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: Wonderfulspam on November 29, 2014, 11:15:38 AM
-
Off you go Alf.
-
Off you go Alf.
It'll be worth taking him off ignore just to read what he has to say !
-
It'll be worth taking him off ignore just to read what he has to say !
As both of you ignore not only Alfred but the truth the whole thread is pointless
-
Looking at the evidence ...abduction by a stranger is the most likely reason for maddie's disappearance
-
Looking at the evidence ...abduction by a stranger is the most likely reason for maddie's disappearance
Why ?
-
Why ?
Because he says so - he's read all the evidence, you know.
-
As both of you ignore not only Alfred but the truth the whole thread is pointless
Plus I don't really have a theory per se. I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL. It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm. It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts. Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is so utterly ludicrous, improbable and physically impossible?
-
Why ?
I wouldn't bother trying to explain to a Jehova's Witness why they are wrong and it would just be as pointless explaining to you why the evidence points to abduction..although SY agree with me
-
I wouldn't bother trying to explain to a Jehova's Witness why they are wrong and it would just be as pointless explaining to you why the evidence points to abduction..although SY agree with me
Good analogy.
-
I wouldn't bother trying to explain to a Jehova's Witness why they are wrong and it would just be as pointless explaining to you why the evidence points to abduction..although SY agree with me
You are not trying to explain why I am wrong though, you are trying to explain why you are right. So on you go, I'm all ears !
-
You are not trying to explain why I am wrong though, you are trying to explain why you are right. So on you go, I'm all ears !
In the same way as I am right and the JWS are wrong...but I wouldn't waste my time explaining to them...you can believe what you like...it's what happens in the real world that counts...your opinion..and mine is unimportant
-
I wouldn't bother trying to explain to a Jehova's Witness why they are wrong and it would just be as pointless explaining to you why the evidence points to abduction..although SY agree with me
Which members of SY agree with you ?
and do you seriously imagine all members of the police believe the McCann's tale ?
-
Which members of SY agree with you ?
and do you seriously imagine all members of the police believe the McCann's tale ?
another helping of the usual rubbish from Stephen...you forgot there's no proof of abduction
-
another helping of the usual rubbish from Stephen...you forgot there's no proof of abduction
The rubbish emanates every time you type.
Now tell me how many members of SY believe in the 'abduction' ?
I'm keen to hear what the numbers are. *&*%£
-
The rubbish emanates every time you type.
Now tell me how many members of SY believe in the 'abduction' ?
I'm keen to hear what the numbers are. *&*%£
I couldn't tell you anything as you think you know it all
-
I couldn't tell you anything as you think you know it all
I.e. You can't back up your statement.
-
Plus I don't really have a theory per se. I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL. It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm. It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts. Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is so utterly ludicrous, improbable and physically impossible?
Your opinion is OK as an opinion. Of your six honest serving men only two appear to have been utilised.
The opinion is somewhat light on the detail of the remaining four: when, how, why and who. If we knew your opinion on those we would then be able to make a reasoned comment. But as it stands it is just your opinion without much to back it up an no more valid than any other opinion.
-
Your opinion is OK as an opinion. Of your six honest serving men only two appear to have been utilised.
The opinion is somewhat light on the detail of the remaining four: when, how, why and who. If we knew your opinion on those we would then be able to make a reasoned comment. But as it stands it is just your opinion without much to back it up an no more valid than any other opinion.
And as we know opinions are like noses....everyone has one !!
-
Your opinion is OK as an opinion. Of your six honest serving men only two appear to have been utilised.
The opinion is somewhat light on the detail of the remaining four: when, how, why and who. If we knew your opinion on those we would then be able to make a reasoned comment. But as it stands it is just your opinion without much to back it up an no more valid than any other opinion.
When - at some point between checks on the evening of the 3rd
How - by entering the apartment - either via the front door, the unlocked patio door or the window.
Why - to take a child to abuse her.
Who - if I knew that I'd be rich and famous.
Personally I think that explanation is a lot more likely than any a "sceptic" could come up with, but that of course is just my opinion - cue more mockery. @)(++(*
-
When - at some point between checks on the evening of the 3rd
How - by entering the apartment - either via the front door, the unlocked patio door or the window.
Why - to take a child to abuse her.
Who - if I knew that I'd be rich and famous.
Personally I think that explanation is a lot more likely than any a "sceptic" could come up with, but that of course is just my opinion - cue more mockery. @)(++(*
and yet not one real sign of abduction.
Damn. 8)--))
-
and yet not one real sign of abduction.
Damn. 8)--))
plenty of evidence of abduction
-
plenty of evidence of abduction
Off you go then.
-
plenty of evidence of abduction
Like a neat tidy bed and an open window that wasn't used. No broken locks nor glove marks yes there's plenty of evidence NOT. The only real evidence is a man seen carrying a child matching her description and Smithman won't show his face 8)--))
-
plenty of evidence of abduction
In namby pamby land.
However, the real world is different.
-
In namby pamby land.
However, the real world is different.
Wasn't it Redwood who supported stranger abduction...but what does he know
-
Wasn't it Redwood who supported stranger abduction...but what does he know
He's a belieber. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
When - at some point between checks on the evening of the 3rd
How - by entering the apartment - either via the front door, the unlocked patio door or the window.
Why - to take a child to abuse her.
Who - if I knew that I'd be rich and famous.
Personally I think that explanation is a lot more likely than any a "sceptic" could come up with, but that of course is just my opinion - cue more mockery. @)(++(*
It remains a bit light but cutting to the chase you don't seem have much a clue of the detail how, when and why.
You seem to have prejudged the situation then worked backwards in broad brush. Instead of sneering at others why can you not work up a detailed theory that will stand up to scrutiny?
I am sure you would berate your students for such a feeble effort.
-
It remains a bit light but cutting to the chase you don't seem have much a clue of the detail how, when and why.
You seem to have prejudged the situation then worked backwards in broad brush. Instead of sneering at others why can you not work up a detailed theory that will stand up to scrutiny?
I am sure you would berate your students for such a feeble effort.
He has the sliding door as a possible point of entry, dontcha know.
The polite paedo/abductor/murderer.
He closed the gate, childgate, sliding door & curtains behind him.
-
It remains a bit light but cutting to the chase you don't seem have much a clue of the detail how, when and why.
You seem to have prejudged the situation then worked backwards in broad brush. Instead of sneering at others why can you not work up a detailed theory that will stand up to scrutiny?
I am sure you would berate your students for such a feeble effort.
frankly the minute details of the case such as the angle of the door or the height of the window or the noise made by the shutters don't fascinate me as much as they do some people. As you have pointed out before this is simply a forum not a court of law, however if you think my broad brush stroke theory doesn't hold together perhaps you would like to tell me why not? Which bit of my theory is thoroughly improbable if not downright impossible, in your view?
-
frankly the minute details of the case such as the angle of the door or the height of the window or the noise made by the shutters don't fascinate me as much as they do some people. As you have pointed out before this is simply a forum not a court of law, however if you think my broad brush stroke theory doesn't hold together perhaps you would like to tell me why not? Which bit of my theory is thoroughly improbable if not downright impossible, in your view?
The Erich Von Danniken methodology eh?
No boy its up to you to show your theory works not up to me to show it doesn't.
-
The Erich Von Danniken methodology eh?
No boy its up to you to show your theory works not up to me to show it doesn't.
It works, what more do you want to know?
-
The Erich Von Danniken methodology eh?
No boy its up to you to show your theory works not up to me to show it doesn't.
The Von Dannikin theory is a very good one as I have continually pointed out to the savant, Stephen...is there any proof that maddie was not abducted by aliens from the planet Zog..
-
frankly the minute details of the case such as the angle of the door or the height of the window or the noise made by the shutters don't fascinate me as much as they do some people. As you have pointed out before this is simply a forum not a court of law, however if you think my broad brush stroke theory doesn't hold together perhaps you would like to tell me why not? Which bit of my theory is thoroughly improbable if not downright impossible, in your view?
It is certainly a lot more plausible than some of the rubbish I've seen here and on other forums. It also has the advantage of running in parallel with the theory being pursued by SY ... who are investigating stranger abduction.
-
The Von Dannikin theory is a very good one as I have continually pointed out to the savant, Stephen...is there any proof that maddie was not abducted by aliens from the planet Zog..
All you reveal on here is your devotion to the cause McCann, to the exclusion of all logic and reason.
and it getting very,very boring.
P.S. The inhabitants of Zog are not very pleased with you. *&*%£
-
It is certainly a lot more plausible than some of the rubbish I've seen here and on other forums. It also has the advantage of running in parallel with the theory being pursued by SY ... who are investigating stranger abduction.
That hardly makes it feasible now does it.
It seems Alf can only come up with "it happened like this cos I say it did". He may sneer at wanting detail but the devil is always in the detail.
-
That hardly makes it feasible now does it.
It seems Alf can only come up with "it happened like this cos I say it did". He may sneer at wanting detail but the devil is always in the detail.
I said the theory works. it's simple, a child is stolen for sexual gratification from an unlocked apartment when the parents are out, what's your problem with the theory? There's means, motive and opportunity all completely logical, no needing to twist facts, invent conspiracies, rip holes in the space-time continuum, it's the only plausible explanation.
-
The rubbish emanates every time you type.
Now tell me how many members of SY believe in the 'abduction' ?
I'm keen to hear what the numbers are. *&*%£
Certianly some [I have only spoken to a few] quite obviously believe in the likelyhood of an abduction
... and two were sargeant level.
-
Off you go then.
Plenty of pointers Faith
1) The apartment was being watched
2) A man was taking photographs of young children at Sagres beach
3) The window and shutters were opened
4) Sightings in several places that ring true, including photos in two that are, almost without doubt, Madeleine
5) Both these photos /videos were in globally important Canabis/ Hashish / Kif / Hemp etc growing or processing places.
In the Rif Mountains of Morocco they grow over 50% of the Worlds supply of Hemp/ kif.
In Molenbeek St John [Brussels] they process most of the Worlds supply of the basic stuff into Canabis hashish etc.
6) A third sighting was in Leh, high up in the Himalayas where [IIRC] 70% of the Hashish used in India, enters the country
7) Numerous sighting especially in Malta and Gozo.
Let me remind you that Roderick Robinson was extradicted from Gozo, Malta. I wish to make it plain that I am not accusing RR of anything, but merely pointing out that the only person extradicted has been from Gozo, Malta where there were so many sightings
8) A run of 8 children abducted at roughly 2 year intervals over 16 years [1991 - 2007 ] Alll likely to have been stranger abducted in PT.
These started in the Porto /Guimares / Vila Nova de Famalicao area. A man, an elite, was reportedly taken in by the Police, questioned, and released with a warning [in about 1999]
9) Two/ three abductions in the proximity to PdL [Sept 2004 - Madeleine May 2007]. All three within about 20 miles
.
10) Then there are the numerous things that I have found out about the man I believe to be the mastermind ... and what happened after May 3rd 2007. I have at least 20 pointers, some very strong. I am not able to disclose these, because they have gone into SY and may be sub Judice.
11) Finally, I believe that I saw images of a little girl that was Madeleine about 3 years ago. I think she is still alive.
Now I am zonked so will finish here , but there probably are other reasons to believe in Madeleines abduction.
Oh, of course, SY are investigating abduction. That is a very persuasive reason to believe in abduction.
But if you guys cannot be open minded, remain stuck in a rut with your eyes closed, nothing will persuade you to open your eyes
Sad really ... very sad
BTW, can you cut the abuse to Alfie. Anyone would think that you were trying to beat him up !
-
That hardly makes it feasible now does it.
It seems Alf can only come up with "it happened like this cos I say it did". He may sneer at wanting detail but the devil is always in the detail.
It's Alfreds theory 'in detail', only, minus any detail.
Brilliant!
-
It's Alfreds theory 'in detail', only, minus any detail.
Brilliant!
it was you asked for detail, not I who volunteered to give it. I'm not overly interested in going through the detail again for the eight millionth time, in any case I'm very happy to leave the detail as to the exact angle of the bedroom door and what physics are necessary to make a curtain whoosh, and whether the invisible lichen on the windowsill was disturbed or not to the experts and the pseudo experts. As I've said before in my opinion (shared by the Met who I would class as experts), there was a window of opportunity for Madeleine to be taken from the apartment by a stranger. it would have occurred sometime within a two-hour period when the apartment was unoccupied by adults. As the apartment was unlocked and also a holiday let to which several people had had access to over the years and undoubtedly to which there was more than one set of keys, and it was on the ground floor, then gaining entrance to it would have been as easy as pie to anyone intent on it. I think whoever took her (and maybe there were two or more individuals - I wouldn't rule it out) did so for sexual purposes (I really hope I'm wrong on this point) and I think she was likely abused and killed within a few hours of being removed (again, let's hope I'm wrong) and her remains are somewhere within a few mile radius of PdL.
All the facts we know about this case seem to support the above, albeit in a circumstantial rather than in a "hard evidence" way, much more so than the "parents dunnit" theory. That is my opinion. Holding that opinion no doubt makes me a deluded saddo / candle-waving drooling old dear/ McCann worshipper / child neglect supporter (delete as applicable) so feel free to mock and sneer at me freely but perhaps at the same time as mocking and sneering you could at least add to the discussion by letting us know why my opinion is completely and absurdly implausible / impossible. I won't hold my breath as this is a troll thread started by a troll with no interest in actually challenging my opinion with anything resembling a reasonably-argued point. So, until such a time as one is forth-coming, I've nothing further to add.
-
it was you asked for detail, not I who volunteered to give it. I'm not overly interested in going through the detail again for the eight millionth time, in any case I'm very happy to leave the detail as to the exact angle of the bedroom door and what physics are necessary to make a curtain whoosh, and whether the invisible lichen on the windowsill was disturbed or not to the experts and the pseudo experts. As I've said before in my opinion (shared by the Met who I would class as experts), there was a window of opportunity for Madeleine to be taken from the apartment by a stranger. it would have occurred sometime within a two-hour period when the apartment was unoccupied by adults. As the apartment was unlocked and also a holiday let to which several people had had access to over the years and undoubtedly to which there was more than one set of keys, and it was on the ground floor, then gaining entrance to it would have been as easy as pie to anyone intent on it. I think whoever took her (and maybe there were two or more individuals - I wouldn't rule it out) did so for sexual purposes (I really hope I'm wrong on this point) and I think she was likely abused and killed within a few hours of being removed (again, let's hope I'm wrong) and her remains are somewhere within a few mile radius of PdL.
All the facts we know about this case seem to support the above, albeit in a circumstantial rather than in a "hard evidence" way, much more so than the "parents dunnit" theory. That is my opinion. Holding that opinion no doubt makes me a deluded saddo / candle-waving drooling old dear/ McCann worshipper / child neglect supporter (delete as applicable) so feel free to mock and sneer at me freely but perhaps at the same time as mocking and sneering you could at least add to the discussion by letting us know why my opinion is completely and absurdly implausible / impossible. I won't hold my breath as this is a troll thread started by a troll with no interest in actually challenging my opinion with anything resembling a reasonably-argued point. So, until such a time as one is forth-coming, I've nothing further to add.
2 hour period?
That 2 hour period between Gerry seeing his daughter in bed around 9.00 & 9.50 when Kate raised the alarm,you mean?
Genius!
Where does the yards prime suspect fit into your theory?
Another innocent crechedad or do you lean towards the dadlike abductor/ paedo/murderer who changed Maddies pyjama top?
........
-
it was you asked for detail, not I who volunteered to give it. I'm not overly interested in going through the detail again for the eight millionth time, in any case I'm very happy to leave the detail as to the exact angle of the bedroom door and what physics are necessary to make a curtain whoosh, and whether the invisible lichen on the windowsill was disturbed or not to the experts and the pseudo experts. As I've said before in my opinion (shared by the Met who I would class as experts), there was a window of opportunity for Madeleine to be taken from the apartment by a stranger. it would have occurred sometime within a two-hour period when the apartment was unoccupied by adults. As the apartment was unlocked and also a holiday let to which several people had had access to over the years and undoubtedly to which there was more than one set of keys, and it was on the ground floor, then gaining entrance to it would have been as easy as pie to anyone intent on it. I think whoever took her (and maybe there were two or more individuals - I wouldn't rule it out) did so for sexual purposes (I really hope I'm wrong on this point) and I think she was likely abused and killed within a few hours of being removed (again, let's hope I'm wrong) and her remains are somewhere within a few mile radius of PdL.
All the facts we know about this case seem to support the above, albeit in a circumstantial rather than in a "hard evidence" way, much more so than the "parents dunnit" theory. That is my opinion. Holding that opinion no doubt makes me a deluded saddo / candle-waving drooling old dear/ McCann worshipper / child neglect supporter (delete as applicable) so feel free to mock and sneer at me freely but perhaps at the same time as mocking and sneering you could at least add to the discussion by letting us know why my opinion is completely and absurdly implausible / impossible. I won't hold my breath as this is a troll thread started by a troll with no interest in actually challenging my opinion with anything resembling a reasonably-argued point. So, until such a time as one is forth-coming, I've nothing further to add.
Gosh Alf no one is doing anything you have not done yourself to other posters so why become so precious about it. I don't give a monkeys about door angles and whooshing curtains either so we have a common datum.
Being a simple sort of person I deal in simple things. For there to have been an abduction the abductor and child must cross paths. There are only two possibilities for that; he got in or she got out.
But to say "well the abductor went in through front door or the back door or the window" is a bit light and had other posters to whom you refer as "sceptics" said similar it would have drawn hoots of derision from you.
Why do you discount the other possibility for crossing paths?. So tell us how did the abductor gain ingress in your opinion? The condition of the patio doors, windows and shutters has been a variable with respect to open closed locked or otherwise. You must in your theory have made an assumption in which condition they were. So tell us it doesn't take much. Considerably less words that your last post one might add.
There remains one major flaw in the theory of abduction for the purposes of sexual gratification. I am sure you and other posters are smart enough to work it out.
-
2 hour period?
That 2 hour period between Gerry seeing his daughter in bed around 9.00 & 9.50 when Kate raised the alarm,you mean?
Genius!
Where does the yards prime suspect fit into your theory?
Another innocent crechedad or do you lean towards the dadlike abductor/ paedo/murderer who changed Maddies pyjama top?
Alfie is afraid of the truth. Keep running Alfie. Why did David Payne visit Kate Alfie?
-
Gosh Alf no one is doing anything you have not done yourself to other posters so why become so precious about it. I don't give a monkeys about door angles and whooshing curtains either so we have a common datum.
Being a simple sort of person I deal in simple things. For there to have been an abduction the abductor and child must cross paths. There are only two possibilities for that; he got in or she got out.
But to say "well the abductor went in through front door or the back door or the window" is a bit light and had other posters to whom you refer as "sceptics" said similar it would have drawn hoots of derision from you.
Why do you discount the other possibility for crossing paths?. So tell us how did the abductor gain ingress in your opinion? The condition of the patio doors, windows and shutters has been a variable with respect to open closed locked or otherwise. You must in your theory have made an assumption in which condition they were. So tell us it doesn't take much. Considerably less words that your last post one might add.
There remains one major flaw in the theory of abduction for the purposes of sexual gratification. I am sure you and other posters are smart enough to work it out.
Are you saying people with evil intent are incapable of using the aperture specifically designed for the purpose of allowing access (i.e. a door).
We've been told for years that it was a fantasy that a man was doing just that to assault children in their beds. It is now irrefutable that is exactly what was happening.
I think pretty soon the presence of an abductor in apartment 5a will be just as incontrovertible.
-
Are you saying people with evil intent are incapable of using the aperture specifically designed for the purpose of allowing access (i.e. a door).
We've been told for years that it was a fantasy that a man was doing just that to assault children in their beds. It is now irrefutable that is exactly what was happening.
I think pretty soon the presence of an abductor in apartment 5a will be just as incontrovertible.
Well, that would explain the window.
The pot bellied burglary bin man had to clear the air of his evil stench.
I wonder what made him take that step up from nocturnal sex assaults to abduction & murder.
-
Are you saying people with evil intent are incapable of using the aperture specifically designed for the purpose of allowing access (i.e. a door).
We've been told for years that it was a fantasy that a man was doing just that to assault children in their beds. It is now irrefutable that is exactly what was happening.
I think pretty soon the presence of an abductor in apartment 5a will be just as incontrovertible.
No!
-
Well, that would explain the window.
The pot bellied burglary bin man had to clear the air of his evil stench.
I wonder what made him take that step up from nocturnal sex assaults to abduction & murder.
It might be interesting to hear explanations for that. I am sure we have an "in house" expert on the psychology of abduction and abductors who will avail us of their knowledge.
-
Well, that would explain the window.
The pot bellied burglary bin man had to clear the air of his evil stench.
I wonder what made him take that step up from nocturnal sex assaults to abduction & murder.
That is presumably a question that the Met / PJ are still exploring unless smellyman has been firmly ruled out...
-
Plenty of pointers faith
Bumped
Plenty of pointers Faith
1) The apartment was being watched
2) A man was taking photographs of young children at Sagres beach
3) The window and shutters were opened
4) Sightings in several places that ring true, including photos in two that are, almost without doubt, Madeleine
5) Both these photos /videos were in globally important Canabis/ Hashish / Kif / Hemp etc growing or processing places.
In the Rif Mountains of Morocco they grow over 50% of the Worlds supply of Hemp/ kif.
In Molenbeek St John [Brussels] they process most of the Worlds supply of the basic stuff into Canabis hashish etc.
6) A third sighting was in Leh, high up in the Himalayas where [IIRC] 70% of the Hashish used in India, enters the country
7) Numerous sighting especially in Malta and Gozo.
Let me remind you that Roderick Robinson was extradicted from Gozo, Malta. I wish to make it plain that I am not accusing RR of anything, but merely pointing out that the only person extradicted has been from Gozo, Malta where there were so many sightings
8) A run of 8 children abducted at roughly 2 year intervals over 16 years [1991 - 2007 ] Alll likely to have been stranger abducted in PT.
These started in the Porto /Guimares / Vila Nova de Famalicao area. A man, an elite, was reportedly taken in by the Police, questioned, and released with a warning [in about 1999]
9) Two/ three abductions in the proximity to PdL [Sept 2004 - Madeleine May 2007]. All three within about 20 miles
.
10) Then there are the numerous things that I have found out about the man I believe to be the mastermind ... and what happened after May 3rd 2007. I have at least 20 pointers, some very strong. I am not able to disclose these, because they have gone into SY and may be sub Judice.
11) Finally, I believe that I saw images of a little girl that was Madeleine about 3 years ago. I think she is still alive.
Now I am zonked so will finish here , but there probably are other reasons to believe in Madeleines abduction.
Oh, of course, SY are investigating abduction. That is a very persuasive reason to believe in abduction.
But if you guys cannot be open minded, remain stuck in a rut with your eyes closed, nothing will persuade you to open your eyes
Sad really ... very sad
BTW, can you cut the abuse to Alfie. Anyone would think that you were trying to beat him up !
-
Plenty of pointers faith
Bumoed
Oh dear! what is bumoed? it sounds rather naughty.
-
Alfie is afraid of the truth. Keep running Alfie. Why did David Payne visit Kate Alfie?
The only thing that really scares me is knowing that I share a planet with so many very idiotic and hateful people. Why did David Payne visit Kate? Well it seems you think you know the answer to this one already, me I believe what he said in his statement about it, so I guess that makes me a fool, a saddo and a paedophile too probably, in your view.
-
Plenty of pointers faith
Bumped
A brief reminder Sadie.
Pointers are one thing, but only if they are FACTS.
For example, can you prove the apartment was actually watched, and I mean watched.
Likewise, it has not been establushed that the window was open or the shutters moved.
-
Gosh Alf no one is doing anything you have not done yourself to other posters so why become so precious about it. I don't give a monkeys about door angles and whooshing curtains either so we have a common datum.
Being a simple sort of person I deal in simple things. For there to have been an abduction the abductor and child must cross paths. There are only two possibilities for that; he got in or she got out.
But to say "well the abductor went in through front door or the back door or the window" is a bit light and had other posters to whom you refer as "sceptics" said similar it would have drawn hoots of derision from you.
Why do you discount the other possibility for crossing paths?. So tell us how did the abductor gain ingress in your opinion? The condition of the patio doors, windows and shutters has been a variable with respect to open closed locked or otherwise. You must in your theory have made an assumption in which condition they were. So tell us it doesn't take much. Considerably less words that your last post one might add.
There remains one major flaw in the theory of abduction for the purposes of sexual gratification. I am sure you and other posters are smart enough to work it out.
There are three options to "gain ingress" to the apartment, unlocked patio doors, a locked front door for which a spare key was used or be lifting the shutter and sliding open the window. There is no concrete evidence ruling in or out any of these options. I'm really not all that interested in the entry point, nor in debating the [ censored word ] and cons of each entry point for the next 3 weeks. If it is quite out of the question that anyone entered that apartment illegally then I'll happily listen to your explanation why. As for the "woke and wandered" theory we have been discussing that elsewhere and I don't think that if Madeleine did leave of her own volition that her mother would have staged an abduction by opening shutters and windows in order to cover her own arse. Finally, I am not smart enough to work out what you are driving at in your final sentence, sorry to disappoint.
-
There are three options to "gain ingress" to the apartment, unlocked patio doors, a locked front door for which a spare key was used or be lifting the shutter and sliding open the window. There is no concrete evidence ruling in or out any of these options. I'm really not all that interested in the entry point, nor in debating the [ censored word ] and cons of each entry point for the next 3 weeks. If it is quite out of the question that anyone entered that apartment illegally then I'll happily listen to your explanation why. As for the "woke and wandered" theory we have been discussing that elsewhere and I don't think that if Madeleine did leave of her own volition that her mother would have staged an abduction by opening shutters and windows in order to cover her own arse. Finally, I am not smart enough to work out what you are driving at in your final sentence, sorry to disappoint.
There is Kate's word that the gate, childgate (with child lock), sliding door & curtains were all closed.
So, you either have the back door not used, or, the abductor/paedo/murderer who tidied up behind him.
Which do you reckon Alf?
-
There is Kate's word that the gate, childgate (with child lock), sliding door & curtains were all closed.
So, you either have the back door not used, or, the abductor/paedo/murderer who tidied up behind him.
Which do you reckon Alf?
So much quicker than bleaching an apartment, concealing a body, formulating a cunning & devious plan, running round PdL disposing of a body, staging a crime scene, enlisting the help of 3 Prime Ministers & MI6 then spending years of your life being abused by the public - don't you think?
-
Gosh, what an utterly preposterous idea that an intruder would close gates and doors behind him when leaving a building. I'm sure that almost never happens. Whereas dads carrying their children's uncovered corpses through town at 10pm is a WAY more common occurrence. <<rolleyes smiley
-
Gosh, what an utterly preposterous idea that an intruder would close gates and doors behind him when leaving a building. I'm sure that almost never happens. Whereas dads carrying their children's uncovered corpses through town at 10pm is a WAY more common occurrence. <<rolleyes smiley
I have always maintained that it was all about keys.
The key to the apartment.
The key to the Scenic.
The key to the lock-up.
Possibly the key to 5J.
The key to the hotel room where someone fell to their death.
Link those 5 & you solve the crime.
-
Gosh, what an utterly preposterous idea that an intruder would close gates and doors behind him when leaving a building. I'm sure that almost never happens. Whereas dads carrying their children's uncovered corpses through town at 10pm is a WAY more common occurrence. <<rolleyes smiley
Whilst carrying the toddler he was in the process of abducting, having spent time opening the window & shutters for some reason.
In no hurry then, & Maddie slept through it all.
-
Plenty of pointers faith
Bumped
You call them pointers sadie. I call them disperate imaginings glued together by wishful thinking.
-
There are three options to "gain ingress" to the apartment, unlocked patio doors, a locked front door for which a spare key was used or be lifting the shutter and sliding open the window. There is no concrete evidence ruling in or out any of these options. I'm really not all that interested in the entry point, nor in debating the [ censored word ] and cons of each entry point for the next 3 weeks. If it is quite out of the question that anyone entered that apartment illegally then I'll happily listen to your explanation why. As for the "woke and wandered" theory we have been discussing that elsewhere and I don't think that if Madeleine did leave of her own volition that her mother would have staged an abduction by opening shutters and windows in order to cover her own arse. Finally, I am not smart enough to work out what you are driving at in your final sentence, sorry to disappoint.
Yeah we know they are the only realistic points of entrance given the abductor wasn't Zeus using his golden rain trick down the cooker extraction duct.
Did the abductor come through the jemmied shutters; the closed window; the open patio doors; the closed patio doors the locked front door?. If there were forced illegal entry why did the police not believe there was such entry?. Which would narrow it down to coming in through the front door using a key there being no sign of a forced entry.
So the abductor came in through front door using a key, snatched the child and legged it through the front door closing it behind him? That pretty much is your theory then Alf reading between your own lines.
So why did the Portuguese police not believe it and why do The Met say "we have identified a window of opportunity (droll) in which an abduction could have taken place".
Which is not quite your "SY agree with me and say it was an abduction" or whatever.
-
So much quicker than bleaching an apartment, concealing a body, formulating a cunning & devious plan, running round PdL disposing of a body, staging a crime scene, enlisting the help of 3 Prime Ministers & MI6 then spending years of your life being abused by the public - don't you think?
Getting all their friends to lie for them aswell, yeah, heard it all before.
zzzzzz
-
Whilst carrying the toddler he was in the process of abducting, having spent time opening the window & shutters for some reason.
In no hurry then, & Maddie slept through it all.
How do you know Madeleine slept through it all? Was it you who dunnit then?
-
Yeah we know they are the only realistic points of entrance given the abductor wasn't Zeus using his golden rain trick down the cooker extraction duct.
Did the abductor come through the jemmied shutters; the closed window; the open patio doors; the closed patio doors the locked front door?. If there were forced illegal entry why did the police not believe there was such entry?. Which would narrow it down to coming in through the front door using a key there being no sign of a forced entry.
So the abductor came in through front door using a key, snatched the child and legged it through the front door closing it behind him? That pretty much is your theory then Alf reading between your own lines.
So why did the Portuguese police not believe it and why do The Met say "we have identified a window of opportunity (droll) in which an abduction could have taken place".
Which is not quite your "SY agree with me and say it was an abduction" or whatever.
Piss poor riposte. Whatever the PJ believed in 2007 is of no interest to me now, in 2014. Their investigation was headed by someone who couldn't investigate his way out of a paper bag - IMHO. I'm far more interested in where the current investigation is leading, in who they have interviewed and want to interview and why. And if you want to labour under the belief that the Met is biding its time until its dawn raids on Rothley time then that is your choice, but I fear you are in for a long, long, long, long wait - I just hope you have the stamina for it, dear Alice.
-
Piss poor riposte. Whatever the PJ believed in 2007 is of no interest to me now, in 2014. Their investigation was headed by someone who couldn't investigate his way out of a paper bag - IMHO. I'm far more interested in where the current investigation is leading, in who they have interviewed and want to interview and why. And if you want to labour under the belief that the Met is biding its time until its dawn raids on Rothley time then that is your choice, but I fear you are in for a long, long, long, long wait - I just hope you have the stamina for it, dear Alice.
Of course you would say that without mentioning AMaral's name.
Need you be reminded, he was the case coordinator.
As to the current investigation leader, how do you think he would cope with a paper bag ?
-
Here "sceptics" - this pretty much encapsulates my thoughts on the matter -
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/55163729/Abduction%20Theories
yes, it's from the dreaded "Stop the Myths Wiki" so Kryptonite to some people I realise that, but if you pluck up enough courage perhaps you could have a read and then a have good old scoff and a jeer about it on here afterwards?
-
Piss poor riposte. Whatever the PJ believed in 2007 is of no interest to me now, in 2014. Their investigation was headed by someone who couldn't investigate his way out of a paper bag - IMHO. I'm far more interested in where the current investigation is leading, in who they have interviewed and want to interview and why. And if you want to labour under the belief that the Met is biding its time until its dawn raids on Rothley time then that is your choice, but I fear you are in for a long, long, long, long wait - I just hope you have the stamina for it, dear Alice.
Stop talking drivel Alf. I don't recall ever articulating that view point.
The thread is about your theory, try sticking to the topic instead of going off on one.
-
Of course you would say that without mentioning AMaral's name.
Need you be reminded, he was the case coordinator.
As to the current investigation leader, how do you think he would cope with a paper bag ?
But of course so was Rebelo, the coordinator who requested that a reconstruction be carried out and that the Gaspar statements were sent to him along with analysis by British police of questionnaires completed by both David Payne and his wife. They don't talk about him though. I wonder why ?
-
Of course you would say that without mentioning AMaral's name.
Need you be reminded, he was the case coordinator.
As to the current investigation leader, how do you think he would cope with a paper bag ?
I think the current leader knows if you fill it with water it will leak & disintegrate - rather like Amaral's hypothesis.
Tell us, Stephen, why you think SY want to interview Murat & Co again, when none of them apparently had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance and all were otherwise engaged at the time?
-
I think the current leader knows if you fill it with water it will leak & disintegrate - rather like Amaral's hypothesis.
Tell us, Stephen, why you think SY want to interview Murat & Co again, when none of them apparently had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance and all were otherwise engaged at the time?
Where has accidental death been disproved ?
and why haven't the mccanns and the rest been interviewed by SY ?
Now those are pertinent questions.
-
Here "sceptics" - this pretty much encapsulates my thoughts on the matter -
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/55163729/Abduction%20Theories
yes, it's from the dreaded "Stop the Myths Wiki" so Kryptonite to some people I realise that, but if you pluck up enough courage perhaps you could have a read and then a have good old scoff and a jeer about it on here afterwards?
'Back (patio) door
'The patio door at the rear was unlocked and used by the McCanns and their friends to enter for child-checks. There were walls and mature shrubbery which could have provided an intruder with cover so that he could make his way from the road to the apartment door unobserved (as well as hide until ready to make his move).'
No mention of the gate at the top of the stairs.
How extraordinary!
Well, it was closed, as were the curtains, & the patio door.
Unless Kate was lying about that, as opposed to the window & shutters being open, which, by her own good word, she wasn't lying about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WLvnfcl-Zkg#t=1371
-
I think the current leader knows if you fill it with water it will leak & disintegrate - rather like Amaral's hypothesis.
Tell us, Stephen, why you think SY want to interview Murat & Co again, when none of them apparently had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance and all were otherwise engaged at the time?
The PDL kidnapping crew eh, a receptionist, her husband, gardener, property developer, bus driver beggar & burglars, all conspired to abduct Maddie & have kept it a secret for the past 7 years.
Yep, I can go with that.
-
The PDL kidnapping crew eh, a receptionist, her husband, gardener, property developer, bus driver beggar & burglars, all conspired to abduct Maddie & have kept it a secret for the past 7 years.
Yep, I can go with that.
Not to mention the reward of several million pounds that was on offer and that they all resisted !
-
Where has accidental death been disproved ?
and why haven't the mccanns and the rest been interviewed by SY ?
Now those are pertinent questions.
Stop sidestepping questions relating to the abduction theory which is the topic of this thread.
No theory has been proven or disproven yet.
As to questioning the McCanns, are you really as dense as your question?
-
The PDL kidnapping crew eh, a receptionist, her husband, gardener, property developer, bus driver beggar & burglars, all conspired to abduct Maddie & have kept it a secret for the past 7 years.
Yep, I can go with that.
You're getting warmer, that's for sure.
-
Not to mention the reward of several million pounds that was on offer and that they all resisted !
Maddie was worth much more than that, what with her bloodline.
Besides, 'Mr Big Fish Head' would have thrown them all to the dogs.
-
Maddie was worth much more than that, what with her bloodline.
Besides, 'Mr Big Fish Head' would have thrown them all to the dogs.
Is this the second coming 'bloodline' ?
*&*%£
-
But of course so was Rebelo, the coordinator who requested that a reconstruction be carried out and that the Gaspar statements were sent to him along with analysis by British police of questionnaires completed by both David Payne and his wife. They don't talk about him though. I wonder why ?
Rebelo was half-decent compared to Amaral, which isn't saying much really. He might have called for a reconstruction earlier had he been in charge from the beginning, which may have been a bit more helpful, and he was right to ask for the Gaspar statements, which presumably he analysed investigated and dismissed as irrelevant.
-
'Back (patio) door
'The patio door at the rear was unlocked and used by the McCanns and their friends to enter for child-checks. There were walls and mature shrubbery which could have provided an intruder with cover so that he could make his way from the road to the apartment door unobserved (as well as hide until ready to make his move).'
No mention of the gate at the top of the stairs.
How extraordinary!
Well, it was closed, as were the curtains, & the patio door.
Unless Kate was lying about that, as opposed to the window & shutters being open, which, by her own good word, she wasn't lying about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WLvnfcl-Zkg#t=1371
All very fascinating but hardly the beginnings of a rebuttal. What exactly are you driving at?
-
The PDL kidnapping crew eh, a receptionist, her husband, gardener, property developer, bus driver beggar & burglars, all conspired to abduct Maddie & have kept it a secret for the past 7 years.
Yep, I can go with that.
You really are a tw... I'm not sure if that costs a 10% or a 40% warning, but whatever it is, you're worth it 8**8:/:
-
Is this the second coming 'bloodline' ?
*&*%£
The Mysterious Stoned Knights from the Twin Peak Blue Nipple Mountains are behind it. Big Fish is small fry!
-
The Mysterious Stoned Knights from the Twin Peak Blue Nipple Mountains are behind it. Big Fish is small fry!
Hang on a minute. I thought this was "A Thread To Discuss Alfred's Theory in detail" - I don't recall mentioning any of the above before...?
-
The Mysterious Stoned Knights from the Twin Peak Blue Nipple Mountains are behind it. Big Fish is small fry!
Add to that the rancid violet butterflies of Tau Ceti III.
@)(++(*
-
All very fascinating but hardly the beginnings of a rebuttal. What exactly are you driving at?
So you really are sticking with the polite paedo/abductor/murderer, as a possibility then.
Right'o.
Wanna buy some magic beans?
-
So you really are sticking with the polite paedo/abductor/murderer, as a possibility then.
Right'o.
Wanna buy some magic beans?
Is Jack around ?
-
Hang on a minute. I thought this was "A Thread To Discuss Alfred's Theory in detail" - I don't recall mentioning any of the above before...?
Oh sorry must have missed your theory? What is it? Why was the window open?
-
Is Jack around ?
Back to my question, Stephen. You may get away with being deflective & evasive elsewhere......
-
Is Jack around ?
Is Vic there?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlbcNvlseVI
-
Stop sidestepping questions relating to the abduction theory which is the topic of this thread.
No theory has been proven or disproven yet.
As to questioning the McCanns, are you really as dense as your question?
Are you dense in supporting an abduction, which has no supporting evidence, and without which only leaves the mccanns ?
As to the mccanns, pray tell when were they questioned by SY ?
Are you too dense to answer that ?
-
You really are a tw... I'm not sure if that costs a 10% or a 40% warning, but whatever it is, you're worth it 8**8:/:
What's the matter, darling?
Have I upset you again, precious?
-
Are you dense in supporting an abduction, which has no supporting evidence, and without which only leaves the mccanns ?
As to the mccanns, pray tell when were they questioned by SY ?
Are you too dense to answer that ?
The first people to be questioned by SY would have been the McCanns & their holiday group as they were the centre of the investigation.
The primary evidence to support an abduction is that Madeleine went missing in a manner unknown to her parents & all subsequent efforts to trace her have proved fruitless so far. Her bedroom window/shutters had also been tampered with by person(s) unknown.
If there was no abduction, why do so many people in PdL have so much to hide?
-
Oh sorry must have missed your theory? What is it? Why was the window open?
Within a two hour time frame a person unknown possibly with an accomplice entered the apartment with or without a key through the front door/window/ patio door [delete as applicable] lifted the child then had it on his/her/their [delete as applicable again] toes.
-
The first people to be questioned by SY would have been the McCanns & their holiday group as they were the centre of the investigation.
The primary evidence to support an abduction is that Madeleine went missing in a manner unknown to her parents & all subsequent efforts to trace her have proved fruitless so far. Her bedroom window/shutters had also been tampered with by person(s) unknown.
If there was no abduction, why do so many people in PdL have so much to hide?
Would you care to name them?
-
The first people to be questioned by SY would have been the McCanns & their holiday group as they were the centre of the investigation.
The primary evidence to support an abduction is that Madeleine went missing in a manner unknown to her parents & all subsequent efforts to trace her have proved fruitless so far. Her bedroom window/shutters had also been tampered with by person(s) unknown.
If there was no abduction, why do so many people in PdL have so much to hide?
So why haven't SY stated they have questioned the mccanns ?
Actually, other than km, there is nothing to say the windows and shutters were tampered with at all.
People in PDL hiding something ?
Really ?
-
Would you care to name them?
Most of the names are already in the public domain.
-
Within a two hour time frame a person unknown possibly with an accomplice entered the apartment with or without a key through the front door/window/ patio door [delete as applicable] lifted the child then had it on his/her/their [delete as applicable again] toes.
Within a 2 hour time frame, of roughy 1 hour.
-
Most of the names are already in the public domain.
Maybe so; I just thought you might like to be a little more specific than to say, in effect, "well they are on the electoral roll" or whatever the Portuguese equivalent is.
Are we talking spotty chuggers or something a little more credible?
-
So why haven't SY stated they have questioned the mccanns ?
Actually, other than km, there is nothing to say the windows and shutters were tampered with at all.
People in PDL hiding something ?
Really ?
So why haven't SY stated they have questioned the mccanns ?
Basic policing- and no running commentary.
People in PDL hiding something ?
Why are they questioning people who have stated that they weren't in the OC on the night in question yet there are suggestions/evidence to the contrary?
-
Maybe so; I just thought you might like to be a little more specific than to say, in effect, "well they are on the electoral roll" or whatever the Portuguese equivalent is.
Are we talking spotty chuggers or something a little more credible?
There are certain rules on this forum, which I have chosen on this occasion not to break.
-
So why haven't SY stated they have questioned the mccanns ?
Basic policing- and no running commentary.
People in PDL hiding something ?
Why are they questioning people who have stated that they weren't in the OC on the night in question yet there are suggestions/evidence to the contrary?
1. Illogical answer, as they have declared which other parties they have questioned or some they intend to.
2. Wishful thinking, does not solve a crime.
-
Oh sorry must have missed your theory? What is it? Why was the window open?
For one of these reasons I believe:
- As an emergency exit in case he found himself cornered
•To check whether the coast was clear since the path was not clearly visible from the recessed front door
•To pass a child or stolen goods to an accomplice
•As a considered exit route, but then abandoned as impractical
•To detract from the fact that the intruder had a key – deflect attention from the person who obtained it (perhaps a member of staff)
•To allow the smell of a sedating chemical to dissipate more quickly.
-
Hang on a minute. I thought this was "A Thread To Discuss Alfred's Theory in detail" - I don't recall mentioning any of the above before...?
One would have thought that given the opportunity to discuss your theory in great detail, it would have been easily pointed out just exactly where you are wrong and why it wouldn't work.
No-one has done that.
No-one seems to be capable of doing that.
Instead we have had more of the usual obfuscation and drivel which seems to pass as humour: but no-one has as yet been able to contradict a single word of your theory.
Congratulations.
-
1. Illogical answer, as they have declared which other parties they have questioned or some they intend to.
2. Wishful thinking, does not solve a crime.
AFAIK the names of all people questioned have been leaked at the Portuguese end, not by SY. If you can provide a link to a direct statement issued by SY proving otherwise, I will accept that I am wrong.
What has wishful thinking got to do with evidence that shows people lied to the PJ in their original testimonies?
-
Merciful heavens it looks like we got us a
convoy conspiracy theory for abduction.
-
AFAIK the names of all people questioned have been leaked at the Portuguese end, not by SY. If you can provide a link to a direct statement issued by SY proving otherwise, I will accept that I am wrong.
What has wishful thinking got to do with evidence that shows people lied to the PJ in their original testimonies?
Can yo prove all the names came for the Portuguese, and your argument holds no weight, since if names of those questioned have been released, why hasn't SY simply said when and were the mccans and co., were questioned.
It doesn't take much , does it ?
As to changing testimonies, the mccanns and associates accounts changed, and please don't try denying that.
-
For one of these reasons I believe:
- As an emergency exit in case he found himself cornered
•To check whether the coast was clear since the path was not clearly visible from the recessed front door
•To pass a child or stolen goods to an accomplice
•As a considered exit route, but then abandoned as impractical
•To detract from the fact that the intruder had a key – deflect attention from the person who obtained it (perhaps a member of staff)
•To allow the smell of a sedating chemical to dissipate more quickly.
You never mentioned that you believe this paedo/abductor/ murderer guy had knocked Maddie out while he was there.
I imagine that would have made it a bit easier for him to close everything on his way out.
-
One would have thought that given the opportunity to discuss your theory in great detail, it would have been easily pointed out just exactly where you are wrong and why it wouldn't work.
No-one has done that.
No-one seems to be capable of doing that.
Instead we have had more of the usual obfuscation and drivel which seems to pass as humour: but no-one has as yet been able to contradict a single word of your theory.
Congratulations.
By that do you mean you believe Alf's no theory theory?
He has yet to state how the abductor got in apart from it could have been through a window the front door or the patio doors and the Portuguese cops were so dim they did not see the evidence of break abduction etc that was before their very eyes.
He will have to do better than that to convince the man on the street, your snide comments not withstanding.
The theory is like Euclidean geometry!
-
By that do you mean you believe Alf's no theory theory?
He has yet to state how the abductor got in apart from it could have been through a window the front door or the patio doors and the Portuguese cops were so dim they did not see the evidence of break abduction etc that was before their very eyes.
He will have to do better than that to convince the man on the street, your snide comments not withstanding.
The theory is like Euclidean geometry!
I have never been the least bit minded to have my intelligence insulted by idiotic theories crushed by the weight of evidence to the contrary.
Each one more desperate than the last; but each one believed as if it were holy writ; I'm not sure if smuggling the child into the old woman's coffin was the pièce de résistance or the juggling between the back of the couch, the garden and the parents' bedroom.
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Alfred's theory has the benefit of being realistic, believable and most important of all ... workable.
-
I have never been the least bit minded to have my intelligence insulted by idiotic theories crushed by the weight of evidence to the contrary.
Each one more desperate than the last; but each one believed as if it were holy writ; I'm not sure if smuggling the child into the old woman's coffin was the pièce de résistance or the juggling between the back of the couch, the garden and the parents' bedroom.
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Alfred's theory has the benefit of being realistic, believable and most important of all ... workable.
So realistic, believable & workable is it, that he can't actually explain what it is.
Brilliant!
-
One would have thought that given the opportunity to discuss your theory in great detail, it would have been easily pointed out just exactly where you are wrong and why it wouldn't work.
No-one has done that.
No-one seems to be capable of doing that.
Instead we have had more of the usual obfuscation and drivel which seems to pass as humour: but no-one has as yet been able to contradict a single word of your theory.
Congratulations.
Thank you, my thoughts exactly 8((()*/
-
I have never been the least bit minded to have my intelligence insulted by idiotic theories crushed by the weight of evidence to the contrary.
Each one more desperate than the last; but each one believed as if it were holy writ; I'm not sure if smuggling the child into the old woman's coffin was the pièce de résistance or the juggling between the back of the couch, the garden and the parents' bedroom.
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Alfred's theory has the benefit of being realistic, believable and most important of all ... workable.
I cannot see the relevance of the content of your post to mine.
You are wittering about things I have never mentioned.
I accept I may ask questions you and he are incapable of answering or unwilling to answer.
Leave it at that
G'night
-
I cannot see the relevance of the content of your post to mine.
You are wittering about things I have never mentioned.
I accept I may ask questions you and he are incapable of answering or unwilling to answer.
Leave it at that
G'night
You may ask questions that I don't know the answers to, but there is no genuinely asked question I am unwilling to answer, can the same be said for you?
-
Can yo prove all the names came for the Portuguese, and your argument holds no weight, since if names of those questioned have been released, why hasn't SY simply said when and were the mccans and co., were questioned.
It doesn't take much , does it ?
As to changing testimonies, the mccanns and associates accounts changed, and please don't try denying that.
SY statement with names of witnesses?
No, didn't think so. So predictable.
-
SY statement with names of witnesses?
No, didn't think so. So predictable.
Both sides have leaked like sieves.
As to changing accounts of events and alterations. FACT.
-
Both sides have leaked like sieves.
As to changing accounts of events and alterations. FACT.
You have to remember, when one side leaks, it is a terrible disgrace. When the other does, it is just setting the record straight.
-
You have to remember, when one side leaks, it is a terrible disgrace. When the other does, it is just setting the record straight.
Of course Slartibartfast. How could I think otherwise.
-
You may ask questions that I don't know the answers to, but there is no genuinely asked question I am unwilling to answer, can the same be said for you?
I always lie 8(0(*
-
I always lie 8(0(*
Of course you are Alice ! Aren't all sceptics ?
-
You call them pointers sadie. I call them disperate imaginings glued together by wishful thinking.
Call them what YOU like Faith.
The fact remains that there were a large number of pointers/indicators that there was an abduction.
1) The apartment was being watched
2) A man was taking photographs of young children at Sagres beach
3) The window and shutters were opened
4) Sightings in several places that ring true, including photos in two that are, almost without doubt, Madeleine
5) Both these photos /videos were in globally important Canabis/ Hashish / Kif / Hemp etc growing or processing places.
In the Rif Mountains of Morocco they grow over 50% of the Worlds supply of Hemp/ kif.
In Molenbeek St John [Brussels] they process most of the Worlds supply of the basic stuff into Canabis hashish etc.
6) A third sighting was in Leh, high up in the Himalayas where [IIRC] 70% of the Hashish used in India, enters the country
7) Numerous sighting especially in Malta and Gozo.
Let me remind you that Roderick Robinson was extradicted from Gozo, Malta. I wish to make it plain that I am not accusing RR of anything, but merely pointing out that the only person extradicted has been from Gozo, Malta where there were so many sightings
8) A run of 8 children abducted at roughly 2 year intervals over 16 years [1991 - 2007 ] Alll likely to have been stranger abducted in PT.
These started in the Porto /Guimares / Vila Nova de Famalicao area. A man, an elite, was reportedly taken in by the Police, questioned, and released with a warning [in about 1999]
9) Two/ three abductions in the proximity to PdL [Sept 2004 - Madeleine May 2007]. All three within about 20 miles
.
10) Then there are the numerous things that I have found out about the man I believe to be the mastermind ... and what happened after May 3rd 2007. I have at least 20 pointers, some very strong. I am not able to disclose these, because they have gone into SY and may be sub Judice.
11) Finally, I believe that I saw images of a little girl that was Madeleine about 3 years ago. I think she is still alive.
12) And there were the fag ends on the balcony block 4, immediately opposite 5a
13) Jane Tanner saw a mann carrying a child at a relavent time.
Oh, and of course,
14) SY are investigating abduction. That is a very persuasive reason to believe in abduction.
Try and be open minded, Faith. Not remain stuck in a rut with your eyes closed.
-
Yet again.
Prove the apartment was being watched.
and why would you watch somewhere in the broad daylight, if you intended to go in at night ???
and again, NO PROOF, the windows or shutters were open or moved.
-
Yet again.
Prove the apartment was being watched.
and why would you watch somewhere in the broad daylight, if you intended to go in at night ???
and again, NO PROOF, the windows or shutters were open or moved.
It's like knitting fog Stephen. Then again if sadie doesn't mind looking ridiculous who are we to object ?
-
Yet again.
Prove the apartment was being watched.
and why would you watch somewhere in the broad daylight, if you intended to go in at night ???
and again, NO PROOF, the windows or shutters were open or moved.
No proof Smithman exists, either, but there we are.
You just carry on ignoring the fact SY/PJ want to question 7 people, all unknown to the McCanns, regarding the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's disappearance. The police clearly feel they have evidence or reasons to suspect them of withholding information from the original investigation.
I have a feeling many people are going to be shocked by the scale of revelations at the conclusion of all this
-
No proof Smithman exists, either, but there we are.
You just carry on ignoring the fact SY/PJ want to question 7 people, all unknown to the McCanns, regarding the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's disappearance. The police clearly feel they have evidence or reasons to suspect them of withholding information from the original investigation.
I have a feeling many people are going to be shocked by the scale of revelations at the conclusion of all this
Or SY are barking up the wrong tree.
-
Yet again.
Prove the apartment was being watched.
and why would you watch somewhere in the broad daylight, if you intended to go in at night ???
and again, NO PROOF, the windows or shutters were open or moved.
Several witnesses to the watchers came forward. Have you forgotten so soon?
And Steven what is the point of witness statements if deliberately disruptive people like you keep disbelieving them?
Do you come from a background of liars? Most of us do not. Most of us take statements at their face value unless there is just reason to disbelieve them.
So far, neither you, nor any of your fellow sceptics have given any sensible reasons for us to disbelieve any statements by Kate and Gerry, nor by the Tapas group of friends
-
Several witnesses to the watchers came forward. Have you forgotten so soon?
And Steven what is the point of witness statements if deliberately disruptive people like you keep disbelieving them?
Do you come from a background of liars? Most of us do not. Most of us take statements at their face value unless there is just reason to disbelieve them.
So far, neither you, nor any of your fellow sceptics have given any sensible reasons for us to disbelieve any statements by Kate and Gerry, nor by the Tapas group of friends
And the picture taking at Sagres ? How does not link in ?
-
And the picture taking at Sagres ? How does not link in ?
Photos were taken at Sagres of children on the beach, by an unwelcome man.
We have no knowledge whether Madeleine was amongst the photographs, but from memory, I think that the Mccann family were there. Please correct me if I am remembering that incorrectly.
Any detective worth his salt would be interested in the man who took those photos and want to look at the situation relative to Madeleine. Cos it could be a pointer to abduction.
I am surprised that you hadn't realised that Faith.
-
Or SY are barking up the wrong tree.
Who would you rather put your faith in, Stephen:-
a) A team of good UK detectives who have analysed the case for over 2 years
b) The conclusion of a distracted, inexperienced co-ordinator after 3 days on the case
Take your time, I realise it's not your child who's missing.
-
Or SY are barking up the wrong tree.
who are the PJ currently investigating
-
Photos were taken at Sagres of children on the beach, by an unwelcome man.
We have no knowledge whether Madeleine was amongst the photographs, but from memory, I think that the Mccann family were there. Please correct me if I am remembering that incorrectly.
Any detective worth his salt would be interested in the man who took those photos and want to look at the situation relative to Madeleine. Cos it could be a pointer to abduction.
I am surprised that you hadn't realised that Faith.
You are wrong about the McCanns visiting Sagres. That was a myth perpetrated by a tabloid article and long ago debunked and as Sagres is many miles from PDL there is absolutely nothing to tie the photographer ( even if his motives were nefarious ) to Madeleine's disappearance.
-
You are wrong about the McCanns visiting Sagres. That was a myth perpetrated by a tabloid article and long ago debunked and as Sagres is many miles from PDL there is absolutely nothing to tie the photographer ( even if his motives were nefarious ) to Madeleine's disappearance.
If that is correct, then strike that pointer off the list
Now how about the other 13 pointers to an abduction?
-
If that is correct, then strike that pointer off the list
Now how about the other 13 pointers to an abduction?
So how do you think the drug growing regions tie in with Madeleine's abduction ?
-
The most powerful evidence for abduction is the absence of evidence of anything else
-
The most powerful evidence for abduction is the absence of evidence of anything else
Absence of conclusive evidence ferryman.
-
Absence of conclusive evidence ferryman.
Zilch!
evidence of any harm coming to Madeleine from her parents or anyone else known to her ...
-
And the picture taking at Sagres ? How does not link in ?
Tell me Sadie, does standing outside a building constitute 'watching' it for the purpose of burglary or abduction.
If you do you are even more deluded than you appear.
-
Several witnesses to the watchers came forward. Have you forgotten so soon?
And Steven what is the point of witness statements if deliberately disruptive people like you keep disbelieving them?
Do you come from a background of liars? Most of us do not. Most of us take statements at their face value unless there is just reason to disbelieve them.
So far, neither you, nor any of your fellow sceptics have given any sensible reasons for us to disbelieve any statements by Kate and Gerry, nor by the Tapas group of friends
So you believe they've told the truth, when they have admitted to lying.
Time to be in the real world sadie.
-
Who would you rather put your faith in, Stephen:-
a) A team of good UK detectives who have analysed the case for over 2 years
b) The conclusion of a distracted, inexperienced co-ordinator after 3 days on the case
Take your time, I realise it's not your child who's missing.
When has accidental death in or out of the apartment been disproved ?
-
You are wrong about the McCanns visiting Sagres. That was a myth perpetrated by a tabloid article and long ago debunked and as Sagres is many miles from PDL there is absolutely nothing to tie the photographer ( even if his motives were nefarious ) to Madeleine's disappearance.
I agree on this point.
-
Several witnesses to the watchers came forward. Have you forgotten so soon?
And Steven what is the point of witness statements if deliberately disruptive people like you keep disbelieving them?
Do you come from a background of liars? Most of us do not. Most of us take statements at their face value unless there is just reason to disbelieve them.
So far, neither you, nor any of your fellow sceptics have given any sensible reasons for us to disbelieve any statements by Kate and Gerry, nor by the Tapas group of friends
So sadie, do you come from a background of liars ?
-
So you believe they've told the truth, when they have admitted to lying.
Time to be in the real world sadie.
Excuse me, but what are you on about ? .
To remind you, Amaral who you seemingly worship, is a twice proven liar in Court. A perjurrer and now a criminal
Why do you chose to believe a proven liar?
Time to be real Stephen ... and accept the truth about your hero.
-
Excuse me, but what are you on about ? .
To remind you, Amaral who you seemingly worship, is a twice proven liar in Court. A perjurrer and now a criminal
Why do you chose to believe a proven liar?
Time to be real Stephen ... and accept the truth about your hero.
How many times have you said that one Sadie ?
He's not my hero.
He made mistakes, but not as big as the one the mccanns made.
-
Tell me Sadie, does standing outside a building constitute 'watching' it for the purpose of burglary or abduction.
If you do you are even more deluded than you appear.
When someone is standing at the bottom garden wall to 5A peering at the apartment from about 7 metres away as observed by a very observant young lady, then most people would construe that as watching.
To remind you, also there were at least three people who saw a man staring at 5A from opposite the tapas Reception (immediately across the road)
Without looking back and checking for more, that is at least 4 sightings of a man watching.
But I forgot, there was another sighting of a man standing across Rua Agostinho apparantly watching. That makes 5 sightings at least of a man watching 5A.
Why are you denying well confirmed facts Stephen ?
You are not on the changing the facts bandwagon, are you? Like Pat Brown and the *cough* wonderful view from across the road of Madeleines window.
-
When has accidental death in or out of the apartment been disproved ?
Who would you put your faith in to discover if a death had occurred by accidental means without the cadaver , as per the previous question?
-
So sadie, do you come from a background of liars ?
I most certainly do not
But you Stephen have just tried to make out that there were no watchers ... and there were ... as mentioned by 4 or 5 different people.
You KNEW that so why did you twist it?
And why do you disbelieve everything that the Mccanns and their friends say? Such constant disbelief is usually only prevalent in people who are regularly being lied to.
May I remind yoiu thet you prefer to believe the word of a convicted liar to the word of a bunch of seven professionals, none of whom either have a criminal record nor have a record of lying
-
Isn't it amazing that witness statements which do not meet the requisite criteria to implicate the Drs McCann or their friends are dismissed as irrelevant despite standing up to scrutiny and never disproved.
Isn't it truly astounding that witness statements which are apparently detrimental to Madeleine and her parents are leapt on to become holy writ despite subsequently being proved erroneous.
Equally astounding is the clamour insisting on the absolute innocence of anyone currently questioned or due to be questioned in connection with Madeleine's case either as a material witness or suspect ... and the insistence on the disgraceful behaviour of SY and the PJ in daring to disrupt criminality by carrying out interviews in the attempt to solve a crime perpetrated on a child of three in 2007.
When or where has it ever been known for such hostility to law enforcement trying to solve the case of a missing child?
Alfred has suggested a theory which is possible.
No-one has as yet come back at him saying, " ... that did not happen because ..." and giving an alternative account of their pet theory which is within the bounds of being probable or even possible.
As far as I can see the alternative for a viable counter proposal does not exist leading to the tried and tested last resort tactic when there is no argument capable of being put forward, of getting the boot into sadie.
IMO really quite pathetic.
-
Isn't it amazing that witness statements which do not meet the requisite criteria to implicate the Drs McCann or their friends are dismissed as irrelevant despite standing up to scrutiny and never disproved.
Isn't it truly astounding that witness statements which are apparently detrimental to Madeleine and her parents are leapt on to become holy writ despite subsequently being proved erroneous.
Equally astounding is the clamour insisting on the absolute innocence of anyone currently questioned or due to be questioned in connection with Madeleine's case either as a material witness or suspect ... and the insistence on the disgraceful behaviour of SY and the PJ in daring to disrupt criminality by carrying out interviews in the attempt to solve a crime perpetrated on a child of three in 2007.
When or where has it ever been known for such hostility to law enforcement trying to solve the case of a missing child?
Alfred has suggested a theory which is possible.
No-one has as yet come back at him saying, " ... that did not happen because ..." and giving an alternative account of their pet theory which is within the bounds of being probable or even possible.
As far as I can see the alternative for a viable counter proposal does not exist leading to the tried and tested last resort tactic when there is no argument capable of being put forward, of getting the boot into sadie.
IMO really quite pathetic.
Posters criticise sadie's theories because they are ridiculous so please stop trying to make it into something that it's not.
-
Posters criticise sadie's theories because they are ridiculous so please stop trying to make it into something that it's not.
So what is your opinion of apparently modern day, professional Police Officers changing the whole direction of a case on the strength of A DREAM! ?
Or the theory that Madeleine was hidden in a coffin? or that she was not in PdL at all - it was a lookalike? or that every photograph has been photoshopped, except the ones which some warped people regard as 'sexual' - apparently they're the only ones that Gerry forgot to photoshop?(Duh). Or what about the claim that a photograph of Madeleine enjoying a vanilla ice-cream is proof that her parents neglected her - because they knew her favourite ice-cream was strawberry??
I could go on ---but it's time for lunch.
-
So what is your opinion of apparently modern day, professional Police Officers changing the whole direction of a case on the strength of A DREAM! ?
Or the theory that Madeleine was hidden in a coffin? or that she was not in PdL at all - it was a lookalike? or that every photograph has been photoshopped, except the ones which some warped people regard as 'sexual' - apparently they're the only ones that Gerry forgot to photoshop?(Duh). Or what about the claim that a photograph of Madeleine enjoying a vanilla ice-cream is proof that her parents neglected her - because they knew her favourite ice-cream was strawberry??
I could go on ---but it's time for lunch.
I think you'll find it was on the strength of Kate claiming to have had a dream (that Maddie was on a hill,or buried there, exactly which isn't clear), & her giving the impression that she knew Maddie was dead in doing so.
-
I think you'll find it was on the strength of Kate claiming to have had a dream (that Maddie was on a hill,or buried there, exactly which isn't clear), & her giving the impression that she knew Maddie was dead in doing so.
I think you will find that Dr McCann made no such claim.
If you can locate a quote from her which says she did, I wonder if you would be kind enough to point me in its direction.
Another nonsensical excuse entirely was used to allege she knew Madeleine was dead.
-
I think you will find that Dr McCann made no such claim.
If you can locate a quote from her which says she did, I wonder if you would be kind enough to point me in its direction.
Another nonsensical excuse entirely was used to allege she knew Madeleine was dead.
She phoned Paiva & told him of this Maddie on a hillside dream she had.
He has stated as much in court.
Lying was he?
Topic:
Ricardo Paiva, "Kate McCann had a dream where she saw Maddie on a hillside"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1739.0
-
So what is your opinion of apparently modern day, professional Police Officers changing the whole direction of a case on the strength of A DREAM! ?
Or the theory that Madeleine was hidden in a coffin? or that she was not in PdL at all - it was a lookalike? or that every photograph has been photoshopped, except the ones which some warped people regard as 'sexual' - apparently they're the only ones that Gerry forgot to photoshop?(Duh). Or what about the claim that a photograph of Madeleine enjoying a vanilla ice-cream is proof that her parents neglected her - because they knew her favourite ice-cream was strawberry??
I could go on ---but it's time for lunch.
No worse than Madeleine was abducted because of her bloodline or Madeleine is that second coming or Madeleine was kidnapped to be the new daughter of an Austrailian socialite or indeed that Amaral planted pseudo cadaver scent on possessions of the McCanns so he could frame the parents, writea book and make a load of money from it.
There's cooks on both side Benice.
-
Madeleine would have been at the crèche so what, or who, do you think the 'watcher' was looking at ?
-
Madeleine would have been at the crèche so what, or who, do you think the 'watcher' was looking at ?
What time did it happen? Where did you get any information on that?
An answer would be appreciated.
Anyway, it could have been that he was staring to assess the best route in /escape route
One man was staring at 5A from close by. There is no denying that ... and a lot of staring happened from a little further away.
-
Madeleine would have been at the crèche so what, or who, do you think the 'watcher' was looking at ?
Not wishing to appear flash but, corrupting Juvenal's famous satirical line about guards we wind up with:
Who was the watcher who was watching the watcher and why did he think the watcher he was watching was more shifty than himself?
-
It's you who are wrong Sadie.
Unfortunately, since you are so wrapped up in supporting the McCann's, common sense is simply eluding you.
Now let's try one more time.
How does standing outside a building provide evidence of a potential burglar,paedophile or abductor ?
I await a logical answer.
P.S. How do you know the 'person' wasn't a drug dealer or a pimp touting for business ?
-
She phoned Paiva & told him of this Maddie on a hillside dream she had.
He has stated as much in court.
Lying was he?
Topic:
Ricardo Paiva, "Kate McCann had a dream where she saw Maddie on a hillside"
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1739.0
There is no doubt he mentioned it in court.
There is no doubt that Dr McCann denies any such conversation took place.
There is no doubt that there is no independent corroboration of either assertion.
There is no doubt that he also said the following in court ...
4:12-- Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html
There is no doubt that statement ... is corroborated ... by the extensive work which has had to be carried out by Operation Grange and the PJ to follow the evidence ignored by the original investigation.
There is no doubt that the information about the case they are chasing up was available to investigators in 2007.
There is no doubt much of it was collected by PJ officers in 2007.
There is no doubt the lead detectives in the original investigation neglected to collate and follow it as Operation Grange and the PJ are presently doing.
There is no doubt that was because, as Ricardo Paiva has stated in court ... only Dr Amaral's flawed theory was being pursued to the exclusion of all others ... and not the evidence.
There is no doubt that whatever the outcome of the present investigation ... the failures and incompetence of the original investigation will rank as one of the biggest failures and disgraces ever of the Portuguese justice system.
There is no doubt that Alfred's theory has much more mileage in it than Dr Amaral's ... particularly since SY and the PJ are following the evidence and are looking into stranger abduction.
-
There is no doubt he mentioned it in court.
There is no doubt that Dr McCann denies any such conversation took place.
There is no doubt that there is no independent corroboration of either assertion.
There is no doubt that he also said the following in court ...
4:12-- Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html
There is no doubt that statement ... is corroborated ... by the extensive work which has had to be carried out by Operation Grange and the PJ to follow the evidence ignored by the original investigation.
There is no doubt that the information about the case they are chasing up was available to investigators in 2007.
There is no doubt much of it was collected by PJ officers in 2007.
There is no doubt the lead detectives in the original investigation neglected to collate and follow it as Operation Grange and the PJ are presently doing.
There is no doubt that was because, as Ricardo Paiva has stated in court ... only Dr Amaral's flawed theory was being pursued to the exclusion of all others ... and not the evidence.
There is no doubt that whatever the outcome of the present investigation ... the failures and incompetence of the original investigation will rank as one of the biggest failures and disgraces ever of the Portuguese justice system.
There is no doubt that Alfred's theory has much more mileage in it than Dr Amaral's ... particularly since SY and the PJ are following the evidence and are looking into stranger abduction.
Ahh, I see, so, you do reckon Paiva just invented or imagined it then.
Right'O!
-
Isn't it amazing that witness statements which do not meet the requisite criteria to implicate the Drs McCann or their friends are dismissed as irrelevant despite standing up to scrutiny and never disproved.
Isn't it truly astounding that witness statements which are apparently detrimental to Madeleine and her parents are leapt on to become holy writ despite subsequently being proved erroneous.
Equally astounding is the clamour insisting on the absolute innocence of anyone currently questioned or due to be questioned in connection with Madeleine's case either as a material witness or suspect ... and the insistence on the disgraceful behaviour of SY and the PJ in daring to disrupt criminality by carrying out interviews in the attempt to solve a crime perpetrated on a child of three in 2007.
When or where has it ever been known for such hostility to law enforcement trying to solve the case of a missing child?
Alfred has suggested a theory which is possible.
No-one has as yet come back at him saying, " ... that did not happen because ..." and giving an alternative account of their pet theory which is within the bounds of being probable or even possible.
As far as I can see the alternative for a viable counter proposal does not exist leading to the tried and tested last resort tactic when there is no argument capable of being put forward, of getting the boot into sadie.
IMO really quite pathetic.
This. 8@??)(
-
I'd just like to point out that this is a thread to discuss my theory which differs somewhat from Sadie's theory, which now seems to be of far greater interest to the "sceptics" for some reason. Isn't there already a thread on here somewherefor Sadie's theory?
-
This. 8@??)(
Remind me Alf, how does the yards prime suspect fit in with your theory?
-
This. 8@??)(
So are you into sadie's bloodline theory ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
In case Alf and Brietta hadn't noticed, being too busy giving each other high fives and all we are still awaiting an explanation a bit better than "well 'e got in frough the winnder or may be the front door or p'raps the patio, well it 'd to be one of 'em didn't it 'em cos 'e got in didn't 'e; and we know 'e got in cos the little girl is missing"
And all the time the fuzz say there was no sign of a forced entry, or much sign of any unauthorised entry ...........go on from there Alf.
-
This. 8@??)(
1. How did the abductor enter the apartment and at what time?
2. Who moved the door before Gerry's check at 9? Gerry said Madeleine was asleep and in the same position.
3. Who moved the door a second time after Gerry left and before Matt's check at 9:30?
4. Who opened the window before Kate's check? Was it opened from the inside or outside and for what reason?
5. Why were no glove marks found?
6. What time did Madeleine leave the apartment?
7. Which exit?
8. What happened next?
-
In case Alf and Brietta hadn't noticed, being too busy giving each other high fives and all we are still awaiting an explanation a bit better than "well 'e got in frough the winnder or may be the front door or p'raps the patio, well it 'd to be one of 'em didn't it 'em cos 'e got in didn't 'e; and we know 'e got in cos the little girl is missing"
And all the time the fuzz say there was no sign of a forced entry, or much sign of any unauthorised entry ...........go on from there Alf.
Just one question. Is this the only case of a break-in with no sign of a forced entry?
-
Just one question. Is this the only case of a break-in with no sign of a forced entry?
Logically it wouldn't be a break in...
-
It's you who are wrong Sadie.
Unfortunately, since you are so wrapped up in supporting the McCann's, common sense is simply eluding you.
Now let's try one more time.
How does standing outside a building provide evidence of a potential burglar,paedophile or abductor ?
I await a logical answer.
P.S. How do you know the 'person' wasn't a drug dealer or a pimp touting for business ?
Bwahahaha !
A drug dealer or pimp touting for business !!!
*&*%£
You have surpassed yourself with that answer.
Come on Stephen. Stop denying the fact that 5A was being watched
-
Logically it wouldn't be a break in...
OK pedant, let me re-phrase. Is this the only case of entering a premises illegally with no sign of a forced entry - will that do?
-
So are you into sadie's bloodline theory ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Can you tell me what sadies bloodline theory says please ?
And why the sudden interest, when there was none before? Are you the puppet of someone on here by any chance?
sadies theory does have a seperate thread Alfie ... and it mentions fag ends but nothing about bloodlines per se.
However, I do wonder if the same people / bloodlines that were Human trafficking in the Middle ages are still trafficking now. THe people who did it then had all the contacts they needed to carry on .... and after Slavery was abolished, they still needed an income.
But, since the Abolition of Slavery Acts in the UK in 1833, they used a different way. A very hidden way.
And as has recently been highlighted on the news, slavery still exists and in quite a big way. Skin colour does not matter where slavery is concerrned. And it should be realised that slavery covers anything required by the "Master" including sexual submission if required. No freedom at all for a slave.
Now, may I remind you, this is Alfreds thread.
-
Just one question. Is this the only case of a break-in with no sign of a forced entry?
<<<< snip
And all the time the fuzz say there was no sign of a forced entry, or much sign of any unauthorised entry ...........go on from there Alf. >>>> snip.
There would appear to be a bit you have skated around very carefully.
-
<<<< snip
And all the time the fuzz say there was no sign of a forced entry, or much sign of any unauthorised entry ...........go on from there Alf. >>>> snip.
There would appear to be a bit you have skated around very carefully.
Shucks, you mean the intruders forgot to leave a ransom demand or big muddy footprints leading to the kids' bedroom? Now, back to my question - would this be the first time an intruder has intruded without leaving behind a calling card and a trail of evidence? Over to you.
-
Can you tell me what sadies bloodline theory says please ?
And why the sudden interest, when there was none before? Are you the puppet of someone on here by any chance?
sadies theory does have a seperate thread Alfie ... and it mentions fag ends but nothing about bloodlines per se.
However, I do wonder if the same people / bloodlines that were Human trafficking in the Middle ages are still trafficking now. THe people who did it then had all the contacts they needed to carry on .... and after Slavery was abolished, they still needed an income.
But, since the Abolition of Slavery Acts in the UK in 1833, they used a different way. A very hidden way.
And as has recently been highlighted on the news, slavery still exists and in quite a big way. Skin colour does not matter where slavery is concerrned. And it should be realised that slavery covers anything required by the "Master" including sexual submission if required. No freedom at all for a slave.
Now, may I remind you, this is Alfreds thread.
Please tell me what proof has been established to link human trafficking with this case ?
-
Ahh, I see, so, you do reckon Paiva just invented or imagined it then.
Right'O!
Interesting how Brietta clearly cherry picks Pavia's evidence to underpin her own POV. Pavia, according to her, was right when he said all leads were not investigated yet lying when he said Kate had told him of a dream she had had.
-
Shucks, you mean the intruders forgot to leave a ransom demand or big muddy footprints leading to the kids' bedroom? Now, back to my question - would this be the first time an intruder has intruded without leaving behind a calling card and a trail of evidence? Over to you.
Why?
We are still waiting for you to detail your theory.
Puerile comments and asking me questions don't cut it now do it?
-
Interesting how Brietta clearly cherry picks Pavia's evidence to underpin her own POV. Pavia, according to her, was right when he said all leads were not investigated yet lying when he said Kate had told him of a dream she had had.
Paiva was on Amarals side. Little doubt about that.
That fact alone means that as he said something against Amaral, he was hardly likely to have made it up. He was telling the truth on that one.
-
Please tell me what proof has been established to link human trafficking with this case ?
Can you tell me what sadies bloodline theory says please?
-
Paiva was on Amarals side. Little doubt about that.
That fact alone means that as he said something against Amaral, he was hardly likely to have made it up. He was telling the truth on that one.
Or a mistake in the tweet ?
-
Why?
We are still waiting for you to detail your theory.
Puerile comments and asking me questions don't cut it now do it?
There is nothing puerile about my question. You seem to be labouring under the belief that because the police said there were "no signs of a forced entry" that that is somehow suggestive of "the McCanns dunnit" theory. I am simply asking if it is unique to this case that a crime has apparently been committed by an intruder on private property and the police have stated that there were no signs of a forced entry.
-
Can you tell me what sadies bloodline theory says please?
I know you say you are getting forgetful, but really... 8(0(*
-
Can you tell me what sadies bloodline theory says please?
Are you talking about yourself in the third person ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Are you talking about yourself in the third person ? @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Yep
Does that worry you? It doesn't me, nor most people I suspect
*&*%£ *&*%£
Now please dont sidestep the question AGAIN
"Can you tell me what sadies bloodline theory says please? "
-
You guys splitting hairs, sometimes styling completely new hairstyles! Both factions guilty of this. When we finally find out the truth in this saga is there going to be some kind of forfeit, humble apology from the losers?
-
Yep
Does that worry you? It doesn't me, nor most people I suspect
*&*%£ *&*%£
Now please dont sidestep the question AGAIN
"Can you tell me what sadies bloodline theory says please? "
Most people sadie, will think your theories several pence short of a pound coin.
Now, as you haven't spelt out your theory, but if if's anything likes nessling's, is completely skew whiffed, and can be challenged even at a basic level. Now for example, as you believe in abduction, why didn't an 'abductor' take Madeleine's younger sister, who was smaller , easier to carry and had the same genetic bloodline as her older sibling ?
-
You guys splitting hairs, sometimes styling completely new hairstyles! Both factions guilty of this. When we finally find out the truth in this saga is there going to be some kind of forfeit, humble apology from the losers?
You won't see the "losers" for dust, believe me.
-
Can you tell me what sadies bloodline theory says please?
You seem to have one based on...
However, I do wonder if the same people / bloodlines that were Human trafficking in the Middle ages are still trafficking now. THe people who did it then had all the contacts they needed to carry on .... and after Slavery was abolished, they still needed an income.
I have spent time on DI and recognise the style.
-
Paiva was on Amarals side. Little doubt about that.
That fact alone means that as he said something against Amaral, he was hardly likely to have made it up. He was telling the truth on that one.
Indeed he was telling the truth on that occasion.
Just as he told the truth in court to Isabel Duarte (2010) that they hadn't bothered to follow any leads sent to them after the archiving of the case.
When the files were passed to the McCann lawyers on the instruction of the judge ... they were found to contain reports from law enforcement bodies, witness statements, photographs and videos ... everything marked as "NOT RELEVANT TO THE INQUIRY".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7215353/Portuguese-police-ignored-Madeleine-McCann-leads.html
-
Surely archived means not active, so how could things pertaining to a non-active file be followed up without the file being reactivated?
-
Surely archived means not active, so how could things pertaining to a non-active file be followed up without the file being reactivated?
It is my understanding that the assurance was given that 'archived' did not mean 'closed' and that information coming into the inquiry would be investigated.
To that end Ricardo Paiva took over from Rebelo as co-ordinator.
Otherwise why weren't law enforcement agencies told not to send any more information to Portugal?
-
Personally if it wasnt for the dogs, I too think the child could have easily been taken out of the apartment.
The front door, in pick her up, hush her calm her, going to see mum etc as a treat, carry her out, walk left out of the car park to a waiting car gone.............less then 5 minutes.
I think if it was abduction myself personally it was a woman and it was early 9.30 tops....and she knew the women or had met her....and i have said that before.
YES I found the McCanns suspicious and still do, but if it wasnt for the dogs I would give them the benefit of the doubt, no dogs then I too would think she could have simply been taken away. The dogs make me uneasy and I need to know why they alerted as they did.
And I dont care what people say thats what i think.....
-
Plus I don't really have a theory per se. I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL. It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm. It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts. Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is so utterly ludicrous, improbable and physically impossible?
Is that why Redwood came up with his moment of illumination by creating the CRECHEDAD?
This way, if you assume that Madeleine was totally alone in the apt from 8:30 until 22:00 (we can presume that Gerald didn't go for a pee), so a pervert could get inside murder the child and take her out after a considerable period of time.
Your hypothesis doesn't have much support though.
-
Personally if it wasnt for the dogs, I too think the child could have easily been taken out of the apartment.
The front door, in pick her up, hush her calm her, going to see mum etc as a treat, carry her out, walk left out of the car park to a waiting car gone.............less then 5 minutes.
I think if it was abduction myself personally it was a woman and it was early 9.30 tops....and she knew the women or had met her....and i have said that before.
YES I found the McCanns suspicious and still do, but if it wasnt for the dogs I would give them the benefit of the doubt, no dogs then I too would think she could have simply been taken away. The dogs make me uneasy and I need to know why they alerted as they did.
And I dont care what people say thats what i think.....
I think that is a very feasible possibiilty.
ETA IMO if the dogs had been made to spend the same amount of time on the other apartments and other cars - as they did on anything McCann-related - there would have been more alerts.
-
I think that is a very feasible possibiilty.
So why not take her younger sister ?
-
....And, why open the window?
-
....And, why open the window?
To make sure the car park was clear of people before they walked across it.
and/or
As the quickest and most direct escape route which did not involve confrontation with anyone who came in via the patio door.
an/or
To conceal the fact that they had a key to the front door.
-
To make sure the car park was clear of people before they walked across it.
and/or
As the quickest and most direct escape route which did not involve confrontation with anyone who came in via the patio door.
an/or
To conceal the fact that they had a key to the front door.
and/or none of that EVER HAPPENED.
-
To make sure the car park was clear of people before they walked across it.
and/or
As the quickest and most direct escape route which did not involve confrontation with anyone who came in via the patio door.
an/or
To conceal the fact that they had a key to the front door.
Do you reckon this abductoress would have opened the window before picking Maddie up?
Or does she open it with one arm, whilst holding Maddie with the other?
P.S.
I prefer dave's abductor, who opens the window & shutters..... to let some light in.
I almost wet myself laughing when I read that.
-
You seem to have one based on...
I have spent time on DI and recognise the style.
I have only read David Icke about half a dozen times in my life, but amongst the stuff I find rubbishy, there is a lot of in depth stuff that everyone on here should be aware of.
He is being constantly undermined by a concerted (and organised?) attempt by others to try and make him seem loony.
I would not be at all surprised if most of the loony posts didn't come from these very people who are deliberately undermining him.
Independantly, I have come to some of the same conclusions as DI. And I have got there by dint of rigorous in depth research over 7 years.
-
Do you reckon this abductoress would have opened the window before picking Maddie up?
Or does she open it with one arm, whilst holding Maddie with the other?
IMO It would be the first thing to be done on entering the room - before making any approach at all to Madeleine.
If as Colom suggests, Madeleine was persuaded that she was going to see her parents, she may not have been picked up at all in the bedroom and could have walked to the front door herself.
-
IMO It would be the first thing to be done on entering the room - before making any approach at all to Madeleine.
If as Colom suggests, Madeleine was persuaded that she was going to see her parents, she may not have been picked up at all in the bedroom and could have walked to the front door herself.
It wouldn't happen, is the correct answer.
You'd go in with your key, pick 'er up & then take 'er straight out the same door you just came in.
-
Most people sadie, will think your theories several pence short of a pound coin.
Now, as you haven't spelt out your theory, but if if's anything likes nessling's, is completely skew whiffed, and can be challenged even at a basic level. Now for example, as you believe in abduction, why didn't an 'abductor' take Madeleine's younger sister, who was smaller , easier to carry and had the same genetic bloodline as her older sibling ?
I have never speculated that they took her for her bloodline, although I suppose that is possible.
My thoughts are that she was abducted as a pretty vivacious little girl, probably for nefarious reasons
But I am thinking they then found that she was from a certain [probably noble] bloodline group, their own in fact ... and they were forbidden by their own bloodline rules from harming her.
I think that in many material ways she has been well looked after. And I hope so.
Please do not interpret what I have said incorrectly.
-
Is that why Redwood came up with his moment of illumination by creating the CRECHEDAD?
This way, if you assume that Madeleine was totally alone in the apt from 8:30 until 22:00 (we can presume that Gerald didn't go for a pee), so a pervert could get inside murder the child and take her out after a considerable period of time.
Your hypothesis doesn't have much support though.
Err?
What you are saying doesn't make any sense at all, as far as i can see.
Can you explain it better please Luz
-
and/or none of that EVER HAPPENED.
You KNOW that , do you, Stephen ?
Were you there ?
-
I have never speculated that they took her for her bloodline, although I suppose that is possible.
My thoughts are that she was abducted as a pretty vivacious little girl, probably for nefarious reasons
But I am thinking they then found that she was from a certain [probably noble] bloodline group, their own in fact ... and they were forbidden by their own bloodline rules from harming her.
I think that in many material ways she has been well looked after. And I hope so.
Please do not interpret what I have said incorrectly.
Sadie can you explain how the abductors found out that Madeleine was one of their bloodline ? Are you suggesting that of all the young children they could have abducted they choose a child who, purely by chance, was of their bloodline ?
-
Is that why Redwood came up with his moment of illumination by creating the CRECHEDAD?
This way, if you assume that Madeleine was totally alone in the apt from 8:30 until 22:00 (we can presume that Gerald didn't go for a pee), so a pervert could get inside murder the child and take her out after a considerable period of time.
Your hypothesis doesn't have much support though.
Why are you propagating myths Luz?
Dont forget, the waiters support the Tapas groups claims about the parent leaving their meals regularly to go somewhere, which they subsequently realised was to check their children
I think we can safely accept that the parents visited their children as claimed. Please do not start myths.
-
I have never speculated that they took her for her bloodline, although I suppose that is possible.
My thoughts are that she was abducted as a pretty vivacious little girl, probably for nefarious reasons
But I am thinking they then found that she was from a certain [probably noble] bloodline group, their own in fact ... and they were forbidden by their own bloodline rules from harming her.
I think that in many material ways she has been well looked after. And I hope so.
Please do not interpret what I have said incorrectly.
I'm all ears sadie.
What noble bloodline are you referring to ?
Facts please.
and why wouldn't an abductor take her younger sister ?
After all , she has the same bloodline.
-
I'm all ears sadie.
What noble bloodline are you referring to ?
Facts please.
and why wouldn't an abductor take her younger sister ?
After all , she has the same bloodline.
I am not going to be tied down to any specific bloodline. I am not in the business of naming people. I have made that clear before.
-
I am not going to be tied down to any specific bloodline. I am not in the business of naming people. I have made that clear before.
Then it is meaningless.
and you didn't answer the second question, yet again.
-
I'm all ears sadie.
What noble bloodline are you referring to ?
Facts please.
and why wouldn't an abductor take her younger sister ?
After all , she has the same bloodline.
OMG I think i am in the twighlight zone lol.....
Bloodlines well i suppose she was created with IVF, so perhaps one of the royals had been moonlighting at the sperm bank.....?
-
Sadie can you explain how the abductors found out that Madeleine was one of their bloodline ? Are you suggesting that of all the young children they could have abducted they choose a child who, purely by chance, was of their bloodline ?
Bump
-
It wouldn't happen, is the correct answer.
You'd go in with your key, pick 'er up & then take 'er straight out the same door you just came in.
That's far too easy WS - quickly in and out job done. Instead they waste time they haven't got by telling the whole world, 'here we are,' by opening shutters and a window in the night like it's normal before anyone has even been abducted *&*%£
-
That's far too easy WS - quickly in and out job done. Instead they waste time they haven't got by telling the whole world, 'here we are,' by opening shutters and a window in the night like it's normal before anyone has even been abducted *&*%£
You beat me to it! I was about to say something similar. After all why make it simple when it is so easy to complicate matters? Making it complicated is the true sign of a master criminal; only a rank amateur would go for a simple plan &%+((£
-
Bump
I am not going to be tied down to any specific bloodline. I am not in the business of naming people. I have made that clear before.
Lets be absolutely clear on that.
-
I am not going to be tied down to any specific bloodline. I am not in the business of naming people. I have made that clear before.
Lets be absolutely clear on that.
That's not what I asked sadie. It'd be great if you'd answer the question I did ask.
-
IMO It would be the first thing to be done on entering the room - before making any approach at all to Madeleine.
If as Colom suggests, Madeleine was persuaded that she was going to see her parents, she may not have been picked up at all in the bedroom and could have walked to the front door herself.
She could have walked the route followed by the GNR sniffer dogs ... perhaps bare feet may have enabled the scent to linger in the enclosed pathways longer than under normal circumstances.
-
You beat me to it! I was about to say something similar. After all why make it simple when it is so easy to complicate matters? Making it complicated is the true sign of a master criminal; only a rank amateur would go for a simple plan &%+((£
I think the village idiot was involved. The yard better bring him in for questioning 8)-)))
-
I think the village idiot was involved. The yard better bring him in for questioning 8)-)))
8((()*/ 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
I think the village idiot was involved. The yard better bring him in for questioning 8)-)))
And if one took all village idiots and put them in one village this guy would remain the village idiot ?>)()<
-
Personally if it wasnt for the dogs, I too think the child could have easily been taken out of the apartment.
The front door, in pick her up, hush her calm her, going to see mum etc as a treat, carry her out, walk left out of the car park to a waiting car gone.............less then 5 minutes.
I think if it was abduction myself personally it was a woman and it was early 9.30 tops....and she knew the women or had met her....and i have said that before.
YES I found the McCanns suspicious and still do, but if it wasnt for the dogs I would give them the benefit of the doubt, no dogs then I too would think she could have simply been taken away. The dogs make me uneasy and I need to know why they alerted as they did.
And I dont care what people say thats what i think.....
Yeah, if it wasn't for the dogs. This is why I too find it hard to completely believe them. You know there is always the chance that cadaver scent was spread around the apartment plus car given Amaral's form he could have instructed his officers to do this. I just can't give this idea much credit though as it's just another conspiracy theory with incomplete information(a large amount of scenarios could be concocted).
A key point for me is they recovered material from the scene for DNA testing at the spots they alerted. We can talk about the accuracy of the dogs, inducing the dogs to alert, what they alert to etc... regardless it's very hard to simply dismiss even though literally speaking this is just dogs barking. SY on the other hand I assume have experts at hand to advise.
-
I think the village idiot was involved. The yard better bring him in for questioning 8)-)))
It might have been the village idiot. Someone that no one thinks would be able to do such thing.
Similar thing happened in my mum's village, an older lady was insulted and when the police figured out whodunnit everyone was left shocked.
-
Yeah, if it wasn't for the dogs. This is why I too find it hard to completely believe them. You know there is always the chance that cadaver scent was spread around the apartment plus car given Amaral's form he could have instructed his officers to do this. I just can't give this idea much credit though as it's just another conspiracy theory with incomplete information(a large amount of scenarios could be concocted).
A key point for me is they recovered material from the scene for DNA testing at the spots they alerted. We can talk about the accuracy of the dogs, inducing the dogs to alert, what they alert to etc... regardless it's very hard to simply dismiss even though literally speaking this is just dogs barking. SY on the other hand I assume have experts at hand to advise.
Yes, the dogs did alert, and Yes, something was recovered. But nothing that could be attributed to Madeleine directly.
Personally, I don't believe that Amaral, or anyone else, distributed anything. But so often it is forgotten that Eddie was originally trained as a Search and Rescue Dog. He was trained to scent Blood. The Cadaver bit came much later. And since even my dog could fid a Cadaver if there was one, then I cannot place any importance on this.
And of course, the Chain of Evidence was appallingly bad.
I am not going to bore you all yet again on what a Cadaver Dog will or won't react to in the absence of a corpse, but it is a subject for much conjecture.
Contrary to popular belief, I am not at all emotional about this. I started using Logic about seven years ago. Nothing since has ever given me any reason to suspect The McCanns.
-
Yes, the dogs did alert, and Yes, something was recovered. But nothing that could be attributed to Madeleine directly.
Personally, I don't believe that Amaral, or anyone else, distributed anything. But so often it is forgotten that Eddie was originally trained as a Search and Rescue Dog. He was trained to scent Blood. The Cadaver bit came much later. And since even my dog could fid a Cadaver if there was one, then I cannot place any importance on this.
And of course, the Chain of Evidence was appallingly bad.
I am not going to bore you all yet again on what a Cadaver Dog will or won't react to in the absence of a corpse, but it is a subject for much conjecture.
Contrary to popular belief, I am not at all emotional about this. I started using Logic about seven years ago. Nothing since has ever given me any reason to suspect The McCanns.
I also consider that logic dictates my attitude not emotion.
I came to this last year when Madeleine's case was reopened.
Until then I was blissfully unaware of the blog and social media campaigns against Madeleine and her parents; was not on first name terms with Eddie and Keela; had never heard of Dr Amaral or his book; judicial secrecy? I knew and cared as much about that as 'sources close to the investigation' did.
I am new enough to know first hand that it is a very small incestuous world we on the McCann boards inhabit; if the majority of the populace knew even half of what was being said they would be horrified ... I know I was.
I am not the Brain of Britain by any means but saw Hideho's videos for what they are almost immediately and I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I saw Eddie and Keela in action for the first time.
I have never seen anything that remotely links Madeleine's parents to her disappearance only unsubstantiated innuendo.
-
I also consider that logic dictates my attitude not emotion.
I came to this last year when Madeleine's case was reopened.
Until then I was blissfully unaware of the blog and social media campaigns against Madeleine and her parents; was not on first name terms with Eddie and Keela; had never heard of Dr Amaral or his book; judicial secrecy? I knew and cared as much about that as 'sources close to the investigation' did.
I am new enough to know first hand that it is a very small incestuous world we on the McCann boards inhabit; if the majority of the populace knew even half of what was being said they would be horrified ... I know I was.
I am not the Brain of Britain by any means but saw Hideho's videos for what they are almost immediately and I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I saw Eddie and Keela in action for the first time.
I have never seen anything that remotely links Madeleine's parents to her disappearance only unsubstantiated innuendo.
You and me, both from different worlds. And I have forgotten most of the terrible things that were said. I no longer know if that was emotive. I only know that it was so wrong.
To this day there is nothing to connect The Mccanns to the disappearance of their daughter, and I defy any person to gainsay me.
But no one ever does.
However, this Forum allows everyone to express their opinions, and so, I cannot even want to prevent that.
-
It was the McCanns who pushed for the British dogs to come to PDL. It took time to persuade the PJ to accept this. There was a petition. I remember signing this petition in 2007 and it indicated the time was running out for these British dogs and PJ has to act quickly. It was signed by many people on forums.
-
It was the McCanns who pushed for the British dogs to come to PDL. It took time to persuade the PJ to accept this. There was a petition. I remember signing this petition in 2007 and it indicated the time was running out for these British dogs and PJ has to act quickly. It was signed by many people on forums.
I don't remember this in particular. But as I understood it at the time, it was so much more to scout the immediate area of Praia da Luz in the search for a body that might have been abandoned. It was never intended initially to search the appartment or anything to do with The McCanns. It was only Amaral who decided that.
But come as it may. After that decision, what followed was a cock up the like of which one might be beggared to believe.
Martin Grime was retired and was in the process of setting up a Private Company. We were never told of how much money he earned from that one. Not that it was any of my business.
Martin Grime then went on to earn 96,000 Pounds in Jersey, on the back of his adulterated and grossly edited Video in Praia da Luz. He should be mortally ashamed. He was the one who did so much damage. He was the one who very nearly convinced me of what I now know to be absolute rubbish.
The bloody dog was simply not fit for purpose.
-
It was the McCanns who pushed for the British dogs to come to PDL. It took time to persuade the PJ to accept this. There was a petition. I remember signing this petition in 2007 and it indicated the time was running out for these British dogs and PJ has to act quickly. It was signed by many people on forums.
Your post is complete nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about the case knows that so why are these myths being allowed to be perpetrated on this forum ?
-
Yeah, if it wasn't for the dogs. This is why I too find it hard to completely believe them. You know there is always the chance that cadaver scent was spread around the apartment plus car given Amaral's form he could have instructed his officers to do this. I just can't give this idea much credit though as it's just another conspiracy theory with incomplete information(a large amount of scenarios could be concocted).
A key point for me is they recovered material from the scene for DNA testing at the spots they alerted. We can talk about the accuracy of the dogs, inducing the dogs to alert, what they alert to etc... regardless it's very hard to simply dismiss even though literally speaking this is just dogs barking. SY on the other hand I assume have experts at hand to advise.
Yes your right lordpookles about forensic materials etc.....
To spread cadavarien scent deliberately well it would be hard to do. First you have to get the right stuff, and its volitile.
Why only put it on her clothing etc, and not the husbands? No I for one believe all that is a conspiracy theory.
The one thing i did think though is if the child was harmed in the apartment by a bungled burglary or even abused and killed why take her body away? It makes no sense.
All you have to do is put her back in the bed, cover her up, and she simply looks asleep......You would simply find her dead in the morning......sorry dont mean to be insensitive here.
Why remove her.
Nothing of this case makes any sense.....
The only reasons why you would remove her for me is because there is clear DNA on her body belonging to someone perhaps she knew......
Why remove her if she is dead?
thats the only reason i can think of.........
ALSO and it has to be discussed I am sorry, if she was sexually abused in the apartment by a PERB then there would have been their DNA as well...it can be left all over the place.....unless your an expert you would not even think about it.....
IF this perpetrator was sexuall predator and sexually abused her, then he/she would be known about as a pedophile takes a long time to jump over from looking and finding their type, to actually doing it, and I expect this person would have already been on a register.
I think i mentioned before when i was 11, a neighbour was trying to groom me slowly and exposing himself etc, and i told my brother, and this guy was removed fast this was in the Forces. He was if my memory serves me a good looking Asian guy, and friends with my dad, so at first i was not scared of him, until he got bold......
Nope nothing makes sense of this case.........I still think whoever took her she knew them.
Hum did the parents do it, why are so many people certain they did.... &%+((£
I think partly for me they were not truthful at the beginning..........and one lies begets another........until things dont make sense. Does that mean they harmed their daughter? No it means perhaps they were liberal in their checking and needed to cover it all up, otherwise they feared they would be ridiculed as professionals for leaving their children for so long unattended each night.
We only have the 3rd May checks to go by, I personally do not believe they were check so often as a normal course of action.
Anyway....will we ever get closure. I hope so......because if it was a stranger or even a friend etc, they need to be caught and put away.......mind you the other thing i find of interest......a leopard never changes its spots.
If it was a pedophile, they got away with it, they would be bold and would try again, I am convinced of that....but nothing seems to have happened to any children since ..... all very odd........which brings it down to travellers, or dead people perhaps, or migrants.......phew...brain overload lol.
-
That's far too easy WS - quickly in and out job done. Instead they waste time they haven't got by telling the whole world, 'here we are,' by opening shutters and a window in the night like it's normal before anyone has even been abducted *&*%£
Waste time? How many seconds does it take to open the shutters and one window?
It seems I can either believe:-
(a) one or more of the reasons already given for an intruder to open the window, all credible IMO -
or
(b) I can believe that a cunning plan was devised by Gerry & Kate i.e. to tell the police that Kate found the shutter and window open - and as neither of them had opened them - then that is proof that an intruder did.
I can just imagine the conversation:
Gerry to Kate: You open the windows and shutter- and we'll tell the police they were definitely closed when we left for dinner but you found them both open on your 10p.m. check.
Kate:- Oh what a good idea.
Gerry:- Yes - we'll tell them the shutters were forced, jemmied, smashed and broken when you got back.
Kate:- Erm will the police believe that? They won't even have been forced - let alone jemmied or smashed?
Gerry :- That's OK - we'll just tell our families they were jemmied and smashed. Obviously - they will believe us - and once the police know that all our relatives believe us - then they will believe us too! Simples
Kate:- Oh of course - why didn't I think of that.
Gerry :- And don't forget to clean the window of any fingerprints - except your own. In fact don't just leave one print - leave a whole set.
Kate:- - Gosh yes - that will be even more proof that we didn't open the window ourselves.
Gerry:- And then - just to make absolutely sure that the police believe that we DID find the window and shutters open - guess what I'm going to do....
Kate:- Oh do tell - I can't wait
Gerry:- I'm going to make sure I close them again ............ BEFORE the police arrive!!
Kate:- Wow what a master-stroke! That will definitely convince them. You're so clever!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm,,,,,,,,,,,, sorry but (b) doesn't quite work for me.
-
Yeah, if it wasn't for the dogs. This is why I too find it hard to completely believe them. You know there is always the chance that cadaver scent was spread around the apartment plus car given Amaral's form he could have instructed his officers to do this. I just can't give this idea much credit though as it's just another conspiracy theory with incomplete information(a large amount of scenarios could be concocted).
A key point for me is they recovered material from the scene for DNA testing at the spots they alerted. We can talk about the accuracy of the dogs, inducing the dogs to alert, what they alert to etc... regardless it's very hard to simply dismiss even though literally speaking this is just dogs barking. SY on the other hand I assume have experts at hand to advise.
perhaps SY have taken Grimes advice and so should we. Grime said there were several scenarios that could have introduced cadaverine into the apartment.
-
Waste time? How many seconds does it take to open the shutters and one window?
It seems I can either believe:-
(a) one or more of the reasons already given for an intruder to open the window, all credible IMO -
or
(b) I can believe that a cunning plan was devised by Gerry & Kate i.e. to tell the police that Kate found the shutter and window open - and as neither of them had opened them - then that is proof that an intruder did.
I can just imagine the conversation:
Gerry to Kate: You open the windows and shutter- and we'll tell the police they were definitely closed when we left for dinner but you found them both open on your 10p.m. check.
Kate:- Oh what a good idea.
Gerry:- Yes - we'll tell them the shutters were forced, jemmied, smashed and broken when you got back.
Kate:- Erm will the police believe that? They won't even have been forced - let alone jemmied or smashed?
Gerry :- That's OK - we'll just tell our families they were jemmied and smashed. Obviously - they will believe us - and once the police know that all our relatives believe us - then they will believe us too! Simples
Kate:- Oh of course - why didn't I think of that.
Gerry :- And don't forget to clean the window of any fingerprints - except your own. In fact don't just leave one print - leave a whole set.
Kate:- - Gosh yes - that will be even more proof that we didn't open the window ourselves.
Gerry:- And then - just to make absolutely sure that the police believe that we DID find the window and shutters open - guess what I'm going to do....
Kate:- Oh do tell - I can't wait
Gerry:- I'm going to make sure I close them again ............ BEFORE the police arrive!!
Kate:- Wow what a master-stroke! That will definitely convince them. You're so clever!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm,,,,,,,,,,,, sorry but (b) doesn't quite work for me.
8((()*/ 8@??)(
-
8((()*/ 8@??)(
Now why would an abductor open shutters and a window, when there was no need to , and of course , could leave forensic traces behind ?
Meanwhile there's an unlocked door or two, which if as some claim that people were watching the apartment, they would be aware of, so why bother with a window and shutters.
The whole story of the windows and shutters is make believe, IMO and others.
-
Yes your right lordpookles about forensic materials etc.....
To spread cadavarien scent deliberately well it would be hard to do. First you have to get the right stuff, and its volitile.
Why only put it on her clothing etc, and not the husbands? No I for one believe all that is a conspiracy theory.
The one thing i did think though is if the child was harmed in the apartment by a bungled burglary or even abused and killed why take her body away? It makes no sense.
All you have to do is put her back in the bed, cover her up, and she simply looks asleep......You would simply find her dead in the morning......sorry dont mean to be insensitive here.
Why remove her.
Nothing of this case makes any sense.....
The only reasons why you would remove her for me is because there is clear DNA on her body belonging to someone perhaps she knew......
Why remove her if she is dead?
thats the only reason i can think of.........
ALSO and it has to be discussed I am sorry, if she was sexually abused in the apartment by a PERB then there would have been their DNA as well...it can be left all over the place.....unless your an expert you would not even think about it.....
IF this perpetrator was sexuall predator and sexually abused her, then he/she would be known about as a pedophile takes a long time to jump over from looking and finding their type, to actually doing it, and I expect this person would have already been on a register.
I think i mentioned before when i was 11, a neighbour was trying to groom me slowly and exposing himself etc, and i told my brother, and this guy was removed fast this was in the Forces. He was if my memory serves me a good looking Asian guy, and friends with my dad, so at first i was not scared of him, until he got bold......
Nope nothing makes sense of this case.........I still think whoever took her she knew them.
Hum did the parents do it, why are so many people certain they did.... &%+((£
I think partly for me they were not truthful at the beginning..........and one lies begets another........until things dont make sense. Does that mean they harmed their daughter? No it means perhaps they were liberal in their checking and needed to cover it all up, otherwise they feared they would be ridiculed as professionals for leaving their children for so long unattended each night.
We only have the 3rd May checks to go by, I personally do not believe they were check so often as a normal course of action.
Anyway....will we ever get closure. I hope so......because if it was a stranger or even a friend etc, they need to be caught and put away.......mind you the other thing i find of interest......a leopard never changes its spots.
If it was a pedophile, they got away with it, they would be bold and would try again, I am convinced of that....but nothing seems to have happened to any children since ..... all very odd........which brings it down to travellers, or dead people perhaps, or migrants.......phew...brain overload lol.
A thoughtful post.
Have you never asked yourself why it is considered right and proper in some quarters to have hounded Madeleine McCann's parents for over seven years ... despite the fact they have been thoroughly investigated by law enforcement here and in Portugal ... and nothing has been found which implicates them in her disappearance in any way whatsoever?
The people who NEED closure ... are not us ... we never knew or loved Madeleine ...
The driving force behind the search for her since it was abandoned in 2008 are the parents who love her and the family who need the closure of finding out what happened to her and where she is.
Please do not kid yourself on that "nothing seems to have happened to any children since". In common with every country in the world, in Portugal there are 'invisible' children and people being trafficked day and daily and the Portuguese authorities are striving to address the problem. That none have been beautiful blonde Brits (insofar as we know) doesn't mean it does not continue.
-
A thoughtful post.
Have you never asked yourself why it is considered right and proper in some quarters to have hounded Madeleine McCann's parents for over seven years ... despite the fact they have been thoroughly investigated by law enforcement here and in Portugal ... and nothing has been found which implicates them in her disappearance in any way whatsoever?
The people who NEED closure ... are not us ... we never knew or loved Madeleine ...
The driving force behind the search for her since it was abandoned in 2008 are the parents who love her and the family who need the closure of finding out what happened to her and where she is.
Please do not kid yourself on that "nothing seems to have happened to any children since". In common with every country in the world, in Portugal there are 'invisible' children and people being trafficked day and daily and the Portuguese authorities are striving to address the problem. That none have been beautiful blonde Brits (insofar as we know) doesn't mean it does not continue.
When did SY investigate the mccanns and the rest of the grouop ?
SY has never come out and said that .
It was supposed to be an open investigation, and it clearly has not been that.
and let's not forget the nature of the crime has yet to be established. &%+((£
-
Your post is complete nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about the case knows that so why are these myths being allowed to be perpetrated on this forum ?
I assure you this is not a myth. I signed the petition and I have an elephant's memory.
And I remember this was the first ever online petition I have seen and signed.
PJ was against the British dogs going to PDL.
-
I assure you this is not a myth. I signed the petition and I have an elephant's memory.
And I remember this was the first ever online petition I have seen and signed.
PJ was against the British dogs going to PDL.
Not sure why you are spreading this misinformation but it's simply not true.
-
I think partly for me they were not truthful at the beginning..........and one lies begets another........until things dont make sense. Does that mean they harmed their daughter? No it means perhaps they were liberal in their checking and needed to cover it all up, otherwise they feared they would be ridiculed as professionals for leaving their children for so long unattended each night.
We only have the 3rd May checks to go by, I personally do not believe they were check so often as a normal course of action.
Anyway....will we ever get closure. I hope so......because if it was a stranger or even a friend etc, they need to be caught and put away.......mind you the other thing i find of interest......a leopard never changes its spots.
If it was a pedophile, they got away with it, they would be bold and would try again, I am convinced of that....but nothing seems to have happened to any children since ..... all very odd........which brings it down to travellers, or dead people perhaps, or migrants.......phew...brain overload lol.
On checks, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in the files confirming regular checks.
There are waiters who recall having to return meals to the kitchen to re-heat because people were absent from the table.
On the night, Kate's check is corroborated by her alert; Gerry's prior check, by Jez Wilkins, whom he met outside the apartment after his check.
Stephen Carpenter was present in the restaurant on May 3rd and comments in his rogatory interview on the regular comings and goings of folk, obviously tooing and froing to check on the children.
-
I think partly for me they were not truthful at the beginning..........and one lies begets another........until things dont make sense. Does that mean they harmed their daughter? No it means perhaps they were liberal in their checking and needed to cover it all up, otherwise they feared they would be ridiculed as professionals for leaving their children for so long unattended each night.
We only have the 3rd May checks to go by, I personally do not believe they were check so often as a normal course of action.
Anyway....will we ever get closure. I hope so......because if it was a stranger or even a friend etc, they need to be caught and put away.......mind you the other thing i find of interest......a leopard never changes its spots.
If it was a pedophile, they got away with it, they would be bold and would try again, I am convinced of that....but nothing seems to have happened to any children since ..... all very odd........which brings it down to travellers, or dead people perhaps, or migrants.......phew...brain overload lol.
On checks, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in the files confirming regular checks.
There are waiters who recall having to return meals to the kitchen to re-heat because people were absent from the table.
On the night, Kate's check is corroborated by her alert; Gerry's prior check, by Jez Wilkins, whom he met outside the apartment after his check.
Stephen Carpenter was present in the restaurant on May 3rd and comments in his rogatory interview on the regular comings and goings of folk, obviously tooing and froing to check on the children.
Can you explain why the loving parents only checked their children the very night she disappeared and on no other ?
-
Were questions asked about other nights or just the night in question?
-
Were questions asked about other nights or just the night in question?
It would be useful to be able to ask for a cite which verifies statements made ... unfortunately there is absolutely no point in asking Stephen for corroboration ... he never manages to provide any.
-
Not sure why you are spreading this misinformation but it's simply not true.
Perhaps you should check your facts before accusing others of making stuff up
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/britishsnifferdogsformaddie/
-
It would be useful to be able to ask for a cite which verifies statements made ... unfortunately there is absolutely no point in asking Stephen for corroboration ... he never manages to provide any.
I'm sure someone else will come along with an answer even if he doesn't.
-
I'm sure someone else will come along with an answer even if he doesn't.
Didn't the Tapas restaurant staff say that it was usual for the McCanns group to perform checks during dinner?
-
Can you explain why the loving parents only checked their children the very night she disappeared and on no other ?
I can't explain why this board allows you to get away with that uncorroborated and outright libellous guess.
-
When did SY investigate the mccanns and the rest of the grouop ?
SY has never come out and said that .
It was supposed to be an open investigation, and it clearly has not been that.
and let's not forget the nature of the crime has yet to be established. &%+((£
Yes I agree stephen25000. Were they not made aquidos, and then left PDL quickly. I do think they should be talked to and I do think there should have been a proper and correct reconstruction.
Also as you said the only thing we have at the moment is a MISSING PERSONS report.......
-
Didn't the Tapas restaurant staff say that it was usual for the McCanns group to perform checks during dinner?
Not quite. They said that it was usual for them to have to return meals to the kitchen for re-heating because of regular absences (several waiters said that).
The obvious inference is that these absences were because the group were running checks on the children.
Stephen Carpenter was in the restaurant on 3rd and commented on regular comings and goings of the group.
-
I can't explain why this board allows you to get away with that uncorroborated and outright libellous guess.
Common sense would have dictated that had there been a huge change in activity from no checking on any other night to half hourly checking on the night Madeleine disappeared ... the PJ would have been over it like a rash.
Doesn't make a lack of common sense an excuse for making statements which are not substantiated, though.
-
Didn't the Tapas restaurant staff say that it was usual for the McCanns group to perform checks during dinner?
Did they?
Just asking like as yours is a closed-ended question too 8(0(*
-
Perhaps you should check your facts before accusing others of making stuff up
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/britishsnifferdogsformaddie/
This is what Vixte posted :
"It was the McCanns who pushed for the British dogs to come to PDL."
There is nothing to substantiate that claim. The petition obviously has nothing to do with the McCanns as the name Maddie is used.
-
I can't explain why this board allows you to get away with that uncorroborated and outright libellous guess.
You didn't answer the question.
Why is that ?
-
Did they?
Just asking like as yours is a closed-ended question too 8(0(*
Yes.
Several did.
-
Yes.
Several did.
Were they interviewed by the fuzz and their statements included the files released?
-
Were they interviewed by the fuzz and their statements included the files released?
Yes.
Joaquim Baptista:
When asked, he said that during dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning to the table a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred.
(Adds)
The witness remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food requested by one of them back, due to the guest's absence, when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.
-
You didn't answer the question.
Why is that ?
Still waiting ferryman. 8((()*/
-
Still waiting ferryman. 8((()*/
For your corroboration of your assertion.
I'm sure some people are ...
-
For your corroboration of your assertion.
I'm sure some people are ...
No ferryman, I'm waiting for proof that the mccanns checked on their children themselves, on any other night than the one Madeleine disappeared.
Do you have it ?
-
No ferryman, I'm waiting for proof that the mccanns checked on their children themselves, on any other night than the one Madeleine disappeared.
Do you have it ?
If the checks were less frequent than claimed then the window for abduction would be greater....good point
-
No ferryman, I'm waiting for proof that the mccanns checked on their children themselves, on any other night than the one Madeleine disappeared.
Do you have it ?
So tiresome, Stephen, you made the original assertion that they didn't so it is actually up to you to substantiate your assertion ... then you never do.
However it doesn't really matter does it ... what matters is that SY are moving forward with Madeleine's case to the extent they will be questioning suspects and witnesses this week. I doubt any of the questions will be about the McCann's parenting skills.
More t's crossed and i's dotted.
Must be more than a few worried people in Portugal, and not before time too.
-
Perhaps you should check your facts before accusing others of making stuff up
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/britishsnifferdogsformaddie/
Good one.
-
Good one.
Careful Eleanor, your partiality's showing @)(++(*
-
Careful Eleanor, your partiality's showing @)(++(*
My partiality has never been in question when it comes to the rare occasion on which I comment.
-
Perhaps you should check your facts before accusing others of making stuff up
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/britishsnifferdogsformaddie/ (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/britishsnifferdogsformaddie/)
Faith wrong again, that's 3 times in as many days.
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards
Interpol also offered help, from the 4th May.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_INTERPOL.htm#p2p454 (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_INTERPOL.htm#p2p454)
-
Faith wrong again, that's 3 times in as many days.
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards
Interpol also offered help, from the 4th May.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_INTERPOL.htm#p2p454 (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_INTERPOL.htm#p2p454)
3 times ?
Is your comprehension suffering in your rush to prove me wrong DCI ? Vixte contention was that the McCanns asked for the dogs to be brought to Portugal. I said that was nonsense. Nothing so far has proved me wrong.
-
I think that quote DCI posted very much proves you're wrong, Faithlilly.
-
So tiresome, Stephen, you made the original assertion that they didn't so it is actually up to you to substantiate your assertion ... then you never do.
However it doesn't really matter does it ... what matters is that SY are moving forward with Madeleine's case to the extent they will be questioning suspects and witnesses this week. I doubt any of the questions will be about the McCann's parenting skills.
More t's crossed and i's dotted.
Must be more than a few worried people in Portugal, and not before time too.
Completely wrong.
If the McCann's claim to have checked on their children, it is up to them to provide it.
So where is the evidence that these loving parents checked their own children on the other evenings ?
I await your tiresome reply. 8((()*/
-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime
-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime
The couple, worried that inquiries by the Policia Judiciaria were losing momentum, asked detectives last month to re-examine the apartment where their daughter went missing and also for the use of sniffer dogs to seek fresh clues.
Oops.
Faith's halo is slipping ...
-
Common sense would have dictated that had there been a huge change in activity from no checking on any other night to half hourly checking on the night Madeleine disappeared ... the PJ would have been over it like a rash.
Doesn't make a lack of common sense an excuse for making statements which are not substantiated, though.
Common sense?! That's in short supply around here. Thanks for reminding us what it looks like. @)(++(*
-
Faith wrong again, that's 3 times in as many days.
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards
Interpol also offered help, from the 4th May.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_INTERPOL.htm#p2p454 (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_INTERPOL.htm#p2p454)
I suspect that is a hopelessly muddled article, apparently referring to SAM dogs, which have nothing to do with tracking death scent.
-
I think that quote DCI posted very much proves you're wrong, Faithlilly.
How so ?
-
Completely wrong.
If the McCann's claim to have checked on their children, it is up to them to provide it.
So where is the evidence that these loving parents checked their own children on the other evenings ?
I await your tiresome reply. 8((()*/
Their statement is the evidence...you still don't understand what evidence means
-
The couple, worried that inquiries by the Policia Judiciaria were losing momentum, asked detectives last month to re-examine the apartment where their daughter went missing and also for the use of sniffer dogs to seek fresh clues.
Oops.
Faith's halo is slipping ...
This was after they were made arguidos when the importance of the dogs had become apparent. Now if you could post an article BEFORE they were in defence mode...... !!!!
-
This was after they were made arguidos when the importance of the dogs had become apparent. Now if you could post an article BEFORE they were in defence mode...... !!!!
How so ?
The couple, worried that inquiries by the Policia Judiciaria were losing momentum, asked detectives last month to re-examine the apartment where their daughter went missing and also for the use of sniffer dogs to seek fresh clues.
What?
You have always denied that Gerry requested that dogs be brought in.
You are wrong.
-
Their statement is the evidence...you still don't understand what evidence means
When else did they check on their children ?
-
When else did they check on their children ?
Continuously throughout the week.
But it is only events of May 3rd that is examined in detail.
-
The couple, worried that inquiries by the Policia Judiciaria were losing momentum, asked detectives last month to re-examine the apartment where their daughter went missing and also for the use of sniffer dogs to seek fresh clues.
What?
You have always denied that Gerry requested that dogs be brought in.
You are wrong.
I am not wrong. Gerry told the churnalists that they had asked for the dogs to be brought in after they were aware just how incriminating the dogs were (' I asked for them to be brought in so that proves I have nothing to hide ' sort of thing ) That doesn't mean that he actually did and there is certainly nothing official to prove his claim.
-
I am not wrong. Gerry told the churnalists that they had asked for the dogs to be brought in after they were aware just how incriminating the dogs were (' I asked for them to be brought in so that proves I have nothing to hide ' sort of thing ) That doesn't mean that he actually did and there is certainly nothing official to prove his claim.
That the McCanns had nothing to hide has been abundantly proved.
Gerry requested that sniffer dogs be brought in because he believed (in good faith) that bringing in the dogs would contribute to getting at the truth.
Under other circumstances he might have been right ...
-
This was after they were made arguidos when the importance of the dogs had become apparent. Now if you could post an article BEFORE they were in defence mode...... !!!!
Listen, eel - you accused Vixte of spreading misinformation on this forum about a petition that existed early on in the investigation to get UK dogs brought onto the case and about the McCanns urging for this to happen. You have been supplied with a) a link to the actual petition and b) an article in the Guardian newspaper (a more reliable source than Blacksmith's blog if I may be so bold) confirming the McCanns request for dogs to be brought in and still you harp on. I think you owe Vixte an apology, don't you?
No, I didn't think so. @)(++(*
-
I am not wrong. Gerry told the churnalists that they had asked for the dogs to be brought in after they were aware just how incriminating the dogs were (' I asked for them to be brought in so that proves I have nothing to hide ' sort of thing ) That doesn't mean that he actually did and there is certainly nothing official to prove his claim.
If Gerry is lying why have we not heard this from a) Martin Grime, b) UK police c) Amaral d) the good old leaky PJ? Over to you.
-
Listen, eel - you accused Vixte of spreading misinformation on this forum about a petition that existed early on in the investigation to get UK dogs brought onto the case and about the McCanns urging for this to happen. You have been supplied with a) a link to the actual petition and b) an article in the Guardian newspaper (a more reliable source than Blacksmith's blog if I may be so bold) confirming the McCanns request for dogs to be brought in and still you harp on. I think you owe Vixte an apology, don't you?
No, I didn't think so. @)(++(*
Wrong again Alfie dear. I accused Vixte of spreading the misinformation that the McCanns had asked for the dogs to be brought in.
Point A. The petition had nothing to do with the McCanns
Point B. The Guardian were no doubt told by 'a source' that the McCanns had asked for the dogs to be brought in. They had neither the time nor the money to investigate ithe claim and so published the claim. There is absolutely nothing in the files to substantiate the request.
So would you mind eversomuch winding your neck in Alfie dear.
( I hear Blacksmith's handsome as well as brilliant ! ?{)(** )
-
Wrong again Alfie dear. I accused Vixte of spreading misinformation that the McCanns had asked for the dogs to be brought in.
Point A. The petition had nothing to do with the McCanns
Point B. The Guardian article were no doubt told by 'a source' that the McCanns had asked for the dogs to be brought in. They had neither the time nor the money to investigate ithe claim and so published the claim. There is absolutely nothing in the files to substantiate the request.
So would you mind eversomuch winding your neck in Alfie dear.
( I hear Blacksmith's handsome as well as brilliant ! ?{)(** )
You mean you've yet to touch the hem of his garment? Astonishing!
-
Continuously throughout the week.
But it is only events of May 3rd that is examined in detail.
You have proof the McCann's checked on their children on the other nights ?
-
Vixte's claims in her post have since been substantiated by links which show that she was correct, therefore she is not guilty of spreading misinformation and her post(s) should not be removed IMO. 8((()*/
-
You have proof the McCann's checked on their children on the other nights ?
Do wake up.
Before Madeleine's abduction, there is proof that both Gerry were checking on the children on Thursday.
Therefore the only logical and sensible inference is that they also ran checks on earlier evenings during the holiday.
-
That does not follow.
-
Do wake up.
Before Madeleine's abduction, there is proof that both Gerry were checking on the children on Thursday.
Therefore the only logical and sensible inference is that they also ran checks on earlier evenings during the holiday.
One evening and one 'check' proves nothing.
-
One evening and one 'check' proves nothing.
I'm not the least bit surprised you don't get it.
-
Vixte's claims in her post have since been substantiated by links which show that she was correct, therefore she is not guilty of spreading misinformation and her post(s) should not be removed IMO. 8((()*/
Vixte has provided evidence of a petition not that the McCanns asked for the dogs to be brought in so she is indeed spreading misinformation. Though to be fair she is only repeating the dishonest claims of another.
Posting nonsense 3, 4, 5 times does not change the fact that it is still nonsense.
-
Does Stephen believe that only the McCanns failed to check on their kids every night, or the whole Tapas group?
-
I'm not the least bit surprised you don't get it.
All you have given is hearsay, and nothing more.
-
Does Stephen believe that only the McCanns failed to check on their kids every night, or the whole Tapas group?
I didn't say the others didn't.
Do take notice.
-
Vixte has provided evidence of a petition not that the McCanns asked for the dogs to be brought in so she is indeed spreading misinformation. Though to be fair she is only repeating the dishonest claims of another.
Posting nonsense 3, 4, 5 times does not change the fact that it is still nonsense.
So, if I post a link to a Guardian article which cites unnamed sources then, according to you, I am posting "nonsense", correct? So, in your view should no newspaper articles that only mention unnamed sources be allowed on this forum? What about when you post Blacksmith gossip on the news thread? That's OK is it?
-
Does Stephen believe that only the McCanns failed to check on their kids every night, or the whole Tapas group?
Stephen probably believes that the McCanns stage-managed "checks" on May 3rd as some sort of cover for other nefarious deeds that evening ...
-
I didn't say the others didn't.
Do take notice.
OK, so only the McCanns failed to do checks in your view. Why do you believe this to be the case? Where is your evidence? Why would they sit put whilst all around them their mates were busily checking on their kids? Is that what you really think?
-
So, if I post a link to a Guardian article which cites unnamed sources then, according to you, I am posting "nonsense", correct? So, in your view should no newspaper articles that only mention unnamed sources be allowed on this forum? What about when you post Blacksmith gossip on the news thread? That's OK is it?
But of course ! Especially as he's so devilishly handsome ! 8**8:/:
-
OK, so only the McCanns failed to do checks in your view. Why do you believe this to be the case? Where is your evidence? Why would they sit put whilst all around them their mates were busily checking on their kids? Is that what you really think?
You're quite worried.
All you need is to show the McCann's checked their children each night and I will keep stum on that.
PS. Did gm actually look at Madeleine on the night she 'disappeared' ?
-
But of course ! Especially as he's so devilishly handsome ! 8**8:/:
Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself.
-
You're quite worried.
All you need is to show the McCann's checked their children each night and I will keep stum on that.
PS. Did gm actually look at Madeleine on the night she 'disappeared' ?
Hahahahaha, this is why it's pointless engaging with Stephen - he makes no attempt whatsoever to address your post and only makes pointless and inaccurate observations. Back on ignore 8((()*/
-
Hahahahaha, this is why it's pointless engaging with Stephen - he makes no attempt whatsoever to address your post and only makes pointless and inaccurate observations. Back on ignore 8((()*/
Oh dear.
Back to mccweenie land then. *&*%£
-
Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself.
Oh come on Alfie who wouldn't over a studmuffin like Blacksmith ! *&*%£
-
Listen, eel - you accused Vixte of spreading misinformation on this forum about a petition that existed early on in the investigation to get UK dogs brought onto the case and about the McCanns urging for this to happen. You have been supplied with a) a link to the actual petition and b) an article in the Guardian newspaper (a more reliable source than Blacksmith's blog if I may be so bold) confirming the McCanns request for dogs to be brought in and still you harp on. I think you owe Vixte an apology, don't you?
No, I didn't think so. @)(++(*
They slagged off the dogs. They're not unreliable like them 8)--)) Kate also said she would take a lie detector and then refused. Wise decision.
Mr Cargill said: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth."
-
Oh come on Alfie who wouldn't over a studmuffin like Blacksmith ! *&*%£
You seem to have completely lost the plot, have a lie down.
-
What's a Stud Muffin?
Sorry, Off Topic. But I just have to know.
-
What's a Stud Muffin?
Sorry, Off Topic. But I just have to know.
Apparently it's...
Guy that gets the ladies easy, is always fishin' and....likes a muffin every now and then. (from urban dictionary)
or it could be one of these teatime goodies with an earring...I suppose
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
What's a Stud Muffin?
Sorry, Off Topic. But I just have to know.
Erm...according to Faithlilly it's a raddled old (ex?) druggie failed author in the twilight of his years. Each to their own I guess...!
-
Apparently it's...
Guy that gets the ladies easy, is always fishin' and....likes a muffin every now and then. (from urban dictionary)
or it could be one of these teatime goodies with an earring...I suppose
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Thank you, Anna.
Goodness me. Someone must be desperate.
-
Erm...according to Faithlilly it's a raddled old (ex?) druggie failed author in the twilight of his years. Each to their own I guess...!
faith may be older and to her he's a stud muffin
-
Found interesting read after google searching. Apparently a letter by Blacksmith admitting he got info from Amaral amongst other things.
http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/blacksmith-bureau-admits-being-hired-to.html (http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/blacksmith-bureau-admits-being-hired-to.html)
-
Found interesting read after google searching. Apparently a letter by Blacksmith admitting he got info from Amaral amongst other things.
http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/blacksmith-bureau-admits-being-hired-to.html (http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/blacksmith-bureau-admits-being-hired-to.html)
Saturday, 5 February 2011
Time for a change
From: (Blacksmith)
Sent: 05 February 2011 11:47
To: (XXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Subject: The Blacksmith Bureau
No 'from' or 'to' details supplied !!
Sounds like one of those 'my sisters hairdressers friend, knows a top cop in Scotland Yard who said at a party last week thrown by her brothers best friends uncle that The McCanns are guilty'
Absolute bolleaux unless someone is willing to put their name to it !
Edited to add - as are most of the 'theories' on here !
You really should read back on your own posts to see the ridiculousness of some of the 'theories' purported !
Blue nippled Moroccan transvestites connected to international drug smuggling lines is my all time favourite (not forgetting the fabled 'bloodline' !!
Furthermore to have members who I have a modicum of respect for sit idly by twiddling their thumbs and not questioning these grotesque mental imaginings leads me to believe that so called 'supporters' don't possess the backbone to call time on same ! OR maybe I'm wrong, maybe you all actually agree that those ramblings are a possibility ?
Can't imagine any one of you will be bold enough to stand up and say its bolleaux somehow !
-
Erm...according to Faithlilly it's a raddled old (ex?) druggie failed author in the twilight of his years. Each to their own I guess...!
I always feel jealousy is such an unattractive character trait.
-
You're quite worried.
All you need is to show the McCann's checked their children each night and I will keep stum on that.
PS. Did gm actually look at Madeleine on the night she 'disappeared' ?
Its simply classed as hearsay......i think for most people they listen at the door no noise the kids must be ok. To go into their room well there is a good chance of waking the kids up...thats my opinion only.
We only ever had his word he saw his daughter and like i said that is heresay and not corroborated...
-
Its simply classed as hearsay......i think for most people they listen at the door no noise the kids must be ok. To go into their room well there is a good chance of waking the kids up...thats my opinion only.
We only ever had his word he saw his daughter and like i said that is heresay and not corroborated...
It is not hearsay...you and Stephen need to look at the definition of hearsay evidence
-
It is not hearsay...you and Stephen need to look at the definition of hearsay evidence
No I don't.
-
No I don't.
Then you would know that Gerry's statements about his checks are not hearsay
-
Saturday, 5 February 2011
Time for a change
From: (Blacksmith)
Sent: 05 February 2011 11:47
To: (XXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Subject: The Blacksmith Bureau
No 'from' or 'to' details supplied !!
Sounds like one of those 'my sisters hairdressers friend, knows a top cop in Scotland Yard who said at a party last week thrown by her brothers best friends uncle that The McCanns are guilty'
Absolute bolleaux unless someone is willing to put their name to it !
Edited to add - as are most of the 'theories' on here !
You really should read back on your own posts to see the ridiculousness of some of the 'theories' purported !
Blue nippled Moroccan transvestites connected to international drug smuggling lines is my all time favourite (not forgetting the fabled 'bloodline' !!
Furthermore to have members who I have a modicum of respect for sit idly by twiddling their thumbs and not questioning these grotesque mental imaginings leads me to believe that so called 'supporters' don't possess the backbone to call time on same ! OR maybe I'm wrong, maybe you all actually agree that those ramblings are a possibility ?
Can't imagine any one of you will be bold enough to stand up and say its bolleaux somehow !
Perhaps Faithlilly can tell us whether the letter purporting to be from the Stud Muffin is genuine or not?
-
Then you would know that Gerry's statements about his checks are not hearsay
Unless corroborated, they are hearsay.
On The 3 rd of course, he went to the bog. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
Unless corroborated, they are hearsay.
On The 3 rd of course, he went to the bog. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
You don't understand what hearsay means....fact
-
You don't understand what hearsay means....fact
No dave.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
You don't understand what hearsay means....fact
If anyone says he/she knows that Gerry checked the kids, that is hearsay.
If Gerry said in a statement or in court that he checked the kids, that is evidence.
No indication of truth implied.
-
Perhaps Faithlilly can tell us whether the letter purporting to be from the Stud Muffin is genuine or not?
Unfortunately Alfie I know nothing of Blacksmith's email correspondence. I merely worship from afar !
-
What's a Stud Muffin?
Sorry, Off Topic. But I just have to know.
A philanderer, so far as I can tell ...
-
Saturday, 5 February 2011
Time for a change
From: (Blacksmith)
Sent: 05 February 2011 11:47
To: (XXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Subject: The Blacksmith Bureau
No 'from' or 'to' details supplied !!
Sounds like one of those 'my sisters hairdressers friend, knows a top cop in Scotland Yard who said at a party last week thrown by her brothers best friends uncle that The McCanns are guilty'
Absolute bolleaux unless someone is willing to put their name to it !
Edited to add - as are most of the 'theories' on here !
You really should read back on your own posts to see the ridiculousness of some of the 'theories' purported !
Blue nippled Moroccan transvestites connected to international drug smuggling lines is my all time favourite (not forgetting the fabled 'bloodline' !!
Furthermore to have members who I have a modicum of respect for sit idly by twiddling their thumbs and not questioning these grotesque mental imaginings leads me to believe that so called 'supporters' don't possess the backbone to call time on same ! OR maybe I'm wrong, maybe you all actually agree that those ramblings are a possibility ?
Can't imagine any one of you will be bold enough to stand up and say its bolleaux somehow !
C'mon the dry run recce idea takes some beating; coupled with the idea it involved spotty pimply beer bellied smelly chuggers with which PdL seemed to be awash. Do you think that week, as it was really early doors in the season, there was a convention of these types in PdL? It would explain why there were so many don't you think?
S'cuse me must be off it's time for tea and gattocks (or should it be gatocks?)
-
Saturday, 5 February 2011
Time for a change
From: (Blacksmith)
Sent: 05 February 2011 11:47
To: (XXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Subject: The Blacksmith Bureau
No 'from' or 'to' details supplied !!
Sounds like one of those 'my sisters hairdressers friend, knows a top cop in Scotland Yard who said at a party last week thrown by her brothers best friends uncle that The McCanns are guilty'
Absolute bolleaux unless someone is willing to put their name to it !
Edited to add - as are most of the 'theories' on here !
You really should read back on your own posts to see the ridiculousness of some of the 'theories' purported !
Blue nippled Moroccan transvestites connected to international drug smuggling lines is my all time favourite (not forgetting the fabled 'bloodline' !!
Furthermore to have members who I have a modicum of respect for sit idly by twiddling their thumbs and not questioning these grotesque mental imaginings leads me to believe that so called 'supporters' don't possess the backbone to call time on same ! OR maybe I'm wrong, maybe you all actually agree that those ramblings are a possibility ?
Can't imagine any one of you will be bold enough to stand up and say its bolleaux somehow !
Is it an idiosyncratic form of Muslim dress in Morrocco to have one's nipples highlighted in blue? or are you saying that the person photographed in Morrocco wasn't displaying blue nipples through a white shirt?
-
.
-
Is it an idiosyncratic form of Muslim dress in Morrocco to have one's nipples highlighted in blue? or are you saying that the person photographed in Morrocco wasn't displaying blue nipples through a white shirt?
Do you also subscribe to the theory that the 'woman' in the photo could be a man ?
-
I'm not on a crusade, sounds like you are?
Really? What gave you that impression ? Please do elaborate !
Why waste your energy?
I'm not wasting energy, merely asking a civil question !
Is it going to change the outcome of this case or stop the truth coming out if we all come on a forum and rip the piss out of someone?
Do you seriously need to ask that question ? Shame on you if you do !
Personally I think there is something to be said for silence.
I agree with you, as I'm sure Kate McCann would also !
Anyway the blue nippled variety of transvestites are quite often alien pychopaths according to this dude who made a 4hour documentary recently about the McCanns
Who is "this dude" and where is the link to his documentary ?
- so maybe Madeline has been abducted and lives on planet McMong now?
Are you posing a question here ? If not can you point me to the "planet McMong" please ! P.S. It's Madeleine, not Madeline !
That's my theory.
Mmmmmmmm, not really a theory is it ?
Also, anyone who fakes an email by the internet hero Blacksmith needs to get a life.
And you can pontificate to others to "get a life" how ?
-
You resurrected my post.
The dude is here.
http://www.richplanet.net (http://www.richplanet.net)
As you were talking about bloodline theories I thought on the other side of the fence I should mention this guy who made a McCann documentary. He's also made some other interesting documentaries...
-
You resurrected my post.
The dude is here.
http://www.richplanet.net (http://www.richplanet.net)
As you were talking about bloodline theories I thought on the other side of the fence I should mention this guy who made a McCann documentary. He's also made some other interesting documentaries...
I don't normally hand out this accolade but you are the recipient of 'The PLANK of the week' award !
-
I humbly accept this most prestigious award!
Merely pointing out there are enough warped imaginings going on on both sides. You simply mentioned the anti McCann ones...
-
I humbly accept this most prestigious award!
Merely pointing out there are enough warped imaginings going on on both sides. You simply mentioned the anti McCann ones...
No, I merely replied to your post !
-
No, I merely replied to your post !
Just watch it. You have no right to insult anyone.
-
Just watch it. You have no right to insult anyone.
* Irony klaxon * @)(++(*
-
it was you asked for detail, not I who volunteered to give it. I'm not overly interested in going through the detail again for the eight millionth time, in any case I'm very happy to leave the detail as to the exact angle of the bedroom door and what physics are necessary to make a curtain whoosh, and whether the invisible lichen on the windowsill was disturbed or not to the experts and the pseudo experts. As I've said before in my opinion (shared by the Met who I would class as experts), there was a window of opportunity for Madeleine to be taken from the apartment by a stranger. it would have occurred sometime within a two-hour period when the apartment was unoccupied by adults. As the apartment was unlocked and also a holiday let to which several people had had access to over the years and undoubtedly to which there was more than one set of keys, and it was on the ground floor, then gaining entrance to it would have been as easy as pie to anyone intent on it. I think whoever took her (and maybe there were two or more individuals - I wouldn't rule it out) did so for sexual purposes (I really hope I'm wrong on this point) and I think she was likely abused and killed within a few hours of being removed (again, let's hope I'm wrong) and her remains are somewhere within a few mile radius of PdL.
All the facts we know about this case seem to support the above, albeit in a circumstantial rather than in a "hard evidence" way, much more so than the "parents dunnit" theory. That is my opinion. Holding that opinion no doubt makes me a deluded saddo / candle-waving drooling old dear/ McCann worshipper / child neglect supporter (delete as applicable) so feel free to mock and sneer at me freely but perhaps at the same time as mocking and sneering you could at least add to the discussion by letting us know why my opinion is completely and absurdly implausible / impossible. I won't hold my breath as this is a troll thread started by a troll with no interest in actually challenging my opinion with anything resembling a reasonably-argued point. So, until such a time as one is forth-coming, I've nothing further to add.
2 hour period?
That 2 hour period between Gerry seeing his daughter in bed around 9.00 & 9.50 when Kate raised the alarm,you mean?
Genius!
Where does the yards prime suspect fit into your theory?
Another innocent crechedad or do you lean towards the dadlike abductor/ paedo/murderer who changed Maddies pyjama top?
........
Bump!
-
Spam, when did the Met announce that Smithman was their PRIME suspect? I thought they were keen to identify him, to either rule him in or rule him out. As far as I know the Met have done neither so he is still a person of interest to the investigation, but prime suspect...? &%+((£
-
Spam, when did the Met announce that Smithman was their PRIME suspect? I thought they were keen to identify him, to either rule him in or rule him out. As far as I know the Met have done neither so he is still a person of interest to the investigation, but prime suspect...? &%+((£
Do me a favour Alf.
Who else has had their own Crimewatch episode?
Even the McCanns media ally have said he's the prime suspect.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Who do you reckon their strongest lead really is then,Alf, the black guy or the pig farmer?
-
Do me a favour Alf.
Who else has had their own Crimewatch episode?
Even the McCanns media ally have said he's the prime suspect.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
Who do you reckon their strongest lead really is then,Alf, the black guy or the pig farmer?
So, you're accepting that the Mirror reports accurately now, or what? I have no idea who the Met consider their strongest lead, because dammit, I forgot to ask the last time they called me up for advice. D'oh!
-
So, you're accepting that the Mirror reports accurately now, or what? I have no idea who the Met consider their strongest lead, because dammit, I forgot to ask the last time they called me up for advice. D'oh!
Innocent sighting or maybe the abductor, weren't it, Alf.
Either way, those oh so innocent McCanns, they don't want to find him, for some reason.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Fancy that, eh!
-
Innocent sighting or maybe the abductor, weren't it, Alf.
Either way, those oh so innocent McCanns, they don't want to find him, for some reason.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
Fancy that, eh!
Yeah, that's right Spammy, they don't want him found, that's why they appeared on that there Crimewatch programme dedicated to him and got their "media ally" (your words) to describe him as the "prime suspect". @)(++(*
-
So, you're accepting that the Mirror reports accurately now, or what? I have no idea who the Met consider their strongest lead, because dammit, I forgot to ask the last time they called me up for advice. D'oh!
Of course he's prime suspect carrying a lookalike and never coming forward. SY had their revelation moment concerning Tannerman.
-
Yeah, that's right Spammy, they don't want him found, that's why they appeared on that there Crimewatch programme dedicated to him and got their "media ally" (your words) to describe him as the "prime suspect". @)(++(*
You're confusing The MET with The McCanns there.
No mention of this sighting on the innocent McCanns website, a year after CW, is there.
Funny that, ain't it.
-
Of course he's prime suspect carrying a lookalike and never coming forward. SY had their revelation moment concerning Tannerman.
No PF, Mrs Batista, gotta be her ain't it!
-
You're confusing The MET with The McCanns there.
No mention of this sighting on the innocent McCanns website, a year after CW, is there.
Funny that, ain't it.
I'm confusing nothing dear Spammy, it is you who seems a trifle befuddled. The McCanns sat comfortably alongside Andy Redwood in an extended Crimewatch programme broadcast to millions whilst he outlined the Met's shift of attention from Tannerman to Smithman. The McCanns' own "media ally" (your words) claim that Smithman is the "prime suspect" - if the McCanns were eager to distance themselves from Smithman as you claim then they've gone about it in a very odd way!
-
I'm confusing nothing dear Spammy, it is you who seems a trifle befuddled. The McCanns sat comfortably alongside Andy Redwood in an extended Crimewatch programme broadcast to millions whilst he outlined the Met's shift of attention from Tannerman to Smithman. The McCanns' own "media ally" (your words) claim that Smithman is the "prime suspect" - if the McCanns were eager to distance themselves from Smithman as you claim then they've gone about it in a very odd way!
So content are the Dr's McCann, with that transition from Tanner to Smithman, that they've kept hold of Tannerman, & Smithman doesn't get a mention.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
How extraordinary!
-
So content are the Dr's McCann, with that transition from Tanner to Smithman, that they've kept hold of Tannerman, & Smithman doesn't get a mention.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
How extraordinary!
Extraordinarily off-topic but that's hardly out of the ordinary for a WUM like Spammy!
-
Perhaps Spammy can come up with an explanation for this, seeing as he wants to discuss it so much.... &%+((£
https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find.Madeleine.Campaign/photos_stream
ETA: scroll down to 2013
-
So content are the Dr's McCann, with that transition from Tanner to Smithman, that they've kept hold of Tannerman, & Smithman doesn't get a mention.
http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
How extraordinary!
yes...most extraordinary...all the other parents of high profile missing children cases are promoting all suspects on their websites...how very extraordinary the McCanns are...in the real world of course the explanation is quite simple....you suffer from extreme tunnel vision so are blind to the bigger picture...
I could explain exactly why the McCanns are doing this but you wouldn't accept so why bother
-
There is no mention whatsoever on the Find Madeleine website of the red shirt with a round white logo on it that Andy Redwood was keen to identify? How Extraordinary! &%+((£ What could this absence possibly infer? &%+((£ Hmm...I bet Spammy will know!
-
yes...most extraordinary...all the other parents of high profile missing children cases are promoting all suspects on their websites...how very extraordinary the McCanns are...in the real world of course the explanation is quite simple....you suffer from extreme tunnel vision so are blind to the bigger picture...
I could explain exactly why the McCanns are doing this but you wouldn't accept so why bother
I already know why.
-
Perhaps Spammy can come up with an explanation for this, seeing as he wants to discuss it so much.... &%+((£
https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find.Madeleine.Campaign/photos_stream
ETA: scroll down to 2013
Went into great detail, didn't it.
-
Went into great detail, didn't it.
Yes - six separate times the Smithman e-fits were used on the Official Madeleine Facebook page, including as cover pic for the page. How Extraordinary!
-
Threads like this only exist because there is no real evidence to show the McCanns are guilty of anything criminal...just trying to codge together some criticisms to make the doubters feel a little better
-
Threads like this only exist because there is no real evidence to show the McCanns are guilty of anything criminal...just trying to codge together some criticisms to make the doubters feel a little better
Threads like this exist because this is a discussion forum. Simples. There is real evidence that their behavior was the cause of this awful situation. And people like to discuss this.
-
Threads like this exist because this is a discussion forum. Simples. There is real evidence that their behavior was the cause of this awful situation. And people like to discuss this.
thousands of families have left children in a similar way over the last 50 yrs ...same old boring argument
-
thousands of families have left children in a similar way over the last 50 yrs ...same old boring argument
and what of the millions upon millions that didn't ?
They of course used their common sense. 8)-)))
-
thousands of families have left children in a similar way over the last 50 yrs ...same old boring argument
...Same old boring 'abduction' theory we have to respond. It would be rude not to. BTW those thousands, how many were 'abducted' and parents became very wealthy as a result?
*holds breath*
-
Threads like this exist because this is a discussion forum. Simples. There is real evidence that their behavior was the cause of this awful situation. And people like to discuss this.
If people actually like to discuss and berate Madeleine McCann's parents using the allegation that their behaviour was the cause of this awful situation ... and have been doing so for over seven years ... it certainly signifies they should try to get out a bit more and get a meaningful life for themselves.
-
If people actually like to discuss and berate Madeleine McCann's parents using the allegation that their behaviour was the cause of this awful situation ... and have been doing so for over seven years ... it certainly signifies they should try to get out a bit more and get a meaningful life for themselves.
It's because nobody really believes parents would be that reckless/selfish.
The other parents weren't, or at least didn't admit being. So that's why you're still getting the questions.
-
If people actually like to discuss and berate Madeleine McCann's parents using the allegation that their behaviour was the cause of this awful situation ... and have been doing so for over seven years ... it certainly signifies they should try to get out a bit more and get a meaningful life for themselves.
I had a great holiday period thank you I did get out a lot, unlike you and your Team McCann reputation defenders...Christmas and over the holiday period ? seriously wow how committed are you lot?
FACT is we are berated with McCanns stories in all msn constantly, we like to challenge the 'stories'. if that's ok with you ofcourse.
Oh and getting out is good. You should try it!
-
If people actually like to discuss and berate Madeleine McCann's parents using the allegation that their behaviour was the cause of this awful situation ... and have been doing so for over seven years ... it certainly signifies they should try to get out a bit more and get a meaningful life for themselves.
The Queen of The Logical Fallacy rides again!
You need to change "taxdiscs".
-
I had a great holiday period thank you I did get out a lot, unlike you and your Team McCann reputation defenders...Christmas and over the holiday period ? seriously wow how committed are you lot?
FACT is we are berated with McCanns stories in all msn constantly, we like to challenge the 'stories'. if that's ok with you ofcourse.
Oh and getting out is good. You should try it!
You really should try keeping up to speed with events in the real world.
That way it might have come to your attention that the real police have moved on and are making inquiries about the real perpetrator/s in Madeleine McCann's case.
Speaking of Madeleine ... her family haven't a clue what kind of holiday period she may have had ... for them and the families of other missing people Christmas must be a particularly poignant time.
-
You really should try keeping up to speed with events in the real world.
That way it might have come to your attention that the real police have moved on and are making inquiries about the real perpetrator/s in Madeleine McCann's case.
Speaking of Madeleine ... her family haven't a clue what kind of holiday period she may have had ... for them and the families of other missing people Christmas must be a particularly poignant time.
Keeping up to speedy speed.. the REAL police have not found anyone to arrest and charge with a crime connected with Madeleine! or am I wrong on that?
I won't respond to your deflecting rant.
It goes without saying in a forum, that people who have loved ones who cannot be contacted are reflective and sad about the situation they find themselves in.
Do they have people discussing it on a forum over the festive period? I don't know, maybe the odd exception... perhaps.
I hope you are still ignoring me.
-
Threads like this only exist because there is no real evidence to show the McCanns are guilty of anything criminal...just trying to codge together some criticisms to make the doubters feel a little better
Threads like this exist, because it's obvious Maddie doesn't.
-
Threads like this exist, because it's obvious Maddie doesn't.
One day you will eat your hat.
-
Threads like this exist, because it's obvious Maddie doesn't.
True to a point, Spammy, until the cause of her disappearance is solved.
I think that even then that these forums discussing the case, will continue for some time
-
Well, just waded through 24 pages of that.
Three points:
1) It contained not a shred of detail and well, a good theory, needs... a bit of detail.
2) Considering his theory, I'm amazed Alfred isn't much more interested and excited about Smithman.
3) The funniest bit for me was when Albert claimed SY agreed with him! :) I'll take a punt in the dark: he doesn't know a single SY detective!
-
Well, just waded through 24 pages of that.
Three points:
1) It contained not a shred of detail and well, a good theory, needs... a bit of detail.
2) Considering his theory, I'm amazed Alfred isn't much more interested and excited about Smithman.
3) The funniest bit for me was when Albert claimed SY agreed with him! :) I'll take a punt in the dark: he doesn't know a single SY detective!
Just having a little stir, are you Gadfly?
A little sneer and a little stir
Why dont you produce something constructive?
To remind everyone:
This thread wasn't started by Alfred, but just by certain people with the express purpose of having a little sneer. Nice.
-
You seem a bit riled Sadie.
This is a website to discuss what happened to poor Madeleine. Alfred takes a thick black marker pen to certain theories, so I actually gave him the benefit of reading through all of these pages dedicated to his theory.
Like I said, I think if he believes Madeleine was abducted, he should be really interested in Smithman, shouldn't he?
And if you want constructive. Have a quick look at the thread on Kate's silence, and as I showed, her sister-in-law and mother were incorrectly asserting she'd answered/was answering the questions put to her. Both of them had been recently in touch with the family in Portugal. :)
P.S. Thanks for your list on this thread, it was a good read. :)
-
You seem a bit riled Sadie.
This is a website to discuss what happened to poor Madeleine. Alfred takes a thick black marker pen to certain theories, so I actually gave him the benefit of reading through all of these pages dedicated to his theory.
Like I said, I think if he believes Madeleine was abducted, he should be really interested in Smithman, shouldn't he?
And if you want constructive. Have a quick look at the thread on Kate's silence, and as I showed, her sister-in-law and mother were incorrectly asserting she'd answered/was answering the questions put to her. Both of them had been recently in touch with the family in Portugal. :)
P.S. Thanks for your list on this thread, it was a good read. :)
I just dont like sneery snide people.
The purpose of this thread was to attack Alfred and deliberately undermine him.... and you are trying to re-open it.
To remind you, he didn't start it.
BTW, third party statements are notorious for being wrong.
They call it Chinese Whispers.
-
What do you believe to be a third party statement Sadie?
-
Alfred's Theory. If you please.
-
OK, to give Alfred his due, police are duty bound to investigate this theory. Indeed, Scotland Yard are looking at this as one of a number of scenarios. DCI Andy Redwood has pinpointed the importance of Smithman and has conclusively ruled out -- on national TV even - Tannerman. So, does Alfred think Smithman was carrying Madeleine on that night?
-
What do you believe to be a third party statement Sadie?
Anything that doesn't come directly from the couple McCann I believe.
Gerry and Kate must certainly have got all the brains in their families. What other reason could there be for ALL their relatives having such appalling levels of comprehension ?
-
Anything that doesn't come directly from the couple McCann I believe.
Gerry and Kate must certainly have got all the brains in their families. What other reason could there be for ALL their relatives having such appalling levels of comprehension ?
Topic, Sweetie. How often do I have to ask?
-
OK, to give Alfred his due, police are duty bound to investigate this theory. Indeed, Scotland Yard are looking at this as one of a number of scenarios. DCI Andy Redwood has pinpointed the importance of Smithman and has conclusively ruled out -- on national TV even - Tannerman. So, does Alfred think Smithman was carrying Madeleine on that night?
As you've read the whole of this thread (allegedly) you should already know the answer I believe. :-)
-
Well, just waded through 24 pages of that.
Three points:
1) It contained not a shred of detail and well, a good theory, needs... a bit of detail.
2) Considering his theory, I'm amazed Alfred isn't much more interested and excited about Smithman.
3) The funniest bit for me was when Albert claimed SY agreed with him! :) I'll take a punt in the dark: he doesn't know a single SY detective!
Who is Albert...? &%+((£
-
Who is Albert...? &%+((£
A little lad who had a stick wi' a 'orses 'ead 'andle as I recall.
-
A little lad who had a stick wi' a 'orses 'ead 'andle as I recall.
8((()*/