... what others may there be?
Now that is something we may never know.
-
Very true ... but Operation Grange are working from all the files on record ... so it doesn't really matter as far as we are concerned.
Don't you find it strange that this sample alone from all traces collected has vanished ... and if this one has ... what others may there be?
Strange we know so much about PDL but we don't know if anyone suffered as a result of an road accident..
-
I never did find the final outcome of the human blood found .....Below is part of the link contents
------------------------------------------------------------
I consign to the case files that I proceeded to the withdrawal of vestige nº 3 (evidence bag nº 022917) to which the previous report refers, with the aim of depositing it later.
Can I ask, just in case it is me, whether you find it strange that an Inspector on the PJ would sign this evidence bag out of store? Specifically, an Inspector in the PJ, not a tekkie from INML.
-
Can I ask, just in case it is me, whether you find it strange that an Inspector on the PJ would sign this evidence bag out of store? Specifically, an Inspector in the PJ, not a tekkie from INML.
Sorry Shining,
I have no idea of how the PJ or forensics procedure operates, in Portugal, so I cannot answer your question.
-
I have always had the feeling that Maddie wandered off out of that apartment.
She may have been abducted from the street, she may have fallen over ,banged her head and was found dead by a parent, or could have been knocked down by a hit and run who panicked.
The shutters and whooshing are add ons to protect the parents neglect and their reputation! I believe that letter does exist!
-
I have always had the feeling that Maddie wandered off out of that apartment.
She may have been abducted from the street, she may have fallen over ,banged her head and was found dead by a parent, or could have been knocked down by a hit and run who panicked.
The shutters and whooshing are add ons to protect the parents neglect and their reputation! I believe that letter does exist!
One of my main theories is she went out of the apartment in ANGER fed up of finding herself on her own again.....My idea is slightly different though.
I think there were problems with the childs behaviour sadly from the time the twins came. Before then all the photos of her with her mother are lovely and Mrs McCanns eyes shines through love for her daughter. I found a super photo of both of them snuggled, it was quite harm warming.
I think the problems started from the conception of the twins, and their birth.
My grandson is 2 months younger then Maddy would have been. At the time my daughter was having so many problems with him bad sleeping, always wanting his attention, he was difficult and it was because he was jealous of his OLDER brother......My daughter was simply exhausted with it all, having little sleep every night.
Now can you imagine how poor Mrs McCann must have been 2 young twins, 1 young toddler all vying
for attention. She must have been exhausted too and unwittingly attending the 2 babies before the needs of the toddler.....the toddler I think would naturally become difficult....
The one thing for me i dont understand is why did Mrs McCann tell all and sundry that on the morning of the 3rd May Madeliene chastiesed them why did you leave us last night crying etc........Why tell us that, WHAT WAS the purpose I could never understand why as for me it made their case of neglect in the eyes of the audience even stronger....how could they? How could they leave their children every night on their own, then got chastised by their 3 year old and do it again the very same night? &%+((£
Now if some of us think that being adults how would a young child of 3 feel? She would have felt i am sure angry, and hurt to find herself in the dark once again with no mum and dad to console her.
I personally think she decided in her own little head to scare them.......and hide perhaps?
I think she was perfectly capable of getting out of that apartment my grandson could have easily and was always up to naughty tricks.
So just say she wandered out, looking for a potential hiding place.
a. Did she find one but it was so good she got stuck and couldnt get back out and dear god she is still there.
b. She wandered out, and she was hit by a passing car and taken away.
c. Someone who knew the child was being left was in the area and took the child away
d. Or did she fall over the stair gate, or railing and be found by a member of the group, i keep reminding myself someone heard someone shouting her name.....
Far fetched is it though?
I get told cant happen she would put her shoes on, WOULD she though? Its dark in the apartment, shoes for kids well my grandson at the time never wore them unless his mum glued them to his feet lol, and he couldnt put them on himself he always got them on the wrong feet.
Fall down into a hole could she? Quite possibly kids die in storm drains and get lost down wells, hidden in fridges.....
Snatched, possibly......
You see i dont get how anyone could have been so clever to have done this without leaving any trace or waking her up screaming, the twins would have woken up etc.....and the shutters well I am sure they are pretty nosiey the ones we had were and in the night noise travels further.
I dont know I just find the case a mystery......like the Needham case really.....there are parallels...
-
A potential accident scene is at Quinta dos Figos, around 500m north of 5A.
Summary. Blood was found beside a main road. It was picked up 6 May (I think). It was tested at the spot and found to be human. It went into the evidence chain then seems to have disappeared.
Details at shininginluz.wordpress.com. Google shiningluz "human blood at quinta dos figos" Apologies for the lack of a link, but I'm not an expert re wordpress and find the format fairly awkward.
Was it Madeleine's? Probably not but I don't know.
I dont remember that but i do remember reading about a body wrapped in polythene found in a cave in the sea not far from the Holy shrine where the McCanns visited one day, cant remember the name of the place sorry I suffer with MS and a bit of memory problems, but i distinctly remember reading about this, and yet i couldnt find anything about sadly who's body it was....
-
One of my main theories is she went out of the apartment in ANGER fed up of finding herself on her own again.....My idea is slightly different though.
I think there were problems with the childs behaviour sadly from the time the twins came. Before then all the photos of her with her mother are lovely and Mrs McCanns eyes shines through love for her daughter. I found a super photo of both of them snuggled, it was quite harm warming.
I think the problems started from the conception of the twins, and their birth.
My grandson is 2 months younger then Maddy would have been. At the time my daughter was having so many problems with him bad sleeping, always wanting his attention, he was difficult and it was because he was jealous of his OLDER brother......My daughter was simply exhausted with it all, having little sleep every night.
Now can you imagine how poor Mrs McCann must have been 2 young twins, 1 young toddler all vying
for attention. She must have been exhausted too and unwittingly attending the 2 babies before the needs of the toddler.....the toddler I think would naturally become difficult....
The one thing for me i dont understand is why did Mrs McCann tell all and sundry that on the morning of the 3rd May Madeliene chastiesed them why did you leave us last night crying etc........Why tell us that, WHAT WAS the purpose I could never understand why as for me it made their case of neglect in the eyes of the audience even stronger....how could they? How could they leave their children every night on their own, then got chastised by their 3 year old and do it again the very same night? &%+((£
Now if some of us think that being adults how would a young child of 3 feel? She would have felt i am sure angry, and hurt to find herself in the dark once again with no mum and dad to console her.
I personally think she decided in her own little head to scare them.......and hide perhaps?
I think she was perfectly capable of getting out of that apartment my grandson could have easily and was always up to naughty tricks.
So just say she wandered out, looking for a potential hiding place.
a. Did she find one but it was so good she got stuck and couldnt get back out and dear god she is still there.
b. She wandered out, and she was hit by a passing car and taken away.
c. Someone who knew the child was being left was in the area and took the child away
d. Or did she fall over the stair gate, or railing and be found by a member of the group, i keep reminding myself someone heard someone shouting her name.....
Far fetched is it though?
I get told cant happen she would put her shoes on, WOULD she though? Its dark in the apartment, shoes for kids well my grandson at the time never wore them unless his mum glued them to his feet lol, and he couldnt put them on himself he always got them on the wrong feet.
Fall down into a hole could she? Quite possibly kids die in storm drains and get lost down wells, hidden in fridges.....
Snatched, possibly......
You see i dont get how anyone could have been so clever to have done this without leaving any trace or waking her up screaming, the twins would have woken up etc.....and the shutters well I am sure they are pretty nosiey the ones we had were and in the night noise travels further.
I dont know I just find the case a mystery......like the Needham case really.....there are parallels...
She didn't tell all and sundry.
She told the investigators everything she knew and could possibly tell them in the hope it would assist them to find Madeleine ... she missed nothing out, even something which may have cast her in a bad light.
Madeleine didn't dwell on the subject and went on to chatter about something else.
I suggest your assessment of Madeleine's relationship with her siblings is off the mark ... you only have to see pictures of her being 'big sister' with them shows that.
-
'Madeleine didn't dwell on the subject and went on to chatter about something else.'
You were there ?
-
She didn't tell all and sundry.
She told the investigators everything she knew and could possibly tell them in the hope it would assist them to find Madeleine ... she missed nothing out, even something which may have cast her in a bad light.
Madeleine didn't dwell on the subject and went on to chatter about something else.
I suggest your assessment of Madeleine's relationship with her siblings is off the mark ... you only have to see pictures of her being 'big sister' with them shows that.
If the McCanns had wanted to deceive the police into thinking an intruder might have been in 5A the night before and so decided to make up a story - they could have easily come up with one which didn't risk putting themselves in a bad light. For instance -all they had to say is that Madeleine told them she'd had a bad dream about a man being in the room - or something similar.
Once again we are being asked to believe the McCanns didn't have a working brain cell between them and were both as thick as two planks.
I agree - the photographs and videos of Madeleine with her siblings paint completely the opposite picture of the one being suggested.
My daughter like Madeleine is also 20 months older than her brother. She also got jealous for a while after he was born and demanded extra attention - usually just as I had sat down to feed him. It's a perfectly normal reaction by many firstborn children - and it soon passed.
-
IMO a four year old would not have developed a sense of righteous indignation and anger at that age, nor a desire to make her parents pay for leaving her alone. That just does not ring true at all IMO.
-
I thought you couldn't be arsed to read what I wrote? Kindly refrain from trolling my posts with your inane observations, many thanks.
-
IMO a four year old would not have developed a sense of righteous indignation and anger at that age, nor a desire to make her parents pay for leaving her alone. That just does not ring true at all IMO.
LOL your joking right? Do you have kids? I have seen a three year old scream at its mummy so loud and horrible it practically turned blue, and was screaming and clenching fist I hate you, and then proceeded to kick said parent in the shin, turn around run off and went out the front door in a right strop...........
Kids are devious and they do develop these things very early on.
-
She didn't tell all and sundry.
She told the investigators everything she knew and could possibly tell them in the hope it would assist them to find Madeleine ... she missed nothing out, even something which may have cast her in a bad light.
Madeleine didn't dwell on the subject and went on to chatter about something else.
I suggest your assessment of Madeleine's relationship with her siblings is off the mark ... you only have to see pictures of her being 'big sister' with them shows that.
How do you know that were you there you have no idea what she actually said to her mother, and the words used for me were so sugar coated anyway, no kids of 3/4 talk that way....it would have been more accusingly I would say. Well I thought she wrote that in her book perhaps i was wrong.....but I still find it odd...
No YOUR WRONG about her relationship I am talking about with her MOTHER, not her siblings. Even Mrs McCann stated in an article she became difficult after the twins were born, and I have what she said on book mark somewhere........she was also difficult to go to bed, and wasnt there a star chart for her.......
doesnt mean i believe the McCanns harmed her, I am merely pointing out that perhaps the child went out in a strop angry......and the reasons for my rationale..........All toddlers STROP.....
...
-
How do you know that were you there you have no idea what she actually said to her mother, and the words used for me were so sugar coated anyway, no kids of 3/4 talk that way....it would have been more accusingly I would say. Well I thought she wrote that in her book perhaps i was wrong.....but I still find it odd...
No YOUR WRONG about her relationship I am talking about with her MOTHER, not her siblings. Even Mrs McCann stated in an article she became difficult after the twins were born, and I have what she said on book mark somewhere........she was also difficult to go to bed, and wasnt there a star chart for her.......
doesnt mean i believe the McCanns harmed her, I am merely pointing out that perhaps the child went out in a strop angry......and the reasons for my rationale..........All toddlers STROP.....
...
I just do not understand the determination to portray Dr McCann as an uncaring mother and a liar. I may not have been there but may I respectfully point out, neither were you but Dr McCann was ... I have read her account of what was said at the last breakfast she had with her eldest child, and I am satisfied with that.
I am quite frankly aghast that you refer to Madeleine's star chart as an indication she was a 'stroppy' child. I feel that is a judgement you are not entitled to make particularly when there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary.
The theory that she may have wandered off on her own was the first avenue investigated by the GNR. They found no evidence to support it.
-
Please adhere to the topic.."Was Madeleine McCann run over by accident and then carried off"
Off topic post will be deleted
-
I just do not understand the determination to portray Dr McCann as an uncaring mother and a liar. I may not have been there but may I respectfully point out, neither were you but Dr McCann was ... I have read her account of what was said at the last breakfast she had with her eldest child, and I am satisfied with that.
I am quite frankly aghast that you refer to Madeleine's star chart as an indication she was a 'stroppy' child. I feel that is a judgement you are not entitled to make particularly when there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary.
The theory that she may have wandered off on her own was the first avenue investigated by the GNR. They found no evidence to support it.
stroppy child? I never said that you need to read posts more carefully.
The Subject of the post is: RE: Was Madeliene McCann run over by accident and then carried off?
If you read my post i have stated I think she could have run off out and I gave the rationale for it.....and that she could have been run over etc etc....
I am not going to apologise for pointing out the star chart the child was obviously having some problems like all 3 year olds do, and it could have all accumulated in her running off out of the apartment into danger. I think you being AGHAST is a tad OTT though lol.
I also merely stated, I found it odd that MrsMcCann would mention what the child said on the 3rd May, but you still manage to turn it into me or anyone else being a McCann disbeliever.
I am entitled to make these comments and observations, if you dont like what I say then I suggest you put me on block, I care not quite honestly what you think.....I know what 3 year olds are capable of, I have had a 3 year old who behaved irrationally and children can run off for the oddest of reasons.
Jeez you cant win on here, your dammed if you come up with another reason for her disappearance which does not involve the parents, and your dammed if you do.....give me a break.....
Mrs McCann herself quite OPENLY said the child had become difficult after the birth of the twins, so please get off your high horse, thank you kindly.....
In an interview she stated:.....Kate McCann has revealed that she struggled to control Madeleine McCann after the birth of her and Gerry's twins, it was revealed today.
Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html#ixzz3Lt474UbR
-
LOL your joking right? Do you have kids? I have seen a three year old scream at its mummy so loud and horrible it practically turned blue, and was screaming and clenching fist I hate you, and then proceeded to kick said parent in the shin, turn around run off and went out the front door in a right strop...........
Kids are devious and they do develop these things very early on.
LOL yes I do have children - two of them in fact, however I cannot conceive of either of them at age 4 conniving to teach me a lesson because they felt that I had somehow failed in my duty as a parent. That sounds way too calculating and sophisticated for an almost 4 year old. Yes, kids that age have strops but usually it's because they aren't getting their own way, not because mummy went out and so now I'm going to make her pay by mentally torturing her. IMO of course.
-
stroppy child? I never said that you need to read posts more carefully.
The Subject of the post is: RE: Was Madeliene McCann run over by accident and then carried off?
If you read my post i have stated I think she could have run off out and I gave the rationale for it.....and that she could have been run over etc etc....
I am not going to apologise for pointing out the star chart the child was obviously having some problems like all 3 year olds do, and it could have all accumulated in her running off out of the apartment into danger. I think you being AGHAST is a tad OTT though lol.
I also merely stated, I found it odd that MrsMcCann would mention what the child said on the 3rd May, but you still manage to turn it into me or anyone else being a McCann disbeliever.
I am entitled to make these comments and observations, if you dont like what I say then I suggest you put me on block, I care not quite honestly what you think.....I know what 3 year olds are capable of, I have had a 3 year old who behaved irrationally and children can run off for the oddest of reasons.
Jeez you cant win on here, your dammed if you come up with another reason for her disappearance which does not involve the parents, and your dammed if you do.....give me a break.....
Mrs McCann herself quite OPENLY said the child had become difficult after the birth of the twins, so please get off your high horse, thank you kindly.....
In an interview she stated:.....Kate McCann has revealed that she struggled to control Madeleine McCann after the birth of her and Gerry's twins, it was revealed today.
Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html#ixzz3Lt474UbR
Don't you think you are over reacting just a tad?
You have posted your opinion ... I have replied and voiced mine. That is called discussion ... and it is a discussion forum.
I have absolutely no intention of putting you on ignore as I find some of your posts quite interesting.
I regret if you object to my posting style, but what you see is what you get and I learned to be quite combative on an unregulated forum where there were no holds barred and absolutely no quarter given to people of my opinion.
Don't doubt that I read what you said in your post.
You think it possible Madeleine may have wandered ... I do not; but you qualified your opinion as to why she may have with a critique of her mother which started with you saying, "I think the problems started ..."
I think the problem started with someone entering Apartment 5A and leaving with a child ... and therein lies the difference in your theory and mine.
-
How do you know that were you there you have no idea what she actually said to her mother, and the words used for me were so sugar coated anyway, no kids of 3/4 talk that way....it would have been more accusingly I would say. Well I thought she wrote that in her book perhaps i was wrong.....but I still find it odd...
No YOUR WRONG about her relationship I am talking about with her MOTHER, not her siblings. Even Mrs McCann stated in an article she became difficult after the twins were born, and I have what she said on book mark somewhere........she was also difficult to go to bed, and wasnt there a star chart for her.......
doesnt mean i believe the McCanns harmed her, I am merely pointing out that perhaps the child went out in a strop angry......and the reasons for my rationale..........All toddlers STROP.....
...
According to Kate's friends (other mums with children) back home, Kate was a very patient calm mother who got along brilliantly with her daughter and never raised her voice to her. As those mums regularly spent hours at a time with Kate and her children along with their own children - I think they are in a much better position to judge than anyone who has never met her.
AFAIK none of the people who came into regular close contact with Kate and her children expressed any concerns or doubts about Kate and Gerry's parenting skills. In fact quite the opposite.
Their witness statements are in the files, but I can't remember their names at the mo.
-
According to Kate's friends (other mums with children) back home, Kate was a very patient calm mother who got along brilliantly with her daughter and never raised her voice to her. As those mums regularly spent hours at a time with Kate and her children along with their own children - I think they are in a much better position to judge than anyone who has never met her.
AFAIK none of the people who came into regular close contact with Kate and her children expressed any concerns or doubts about Kate and Gerry's parenting skills. In fact quite the opposite.
Their witness statements are in the files, but I can't remember their names at the mo.
Are you thinking of the dutch nursery?
-
According to Kate's friends (other mums with children) back home, Kate was a very patient calm mother who got along brilliantly with her daughter and never raised her voice to her. As those mums regularly spent hours at a time with Kate and her children along with their own children - I think they are in a much better position to judge than anyone who has never met her.
AFAIK none of the people who came into regular close contact with Kate and her children expressed any concerns or doubts about Kate and Gerry's parenting skills. In fact quite the opposite.
Their witness statements are in the files, but I can't remember their names at the mo.
Here is one Benice
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm
-
Here is one Benice
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm
"Madeleine meant everything to Kate"
Said by one who knows her as well as anyone could ... there is absolutely no way that loving mother treated the daughter who was a best friend to her in the way imagined by some.
Any hope she might have had that indeed Madeleine might have wandered off on her own was shattered by the raised shutter and the open window.
-
Here is one Benice
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm
Thanks DCI - but that wasn't one of the two I was thinking of. I've found one of them -(below)
Incidentally IMO this statement is a good example of how multi-translations can have an effect. Some of the words/phrases sound a little 'strange' to me, but then they have been translated from English to Portuguese and then back again.
QUOTE
Witness statement of Karen Lamena Elaine McCalman (family friend) 2008.05.14
Testimony from Ka.L.E.Mc
Age if less than 18 years:
Occupation:
This deposition (comprising 2 pages and signed by me) is true and according to my understanding. I am aware that, if proven to the contrary, I will be subject to prosecution if I have voluntarily testified to something with knowledge of it being false or not corresponding to the truth.
Date: May 16, 2008
Signature _________________________________
I am the abovementioned person living in East Goscote, Leicestershire. The full address was previously supplied to police. I live with my husband and our two children of four and two years of age.
Recently I was interviewed by police from Leicestershire on certain points concerning the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I have been informed that this questionnaire was drawn up following a formal request from the Portuguese authorities. I am aware that my testimony is subject to the Portuguese Criminal Code and English law.
These are the answers that I can provide to the questions which I received:
I have known Kate McCann and her daughter Madeleine for about two and a half years. At that time the McCANN family lived in Queniborough. Kate and I knew each other from the local group of http://www.netmums.com group of toddlers at Charnwood. We got on well with each other and we became friends. We met at least once a week and we frequented each other's homes. I took care of Madeleine some afternoons or days.
I always thought Madeleine was fun [-loving], smart and expressed herself with ease. She had a very pleasant personality and got on very well with my daughter. She made people smile.
Initially I thought that Gerry McCann was a bit harsh, but as we got to know each other he revealed himself to be very nice and fun [-loving].
I think Kate was a little shy until we got to know each other. She is strong but modest and would never want to be on the pedestal where she is today.
I am not aware of any conflict between the family. Madeleine and Kate got on well together like best friends do. I never saw Kate or Gerry physically mistreat children. (page 1)
I never saw Madeleine ill and I consider her a healthy child. I never saw changes in her behaviour.
Madeleine never made complaints about anybody. She never showed bad behaviour, in fact she was almost the perfect child. We were able to bring her to her senses like she was an adult.
She never seemed scared. She was not hyperactive.
Regarding the sleep habits of Madeleine, Kate told me that when they lived in Queniborough Madeleine used to wake in the middle of the night and come to bed with the parents for the rest of the night. When they moved to Rothley she began to do this less often and the parents used to give her stickers as a bonus to sleep all night alone.
I remember there were many of these stickers in the house, for the nights when she would sleep alone all night. The stickers were glued to the door of the refrigerator.
Kate and Gerry never seemed tired and never struggled to take care of the children.
I have no knowledge of Madeleine at any time to have been subjected to medication. I only remember her being given paracetamol once when she had a cold.
I think the behaviour of Madeleine appropriate for her age. She was very energetic, but a model child. She liked to swim, play tennis and ride a bicycle and attend kindergarten.
I think Kate and Gerry were exemplary parents. Kate never raised her voice and always kept herself calm and never seemed tired of her children even on the busiest days. Gerry 'stripped' his professional air such that he came home after work and got involved entirely with the children.
I do not remember any more, nor any information or additional explanation that is relevant or which may help in the investigation.
This testimony was made by me and it is true according to my understanding.
-
"Madeleine meant everything to Kate"
Didn't Kate also describe her as being a problematic child ?
I sincerely hope that neither Kate or Gerry has a short fuse temperament !
-
Didn't Kate also describe her as being a problematic child ?
I sincerely hope that neither Kate or Gerry has a short fuse temperament !
You'll have a cite for that description "problematic child"?
Why would you hope that neither of the Drs McCann have a "short fuse temperament"?
-
Well anyone who watched The Missing that is exactly what happened to the boy in the....he was run over, and taken away without anyone seeing him............................
-
Well anyone who watched The Missing that is exactly what happened to the boy in the....he was run over, and taken away without anyone seeing him............................
And that makes it more likely that it happened to Madeleine too...? &%+((£
-
And that makes it more likely that it happened to Madeleine too...? &%+((£
No, just another theory to be taken into account and investigated.
The police should be doing that. Investigating all possibilities. But as we see on here, SY have cleared the parents and are looking for an abductor.
Gosh hope they find one! They have so many to choose from.
-
With so much apparent choice, its strange that they haven't found one yet. Perhaps they are looking in the wrong direction.
-
With so much apparent choice, its strange that they haven't found one yet. Perhaps they are looking in the wrong direction.
amaral and the PJ found nothing
-
Neither have SY. Strange that considering their reputation.
-
Neither have SY. Strange that considering their reputation.
AND the parents 'searches' found nothing either....even more strange. but wait.. what about a 'sighting'. nah not to bother with that one.
-
... "strange" would appear to be the 'in' word.
Would someone care to enlighten me ... is it only "strange" when applied to Madeleine McCann??
Or is "strange" applicable in ALL cases of missing children?
-
... "strange" would appear to be the 'in' word.
Would someone care to enlighten me ... is it only "strange" when applied to Madeleine McCann??
Or is "strange" applicable in ALL cases of missing children?
This thread is about Madeleine McCann as far as I see. Why do you need to be enlightened? do you not understand the Davel post or the replies?
Or is it the case Davel and your 'crew' should not be challenged?
-
This thread is about Madeleine McCann as far as I see. Why do you need to be enlightened? do you not understand the Davel post or the replies?
Or is it the case Davel and your 'crew' should not be challenged?
Well spotted.
This thread is indeed a discussion on the possibility of Madeleine falling victim to a hit and run driver after exiting the apartment.
I do not see quite where your statement "AND the parents 'searches' found nothing either....even more strange." comes into that discussion.
Please refrain from posting suppositions about me ... you know absolutely nothing about me or what "crew" if any I may belong to.
-
This is the only explanation for Maddie's disappearance which works for me. She was used to opening the front door and going out every morning, it is recorded that she would run ahead along the path bordering the apartments. It is also known that she woke up when her parents were at the tapas. Putting two and two together it is very easy to see what happened.
Was it Maddie who pulled up the shutter and opened the window in a vain attempt to attract her parents attention?
-
This is the only explanation for Maddie's disappearance which works for me. She was used to opening the front door and going out every morning, it is recorded that she would run ahead along the path bordering the apartments. It is also known that she woke up when her parents were at the tapas. Putting two and two together it is very easy to see what happened.
In order for this to be the case it means that Kate McCann staged an abduction almost immediately she discovered her child missing, that she put more thought into covering her own arse* than in looking for her daughter, who as far as she knew could have been wandering around moments from the Apartment. This means that in your scenario Kate McCann is a most evil woman, and that Gerry is either evil too for supporting her in the lie, or has been duped by his wife for the last nearly 8 years. Is this what you believe Angelo?
* (though quite how that would work I'm not entirely sure as whether Madeleine was taken or left by her own design it happened when the McCanns were not there)
-
In order for this to be the case it means that Kate McCann staged an abduction almost immediately she discovered her child missing, that she put more thought into covering her own arse* than in looking for her daughter, who as far as she knew could have been wandering around moments from the Apartment. This means that in your scenario Kate McCann is a most evil woman, and that Gerry is either evil too for supporting her in the lie, or has been duped by his wife for the last nearly 8 years. Is this what you believe Angelo?
* (though quite how that would work I'm not entirely sure as whether Madeleine was taken or left by her own design it happened when the McCanns were not there)
I don't see it that way at all. Any parent given the circumstances would jump to the same conclusion that someone had abducted her. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the evidence does NOT support an abduction.
In fact, contrary to what you posted, there was no need for any lie. Mistaken would be a more appropriate qualification.
In the final analysis, it was the guilt of having left her unattended and the possible legal consequences of having done so which concerned the tapas group more than anything else. Thus we have the ass covering exercise in perfect parenting!
-
I don't see it that way at all. Any parent given the circumstances would jump to the same conclusion that someone had abducted her. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the evidence does NOT support an abduction.
When Kate McCann entered the bedroom of the children the window was open and the shutter pushed up. Are you of the opinion then that Madeleine did this?
-
This is the only explanation for Maddie's disappearance which works for me. She was used to opening the front door and going out every morning, it is recorded that she would run ahead along the path bordering the apartments. It is also known that she woke up when her parents were at the tapas. Putting two and two together it is very easy to see what happened.
Was it Maddie who pulled up the shutter and opened the window in a vain attempt to attract her parents attention?
Well it is better than the abduction theory 8(>((
Now as I recall, all The Met ever said about the abduction theory was: "There was a window of opportunity when and abduction could have taken place. If it were abduction by stranger it would be a criminal offence" or some such. I am sure a diligent Googler could find the actual quotation. It'll be on one the YouTube videos I bet.
Shame about The Met greasing Tannerman The Abductor ( I have put that in as a test)
-
Well it is better than the abduction theory 8(>((
Now as I recall, all The Met ever said about the abduction theory was: "There was a window of opportunity when and abduction could have taken place. If it were abduction by stranger it would be a criminal offence" or some such. I am sure a diligent Googler could find the actual quotation. It'll be on one the YouTube videos I bet.
Shame about The Met greasing Tannerman The Abductor ( I have put that in as a test)
If you recall, the group of retired senior detectives who visited Praia da Luz early on came to the same conclusion ie she got out and wandered off. Even Amaral considered this a serious possibility.
-
I don't see it that way at all. Any parent given the circumstances would jump to the same conclusion that someone had abducted her. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the evidence does NOT support an abduction.
In fact, contrary to what you posted, there was no need for any lie. Mistaken would be a more appropriate qualification.
In the final analysis, it was the guilt of having left her unattended and the possible legal consequences of having done so which concerned the tapas group more than anything else. Thus we have the ass covering exercise in perfect parenting!
You've contradicted yourself above. Firstly you say you don't see it the way I described it, that Kate was mistaken not lying (and hence not evil), then you say that there actions subsequently were those of ass covering, implying that they have been lying (hence evil) after all - so which is it?
-
If you recall, the group of retired senior detectives who visited Praia da Luz early on came to the same conclusion ie she got out and wandered off.
i struggle to understand why mcann supporters only support the abduction theory?? do they know what pedos do to children?? they are basically wishing maddie harm by saying she is alive with a pedo the denial by them is amazing
-
I don't see it that way at all. Any parent given the circumstances would jump to the same conclusion that someone had abducted her. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the evidence does NOT support an abduction.
In fact, contrary to what you posted, there was no need for any lie. Mistaken would be a more appropriate qualification.
In the final analysis, it was the guilt of having left her unattended and the possible legal consequences of having done so which concerned the tapas group more than anything else. Thus we have the ass covering exercise in perfect parenting!
I'd thought about that, but then why would they all admit - at the first opportunity - that they'd all left the children unattended in between checks?
IFF they had all pretended that they'd ordered take-aways and had never left the kids alone ever... then, yes, I'd accept that they were in denial, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
-
Well it is better than the abduction theory 8(>((
Now as I recall, all The Met ever said about the abduction theory was: "There was a window of opportunity when and abduction could have taken place. If it were abduction by stranger it would be a criminal offence" or some such. I am sure a diligent Googler could find the actual quotation. It'll be on one the YouTube videos I bet.
Shame about The Met greasing Tannerman The Abductor ( I have put that in as a test)
No they said after forensic examination of the timeline that there was a window of opportunity for an abduction and that they believe that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
-
You've contradicted yourself above. Firstly you say you don't see it the way I described it, that Kate was mistaken not lying (and hence not evil), then you say that there actions subsequently were those of ass covering, implying that they have been lying (hence evil) after all - so which is it?
You have misread what I posted. The McCanns don't know for sure where she went any more than you, I or SY do. As far as they are concerned she was abducted. My own view which is supported by many professionals is that they are mistaken and she got out all on her own. Tannerman and Smithman are nothing more than convenient distractions.
-
You have misread what I posted. The McCanns don't know for sure where she went any more than you, I or SY do. As far as they are concerned she was abducted. My own view which is supported by many professionals is that they are mistaken and she got out all on her own.
could explain the daddy daddy mrs fenn heard maddie screaming she woke up and panicked looking for gerry then got lost/into a accident
-
i struggle to understand why mcann supporters only support the abduction theory?? do they know what pedos do to children?? they are basically wishing maddie harm by saying she is alive with a pedo the denial by them is amazing
What exactly are you trying to say?
If you had been taken by a paedo (or indeed by anyone without such intentions), would you hope that your parents would give up trying to find you and encourage everyone to think that you were dead even if you were alive and screaming for someone to rescue you?
-
No they said after forensic examination of the timeline that there was a window of opportunity for an abduction and that they believe that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
You have a link to that precise quotation I presume?
-
When Kate McCann entered the bedroom of the children the window was open and the shutter pushed up. Are you of the opinion then that Madeleine did this?
The shutters were raised or lowered by a CDA inside the room. Do you have evidence the child could not operate the CDA?
-
You have misread what I posted. The McCanns don't know for sure where she went any more than you, I or SY do. As far as they are concerned she was abducted. My own view which is supported by many professionals is that they are mistaken and she got out all on her own. Tannerman and Smithman are nothing more than convenient distractions.
Who opened the window Angelo?
-
You have a link to that precise quotation I presume?
It isn't precise quotation hence I did not put it in quotation marks, however if you give me a moment I'll run off like an obedient little dog and fetch the stick you have thrown me.
-
No they said after forensic examination of the timeline that there was a window of opportunity for an abduction and that they believe that Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger.
Just goes to show how far off the mark they really are.
-
It isn't precise quotation hence I did not put it in quotation marks, however if you give me a moment I'll run off like an obedient little dog and fetch the stick you have thrown me.
I will take that as you posted your own interpretation of what "The Man At The Yard" said.
Are you the same guy that implied (if not stated outright) this morning that another poster was a liar for not posting a cite?
Naughty naughty.
-
You have a link to that precise quotation I presume?
From the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
"We are currently developing material which we believe represents genuine new information," said Redwood.
He said officers had carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of events, and had identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act.
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
-
You have misread what I posted. The McCanns don't know for sure where she went any more than you, I or SY do. As far as they are concerned she was abducted. My own view which is supported by many professionals is that they are mistaken and she got out all on her own. Tannerman and Smithman are nothing more than convenient distractions.
I've never totally discounted that possibility. However, I find it very unlikely. If she'd been a bit older, e.g. 5-6, then I would have found that more credible.
-
Just goes to show how far off the mark they really are.
Would you care to explain to us how it is that you know better than the Met? What access have you had to the evidence? How well did you know Madeleine and her habits and behaviour? Her parents? Where is your evidence of an accident having befallen the child? Why is the evidence of an accident much stronger in your view than evidence of an abduction?
-
From the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
"We are currently developing material which we believe represents genuine new information," said Redwood.
He said officers had carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of events, and had identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act.
Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
Could not was, which is what I said. I am sure you understand the difference.
The Grauniad report is 25th April 2012. DCI Redwood kind of altered that timeline when he greased "Tannerman The Abductor" in October(?) 2013 and made some comment about our thinking is Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.
So the question remains what do The Yard think now not what did they reportedly think in 2012 according to some posters. Unless of course you believe the investigation remains mired in 2012.
-
I've never totally discounted that possibility. However, I find it very unlikely. If she'd been a bit older, e.g. 5-6, then I would have found that more credible.
Why Carana, she was a precocious child by all accounts and singularly very determined? She had easy access to the window by climbing onto the bed. She had been wakening and crying since the Tuesday night so by Thursday she had probably had enough.
-
Could not was, which is what I said. I am sure you understand the difference.
The Grauniad report is 25th April 2012. DCI Redwood kind of altered that timeline when he greased "Tannerman The Abductor" in October(?) 2013 and made some comment about our thinking is Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.
So the question remains what do The Yard think now not what did they reportedly think in 2012 according to some posters. Unless of course you believe the investigation remains mired in 2012.
http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t19932-video-dci-andy-redwood-on-daybreak-april-27-2012 clip of Redwood saying more or less what I said he said.
-
Who opened the window Angelo?
Nobody? &%+((£
-
The shutters were raised or lowered by a CDA inside the room. Do you have evidence the child could not operate the CDA?
Do you have evidence that she did?
For example ... fingerprints or bare footprints on the window ledge? fingerprints on the window?
I suppose it is a step forward that you do accept that the window was open and the shutter raised.
-
Who opened the window Angelo?
Was it closed?
-
Was Madeleine McCann Run Over By Accident And Then Carried Off?
This sounds like a perfectly acceptable question to me.
I shall be deleting Off Topic Posts shortly.
-
Was it closed?
Kate said the window was opened when previously it had been shut - did you not know this? Who opened the window in your view?
-
Why Carana, she was a precocious child by all accounts and singularly very determined? She had easy access to the window by climbing onto the bed. She had been wakening and crying since the Tuesday night so by Thursday she had probably had enough.
Precocious, yes, but she was still not quite 4 years old.
A little girl, exhausted by all the fun activities, not just on the day, but during the whole week. Apparently sound asleep when the parents left.
If they had left her during the day, while she was still full of energy, then I wouldn't have excluded tugging on the shutter strap to play Tarzan or anything else that I might have done at her age. If I had done that, the first consequence would have been that I'd have jammed the strap.
Setting that aside...
I have never come across a 3-4-year-old who would willingly climb out of a dark window late at night. Nor can I think of one who would close heavy verandah sliding doors, plus gates behind her. Nor one who would think to put on sandals, or leave without Cuddle-Cat.
A precocious / enterprising 5-7 year-old might have done, but she was an exhausted 3-year-old, going on 4.
-
Precocious, yes, but she was still not quite 4 years old.
A little girl, exhausted by all the fun activities, not just on the day, but during the whole week. Apparently sound asleep when the parents left.
If they had left her during the day, while she was still full of energy, then I wouldn't have excluded tugging on the shutter strap to play Tarzan or anything else that I might have done at her age. If I had done that, the first consequence would have been that I'd have jammed the strap.
Setting that aside...
I have never come across a 3-4-year-old who would willingly climb out of a dark window late at night. Nor can I think of one who would close heavy verandah sliding doors, plus gates behind her. Nor one who would think to put on sandals, or leave without Cuddle-Cat.
A precocious / enterprising 5-7 year-old might have done, but she was an exhausted 3-year-old, going on 4.
All of those things are possible though highly unlikely IMO. If it happened then it is also possible that Madeleine was picked up by a passing stranger and it's also possible she was run over and removed from the scene of the accident. But these scenarios aseem much more implausible to me than someone entering the apartment and removing her. That is the simple, most plausible explanation IMO.
-
Precocious, yes, but she was still not quite 4 years old.
A little girl, exhausted by all the fun activities, not just on the day, but during the whole week. Apparently sound asleep when the parents left.
If they had left her during the day, while she was still full of energy, then I wouldn't have excluded tugging on the shutter strap to play Tarzan or anything else that I might have done at her age. If I had done that, the first consequence would have been that I'd have jammed the strap.
Setting that aside...
I have never come across a 3-4-year-old who would willingly climb out of a dark window late at night. Nor can I think of one who would close heavy verandah sliding doors, plus gates behind her. Nor one who would think to put on sandals, or leave without Cuddle-Cat.
A precocious / enterprising 5-7 year-old might have done, but she was an exhausted 3-year-old, going on 4.
She looked out the window but walked out the front door if that's what took place.
-
All of those things are possible though highly unlikely IMO. If it happened then it is also possible that Madeleine was picked up by a passing stranger and it's also possible she was run over and removed from the scene of the accident. But these scenarios aseem much more implausible to me than someone entering the apartment and removing her. That is the simple, most plausible explanation IMO.
You obviously arent familiar with precocious four year olds to make that comment.
Why is it McCann apologists always claim abduction to the exclusion of every other possibility?
-
You obviously arent familiar with precocious four year olds to make that comment.
Why is it McCann apologists always claim abduction to the exclusion of every other possibility?
Because that's what the McCanns themselves claim ?
-
Because that's what the McCanns themselves claim ?
No because that's where the evidence points to....making it the most probable reason for Maddie's disappearance
-
You obviously arent familiar with precocious four year olds to make that comment.
Why is it McCann apologists always claim abduction to the exclusion of every other possibility?
Did you actually READ my post? I made it clear that I thought woke and wandered was possible, though highly unlikely.
I have had 2 children both of whom successfully made it to their 4th birthdays, I am of the opinion that not every 4 year old child behaves in the same way, and that parents are usually the best judges of what their children are capable of, not complete strangers.
Please do not call me an apologist. 8((()*/
-
Do you have evidence that she did?
For example ... fingerprints or bare footprints on the window ledge? fingerprints on the window?
I suppose it is a step forward that you do accept that the window was open and the shutter raised.
Oh dear seemingly I have done what I accused you of earlier. Ooops , poor syntax.
It should have read "The means for raising the shutters was a CDA inside the room".
-
No because that's where the evidence points to....making it the most probable reason for Maddie's disappearance
Same old tired mantra Dave. Fact is there is NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.
The open window,shutter, curtain claim is to say the least, very questionable. For all anyone knows, someone else opened the shutter and window.
-
No because that's where the evidence points to....making it the most probable reason for Maddie's disappearance
No,not in the slightest.
and the only reason you say abduction, is simple.
The mccanns would be responsible for anything else.
-
No because that's where the evidence points to....making it the most probable reason for Maddie's disappearance
No, it is the only option that reduces the culpability of the parents.
-
Same old tired mantra Dave. Fact is there is NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.
The open window,shutter, curtain claim is to say the least, very questionable. For all anyone knows, someone else opened the shutter and window.
Then you don't understand what evidence means
-
Then you don't understand what evidence means
How about the dog alerts.
-
How about the dog alerts.
Grime has declared they have no evidential reliability...who am I to argue
-
Same old tired mantra Dave. Fact is there is NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.
The open window,shutter, curtain claim is to say the least, very questionable. For all anyone knows, someone else opened the shutter and window.
What evidence would you expect?
There's a thread on that... although not a very popular one.
-
Same old tired mantra Dave. Fact is there is NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.
The open window,shutter, curtain claim is to say the least, very questionable. For all anyone knows, someone else opened the shutter and window.
Angelo, ther is no evidence of an accident following a "woke and wandered" scenario yet you seem convinced now that this is what happened. Why is that?
-
It may have no relevance to the case, but drink driving is simply a fine in Portugal. They don't take your licence away and there is no totting up procedure.
As a result, drink driving is more of an issue in Portugal than it is in the UK.
The one time the GNR paid us a home visit was because the previous occupant of the villa had a history of drink driving and her car had been involved in yet another accident. It would be just another fine for her, followed, probably, by more drink driving.
-
It may have no relevance to the case, but drink driving is simply a fine in Portugal. They don't take your licence away and there is no totting up procedure.
As a result, drink driving is more of an issue in Portugal than it is in the UK.
The one time the GNR paid us a home visit was because the previous occupant of the villa had a history of drink driving and her car had been involved in yet another accident. It would be just another fine for her, followed, probably, by more drink driving.
If someone had been killed or seriously injured as a result, wouldn't that lead to a prosecution?
-
If someone had been killed or seriously injured as a result, wouldn't that lead to a prosecution?
I think it would Carana; although I have heard it said that some States in America can assist their budgets by targeting vehicles with out of State licence plates for speeding etc. and fining them (don't know how true it may be).
Maybe there is a similar unofficial policy in Portugal?? ... it is on record that Mr Amaral's wife made a written complaint about his drunk driving with his little girl in the car ... I wonder what the result might have been if either of the McCanns had been reported for a similar offence?
Drinking and driving
Portugal has strict drink driving laws. The amount of alcohol allowed in the blood while driving is 0.05%, so just don't do it. Over the alcohol limit and you could face anything from a severe fine, withdrawal of your license, up to imprisonment.
http://www.driving-in.com/portugal/#anchor7
-
When would she have been knocked down and carried off....? The window of opportunity. If people think she could have wandered out and been knocked down and carried off then its feasible she did go out of the apartment and wandered off somewhere and got picked up by a pervert who was conveniently hanging about, or she wandered off and fell down a hole..
Also one would expect blood to be found on the road at the scene of the accident, and the dogs would have alerted to that surely?
The thing is to run someone over would make a bit of noise...... Also the streets must have been lit up quite well for people to see all these perverts carrying of children....so surely someone would have seen this drama unfolding......?
-
When would she have been knocked down and carried off....? The window of opportunity. If people think she could have wandered out and been knocked down and carried off then its feasible she did go out of the apartment and wandered off somewhere and got picked up by a pervert who was conveniently hanging about, or she wandered off and fell down a hole..
Also one would expect blood to be found on the road at the scene of the accident, and the dogs would have alerted to that surely?
The thing is to run someone over would make a bit of noise...... Also the streets must have been lit up quite well for people to see all these perverts carrying of children....so surely someone would have seen this drama unfolding......?
So wandering off is not feasible...which only leaves abduction....
-
I can't see why anyone would carry Madeleine off if run over by accident.
Also surely the accident would have been heard by someone? Madeleine would have been near other apartments if she had wandered out.
-
Expect this one to disappear too, Stephen, the most probable explanation being that they are both seriously off topic.
Correct Brietta. Now can we all please stay with the topic of the thread
-
When would she have been knocked down and carried off....? The window of opportunity. If people think she could have wandered out and been knocked down and carried off then its feasible she did go out of the apartment and wandered off somewhere and got picked up by a pervert who was conveniently hanging about, or she wandered off and fell down a hole..
Also one would expect blood to be found on the road at the scene of the accident, and the dogs would have alerted to that surely?
The thing is to run someone over would make a bit of noise...... Also the streets must have been lit up quite well for people to see all these perverts carrying of children....so surely someone would have seen this drama unfolding......?
A very quick internet search reveals that many children are found wandering in the streets in the middle of the night; the majority are well cared for and their parents are usually under the impression they are still safely tucked up in bed.
There are numerous cases of toddlers leaving nursery or playgroup some of whom travel considerable distances; almost invariably they are heading for home and sometimes even get there.
I couldn't find an instance when any of these children had been subject to being picked off the street by a predator.
Sadly there are also reports of hit and run incidents involving toddlers wandering at night; in at least one instance the driver left the vehicle to look at the child before driving off; but I could not find a single instance of accidental injury or death caused by a road traffic accident, of the child's body being lifted into the car never to be seen again.
That there was third party involvement at apartment 5A is the only reasonable assumption in Madeleine McCann's case; I think this is supported by the open window and raised shutter ... and until the foreign DNA is identified, that must be a consideration too.
I should have added that I think your analysis sums it up, Colombosstogey.
-
This is what the archiving report had to say about the possibility..
As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely physically – and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared.
SY have also not put forward the possibility.....parents not suspects...that leaves only abduction
-
Gerry, just said ‘Look, let’s just’, erm, ‘let’s just split up and find’, erm, you know, ‘see if we can find her, see if she’s just wandered out’. (ROB)
So there we have it, the woke and wandered theory initially took precedence regardless of the alleged gang of roaming paedophiles.
I came across the following while searching for something else which is often the way with these things.
It has been claimed that the theory that Madeleine simply wandered out of the apartment is nonsense but the following is a very strong indicator that some very close to the family thought it very possible and what's more, were prepared to say so publicly.
PR operative Alex Woolfall of the Bell-Pottinger Group arrived at the resort within two days of Madeleine’s disappearance. Holiday firm Mark Warner were so concerned by events that they had arranged for the Bell- Pottinger crisis management/damage limitation team to be sent to Portugal. Woolfall was Head of Issues and Crisis Management for the Bell Pottinger Group and had 20 years experience in PR. He spent the next two weeks in close contact with the McCanns advising them how to keep the media interested.
He stated to the London Times that he heard no suggestion in the early days that the girl had been snatched. "Certainly I did not hear any discussion that this could be a paedophile or an aggravated robbery. All the time I was around it was whether she could have wandered off and had an accident or somebody had actually taken her in, perhaps not with ill-intent.
"During the first 48 hours the word being used was 'missing' rather than 'abducted' or any link with a paedophile or any sort of crime. Towards the end of the second week I detected a shift towards there being a consciousness that she had probably been taken rather than wandered off, just on the assumption that anybody would have found her by now."
Dominic Kennedy interviews Alex Woolfall.
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2595998.ece
-
I came across the following while searching for something else which is often the way with these things.
It has been claimed that the theory that Madeleine simply wandered out of the apartment is nonsense but the following is a very strong indicator that some very close to the family thought it very possible and what's more, were prepared to say so publicly.
PR operative Alex Woolfall of the Bell-Pottinger Group arrived at the resort within two days of Madeleine’s disappearance. Holiday firm Mark Warner were so concerned by events that they had arranged for the Bell- Pottinger crisis management/damage limitation team to be sent to Portugal. Woolfall was Head of Issues and Crisis Management for the Bell Pottinger Group and had 20 years experience in PR. He spent the next two weeks in close contact with the McCanns advising them how to keep the media interested.
He stated to the London Times that he heard no suggestion in the early days that the girl had been snatched. "Certainly I did not hear any discussion that this could be a paedophile or an aggravated robbery. All the time I was around it was whether she could have wandered off and had an accident or somebody had actually taken her in, perhaps not with ill-intent.
"During the first 48 hours the word being used was 'missing' rather than 'abducted' or any link with a paedophile or any sort of crime. Towards the end of the second week I detected a shift towards there being a consciousness that she had probably been taken rather than wandered off, just on the assumption that anybody would have found her by now."
Dominic Kennedy interviews Alex Woolfall.
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2595998.ece (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2595998.ece)
I posted re Alex Woolfall yesterday John. On the correct thread.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.0#lastPost
-
I posted re Alex Woolfall yesterday John. On the correct thread.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.0#lastPost
Thank you DCI, I haven't read that thread yet. His comments are extremely pertinent to this thread though.
What do you make of his assessment that Madeleine could have wandered off?
-
Thank you DCI, I haven't read that thread yet. His comments are extremely pertinent to this thread though.
What do you make of his assessment that Madeleine could have wandered off?
As he said, John "COULD HAVE". I don't think so, but that's MO.
-
I always keep going back to the first 30 minutes following the discovery that Maddie had gone. It wasn't an abductor that they were looking for during that period in time, it was a little girl who had got out on her own!! It is disingenuos therefore for the McCanns to repeat the mantra that she could not have got out on her own.
There is no logical reason why they would have thought that if the evidence pointed directly to an abduction?
-
I always keep going back to the first 30 minutes following the discovery that Maddie had gone. It wasn't an abductor that they were looking for during that period in time, it was a little girl who had got out on her own!! It is disingenuos therefore for the McCanns to repeat the mantra that she could not have got out on her own.
There is no logical reason why they would have thought that if the evidence pointed directly to an abduction?
I believe the manager of the resort John Hill arrived on the scene within 40 minutes so he saw at first hand what was going on.
He told reporters the next day (4 May) that there was no physical evidence that the girl had been abducted from the apartment while her parents ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yards away.
"It’s still questionable as to whether it’s an abduction," he said. "We are hoping that Madeleine is found as soon as possible and safe and well. Everybody here is just wishing that she is found as soon as possible."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550571/Three-year-old-feared-abducted-in-Portugal.html
-
Don't you think John Hill and Alex Woolfall would have preferred to push the "woke and wandered" explanation in the early days for fairly obvious reasons?
-
Don't you think John Hill and Alex Woolfall would have preferred to push the "woke and wandered" explanation in the early days for fairly obvious reasons?
I would imagine that a company which had hired a crisis management team was first and foremost interested in a PR damage limitation exercise. Is it too cynical to think 'supporting and advising' the parents of a missing child might very well have come under that umbrella.
Mark Warner are after all in the business of providing family holidays in a safe environment.
-
I always keep going back to the first 30 minutes following the discovery that Maddie had gone. It wasn't an abductor that they were looking for during that period in time, it was a little girl who had got out on her own!! It is disingenuos therefore for the McCanns to repeat the mantra that she could not have got out on her own.
There is no logical reason why they would have thought that if the evidence pointed directly to an abduction?
Yes, I agree with this Angelo. It is the behaviour, they split up to look for what? an abductor still in the area?
I am not sure about knocked down by a car, I agree with colomboss, no blood? Wandered off and fell into a well or was taken from the street are two very good theories.
-
A very credible possibility and especially so when we know the tracker dogs lost her scent directly across from the mini reception. Could she have been hit by a vehicle as she went down to reception and was thrown towards the car park wherein after the driver lifted her and took her away for fear of the repercussions?
If the PJ needed to do anything differently I believe it should have been to pursue that particular theory.
8@??)( hit and runs are common the person/persons can panic and i imagine if it was a child they would more especally if they were speeding ec
-
If she was run over or abducted however that would be illegal and I'm sure you'll be the first to condemn in the harshest terms those responsible.
-
If she was run over or abducted however that would be illegal and I'm sure you'll be the first to condemn in the harshest terms those responsible.
Running someone over isn't always illegal.
-
Running someone over isn't always illegal.
It is if you hide their body afterwards!
-
It is if you hide their body afterwards!
Which is not what you said.
-
Inadequate perhaps, but not illegal. If she was run over or abducted however that would be illegal and I'm sure you'll be the first to condemn in the harshest terms those responsible.
If MBM was run over, it would raise one heck of a lot of questions as to whether what was described of the event scene at apartment 5A is true.
-
Which is not what you said.
We are discussing Madeleine McCann are we not? It goes without saying that if she was run over, something illegal took place thereafter.
-
We are discussing Madeleine McCann are we not? It goes without saying that if she was run over, something illegal took place thereafter.
Yes, if it was a hit and run and someone found her and thought they would be in trouble for some reason..........................
-
Yes, if it was a hit and run and someone found her and thought they would be in trouble for some reason..........................
You can't help yourself can you? That is not the only instance in which it would be illegal but you chose only the above scenario to describe. I wonder why...
-
You can't help yourself can you? That is not the only instance in which it would be illegal but you chose only the above scenario to describe. I wonder why...
I wonder why too
There has to be a reason
-
I wonder why too
There has to be a reason
Is there any reason why not? My suggestion is as possible as any other.
-
Is there any reason why not? My suggestion is as possible as any other.
If the child was knocked down by a car, the more likely explanation for the lack of a body would be that the driver removed it, but you don't seem so keen to consider that, in favour of "someone" coming across the body in the road and for some utterly inexplicable reason deciding to conceal it. That's what is odd, your strange bias...
-
could gerry have disturbed a sleeping maddie when he went back to the aapartment for whatever reason he did she woke up and went after him and he didnt see her??
-
could gerry have disturbed a sleeping maddie when he went back to the aapartment for whatever reason he did she woke up and went after him and he didnt see her??
And how do you explain the open window and shutters?
-
If the child was knocked down by a car, the more likely explanation for the lack of a body would be that the driver removed it, but you don't seem so keen to consider that, in favour of "someone" coming across the body in the road and for some utterly inexplicable reason deciding to conceal it. That's what is odd, your strange bias...
1. I've never heard of anyone taking the victim of a road accident with them.
2. Hit and run is pretty common.
3. What about the 'evidence of abduction' windows and shutters?
4. I gave the reason for 'someone' hiding the victim; fear of being blamed.
5. I have no bias, strange or otherwise, but I will continue to counter the stories of others invented to support their bias.
-
1. I've never heard of anyone taking the victim of a road accident with them.
2. Hit and run is pretty common.
3. What about the 'evidence of abduction' windows and shutters?
4. I gave the reason for 'someone' hiding the victim; fear of being blamed.
5. I have no bias, strange or otherwise, but I will continue to counter the stories of others invented to support their bias.
1. your number 4 is a reason which counters your point one
2. I have certainly never heard of someone coming across a road accident victim and hiding the body!
3. What about it? We were talking about whether or not knocking someone over in a car was illegal.
4. You certainly are biased because you chose a less obvious scenario to highlight rather than the more obvious one.
-
1. your number 4 is a reason which counters your point one
2. I have certainly never heard of someone coming across a road accident victim and hiding the body!
3. What about it? We were talking about whether or not knocking someone over in a car was illegal.
4. You certainly are biased because you chose a less obvious scenario to highlight rather than the more obvious one. Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending otherwise. We all know what you're implying.
1. No it isn't because as far as I know it's never happened.
2. I've never heard of a driver taking a body either.
3. The debate had moved on to making off with the body [which you suggested] Who opened the shutters then and why is a valid question.
4. The bias lies with the one who suggests something very unusual for which there is no evidence. We all know why.
-
1. No it isn't because as far as I know it's never happened.
2. I've never heard of a driver taking a body either.
3. The debate had moved on to making off with the body [which you suggested] Who opened the shutters then and why is a valid question.
4. The bias lies with the one who suggests something very unusual for which there is no evidence. We all know why.
30 seconds googling turns up this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gregory_Glen_Biggs
Now over to you to find an example of someone coming across a road traffic accident victim and deciding to hide the body. But of course you won't because you know when you're beat and have withdrawn from the argument.
In any case both scenarios are extremely unusual, but one even more so than the other. IMO it didn't happen to Madeleine this way.
-
If your child has disappeared for reasons unknown why would you stage a break in?
But if a hit and run happened and the driver picked her up that would put a spoke in the works.Even if the only reason he picked her up was to get medical help.
-
And how do you explain the open window and shutters?
It wasn't the first time in this case that one of the parents remembered an event differently to what actually occurred. For all we know Kate was so distraught at finding Madeleine missing that her memory of events was distorted.
-
It wasn't the first time in this case that one of the parents remembered an event differently to what actually occurred. For all we know Kate was so distraught at finding Madeleine missing that her memory of events was distorted.
Aw, Come on John.
Now that is stretching it 8)-)))