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: G-Unit on April 08, 2015, 01:32:28 PM
Title: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2015, 01:32:28 PM
According to Gordon Rayner in his constantly updated article in the Telegraph;
"To date, however, not one shred of proof of what happened to Madeleine has been unearthed."
According to Gordon Rayner in his constantly updated article in the Telegraph;
To date, however, not one shred of proof of what happened to Madeleine has been unearthed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html
Is he right?
Sounds about right.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 08, 2015, 07:15:35 PM
And the difference between evidence and proof is...?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
According to Gordon Rayner in his constantly updated article in the Telegraph;
To date, however, not one shred of proof of what happened to Madeleine has been unearthed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html
Is he right?
The article says not one shred of proof...note it does not say one shred of evidence...as I have pointed out on numerous occasions proof and evidence are not the same.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2015, 08:33:10 PM
The article says not one shred of proof...note it does not say one shred of evidence...as I have pointed out on numerous occasions proof and evidence are not the same.
So pray tell, what real evidence is there of abduction.
Don't bother with that thread you keep referring to, there's no evidence there.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ferryman on April 08, 2015, 08:43:45 PM
We are not privy to details of the second enquiry ....
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 08, 2015, 09:03:43 PM
OED evidence = the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. proof= evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Discuss that at length 8(>((
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2015, 09:10:06 PM
OED evidence = the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. proof= evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Discuss that at length 8(>((
depends on you definition of evidence....may be just one piece of evidence....may be the total evidence that can supply proof...
Certainly one piece of evidence may or may not prove anything...evidence and proof are not interchangable
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2015, 09:38:37 PM
There were hairs in the apartment in Burgau which may have belonged to Robert Murat and Jane Tanner;
The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.
The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 08, 2015, 09:43:28 PM
There were hairs in the apartment in Burgau which may have belonged to Robert Murat and Jane Tanner;
The Haplotype identified by the letters M e M*, present in 49 samples, (35 in the Residencia Liliana, 13 in the vehicle Volkswagen and 1 in the bathroom of the apartament in Burgau), and identical to that of Robert James Queriol Eveleight Murat (RQMU), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline.
The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
This has been discussed at length...a red herring you will find...same maternal bloodline is the clue...
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 08, 2015, 10:22:20 PM
OED evidence = the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. proof= evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Discuss that at length 8(>((
pinched from another forum. No doubt you'll find fault with the explanation:
Quote
Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.
Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof. If the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence that I robbed a bank. A videotape showing me at the bank holding the gun would prove that I robbed a bank.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2015, 10:23:39 PM
This has been discussed at length...a red herring you will find...same maternal bloodline is the clue...
Following that line of thought to it's logical conclusion we can't be sure that Gerald and Kate McCann, were ever in apartment G5A. It could have been other people with the same maternal bloodline.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2015, 10:32:09 PM
Following that line of thought to it's logical conclusion we can't be sure that Gerald and Kate McCann, were ever in apartment G5A. It could have been other people with the same maternal bloodline.
It isn't logical...it's stupid...just as we can't be sure Maddie was not the victim of an alien abduction which according to the Hall the video maker ...beloved of the sceptics ..is a regular event
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 08, 2015, 10:36:05 PM
It isn't logical...it's stupid...just as we can't be sure Maddie was not the victim of an alien abduction which according to the Hall the video maker ...beloved of the sceptics ..is a regular event
We know that various people were in G5A, and the hairs analysed confirmed that. Why didn't expect Jane Tanner to be in Burgeau, but the exact same test suggests that she could have been there. If that test's unreliable, we can't rely on any of the tests.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2015, 10:54:37 PM
We know that various people were in G5A, and the hairs analysed confirmed that. Why didn't expect Jane Tanner to be in Burgeau, but the exact same test suggests that she could have been there. If that test's unreliable, we can't rely on any of the tests.
you are getting confused with DNA and mitochondrial DNA haplotypes...not surprising...it's a complex area
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 08, 2015, 10:54:53 PM
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2015, 11:05:32 PM
you are getting confused with DNA and mitochondrial DNA haplotypes...not surprising...it's a complex area
I'm not confused at all. Tests carried out on hairs found suggested that Kate and Gerald McCann, David Payne, Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and a few others were in G5A.
The exact same tests suggested that Robert Murat and Jane Tanner were in the apartment in Burgeau.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2015, 11:08:09 PM
I'm not confused at all. Tests carried out on hairs found suggested that Kate and Gerald McCann, David Payne, Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and a few others were in G5A.
The exact same tests suggested that Robert Murat and Jane Tanner were in the apartment in Burgeau.
I think you are totally confused....it isn't suggested these people were in 5A ..they were
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 12:12:27 AM
According to Gordon Rayner in his constantly updated article in the Telegraph;
To date, however, not one shred of proof of what happened to Madeleine has been unearthed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html
Is he right?
Totally correct. We are no closer to knowing the truth because no evidence or proof has ever been provided to support the basic allegation that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on April 09, 2015, 06:53:36 AM
The British Media are privy to some hard evidence which we are not.
'British Police Stupid, Parents Murdered Maddie', so said a graffiti artist.
According to the Sun, and various other rags, this is an untrue smear.
So, The Sun has hard evidence that proves Kate & Gerry didn't murder Maddie.
I wonder what it is?
Why don't they just tell us?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 07:41:06 AM
pinched from another forum. No doubt you'll find fault with the explanation:
Quote
Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.
No, that's fine, shows that the dog alerts were evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2015, 08:42:38 AM
No, that's fine, shows that the dog alerts were evidence.
That's an interesting point which I'm surprised no one has picked up before....Grime is referring to evidence as "that which would be accepted by a court".
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 08:58:31 AM
The McCanns deleted their text messages and call histories on their mobile phones on 3rd May. From 4th May they had at least one other mobile phone organised by David Payne. David Payne phoned the Specialist Crime Directorate at 23.15 on 3rd May.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 09, 2015, 09:14:00 AM
We know that various people were in G5A, and the hairs analysed confirmed that. Why didn't expect Jane Tanner to be in Burgeau, but the exact same test suggests that she could have been there. If that test's unreliable, we can't rely on any of the tests.
It's not so much that the forensic mtDNA tests are unreliable, but that the results don't identify a specific individual. People with different maternal lines can share the same haplotype. Kate / the children and a cop (JMBR) have the same haplotype; Michaela and Luis Filipe Monteiro Ferro (LFMF) share a different one. In the case of JT, for example, there were 8 separate maternal lines showing an identical haplotype in the EMPOP database.
Two people, presumably cops, didn't leave any hair.
Of more interest perhaps concerning 5A are the haplotypes found which don't correspond to anyone identified as having been in there. They may correspond to previous occupants, of course, but perhaps not.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 09:58:31 AM
It's not so much that the forensic mtDNA tests are unreliable, but that the results don't identify a specific individual. People with different maternal lines can share the same haplotype. Kate / the children and a cop (JMBR) have the same haplotype; Michaela and Luis Filipe Monteiro Ferro (LFMF) share a different one. In the case of JT, for example, there were 8 separate maternal lines showing an identical haplotype in the EMPOP database.
Two people, presumably cops, didn't leave any hair.
Of more interest perhaps concerning 5A are the haplotypes found which don't correspond to anyone identified as having been in there. They may correspond to previous occupants, of course, but perhaps not.
The haplotypes from unknown people won't prove anything though, they will merely be an indication that someone may have been there, just as the Burgau hairs indicate that Jane Tanner may have been there.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 10:14:42 AM
No, that's fine, shows that the dog alerts were evidence.
The dogs alerts I think are circumstantial evidence. The alert in the parents bedroom by Eddie suggested that a cadaver had been there. Had the police found a cadaver that would have been hard evidence, or proof, that it existed. Keela alerted behind the couch in the living room. This suggests there was blood there. The lab. couldn't identify what the substance was, so again, no proof that it was blood.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 09, 2015, 10:30:58 AM
That's an interesting point which I'm surprised no one has picked up before....Grime is referring to evidence as "that which would be accepted by a court".
I've referred to this case before.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id421.html
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2015, 11:00:25 AM
The dogs alerts I think are circumstantial evidence. The alert in the parents bedroom by Eddie suggested that a cadaver had been there. Had the police found a cadaver that would have been hard evidence, or proof, that it existed. Keela alerted behind the couch in the living room. This suggests there was blood there. The lab. couldn't identify what the substance was, so again, no proof that it was blood.
That's not what Grime says..he doesn't even mention a cadaver...the alerts are poorly understood by many
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 09, 2015, 11:06:32 AM
There might be evidence from the missing hairs on the bed, if they ever find what they did with them.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 09, 2015, 11:20:05 AM
There might be evidence from the missing hairs on the bed, if they ever find what they did with them.
Didn't DCI Redwood visit the Portuguese forensics labs as one of his last functions before DCI Wall became involved?. Either he was happy with what went on or there is an ILOR in the system for more tests to be carried out on any samples held. Which do we think it may be?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 09, 2015, 11:22:22 AM
There might be evidence from the missing hairs on the bed, if they ever find what they did with them.
Is there any clue as to when they went missing Carana?
One would think the hairs found on Madeleine's bed would be of major importance to the investigation and not something which could easily be mislaid.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on April 09, 2015, 11:34:16 AM
Madeleine's disappearance is indeed strange if one considers the total absence of tangible evidence. The fact that she was seen around tea time on the 3rd May yet had disappeared by10pm that same evening is not in itself evidence of an abduction.
Consider for the moment the long promoted claim that Madeleine was indeed abducted from apartment 5a. The remarkable feature of this case is the absence of any indicators of such an abduction. No forced entry, no footprints on the windowsill, the bed cover etc... No upturned furniture or misplaced items and no sign of any struggle.
What is also quite remarkable is that we are asked to believe that an abductor could have got in and out without being seen, DCI Redwood having all but poo poo'd Jane Tanner's claimed sighting. The street around apartment 5a was a veritable M25 if witnesses are to be believed yet nobody saw anything untoward? It has even been suggested by Gerry that the abductor might have been in the apartment when he did his check shortly after 9pm such was the slim window of opportunity.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 09, 2015, 11:40:41 AM
The forensic items were collected on 4 May and the envelopes were handed to the INML on 8 May.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 11:47:50 AM
[quote removed]
Most of the evidence in this case is circumstantial and open to interpretation. The creche sheets are facts, or hard evidence. I don't know why Madeleine only stayed in her 'Club' for ten minutes on the afternoon of 30th April, because no-one has ever said. I think it's strange that no-one has ever said anything about this departure from the daily routine.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2015, 11:50:58 AM
Most of the evidence in this case is circumstantial and open to interpretation. The creche sheets are facts, or hard evidence. I don't know why Madeleine only stayed in her 'Club' for ten minutes on the afternoon of 30th May, because no-one has ever said. I think it's strange that no-one has ever said anything about this departure from the daily routine.
the crèche sheets are hard facts...but what they signify is open to interpretation
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 09, 2015, 11:52:25 AM
The bed was photographed on 4 May with 10 markers to denote where hairs were found, but the lab only received 4.
Thanks for that Carana. I'm assuming each hair would be placed in an evidence bag. If that is so - then 6 evidence bags disappeared somewhere along the line.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on April 09, 2015, 11:52:59 AM
Another feature in some stranger abductions is smell.
Several incidents are recorded in the Algarve around the time of Madeleine's disappearance where an intruder allegedly molested or attempted to molest young children in their beds. The intruder was notable due to his body odour. No such smell was reported in Madeleine's case.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 09, 2015, 11:55:12 AM
I'd suggested putting the twins up in our apartment, erm, Emma, who was there, had arranged some of the MARK WARNER Nannies to get some extra cots and more bedding, erm, and we set up the cots in our living room and a bed for Kate and Gerry as well, not that they used it, but, erm, and then I think, I think they were Policemen, I can't remember who carried up Sean and Amelie. Erm, and we sat on the sofa, me and Kate with the twins asleep on us for a while, erm, and they didn't wake up and, again, that was quite strange, even in the transfer and, and being handled by people that weren't their parents, they didn't, they didn't wake up. (FP)
The report mentions that the twins were asleep in their bed, but there is no proof to confirm it; on the contrary, in the photographs, you can see empty cots, where only the mattresses remain - the sheets and blankets having been removed. Why have their beds been stripped? If the sheets had not been removed, traces of their presence could have been found there. (TOTL)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2015, 12:09:00 PM
Another feature in some stranger abductions is smell.
Several incidents are recorded in the Algarve around the time of Madeleine's disappearance where an intruder allegedly molested or attempted to molest young children in their beds. The intruder was notable due to his body odour. No such smell was reported in Madeleine's case.
that must be why he opened the window
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 09, 2015, 12:11:42 PM
Thanks for that Carana. I'm assuming each hair would be placed in an evidence bag. If that is so - then 6 evidence bags disappeared somewhere along the line.
No. If you look at the pages I posted (on the link to a previous thread), they put all the hairs collected in each area into an envelope.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 09, 2015, 12:18:54 PM
Yeah well fat smelly man wouldn't fit through it and he must have tidied the bed after when they were all coming and going outside. A miracle nobody noticed that open window and shutters when Jane and Russell had gone through the car park only minutes before. How extraordinary!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 09, 2015, 12:33:33 PM
Yeah well fat smelly man wouldn't fit through it and he must have tidied the bed after when they were all coming and going outside. A miracle nobody noticed that open window and shutters when Jane and Russell had gone through the car park only minutes before. How extraordinary!
What's extraordinary is that despite the wild claims of constant checking Madeleine could cry for over an hour and not one of the tapas group heard her distress?
Maybe someone felt sorry for her.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 09, 2015, 12:43:58 PM
According to Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter at the Telegraph - "In the eight years since Madeleine McCann went missing from a holiday apartment in Portugal, myriad theories about what happened to her have taken root, but only one fact remains uncontested: that she was reported missing at 10.14pm on the evening of Thursday, May 3, 2007.
It was at that point, when police were called, that the clock started ticking on the biggest missing persons investigation for decades..."
Mr Rayner is of the mind that the single thing we can rely on is that the police were called at 10.14.
Presumably 10.14 is a typo, albeit a typo that has run for months.
There are other errors in the article.
What this tells us is something about how good or bad media reporting is. Caveat emptor, with knobs on for Internet articles.
It brings to mind two reporters from the Mirror reporting that of the 44 (sic) hairs found, 432 were human, and going on to state that Madeleine disappeared from block 6, illustrated by a photo of the rear of block 6.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on April 09, 2015, 01:13:47 PM
There was a discussion a short while back when it was shown that numerous young children and even toddlers have managed to escape the confines of their own home, some with tragic consequences. So the facts speak for themselves, woke and wandered has much sense and credence and especially so as Madeleine was almost four years of age. Had she got out there are several possibilities as to what happened to her.
There was a discussion a short while back when it was shown that numerous young children and even toddlers have managed to escape the confines of their own home, some with tragic consequences. So the facts speak for themselves, woke and wandered has much sense and credence and especially so as Madeleine was almost four years of age. Had she got out there are several possibilities as to what happened to her.
There was a discussion a short while back when it was shown that numerous young children and even toddlers have managed to escape the confines of their own home, some with tragic consequences. So the facts speak for themselves, woke and wandered has much sense and credence and especially so as Madeleine was almost four years of age.
We also have Fiona Paynes testimony that Kate thought it was quite feasible that Madeleine would be able to exit the apartment;
she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 01:45:11 PM
It has been thoroughly discussed several times, John, and I dont accept that there is any credence to the woke and wanderd scenario.
BTW, I delve extra ordinarily deep and work my own sources out. Nobody feeds me.
It has much more credence than your sightings in Morocco which were nothing more than another hoax. Let's face it Sadie, your little girls seen in the hills has well exceeded its sell by date.
Is it not the case that if it is determined that Madeleine did get out and fell into danger then the onus would shift back to her parents. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 09, 2015, 02:03:25 PM
It has much more credence than your sightings in Morocco which were nothing more than another hoax. Let's face it Sadie, your little girls seen in the hills has well exceeded its sell by date.
Is it not the case that if it is determined that Madeleine did get out and fell into danger then the onus would shift back to her parents. 8(0(*
I'm not sure if it is just as simple as that to dismiss the Moroccan sightings out of hand. Nor is it past its sell by date to wonder exactly the purpose of the Hewlitt expedition to the locale. I don't think that was ever officially investigated at the time.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 09, 2015, 02:49:21 PM
I'm not sure if it is just as simple as that to dismiss the Moroccan sightings out of hand. Nor is it past its sell by date to wonder exactly the purpose of the Hewlitt expedition to the locale. I don't think that was ever officially investigated at the time.
It was investigated thoroughly as one would expect. How many more peasant and gypsy families in Morocco, Romania and Ireland must suffer before this farce ends?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 09, 2015, 03:01:41 PM
No. If you look at the pages I posted (on the link to a previous thread), they put all the hairs collected in each area into an envelope.
Sorry Carana - I didn't spot the the link in your other post. I'm surprised that individual items of evidence - which I presume were destined for DNA analysis would not be put into separate bags.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 09, 2015, 03:12:22 PM
ROUTINE yesterday she received Madeleine at 09.10, Madeleine was handed over by her father. She looked after Madeleine from Sunday 29-04-2007 daily and until yesterday, always for the same hours. Catriona Baker page 88 30-04-2007 – 9.10.00
Kate Marie Healy
Kids Club ROUTINE she handed Madeleine over to her mother at 12.25. She looked after Madeleine from Sunday 29-04-2007, daily and until yesterday, always for the same hours. Catriona Baker page 88 30-04-2007 12.25.00 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/tel:30-04-2007 12.25.00)
Kids Club ROUTINE she received Madeleine again from her mother at 14.50. She looked after Madeleine daily from Sunday 29-04-2007 until yesterday, always for the same hours. Catriona Baker page 88 30-04-2007 14.50.00 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/tel:30-04-2007 14.50.00)
Kids Club ROUTINE she handed Madeleine over at 17.30. She looked after Madeleine daily from Sunday 29-04-2007 until yesterday, always for the same hours. Catriona Baker page 88 30-04-2007 17.30.00 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/tel:30-04-2007 17.30.00)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CRECHE.htm#58
Nothing mentioned in the Anomalies re the 30th April.
ROUTINE yesterday she received Madeleine at 09.10, Madeleine was handed over by her father. She looked after Madeleine from Sunday 29-04-2007 daily and until yesterday, always for the same hours. Catriona Baker page 88 30-04-2007 – 9.10.00
Kate Marie Healy
Kids Club ROUTINE she handed Madeleine over to her mother at 12.25. She looked after Madeleine from Sunday 29-04-2007, daily and until yesterday, always for the same hours. Catriona Baker page 88 30-04-2007 12.25.00 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/tel:30-04-2007 12.25.00)
Kids Club ROUTINE she received Madeleine again from her mother at 14.50. She looked after Madeleine daily from Sunday 29-04-2007 until yesterday, always for the same hours. Catriona Baker page 88 30-04-2007 14.50.00 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/tel:30-04-2007 14.50.00)
Kids Club ROUTINE she handed Madeleine over at 17.30. She looked after Madeleine daily from Sunday 29-04-2007 until yesterday, always for the same hours. Catriona Baker page 88 30-04-2007 17.30.00 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/tel:30-04-2007 17.30.00)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CRECHE.htm#58
Nothing mentioned in the Anomalies re the 30th April.
I'd suggested putting the twins up in our apartment, erm, Emma, who was there, had arranged some of the MARK WARNER Nannies to get some extra cots and more bedding, erm, and we set up the cots in our living room and a bed for Kate and Gerry as well, not that they used it, but, erm, and then I think, I think they were Policemen, I can't remember who carried up Sean and Amelie. Erm, and we sat on the sofa, me and Kate with the twins asleep on us for a while, erm, and they didn't wake up and, again, that was quite strange, even in the transfer and, and being handled by people that weren't their parents, they didn't, they didn't wake up. (FP)
The report mentions that the twins were asleep in their bed, but there is no proof to confirm it; on the contrary, in the photographs, you can see empty cots, where only the mattresses remain - the sheets and blankets having been removed. Why have their beds been stripped? If the sheets had not been removed, traces of their presence could have been found there. (TOTL)
Several people saw the twins asleep, including a policeman IIRC. The twins were removed during the middle of the night - I imagine they were picked up wrapped in their cot sheets /blankets to guard against the cold outside on the journey to the Payne's appartment.
For Amaral to claim there is no proof that the twins were asleep in their cots is preposterous and completely untrue. IMO he is trying to insinuate something sinister to his readers - where nothing sinister exists. Par for the course throughout his book imo. The police could have picked the bedding up the next morning - or better still not allowed it to be taken in the first place - had they done their job properly. i.e. Nothing should have been removed from the crime scene until after the forensics bods had finished in there.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 09, 2015, 03:50:20 PM
It was investigated thoroughly as one would expect. How many more peasant and gypsy families in Morocco, Romania and Ireland must suffer before this farce ends?
Who investigated it?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 09, 2015, 04:33:17 PM
Metodo3? A CRACK new team of private eyes are now hunting missing Maddie McCann - and they are convinced she was snatched TO ORDER by a paedophile gang then SMUGGLED out to Morocco.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id76.html
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 09, 2015, 04:54:17 PM
A clue! It happened in Morocco. As for Hewlett, had he abducted a little girl and hidden her in his lorry dont you think the rest of his numerous kids would have seen her?
Surely you don't really believe someone would go to the bother of abducting a kid in Portugal only to let her go for a leisurely countryside stroll in some Morocco backwater? Its too daft for words.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 09, 2015, 05:46:36 PM
A clue! It happened in Morocco. As for Hewlett, had he abducted a little girl and hidden her in his lorry dont you think the rest of his numerous kids would have seen her?
Surely you don't really believe someone would go to the bother of abducting a kid in Portugal only to let her go for a leisurely countryside stroll in some Morocco backwater? Its too daft for words.
That's the thing with this case Angelo, to paraphrase Alice, it helps if you believe seven ridiculous things before breakfast !
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2015, 06:59:47 PM
A clue! It happened in Morocco. As for Hewlett, had he abducted a little girl and hidden her in his lorry dont you think the rest of his numerous kids would have seen her?
Surely you don't really believe someone would go to the bother of abducting a kid in Portugal only to let her go for a leisurely countryside stroll in some Morocco backwater? Its too daft for words.
I know a London journalist 'checked it out' ... I've seen the photographs ... so that will be all right, then?
I have no idea what a pervert like Hewlett might have been capable of ... and his numerous kids may have been too busy hanging on to their obviously precarious position in the vehicle to pay too much attention to the presence of another child.
I don't think Hewlett was the type of parent that the kids would go against in any way whatsoever and he is certainly a man who should have been thoroughly investigated, particularly when his proximity to Praia da Luz is considered.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 09, 2015, 07:44:52 PM
I know a London journalist 'checked it out' ... I've seen the photographs ... so that will be all right, then?
I have no idea what a pervert like Hewlett might have been capable of ... and his numerous kids may have been too busy hanging on to their obviously precarious position in the vehicle to pay too much attention to the presence of another child.
I don't think Hewlett was the type of parent that the kids would go against in any way whatsoever and he is certainly a man who should have been thoroughly investigated, particularly when his proximity to Praia da Luz is considered.
I thought all this stuff was investigated by M-3 & AIG? Both class acts right out of the top drawer.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 11:01:00 PM
[quote removed - off topic]
I wonder if it was the police or the interpreters taking shortcuts? In the McCann's first statements their description of Madeleine is almost identical. Kate; Concerning the child's personality, she is extrovert, very active, talkative, smart and relates to other children with great ease. But she would never go with a stranger Gerald; As regards personality, the child was extrovert, very active, talkative, alert with an easy relationship with other children. He also says that she would never go with a stranger.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 09, 2015, 11:15:06 PM
I wonder if it was the police or the interpreters taking shortcuts? In the McCann's first statements their description of Madeleine is almost identical. Kate; Concerning the child's personality, she is extrovert, very active, talkative, smart and relates to other children with great ease. But she would never go with a stranger Gerald; As regards personality, the child was extrovert, very active, talkative, alert with an easy relationship with other children. He also says that she would never go with a stranger.
I'd say idolitis on behalf of whoever wrote the statements up. You can't tell me any two people would use the exact same words.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 11:19:29 PM
At least LP are verbatim statements, done at the time taken, and recorded properly.
The great weakness of the Portuguese witness statements is that they are not verbatim; there is no dubiety about what questions witnesses were asked and exactly the answers given in the British statements leaving no room for dubiety or interpretation.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2015, 11:41:01 PM
I wonder if it was the police or the interpreters taking shortcuts? In the McCann's first statements their description of Madeleine is almost identical. Kate; Concerning the child's personality, she is extrovert, very active, talkative, smart and relates to other children with great ease. But she would never go with a stranger Gerald; As regards personality, the child was extrovert, very active, talkative, alert with an easy relationship with other children. He also says that she would never go with a stranger.
So much for the accuracy of the Portuguese statements
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 10, 2015, 09:48:07 AM
I'd say idolitis on behalf of whoever wrote the statements up. You can't tell me any two people would use the exact same words.
I noticed duplication in the GNR statements, something which the British police are good at (see Jeremy Bamber police statements)
So, back to topic, are we all agreed there is no evidence as to what happened to Madeleine?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 10, 2015, 10:08:34 AM
There certainly appears to have been sufficient evidence available both to the PJ and SY to enable the reopening of Madeleine McCann's case.
**snip
Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood, who is heading what has been called Operation Grange, said: "The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23179230
Without that hard evidence there is no doubt Madeleine McCann's case would have been reassigned to the dustbin of the archives where it had rested since 2008 and where it would have remained without her parents' much despised and actively resisted and obstructed campaign on her behalf.
The reopening of the case answers the question of the thread title.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Montclair on April 10, 2015, 10:12:49 AM
I wonder if it was the police or the interpreters taking shortcuts? In the McCann's first statements their description of Madeleine is almost identical. Kate; Concerning the child's personality, she is extrovert, very active, talkative, smart and relates to other children with great ease. But she would never go with a stranger Gerald; As regards personality, the child was extrovert, very active, talkative, alert with an easy relationship with other children. He also says that she would never go with a stranger.
Why doesn't anyone consider the possibility that both parents described their daughter in the exact same way, especially since AFAIK they gave their statements together.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 10, 2015, 10:45:25 AM
Why doesn't anyone consider the possibility that both parents described their daughter in the exact same way, especially since AFAIK they gave their statements together.
Did they?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2015, 11:24:54 AM
I noticed duplication in the GNR statements, something which the British police are good at (see Jeremy Bamber police statements)
So, back to topic, are we all agreed there is no evidence as to what happened to Madeleine?
There's no evidence to support an abduction, although it's a possibility. Kate and Gerald McCann emphatically deny that Madeleine was capable of leaving the apartment but Kate gave that as the reason for leaving the patio door open, so it has to be a possibility. There's no evidence that Amaral's theory is correct except the dog alerts, which didn't lead to the collection of any hard evidence.
Circumstantial evidence abounds, and has allowed everyone interested to use it to support their own theories of what happened.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 10, 2015, 11:40:38 AM
Why doesn't anyone consider the possibility that both parents described their daughter in the exact same way, especially since AFAIK they gave their statements together.
No they didn't.
Witness Statement
Gerald Patrick McCann
Date: 2007/05/04
Time 11.15
Kate Marie Healy's statement 04/05/07 @ 14.20pm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2015, 12:22:58 PM
There certainly appears to have been sufficient evidence available both to the PJ and SY to enable the reopening of Madeleine McCann's case.
**snip
Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood, who is heading what has been called Operation Grange, said: "The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23179230
Without that hard evidence there is no doubt Madeleine McCann's case would have been reassigned to the dustbin of the archives where it had rested since 2008 and where it would have remained without her parents' much despised and actively resisted and obstructed campaign on her behalf.
The reopening of the case answers the question of the thread title.
According to the BBC story Operation Grange spent two years reviewing 300,500 documents. That would be 11,223 from the Portuguese investigation, 11,000 from Leicester Police and the remaining 8,277 from private detectives then? I would have thought that everything that Leicester Police had, the PJ also had? If not, why not? Certainly the Mccann's thought so, because they dropped their request to see all the evidence which Leicester Police had because the PJ Files were going to be released. Anyway, Op. Grange were two thirds of the way through these documents when the interview took place.
The review told DCI Redwood there was no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann was dead. Perhaps the proof was still hiding in the third he hadn't yet reviewed? Still, never mind that, the lack of proof of death means she could be alive! Great deduction there. DCI Redwood has also found 38 persons of interest, 12 of them British. We know that three of those re-interviewed were John and Donna Hill and Robert Murat. Do we know who the other nine were? Anyway, that would seem to be as much as Operation Grange were prepared to say about the basis on which the review became an investigation. If he had 'hard' evidence we have seen no sign of it in the two years since.
We learned more of Operation Grange's thinking during the Crimewatch programme. They had found 'Tannerman' and DCI Redwood is almost certain that he wasn't the abductor. They had two 'new' e-fits and although the programme hinted that they had been provided by the Smiths, it didn't actually say so. An 'Irish family' is mentioned who saw someone carrying a child. Can we describe e-fits as 'hard evidence'? I think not. The e-fits don't seem to look like any of the Portuguese people we saw going to be interviewed. Finally, DCI Redwood did an awful lot of digging for someone who was looking for a live child.
I don't know why the review became an investigation, but 'hard' evidence seems thin on the ground to me. Perhaps all will become clear, but I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2015, 01:49:56 PM
According to the BBC story Operation Grange spent two years reviewing 300,500 documents. That would be 11,223 from the Portuguese investigation, 11,000 from Leicester Police and the remaining 8,277 from private detectives then? I would have thought that everything that Leicester Police had, the PJ also had? If not, why not? Certainly the Mccann's thought so, because they dropped their request to see all the evidence which Leicester Police had because the PJ Files were going to be released. Anyway, Op. Grange were two thirds of the way through these documents when the interview took place.
The review told DCI Redwood there was no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann was dead. Perhaps the proof was still hiding in the third he hadn't yet reviewed? Still, never mind that, the lack of proof of death means she could be alive! Great deduction there. DCI Redwood has also found 38 persons of interest, 12 of them British. We know that three of those re-interviewed were John and Donna Hill and Robert Murat. Do we know who the other nine were? Anyway, that would seem to be as much as Operation Grange were prepared to say about the basis on which the review became an investigation. If he had 'hard' evidence we have seen no sign of it in the two years since.
We learned more of Operation Grange's thinking during the Crimewatch programme. They had found 'Tannerman' and DCI Redwood is almost certain that he wasn't the abductor. They had two 'new' e-fits and although the programme hinted that they had been provided by the Smiths, it didn't actually say so. An 'Irish family' is mentioned who saw someone carrying a child. Can we describe e-fits as 'hard evidence'? I think not. The e-fits don't seem to look like any of the Portuguese people we saw going to be interviewed. Finally, DCI Redwood did an awful lot of digging for someone who was looking for a live child.
I don't know why the review became an investigation, but 'hard' evidence seems thin on the ground to me. Perhaps all will become clear, but I'm not holding my breath.
it seems it was a little too tricky for amaral to work out.....Maddie may still be alive...that's a fact
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on April 10, 2015, 01:53:27 PM
To put it another way, what evidence would you expect to find of an abduction?
As I pointed out previously, the irony is that Redwood has all but destroyed the one and only bit of proof which could in any way point to abduction when he dismissed the Tanner sighting as irrelevant.
He then proceeds to dig up parts of PdL so no prizes for guessing what SY believe.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 10, 2015, 02:15:40 PM
According to the BBC story Operation Grange spent two years reviewing 300,500 documents. That would be 11,223 from the Portuguese investigation, 11,000 from Leicester Police and the remaining 8,277 from private detectives then? I would have thought that everything that Leicester Police had, the PJ also had? If not, why not? Certainly the Mccann's thought so, because they dropped their request to see all the evidence which Leicester Police had because the PJ Files were going to be released. Anyway, Op. Grange were two thirds of the way through these documents when the interview took place.
The review told DCI Redwood there was no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann was dead. Perhaps the proof was still hiding in the third he hadn't yet reviewed? Still, never mind that, the lack of proof of death means she could be alive! Great deduction there. DCI Redwood has also found 38 persons of interest, 12 of them British. We know that three of those re-interviewed were John and Donna Hill and Robert Murat. Do we know who the other nine were? Anyway, that would seem to be as much as Operation Grange were prepared to say about the basis on which the review became an investigation. If he had 'hard' evidence we have seen no sign of it in the two years since.
We learned more of Operation Grange's thinking during the Crimewatch programme. They had found 'Tannerman' and DCI Redwood is almost certain that he wasn't the abductor. They had two 'new' e-fits and although the programme hinted that they had been provided by the Smiths, it didn't actually say so. An 'Irish family' is mentioned who saw someone carrying a child. Can we describe e-fits as 'hard evidence'? I think not. The e-fits don't seem to look like any of the Portuguese people we saw going to be interviewed. Finally, DCI Redwood did an awful lot of digging for someone who was looking for a live child.
I don't know why the review became an investigation, but 'hard' evidence seems thin on the ground to me. Perhaps all will become clear, but I'm not holding my breath.
I think you may have got a comma in the wrong place concerning 300,500 documents. ;)
Although on a broader topic, CEOP did a scoping exercise on child trafficking in 2007 - it clearly concerns research, analysis and recommendations for further action.
If that scoping exercise was in roughly the same format but on the scale of an individual case, then it may well have outlined the facts, difficulties and tensions faced by everyone, and recommendations for further action. I find it likely that it may also have included general information about the sexual assaults (actual or attempted) of other children, the situation of known and unknown sexual offenders, etc, There is no way of knowing as it hasn't been made public.
It would seem to be in the logical flow that there were investigative opportunities to consider if a police force was able to review the scoping exercise and consider the facts in greater detail and the practicalities: e.g.,. what had been thoroughly investigated and what hadn't and how to amass the information from various sources into a single database. At some point, there must have been sufficient red flags to justify opening a UK investigation.
Somewhere along the line, the PT authorities organised their own review, no doubt in consultation with, but independently of, the UK and eventually reopened their own investigation.
Personally, I very much doubt that either investigation concerns just Madeleine...
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 10, 2015, 02:33:22 PM
I think you may have got a comma in the wrong place concerning 300,500 documents. ;)
Although on a broader topic, CEOP did a scoping exercise on child trafficking in 2007 - it clearly concerns research, analysis and recommendations for further action.
If that scoping exercise was in roughly the same format but on the scale of an individual case, then it may well have outlined the facts, difficulties and tensions faced by everyone, and recommendations for further action. I find it likely that it may also have included general information about the sexual assaults (actual or attempted) of other children, the situation of known and unknown sexual offenders, etc, There is no way of knowing as it hasn't been made public.
It would seem to be in the logical flow that there were investigative opportunities to consider if a police force was able to review the scoping exercise and consider the facts in greater detail and the practicalities: e.g.,. what had been thoroughly investigated and what hadn't and how to amass the information from various sources into a single database. At some point, there must have been sufficient red flags to justify opening a UK investigation.
Somewhere along the line, the PT authorities organised their own review, no doubt in consultation with, but independently of, the UK and eventually reopened their own investigation.
Personally, I very much doubt that either investigation concerns just Madeleine...
Maths not my strong point ha ha 30,500 documents
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 10, 2015, 03:11:50 PM
According to the BBC story Operation Grange spent two years reviewing 300,500 documents. That would be 11,223 from the Portuguese investigation, 11,000 from Leicester Police and the remaining 8,277 from private detectives then? I would have thought that everything that Leicester Police had, the PJ also had? If not, why not? Certainly the Mccann's thought so, because they dropped their request to see all the evidence which Leicester Police had because the PJ Files were going to be released. Anyway, Op. Grange were two thirds of the way through these documents when the interview took place.
The review told DCI Redwood there was no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann was dead. Perhaps the proof was still hiding in the third he hadn't yet reviewed? Still, never mind that, the lack of proof of death means she could be alive! Great deduction there. DCI Redwood has also found 38 persons of interest, 12 of them British. We know that three of those re-interviewed were John and Donna Hill and Robert Murat. Do we know who the other nine were? Anyway, that would seem to be as much as Operation Grange were prepared to say about the basis on which the review became an investigation. If he had 'hard' evidence we have seen no sign of it in the two years since.
We learned more of Operation Grange's thinking during the Crimewatch programme. They had found 'Tannerman' and DCI Redwood is almost certain that he wasn't the abductor. They had two 'new' e-fits and although the programme hinted that they had been provided by the Smiths, it didn't actually say so. An 'Irish family' is mentioned who saw someone carrying a child. Can we describe e-fits as 'hard evidence'? I think not. The e-fits don't seem to look like any of the Portuguese people we saw going to be interviewed. Finally, DCI Redwood did an awful lot of digging for someone who was looking for a live child.
I don't know why the review became an investigation, but 'hard' evidence seems thin on the ground to me. Perhaps all will become clear, but I'm not holding my breath.
What is it about ... new evidence ... and ... new witnesses which you fail to understand?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 10, 2015, 03:14:54 PM
Quite often there is none, but for the absence of the person.
The abduction of the Serbian child is their parents' nightmare but an investigator's dream case: witnesses, CCTV, vehicle description, rapid deployment...
That's unfortunately not always the case.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 10, 2015, 04:36:29 PM
Idling my time away looking at the McCann files I randomly selected some comments regarding the "investigation". Forgetting the PJ for a moment who are brilliant or a bunch of incompetent p***heads depending upon which side of the divide one sits, we have four agencies. Metodo 3 "Today we sensationally reveal the renowned Spanish Metodo 3 detective agency believe the four-year-old was targeted after a tip-off from INSIDE their Portuguese holiday complex. The highly-respected Spanish detective agency Metodo 3 have NEVER FAILED to find a missing person they've hunted—They will then send their international network of agents to trace the exact movements of their prime suspects . AIGHe [ Dave Edgar] still feels Maddie was snatched by a man spotted by the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner, one of the so-called 'Tapas Seven' who dined with them the night Maddie went missing. Their theory, revealed in a Channel 4 documentary a week after the second anniversary of her disappearance on May 3, is that someone was watching the McCanns' apartment in Praia da Luz for up to a week before Madeleine disappeared. Oakley InternationalKate and Gerry McCann have hired a team of crack U.S detectives to lead the hunt for their missing daughter Madeleine, it has emerged. The unnamed US firm is said to have been offered a £500,000 six-month contract by the Find Madeleine Fun to help spearhead the search. A friend of the McCanns said: 'The hunt for Madeleine is becoming more and more international and it was felt that a truly international firm was now needed to lead the inquiry. "These really are the big boys. They are absolutely the best, but they are extremely secretive and cloak-and-dagger about what they do. The Metropolitan Police Service Everyone knows "The Yard". They fragged Edgar's prime suspect.
So eight years on, four of the best teams of detectives money can buy working on the case (if one believes the scuttlebutt) and what do we have? No credible sighting and no clue what misfortune may have befallen an unfortunate little girl?.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2015, 05:25:01 PM
As cases of stranger abduction from a home are incredibly rare, could you say where you got the information allowing you to say 'quite often'?
I think you have misunderstood. Brietta isn't saying stranger abductions happen "quite often" but that "quite often" no evidence is left behind in cases of abduction.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 10, 2015, 06:35:52 PM
I think you have misunderstood. Brietta isn't saying stranger abductions happen "quite often" but that "quite often" no evidence is left behind in cases of abduction.
So in these very rare cases, how often is there no evidence? What does 'quite' mean?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2015, 06:46:32 PM
So in these very rare cases, how often is there no evidence? What does 'quite' mean?
Until recently, there has been little information about circumstances on a pan-European scale, let alone on a national one. Police forces didn't always record all the information, and sometimes recorded murder even if the person may have been abducted.
The study (posted here not that long ago) has numerous recommendations for the future.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 10, 2015, 06:53:30 PM
So in these very rare cases, how often is there no evidence? What does 'quite' mean?
I predicted you'd want a specific number. That's how these discussions tend to go. I have no idea is the simple answer. Perhaps Brietta can fill you in. Do you disagree with the notion that abductions can occur quite often with no apparent evidence left behind? For example - Claudia Lawrence. There's one off the top of my head. Suzy Lamplugh. There's another. Ben Needham - oops that's 3. Shall I keep on?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2015, 06:56:06 PM
I predicted you'd want a specific number. That's how these discussions tend to go. I have no idea is the simple answer. Perhaps Brietta can fill you in. Do you disagree with the notion that abductions can occur quite often with no apparent evidence left behind? For example - Claudia Lawrence. There's one off the top of my head. Suzy Lamplugh. There's another. Ben Needham - oops that's 3. Shall I keep on?
I was thinking of children taken from their homes actually, a bit more specific. They're the really rare ones.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 10, 2015, 06:58:56 PM
I was thinking of children taken from their homes actually, a bit more specific. They're the really rare ones.
Brietta wasn't talking specifically about those, if you read back you will see that. Are you sure though that you'd be happy with stats for abductions with no clues from homes, and not more specifically from holiday apartments in the Algarve?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 10, 2015, 07:01:13 PM
ben needham...none...girl abducted from bath...none....
There was some evidence in the Peter Voisey case (who abducted a girl from a bath).
There was a footprint on the floor of the bathroom that matched the print of a trainer Voisey owned.
Also the little girl (who, thank God, survived) was able to offer evidence. It was never publicly revealed, but maybe she was able to describe details of the interior of his car that matched (for example)?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 10, 2015, 07:31:54 PM
Evidence can be a witness statement...there are plenty of witness statements supporting abduction
OK that's fair enough but in this case did anyone witness Maddie being abducted? As far as I recall, nobody has ever claimed to have seen Madeleine being abducted so how do you square that fact?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 10, 2015, 11:18:56 PM
OK that's fair enough but in this case did anyone witness Maddie being abducted? As far as I recall, nobody has ever claimed to have seen Madeleine being abducted so how do you square that fact?
Matt had just done a check and then Gerry left straight away. How interesting and then he did his visual check because of the door position. Why didn't he ask Matt if he had been inside to check when he returned and moved the door?
"back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me, but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check and sort of, you know, sort of go back, but, erm, he sort of got up and went back to check on, erm, on his kids." (MO)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2015, 07:58:28 AM
Which threads? If you can't provide a link or make some effort at providing evidence to support your beliefs you can't blame people if they begin see your posts as irrelevant my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 11, 2015, 08:00:01 AM
OK that's fair enough but in this case did anyone witness Maddie being abducted? As far as I recall, nobody has ever claimed to have seen Madeleine being abducted so how do you square that fact?
....and that Angelo is precisely the point.
People standing in a street or on a street corner, are not evidence of abduction, and neither is a person carrying a child.
You need something more substantial than that.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 11, 2015, 08:05:25 AM
Which threads? If you can't provide a link or make some effort at providing evidence to support your beliefs you can't blame people if they begin see your posts as irrelevant my opinion.
so what ... I find most of your posts irrelevant...what is relevant is SY seem to share my views...you have failed to give a definition of evidence you find acceptable...witness statements are evidence and plenty support abduction
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 11, 2015, 08:09:26 AM
so what ... I find most of your posts irrelevant...what is relevant is SY seem to share my views...you have failed to give a definition of evidence you find acceptable...witness statements are evidence and plenty support abduction
No they don't.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 11, 2015, 08:10:10 AM
Angelo posted ..OK that's fair enough ....in response to my claim that witness statenets are evidence. You cannot seem to understand basic English....witness statements are evidence..that is a fact
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2015, 09:14:53 AM
If you are so adamant there is no evidence of abduction ... what evidence is there to support whatever your pet theory may be? It isn't enough to blame what you suppose are Madeleine McCann's parents' parenting skills.
I think a hint to the current situation may be that SY are not 'grilling' the Drs McCann or any of their party; they are sitting in while the PJ 'grill' arguidos.
It should be remembered that in the days after the Drs McCann were made arguidos, there was a change in Portuguese law that doing such required the production of evidence. Therefore, the people who were questioned as arguidos have evidence of some kind levelled against them. As we know that was not the case with Madeleine's parents then, nor is it the present case.
I posted a cite yesterday of DCI Redwood saying there were new witnesses and new evidence being being considered.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 11, 2015, 09:27:51 AM
If you are so adamant there is no evidence of abduction ... what evidence is there to support whatever your pet theory may be? It isn't enough to blame what you suppose are Madeleine McCann's parents' parenting skills.
I think a hint to the current situation may be that SY are not 'grilling' the Drs McCann or any of their party; they are sitting in while the PJ 'grill' arguidos.
It should be remembered that in the days after the Drs McCann were made arguidos, there was a change in Portuguese law that doing such required the production of evidence. Therefore, the people who were questioned as arguidos have evidence of some kind levelled against them. As we know that was not the case with Madeleine's parents then, nor is it the present case.
I posted a cite yesterday of DCI Redwood saying there were new witnesses and new evidence being being considered.
I judge by results.
Redwood's statements are bland and meaningless.
he isn't even in charge of the case.
SY have come up with a big fat ZERO.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2015, 09:37:25 AM
If you are so adamant there is no evidence of abduction ... what evidence is there to support whatever your pet theory may be? It isn't enough to blame what you suppose are Madeleine McCann's parents' parenting skills.
I think a hint to the current situation may be that SY are not 'grilling' the Drs McCann or any of their party; they are sitting in while the PJ 'grill' arguidos.
It should be remembered that in the days after the Drs McCann were made arguidos, there was a change in Portuguese law that doing such required the production of evidence. Therefore, the people who were questioned as arguidos have evidence of some kind levelled against them. As we know that was not the case with Madeleine's parents then, nor is it the present case.
I posted a cite yesterday of DCI Redwood saying there were new witnesses and new evidence being being considered.
Are you trying to change the subject? Davel says there is evidence which supports the abduction theory. He/she is clearly unwilling or unable to produce that evidence, so it's perfectly reasonable for people to conclude there is none.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2015, 09:59:23 AM
Just so we all know what we're discussing;
Types of evidence
There are a number of different types of evidence:
Testimony - the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of the truth of what he or she says. Real evidence - this is usually a material object of some kind, which is produced for inspection, either to prove that it exists, or so that the court can make an inference as to its condition or value, for example ripped clothing, a knife or burnt document. Hearsay evidence - when a witness, or someone else, makes a statement other than in the course of their testimony, this is referred to as an ‘out of court statement.’ Hearsay evidence is an out of court statement which is being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents. Original evidence - this is an out of court statement offered for a relevant purpose other than proving the truth of its contents, for example to prove something was said at all. Documentary evidence - this consists of documents which have been produced for inspection by the court. These may be items of real evidence, original evidence or hearsay. http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/evidence.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2015, 10:07:14 AM
Are you trying to change the subject? Davel says there is evidence which supports the abduction theory. He/she is clearly unwilling or unable to produce that evidence, so it's perfectly reasonable for people to conclude there is none.
Change the subject to what?
You demand evidence of abduction ... but object to discussing evidence to support the other theories which must be supported if in denial that Madeleine McCann was abducted ... yet again single minded duplicity??
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2015, 10:08:48 AM
There are a number of different types of evidence:
Testimony - the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of the truth of what he or she says. Real evidence - this is usually a material object of some kind, which is produced for inspection, either to prove that it exists, or so that the court can make an inference as to its condition or value, for example ripped clothing, a knife or burnt document. Hearsay evidence - when a witness, or someone else, makes a statement other than in the course of their testimony, this is referred to as an ‘out of court statement.’ Hearsay evidence is an out of court statement which is being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents. Original evidence - this is an out of court statement offered for a relevant purpose other than proving the truth of its contents, for example to prove something was said at all. Documentary evidence - this consists of documents which have been produced for inspection by the court. These may be items of real evidence, original evidence or hearsay. http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/evidence.htm
I think we are well aware what evidence for and against an assertion is.
Time for you to show us yours.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 11, 2015, 10:13:58 AM
As I said, once the abduction scenario is seen for what it is...........................
The abduction scenario has indeed been seen for what it is ... even by the Portuguese authorities who required by law new evidence to re-open Madeleine's case ... remiss of them not to have told you what that is.
** snip LISBON, Portugal -- LISBON, Portugal (AP) — More than six years after British girl Madeleine McCann vanished from her bedroom during a family vacation in Portugal and five years after Portuguese police gave up trying to find her, authorities reopened the case Thursday, citing new evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 11, 2015, 10:49:24 AM
The evidence in the Madeleine McCann case is that Madeleine is missing and hasn't been found, no body found. Warning bells should have rang with Amaral when Madeleine wasn't found after an extensive search, he should have thought of abduction and sealed off 5a, notified borders etc. Instead the police didn't arrive until late morning of May 4th.
SY have accomplished the fact that a group of people were going door to door pretending to be collecting for a charity that didn't exist.
A group of men were ringing each other, calls lasting a minute or so at times, pointing out each move the McCann's made on the 3rd of May, when Madeleine was collected from the crèche etc.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 11, 2015, 10:51:44 AM
Are you trying to change the subject? Davel says there is evidence which supports the abduction theory. He/she is clearly unwilling or unable to produce that evidence, so it's perfectly reasonable for people to conclude there is none.
I will ask you again as you failed to reply...how do you define evidence..earlier in the thread you used the word proof and evidence as though they are interchangeable...they are not
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 11, 2015, 11:14:19 AM
The fact is that Madeleine McCann is missing and after a period of years with no official investigation into her disappearance taking place the police have been interviewing people of interest who may or may not provide the key to what happened to her.
I would have thought that the logical position for all truth seekers whatever their opinion of Madeleine McCann's parents may be ... would be to welcome that situation with open arms.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 11, 2015, 11:27:46 AM
No, they would have had to eat every day that is true Stephen, the fact that they had more than one drink with their dinner is neither here nor there, they were not drunk.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 11, 2015, 11:42:28 AM
How can you eliminate someone if the discrepancies in their starements lead them to be suspected ? Lest we forget the McCanns's own PIs flagged up the anomalies in their starements.
because the discrepencies are investigated and found to be of no value
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2015, 01:44:03 PM
I think we are well aware what evidence for and against an assertion is.
Time for you to show us yours.
High time for davel to show his. He rubbishes everything everyone else says but has nothing with which to support his assertions in my opinion. I refuse to be diverted by either of you.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 11, 2015, 01:45:37 PM
High time for davel to show his. He rubbishes everything everyone else says but has nothing with which to support his assertions in my opinion. I refuse to be diverted by either of you.
Well said. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2015, 01:53:32 PM
I will ask you again as you failed to reply...how do you define evidence..earlier in the thread you used the word proof and evidence as though they are interchangeable...they are not
It's you who insists that the evidence supports the abduction theory. You supply it and we'll see whether it's sufficient or not.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 11, 2015, 03:10:26 PM
I should have specified that Kate was never interviewed without the presence of her husband until September 2007.
Ok, Gerry was allowed to attend, on the 4th May, but had to sit behind Kate. She should have been interviewed again on the 10th May, but wasn't after sitting in the waiting area for 8 hours, she was told it was too late, and to come back the next day. It never happened.
September the 6th, Gerry was made to leave the room.
What happenned to the "Informal statements" from the 8th of August. Not in the files.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 11, 2015, 03:39:59 PM
Ok, Gerry was allowed to attend, on the 4th May, but had to sit behind Kate. She should have been interviewed again on the 10th May, but wasn't after sitting in the waiting area for 8 hours, she was told it was too late, and to come back the next day. It never happened.
September the 6th, Gerry was made to leave the room.
What happenned to the "Informal statements" from the 8th of August. Not in the files.
I'll tell you what happened on 8 August. They didn't believe their story.
"Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events."
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 11, 2015, 03:53:18 PM
Tried to make Kate confess. So why aren't these interviews in the files?
This was a meeting. They had regular meetings with Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação.
"We were taken to an upstairs room at the police station where we were greeted by Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação. Our interpreter this time was a police officer, not Proconsul Angela Morado, as was usually the case. The whole demeanour of Neves and Encarnação was different. They looked serious and cold."
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 11, 2015, 04:16:52 PM
This was a meeting. They had regular meetings with Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação.
"We were taken to an upstairs room at the police station where we were greeted by Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação. Our interpreter this time was a police officer, not Proconsul Angela Morado, as was usually the case. The whole demeanour of Neves and Encarnação was different. They looked serious and cold."
Kate then goes on how they kept pushing her and pushing and how frightened she was and how alone she was and how she wanted Gerry, who by the way was made to leave the room. She tells of how she felt bullied by what they were saying and how she felt they wanted her to confess to a crime she did not commit.
She then tells how it was Gerry’s turn next and even though Gerry was calmer, it still upset him and had shaken him, to the point where he was in tears pleading with these two men if they had evidence that their daughter was dead.
If you go through the files, there is NO recollection of these ‘informal’ meetings anywhere. The questions that Kate and Gerry McCann were being asked on the 8th August 2007 were incriminating and they should have been asked under the status of Kate and Gerry being argudios. They were not.
There is no record of any witness statements referring to these meetings in the Police files either.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 11, 2015, 04:18:23 PM
Kate then goes on how they kept pushing her and pushing and how frightened she was and how alone she was and how she wanted Gerry, who by the way was made to leave the room. She tells of how she felt bullied by what they were saying and how she felt they wanted her to confess to a crime she did not commit.
She then tells how it was Gerry’s turn next and even though Gerry was calmer, it still upset him and had shaken him, to the point where he was in tears pleading with these two men if they had evidence that their daughter was dead.
If you go through the files, there is NO recollection of these ‘informal’ meetings anywhere. The questions that Kate and Gerry McCann were being asked on the 8th August 2007 were incriminating and they should have been asked under the status of Kate and Gerry being argudios. They were not.
There is no record of any witness statements referring to these meetings in the Police files either.
Boo hoo 8)><( That's what the police do if they don't believe you!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 11, 2015, 04:34:42 PM
Yes they use underhanded tactics. That's why there's no record!
So there's no record of the meetings in the files, probably because they weren't officially sanctioned but Kate verifies they happened. Of course there's no record in the files of Tanner identifying Murat, a police action that also wasn't official sanctioned. The point being, as we can see from Kate's verification, just because it isn't in the files doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 11, 2015, 04:45:44 PM
I'll tell you what happened on 8 August. They didn't believe their story.
"Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events."
Why isn't this informal? interview, in the files I wonder.
This is an excerpt of the story concerning your quote, in case anyone who insists on cites is interested...... with a Link
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 8. At the police station we were greeted by Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação, director of the Algarve Policia Judiciária.
There had been a shift in the investigation, they said. They had always been optimistic Madeleine was alive, but things had changed.
Tell us about that night, they said. Tell us everything that happened after the children went to bed. I gave them every detail I could remember, as I had before.
Sniffer search ... dogs are taken around the McCanns' holiday apartment
This time they responded by just staring at me, shaking their heads.
Neves stated bluntly they didn't believe my version of events. It "didn't fit" with what they knew.
Didn't fit? What did they know? I began to wail hysterically, drawing breath in desperate gasps.
They proposed that when I'd put Madeleine to bed that night, it wasn't actually the last time I'd seen her. But it was. It was! I felt I was being bullied, and I suppose I was. I assume these tactics were deliberate - knock her off balance by telling her that her daughter is dead and get her to confess.
On and on it went. They tried to convince me I'd had a blackout - "a loss of memory episode", I think they called it.
My denials, answers and pleas fell on deaf ears. This was their theory and they wanted to shoehorn me into it, end of story.
At last they seemed to decide that the interview was over. Then it was Gerry's turn. Through his tears he pleaded with the two men: "Do you have evidence that Madeleine is dead? We're her parents. You have to tell us."
"It's coming," Neves told him. "It's coming!"
Gerry wanted to know if the case had now become a murder inquiry. The answer was indirect: "You can probably guess that from our lack of response."
But I have...it seems SY agree with me too...it's just you are another who doesn't understand what evidence means
Davel you constantly make that claim... SY are reviewing a case, in particular , they will look at the stranger 'abduction theory'...Just one of many theories. In this theory the parents would not be suspects because...well because they knew Maddie!! DUH
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 11, 2015, 06:12:51 PM
Davel you constantly make that claim... SY are reviewing a case, in particular , they will look at the stranger 'abduction theory'...Just one of many theories. In this theory the parents would not be suspects because...well because they knew Maddie!! DUH
If you think SY have not looks at the evidence against the parents then you are particularly dim
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gene Genie on April 12, 2015, 10:29:35 PM
Other than abduction, what other reasons can there be for a missing child?
Kidnap for ransom Woke and wandered Given away
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
One of the main reasons for the lack of evidence in Madeleine McCann's case is the failure to secure the crime scene and the botched forensic examination which took place.
Sceptics have tried to turn logic on its head and blame the victims for the failure to secure the crime scene which in the real world is the sole responsibility of the police.
Madeleine McCann was let down by the failures in forensics and her parents have been paying the price for those failures in blogs, FB pages, twitter and videos ever since.
**snip
The most important aspect of evidence collection and preservation is protecting the crime scene.
This is to keep the pertinent evidence uncontaminated until it can be recorded and collected.
The successful prosecution of a case can hinge on the state of the physical evidence at the time it is collected.
The protection of the scene begins with the arrival of the first police officer at the scene and ends when the scene is released from police custody.
One of the main reasons for the lack of evidence in Madeleine McCann's case is the failure to secure the crime scene and the botched forensic examination which took place.
Sceptics have tried to turn logic on its head and blame the victims for the failure to secure the crime scene which in the real world is the sole responsibility of the police.
Madeleine McCann was let down by the failures in forensics and her parents have been paying the price for those failures in blogs, FB pages, twitter and videos ever since.
**snip
The most important aspect of evidence collection and preservation is protecting the crime scene.
This is to keep the pertinent evidence uncontaminated until it can be recorded and collected.
The successful prosecution of a case can hinge on the state of the physical evidence at the time it is collected.
The protection of the scene begins with the arrival of the first police officer at the scene and ends when the scene is released from police custody.
The crime scene was tampered with because the police saw no open window or raised shutters where allegedly the missing child passed through. Not even a glove mark found. They don't wear gloves or leave no trace. That doesn't look good in the eyes of the police.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 13, 2015, 05:47:11 PM
The crime scene was tampered with because the police saw no open window or raised shutters where allegedly the missing child passed through. Not even a glove mark found. They don't wear gloves or leave no trace. That doesn't look good in the eyes of the police.
No not even the ungloved, woman forensic fingerprinters, fingerprints.
Is it any wonder nothing was found. Their forensic team were a disgrace.
I feel a bit sorry for this lady.
Maybe she didn't have access to two gloves and was trying to do her best in the circumstances?
Perhaps no one had told her that it in the case of only one available glove that it might be better to use the glove on the hand to swab the potential evidence area rather than using it to hold the pot of powder?
How much training were these people given?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 13, 2015, 06:10:33 PM
Yes the convenient ones. Odd Gerry's weren't found or Diane's, they touched the shutters. Don't know if that woman was a fingerprint specialist or painter.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 13, 2015, 06:17:28 PM
Maybe she didn't have access to two gloves and was trying to do her best in the circumstances?
Perhaps no one had told her that it in the case of only one available glove that it might be better to use the glove on the hand to swab the potential evidence area rather than using it to hold the pot of powder?
How much training were these people given?
Why?
LOL, Seems no one told her to wear protect clothing either. The other glove had a hole in it.
I wonder if that was Sylvia Baptista, she had most jobs that night. &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lyall on April 13, 2015, 06:24:35 PM
Maybe she didn't have access to two gloves and was trying to do her best in the circumstances?
Perhaps no one had told her that it in the case of only one available glove that it might be better to use the glove on the hand to swab the potential evidence area rather than using it to hold the pot of powder?
How much training were these people given?
&%+((£ Maybe as much as Operation Oxborough's personnel were.
(All police in every country have made and continue to make mistakes.)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 13, 2015, 06:43:01 PM
Yes the convenient ones. Odd Gerry's weren't found or Diane's, they touched the shutters. Don't know if that woman was a fingerprint specialist or painter.
As nobody saw them raised then Gerry can say anything he likes if he wanted. There's no independent witness to back up that he touched the shutters (oops Amy apparently!). This was the crime scene.
Amazingly Amy saw them raised again after Dianne saw them in the lower position as below and couldn't lift them. How that is possible then please let me know. Did they keep moving them up and down?
Is it any wonder nothing was found. Their forensic team were a disgrace.
The woman is Irene Trovão. Thanks for the photo. I have only seen the video so far.
Two prints on the shutter, whether finger or palm-print.
We know Gerry had been out trying to raise the shutters (succeeded) and Dianne Webster had been out trying to raise the shutters (failed). Both of these interferences with the crime scene occurred before the GNR arrived.
Neither print was good enough to be matched to anything. Possibly Gerry/Dianne, possibly someone else, but because of Gerry/Dianne, we don't know.
It is indeed a pity that people who insist they said abduction from the earliest moment allowed so much trashing of evidence in/around 5A before the police arrived on the scene. Were the police expected to be on the scene to secure it before they were called?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 13, 2015, 06:53:08 PM
As nobody saw them raised then Gerry can say anything he likes if he wanted. There's no independent witness to back up that he touched the shutters (oops Amy apparently!). This was the crime scene.
Amazingly Amy saw them raised again after Dianne saw them in the lower position as below and couldn't lift them. How that is possible then please let me know. Did they keep moving them up and down?
My bold on the comment above. That bit is bugging me. Why were the shutters slightly raised when the PJ took photos on early 4 May 2007?
Somebody had moved them to be in that position but the police would be more interested as to why they weren't in the position the parents said they were found in. But more importantly the father should be outside searching for his daughter not examining shutters and contaminating vital evidence &%+((£
Somebody had moved them to be in that position but the police would be more interested as to why they weren't in the position the parents said they were found in. But more importantly the father should be outside searching for his daughter not examining shutters and contaminating vital evidence &%+((£
As a parent, it was necessary for Gerry to establish whether it was possible to open the shutters from the outside. If that couldn't be done, then it increased the likelihood that Madeleine could have opened the window & shutters from the inside, climbed out & wandered off.
I wonder why the wicker chair was not forensically examined? There would have been plenty of fibres stuck to it.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 13, 2015, 07:36:33 PM
An amazing amount of invisible lichen on that window sill...
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 13, 2015, 07:41:32 PM
As a parent, it was necessary for Gerry to establish whether it was possible to open the shutters from the outside. If that couldn't be done, then it increased the likelihood that Madeleine could have opened the window & shutters from the inside, climbed out & wandered off.
I wonder why the wicker chair was not forensically examined? There would have been plenty of fibres stuck to it.
The street side of the window doesn't seem to have been dusted, either, for some reason.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2015, 07:50:06 PM
The woman is Irene Trovão. Thanks for the photo. I have only seen the video so far.
Two prints on the shutter, whether finger or palm-print.
We know Gerry had been out trying to raise the shutters (succeeded) and Dianne Webster had been out trying to raise the shutters (failed). Both of these interferences with the crime scene occurred before the GNR arrived.
Neither print was good enough to be matched to anything. Possibly Gerry/Dianne, possibly someone else, but because of Gerry/Dianne, we don't know.
It is indeed a pity that people who insist they said abduction from the earliest moment allowed so much trashing of evidence in/around 5A before the police arrived on the scene. Were the police expected to be on the scene to secure it before they were called?
Absolutely not.
However when they did eventually arrive they were no less guilty of compromising the scene than were the civilians.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 13, 2015, 07:51:08 PM
As a parent, it was necessary for Gerry to establish whether it was possible to open the shutters from the outside. If that couldn't be done, then it increased the likelihood that Madeleine could have opened the window & shutters from the inside, climbed out & wandered off.
I wonder why the wicker chair was not forensically examined? There would have been plenty of fibres stuck to it.
That post doesn't make sense. They knew straight away it couldn't be her. No boot marks found on bed or chair. You search for your child not buts when she could be close by!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2015, 07:52:41 PM
The street side of the window doesn't seem to have been dusted, either, for some reason.
Possibly because they had run out of the fingerprint powder which was mixed with hair on the floors of the apartment and ...
**snip On the single bed opposite to that from which the child disappeared, despite it being impregnated the red-coloured chemical product referred to, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
Seems the powders were being thrown about in a similar fashion to the Hindu Festival of Colours.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on April 13, 2015, 08:09:00 PM
That post doesn't make sense. They knew straight away it couldn't be her. No boot marks found on bed or chair. You search for your child not buts when she could be close by!
Oh I see, the people running around shouting "MADELEINE!!!" were doing what exactly ???
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on April 13, 2015, 08:20:28 PM
That post doesn't make sense. They knew straight away it couldn't be her. No boot marks found on bed or chair. You search for your child not buts when she could be close by!
As a parent, you hope & pray that the worst imaginable scenario isn't materialising and look for a more rational explanation. Kate had already searched the interior, looked out the window to the front, and hadn't passed Madeleine en route via the rear to perform the check. Now - why wasn't the chair positioned right beside the shutter pulley-cord forensically examined?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 13, 2015, 08:27:16 PM
My bold on the comment above. That bit is bugging me. Why were the shutters slightly raised when the PJ took photos on early 4 May 2007?
I'd expect them to be down. As in, Gerry tied to force them up. Dianne tried to force them up. Perhaps they were left exactly as Kate said she found them. If so, that is one skinny b*++**d who got in or out.
IF the PJ photos are an accurate depiction of the scene, and I have no reason to believe this is so, then I have to conclude that no one entered that way, no one exited that way, Madeleine was not passed out of the window that way.
What is bugging me is why the shutter (and possibly window) should be open when the PJ arrived. It does not make sense.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 13, 2015, 09:19:01 PM
Kate did apparently look out of that window, so the shutters must have been higher up . Perhaps they were left that way after Gerry and Diane messed about with them? The window would have been closed however, because of the twins.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 13, 2015, 11:49:32 PM
I'd expect them to be down. As in, Gerry tied to force them up. Dianne tried to force them up. Perhaps they were left exactly as Kate said she found them. If so, that is one skinny b*++**d who got in or out.
IF the PJ photos are an accurate depiction of the scene, and I have no reason to believe this is so, then I have to conclude that no one entered that way, no one exited that way, Madeleine was not passed out of the window that way.
What is bugging me is why the shutter (and possibly window) should be open when the PJ arrived. It does not make sense.
When they were checking to see if the shutter could be raised from the outside they must first have been lowered from the raised position using the interior mechanism ... then tried to be raised manually from outside.
As has been demonstrated, to do this successfully one must raise the shutter slightly ~ slide the window open ~ then while continuing to balance the shutter open with one hand use the other to complete the raising by pulling the interior cord.
If this is not done carefully ~ the shutter will jam at an angle: I think this is what happened when Gerry experimented with it and to his dismay discovered it could be opened from outside.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 14, 2015, 12:09:33 AM
When they were checking to see if the shutter could be raised from the outside they must first have been lowered from the raised position using the interior mechanism ... then tried to be raised manually from outside.
As has been demonstrated, to do this successfully one must raise the shutter slightly ~ slide the window open ~ then while continuing to balance the shutter open with one hand use the other to complete the raising by pulling the interior cord.
If this is not done carefully ~ the shutter will jam at an angle: I think this is what happened when Gerry experimented with it and to his dismay discovered it could be opened from outside.
The window appears to have an internal locking CDA. So presumably it was left open or the guy went inside first to release it before going outside to raise the shutter to allow him to open the window and gain entrance? Yeah that would make sense ......just about in this topsy turvy world &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 12:28:37 AM
The window appears to have an internal locking CDA. So presumably it was left open or the guy went inside first to release it before going outside to raise the shutter to allow him to open the window and gain entrance? Yeah that would make sense ......just about in this topsy turvy world &%+((£
We have no idea who opened the window and raised the shutter.
There is no evidence whether the window was opened and the shutter raised from the inside or if the shutter was raised and the window opened from the outside.
We have no idea why the window was opened and the shutter raised.
The only person who knows why ... is the person who did it ... perhaps when that person is apprehended and interviewed we may discover the answers.
Whatever the reason ... is it as important as the fact of the absence of Madeleine McCann from her bed and from the room ... sometimes I think we lose sight of that.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 14, 2015, 12:40:34 AM
We have no idea who opened the window and raised the shutter.
There is no evidence whether the window was opened and the shutter raised from the inside or if the shutter was raised and the window opened from the outside.
We have no idea why the window was opened and the shutter raised.
The only person who knows why ... is the person who did it ... perhaps when that person is apprehended and interviewed we may discover the answers.
Whatever the reason ... is it as important as the fact of the absence of Madeleine McCann from her bed and from the room ... sometimes I think we lose sight of that.
The whole point of posting on these threads is because people cannot forget that a child disappeared. The child is the focus of everyone's interest and concern and she deserves justice and a complete and believable explanation of what happened to her.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 01:07:41 AM
The whole point of posting on these threads is because people cannot forget that a child disappeared. The child is the focus of everyone's interest and concern and she deserves justice and a complete and believable explanation of what happened to her.
The people to whom the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is paramount are the members of her family who have lived every day of the last nearly eight years with her absence.
To that end they have lobbied and fought for her right to be looked for ... they have succeeded in that in the teeth of fierce opposition the arguments for which are some of those I have seen you employ ... and they, Madeleine and the authorities investigating her disappearance deserve a little less interest from some quarters and be allowed to get on with it.
There is evidence which has enabled the reopening of Madeleine McCann's case ... it is an irrelevance whether we know what that may be.
Perhaps now it would be more appropriate to be redirecting interest away from the child whose parents' efforts have given a properly conducted investigation at long last and focus on all those other children that have so concerned people over the years. I believe there is a very good charity on the go which would welcome any help that could be given ... as long as it doesn't involve cyber attack on their website.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 01:33:59 AM
Worth remembering that the topic is about evidence in Madeleine's case and not just another exercise in McCann bashing which manages to insinuate itself into every topic.
There obviously is evidence in Madeleine McCann's case; possibly even a lot more evidence than is usual in a missing child case despite the botched forensics. For example, what was there when Sarah Payne was abducted in the brief period when was out of sight of her family? Only a briefly glimpsed white van.
There was witness evidence from before and after the 3rd much of which was not followed through; there was the infamous 'not relevant to the inquiry' Piava file from 2008 ~ 2010; there have been the private investigator files and DCI Redwood spoke of new evidence.
So it doesn't surprise me in the slightest you are less than keen to discuss that.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 14, 2015, 01:49:35 AM
When they were checking to see if the shutter could be raised from the outside they must first have been lowered from the raised position using the interior mechanism ... then tried to be raised manually from outside.
As has been demonstrated, to do this successfully one must raise the shutter slightly ~ slide the window open ~ then while continuing to balance the shutter open with one hand use the other to complete the raising by pulling the interior cord.
If this is not done carefully ~ the shutter will jam at an angle: I think this is what happened when Gerry experimented with it and to his dismay discovered it could be opened from outside.
So....
After Madeleine disappeared the shutter was ... what? Somewhat lowered until just open, at which point Gerry could raise it? That I can buy except no one got in or out with the shutter in the position of the PJ photo.
However, Dianne could not raise the shutter. Was she weak or was the shutter fully closed? Or what?
Then the PJ photos show the shutter slightly open. Not enough for someone to get in/out, but not closed enough to beat Dianne.
We have a magic shutter going up and down that might or might not be able to be raised from the outside. (It could.)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lyall on April 14, 2015, 01:57:04 AM
Worth remembering that the topic is about evidence in Madeleine's case and not just another exercise in McCann bashing which manages to insinuate itself into every topic.
There obviously is evidence in Madeleine McCann's case; possibly even a lot more evidence than is usual in a missing child case despite the botched forensics. For example, what was there when Sarah Payne was abducted in the brief period when was out of sight of her family? Only a briefly glimpsed white van.
There was witness evidence from before and after the 3rd much of which was not followed through; there was the infamous 'not relevant to the inquiry' Piava file from 2008 ~ 2010; there have been the private investigator files and DCI Redwood spoke of new evidence.
So it doesn't surprise me in the slightest you are less than keen to discuss that.
Why aren't you discussing it? If you can link any of that evidence to Madeleine's disappearance you'll have done a better job than Summers and Swan were able to do. Can you?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 02:28:08 AM
After Madeleine disappeared the shutter was ... what? Somewhat lowered until just open, at which point Gerry could raise it? That I can buy except no one got in or out with the shutter in the position of the PJ photo.
However, Dianne could not raise the shutter. Was she weak or was the shutter fully closed? Or what?
Then the PJ photos show the shutter slightly open. Not enough for someone to get in/out, but not closed enough to beat Dianne.
We have a magic shutter going up and down that might or might not be able to be raised from the outside. (It could.)
I think Dianne was unable to lift it because it had jammed in that position because the interior cord had not been used.
When Kate first saw it raised she was able to look through the window to check outside, therefore it must have been fully raised.
Quite obviously the shutter should not have been touched but at that stage only the hysterical mother thought it was a crime scene. It was stupid to do so but I can appreciate why it was done. Although panicking and still unaware of the reality of the situation Gerry checked it out because he was at that stage unable to grasp that the shutter could be raised from outside . It is only recently that the McCann sceptics after arguing for years have accepted it can be done.
It is intriguing that there were no prints lifted from that area either for Dianne or Gerry.
I do not think that entry was made to the apartment via the window although it remains an option given that was apparently the preferred entry point in burglaries in the building in the preceding weeks.
Heri gives a very plausible explanation http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html which has Madeleine approaching the window and being lifted through.
However, because no evidence of entry was apparent doesn't mean it didn't happen (there is no forensic evidence that Gerry and Dianne interfered with the shutter) and someone lithe enough to get in and out of windows could easily do it without leaving a trace.
So until we know better, I think it remains an option, perhaps it wasn't closed behind him for the simple reason of haste and his hands were holding the child.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 14, 2015, 08:44:18 AM
We have no idea who opened the window and raised the shutter.
There is no evidence whether the window was opened and the shutter raised from the inside or if the shutter was raised and the window opened from the outside.
We have no idea why the window was opened and the shutter raised.
The only person who knows why ... is the person who did it ... perhaps when that person is apprehended and interviewed we may discover the answers.
Whatever the reason ... is it as important as the fact of the absence of Madeleine McCann from her bed and from the room ... sometimes I think we lose sight of that.
True! but if it were locked from the inside then the window had to opened from the inside and the shutters too could then be raised from the inside using the appropriate CDA. The shutters would then remain in the position they had been raised to. It starts to look a bit like jiggling things to suit the end result to me.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 09:00:33 AM
True! but if it were locked from the inside then the window had to opened from the inside and the shutters too could then be raised from the inside using the appropriate CDA. The shutters would then remain in the position they had been raised to. It starts to look a bit like jiggling things to suit the end result to me.
Who is to say that is not exactly what happened? There is no evidence one way or the other and there is nothing to indicate exactly how an intruder gained entry to or exit from the apartment.
The only irrefutable evidence that something untoward occurred is the absence of Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 14, 2015, 09:16:03 AM
Who is to say that is not exactly what happened? There is no evidence one way or the other and there is nothing to indicate exactly how an intruder gained entry to or exit from the apartment.
The only irrefutable evidence that something untoward occurred is the absence of Madeleine McCann.
Having been round the block a few times bells go off in my head when I am asked to believe several unlikely things before breakfast, the unlikely events usually followed by "well it's plausible isn't it?" or "who is to say it didn't happen?".
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 14, 2015, 09:16:23 AM
Who is to say that is not exactly what happened? There is no evidence one way or the other and there is nothing to indicate exactly how an intruder gained entry to or exit from the apartment. The only irrefutable evidence that something untoward occurred is the absence of Madeleine McCann.
My goodness me - something that everyone can agree on. This MUST be a first.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 09:54:49 AM
Having been round the block a few times bells go off in my head when I am asked to believe several unlikely things before breakfast, the unlikely events usually followed by "well it's plausible isn't it?" or "who is to say it didn't happen?".
I think the problem you may have is that there is no evidence pointing to the involvement of Madeleine McCann's family in her disappearance.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 14, 2015, 10:12:28 AM
You should really stop living in the past and look to the present and the future when the real evidence, not fantasy, which has enabled the case to be re-opened might provide the answer to what happened to Madeleine McCann.
What evidence? They've found nothing. They should've searched Smthman's route with the dogs in 2007. Madeleine was on it.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
They were out searching at 10 so any one of them could be seen 250 metres away 3 minutes later. They had split up from each other to search so stop talking nonsense.
You really should think very carefully about what evidence there may be which justifies the alleged sighting of Smithman.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lyall on April 14, 2015, 01:01:48 PM
I have no reason to disbelieve DCI Redwood ... nor do I have reason to distrust that the PJ could only reopen the case based on fresh evidence.
It's not a case of disbelieving him, but of recognising the difficulty of the position he was in.
When his 'revelation moment' merely revealed something everybody had already known for six years, there's no mystery about why people were/are cynical.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 14, 2015, 01:06:53 PM
I have no reason to disbelieve DCI Redwood ... nor do I have reason to distrust that the PJ could only reopen the case based on fresh evidence.
What is clear is that they're trying to find fresh evidence of the missing girl. They don't spend millions on a massive search operation unless they have fresh evidence to back it up. Amaral was doing the same before he was removed.
In a letter direct to GA from DCCB dated 27 September 2007 (Vol 11 p2945)
With regard to the possible sighting of arguido Gerry McCann next to a pink coloured block of apartments at a site opposite the Luz cemetery, we can inform you that this an establishment called 'St James Portuguesa Lda', lots 1 and 2 being situated in the positions mentioned, from the outside the spaces corresponding to Lot 1 can be seen of a total of apartment designated as follows: 101-104, 111-114, 121-124, 105-109, 115-119, 125-129.
As concerns the information provided by F***** J**** with regard to a sighting of the McCanns at a residence called Vila d'Arte, in the Melody Urbanisation in Espiche, during the month of July, it was possible to determine which residence this was and that the building is the permanent residence of some citizens from NL or the UK for the past 4 or 5 years.
The owner of the villa said that he had been in the villa after the departure of the McCanns and that it seemed to him that there were new plants at the bottom of the garden, without being able to indicate exactly which plants, a fact that he commented on with the gardener F**** Do S*****.
From the cleaner who worked in the residence occupied by the McCanns, it was found out that on the previous Monday 10-09-2007, she carried out her normal cleaning routine without noticing anything abnormal, just remarking that two or three boxes with dossiers were in the garage and which were later collected by a friend of the McCanns, Susan.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 14, 2015, 01:10:41 PM
It's not a case of disbelieving him, but of recognising the difficulty of the position he was in.
When his 'revelation moment' merely revealed something everybody had already known for six years, there's no mystery about why people were/are cynical.
The 'cynical' people will remain 'cynical' whatever, so definitely no-one's problem but their own.
How disingenuous of you that a scoping exercise ~ a review of all the evidence over an extended period can be reduced to ... " ... recognising the difficulty of the position he was in" @)(++(*
DCI Redwood was in no difficulty whatsoever ... he did what any competent police officer would have done ... followed the evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 01:38:29 PM
What is clear is that they're trying to find fresh evidence of the missing girl. They don't spend millions on a massive search operation unless they have fresh evidence to back it up. Amaral was doing the same before he was removed.
In a letter direct to GA from DCCB dated 27 September 2007 (Vol 11 p2945)
With regard to the possible sighting of arguido Gerry McCann next to a pink coloured block of apartments at a site opposite the Luz cemetery, we can inform you that this an establishment called 'St James Portuguesa Lda', lots 1 and 2 being situated in the positions mentioned, from the outside the spaces corresponding to Lot 1 can be seen of a total of apartment designated as follows: 101-104, 111-114, 121-124, 105-109, 115-119, 125-129.
As concerns the information provided by F***** J**** with regard to a sighting of the McCanns at a residence called Vila d'Arte, in the Melody Urbanisation in Espiche, during the month of July, it was possible to determine which residence this was and that the building is the permanent residence of some citizens from NL or the UK for the past 4 or 5 years.
The owner of the villa said that he had been in the villa after the departure of the McCanns and that it seemed to him that there were new plants at the bottom of the garden, without being able to indicate exactly which plants, a fact that he commented on with the gardener F**** Do S*****.
From the cleaner who worked in the residence occupied by the McCanns, it was found out that on the previous Monday 10-09-2007, she carried out her normal cleaning routine without noticing anything abnormal, just remarking that two or three boxes with dossiers were in the garage and which were later collected by a friend of the McCanns, Susan.
Very interesting.
But not quite on a par with persons of interest and arguidos being recently interviewed in Portugal ... bearing in mind the re-opening of the Portuguese investigation could only happen if there is new evidence which warrants it.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 14, 2015, 02:01:05 PM
The 'cynical' people will remain 'cynical' whatever, so definitely no-one's problem but their own.
How disingenuous of you that a scoping exercise ~ a review of all the evidence over an extended period can be reduced to ... " ... recognising the difficulty of the position he was in" @)(++(*
DCI Redwood was in no difficulty whatsoever ... he did what any competent police officer would have done ... followed the evidence.
Given that a scoping exercise would customarily identify known and unknowns in order to determine what remains unknown then in this instance: the major unknown at the beginning of the scoping exercise remains the major unknown three, four, five or however many years down the track.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lyall on April 14, 2015, 02:43:41 PM
The 'cynical' people will remain 'cynical' whatever, so definitely no-one's problem but their own.
How disingenuous of you that a scoping exercise ~ a review of all the evidence over an extended period can be reduced to ... " ... recognising the difficulty of the position he was in" @)(++(*
DCI Redwood was in no difficulty whatsoever ... he did what any competent police officer would have done ... followed the evidence.
And yet - like Summers and Swan - you know nothing of this evidence.
I wonder how long it will be before you turn on this investigation.
You will, sooner or later.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 14, 2015, 02:48:42 PM
Yes nine eye witnesses, why only three statements? The more this is looked at, the more it stinks.
The 3 went back to Portugal to give evidence.
The pregnant wife of Peter did not go back to a country she had visited once. The 4 children other than Aoife did not go back. That includes the kid aged 4 and the kid aged 6.
Mary, wife of Martin, did not go back to Portugal. I'd guess that she was looking after kids, but frankly, I don't care.
It does not stink. It makes perfect sense.
As to whether SY has tried to get more info from the Smiths, that I can only guess at.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 14, 2015, 03:02:52 PM
The pregnant wife of Peter did not go back to a country she had visited once. The 4 children other than Aoife did not go back. That includes the kid aged 4 and the kid aged 6.
Mary, wife of Martin, did not go back to Portugal. I'd guess that she was looking after kids, but frankly, I don't care.
It does not stink. It makes perfect sense.
As to whether SY has tried to get more info from the Smiths, that I can only guess at.
There was still a boy older than Aofie. Why didn't Mary want to make another statement? They didn't need to go back to Portugal to give statements.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 03:18:18 PM
But you can be sure some sado will have done - walked it even and taken photographs.
Not the short route!
I did check to see if the Tannerman sighting and the Smithman sighting matched up. So I tried going east as per Tannerman, then I nipped up north between blocks 2 and 3 (opposite block 6). There is a pedestrian walkway with high walls on either side, high enough that a person in it is completely hidden from 5A, so it seemed like a good choice.
At the north end of this, I went left (west) along the front of block 3 to Rua Primeiro de Maio, and crossed it into Rua do Cemitério and headed past on old villa to a walkway that runs down the east side of Estrela da Luz. (That walkway is not shown properly on Google maps). I then headed directly south to the Smithman location.
Basically, I tacked on perhaps 150m on top of the shortest route.
I was surprised to find it took 4 to 5 minutes at a normal walking pace.
You might get photos on my next jaunt. The photos are important.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 03:27:26 PM
That was a job for the dogs back in 2007 which didn't happen. That route should have been searched.
During the more recent SY excavations on the mound residents of Luz who had participated in the original searches were adamant on camera that the mound area had been searched when Madeleine went missing.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 14, 2015, 03:31:24 PM
During the more recent SY excavations on the mound residents of Luz who had participated in the original searches were adamant on camera that the mound area had been searched when Madeleine went missing.
It's a shame Smithman was seen going in the opposite direction towards the church then innit @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 14, 2015, 03:35:55 PM
It's a shame Smithman was seen going in the opposite direction towards the church then innit @)(++(*
You mean they didn't search that area too, or the beach? How very remiss.
Now if only the Smiths had remembered that the evening before had not been a dream and mentioned their sighting to the PJ the following day ... a more focused search could indeed have taken place.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 14, 2015, 03:38:13 PM
There was still a boy older than Aofie. Why didn't Mary want to make another statement? They didn't need to go back to Portugal to give statements.
The PJ got 3 people back to Portugal to give statements and the best bit was taking them back to the street of the sighting, as that photo reconstruction disagrees with the statements.
There was a boy older than Aoife, but it is not within PJ powers to order him or Mary to go to Portugal. If the Leicestershire police thought there was more required on this, they should have got the Irish police to carry this out. So, neither the PJ not the Brit police thought this was required.
Mary never made a statement. Your comment about her not wanting to make another statement is accurate, but she did not make a statement in the first place. 3 Smiths went back to Portugal, 3 gave statements, 3 are depicted in the photo reconstruction. Mary is not one of the 3.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 14, 2015, 04:41:24 PM
The PJ got 3 people back to Portugal to give statements and the best bit was taking them back to the street of the sighting, as that photo reconstruction disagrees with the statements.
There was a boy older than Aoife, but it is not within PJ powers to order him or Mary to go to Portugal. If the Leicestershire police thought there was more required on this, they should have got the Irish police to carry this out. So, neither the PJ not the Brit police thought this was required.
Mary never made a statement. Your comment about her not wanting to make another statement is accurate, but she did not make a statement in the first place. 3 Smiths went back to Portugal, 3 gave statements, 3 are depicted in the photo reconstruction. Mary is not one of the 3.
Yes I know who went back to Portugal.
Did the Irish police lie then?
Detective Branch Drogheda County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCannI took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 14, 2015, 04:47:01 PM
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCannI took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
No. Like many a police person in this case they got it wrong. As I said in my first reply, I agree that these words are in the file. They are simply wrong, given that she had not made a previous statement.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 14, 2015, 10:17:28 PM
HARD EVIDENCE. I am not seeing any of that at the moment. So stand by for deletions.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 14, 2015, 10:21:50 PM
At the police station that first afternoon, Guilhermino Encarnação had briefly mentioned three potential explanations for Madeleine’s disappearance: a burglary that had ‘changed direction’, abduction and the possibility that she had wandered off by herself. (Madeleine)
They certainly had sufficient evidence that burglars were active in the holiday complex to warrant the theory of a burglary which had 'changed direction'.
The fact that two of these burglaries had occurred in block 5 makes that theory even more compelling.
**snip
Last updated at 11:48 19 August 2007
The under-fire Portuguese police are preparing to take a fresh look at reports of two earlier break-ins in the apartment block where Madeleine McCann and her family stayed.
Both burglaries - one in the apartment directly above the McCann's flat - are understood to have happened two weeks before the family of five arrived at the Mark Warner Ocean Club in Praia da Luz.
One was believed to have been committed by someone with a key to the burgled apartment.
They certainly had sufficient evidence that burglars were active in the holiday complex to warrant the theory of a burglary which had 'changed direction'.
The fact that two of these burglaries had occurred in block 5 makes that theory even more compelling.
**snip
Last updated at 11:48 19 August 2007
The under-fire Portuguese police are preparing to take a fresh look at reports of two earlier break-ins in the apartment block where Madeleine McCann and her family stayed.
Both burglaries - one in the apartment directly above the McCann's flat - are understood to have happened two weeks before the family of five arrived at the Mark Warner Ocean Club in Praia da Luz.
One was believed to have been committed by someone with a key to the burgled apartment.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 15, 2015, 10:22:14 AM
Margaret Hall describes a situation when she went out of apartment 5A by the front (patio) doors and saw a man standing by the movement sensitive lights, man watching the apartments
When she shouted ~ “the man came out of the darkness, the lights were activated."
She was disturbed by the encounter because ~ “it was obvious that there was no good reason for him to be hiding in the darkness outside the apartment. “ http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm
Were those lights active on the night of 3rd May?
If not ... why not?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 15, 2015, 10:25:04 AM
What is funny is that the useless PJ had that possible theory from day 1 and SY are using the same burglary gone wrong theory at present. That open window you see with not even a glove mark found.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 15, 2015, 12:10:08 PM
Bit off the wall but I'd add 'given away' to that list. Maybe unlikely but could it have been a pre planned money making scam from the get go?
3 June 2007
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa said: "We continue to investigate the possibility that whoever took this child could have done it for money, and hasn't asked for a ransom because they've panicked with the headlines the case has generated.
"Who would dare ask for money for this child when her image is going around the world?"
He added: "A kidnapper could easily have a child hidden, possibly close by."
21 May 2007
"There are strong suspicions we are dealing with a sexual predator. As a rule these individuals abuse their victims, kill them and get rid of the bodies.
"What we want is to find the girl safe and sound, but it is true as time goes by this hope is becoming less likely."
Forensic scientists have found no evidence to suggest Madeleine's room at the Praia de Luz resort was broken into, the source said.
There were also no fingerprints other than those of the family and no sign of a struggle. The source added: "These are preliminary results and further tests may bring new clues.
"It is painful to say this, but we must be realistic the chances of finding her alive are getting less and less.
"All the publicity in the media may have made the kidnapper get rid of his victim and any clues."
Detectives today said they want to quiz a cousin of prime suspect Robert Murat.
Police sources said they were "very eager" to talk to Genaro Acosta Gonzalez, an estate agent working in Spain.
The development came as Maddy's father, consultant cardiologist Gerry McCann, arrived back in Britain.
25 May 2007
Earlier, it emerged British police have taken a more active role on the ground in the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Experts have begun working around the holiday apartment in southern Portugal where the she went missing three weeks ago. Police would not say which British force had sent the two specialists, who could be seen taking measurements and walking around with plans of the crime scene in Praia da Luz.
27 May 2007
Madeleine's father, Gerry, said the sighting of the man "with what appeared to be a child in his arms" was "significant" to his daughter's case.
Portuguese police said they released the description of the man seen on the night the four-year-old was taken from the Praia da Luz apartment in the Algarve, Portugal, in order to eliminate false leads.
Mr Murat said: "It isn't me. But the description is so vague that it won't put me out of the picture."
"I hope that I will soon be in a position to clear my name."
But Mr McCann said he still "truly believed" his daughter was alive.
"If she was dead I think the search was so extensive they would have found something," he said.
29 May 2007
Experts from Britain are attempting to trace the abductor of Madeleine McCann by following a trail left by mobile telephone signals.
A team of British telecommunications specialists has arrived in the Algarve to attempt to pinpoint the movements of telephones around the resort complex where Madeleine was abducted 26 days ago.
Their arrival came as Madeleine’s parents released the final mobile telephone images of the child before her abduction. They show her excitedly starting the week’s holiday in Portugal.
The mobile telephone tracing technique was used to collect evidence that helped to convict Ian Huntley for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham, Cambridgeshire, in 2002.
Trails are created by silent transmissions sent out by every mobile phone even when not in use. Each signal is picked up by masts, which create a timed computer log of the handset’s movements. By measuring the strength of the signal, the location of the handset can often be narrowed to an area as small as a few square yards.
Detectives will use the information to verify statements provided by guests and staff at the Ocean Club complex, where Madeleine was taken from her bed.
29 May 2007
The video clip released last night had been captured on the mobile phone of a friend.
It shows Madeleine clambering up the aircraft steps, clasping her pink Barbie rucksack. In her excitement she slips, grazing her shin.
But Mr McCann said she was so thrilled about going to Portugal she refused to get upset. "She was really brave. She started crying but stopped almost immediately," he said.
"When we got to the top of the steps I saw she had grazed her shin. It looked really sore - the step was just the right height for her leg. It was something that usually would have caused 10 minutes of crying rather than 10 seconds."
It all changed when the British dogs arrived.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 15, 2015, 01:13:59 PM
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa said: "We continue to investigate the possibility that whoever took this child could have done it for money, and hasn't asked for a ransom because they've panicked with the headlines the case has generated.
"Who would dare ask for money for this child when her image is going around the world?"
He added: "A kidnapper could easily have a child hidden, possibly close by."
21 May 2007
"There are strong suspicions we are dealing with a sexual predator. As a rule these individuals abuse their victims, kill them and get rid of the bodies.
"What we want is to find the girl safe and sound, but it is true as time goes by this hope is becoming less likely."
Forensic scientists have found no evidence to suggest Madeleine's room at the Praia de Luz resort was broken into, the source said.
There were also no fingerprints other than those of the family and no sign of a struggle. The source added: "These are preliminary results and further tests may bring new clues.
"It is painful to say this, but we must be realistic the chances of finding her alive are getting less and less.
"All the publicity in the media may have made the kidnapper get rid of his victim and any clues."
Detectives today said they want to quiz a cousin of prime suspect Robert Murat.
Police sources said they were "very eager" to talk to Genaro Acosta Gonzalez, an estate agent working in Spain.
The development came as Maddy's father, consultant cardiologist Gerry McCann, arrived back in Britain.
25 May 2007
Earlier, it emerged British police have taken a more active role on the ground in the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Experts have begun working around the holiday apartment in southern Portugal where the she went missing three weeks ago. Police would not say which British force had sent the two specialists, who could be seen taking measurements and walking around with plans of the crime scene in Praia da Luz.
27 May 2007
Madeleine's father, Gerry, said the sighting of the man "with what appeared to be a child in his arms" was "significant" to his daughter's case.
Portuguese police said they released the description of the man seen on the night the four-year-old was taken from the Praia da Luz apartment in the Algarve, Portugal, in order to eliminate false leads.
Mr Murat said: "It isn't me. But the description is so vague that it won't put me out of the picture."
"I hope that I will soon be in a position to clear my name."
But Mr McCann said he still "truly believed" his daughter was alive.
"If she was dead I think the search was so extensive they would have found something," he said.
29 May 2007
Experts from Britain are attempting to trace the abductor of Madeleine McCann by following a trail left by mobile telephone signals.
A team of British telecommunications specialists has arrived in the Algarve to attempt to pinpoint the movements of telephones around the resort complex where Madeleine was abducted 26 days ago.
Their arrival came as Madeleine’s parents released the final mobile telephone images of the child before her abduction. They show her excitedly starting the week’s holiday in Portugal.
The mobile telephone tracing technique was used to collect evidence that helped to convict Ian Huntley for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham, Cambridgeshire, in 2002.
Trails are created by silent transmissions sent out by every mobile phone even when not in use. Each signal is picked up by masts, which create a timed computer log of the handset’s movements. By measuring the strength of the signal, the location of the handset can often be narrowed to an area as small as a few square yards.
Detectives will use the information to verify statements provided by guests and staff at the Ocean Club complex, where Madeleine was taken from her bed.
29 May 2007
The video clip released last night had been captured on the mobile phone of a friend.
It shows Madeleine clambering up the aircraft steps, clasping her pink Barbie rucksack. In her excitement she slips, grazing her shin.
But Mr McCann said she was so thrilled about going to Portugal she refused to get upset. "She was really brave. She started crying but stopped almost immediately," he said.
"When we got to the top of the steps I saw she had grazed her shin. It looked really sore - the step was just the right height for her leg. It was something that usually would have caused 10 minutes of crying rather than 10 seconds."
It all changed when the British dogs arrived.
And what did the British dogs tell us?
Nothing, nowt, nada
... but Amaral did either not understand the nowt that they supposedly told him .... or he chose to ignore the fact that the dogs told him Zilch.
He wanted to nail the Mccanns it seems
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 15, 2015, 01:40:55 PM
Margaret Hall describes a situation when she went out of apartment 5A by the front (patio) doors and saw a man standing by the movement sensitive lights, man watching the apartments
When she shouted ~ “the man came out of the darkness, the lights were activated."
She was disturbed by the encounter because ~ “it was obvious that there was no good reason for him to be hiding in the darkness outside the apartment. “ http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm
Were those lights active on the night of 3rd May?
If not ... why not?
A strange story this one. According to the Mirror (lol) the lady was aged 51, is that quite old for a Mark Warner nanny? She doesn't say she was a nanny, however, she says she was employed 'as a baby-sitter' but this could be due to translation errors from English to Spanish to Portuguese.
It doesn't say when she first contacted the police, but according to the Mirror she first spoke to them in her home town of Bury. They interviewed her but she never heard anything back, so she contacted Metodo 3 who passed it to the PJ in November 2007. Metodo 3 said they located her.
Although she says it was the same apartment I wondered if it was actually one which opens off the hallways, where there are push-button lights which she may have pressed in order to see better .http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 15, 2015, 02:04:25 PM
A strange story this one. According to the Mirror (lol) the lady was aged 51, is that quite old for a Mark Warner nanny? She doesn't say she was a nanny, however, she says she was employed 'as a baby-sitter' but this could be due to translation errors from English to Spanish to Portuguese.
It doesn't say when she first contacted the police, but according to the Mirror she first spoke to them in her home town of Bury. They interviewed her but she never heard anything back, so she contacted Metodo 3 who passed it to the PJ in November 2007. Metodo 3 said they located her.
Although she says it was the same apartment I wondered if it was actually one which opens off the hallways, where there are push-button lights which she may have pressed in order to see better .http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm
She was quite explicit that the motion sensor light was activated by the movement of the man.
She was also quite explicit in stating that she had reported the incident to her bosses on the following day.
She was quite explicit in knowing exactly where she was when she saw the intruder who activated the light.
£5%4% Fifty one .... Hmmm.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 15, 2015, 02:29:11 PM
Margaret Hall describes a situation when she went out of apartment 5A by the front (patio) doors and saw a man standing by the movement sensitive lights, man watching the apartments
When she shouted ~ “the man came out of the darkness, the lights were activated."
She was disturbed by the encounter because ~ “it was obvious that there was no good reason for him to be hiding in the darkness outside the apartment. “ http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm
Were those lights active on the night of 3rd May?
If not ... why not?
As a matter of interest, do you believe this witness?
The document is in Spanish, dated to 1 Nov 2007. She didn't bother telling the Portuguese police. She didn't bother telling the Leicestershire police, but she felt the need to pass this info to the Spanish 7 months after Madeleine disappeared.
The document seems a bit muddled on dates. The only way I can make sense of an Aug/Sep 2006 date is by changing it so that she was working for 6 months up to Oct 2006, not from Oct 2006.
She now remembers an event that took place in 5A on a Thursday night but can't remember if it was in August or September.
The parents were out at the tennis night. It was 00:30, and they were not back.
Worried about rats, Margaret popped her head out the main entrance. (Why? Were the rats around there so noisy one could hear them, or did Margaret randomly check for rats?)
By the movement sensitive lights she saw a brown object move. (Neither Margaret nor the 'rat' had moved enough to switch on the light.)
When she looked closer she saw the rat was a man, who then moved (again) this time setting on the movement sensitive lights.
Then from the words "No, no" she could deduce that he was Portuguese.
She told her supervisor, who passed it on to John Hall. The supervisor is not named. However, Margaret is privy to the information that both were worried about rats. Why were they worried about rats, given that Margaret had not seen a rat?
John Hill makes no mention of this lurking man in his statement. Who knows, perhaps SY got him back in to ask him about it (oh and the entire set of lost keys he never mentioned). Perhaps Margaret's supervisor was Donna Hill, and SY hauled her in for the same reason.
No one in the T9 mentions a movement sensitive light, though if one had been disabled, they might well not have noticed it.
No one who was interviewed on the basis that they had previously occupied 5A mentions such a light. Again, if it was disabled, perhaps they did not notice it.
Why, if there was a motion sensitive light near 5A, did they not repair it, as opposed to tacking a floodlight on block 5 months or years later?
Margaret's tale is in my red herrings folder.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2015, 02:36:12 PM
As a matter of interest, do you believe this witness?
The document is in Spanish, dated to 1 Nov 2007. She didn't bother telling the Portuguese police. She didn't bother telling the Leicestershire police, but she felt the need to pass this info to the Spanish 7 months after Madeleine disappeared.
The document seems a bit muddled on dates. The only way I can make sense of an Aug/Sep 2006 date is by changing it so that she was working for 6 months up to Oct 2006, not from Oct 2006.
She now remembers an event that took place in 5A on a Thursday night but can't remember if it was in August or September.
The parents were out at the tennis night. It was 00:30, and they were not back.
Worried about rats, Margaret popped her head out the main entrance. (Why? Were the rats around there so noisy one could hear them, or did Margaret randomly check for rats?)
By the movement sensitive lights she saw a brown object move. (Neither Margaret nor the 'rat' had moved enough to switch on the light.)
When she looked closer she saw the rat was a man, who then moved (again) this time setting on the movement sensitive lights.
Then from the words "No, no" she could deduce that he was Portuguese.
She told her supervisor, who passed it on to John Hall. The supervisor is not named. However, Margaret is privy to the information that both were worried about rats. Why were they worried about rats, given that Margaret had not seen a rat?
John Hill makes no mention of this lurking man in his statement. Who knows, perhaps SY got him back in to ask him about it (oh and the entire set of lost keys he never mentioned). Perhaps Margaret's supervisor was Donna Hill, and SY hauled her in for the same reason.
No one in the T9 mentions a movement sensitive light, though if one had been disabled, they might well not have noticed it.
No one who was interviewed on the basis that they had previously occupied 5A mentions such a light. Again, if it was disabled, perhaps they did not notice it.
Why, if there was a motion sensitive light near 5A, did they not repair it, as opposed to tacking a floodlight on block 5 months or years later?
Margaret's tale is in my red herrings folder.
That folder must be bulging by now 8)--))
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2015, 02:42:55 PM
Earlier, it emerged British police have taken a more active role on the ground in the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Experts have begun working around the holiday apartment in southern Portugal where the she went missing three weeks ago. Police would not say which British force had sent the two specialists, who could be seen taking measurements and walking around with plans of the crime scene in Praia da Luz.
....
29 May 2007
Experts from Britain are attempting to trace the abductor of Madeleine McCann by following a trail left by mobile telephone signals.
A team of British telecommunications specialists has arrived in the Algarve to attempt to pinpoint the movements of telephones around the resort complex where Madeleine was abducted 26 days ago.
....
Trails are created by silent transmissions sent out by every mobile phone even when not in use. Each signal is picked up by masts, which create a timed computer log of the handset’s movements. By measuring the strength of the signal, the location of the handset can often be narrowed to an area as small as a few square yards.
Detectives will use the information to verify statements provided by guests and staff at the Ocean Club complex, where Madeleine was taken from her bed.
The quote above is extensively edited by me to get to the phone data.
If these reports are to be believed, by 29 May the British experts had everything in place to locate everyone with a mobile to a well-defined trail that evening. So why are we still waiting for a resolution? We know who was in the local pubs and restaurants, who was tucked up cosy at home, and who was in the 5A zone. Simples.
Do I have to look up when the PJ got their hands on widespread records for phone activity around Luz re 3rd May? Pity they only got the data transmissions from the phone companies, not the control information.
Mind you, it was nice of the same Portuguese companies to hand over confidential and comprehensive details of phone records so promptly to the Brits. And wasn't it a bit naughty of the Brits not to hand this over to the PJ?
If it looks like a red herring and it smells like a red herring ....
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 15, 2015, 05:03:44 PM
As a matter of interest, do you believe this witness?
The document is in Spanish, dated to 1 Nov 2007. She didn't bother telling the Portuguese police. She didn't bother telling the Leicestershire police, but she felt the need to pass this info to the Spanish 7 months after Madeleine disappeared.
The document seems a bit muddled on dates. The only way I can make sense of an Aug/Sep 2006 date is by changing it so that she was working for 6 months up to Oct 2006, not from Oct 2006.
She now remembers an event that took place in 5A on a Thursday night but can't remember if it was in August or September.
The parents were out at the tennis night. It was 00:30, and they were not back.
Worried about rats, Margaret popped her head out the main entrance. (Why? Were the rats around there so noisy one could hear them, or did Margaret randomly check for rats?)
By the movement sensitive lights she saw a brown object move. (Neither Margaret nor the 'rat' had moved enough to switch on the light.)
When she looked closer she saw the rat was a man, who then moved (again) this time setting on the movement sensitive lights.
Then from the words "No, no" she could deduce that he was Portuguese.
She told her supervisor, who passed it on to John Hall. The supervisor is not named. However, Margaret is privy to the information that both were worried about rats. Why were they worried about rats, given that Margaret had not seen a rat?
John Hill makes no mention of this lurking man in his statement. Who knows, perhaps SY got him back in to ask him about it (oh and the entire set of lost keys he never mentioned). Perhaps Margaret's supervisor was Donna Hill, and SY hauled her in for the same reason.
No one in the T9 mentions a movement sensitive light, though if one had been disabled, they might well not have noticed it.
No one who was interviewed on the basis that they had previously occupied 5A mentions such a light. Again, if it was disabled, perhaps they did not notice it.
Why, if there was a motion sensitive light near 5A, did they not repair it, as opposed to tacking a floodlight on block 5 months or years later?
Margaret's tale is in my red herrings folder.
I find Margaret Hall's statement no more credible or incredible than anything else which is in the public domain.
According to Margaret Hall she spoke to Metodo3 who contacted the PJ because she had heard nothing from her local police to whom she had reported the incident.
I presume she spoke to them in English and they transcribed her information into Spanish (if there is no translation into Portuguese it rather suggests that no-one from the investigation bothered to read it).
If Margaret Hall had not been employed in the capacity she stated … why has no -one come forward to share that information with us?
The fact that John Hill failed to mention rats is not in the least surprising ~ he didn't mention the very recent burglaries in the block either.
In the tabloid article to which Margaret hall contributed, she stated that she was on her way home, was so unnerved by the encounter that she ran back to the apartment and had to be escorted home.
All easily verifiable … and would have been worth the police checking it out, I think, particularly as she says she had a clear view of his face.
**snip Margaret yesterday told the Mirror she saw the prowler hiding in the dark as she left through the back entrance after baby-sitting at apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, the year before Maddy was taken from the apartment.
She screamed in terror as the unshaven figure stepped out.
His movement set off a security light and the nanny clearly saw his face. "He came towards me saying 'no, no'. I just turned round and ran back to the apartment," she said.
Shaking with fear, she was later led back to her own flat.
**snip She was back in the UK when she heard of Maddy's disappearance in May last year - and a chill ran down her spine when she realised the little girl had been taken from the apartment where she had worked.
Her mind immediately pictured the scruffy, long-haired stranger.
She told police in her home town of Bolton and was interviewed but no photofit was ever issued.
**snip After hearing nothing from the police in the UK, she went straight to Metodo 3, the private investigators working for Kate and Gerry. They passed her information to Portuguese police, who dismissed it as being "out-dated". http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
Margaret Hall did not make claims on his nationality from “No! No!” in the same Mirror article she says, "He had said 'no' in English but he was not English because of his skin colouring. He looked more Portuguese than anything."
As I said no more and no less credible than any other statement given in good faith ... but with at least two opportunities for confirmation ... (a) a check with the people she was babysitting for if she had returned, and whoever escorted her home (b) did her bosses remember the rat incident
I seem to remember also that a previous occupant of 5A had complained about an outside light not working or being broken ... I cannot find a cite for it, maybe someone can help? ... the motion sensitive light mentioned by Margaret hall was my interest in this ... wonder if this was the broken light I remember being mentioned?
No it wasn't ... the light I read about was the one at the front door ... that would be another point for verification of Margaret Hall's statement ... was there a motion sensitive light in the back area of the apartment?
**snip We would always enter and leave the apartment through the main door with gave way to the parking area and the street. We did not use the pool-side doors as it was not possible to close them from the outside. It was get very dark outside our door and that left us a bit scared. The darkness was due to a faulty/wasted bulb. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLO-D_AMBROSIO.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 15, 2015, 07:42:35 PM
"Descreve a porta como a porta principal para entrar nos apartamentos, actualmente na parte traseira."
Now that bit is in Portuguese and it is in the files so it was reported to the PJ and they did note it down.
After that Google translate does its best for Portuguese to English.
"Describes the door and the front door to enter the apartment, currently on the back."
Now we have a problem. Is the door on the front, or is it to the back? Please note, I am using front for car park, rear for garden towards Tapas. Whether the witness is or not.
Porta principal is easy. Despite what Google says, it means the main door. Whether the main door is on the front or on the rear. The principal entrance.
Then Google 'does a whoopsie' by getting the front door to the back. Or does it? Traseira definitely means back. Thus Google got it right that Margaret could not tell the difference between front and back. She made the main door to the back - the garden with bushes for man to hide in. With much later to come, open patio doors.
Or the man was outside the porta principal, the main door, the door leading to the car park, with no bushes to hide behind. And no movement sensor lights. And no rat.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 15, 2015, 07:56:56 PM
"Descreve a porta como a porta principal para entrar nos apartamentos, actualmente na parte traseira."
Now that bit is in Portuguese and it is in the files so it was reported to the PJ and they did note it down.
After that Google translate does its best for Portuguese to English.
"Describes the door and the front door to enter the apartment, currently on the back."
Now we have a problem. Is the door on the front, or is it to the back? Please note, I am using front for car park, rear for garden towards Tapas. Whether the witness is or not.
Porta principal is easy. Despite what Google says, it means the main door. Whether the main door is on the front or on the rear. The principal entrance.
Then Google 'does a whoopsie' by getting the front door to the back. Or does it? Traseira definitely means back. Thus Google got it right that Margaret could not tell the difference between front and back. She made the main door to the back - the garden with bushes for man to hide in. With much later to come, open patio doors.
Or the man was outside the porta principal, the main door, the door leading to the car park, with no bushes to hide behind. And no movement sensor lights. And no rat.
The translation in the files makes it clear that it is the poolside or patio doors to which she referred ... should have been easy enough to determine if there was a light of the type described at the time in question.
References regarding which is classed as front and which as back door has caused nearly as much confusion and accusation as the misinterpretation of Kate McCann asking for a priest.
**snip After this she returned to the apartment in a state of shock, it was obvious that there was no good reason for him to be hiding in the darkness outside the apartment. She said that the front door was the main door to enter the apartment, situated at the back. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2015, 08:18:32 PM
The translation in the files makes it clear that it is the poolside or patio doors to which she referred ... should have been easy enough to determine if there was a light of the type described at the time in question.
References regarding which is classed as front and which as back door has caused nearly as much confusion and accusation as the misinterpretation of Kate McCann asking for a priest.
**snip After this she returned to the apartment in a state of shock, it was obvious that there was no good reason for him to be hiding in the darkness outside the apartment. She said that the front door was the main door to enter the apartment, situated at the back. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm
Surely patio doors can't be described as the main door? apart from anything else, they couldn't be entered from outside with a key, which is usually a feature of a 'main' door.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 15, 2015, 08:51:14 PM
We did get a great efit and at least it was released 8)--))
Margaret Hall added: “My description of the man is very similar to that of Jane Tanner’s. He had long hair but it was quite scruffy and straggly looking. He had said ‘no’ in English but he was not English because of his skin colouring. He looked more Portuguese than anything.”
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 15, 2015, 08:59:19 PM
Margaret Hall added: “My description of the man is very similar to that of Jane Tanner’s. He had long hair but it was quite scruffy and straggly looking. He had said ‘no’ in English but he was not English because of his skin colouring. He looked more Portuguese than anything.”
That's because it didn't look like you know who and so was quite safe to use. ?{)(**
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 15, 2015, 09:07:21 PM
Margaret Hall added: “My description of the man is very similar to that of Jane Tanner’s. He had long hair but it was quite scruffy and straggly looking. He had said ‘no’ in English but he was not English because of his skin colouring. He looked more Portuguese than anything.”
IIRC That tannerman e-fit was not made until 2008. Do you have the previous ones, Pat? All a bit weird looking in sketches!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 15, 2015, 09:19:27 PM
Surely patio doors can't be described as the main door? apart from anything else, they couldn't be entered from outside with a key, which is usually a feature of a 'main' door.
Don't chin me about it ... check out the files and take it from there.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 15, 2015, 09:30:52 PM
IIRC That tannerman e-fit was not made until 2008. Do you have the previous ones, Pat? All a bit weird looking in sketches!
I think that is the efit the FBI artist collaborated on with Jane??
Margaret Hall's was apparently helped by the Daily Mirror ... I would suggest that if they didn't call in the local kindergarten for assistance ... it may be one drawn by Margaret herself?
The Mirror article was dated 20th August.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on April 16, 2015, 02:34:01 AM
The motion sensitive light she refers to was probably located further along the path adjacent to the car park as no such light existed outside apartment 5a.
The translation in the files makes it clear that it is the poolside or patio doors to which she referred ... should have been easy enough to determine if there was a light of the type described at the time in question.
References regarding which is classed as front and which as back door has caused nearly as much confusion and accusation as the misinterpretation of Kate McCann asking for a priest.
**snip After this she returned to the apartment in a state of shock, it was obvious that there was no good reason for him to be hiding in the darkness outside the apartment. She said that the front door was the main door to enter the apartment, situated at the back. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm
The only problem with the translation is that it is rubbish. "She said that the front door was the main door to enter the apartment, situated at the back."
C'mon. That is gibberish, as spoken by someone who's first language is not English, or by Google. Was the front door really at the back? Was Margaret nipping out and in of the patio doors, much like the McCanns?
Was the man hiding in bushes that don't exist outside the front? (NB Car park, I mean here.)
Was the man hiding in bushes outside the rear? (NB Patio doors this time.) Ok, what bushes? When did we get bushes behind 5A? We got bushes not in the translation but in the Mirror article. Oh, merde!
So let me take the Mirror bushes away and return to the translation.
Back door aka patio. Man is in the garden, or somewhere up the steps, or at the garden gate. Or at least in the alley. Not a mention of any of these. Any of these would raise suspicion, and not about rats. Rats = normal, man in garden at 00:30 = big trouble.
Front door aka car park. A pedestrian walkway in front of 5A, then a metre high wall, then a car park. Nowhere to hide with a motion sensitive light. It probably does get rats, but how was Margaret alerted to this?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 16, 2015, 09:11:50 AM
I find Margaret Hall's statement no more credible or incredible than anything else which is in the public domain.
According to Margaret Hall she spoke to Metodo3 who contacted the PJ because she had heard nothing from her local police to whom she had reported the incident.
I presume she spoke to them in English and they transcribed her information into Spanish (if there is no translation into Portuguese it rather suggests that no-one from the investigation bothered to read it).
If Margaret Hall had not been employed in the capacity she stated … why has no -one come forward to share that information with us?
The fact that John Hill failed to mention rats is not in the least surprising ~ he didn't mention the very recent burglaries in the block either.
In the tabloid article to which Margaret hall contributed, she stated that she was on her way home, was so unnerved by the encounter that she ran back to the apartment and had to be escorted home.
All easily verifiable … and would have been worth the police checking it out, I think, particularly as she says she had a clear view of his face.
**snip Margaret yesterday told the Mirror she saw the prowler hiding in the dark as she left through the back entrance after baby-sitting at apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, the year before Maddy was taken from the apartment.
She screamed in terror as the unshaven figure stepped out.
His movement set off a security light and the nanny clearly saw his face. "He came towards me saying 'no, no'. I just turned round and ran back to the apartment," she said.
Shaking with fear, she was later led back to her own flat.
**snip She was back in the UK when she heard of Maddy's disappearance in May last year - and a chill ran down her spine when she realised the little girl had been taken from the apartment where she had worked.
Her mind immediately pictured the scruffy, long-haired stranger.
She told police in her home town of Bolton and was interviewed but no photofit was ever issued.
**snip After hearing nothing from the police in the UK, she went straight to Metodo 3, the private investigators working for Kate and Gerry. They passed her information to Portuguese police, who dismissed it as being "out-dated". http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-nannys-new-sketch-329189
Margaret Hall did not make claims on his nationality from “No! No!” in the same Mirror article she says, "He had said 'no' in English but he was not English because of his skin colouring. He looked more Portuguese than anything."
As I said no more and no less credible than any other statement given in good faith ... but with at least two opportunities for confirmation ... (a) a check with the people she was babysitting for if she had returned, and whoever escorted her home (b) did her bosses remember the rat incident
I seem to remember also that a previous occupant of 5A had complained about an outside light not working or being broken ... I cannot find a cite for it, maybe someone can help? ... the motion sensitive light mentioned by Margaret hall was my interest in this ... wonder if this was the broken light I remember being mentioned?
No it wasn't ... the light I read about was the one at the front door ... that would be another point for verification of Margaret Hall's statement ... was there a motion sensitive light in the back area of the apartment?
**snip We would always enter and leave the apartment through the main door with gave way to the parking area and the street. We did not use the pool-side doors as it was not possible to close them from the outside. It was get very dark outside our door and that left us a bit scared. The darkness was due to a faulty/wasted bulb. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLO-D_AMBROSIO.htm
Well done Brietta. You found things that I was unable to find and gathered them together. A lot of work went into your post.
The whole thread [last part anyway, I haven't read it all] is very good. Good sleuthing guys.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2015, 09:19:44 AM
The only problem with the translation is that it is rubbish. "She said that the front door was the main door to enter the apartment, situated at the back."
C'mon. That is gibberish, as spoken by someone who's first language is not English, or by Google. Was the front door really at the back? Was Margaret nipping out and in of the patio doors, much like the McCanns?
Was the man hiding in bushes that don't exist outside the front? (NB Car park, I mean here.)
Was the man hiding in bushes outside the rear? (NB Patio doors this time.) Ok, what bushes? When did we get bushes behind 5A? We got bushes not in the translation but in the Mirror article. Oh, merde!
So let me take the Mirror bushes away and return to the translation.
Back door aka patio. Man is in the garden, or somewhere up the steps, or at the garden gate. Or at least in the alley. Not a mention of any of these. Any of these would raise suspicion, and not about rats. Rats = normal, man in garden at 00:30 = big trouble.
Front door aka car park. A pedestrian walkway in front of 5A, then a metre high wall, then a car park. Nowhere to hide with a motion sensitive light. It probably does get rats, but how was Margaret alerted to this?
Unfortunately, it won't stop the devoted mccann supporters from clutching at straws.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on April 16, 2015, 09:52:06 AM
I agree that the translated statement is hard to understand, one persons back door is another's front and so on. What we have to ask though is would a nanny leave by the patio door or the main door which led directly into the car park?
My own preference is the solid front door and the bushes she refers to are the overgrown trees immediately adjacent to apartment 5a but as for the PIR operated light, that's another mystery.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 16, 2015, 10:48:36 AM
Unfortunately, it won't stop the devoted mccann supporters from clutching at straws.
There could be lots of reasons why a man was near the apartment, ranging from waiting for a friend to having a sly 'comfort break'. If he was 'casing the joint' with child abduction in mind he is unlikely to have approached the same apartment nine months later after this fright. I wonder what a typical Portuguese person looks like? I had occasion to work with a group of Portuguese people some years ago and was interested to see the variety in their looks.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 16, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
I agree that the translated statement is hard to understand, one persons back door is another's front and so on. What we have to ask though is would a nanny leave by the patio door or the main door which led directly into the car park?
My own preference is the solid front door and the bushes she refers to are the overgrown trees immediately adjacent to apartment 5a but as for the PIR operated light, that's another mystery.
Mystery solved, I believe. Right hand wall above cupboard.
Don't know what you meant by cupboard, therefore I will only point out the following.
We do not have cupboards outside of our properties in Portugal. We keep our cups, and our cupboards inside.
What goes on the exterior of the property (so it can be accessed from a service personnel outside without entering) are the meters. Gas, water, electricity.
Where are your meters? In the UK, my water meter was in the pavement in front of my property. The gas and electricity meters were on the outside of my house.
Now that we are done, hopefully, with cupboards and meters, what PIR?
I am not seeing a PIR. I am seeing a brown streak on the wall.
Let me assume it actually is a PIR. Then I have to work out how it made ratman's foot look like a noisy rat at 00:30 before Margaret could make out it was a brown shoe attached to a Portuguese lurker.
Folks, the reason the Madeleine case is on-going is people to the rear of 5A - people to the front of 5A - lurkers in the 5A stairwell - rain-sodden note on the 1st anniversary - Gerry in Urbanisation Melody - Scenic in Huelva - body in non-existent sewer outlet.
There was no movement activated light to the front or the rear of 5A. No person lurking in the garden. No person lurking in the car park.
Kindly stick to hard evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 16, 2015, 08:17:16 PM
Don't know what you meant by cupboard, therefore I will only point out the following.
We do not have cupboards outside of our properties in Portugal. We keep our cups, and our cupboards inside.
What goes on the exterior of the property (so it can be accessed from a service personnel outside without entering) are the meters. Gas, water, electricity.
Where are your meters? In the UK, my water meter was in the pavement in front of my property. The gas and electricity meters were on the outside of my house.
Now that we are done, hopefully, with cupboards and meters, what PIR?
I am not seeing a PIR. I am seeing a brown streak on the wall.
Let me assume it actually is a PIR. Then I have to work out how it made ratman's foot look like a noisy rat at 00:30 before Margaret could make out it was a brown shoe attached to a Portuguese lurker.
Folks, the reason the Madeleine case is on-going is people to the rear of 5A - people to the front of 5A - lurkers in the 5A stairwell - rain-sodden note on the 1st anniversary - Gerry in Urbanisation Melody - Scenic in Huelva - body in non-existent sewer outlet.
There was no movement activated light to the front or the rear of 5A. No person lurking in the garden. No person lurking in the car park.
Kindly stick to hard evidence.
So what is that protruding from the wall above the small doors, to.... shining?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 16, 2015, 08:45:55 PM
The only problem with the translation is that it is rubbish. "She said that the front door was the main door to enter the apartment, situated at the back."
C'mon. That is gibberish, as spoken by someone who's first language is not English, or by Google. Was the front door really at the back? Was Margaret nipping out and in of the patio doors, much like the McCanns?
Was the man hiding in bushes that don't exist outside the front? (NB Car park, I mean here.)
Was the man hiding in bushes outside the rear? (NB Patio doors this time.) Ok, what bushes? When did we get bushes behind 5A? We got bushes not in the translation but in the Mirror article. Oh, merde!
So let me take the Mirror bushes away and return to the translation.
Back door aka patio. Man is in the garden, or somewhere up the steps, or at the garden gate. Or at least in the alley. Not a mention of any of these. Any of these would raise suspicion, and not about rats. Rats = normal, man in garden at 00:30 = big trouble.
Front door aka car park. A pedestrian walkway in front of 5A, then a metre high wall, then a car park. Nowhere to hide with a motion sensitive light. It probably does get rats, but how was Margaret alerted to this?
No, Shining, sorry but I think you have this one wrong.
It is perfectly understandable that Margearet got the front and back mixed up. All forum world did too, because various reports both in papers and witness statements got them muddled as well. In fact in the early days on here I had to make a big thing out of pointing out that the steps and patio were at the back, cos it was hopeless discussing it when different people got it the wrong way around.
Margaret would not have gone home through the rear patio doors. She could not have locked them after she left. Also as you correctly say the back patio has no buushes to hide behind. It is raised 11 steps above ground level, so no bushes could grow there.
She went out of the front door and IMO either she moved several steps forward, or he was startled and activated the light that apparantly was there at the time.
Maybe, the sensors were directed along the pathway and did not point towards all the outer trees. Maybe they were deliberately directed so that the sensor lights did not unnecessarily waken sleeping residents. We just dont know.
I might add that we had movement sensors in our house and a dog that freely roamed. She never jumped up except onto one seat. We opened the sensor casing up and found several mini sensors each pointing in a different direction. By blanking some of these off, we were able to protect our house from an intruder without the dog setting the alarm off. I spent hours crawling around on my hands and knees whilst hubby discovered which sensors to blank off.
I wonder if this man was one of the guys interviewed by SY? I wonder if they came back in the daylight and deliberately broke the light after having experienced it coming on when Margaret came out.
I see absolutely no reason to disbelieve Margaret; she just got her front and back of the building muddled .... as so many of us did to begin with.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 17, 2015, 12:56:38 AM
Don't know what you meant by cupboard, therefore I will only point out the following.
We do not have cupboards outside of our properties in Portugal. We keep our cups, and our cupboards inside.
What goes on the exterior of the property (so it can be accessed from a service personnel outside without entering) are the meters. Gas, water, electricity.
Where are your meters? In the UK, my water meter was in the pavement in front of my property. The gas and electricity meters were on the outside of my house.
Now that we are done, hopefully, with cupboards and meters, what PIR?
I am not seeing a PIR. I am seeing a brown streak on the wall.
Let me assume it actually is a PIR. Then I have to work out how it made ratman's foot look like a noisy rat at 00:30 before Margaret could make out it was a brown shoe attached to a Portuguese lurker.
Folks, the reason the Madeleine case is on-going is people to the rear of 5A - people to the front of 5A - lurkers in the 5A stairwell - rain-sodden note on the 1st anniversary - Gerry in Urbanisation Melody - Scenic in Huelva - body in non-existent sewer outlet.
There was no movement activated light to the front or the rear of 5A. No person lurking in the garden. No person lurking in the car park.
Kindly stick to hard evidence.
Sorry again Shining
John posted some superb photos earlier in the thread.
The sensor is, I believe, on the opposite side of the doorway, the LH side, just lower than the door knob. May I suggest you enlarge the image. You will see it clearly then.
If I have identified that correctly, and I think I have, then Margaret only had to take a step out of the front door and the light would have come on.
That light had been broken when Kate and Gerry were there. Was it broken with Madeleines abduction in mind?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 17, 2015, 01:15:09 AM
The sensor is, I believe, on the opposite side of the doorway, the LH side, just lower than the door knob. May I suggest you enlarge the image. You will see it clearly then.
If I have identified that correctly, and I think I have, then Margaret only had to take a step out of the front door and the light would have come on.
That light had been broken when Kate and Gerry were there. Was it broken with Madeleines abduction in mind?
Now there's a thought.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 17, 2015, 09:23:24 AM
Hard evidence.
There were people, watching the McCann apartment.
There were people collecting for a bogus charity, one witness said the man was very interested in her child.
Madeleine is missing.
The window and shutters were open when they had been closed when the McCann's left the apartment.
Madeleine has not been found.
SY have found a link between a group of men who phoned each other frequently on the day Madeleine went missing, some calls only lasting a minute or so.
There are hairs that don't match any of the people who entered 5a on the 3rd of May that SY want to get DNA from.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 17, 2015, 09:55:20 AM
There were people collecting for a bogus charity, one witness said the man was very interested in her child.
Madeleine is missing.
The window and shutters were open when they had been closed when the McCann's left the apartment.
Madeleine has not been found.
SY have found a link between a group of men who phoned each other frequently on the day Madeleine went missing, some calls only lasting a minute or so.
There are hairs that don't match any of the people who entered 5a on the 3rd of May that SY want to get DNA from.
People watching the mccann apartment, and what about other apartments ?
So people hanging around in a street looking at buildings is evidence of abduction ?
Pull the other one.
People working for a bogus charity, evidence of abduction ?
Who are you kidding.
Someone paying attention to a child does not make them a paedophile or abductor.
Madeleine missing.
As much evidence for abduction as there is for her being abducted by aliens.
As to the shutters and windows, need I remind you, no independent verification.
NEXT.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2015, 09:56:09 AM
Finger prints found on the window is the only hard evidence in this whole case. You can't solve this case without a theory connecting all of the evidence unless you get a confession which is not going to happen. But they are supposed to be doing new forensic tests.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 17, 2015, 10:04:54 AM
People watching the mccann apartment, and what about other apartments ?
So people hanging around in a street looking at buildings is evidence of abduction ?
Pull the other one.
People working for a bogus charity, evidence of abduction ?
Who are you kidding.
Someone paying attention to a child does not make them a paedophile or abductor.
Madeleine missing.
As much evidence for abduction as there is for her being abducted by aliens.
As to the shutters and windows, need I remind you, no independent verification.
NEXT.
Stephen, it is how the police work.
How many times do you hear the police ask for witnesses who saw strangers hanging around when a crime has been committed?
Have these people shown up since?
The bogus charity workers could have been going around the apartments, sussing out who lived there and if they had children, you really don't get it do you.
Well if you want to think Madeleine was abducted by aliens that is your prerogative, SY are going down a different route.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 17, 2015, 10:05:49 AM
Finger prints found on the window is the only hard evidence in this whole case. You can't solve this case without a theory connecting all of the evidence unless you get a confession which is not going to happen.
Fingerprints found on the window of someone who has 'lived' in the apartment for 5 days is hardly 'hard evidence' of anything - except of their perfectly legitimate presence there.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 17, 2015, 10:09:30 AM
How many times do you hear the police ask for witnesses who saw strangers hanging around when a crime has been committed?
Have these people shown up since?
The bogus charity workers could have been going around the apartments, sussing out who lived there and if they had children, you really don't get it do you.
Well if you want to think Madeleine was abducted by aliens that is your prerogative, SY are going down a different route.
Anyone in Luz who happened to stand still being an automatic suspect is ludicrous, as to people trying to make money from the tourists either with bogus charities, dodgy watches or iffy timeshares, it is hardly unusual.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 17, 2015, 10:26:37 AM
Anyone in Luz who happened to stand still being an automatic suspect is ludicrous, as to people trying to make money from the tourists either with bogus charities, dodgy watches or iffy timeshares, it is hardly unusual.
Scotland Yard are out of their depth when it comes to investigating a supposed crime in Portugal. I will never understand how they were ever given permission to do so in the first place. It's simply ludicrous!!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2015, 10:27:51 AM
Fingerprints found on the window of someone who has 'lived' in the apartment for 5 days is hardly 'hard evidence' of anything - except of their perfectly legitimate presence there.
According to Amaral the window was cleaned on Wednesday but of course it was closed when the police arrived. The crime scene was compromised.
"The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open." (KM 6 Sep)
"She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms."
Anyone in Luz who happened to stand still being an automatic suspect is ludicrous, as to people trying to make money from the tourists either with bogus charities, dodgy watches or iffy timeshares, it is hardly unusual.
The man seen by the child and others was there at different times staring at 5a, now to me, that would be suspicious.
Yes there are many bogus charities etc. with people trying to make money, but this was before Madeleine went missing so of course the police are going to look into it, especially as one witness said the man who came to her apartment seemed more interested in her child than what he was collecting for.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 17, 2015, 10:33:51 AM
According to Amaral the window was cleaned on Wednesday but of course it was closed when the police arrived. The crime scene was compromised.
"The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open." (KM 6 Sep)
"She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms."
I would like to see the witness statement of the cleaner to see if she said she cleaned the windows on the Wednesday. I have never seen a cleaner clean windows when I have been staying anywhere. This I would say would be done in between people staying in the apartment.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2015, 10:37:39 AM
I would like to see the witness statement of the cleaner to see if she said she cleaned the windows on the Wednesday. I have never seen a cleaner clean windows when I have been staying anywhere. This I would say would be done in between people staying in the apartment.
I don't know but Amaral is the source.
"On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's." (TOTL)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 17, 2015, 10:40:32 AM
How many times do you hear the police ask for witnesses who saw strangers hanging around when a crime has been committed?
Have these people shown up since?
The bogus charity workers could have been going around the apartments, sussing out who lived there and if they had children, you really don't get it do you.
Well if you want to think Madeleine was abducted by aliens that is your prerogative, SY are going down a different route.
and the police have found ?
Answer, NOTHING and no trace of Madeleine.
Merely because people hang around in a street, does not make them abductors or burglars.
The bogus charity workers, well hardly anything new there, but it doesn't make them potential abductors, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
I don't believe aliens abducted Madeleine, but the point I made, which is fairly apparent, is that a missing child is not direct evidence of abduction.
The other 2 well known theories are:
Accidental death in the apartment; or she walked out of the apartment and 'disappeared'.
As to SY, they are judged by their results.........................
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 17, 2015, 10:53:06 AM
Merely because people hang around in a street, does not make them abductors or burglars.
The bogus charity workers, well hardly anything new there, but it doesn't make them potential abductors, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
I don't believe aliens abducted Madeleine, but the point I made, which is fairly apparent, is that a missing child is not direct evidence of abduction.
The other 2 well known theories are:
Accidental death in the apartment; or she walked out of the apartment and 'disappeared'.
As to SY, they are judged by their results.........................
How would we know what the police have found? Did we hear anything about what the police had found when they hurled a man in for questioning about Claudia the missing chef?
SY have said they are not going to give a running commentary about the investigation.
This man was not just 'hanging about in the street' he was staring over at 5a, witnesses stated this fact and it was in reconstruction.
The bogus charity workers don't automatically become abductors, but they haven't been traced, so who knows?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 17, 2015, 11:00:50 AM
"On the window, there were no signs of a break-in or of gloves. It had been cleaned the day before, May 2nd, by an Ocean Club employee, and the only fingerprints found were Kate's." (TOTL)
His book is full of lies. He even changes the date on which Madeleine spoke to her parents from the 3rd to the 2nd May to make it fit better with Mrs Fenns statement. He also forgets to tell his readers that Madeleine mentioned Sean was crying as well as herself. This is also a lie to make it fit in with Mrs Fenns statement that she only heard one child crying.
I have never seen a statement from a cleaner saying she cleaned the windows on May 2nd, and I agree with Lace that cleaning windows would be something carried out after one family had left and before the next family arrived as part of the usual procedure.
As a matter of curiosity - I wonder how many people open a sliding window by placing their hand on the window pane and sliding it across when there is a proper 'handle (whatever it's called) ' to use.
On the other hand I can imagine putting my hand on a window if I was leaning forward and looking out of the open window - in a panic.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2015, 11:12:44 AM
His book is full of lies. He even changes the date on which Madeleine spoke to her parents from the 3rd to the 2nd May to make it fit better with Mrs Fenns statement. He also forgets to tell his readers that Madeleine mentioned Sean was crying as well as herself. This is also a lie to make it fit in with Mrs Fenns statement that she only heard one child crying.
I have never seen a statement from a cleaner saying she cleaned the windows on May 2nd, and I agree with Lace that cleaning windows would be something carried out after one family had left and before the next family arrived as part of the usual procedure.
As a matter of curiosity - I wonder how many people open a sliding window by placing their hand on the window pane and sliding it across when there is a proper 'handle (whatever it's called) ' to use.
On the other hand I can imagine putting my hand on a window if I was leaning forward and looking out of the open window - in a panic.
Rachel heard no crying on the 2nd and that is on record! From a witness who stayed in next door to their room. So it's unusual that Madeleine would say that the next morning.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 17, 2015, 11:18:49 AM
Rachel heard no crying on the 2nd and that is on record! From a witness who stayed in next door to their room. So it's unusual that Madeleine would say that the next morning.
That is why I think Madeleine was referring to the Tuesday night.
Children get confused about days at that age.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2015, 11:21:37 AM
That is why I think Madeleine was referring to the Tuesday night.
Children get confused about days at that age.
And why Amaral if he said he thinks it was probably said on the 2nd actually makes sense to most. The only independent witness of hearing crying was Pamela Fenn and she said it happened on the 1st.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 17, 2015, 11:22:31 AM
His book is full of lies. He even changes the date on which Madeleine spoke to her parents from the 3rd to the 2nd May to make it fit better with Mrs Fenns statement. He also forgets to tell his readers that Madeleine mentioned Sean was crying as well as herself. This is also a lie to make it fit in with Mrs Fenns statement that she only heard one child crying.
I have never seen a statement from a cleaner saying she cleaned the windows on May 2nd, and I agree with Lace that cleaning windows would be something carried out after one family had left and before the next family arrived as part of the usual procedure.
As a matter of curiosity - I wonder how many people open a sliding window by placing their hand on the window pane and sliding it across when there is a proper 'handle (whatever it's called) ' to use.
On the other hand I can imagine putting my hand on a window if I was leaning forward and looking out of the open window - in a panic.
I agree.
Amaral used it book to paint the McCann's as black as he could.
What was all this about his dog for gods sake!! His wife asking him to come off the case as his dog was found dead!! What he up against the mafia or something? I even read one post where someone actually said 'I know the McCann's killed Amaral's dog what else are they capable of' Even though he peppers it with lovely statements such as 'the blossom was out' his book was malicious in it's content, a book which showed how bitter he was at being taken off the case.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 17, 2015, 11:26:33 AM
His book is full of lies. He even changes the date on which Madeleine spoke to her parents from the 3rd to the 2nd May to make it fit better with Mrs Fenns statement. He also forgets to tell his readers that Madeleine mentioned Sean was crying as well as herself. This is also a lie to make it fit in with Mrs Fenns statement that she only heard one child crying.
I have never seen a statement from a cleaner saying she cleaned the windows on May 2nd, and I agree with Lace that cleaning windows would be something carried out after one family had left and before the next family arrived as part of the usual procedure.
Exactly.
I am lucky enough to be rather well travelled, both for business and pleasure, and staying generally at hotels of a higher calibre than Ocean Club.
The cleaners are in and out pretty sharply during ones stay and definitely do not bother with such things as window cleaning. That happens between occupants at change over.
But I cannot believe that Amaral would have the windows cleaned, then out of the hat produce a solitary couple of prints ... Kates ... £5%4% ... or can I ?
It is highly likely that Kate would have leaned right out to look, but what happened to all the other prints from people who also leaned out looking? Where are they?
As a matter of curiosity - I wonder how many people open a sliding window by placing their hand on the window pane and sliding it across when there is a proper 'handle (whatever it's called) ' to use.
On the other hand I can imagine putting my hand on a window if I was leaning forward and looking out of the open window - in a panic.
Exactly. Every one would do it.
What happened to the prints of the other people, who in a panic looked out too?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on April 17, 2015, 12:08:07 PM
I am lucky enough to be rather well travelled, both for business and pleasure, and staying generally at hotels of a higher calibre than Ocean Club.
The cleaners are in and out pretty sharply during ones stay and definitely do not bother with such things as window cleaning. That happens between occupants at change over.
But I cannot believe that Amaral would have the windows cleaned, then out of the hat produce a solitary couple of prints ... Kates ... £5%4% ... or can I ?
It is highly likely that Kate would have leaned right out to look, but what happened to all the other prints from people who also leaned out looking? Where are they?
Exactly. Every one would do it.
What happened to the prints of the other people, who in a panic looked out too?
A cloth soaked in chloroform is excellent at cleaning surfaces.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2015, 01:21:00 PM
A cloth soaked in chloroform is excellent at cleaning surfaces.
The area of the pillow of the bed from the minor disappeared was inspected with the intention to detect the presence of some smell [aroma] characteristic of volatile substances typical of chloroform or ether, this search proving negative.
And why Amaral if he said he thinks it was probably said on the 2nd actually makes sense to most. The only independent witness of hearing crying was Pamela Fenn and she said it happened on the 1st.
Odd thing is, only Pamela Fenn heard this crying. Not another sole in the block heard anything. Seems like the Moyes didn't miss much, they heard nothing.
I find a few other things odd about Mrs Fenn's translated statement.
1. Mrs Fenn was in the living room, on the back of her apartment, watching News at Ten. Madeleine's bedroom was on the front of 5a, but she manages to hear the words 'Daddy, daddy'.
2. She rang her friend Edna Glynn to tell her. And according to Murat, she rang him.
3. She listened to crying for an hour and 15 minutes, and did nothing. Instead of ringing every Tom, Dick and Harry, why not ring the Tapas bar, to ask if the parents were there.
4. She never mentioned it to her niece or her son.
5. She never told the McCann's. Even when she spoke to Gerry.
Come on, a woman of her age not doing something about this, is just unbelieveable.
If she made a statement on the 4th May, where is it?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on April 17, 2015, 01:32:31 PM
Odd thing is, only Pamela Fenn heard this crying. Not another sole in the block heard anything. Seems like the Moyes didn't miss much, they heard nothing.
I find a few other things odd about Mrs Fenn's translated statement.
1. Mrs Fenn was in the living room, on the back of her apartment, watching News at Ten. Madeleine's bedroom was on the front of 5a, but she manages to hear the words 'Daddy, daddy'.
2. She rang her friend Edna Glynn to tell her. And according to Murat, she rang him.
3. She listened to crying for an hour and 15 minutes, and did nothing. Instead of ringing every Tom, Dick and Harry, why not ring the Tapas bar, to ask if the parents were there.
4. She never mentioned it to her niece or her son.
5. She never told the McCann's. Even when she spoke to Gerry.
Come on, a woman of her age not doing something about this, is just unbelieveable.
If she made a statement on the 4th May, where is it?
What's your point DCI?
She was a resident. She lived above apartment 5a. She knew everything that went on. She was so disturbed by the crying on the Tue night she had to go to her friends the following evening. She offered to phone the police but was told not to bother. Have I missed anything?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 17, 2015, 01:34:49 PM
I agree that the translated statement is hard to understand, one persons back door is another's front and so on. What we have to ask though is would a nanny leave by the patio door or the main door which led directly into the car park?
My own preference is the solid front door and the bushes she refers to are the overgrown trees immediately adjacent to apartment 5a but as for the PIR operated light, that's another mystery.
I think which door she exited from would be determined by where she intended going after finishing her shift.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 17, 2015, 02:29:31 PM
She was a resident. She lived above apartment 5a. She knew everything that went on. She was so disturbed by the crying on the Tue night she had to go to her friends the following evening. She offered to phone the police but was told not to bother. Have I missed anything?
She was She did She did but didn't know the McCanns were in 5A So disturbed, she waited nearly 24 hours to go to a friend. Where does she say this? Yes she did, the ideal time to tell Gerry about the crying. She wasn't told not to bother at all, she was told it had been done
Yes where are the statements from these friends. IMO, Pamela's statement is probably nothing like what she gave. It was done in Portuguese, how did she know, it said what was read back to her? She was also adamant, she said nothing of the kind when interviewed by journo.
That night she contacted a friend called Edna Glynn who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23H00, telling her about the situation, who was not surprised at the childs crying. Now why would someone, nowhere near the apartment, not knowing them or who was there, say something like that?
"She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night" so not at a friends, the following night, as you say.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 17, 2015, 03:24:50 PM
Odd thing is, only Pamela Fenn heard this crying. Not another sole in the block heard anything. Seems like the Moyes didn't miss much, they heard nothing.
I find a few other things odd about Mrs Fenn's translated statement.
1. Mrs Fenn was in the living room, on the back of her apartment, watching News at Ten. Madeleine's bedroom was on the front of 5a, but she manages to hear the words 'Daddy, daddy'.
2. She rang her friend Edna Glynn to tell her. And according to Murat, she rang him.
3. She listened to crying for an hour and 15 minutes, and did nothing. Instead of ringing every Tom, Dick and Harry, why not ring the Tapas bar, to ask if the parents were there.
4. She never mentioned it to her niece or her son.
5. She never told the McCann's. Even when she spoke to Gerry.
Come on, a woman of her age not doing something about this, is just unbelieveable.
If she made a statement on the 4th May, where is it?
Definitely a bit fishy is that..
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 17, 2015, 05:00:25 PM
Have I read somewhere that she was a friend of Murat's mother?
Couldn't give a cite for that ... but would not be surprised if two British ladies living in such close proximity to each other weren't at least acquainted ... probably attended many of the same social events.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2015, 06:05:22 PM
She was She did She did but didn't know the McCanns were in 5A So disturbed, she waited nearly 24 hours to go to a friend. Where does she say this? Yes she did, the ideal time to tell Gerry about the crying. She wasn't told not to bother at all, she was told it had been done
Yes where are the statements from these friends. IMO, Pamela's statement is probably nothing like what she gave. It was done in Portuguese, how did she know, it said what was read back to her? She was also adamant, she said nothing of the kind when interviewed by journo.
That night she contacted a friend called Edna Glynn who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23H00, telling her about the situation, who was not surprised at the childs crying. Now why would someone, nowhere near the apartment, not knowing them or who was there, say something like that?
"She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night" so not at a friends, the following night, as you say.
She was probably not surprised of the crying because they were left on their own. So if that child wakes up and they can't find their mummy or daddy what do you think the child is going to do?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 17, 2015, 06:15:15 PM
She was probably not surprised of the crying because they were left on their own. So if that child wakes up and they can't find their mummy or daddy what do you think the child is going to do?
And Edna would know this, how £5%4% Pamela didn't know they lived there till 3rd May.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 17, 2015, 06:22:02 PM
The area of the pillow of the bed from the minor disappeared was inspected with the intention to detect the presence of some smell [aroma] characteristic of volatile substances typical of chloroform or ether, this search proving negative.
' From memory so am happy to be corrected if wrong, but IIRC the '' inspection to detect the presence of some smell'' was by way of a policeman's nose'. He sniffed the pillow.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 17, 2015, 06:29:08 PM
' From memory so am happy to be corrected if wrong, but IIRC the '' inspection to detect the presence of some smell'' was by way of a policeman's nose'. He sniffed the pillow.
Nobody reported any smells in the apartment. Have you found any evidence to prove them wrong?
4078 'Is there anything else, that you smelt, could you smell anything'' Reply 'No, no, we've talked about that before, I didn't smell anything. I was there to check, erm, no, no funny sort of smells, no sort of funny draughts, no sort of funny sort of noises, no, erm, nothing that I can think of for that. I mean, it was a complete just a shock out of the blue when, you know, I'd been in and then suddenly somebody's saying Madeleine's missing, there was nothing that made me think, oh'. (MO)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 17, 2015, 06:57:43 PM
Nobody reported any smells in the apartment. Have you found any evidence to prove them wrong?
4078 'Is there anything else, that you smelt, could you smell anything'' Reply 'No, no, we've talked about that before, I didn't smell anything. I was there to check, erm, no, no funny sort of smells, no sort of funny draughts, no sort of funny sort of noises, no, erm, nothing that I can think of for that. I mean, it was a complete just a shock out of the blue when, you know, I'd been in and then suddenly somebody's saying Madeleine's missing, there was nothing that made me think, oh'. (MO)
Matthew Oldfield is not a forensic expert. Were swabs taken from the pillow which was sniffed by the policeman? Was it taken away for forensic examination.? Maybe someone can cast more light on this?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 18, 2015, 02:00:09 AM
Matthew Oldfield is not a forensic expert. Were swabs taken from the pillow which was sniffed by the policeman? Was it taken away for forensic examination.? Maybe someone can cast more light on this?
I am old and have been subjected to the use of chloroform a number of times..... UGH !
You are mistaken mercury.
Chloroform comes as a liquid . It is soaked onto a pad and it then "gasifies" itself, aneasthetising the patient.
I would think that it is entirelyfeasible that residual traces could be found from the liquid via forensic examination.
I hope the PJ made the effort to check for chloroform, but somehow i doubt it.
There doesn't appear to have been an unusual smell on the night.
The forensic people did look in the apartment for potential evidence, but I presume that that would have been for such obvious physical potential evidence as discarded hankies, syringes or whatever. None was found.
Judging by the lady who only wore one glove, I doubt that any in situ means were very sophisticated. The pillow doesn't appear to have been bagged, so I guess we'll never know.
I'm not entirely convinced that she was actually taken from her bed as I find it feasible that she could have got up for a pee, for example.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 18, 2015, 12:28:07 PM
There doesn't appear to have been an unusual smell on the night.
The forensic people did look in the apartment for potential evidence, but I presume that that would have been for such obvious physical potential evidence as discarded hankies, syringes or whatever. None was found.
Judging by the lady who only wore one glove, I doubt that any in situ means were very sophisticated. The pillow doesn't appear to have been bagged, so I guess we'll never know.
I'm not entirely convinced that she was actually taken from her bed as I find it feasible that she could have got up for a pee, for example.
Hi carana
Someone on here said that Chloroform can be home made ... and can be made without smell.
The stuff they used on me smelt horrible !
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 18, 2015, 12:33:14 PM
Someone on here said that Chloroform can be home made ... and can be made without smell.
The stuff they used on me smelt horrible !
Hewlett is recorded as having used paint stripper to subdue his victims ... if it was a pre-planned abduction there seems to be quite a lot of substances to choose from.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 18, 2015, 12:36:10 PM
Someone on here said that Chloroform can be home made ... and can be made without smell.
The stuff they used on me smelt horrible !
Google it. It's easy to make from household items and the smell dissipates very quickly.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: lordpookles on April 18, 2015, 12:46:37 PM
Chloroform as far as I'm aware also wears off fairly quickly(think the victim starts recovering very shortly after the cloth for instance is withdrawn from their face), so if drugs were used seems unlikely chloroform is the answer imo taking into account the twins not waking up all night. Of course if we just think Madeleine was drugged then it makes some sense.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 18, 2015, 02:15:27 PM
Chloroform as far as I'm aware also wears off fairly quickly(think the victim starts recovering very shortly after the cloth for instance is withdrawn from their face), so if drugs were used seems unlikely chloroform is the answer imo taking into account the twins not waking up all night. Of course if we just think Madeleine was drugged then it makes some sense.
Choroform then inject, are my thoughts at the moment.
Accomplis outside the window passing the necessary in and removing used chloroform pad. and needle afterwards
Am probably wrong tho! Lol ! But could be.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 18, 2015, 02:36:38 PM
Hewlett is recorded as having used paint stripper to subdue his victims ... if it was a pre-planned abduction there seems to be quite a lot of substances to choose from.
Von Aesch apparently used a common product available in any DIY shop as well.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2015, 04:01:22 PM
What time was this at? Russell, Matt and Jane didn't see an open window and Russell came back through the car park at approximately 9:45.
IMO - unless they had some particular reason to do so, (and I can't think of any) - there would be no reason for anyone crossing the carpark in the dark - to make a point of peering across at that specific window - which was not in their line of sight.
IMO in the few seconds it took to cross - they would be looking ahead in the direction they were going in, and Jane and Russell in particular would not be thinking about apartment 5A - or Madeleine. Therefore, imo the fact that people did not notice an open window is no guarantee that it wasn't open.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 18, 2015, 05:00:45 PM
IMO - unless they had some particular reason to do so, (and I can't think of any) - there would be no reason for anyone crossing the carpark in the dark - to make a point of peering across at that specific window - which was not in their line of sight.
IMO in the few seconds it took to cross - they would be looking ahead in the direction they were going in, and Jane and Russell in particular would not be thinking about apartment 5A - or Madeleine. Therefore, imo the fact that people did not notice an open window is no guarantee that it wasn't open.
So you believe that Matthew, while saying there was more light in the room than he expected, didn't check the window as he went by to his own apartment, especially as he had seen the shutter closed earlier ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2015, 05:39:32 PM
IMO - unless they had some particular reason to do so, (and I can't think of any) - there would be no reason for anyone crossing the carpark in the dark - to make a point of peering across at that specific window - which was not in their line of sight.
IMO in the few seconds it took to cross - they would be looking ahead in the direction they were going in, and Jane and Russell in particular would not be thinking about apartment 5A - or Madeleine. Therefore, imo the fact that people did not notice an open window is no guarantee that it wasn't open.
(http://i.imgur.com/MG2ekTc.jpg?1)
And look there's a street light by the car park (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/221apartment.JPG)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on April 18, 2015, 05:54:18 PM
So you believe that Matthew, while saying there was more light in the room than he expected, didn't check the window as he went by to his own apartment, especially as he had seen the shutter closed earlier ?
Matthew had already been to his own apartment before going to the ROB's & then 5a on the 9.30 check. He entered & exited 5a via the rear patio . http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm *snip* That, on that occasion, ROB and he went to their own residences, to check on their own children. After leaving his apartment he went to that of ROB who opted to stay there to calm his daughter who was crying, that done with the deponent went alone to the McCann apartment. He clarifies that ROB's daughter was ill, with vomiting.
To this end, he took the quickest route between ROB's apartment and the side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as KM had said it would be.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 18, 2015, 06:09:23 PM
So you believe that Matthew, while saying there was more light in the room than he expected, didn't check the window as he went by to his own apartment, especially as he had seen the shutter closed earlier ?
First of all it was pretty dark outside that window. The light from the streetlamps was greatly reduced by the heads of the trees.
It was not in his line of vision as he walked across to middle of the building to join the pathway. In fact it was outside his periferel vision as describe precisely by Heriberto .. our expert. Why should he see it?
You give the impression that Matt walked past the window after he left 5A.
That is not true.
His route was. 1) He left with Russell. They walked restaurant to apartment via the streets and the pathway; Matt to his apartment and Russell to his via the same route. 2. After Matt had checked in his own apartment, he went to Russells apartment 3) Russells little one was poorly so he wasn't returning at that moment. He let Matt out via the back patio doors. 4) Matt walked along the alleyway to 5A and entered at the back via the patio door.
After doing his check, he walked straight back to the restaurant.
He did not go anywhere near the bedroom window. That was on the other side of the building
Soz, Pathfinder but you got it wrong.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 18, 2015, 06:56:58 PM
And look there's a street light by the car park (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/221apartment.JPG)
The top picture of the entrance to the car park is not relevant IMO as (1) it's taken in daylight and (2) it's not the view that people entering the carpark at the lefthand side of the entrance and then walking diagonally across the carpark away from 5A towards the right would see.
This particular photo shows the view that would be seen by someone entering from a completely different direction to the group and one where 5A would be in their immediate line of sight. No-one returning from the Tapas took that route - and so would not have seen that view.
The arial photo which Heri posted - where he pencils in the route taken across the carpark - in relation to where 5a is - gives an accurate picture of the route taken and what would be in their line of sight, The photo you have posted does not do that.
But I'm sure you already know that PF.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 18, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
So you believe that Matthew, while saying there was more light in the room than he expected, didn't check the window as he went by to his own apartment, especially as he had seen the shutter closed earlier ?
Matthew didn't pass by Madeleine's window to get to his apartment. As he had already planned to go into 5A to check the children on his way back - that would be even less reason for him to think about checking their bedroom window when he left his own place.
The reason he knew the shutters were closed earlier was because he had actually walked up to the window and stood in front of them doing a listening check.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 18, 2015, 08:56:58 PM
Matthew didn't pass by Madeleine's window to get to his apartment. As he had already planned to go into 5A to check the children on his way back - that would be even less reason for him to think about checking their bedroom window when he left his own place.
The reason he knew the shutters were closed earlier was because he had actually walked up to the window and stood in front of them doing a listening check.
9:25 Matt/Russ go through car park facing windows. Matt would definitely notice any windows open. No draughts or curtains moving in 5A
9:40 Jane Tanner goes through car park.
9:45 Russ goes back through the car park.
That street light would produce enough light in the car park. A picture of it at night with the light on should reveal the truth. But when Jane claims to have walked straight past Gerry and Jez without being seen people will believe anything in this case!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 19, 2015, 12:42:23 AM
I am old and have been subjected to the use of chloroform a number of times..... UGH !
You are mistaken mercury.
Chloroform comes as a liquid . It is soaked onto a pad and it then "gasifies" itself, aneasthetising the patient.
I would think that it is entirelyfeasible that residual traces could be found from the liquid via forensic examination.
I hope the PJ made the effort to check for chloroform, but somehow i doubt it.
Did you used to be a nurse or something?
Thanks. My bad. Chloroform is a liquid, I know, but if it is used on a cloth to drug a person, how can there be residual traces? to find. Any smell quickly disappears and any gases emitted would not be found by any forensic tests.? The PJ did look for this and found nothing, see my link to the PJ files above.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 19, 2015, 01:07:21 AM
Thanks. My bad. Chloroform is a liquid, I know, but if it is used on a cloth to drug a person, how can there be residual traces? to find. Any smell quickly disappears and any gases emitted would not be found by any forensic tests.? The PJ did look for this and found nothing, see my link to the PJ files above.
There might have been scope for finding something had the pillow and slip been bagged and taken to a lab for testing; if the technology at the time couldn't do it later advances might have.
Dissipating a scent remains one of the possible reasons for the open window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 19, 2015, 01:17:23 AM
There might have been scope for finding something had the pillow and slip been bagged and taken to a lab for testing; if the technology at the time couldn't do it later advances might have.
Dissipating a scent remains one of the possible reasons for the open window.
It seems the PJ only bagged the bedding on the other side of the bedroom because they found a substance to test. I have no idea how or why different police forces work as regards collecting forensics.
Regarding your last sentence, it makes no sense to me, perhaps you can give a reason why an abductor who used chloroform would want the smell to dissipate?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 19, 2015, 01:29:45 AM
It seems the PJ only bagged the bedding on the other side of the bedroom because they found a substance to test. I have no idea how or why different police forces work as regards collecting forensics.
Regarding your last sentence, it makes no sense to me, perhaps you can give a reason why an abductor who used chloroform would want the smell to dissipate?
Is English not your first language?
Dissipate ~ synonyms: disappear, vanish, evaporate, dissolve, melt away, melt into thin air, be dispelled, dematerialize; More
And as far as the initial investigation went it is recognised by all, even the co-ordinator that the first forensic team's efforts were disastrous ... probably destroying traces if there had been any present, of an intruder. It therefore was not a question of differing force's procedure more a failure of practice.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 19, 2015, 01:41:06 AM
Dissipate ~ synonyms: disappear, vanish, evaporate, dissolve, melt away, melt into thin air, be dispelled, dematerialize; More
And as far as the initial investigation went it is recognised by all, even the co-ordinator that the first forensic team's efforts were disastrous ... probably destroying traces if there had been any present, of an intruder. It therefore was not a question of differing force's procedure more a failure of practice.
You are being very sarcastic and pompous to me (why?), and you did not answer my question. ie WHY would an abductor care about a smell of chloroform being removed? Have to dash.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 19, 2015, 09:41:04 AM
You are being very sarcastic and pompous to me (why?), and you did not answer my question. ie WHY would an abductor care about a smell of chloroform being removed? Have to dash.
%&5%£ To me, that is very obvious.
Try thinking about it mercury. See if you can work it out.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 19, 2015, 09:48:47 AM
9:25 Matt/Russ go through car park facing windows. Matt would definitely notice any windows open. No draughts or curtains moving in 5A
9:40 Jane Tanner goes through car park.
9:45 Russ goes back through the car park.
That street light would produce enough light in the car park. A picture of it at night with the light on should reveal the truth. But when Jane claims to have walked straight past Gerry and Jez without being seen people will believe anything in this case!
The fact that Russell and Matthew walked across the carpark together makes it even more unlikely that they would be looking across at 5A. In the few seconds it took to cross - they would be talking to oneanother and looking at oneanother. IMO
I don't have to wonder whether JT was telling the truth. I know from personal experience that a person can pass within a few feet of someone else and not be seen.
IMO PF you are again allowing hindsight to colour your opinions. None of the people who crossed the carpark that night had the slightest inkling of what was to happen and so had no reason whatsoever to make a point of noticing anything to do with 5A or any other apartment for that matter.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 19, 2015, 01:21:52 PM
The fact that Russell and Matthew walked across the carpark together makes it even more unlikely that they would be looking across at 5A. In the few seconds it took to cross - they would be talking to oneanother and looking at oneanother. IMO
I don't have to wonder whether JT was telling the truth. I know from personal experience that a person can pass within a few feet of someone else and not be seen.
IMO PF you are again allowing hindsight to colour your opinions. None of the people who crossed the carpark that night had the slightest inkling of what was to happen and so had no reason whatsoever to make a point of noticing anything to do with 5A or any other apartment for that matter.
Matt's window was next to the McCanns so if he looks at his own apartment he can't miss an open window next to it @)(++(* There is no evidence of an open window at 9:30 when Matt did his check. Not even a draught or moving curtains so I can conclude no whooshing was happening at that time 8(>((
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on April 19, 2015, 01:57:45 PM
Matt's window was next to the McCanns so if he looks at his own apartment he can't miss an open window next to it @)(++(* There is no evidence of an open window at 9:30 when Matt did his check. Not even a draught or moving curtains so I can conclude no whooshing was happening at that time 8(>((
He walked into the car park with Russell. They may well have been talking and not paying attention to what was going on around them (rather like Gerry & Jez). Matt then had to walk behind the wall to his own apartment. The bedroom window in his own apartment is set slightly back from the McCanns' window and I doubt an open shutter would have been visible to him from a side angle.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 19, 2015, 02:37:41 PM
He walked into the car park with Russell. They may well have been talking and not paying attention to what was going on around them (rather like Gerry & Jez). Matt then had to walk behind the wall to his own apartment. The bedroom window in his own apartment is set slightly back from the McCanns' window and I doubt an open shutter would have been visible to him from a side angle.
Did he say he listened at his own window? If he went into his own apartment, he would not even see the McCanns window. The entrance is quite a way up in the block, his main door is also further back from the front.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 19, 2015, 03:04:51 PM
He walked into the car park with Russell. They may well have been talking and not paying attention to what was going on around them (rather like Gerry & Jez). Matt then had to walk behind the wall to his own apartment. The bedroom window in his own apartment is set slightly back from the McCanns' window and I doubt an open shutter would have been visible to him from a side angle.
The front of the building is curved and he would not see the window as he approached that way. Additionally he would likely take the shortest route to his front door which means that he would turn into the open hallway from the walled pathway early.
No way would he see the window ... even without taking the chatting with Russell into account.
I am pretty sure tht he did not listen at his window on that occasion [that was the early trip wwhen he listened at hia window and Madeleines window]. I can remember his saying that he checked his apartment then went accross to Russells. I cannot be reading all the statements yet again so if I am misinforming please tell me.
He would not be able to see around the curve of the building. He could not see the window, even with it basically in front of him. Curved brick wall in the way.
Most unlikely that they would have noticed a slightly open white shutter against the white walls cos
1) the lighting was poor. Sodium lighting aint great at the best of times ... and the head of the closest lamp was positioned right in the head of the trees.
2) The bottom of the window is below the level of the top of the wall, so the open bit would not be visible from either the public roadway pathway or from the parking lot as they moved diagonally across, if it was only slightly open.
3) Additionally the tree heads are not disimilar to the tree heads of weeping willows with leafed twigs hanging down that moved with the wind. It was quite gusty thta evening.
4) It was out of their periferal vision as detailed by Heriberto Janosch, our visiting expert. That is all the way from where the street wall was low enough for them to see over and across the parking lot
TBH, anyone thinking that they would have seen an open window is living in Cloud Cuckoo land.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 19, 2015, 03:56:19 PM
The front of the building is curved and he would not see the window as he approached that way. Additionally he would likely take the shortest route to his front door which means that he would turn into the open hallway from the walled pathway early.
No way would he see the window ... even without taking the chatting with Russell into account.
I am pretty sure tht he did not listen at his window on that occasion [that was the early trip wwhen he listened at hia window and Madeleines window]. I can remember his saying that he checked his apartment then went accross to Russells. I cannot be reading all the statements yet again so if I am misinforming please tell me.
He would not be able to see around the curve of the building. He could not see the window, even with it basically in front of him. Curved brick wall in the way.
Most unlikely that they would have noticed a slightly open white shutter against the white walls cos
1) the lighting was poor. Sodium lighting aint great at the best of times ... and the head of the closest lamp was positioned right in the head of the trees.
2) The bottom of the window is below the level of the top of the wall, so the open bit would not be visible from either the public roadway pathway or from the parking lot as they moved diagonally across, if it was only slightly open.
3) Additionally the tree heads are not disimilar to the tree heads of weeping willows with leafed twigs hanging down that moved with the wind. It was quite gusty thta evening.
4) It was out of their periferal vision as detailed by Heriberto Janosch, our visiting expert. That is all the way from where the street wall was low enough for them to see over and across the parking lot
TBH, anyone thinking that they would have seen an open window is living in Cloud Cuckoo land.
and that sadie is called the abduction scenario. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 19, 2015, 04:27:19 PM
No hard evidence whatsoever that these shutters and the window were ever open at all. One set of fingerprints on the window only; those of one of the people who said it was open. Incomplete prints on the shutters, the position of which suggested the person who left them was inside, not outside. No evidence to suggest anyone or anything entered or exited via the (narrow) window opening.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 19, 2015, 04:29:10 PM
No hard evidence whatsoever that these shutters and the window were ever open at all. One set of fingerprints on the window only; those of one of the people who said it was open. Incomplete prints on the shutters, the position of which suggested the person who left them was inside, not outside. No evidence to suggest anyone or anything entered or exited via the (narrow) window opening.
Because no evidence was found doesn't mean it was never there. The inadequacies of the people collecting forensics - which were commented on by Amaral, may be the reason why evidence could have been overlooked.
As previously mentioned - if the open window/shutters were going to be the McCanns' (preplanned) evidence that an intruder had entered the apartment - they would have made sure they were kept open for the police to see when they arrived.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 19, 2015, 04:45:27 PM
No hard evidence whatsoever that these shutters and the window were ever open at all. One set of fingerprints on the window only; those of one of the people who said it was open. Incomplete prints on the shutters, the position of which suggested the person who left them was inside, not outside. No evidence to suggest anyone or anything entered or exited via the (narrow) window opening.
Why on earth would someone in the room put their hand on the outer shutter when they had a perfectly good operating mechanism to hand?
Why was the window so spotless that only fingerprints from the person who said she had looked out of it were there on the inside glass? one might almost think forensically clean.
That you chose to ignore the testimony of the first person on the scene of Madeleine's vanishing ... is rather revealing.
No evidence to suggest anyone entered or exited via the window ... but neither is there evidence to suggest someone didn't.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 19, 2015, 04:48:29 PM
Because no evidence was found doesn't mean it was never there. The inadequacies of the people collecting forensics - which were commented on by Amaral, may be the reason why evidence could have been overlooked.
As previously mentioned - if the open window/shutters were going to be the McCanns' (preplanned) evidence that an intruder had entered the apartment - they would have made sure they were kept open for the police to see when they arrived.
Speculation is not the topic so evidence missed or never there isn't relevant. I have seen theories as to why the window and shutters may have been opened and then closed, but that was speculation also.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 19, 2015, 10:13:50 PM
Speculation is not the topic so evidence missed or never there isn't relevant. I have seen theories as to why the window and shutters may have been opened and then closed, but that was speculation also.
It is not speculation that the apartment was not made a crime scene and protected as such when it should have been.
That failure plus the botched forensics ensured that, as Benice says, the fact "no evidence was found doesn't mean it was never there" is an entirely relevant conclusion to both the aforementioned facts of professional failure.
It is not speculation ~ based on the fact that the Drs McCann are highly intelligent people ~ that if they had decided to fabricate a tale of jemmied shutters - the shutters would indeed have been jemmied. Elementary.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 19, 2015, 11:15:10 PM
Try thinking about it mercury. See if you can work it out.
I have, a little, and sorry, no, cannot figure it out. Britta doesn't seem to have an opinion either! So my question remains unanswered by at least two posters here. Why would an abductor want to make sure there was no lingering smell of chloroform.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on April 19, 2015, 11:48:17 PM
I have, a little, and sorry, no, cannot figure it out. Britta doesn't seem to have an opinion either! So my question remains unanswered by at least two posters here. Why would an abductor want to make sure there was no lingering smell of chloroform.
A strange lingering smell would be indicative of a third party introducing a substance into the room. Burglars don't routinely carry chloroform or ether.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 20, 2015, 12:44:45 AM
I have, a little, and sorry, no, cannot figure it out. Britta doesn't seem to have an opinion either! So my question remains unanswered by at least two posters here. Why would an abductor want to make sure there was no lingering smell of chloroform.
The longer that the impression was given to the police that this was a woke and wandered scenario rather than an abduction, the greater time for the perp to get away.
Also the more mstery, the more time the police will take sorting it out
And the use of chloroform could point to someone with medical experience. If that were the case this would help point towards the person who administered it.... and make it easier for the Police.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2015, 12:53:46 AM
A strange lingering smell would be indicative of a third party introducing a substance into the room. Burglars don't routinely carry chloroform or ether.
An intruder who had taken pains to leave not a trace behind was hardly likely to allow any residual odour to linger.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 20, 2015, 01:06:14 AM
Do you have any awareness of the properties of Trichloromethane sadie ?
I used to work with trichlorethalene (sp?).
IIRC I used it to clean grease and dirt off things
We used to use the horrible stuff with gay abandon.... and in enclosed spaces. I well remember lying under an old van with leaf springs and having the onerous job of cleaning the black grease off them, before regreasing them.
Then they banned it cos if you smoked ( I didn't, but people around me did), it poisoned you, according to my hubby.
No mercury, I wasn't a nurse. I was a Design Engineer, once trained.
you, Stephen as a chemist are an expert, I guess ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 20, 2015, 01:07:32 AM
A strange lingering smell would be indicative of a third party introducing a substance into the room. Burglars don't routinely carry chloroform or ether.
8((()*/
Quite, it would be a strong indicator of a planned abduction.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2015, 01:10:13 AM
The longer that the impression was given to the police that this was a woke and wandered scenario rather than an abduction, the greater time for the perp to get away.
Also the more mstery, the more time the police will take sorting it out
And the use of chloroform could point to someone with medical experience. If that were the case this would help point towards the person who administered it.... and make it easier for the Police.
The evidence for the woke and wandered scenario would have been the discovery of a frightened little girl loudly crying her eyes out in the vicinity of the apartment that didn't happen, nor was there evidence she had met with an accident as a result of wandering at night.
The volunteer searchers and Mark Warner staff didn't come across her and although they searched till 4 am I have never seen it said that they benefited from any sort of official search co-ordination, a record of which would have been exceedingly useful to the investigation.
Just another piece of evidence which should have been there but is missing because no one bothered to collate it.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on April 20, 2015, 01:54:03 AM
Just looking at the PJ photo again, showing the front of Rachel's apartment, makes you realise just how dark the front of 5a would have been without the artificial lighting source set up for the police to work.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2015, 06:24:18 AM
However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform.[24] It takes at least five minutes of inhaling an item soaked in chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform also involve another drug being co-administered, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being found to have been complicit in its administration. After a person has lost consciousness due to chloroform inhalation, a continuous volume must be administered and the chin must be supported in order to keep the tongue from obstructing the airway, a difficult procedure even for an anesthesiologist. In 1865 as a direct result of the criminal reputation chloroform had gained, medical journal The Lancet offered a "permanent scientific reputation" to anyone who could demonstrate "instantaneous insensibility" using chloroform,[25] and as of 1998 no such demonstration has been forthcoming.[2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 20, 2015, 07:16:31 AM
However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform.[24] It takes at least five minutes of inhaling an item soaked in chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform also involve another drug being co-administered, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being found to have been complicit in its administration. After a person has lost consciousness due to chloroform inhalation, a continuous volume must be administered and the chin must be supported in order to keep the tongue from obstructing the airway, a difficult procedure even for an anesthesiologist. In 1865 as a direct result of the criminal reputation chloroform had gained, medical journal The Lancet offered a "permanent scientific reputation" to anyone who could demonstrate "instantaneous insensibility" using chloroform,[25] and as of 1998 no such demonstration has been forthcoming.[2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform
It always makes me laugh how the French police claim that holidaymakers have been rendered unconscious by a gas fed into a railway carriage or camper van...as yet no one has been able to identify this gas...it's basically impossible.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 20, 2015, 09:12:10 AM
However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform.[24] It takes at least five minutes of inhaling an item soaked in chloroform to render a person unconscious. Most criminal cases involving chloroform also involve another drug being co-administered, such as alcohol or diazepam, or the victim being found to have been complicit in its administration. After a person has lost consciousness due to chloroform inhalation, a continuous volume must be administered and the chin must be supported in order to keep the tongue from obstructing the airway, a difficult procedure even for an anesthesiologist. In 1865 as a direct result of the criminal reputation chloroform had gained, medical journal The Lancet offered a "permanent scientific reputation" to anyone who could demonstrate "instantaneous insensibility" using chloroform,[25] and as of 1998 no such demonstration has been forthcoming.[2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform
That is nonsense G-unit. I have been chloroformed several times as a child and it was a matter of a couple of seconds before I lost all knowledge of what was going on.
Has the Wiki been got at? So easy to alter Wikis.
Thank God it wasn't longer than a couple of seconds, it was a horrible experience having a chloroform pad clapped over your nose and mouth and unconsciousness was a great relief.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carew on April 20, 2015, 09:13:50 AM
I wonder what made Madeleine the target of a planned abduction ?
I mean...........apparently, she was one of many left alone on holiday with "listening services" whilst parents were elsewhere.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 20, 2015, 09:29:09 AM
Quite, it would be a strong indicator of a planned abduction.
I think a getaway vehicle is the strongest indicator of a pre-planned abduction not by foot so everyone can see you 8)--)) SY have told us they don't think that happened searching close to the crime scene. That is no pre-planned abduction theory they are working from ?>)()<
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 20, 2015, 09:32:21 AM
I wonder what made Madeleine the target of a planned abduction ?
I mean...........apparently, she was one of many left alone on holiday with "listening services" whilst parents were elsewhere.
Apartment 5A was very vulnerable, with the front door so recessed and the darkness. It was a gift to get into unseen for someone with a key.
Was she abducted as she was so pretty and vivacious, with those huge eyes? Reputedly photos were sent thru the internet of three little girls. Was she one of them? Who were they sent to?
Was she abducted because of her Jewish Heritage? That troubles me.
We just dont know, do we?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 20, 2015, 09:40:42 AM
I think a getaway vehicle is the strongest indicator of a pre-planned abduction not by foot so everyone can see you 8)--)) SY have told us they don't think that happened searching close to the crime scene. That is no pre-planned abduction theory they are working from ?>)()<
Yes, I agree
Try reading "sadies theory"
In it, I have suggested that the get-away vehicle was parked on the little car park opposite Tapas Reception, BUT was unable to get up to Tannerman / bundleman because of Gerry and Jez in the way and the driver being aware that Jane saw Tannerman with Madeleine. Scared, he scarpered, driving off in the opposite southerly direction
For some reason the thread name has changed, I think, as I can no longer find "sadies Theory" ADMIN.. Please can you help find SADIES THEORY. THanks [/s] Thanks. I think Carana has found it.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 20, 2015, 10:06:22 AM
In it, I have suggested that the get-away vehicle was parked on the little car park opposite Tapas Reception, BUT was unable to get up to Tannerman / bundleman because of Gerry and Jez in the way and the driver being aware that Jane saw Tannerman with Madeleine. Scared, he scarpered, driving off in the opposite southerly direction
For some reason the thread name has changed, I think, as I can no longer find "sadies Theory" ADMIN.. Please can you help find SADIES THEORY. THanks
In it, I have suggested that the get-away vehicle was parked on the little car park opposite Tapas Reception, BUT was unable to get up to Tannerman / bundleman because of Gerry and Jez in the way and the driver being aware that Jane saw Tannerman with Madeleine. Scared, he scarpered, driving off in the opposite southerly direction
For some reason the thread name has changed, I think, as I can no longer find "sadies Theory" ADMIN.. Please can you help find SADIES THEORY. THanks
Nobody would park a getaway car opposite the entrance they were using to do their checks. That is the dumbest plan ever!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2015, 10:36:27 AM
That is nonsense G-unit. I have been chloroformed several times as a child and it was a matter of a couple of seconds before I lost all knowledge of what was going on.
Has the Wiki been got at? So easy to alter Wikis.
Thank God it wasn't longer than a couple of seconds, it was a horrible experience having a chloroform pad clapped over your nose and mouth and unconsciousness was a great relief.
Either you are very very old or someone was doing something widely regarded as extremely dangerous;
In 1870, an analysis of 80,000 operations performed with the aid of chloroform showed that the risk of a patient dying was 1 in 2500. In comparison, using ether resulted in only 1 death for every 23,000 operations. By 1875, the British Medical Journal noted that the number of operations carried out under ether again exceeded those carried out under chloroform. The chemical was relegated to use by kidnappers in adventure stories to knock out their victims. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/CIIEcompounds/transcripts/chloroform.asp
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on April 20, 2015, 11:21:01 AM
Either you are very very old or someone was doing something widely regarded as extremely dangerous;
In 1870, an analysis of 80,000 operations performed with the aid of chloroform showed that the risk of a patient dying was 1 in 2500. In comparison, using ether resulted in only 1 death for every 23,000 operations. By 1875, the British Medical Journal noted that the number of operations carried out under ether again exceeded those carried out under chloroform. The chemical was relegated to use by kidnappers in adventure stories to knock out their victims. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/CIIEcompounds/transcripts/chloroform.asp
I am old. Not very very old altho sometimes I feel it ! LOL !
They used chloroform in dentistry as well as in general medical things.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 20, 2015, 11:34:54 AM
Horrible, but it only lasted a couple or so seconds.
Same era, Sadie. I was seven or eight at the time so it must have been around 1948. And it didn't take even one minute to put me out. I never have gotten over my phobia of Dentists.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 22, 2015, 09:27:41 PM
A strange lingering smell would be indicative of a third party introducing a substance into the room. Burglars don't routinely carry chloroform or ether.
??What?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 22, 2015, 09:30:31 PM
The longer that the impression was given to the police that this was a woke and wandered scenario rather than an abduction, the greater time for the perp to get away.
Also the more mstery, the more time the police will take sorting it out
And the use of chloroform could point to someone with medical experience. If that were the case this would help point towards the person who administered it.... and make it easier for the Police.
Sorry but thats total speculation conjecture and wishful thinking
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 22, 2015, 09:37:35 PM
my impression on whether chloroform or anything else was used seems to be without any evidence at all so I wonder why people are even bothering to talk about it, as its 100 per cent speculation in the event and nothing else
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2015, 09:23:59 AM
my impression on whether chloroform or anything else was used seems to be without any evidence at all so I wonder why people are even bothering to talk about it, as its 100 per cent speculation in the event and nothing else
It's not about evidence, it's about belief. If you believe the parent's story the shutters and window were open. No reason can be found for that, so one has to be invented. Handily, it also explains why opening the shutters didn't wake the children; they were chloroformed! Of course this doesn't explain why they continued to sleep on and on and on later.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 23, 2015, 09:49:15 AM
It's not about evidence, it's about belief. If you believe the parent's story the shutters and window were open. No reason can be found for that, so one has to be invented. Handily, it also explains why opening the shutters didn't wake the children; they were chloroformed! Of course this doesn't explain why they continued to sleep on and on and on later.
Perhaps it is about "belief" ... a belief shared by the Portuguese Attorney General ~ now there is a very important legal title ~ top notch I would think.
It also seems to be a "belief" shared with the professional investigators presently working on Madeleine McCann's case who have found no evidence to implicate her parents or their friends to her disappearance ... but who are it seems following the evidence which has led to people of interest.
Course you will know so much better than these professionals who have all the available evidence to hand.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2015, 09:51:51 AM
It's not about evidence, it's about belief. If you believe the parent's story the shutters and window were open. No reason can be found for that, so one has to be invented. Handily, it also explains why opening the shutters didn't wake the children; they were chloroformed! Of course this doesn't explain why they continued to sleep on and on and on later.
we have gone over again and again why the children would sleep...children who are in a deep sleep...who are worn out from playing all day can be difficult to wake...I know from experience
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 23, 2015, 10:15:48 AM
we have gone over again and again why the children would sleep...children who are in a deep sleep...who are worn out from playing all day can be difficult to wake...I know from experience
So why do you think Kate was, allegedly, worried enough about their non-responsive state to voice her concern to a GNR officer on the night ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 23, 2015, 10:25:06 AM
we have gone over again and again why the children would sleep...children who are in a deep sleep...who are worn out from playing all day can be difficult to wake...I know from experience
Of course you do.
You've had many experiences, or so you say.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: carlymichelle on April 23, 2015, 10:26:11 AM
you have to see the remark in context...at that time kate was in a blind panic
This is the context as written in Madeleine :
' I wandered into the children’s bedroom several times to check on Sean and Amelie. They were both lying on their fronts in a kind of crouch, with their heads turned sideways and their knees tucked under their tummies. In spite of the noise and lights and general pandemonium, they hadn’t stirred. They’d always been sound sleepers, but this seemed unnatural. Scared for them, too, I placed the palms of my hands on their backs to check for chest movement, basically, for some sign of life. Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet? Had the twins, too? (Snip)
(Snip) We tried to explain what had happened. David reiterated his concerns about roadblocks and border notification and I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated. A lady called Sílvia, who worked at the Ocean Club, had arrived to help out with translation. We learned later that she was the maintenance and services manager. I remember her telling me that she had two grown-up daughters herself. She was very kind and I was glad of her help and support.'
Of course Silvia Batista nor any other police officer mention in their statements Kate expressing her concerns about sedation but that's for another thread.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 23, 2015, 11:37:36 AM
' I wandered into the children’s bedroom several times to check on Sean and Amelie. They were both lying on their fronts in a kind of crouch, with their heads turned sideways and their knees tucked under their tummies. In spite of the noise and lights and general pandemonium, they hadn’t stirred. They’d always been sound sleepers, but this seemed unnatural. Scared for them, too, I placed the palms of my hands on their backs to check for chest movement, basically, for some sign of life. Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet? Had the twins, too? (Snip)
(Snip) We tried to explain what had happened. David reiterated his concerns about roadblocks and border notification and I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated. A lady called Sílvia, who worked at the Ocean Club, had arrived to help out with translation. We learned later that she was the maintenance and services manager. I remember her telling me that she had two grown-up daughters herself. She was very kind and I was glad of her help and support.'
Of course Silvia Batista nor any other police officer mention in their statements Kate expressing her concerns about sedation but that's for another thread.
No, but the forensic people did apparently look to see if there was any obvious evidence of sedation lying around. And sniffed the pillow. I still don't understand why the PJ didn't test the twins.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2015, 11:40:22 AM
we have gone over again and again why the children would sleep...children who are in a deep sleep...who are worn out from playing all day can be difficult to wake...I know from experience
You can say it however many times you want, it means nothing to me, or to three qualified doctors;
Asked if the twins had been drugged, she said on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour today: 'On the night I just remember the twins lying in the cot and not moving - with lights going on and people moving around. 'There was a lot of noise and they just didn't move and I remember several times checking for chest movements. I did feel it was a bit strange that they were not moving let alone waking up. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386093/Kate-McCann-Kidnapper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html#ixzz3Y7o7RlOE Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
When questioned if the twins woke up during the searches in the apartment, he replied negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke, as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, but he can find no reason for it happening. Yet, at that moment he thought that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later. Processos Vol IV, pages 2569-2578 Location: CID Portimão
No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2015, 11:52:21 AM
You can say it however many times you want, it means nothing to me, or to three qualified doctors;
Asked if the twins had been drugged, she said on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour today: 'On the night I just remember the twins lying in the cot and not moving - with lights going on and people moving around. 'There was a lot of noise and they just didn't move and I remember several times checking for chest movements. I did feel it was a bit strange that they were not moving let alone waking up. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386093/Kate-McCann-Kidnapper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html#ixzz3Y7o7RlOE Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
When questioned if the twins woke up during the searches in the apartment, he replied negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke, as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, but he can find no reason for it happening. Yet, at that moment he thought that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later. Processos Vol IV, pages 2569-2578 Location: CID Portimão
No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
It doesn't bother me what you think.. I know from experience.. young children in a deep sleep can be almost impossible to wake up...I also have experience of sedating children
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2015, 11:56:37 AM
If the children were sedated it would almost certainly have to be something in their food taken orally to be long lasting. I don't doubt in the heat of the moment Kate thought about sedation and checked the children...but looking at it rationally I don't see how they could have been sedated...chloroform or any gas would wear off very quickly
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Admin on April 23, 2015, 11:58:34 AM
If the children were sedated it would almost certainly have to be something in their food taken orally to be long lasting. I don't doubt in the heat of the moment Kate thought about sedation and checked the children...but looking at it rationally I don't see how they could have been sedated...chloroform or any gas would wear off very quickly
Frankly, I cannot see a situation where Madeleine could have been carried out of that apartment by a stranger unless she was unconscious.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 23, 2015, 12:03:34 PM
Frankly, I cannot see a situation where Madeleine could have been carried out of that apartment by a stranger unless she was unconscious.
Maddie cried for two nights in a row according to witness statements given by Pam Fenn and Kate McCann herself yet she was content and asleep on the third night. Not only that, we are expected to believe some stranger entered her bedroom, opened a noisy shutter and the bedroom window, lifted her out of bed and casually sauntered off with her and she never bat an eyelid??
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 23, 2015, 12:03:53 PM
Maddie cried for two nights in a row according to witness statements given by Pam Fenn and Kate McCann herself yet she was content and asleep on the third night. Not only that, we are expected to believe some stranger entered her bedroom, opened a noisy shutter and the bedroom window, lifted her out of bed and casually sauntered off with her and she never bat an eyelid??
Well it's plausible isn't it? and who is to say it didn't happen? 8(0(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 23, 2015, 12:35:30 PM
Perhaps it is about "belief" ... a belief shared by the Portuguese Attorney General ~ now there is a very important legal title ~ top notch I would think.
It also seems to be a "belief" shared with the professional investigators presently working on Madeleine McCann's case who have found no evidence to implicate her parents or their friends to her disappearance ... but who are it seems following the evidence which has led to people of interest.
Course you will know so much better than these professionals who have all the available evidence to hand.
To save us the hassle of trawling through "The McCann Files" how about giving us a cite or a link to that Brie?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on April 23, 2015, 12:39:48 PM
It also seems to be a "belief" shared with the professional investigators presently working on Madeleine McCann's case who have found no evidence to implicate her parents or their friends to her disappearance ... but who are it seems following the evidence which has led to people of interest.
Unless you are privy to inside info which I doubt very much, you cannot know what SY are thinking.
What is not in doubt however is their involvement post disappearance.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Admin on April 23, 2015, 12:41:24 PM
looks like the twins could have been so why not Maddie...The little girl taken from her bath wasn't unconcious
I agree, all three could have been sedated as Kate McCann mentions in her book. Rohypnol being a suitable candidate which could have been easily administered earlier that day rendering the children fatigued.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 23, 2015, 12:49:10 PM
I agree, all three could have been sedated as Kate McCann mentions in her book. Rohypnol being a suitable candidate which could have been easily administered earlier that day rendering the children fatigued.
if the children were given rohypnol they would be practically asleep within 20 mins
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 23, 2015, 05:08:29 PM
Maddie cried for two nights in a row according to witness statements given by Pam Fenn and Kate McCann herself yet she was content and asleep on the third night. Not only that, we are expected to believe some stranger entered her bedroom, opened a noisy shutter and the bedroom window, lifted her out of bed and casually sauntered off with her and she never bat an eyelid??
Where is the proof that Madeleine according to you cried for two nights in a row?
Madeleine said 'why didn't you come when Sean and me cried' she didn't say 'last night' I don't know how that has suddenly become fact. The McCann's wondered when she meant. I think she meant the Tuesday night when Amelie woke them up but that is just my opinion.
I'm wondering if something could have been wafted under the twins noses, Kate said they were both sleeping on their fronts with their knees tucked under their tummies. To me that looks as though they both awoke and stood in their cots, someone could have put something under their noses and they sunk to their knees and lay down as they were. The window could have been opened to get the smell of whatever it was out of the room.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 23, 2015, 06:09:56 PM
if the children were given rohypnol they would be practically asleep within 20 mins
The effects of Rohypnol appear 15 to 20 minutes after administration and last approximately four to six hours. Some residual effects can be found 12 hours or more after administration http://www.drugs.com/illicit/rohypnol.html
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 23, 2015, 06:30:28 PM
APOLOGIES Angelo, Madeleine DID say 'last night' but Kate was in the room with the children Wednesday night.
In my opinion Madeleine got confused and meant the Tuesday night as Amelie woke both her and Sean.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 24, 2015, 12:02:51 AM
The three children were given rohipnol whilst in the nursery? Ive heard it all now, I think. This makes no sense on any level IMO, perhaps the poster who suggested this can explain fully?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2015, 12:12:33 AM
The three children were given rohipnol whilst in the nursery? Ive heard it all now, I think. This makes no sense on any level IMO, perhaps the poster who suggested this can explain fully?
the children were not given rohypnol....
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 24, 2015, 12:19:37 AM
A poster here suggested it was likely, sorry, cannot find the post. in any case, whether rohipnol or other drug, I find it VERY questionable that all three kids were "drugged" during the day, ETA that is iimplicating the nannies
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2015, 06:50:11 AM
A poster here suggested it was likely, sorry, cannot find the post. in any case, whether rohipnol or other drug, I find it VERY questionable that all three kids were "drugged" during the day, ETA that is iimplicating the nannies
The parents and their friends have suggested that the twins may have been drugged. Rohipnol was suggested as a possible drug but as it acts in 20 minutes the only people who could have given it would be those who were with the children later, not the Nannies. If the twins were drugged it would most likely have to be something given orally or by injection in order to still be working hours later.
Kate McCann kept putting her hands on their backs and under their noses checking for breathing. That's what a lay person might do, but as a doctor and an anesthetist Kate McCann should have reacted quite differently in my opinion.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2015, 07:59:44 AM
The parents and their friends have suggested that the twins may have been drugged. Rohipnol was suggested as a possible drug but as it acts in 20 minutes the only people who could have given it would be those who were with the children later, not the Nannies. If the twins were drugged it would most likely have to be something given orally or by injection in order to still be working hours later.
Kate McCann kept putting her hands on their backs and under their noses checking for breathing. That's what a lay person might do, but as a doctor and an anesthetist Kate McCann should have reacted quite differently in my opinion.
How should she have acted?
Maybe she should have used the ubiquitous mythical syringe to take blood samples to send to the lab for analysis ... oh, should have remembered the twins were in a crime scene which should have been controlled by the PJ ... they were in charge ~ not the victims of the crime!
Think things through before manufacturing another complaint levelled at the mother of the missing child and how she should or should not have acted ... this was something the PJ should have addressed but just another something they did not.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 24, 2015, 08:00:48 AM
The parents and their friends have suggested that the twins may have been drugged. Rohipnol was suggested as a possible drug but as it acts in 20 minutes the only people who could have given it would be those who were with the children later, not the Nannies. If the twins were drugged it would most likely have to be something given orally or by injection in order to still be working hours later.
Kate McCann kept putting her hands on their backs and under their noses checking for breathing. That's what a lay person might do, but as a doctor and an anesthetist Kate McCann should have reacted quite differently in my opinion.
What should she have done then?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 24, 2015, 08:20:53 AM
The noise and the activity surrounding them didn't do it, neither did lifting them from their cots and transferring them to another apartment ... so how do you suggest she should have wakened them?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 24, 2015, 08:26:25 AM
The noise and the activity surrounding them didn't do it, neither did lifting them from their cots and transferring them to another apartment ... so how do you suggest she should have wakened them?
Totally strange. Why didn't a pair of Doctors make sure that the twins were Ok?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2015, 08:43:40 AM
Both of them should have insisted they were tested for drugs.
Even more apparent as kate mccann was an 'anesthetist' 8)-)))
Indeed they should ... maybe even run them to the local hospital themselves ... I'm sure I can't think of anything else which might be preoccupying them ~ wait a minute though, wasn't their three year old daughter missing???
The police were in charge ... the police should have taken the appropriate action ... however, why miss the opportunity to metaphorically beat the McCann's up at any juncture ... don't forget they did go out and leave their children unattended.
There, that will save you the bother of 'reminding' us ... but I'm sure you won't let that hinder you.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 24, 2015, 08:56:48 AM
Apparently according to Amaral's book - this is the reason why no drugs tests were carried out:-
Quote From the start, the way the children slept had seemed suspicious to us and we wanted to have screening tests carried out: nevertheless, faced with the media coverage of the case, we had put this off, worried about exposing the parents to trial by the public. This was a mistake.'' Unquote
What a pathetic excuse. Why testing the twins for drugs was perceived by Amaral as something which would expose the McCanns to trial by the public he doesn't explain.
No way would the McCanns have been able to take their twins independently for testing - as the question of drug use was part of the investigation and they would have been breaking the secrecy laws. Only the PJ could have arranged this.
The fact that the McCanns asked the PJ about the use of drugs in the first few days is recorded in a couple of the FLO's statements.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 24, 2015, 08:58:53 AM
Indeed they should ... maybe even run them to the local hospital themselves ... I'm sure I can't think of anything else which might be preoccupying them ~ wait a minute though, wasn't their three year old daughter missing???
The police were in charge ... the police should have taken the appropriate action ... however, why miss the opportunity to metaphorically beat the McCann's up at any juncture ... don't forget they did go out and leave their children unattended.
There, that will save you the bother of 'reminding' us ... but I'm sure you won't let that hinder you.
I have stated before, that the police and the parents should have had the children checked for drugs.
Read over my past posts in regard to that..
As to not having time to take the children to a hospital to be tested, perhaps, just perhaps, instead of resuming jogging, tennis, visiting other countries and meeting 'celebrities, in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, they could have done that themselves.
The none independent tests some 6 months later were irrelevant, and not independently supervised.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 24, 2015, 09:07:41 AM
The McCanns could not take the children themselves. That would involve discussing the case with hospital staff and would be breaking the secrecy laws.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2015, 09:20:10 AM
Apparently according to Amaral's book - this is the reason why no drugs tests were carried out:-
Quote From the start, the way the children slept had seemed suspicious to us and we wanted to have screening tests carried out: nevertheless, faced with the media coverage of the case, we had put this off, worried about exposing the parents to trial by the public. This was a mistake.'' Unquote
What a pathetic excuse. Why testing the twins for drugs was perceived by Amaral as something which would expose the McCanns to trial by the public he doesn't explain.
No way would the McCanns have been able to take their twins independently for testing - as the question of drug use was part of the investigation and they would have been breaking the secrecy laws. Only the PJ could have arranged this.
The fact that the McCanns asked the PJ about the use of drugs in the first few days is recorded in a couple of the FLO's statements.
A doctor who has just had a child disappear suspects that her remaining two children may stop breathing due to sedation, so she does.......nothing. She doesn't attempt to rouse them to check if she can wake them. She doesn't ask for an ambulance to be called so they can be observed/tested in hospital. She puts her fingers under their noses now and then and nothing else. Had the twins stopped breathing at some point how on earth could anyone blame the police rather than the doctors? I have seen some wild attempts to justify the actions of these people but that takes the prize!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 24, 2015, 09:21:17 AM
The McCanns could not take the children themselves. That would involve discussing the case with hospital staff and would be breaking the secrecy laws.
So if they had demanded an Ambulance for the children during the evening and night of 3rd/4th May when Kate McCann was concerned about them the PJ would have refused because of secrecy? Really? I'm speechless!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 24, 2015, 09:24:26 AM
So if they had demanded an Ambulance for the children during the evening and night of 3rd/4th May when Kate McCann was concerned about them the PJ would have refused because of secrecy? Really? I'm speechless!
Yup. It's a pathetic excuse, which doesn't add up or display logic.
Both the Police and the mccanns were at fault.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 24, 2015, 09:27:09 AM
So if they had demanded an Ambulance for the children during the evening and night of 3rd/4th May when Kate McCann was concerned about them the PJ would have refused because of secrecy? Really? I'm speechless!
So what do you infer from the fact that the McCanns did not demand an ambulance for their children that nigh?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 24, 2015, 09:29:52 AM
A doctor who has just had a child disappear suspects that her remaining two children may stop breathing due to sedation, so she does.......nothing. She doesn't attempt to rouse them to check if she can wake them. She doesn't ask for an ambulance to be called so they can be observed/tested in hospital. She puts her fingers under their noses now and then and nothing else. Had the twins stopped breathing at some point how on earth could anyone blame the police rather than the doctors? I have seen some wild attempts to justify the actions of these people but that takes the prize!
I can only assume you have no ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes and imagine the affect that severe shock, terror and extreme trauma have on people.
Your expectations that people should be thinking logically and be perfectly rational when they have just been plunged into every parents's worst nightmare is totally unrealistic. IMO.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 24, 2015, 09:30:43 AM
I can only assume you have no ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes and imagine the affect that severe shock, terror and extreme trauma have on people.
Your expectations that people should be thinking logically and be perfectly rational when they have just been plunged into every parents's worst nightmare is totally unrealistic. IMO.
and in the days and months afterward, what did they do about it ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on April 24, 2015, 09:31:29 AM
So if they had demanded an Ambulance for the children during the evening and night of 3rd/4th May when Kate McCann was concerned about them the PJ would have refused because of secrecy? Really? I'm speechless!
I was referring to the suggestion that they could have independently taken their children to hospital for testing.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2015, 09:33:59 AM
So if they had demanded an Ambulance for the children during the evening and night of 3rd/4th May when Kate McCann was concerned about them the PJ would have refused because of secrecy? Really? I'm speechless!
You apparently missed Benice's post quoting from the Amaral book ...
Quote From the start, the way the children slept had seemed suspicious to us and we wanted to have screening tests carried out: nevertheless, faced with the media coverage of the case, we had put this off, worried about exposing the parents to trial by the public. This was a mistake.'' Unquote
If it 'seemed suspicious' why the delay? These were the professionals who were supposed to be in charge of the operation. The failures are their failure's, no-one else's.
They were the ones responsible for preserving the crime scene; they were the ones responsible for collecting forensic evidence; they were responsible for the welfare of the children.
Their ineptitude has fuelled the various campaigns directed against the victims of the crime.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 24, 2015, 09:38:23 AM
You apparently missed Benice's post quoting from the Amaral book ...
Quote From the start, the way the children slept had seemed suspicious to us and we wanted to have screening tests carried out: nevertheless, faced with the media coverage of the case, we had put this off, worried about exposing the parents to trial by the public. This was a mistake.'' Unquote
If it 'seemed suspicious' why the delay? These were the professionals who were supposed to be in charge of the operation. The failures are their failure's, no-one else's.
They were the ones responsible for preserving the crime scene; they were the ones responsible for collecting forensic evidence; they were responsible for the welfare of the children.
Their ineptitude has fuelled the various campaigns directed against the victims of the crime.
The failures and ineptitude start in this case with the mccanns.
Now remind me , when precisely were the police called to the crime scene, and what happened to the crime scene in the intervening time.
All that is observant in your posts, is the attack on the Portuguese, a chief characterisitc of the mccanns and their backers, in the old adage 'of the best form of defense, is to attack'.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 24, 2015, 09:44:58 AM
Indeed they should ... maybe even run them to the local hospital themselves ... I'm sure I can't think of anything else which might be preoccupying them ~ wait a minute though, wasn't their three year old daughter missing???
The police were in charge ... the police should have taken the appropriate action ... however, why miss the opportunity to metaphorically beat the McCann's up at any juncture ... don't forget they did go out and leave their children unattended.
There, that will save you the bother of 'reminding' us ... but I'm sure you won't let that hinder you.
But they can tell a friend to cancel a supermarket delivery back home and receive new mobiles instead of demanding to test the twins. Yes it all makes sense NOT!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 24, 2015, 09:48:23 AM
That as trained clinicians they were aware nothing was untoward?
Unless of course...........................
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2015, 09:55:27 AM
A vital bit missed during medical training? What to do if an overdose is suspected;
if they appear unconscious, try to get a response from them (eg: call their name). If you can’t get a response put them in the recovery position and call an ambulance. Commence first-aid. Emergency operators can give CPR instructions. Keep an eye on them. People can go in and out of consciousness. http://www.overdoseday.com/facts-stats/overdose-basics/
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2015, 10:01:02 AM
The failures and ineptitude start in this case with the mccanns.
Now remind me , when precisely were the police called to the crime scene, and what happened to the crime scene in the intervening time.
All that is observant in your posts, is the attack on the Portuguese, a chief characterisitc of the mccanns and their backers, in the old adage 'of the best form of defense, is to attack'.
I do wish you would get off your hobby horse occasionally and see things for what they are.
That I criticise what I see as the incompetence of the initial investigation into Madeleine McCann's case, which can be laid squarely at the door of the co-ordinator is my privilege.
That I think the co-ordinator was entirely out of his depth and should not have been tasked with an investigation his lack of experience doomed to failure, is again my privilege to express an opinion on.
The initial collection of forensic evidence was botched and is noted as such in the co-ordinator's book ... this led to the destruction of trace evidence which might have indicated an intruder.
As always you condone the investigative failures which truly allowed whoever was responsible for vanishing Madeleine McCann off the hook. Almost as preposterous as the story still doing the rounds among the intellectually challenged of the washing of the curtains etc. etc.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 24, 2015, 10:01:26 AM
A vital bit missed during medical training? What to do if an overdose is suspected;
if they appear unconscious, try to get a response from them (eg: call their name). If you can’t get a response put them in the recovery position and call an ambulance. Commence first-aid. Emergency operators can give CPR instructions. Keep an eye on them. People can go in and out of consciousness. http://www.overdoseday.com/facts-stats/overdose-basics/
An overdose, of what?
Kate McCann did the only thing she was able to do she told the police. Whether they took any notice of her we don't know, she was after all completely traumatised and not behaving in a rational manner. Thinking that Madeleine had merely wandered, I wonder if they thought Kate was being a bit hysterical.
Who are we to know what the McCann's were able to do on that night.
Fiona says that Kate was worried about the twins, but then goes on to say 'but they were fine' no doubt she was reassuring Kate that they were fine.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2015, 10:04:03 AM
But they can tell a friend to cancel a supermarket delivery back home and receive new mobiles instead of demanding to test the twins. Yes it all makes sense NOT!
Hmmm ... and how exactly does that relate to the failure of the PJ to check out their 'suspicion' about the twins condition. A duty of care alone should have sorted that one out.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 24, 2015, 10:06:35 AM
The McCanns could not take the children themselves. That would involve discussing the case with hospital staff and would be breaking the secrecy laws.
But that's exactly what the McCanns did do some 6 months later while their daughter's disappearance was still being actively investigated.
I seem to remember Kate also asked for the twins to be tested by the PJ some months after Madeleine's disappearance but Gerry phoned and cancelled the appointment. Now why would he do that ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 24, 2015, 10:23:38 AM
Hmmm ... and how exactly does that relate to the failure of the PJ to check out their 'suspicion' about the twins condition. A duty of care alone should have sorted that one out.
Are you completely mad said the Buck of Portugal @)(++(*
The McCanns are put up with David Payne. We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try to pick up Madeleine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35pm when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins. Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.
- I'm sure this check is necessary.
- The clothes? Are you mad? if I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take clothes to have them analysed?
- Yes. What's the problem? It's a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers.
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 24, 2015, 10:33:07 AM
Kate McCann did the only thing she was able to do she told the police. Whether they took any notice of her we don't know, she was after all completely traumatised and not behaving in a rational manner. Thinking that Madeleine had merely wandered, I wonder if they thought Kate was being a bit hysterical.
Who are we to know what the McCann's were able to do on that night.
Fiona says that Kate was worried about the twins, but then goes on to say 'but they were fine' no doubt she was reassuring Kate that they were fine.
Isn't it strange how neither Gerry or Kate mention the children showing signs of being sedated in their statements, even their arguido ones ? Further that Fiona Payne, even though she describes Kate's administrations to the twins, not once mentions Kate raising her concerns with the police that night. Further that Silvia Batista who would have had to translate Kate's concerns doesn't mention it in any of her statements nor indeed do any of the GNR or PJ officers who were there on the night.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 24, 2015, 10:34:54 AM
I do wish you would get off your hobby horse occasionally and see things for what they are.
That I criticise what I see as the incompetence of the initial investigation into Madeleine McCann's case, which can be laid squarely at the door of the co-ordinator is my privilege.
That I think the co-ordinator was entirely out of his depth and should not have been tasked with an investigation his lack of experience doomed to failure, is again my privilege to express an opinion on.
The initial collection of forensic evidence was botched and is noted as such in the co-ordinator's book ... this led to the destruction of trace evidence which might have indicated an intruder.
As always you condone the investigative failures which truly allowed whoever was responsible for vanishing Madeleine McCann off the hook. Almost as preposterous as the story still doing the rounds among the intellectually challenged of the washing of the curtains etc. etc.
It is not my hobby horse.
Merely observations of what you are.
Investigative failures?….........
Really ?
Madeleine was extensively searched for and not one iota of evidencde of what happened to her has been discovered.
Please keep to the facts, not your clear and undeniable personal bias.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 24, 2015, 10:38:42 AM
Are you completely mad said the Buck of Portugal @)(++(*
The McCanns are put up with David Payne. We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try to pick up Madeleine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35pm when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins. Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.
- I'm sure this check is necessary.
- The clothes? Are you mad? if I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take clothes to have them analysed?
- Yes. What's the problem? It's a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Last Saturday (05/05/2007) I received a bag of clothes brought in by Mark Warner staff, and was told expressly that these belonged to Madeleine’s family – there was adult clothing (male and female) and children’s clothing… “, states one of the laundry workers.
“At the time we had not established exactly which clothes Gerry was wearing on the night of the disappearance nor which clothes were handed in to be washed on 5th May”, says Gonçalo Amaral.
I'm sorry, Amaral was the person in charge of the investigation, he should have carried out whatever he thought needed to be done.
This to me sounds more like an excuse as to why he didn't do it.
Kate McCann was asked by the police when they came with dogs on the 4th of May for something of Madeleine's, they could have given them the clothes Madeleine had been wearing the day before but they wanted the towel and the pink blanket.
He says he regrets not having photographs of what the McCann's and friends had been wearing on the night of the 3rd too.
Amaral gives a lot of excuses, why he didn't do a reconstruction 'oh because of the tourists' FGS.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 10:39:11 AM
Opinions are allowed. Providing they are On Topic and not Libellous.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 24, 2015, 10:40:59 AM
I'm sorry, Amaral was the person in charge of the investigation, he should have carried out whatever he thought needed to be done.
This to me sounds more like an excuse as to why he didn't do it.
Kate McCann was asked by the police when they came with dogs on the 4th of May for something of Madeleine's, they could have given them the clothes Madeleine had been wearing the day before but they wanted the towel and the pink blanket.
Amaral gives a lot of excuses, why he didn't do a reconstruction 'oh because of the tourists' FGS.
Not good enough.
The mccanns and their associates have had every opportunity to take part in a reconstruction.
They failed.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 24, 2015, 10:43:27 AM
Isn't it strange how neither Gerry or Kate mention the children showing signs of being sedated in their statements, even their arguido ones ? Further that Fiona Payne, even though she describes Kate's administrations to the twins, not once mentions Kate raising her concerns with the police that night. Further that Silvia Batista who would have had to translate Kate's concerns doesn't mention it in any of her statements nor indeed do any of the GNR or PJ officers who were there on the night.
Maybe because they didn't know if they had been sedated, why state something if you don't know if it is true?
Kate McCann was no doubt screaming and crying when the police were there, witnesses say she was in a state of shock. What she says to the police could have been ignored, it was only her who was talking about the twins being sedated.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2015, 10:44:35 AM
Kate McCann did the only thing she was able to do she told the police. Whether they took any notice of her we don't know, she was after all completely traumatised and not behaving in a rational manner. Thinking that Madeleine had merely wandered, I wonder if they thought Kate was being a bit hysterical.
Who are we to know what the McCann's were able to do on that night.
Fiona says that Kate was worried about the twins, but then goes on to say 'but they were fine' no doubt she was reassuring Kate that they were fine.
Lets have the full quote shall we;
No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.
I can't remember who carried up Sean and Amelie. Erm, and we sat on the sofa, me and Kate with the twins asleep on us for a while, erm, and they didn't wake up and, again, that was quite strange, even in the transfer and, and being handled by people that weren't their parents, they didn't, they didn't wake up. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 24, 2015, 10:52:24 AM
No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.
I can't remember who carried up Sean and Amelie. Erm, and we sat on the sofa, me and Kate with the twins asleep on us for a while, erm, and they didn't wake up and, again, that was quite strange, even in the transfer and, and being handled by people that weren't their parents, they didn't, they didn't wake up. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
There you are, Fiona saying the twins were fine. Kate was pacing, crying, screaming, hitting things, worried about the twins in between this. Do you think the Police took any notice of her saying she thought the twins had been drugged? Or do you think maybe they thought 'hysterical mother' after all they thought Kate and Gerry kneeling praying was odd behaviour.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 24, 2015, 11:08:58 AM
There you are, Fiona saying the twins were fine. Kate was pacing, crying, screaming, hitting things, worried about the twins in between this. Do you think the Police took any notice of her saying she thought the twins had been drugged? Or do you think maybe they thought 'hysterical mother' after all they thought Kate and Gerry kneeling praying was odd behaviour.
And the following days ? How many times did the McCanns asked for the twins to be tested in the following days ( not including the fishing expedition with the FL officers ) ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 24, 2015, 11:10:17 AM
And the following days ? How many times did the McCanns asked for the twins to be tested in the following days ( not including the fishing expedition with the FL officers ) ?
Who knows?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 24, 2015, 11:18:18 AM
No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.
I can't remember who carried up Sean and Amelie. Erm, and we sat on the sofa, me and Kate with the twins asleep on us for a while, erm, and they didn't wake up and, again, that was quite strange, even in the transfer and, and being handled by people that weren't their parents, they didn't, they didn't wake up. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
as I said...context...kate now says ..at the time it seemed weird...obviously having reflected on the situation it no longer seems weird....kids can sleep very deeply
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: lordpookles on April 24, 2015, 11:27:19 AM
There's a clip of Gerry talking to his brother in law I believe who is a documentary maker and filmed the McCanns for several days when they were in Prai Da Luz shortly after Madelienes disappearance and he talks to the camera briefly about his drugging theories. Can't seem to find the clip/documentary right now though.
I think the point is it is actually out of the ordinary for kids to sleep through a commotion like that. Gerry says as much in the clip I mention.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2015, 11:56:56 AM
We can speculate as much as we like, but there are facts. Both parents were immediately convinced an abduction had taken place. The remaining children slept on despite noise, lights, searching. The mother was clearly concerned about their welfare to the extent that she kept checking that they were breathing. No other action was attempted at all.
Nor by her husband; When questioned if the twins woke up during the searches in the apartment, he replied negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke, as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, but he can find no reason for it happening. Yet, at that moment he thought that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 24, 2015, 12:20:45 PM
There's a clip of Gerry talking to his brother in law I believe who is a documentary maker and filmed the McCanns for several days when they were in Prai Da Luz shortly after Madelienes disappearance and he talks to the camera briefly about his drugging theories. Can't seem to find the clip/documentary right now though.
I think the point is it is actually out of the ordinary for kids to sleep through a commotion like that. Gerry says as much in the clip I mention.
I believe it's in the 2007 Panorama programme.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 24, 2015, 12:22:07 PM
There's a clip of Gerry talking to his brother in law I believe who is a documentary maker and filmed the McCanns for several days when they were in Prai Da Luz shortly after Madelienes disappearance and he talks to the camera briefly about his drugging theories. Can't seem to find the clip/documentary right now though.
I think the point is it is actually out of the ordinary for kids to sleep through a commotion like that. Gerry says as much in the clip I mention.
This one? https://youtu.be/Ix6bKUnmOCM Anyway since the twins were found to be OK and the parents were in a state of great distress, at the time, do you think it would it be uppermost in their mind, when they were obviously in a extremely confused and anxious state as to what had happened to Madeleine?
My children when they were babies, slept through family celebrations and all sorts.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 24, 2015, 01:08:19 PM
Illicit police leaks appear to have dried up - which gave rise to endless speculation.
Now - perhaps - any real news will be revealed in due time.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2015, 01:39:40 PM
This one? https://youtu.be/Ix6bKUnmOCM Anyway since the twins were found to be OK and the parents were in a state of great distress, at the time, do you think it would it be uppermost in their mind, when they were obviously in a extremely confused and anxious state as to what had happened to Madeleine?
My children when they were babies, slept through family celebrations and all sorts.
Kate McCann may have been distressed, confused and anxious but she had the presence of mind to repeatedly check the twins. She took no further action. You wouldn't be worried about your children sleeping because you knew they were just tired, you didn't suspect someone had drugged them. Different scenarios.
The McCanns didn't ask the PJ to test the twins as far as I know, but they did want to know about evidence collected;
However, in relation to the above, I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.
One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening.
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 01:58:22 PM
Kate McCann may have been distressed, confused and anxious but she had the presence of mind to repeatedly check the twins. She took no further action. You wouldn't be worried about your children sleeping because you knew they were just tired, you didn't suspect someone had drugged them. Different scenarios.
The McCanns didn't ask the PJ to test the twins as far as I know, but they did want to know about evidence collected;
However, in relation to the above, I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.
One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening.
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
I don't think that happened on the 5th of May, unless you can prove otherwise. Who is this person that you quote?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 24, 2015, 02:07:09 PM
I don't think that happened on the 5th of May, unless you can prove otherwise. Who is this person that you quote?
Seemingly he was then a police officer in the Leicestershire Constabulary.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 24, 2015, 02:21:33 PM
Can I ask how this discussion about whether or not the twins may have been sedated and the McCanns' failure to call for an ambulance the night Madeleine went missing constitutes "hard evidence" and of what?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 24, 2015, 02:36:37 PM
Can I ask how this discussion about whether or not the twins may have been sedated and the McCanns' failure to call for an ambulance the night Madeleine went missing constitutes "hard evidence" and of what?
The thread title appears to be a question not a statement. Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
One suspects the answer to that question is a global no except for hard evidence that she is missing. What do you think?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 02:38:39 PM
Seemingly? Oh, well, that's okay then. That'll be Hard Evidence.
Well were you to click on the link the poster provided you could read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions rather than make pointless comments. In the nicest possible way of course.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 03:43:20 PM
Well were you to click on the link the poster provided you could read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions rather than make pointless comments. In the nicest possible way of course.
Can I have the link again? Sorry. Please may I have the link again?
But when it comes to pointless comments, you are so much better at that than I am. That is mostly all you ever do.
But good on ya. Where would we all be without spurious rubbish.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 24, 2015, 03:52:05 PM
What do you think the discussion about the twins possibly, maybe having been drugged has to do with the subject of this thread?
It makes for a discussion point I suppose. Is there hard evidence of Amelie and Sean having been "drugged". No! (IMHO of course) but some folk enjoy speculating and some folk enjoy complaining about those who speculate. c.f "Jesus Was A Capricorn" Just as an aside isn't it odd how siblings of differing ages are referred to by their names but if they are twins they are doomed to a life of being referred to as "The Twins".
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: lordpookles on April 24, 2015, 04:58:53 PM
This one? https://youtu.be/Ix6bKUnmOCM Anyway since the twins were found to be OK and the parents were in a state of great distress, at the time, do you think it would it be uppermost in their mind, when they were obviously in a extremely confused and anxious state as to what had happened to Madeleine?
My children when they were babies, slept through family celebrations and all sorts.
Thanks. Yes that's the one.
I mean it was of course on Kate's mind as we have a witness testimony that she kept checking the twins and checking their breathing, so their not waking up was a concern that night. Completely reasonable as if you think your child has been abducted you would of course wonder why they took her and left the other two and would likely no doubt look them over once this thought occurred to you I would assume, which Kate did do.
Also you mention your young children slept through the night during family celebrations and loud noise, but was this more of a rarity then the standard? Also, sudden noise and commotion is much likely to wake someone up then say a party which had already started and was already noisy when you went to bed imo.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 05:04:35 PM
Most single pieces of evidence aren't evidence of anything much on their own. But put together they can be.
Only can be? How bad is that when it comes to decimating The McCanns?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 24, 2015, 05:06:42 PM
I hate to say it, yet again, but what hard evidence would one expect in such a case?
No one saw a child being stuffed into a car screeching off with a snapshot of the licence plate, corroborated by cctv. Potentially useful DNA either wasn't collected or has been mislaid.
A more extensive investigation into phone use appears to be an area of interest...
It may sadly turn out that no one will ever know what happened to Madeleine in the near future. However, it is possible that the net is closing in on certain people who may have committed crimes against other children, and they, too, deserve justice.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lyall on April 24, 2015, 05:13:03 PM
Judging by the last two days posts pretty much redundant 8(0(*
So your low boredom threshold is enough to excuse your gratuitous remarks directed at other posters? And you think that your low boredom threshold suggests superior intelligence?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 05:26:14 PM
as I said...context...kate now says ..at the time it seemed weird...obviously having reflected on the situation it no longer seems weird....kids can sleep very deeply
Exactly ... what was Sean doing when being carried off the air plane in his father's arms directly into the waiting media scrum?? He was indeed in a very deep sleep and did not stir in the slightest ... I would describe it as 'out for the count'.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 24, 2015, 05:38:33 PM
So your low boredom threshold is enough to excuse your gratuitous remarks directed at other posters? And you think that your low boredom threshold suggests superior intelligence?
No I don't; I did not even intimate such but if it makes you happy to believe it be my guest. I just find it beyond parody that supporters believe "sceptics" are somehow ESN and love to make posts to that effect which are rarely removed or commented on. I like to have a pop back occasionally; about 5 times a day according to the stats. If you don't like it just delete all my posts and get admin to ban me it's all the same to me. If however folk are rude to me while I am here I will be rude back; that's fair enough isn't it?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2015, 05:41:09 PM
No I don't; I did not even intimate such but if it makes you happy to believe it be my guest. I just find it beyond parody that supporters believe "sceptics" are somehow ESN and love to make posts to that effect which are rarely removed or commented on. I like to have a pop back occasionally; about 5 times a day according to the stats. If you don't like it just delete all my posts and get admin to ban me it's all the same to me. If however folk are rude to me while I am here I will be rude back; that's fair enough isn't it?
What is ESN?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lyall on April 24, 2015, 05:41:47 PM
Only can be? How bad is that when it comes to decimating The McCanns?
Excuse me? We are simply pointing out the facts. If you think discussing the facts 'decimates' the McCanns then we none of us should be here. The people showing concern about the sleeping children were....the parents. The people raising the question of sedation were...the parents. Discussing how and why this would be possible is therefore valid.
'
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2015, 05:49:54 PM
Excuse me? We are simply pointing out the facts. If you think discussing the facts 'decimates' the McCanns then we none of us should be here. The people showing concern about the sleeping children were....the parents. The people raising the question of sedation were...the parents. Discussing how and why this would be possible is therefore valid.
'
Everything is up for discussion ... ground hog day seems to grow on people ... unfortunately there is no evidence one way or another. All that remains now is for one to work out another way of stating exactly what one stated in one's first post to the thread, or work out another avenue to get the boot into the McCanns.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2015, 05:53:30 PM
Everything is up for discussion ... ground hog day seems to grow on people ... unfortunately there is no evidence one way or another. All that remains now is for one to work out another way of stating exactly what one stated in one's first post to the thread, or work out another avenue to get the boot into the McCanns.
I must have made a valid point, they're always followed by an attack. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 05:54:04 PM
Excuse me? We are simply pointing out the facts. If you think discussing the facts 'decimates' the McCanns then we none of us should be here. The people showing concern about the sleeping children were....the parents. The people raising the question of sedation were...the parents. Discussing how and why this would be possible is therefore valid.
'
What Facts? But do feel free to have an opinion.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 24, 2015, 06:05:21 PM
Please do not insult my intelligence. Signed Statements are never absolute fact, especially as they tend to contradict. Unless you can show me a statement that is proven fact.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2015, 08:14:14 PM
Indeed the internet statements we have access to may contain some facts ... but I for one would never consider betting the mortgage on either their accuracy or veracity given their provenance.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 24, 2015, 08:19:21 PM
As some have stated that signed statements aren't facts.
Then logically by the same argument, nothing the mccanns have stated can be assumed to be a fact.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2015, 08:24:22 PM
Please feel free to show that my facts are mistaken;
The people showing concern about the sleeping children were....the parents. The people raising the question of sedation were...the parents.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 08:38:39 PM
What are the facts? Just what you've been told. It's easy to lie anyone can do it!
Indeed, and they can even add their signature to a statement which doesn't make it true. Simples.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 24, 2015, 09:15:16 PM
I have seen on this thread discussions about abductors with chloroform soaked rags opening windows to let the fumes escape. I have seen suggestions that a child was abducted due to her bloodline. Both ideas are pure conjecture. I have pointed out things which happened according to signed statements and have been told to stay on topic. If signed statements cannot be used to ascertain the facts of a case I wonder why the police bother taking them.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2015, 09:44:08 PM
I have seen on this thread discussions about abductors with chloroform soaked rags opening windows to let the fumes escape. I have seen suggestions that a child was abducted due to her bloodline. Both ideas are pure conjecture. I have pointed out things which happened according to signed statements and have been told to stay on topic. If signed statements cannot be used to ascertain the facts of a case I wonder why the police bother taking them.
Similarly I wonder why the police did not act on some signed statements ... particularly ones the content of which did not coincide with the lead detective's pet theory.
Eye witness testimony counts as evidence to be ruled in or out of an inquiry.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 09:49:06 PM
I have seen on this thread discussions about abductors with chloroform soaked rags opening windows to let the fumes escape. I have seen suggestions that a child was abducted due to her bloodline. Both ideas are pure conjecture. I have pointed out things which happened according to signed statements and have been told to stay on topic. If signed statements cannot be used to ascertain the facts of a case I wonder why the police bother taking them.
Do you have a problem with staying On Topic?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 24, 2015, 09:57:53 PM
And we are now wandering Off Topic. So please try. Throw in a couple of words pertaining to the Thread Title and then I won't have to delete it. This isn't difficult.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 25, 2015, 12:26:26 AM
This thread is Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Well it seems not, unless one can take into account an open window and a missing child, which only gives evidence of her disappearance, but not how she came to disappear or where she is now. Not a trace of her anywhere. alive or otherwise
The Whys, Whats, Wheres and whens of the McCanns words, does not help anyone in the discovery of what may have happened to the child, as this interview portrays. https://youtu.be/CRw5wMx0QcM It happened and there is no changing that fact.
It is not relevant to this topic, to discuss what was and was not said by the McCanns in reference to possible drugging of the children. I believe there are other threads where this can be discussed. Here is one, but I am sure there must be one more recent….. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2035.msg66232#msg66232
There is no evidence against the parents and in fact as far as we know, there is no evidence whatsoever, in this case.
We need to find out what happened to Madeleine, or I should say the Police need to find out what happened to her and hopefully they will find supporting evidence to achieve this.
We do not know if OG have or have not found evidence, because of the secrecy laws, but it does not look promising. Too many suspects and too little evidence.
And as Carana has said, there are no news leaks, so we must wait and hope that OG and the Portuguese police, have achieved something in this investigation. We can only make calculated guesses and contribute our theories of the possibilities of what may have happened to cause the disappearance without a trace of Madeleine.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 25, 2015, 12:56:32 AM
The parents and their friends have suggested that the twins may have been drugged. Rohipnol was suggested as a possible drug but as it acts in 20 minutes the only people who could have given it would be those who were with the children later, not the Nannies. If the twins were drugged it would most likely have to be something given orally or by injection in order to still be working hours later.
Kate McCann kept putting her hands on their backs and under their noses checking for breathing. That's what a lay person might do, but as a doctor and an anesthetist Kate McCann should have reacted quite differently in my opinion.
Thanks, I didnt know that. So, that rules out rohypnol, said poster who suggested it, take note,
As for the mother, as a doctor, "wondering" if the other babies had been drugged but not being sure, she shiould have taken them to hospital, but seeing as she didnt she must have been sure they were OK and their safety was not at risk. I must say though that that doesnt tally with the FACT that she left them alone moments after discovering her elder daughter missing, something she was very sure of, to run to the restaraunt, as if she was content that an abductor wasnt still around. That doeant make sense to me.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 25, 2015, 01:30:48 AM
Did you mean Rancidness? If so, would you like me to correct it for you?
just waiting on an answer to what a "proven fact" is or isnt...hmmm, thats the only thing that needs correcting ie an unanswered question if thats ok that is!!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 25, 2015, 04:32:51 AM
This thread is Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Well it seems not, unless one can take into account an open window and a missing child, which only gives evidence of her disappearance, but not how she came to disappear or where she is now. Not a trace of her anywhere. alive or otherwise
Exactly , period, there is no evidence of an abduction, soft, let alone hard
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 07:13:22 AM
This thread is Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Well it seems not, unless one can take into account an open window and a missing child, which only gives evidence of her disappearance, but not how she came to disappear or where she is now. Not a trace of her anywhere. alive or otherwise
There is no evidence of an open window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2015, 07:27:34 AM
No where does Grime state that the dog's alerted to a cadaver...I have no problem with anything Grime has said...nothing he says provides any sort of hard evidence that a cadaver had been in 5a
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 08:05:38 AM
No where does Grime state that the dog's alerted to a cadaver...I have no problem with anything Grime has said...nothing he says provides any sort of hard evidence that a cadaver had been in 5a
and where did he say the dogs could not have alerted to a body in the apartment.
The dogs made alerts, the forensic results were inconclusive, but did not remove the possibility of a body being alerted to.
.................and in the cold light of reality, there is nothing else in this case.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2015, 08:17:10 AM
No where does Grime state that the dog's alerted to a cadaver...I have no problem with anything Grime has said...nothing he says provides any sort of hard evidence that a cadaver had been in 5a
There definitely had been though.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 08:26:01 AM
Please do not insult my intelligence. Signed Statements are never absolute fact, especially as they tend to contradict. Unless you can show me a statement that is proven fact.
Eleanor doesn't see statements as facts. Therefore the open window is not a proven fact.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2015, 08:30:02 AM
Eleanor doesn't see statements as facts. Therefore the open window is not a proven fact.
you seem to want to continually move the goal posts...kate's statement is evidence that the window was open..when you were shown to be wrong you changed to hard evidence ,,,then proven fact
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 08:39:06 AM
you seem to want to continually move the goal posts...kate's statement is evidence that the window was open..when you were shown to be wrong you changed to hard evidence ,,,then proven fact
You misunderstand me. I agree that statements are evidence. However, Kate's statement is evidence that Kate said the window was open.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 25, 2015, 08:42:05 AM
you seem to want to continually move the goal posts...kate's statement is evidence that the window was open..when you were shown to be wrong you changed to hard evidence ,,,then proven fact
The window being open isn't a fact.
Hers were the only identifiable fingerprints is.
and of course, no corroboration the window was open at any time prior to her return to the apartment.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2015, 08:43:42 AM
Logical isn't it ... and we are both sometime logical thinkers. 8(0(*
Borne out by the fact that neither Dr McCann was charged with any offence in relation to their daughter's disappearance ~ there is not a shred of evidence linking either them or their friends to what happened to Madeleine.
That leaves wandering off ... or abduction.
There is no evidence that Madeleine wandered off.
Whether members like it or not there is evidence that there had been an intrusion to the apartment. Dr McCann's statement to how she found the apartment window on her return is evidence.
Ever wondered why Sylvia Baptista's assessment of the situation has carried such weight in the doubters' lexicon ... her suspicions when Dr McCann requested pastoral support have become legendary ... but no-one mentions that she also claims to have seen Robert Murat ...
**snip She doesn't remember who was with him, whether he came walking or in some vehicle. That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT. Robert speaks fluently English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR of Lagos and later the PJ, translating the testimony of some British persons. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
So it is very much a pick and mix of which evidence internet detectives will choose to illustrate their point or their prejudice ... fortunately, with the eyes of the world on Madeleine McCann's case the rule of evidence and therefore the rule of law had to be seen to be being applied.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 25, 2015, 09:12:35 AM
Logical isn't it ... and we are both sometime logical thinkers. 8(0(*
Borne out by the fact that neither Dr McCann was charged with any offence in relation to their daughter's disappearance ~ there is not a shred of evidence linking either them or their friends to what happened to Madeleine.
That leaves wandering off ... or abduction.
There is no evidence that Madeleine wandered off.
Whether members like it or not there is evidence that there had been an intrusion to the apartment. Dr McCann's statement to how she found the apartment window on her return is evidence.
Ever wondered why Sylvia Baptista's assessment of the situation has carried such weight in the doubters' lexicon ... her suspicions when Dr McCann requested pastoral support have become legendary ... but no-one mentions that she also claims to have seen Robert Murat ...
**snip She doesn't remember who was with him, whether he came walking or in some vehicle. That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT. Robert speaks fluently English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR of Lagos and later the PJ, translating the testimony of some British persons. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
So it is very much a pick and mix of which evidence internet detectives will choose to illustrate their point or their prejudice ... fortunately, with the eyes of the world on Madeleine McCann's case the rule of evidence and therefore the rule of law had to be seen to be being applied.
A brief reminder.
A lack of forensic corroboration does not mean there wasn't a dead body in the apartment.
There is absolutely no quantifiable proof abduction took place.
Not one witness.
A child being carried is not evidence of abduction.
Madeleine's walking out of the apartment as some believe and then 'disappearing' is a possibility.
No trace of Madeleine after 8 years, not even one iota of a trail to follow, moere than casts doubt on abduction, it makes it look ridiculous.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 09:14:06 AM
Logical isn't it ... and we are both sometime logical thinkers. 8(0(*
Borne out by the fact that neither Dr McCann was charged with any offence in relation to their daughter's disappearance ~ there is not a shred of evidence linking either them or their friends to what happened to Madeleine.
That leaves wandering off ... or abduction.
There is no evidence that Madeleine wandered off.
Whether members like it or not there is evidence that there had been an intrusion to the apartment. Dr McCann's statement to how she found the apartment window on her return is evidence.
Ever wondered why Sylvia Baptista's assessment of the situation has carried such weight in the doubters' lexicon ... her suspicions when Dr McCann requested pastoral support have become legendary ... but no-one mentions that she also claims to have seen Robert Murat ...
**snip She doesn't remember who was with him, whether he came walking or in some vehicle. That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT. Robert speaks fluently English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR of Lagos and later the PJ, translating the testimony of some British persons. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
So it is very much a pick and mix of which evidence internet detectives will choose to illustrate their point or their prejudice ... fortunately, with the eyes of the world on Madeleine McCann's case the rule of evidence and therefore the rule of law had to be seen to be being applied.
So the open window is evidence which supports the abduction theory? (It doesn't follow, but never mind) What evidence is there that the window was open? Kate McCann's statement. Is that statement true? We don't know, because, as you said, people lie in statements.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 25, 2015, 09:27:38 AM
A lack of forensic corroboration does not mean there wasn't a dead body in the apartment.
There is absolutely no quantifiable proof abduction took place.
Not one witness.
A child being carried is not evidence of abduction.
Madeleine's walking out of the apartment as some believe and then 'disappearing' is a possibility.
No trace of Madeleine after 8 years, not even one iota of a trail to follow, moere than casts doubt on abduction, it makes it look ridiculous.
Oh, I see, the alert man who noticed serial killer Robert Black abducting a little girl should just have ignored it on the grounds it wasn't evidence. Only problem with that is that the fact he saw her then he didn't combined with a van driving off was evidence of an abduction ... furthermore it was the only evidence the child had been abducted ... and without prompt action by the witness in contacting the police and the prompt police response ... undoubtedly that little girl would have been killed as others were and Robert Black would have continued murdering other little girls.
**snip
He prowled the country hunting for little girls to bundle into the back of his van
When he saw a little girl being bundled into a van, a sharp-eyed retired sub-postmaster took down its registration number. It was a sunny July day in 1990, and the chance sighting by pensioner David Herkes in Stow, in the Scottish Borders, sparked a massive search.
Let's unpick this. There are two things being said above, in bold.
Kate's statement is evidence. In it she says the window was open. Therefore her statement is evidence that the window was open.
Kate's statement is proof. Proof of what? That she stated that the window was open.
If I'm misreading, please correct me.
As I see it the witness who saw Robert Black abducting a child is evidence ... the proof lies in the fact that the child was discovered in the van seen speeding off by the witness.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 09:40:52 AM
Phew! So there is no proof that the window was open, the only proof we have is that Kate McCann said it was.
That's it in a nutshell. You either believe her or you don't. Isn't it strange she never went out the front door to look for Maddie on finding a window open and her gone??
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 09:58:17 AM
As I see it the witness who saw Robert Black abducting a child is evidence ... the proof lies in the fact that the child was discovered in the van seen speeding off by the witness.
OK. So Kate McCann's statement is evidence that a window and some shutters were open. There is no proof that this is true. Even if it is true, all it means is that a window and some shutters were open. We don't know why they were open. An open window and shutters is not evidence of an abduction.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 10:09:52 AM
[Quote removed]
Which of them did Matthew say was open then? He clarified his evidence about the open window on 10th May;
He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.
Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
In view of such news all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the sliding glass door facing the pool. . Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition. Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by unknown individuals (or by group members) to the date of the event or in the days that preceded it. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 25, 2015, 10:14:50 AM
Which of them did Matthew say was open then? He clarified his evidence about the open window on 10th May;
He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.
Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
In view of such news all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the sliding glass door facing the pool. . Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition. Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by unknown individuals (or by group members) to the date of the event or in the days that preceded it. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
I know what he said when he did his check.
He saw the window open when they went back to 5a after Kate give the alarm that Madeleine was missing.
So are you saying that Kate found Madeleine, then decided to fake an abduction?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2015, 10:35:38 AM
Which of them did Matthew say was open then? He clarified his evidence about the open window on 10th May;
He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.
Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
In view of such news all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the sliding glass door facing the pool. . Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition. Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by unknown individuals (or by group members) to the date of the event or in the days that preceded it. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
Ah the vagaries of translators and translations. Did it not occur to you that the two windows reference may be to the sliding nature of the window which had two panes of glass. I think there is photographic evidence to support that fact.
The fact that the initial investigation pulled out all the stops to ensure a particular outcome in Madeleine McCann's case have already gone through all this with a fine toothcomb. They were thwarted in their attempt because there was NO evidence either hard or circumstantial ... so why do you suppose you can succeed where Amaral failed?
The failure to follow available evidence by concentrating on theoretical supposition probably cost the investigation the chance to determine those who may have been responsible for the crime against Madeleine McCann ... the one certain thing is that the person responsible was in Luz on the third of May 2007.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 10:41:02 AM
Ah the vagaries of translators and translations. Did it not occur to you that the two windows reference may be to the sliding nature of the window which had two panes of glass. I think there is photographic evidence to support that fact.
The fact that the initial investigation pulled out all the stops to ensure a particular outcome in Madeleine McCann's case have already gone through all this with a fine toothcomb. They were thwarted in their attempt because there was NO evidence either hard or circumstantial ... so why do you suppose you can succeed where Amaral failed?
The failure to follow available evidence by concentrating on theoretical supposition probably cost the investigation the chance to determine those who may have been responsible for the crime against Madeleine McCann ... the one certain thing is that the person responsible was in Luz on the third of May 2007.
My point is that there is no evidence to support the abduction thesis.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2015, 10:42:38 AM
[quote removed]
An eye witness was the only evidence that Robert Black had abducted a child ... prompt action by the police secured her recovery. An eye witness saw a child being carried from the direction of an apartment from which a child was missing ... ???
What exactly did the police do?
They certainly did not trace him ... several years passed before that happened ... so why did it not happen in 2007?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 25, 2015, 10:46:05 AM
Tannerman was claimed as evidence of abduction, but that has now been shown to be incorrect - SY have identified him as an innocent tourist.
If the identity of the man seen carrying a child from the direction of the apartment where a child was missing was not uncovered for years after the event ... why was this important piece of evidence not uncovered by the original investigation?
In my opinion it is proof of an amateurish approach by investigators who were entirely out of their depth when tasked with a missing child case.
It was such an elementary thing to do one wonders exactly what the priorities were in this case.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 25, 2015, 11:07:46 AM
If the identity of the man seen carrying a child from the direction of the apartment where a child was missing was not uncovered for years after the event ... why was this important piece of evidence not uncovered by the original investigation?
In my opinion it is proof of an amateurish approach by investigators who were entirely out of their depth when tasked with a missing child case.
It was such an elementary thing to do one wonders exactly what the priorities were in this case.
I expect 18 months ago you were saying the Tanner sighting was the pukka gen and that anyone who disbelieved that "fact" was simple. Now the fact it was not so pukka is the fault of the PJ? Nonetheless given that probably the most inept police force in the world came up empty handed after 14 months. How much further down the track are we after 3 groups of PIs, one of which group "really were the Big Boys", and probably the best police force in the world have been looking and investigating for more than 4 years in total?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 25, 2015, 11:12:35 AM
If the identity of the man seen carrying a child from the direction of the apartment where a child was missing was not uncovered for years after the event ... why was this important piece of evidence not uncovered by the original investigation?
In my opinion it is proof of an amateurish approach by investigators who were entirely out of their depth when tasked with a missing child case.
It was such an elementary thing to do one wonders exactly what the priorities were in this case.
You seem to be rather confused Brietta. Do you believe that, taking over from 'the amateurish approach' by the initial investigators the professional policeman who make up OG have now identified Tannerman as an ordinary father or that Tannerman was seen taking Madeleine away and OG are just as amateurish as the PJ and have got it wrong again ? You really can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 25, 2015, 11:14:44 AM
If the identity of the man seen carrying a child from the direction of the apartment where a child was missing was not uncovered for years after the event ... why was this important piece of evidence not uncovered by the original investigation?
In my opinion it is proof of an amateurish approach by investigators who were entirely out of their depth when tasked with a missing child case.
It was such an elementary thing to do one wonders exactly what the priorities were in this case.
I'm afraid I've no answer as to why it took so long for Tannerman to be identified as a complete red herring.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 11:24:00 AM
He saw the window open when they went back to 5a after Kate give the alarm that Madeleine was missing.
So are you saying that Kate found Madeleine, then decided to fake an abduction?
No, he didn't;
In view of such news all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the sliding glass door facing the pool. . Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition. Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by unknown individuals (or by group members) to the date of the event or in the days that preceded it. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 25, 2015, 11:34:29 AM
Which of them did Matthew say was open then? He clarified his evidence about the open window on 10th May;
He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.
Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm)
In view of such news all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the sliding glass door facing the pool. . Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition. Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by unknown individuals (or by group members) to the date of the event or in the days that preceded it. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm)
IMO, Mathew was describing his own apartment, their bedroom having two windows, thinking all apartments were the same. Didn't he get the curtain colour wrong too?
I see there is a note on the second statement. Seems it is translated to what Albym thinks it said.
[M Oldfield's Statement 10th May Again, there were several omissions from, and errors in, the original Portuguese. I corrected those that I found. Also, much of the Portuguese statement is written with a convoluted 'future + past' verb construct that attributes an 'uncertainty' to the words, whereas I have translated much of it in a non-literal manner to make it read more definitively. Hence, the reader must understand that neither the Portuguese nor my translation necessarily constitute the exact words spoken by Oldfield. If you read MO's Rogatory Letter testimony you will get a sense of the difficulty the Portuguese interpreter faced when listening to this man.]
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 25, 2015, 11:46:27 AM
IMO, Mathew was describing his own apartment, their bedroom having two windows, thinking all apartments were the same. Didn't he get the curtain colour wrong too?
I see there is a note on the second statement. Seems it is translated to what Albym thinks it said.
[M Oldfield's Statement 10th May Again, there were several omissions from, and errors in, the original Portuguese. I corrected those that I found. Also, much of the Portuguese statement is written with a convoluted 'future + past' verb construct that attributes an 'uncertainty' to the words, whereas I have translated much of it in a non-literal manner to make it read more definitively. Hence, the reader must understand that neither the Portuguese nor my translation necessarily constitute the exact words spoken by Oldfield. If you read MO's Rogatory Letter testimony you will get a sense of the difficulty the Portuguese interpreter faced when listening to this man.]
He was almost 100% sure in his rogatory that he didn't enter the apartment after the alarm was raised, let alone the bedroom;
If you ask whether we went, you know, into the apartment and I'm almost a hundred percent sure we didn't go to the apartment, we were, because it was just so awful, so Gerry and Kate and maybe Dave, I'm not sure, but went sort of to the bottom of the steps and they sort of went in, erm, and as soon as they sort of said, you know, she's gone and everything, all hell broke loose, we went round to check firstly on Grace http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2015, 12:24:14 PM
I'm afraid I've no answer as to why it took so long for Tannerman to be identified as a complete red herring.
Actually you deliberately miss entirely the point of investigating evidence.
How much more appropriate do you think it might have been for proper police investigation work to eliminate this particular red herring back in 2007 rather than six years after the event?
Something as simple as checking crèche records seems to have been beyond the capabilities of the initial investigators ... what other relevant evidence did their incompetence allow to slip through their grasp?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2015, 12:27:59 PM
I expect 18 months ago you were saying the Tanner sighting was the pukka gen and that anyone who disbelieved that "fact" was simple. Now the fact it was not so pukka is the fault of the PJ? Nonetheless given that probably the most inept police force in the world came up empty handed after 14 months. How much further down the track are we after 3 groups of PIs, one of which group "really were the Big Boys", and probably the best police force in the world have been looking and investigating for more than 4 years in total?
Please explain exactly why the evidence relating to tannerman remained hidden for so long ... obviously it was available at the time.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 25, 2015, 12:29:50 PM
Actually you deliberately miss entirely the point of investigating evidence.
How much more appropriate do you think it might have been for proper police investigation work to eliminate this particular red herring back in 2007 rather than six years after the event?
Something as simple as checking crèche records seems to have been beyond the capabilities of the initial investigators ... what other relevant evidence did their incompetence allow to slip through their grasp?
I don't disagree with you. Just think how much focused the McCanns might have been if they could have discarded Jane's sighting from the begining.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2015, 12:38:59 PM
I don't disagree with you. Just think how much focused the McCanns might have been if they could have discarded Jane's sighting from the begining.
How could anyone disregard Jane Tanner's evidence until it was properly checked out?
That is not a job for the victims of a crime to undertake ... that is a job for professional investigators who have access to all the information and who one expects to be taking an overview of all the evidence and collating it.
That would appear to me to be specific to the job of the co-ordinator.
I cannot make it clearer than that. Your expectation that the McCanns should have had access to confidential evidence to allow them to rule out Jane Tanner's evidence right from the beginning is quite frankly risible ... only the PJ had the information and the power to do so ... that they lacked the competence is another question entirely.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 25, 2015, 12:50:57 PM
How could anyone disregard Jane Tanner's evidence until it was properly checked out?
That is not a job for the victims of a crime to undertake ... that is a job for professional investigators who have access to all the information and who one expects to be taking an overview of all the evidence and collating it.
That would appear to me to be specific to the job of the co-ordinator.
I cannot make it clearer than that. Your expectation that the McCanns should have had access to confidential evidence to allow them to rule out Jane Tanner's evidence right from the beginning is quite frankly risible ... only the PJ had the information and the power to do so ... that they lacked the competence is another question entirely.
Sadly, the converse is also true. Why give credence to a statement that was not confirmed ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 25, 2015, 01:01:51 PM
Please explain exactly why the evidence relating to tannerman remained hidden for so long ... obviously it was available at the time.
Was it "hidden" ? do you have evidence of that ? Are you suggesting that one police force hid it and possibly two police forces colluded to hide it? or just that the PJ were incompetent? (yawn). Why didn't "The Big Boys" uncover it when they were investigating? You seem however to have ducked my main query.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2015, 01:02:53 PM
Sadly, the converse is also true. Why give credence to a statement that was not confirmed ?
Sigh ... either you are being deliberately obtuse or I have failed to clarify matters ... whatever, I think that last response rather curtails sensible discussion and makes even the thought of watching the latest all singing all dancing YouTube rather long documentary solving Madeleine McCann's case yet again more inviting than taking our conversation any further.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 25, 2015, 01:07:04 PM
Was it "hidden" ? do you have evidence of that ? Are you suggesting that one police force hid it and possibly two police forces colluded to hide it? or just that the PJ were incompetent? (yawn). Why didn't "The Big Boys" uncover it when they were investigating? You seem however to have ducked my main query.
I think I have been concise. Unless you have a valid reason why this man was not eliminated from the investigation in 2007, which of course you don't, so I am afraid police incompetence remains.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 25, 2015, 01:08:26 PM
When did Tannerman give his statement and who was it given to ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 25, 2015, 01:10:22 PM
Sigh ... either you are being deliberately obtuse or I have failed to clarify matters ... whatever, I think that last response rather curtails sensible discussion and makes even the thought of watching the latest all singing all dancing YouTube rather long documentary solving Madeleine McCann's case yet again more inviting than taking our conversation any further.
Can you put that in small words and in a less convoluted manner so I at least have half a chance of understanding what you are on about. Language is for communication so if you fail to get your message over you have problems with communicating not the listener / reader is dim.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 25, 2015, 01:21:26 PM
When did Tannerman give his statement and who was it given to ?
Tannerman turned out to be crecheman discovered by SY, I believe and not by the PJ. Please correct me if I am wrong. If Crecheman, gave a statement, which I would have thought to be the case, it must have been withheld.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 25, 2015, 01:24:21 PM
He was almost 100% sure in his rogatory that he didn't enter the apartment after the alarm was raised, let alone the bedroom;
If you ask whether we went, you know, into the apartment and I'm almost a hundred percent sure we didn't go to the apartment, we were, because it was just so awful, so Gerry and Kate and maybe Dave, I'm not sure, but went sort of to the bottom of the steps and they sort of went in, erm, and as soon as they sort of said, you know, she's gone and everything, all hell broke loose, we went round to check firstly on Grace http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm)
You were talking about 2 windows, in the post I replied to.
4078 'Yeah'. Reply 'The shutters, we didn't open all week, because there's kind of no point. I mean, we went in that bedroom for Grace to sleep during that day, it needed to be dark and kept it at an even temperature, there was no point putting it up and down. I know the, one of the things I said in my statement, when we talk about the Thursday, was where the two windows were only the one, and I thought the two were on this bedroom rather than this one and so, you know, I said, you go through, but there's actually two more, apparently two on those, they showed me a photograph of that. So that's something I know that I got mistaken by, I thought there were two on next door, because I don't think I'd ever noticed it because I think because we'd never pulled up the shutters, they were always sort of down, we just didn't interfere with those'.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 25, 2015, 01:25:15 PM
Tannerman turned out to be crecheman discovered by SY, I believe and not by the PJ. Please correct me if I am wrong. If Crecheman, gave a statement, which I would have thought to be the case, it must have been withheld.
By whom? Did Creche speak to PJ or LP? Do we have this information or is it all purely speculation ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Moderator on April 25, 2015, 01:41:33 PM
This is an evidence thread, members must keep to the topic and refrain from speculations. Posts which are not considered part of the case evidence will be removed as per the forum rules.
Persistent offenders will face sanctions.
MM
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 25, 2015, 01:43:59 PM
By whom? Did Creche speak to PJ or LP? Do we have this information or is it all purely speculation ?
Best I can do for now, jassi.
After much painstaking analysis, however, the Scotland Yard team has concluded that this man – later depicted in an artist’s impression – was actually nothing to do with the abduction. They noticed that on the evening in question, there was a "night creche" in operation near the apartment block, and after tracking down the families who were using it, found a man whose clothes were "uncannily similar" to the man seen by Ms Tanner. "We are almost certain now that this sighting was not the abductor," said DCI Redwood, who described it as a "revelation moment" for the inquiry.
Instead, detectives are now focusing their efforts on a second man seen carrying a child towards the beach just minutes before Kate McCann went to check on Madeleine. An Irishman, Martin Smith, and his wife reported seeing him at the time. Their e-fits, which have only now been released, were originally produced by a private detective agency which was hired by the McCanns in 2008 when they became dissatisfied with the Portuguese police inquiry.
At the time, though, it was not published, partly because Portuguese detectives thought the other theory more viable, and partly because Mr Smith himself said he thought the man he had seen looked like Gerry McCann, whom several other witnesses had already said had been at the restaurant table at that point.
Now the later sighting is being taken seriously. While DCI Redwood stressed that it could be a yet another innocent holidaymaker carrying his child, it is the key public line of inquiry, if only because of the absence of anything else. Yet it also means that what could be the key e-fit lay under wraps for several years. "It was passed to the Portuguese police at the time and for whatever reason they decided to nothing whatsoever with it," said one source close to the McCann investigation. "It was then handed to the Met two years ago, and they have now deemed it worthy of publication, but frankly it should have been out there a long time ago."
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 25, 2015, 01:50:38 PM
Thank you Anna. So nothing to indicate that a early statement by Crecheman was being hidden or withheld by anyone and his recent identification is down to orginal work by SY
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 25, 2015, 01:58:16 PM
OK. So Kate McCann's statement is evidence that a window and some shutters were open. There is no proof that this is true. Even if it is true, all it means is that a window and some shutters were open. We don't know why they were open. An open window and shutters is not evidence of an abduction.
Let's say one of your young children disappeared from its bed in the middle of the night and the windows and shutters to their room were open, not as you left them. Would that not be evidence that they had been abducted? If not, what would it be evidence of?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 25, 2015, 02:10:41 PM
As at least two other people had been in the apartment since Kate left at 8pm'ish, how could she be certain of anything?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 25, 2015, 03:04:32 PM
Let's say one of your young children disappeared from its bed in the middle of the night and the windows and shutters to their room were open, not as you left them. Would that not be evidence that they had been abducted? If not, what would it be evidence of?
We only have Kate's word about the shutters, no independent witness statement.
"Would that not be evidence that they had been abducted? If not, what would it be evidence of?
No, that would be evidence that someone had opened them and did not close them. There is no physical evidence that this was done by a stranger...
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 25, 2015, 03:15:20 PM
Thank you Anna. So nothing to indicate that a early statement by Crecheman was being hidden or withheld by anyone and his recent identification is down to orginal work by SY
Though Anna's quote was a story in the Telegraph.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 25, 2015, 03:23:38 PM
We only have Kate's word about the shutters, no independent witness statement.
"Would that not be evidence that they had been abducted? If not, what would it be evidence of?
No, that would be evidence that someone had opened them and did not close them. There is no physical evidence that this was done by a stranger...
G-Unit stated that open windows and shutters are not evidence of abduction. Forget for a moment the question of whether they were or not in this case, but refer to the scenario that I gave. Are open windows and shutters evidence of abduction, or are they not? If not, why not?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 25, 2015, 06:30:58 PM
Topic please Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case? Thank you
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on April 25, 2015, 07:58:08 PM
Thank you Anna. So nothing to indicate that a early statement by Crecheman was being hidden or withheld by anyone and his recent identification is down to orginal work by SY
Although the Portuguese police did not publicise the sighting and instead made the parents suspects in the case, once their investigation closed the McCanns arranged for a sketch to be drawn showing the man Miss Tanner had seen.
Ever since it has been central to how people have viewed the case.
But Scotland Yard detectives reviewed the evidence and realised that around a dozen holidaymakers had been using a free creche at the Mark Warner resort, and they would have collected their sleeping children during the evening.
One of those parents was contacted by police and he agreed that he may be the man, and he had been wrongly identified as a possible suspect.
He agreed to pose for a photograph so his build could be compared to the sketch.
That, together with evidence that his two-year-old daughter was wearing similar pyjamas as the sketch, has convinced the man leading the inquiry that this sighting is wrong.
Can you put that in small words and in a less convoluted manner so I at least have half a chance of understanding what you are on about. Language is for communication so if you fail to get your message over you have problems with communicating not the listener / reader is dim.
Now why didn't I think of that ... how remiss. %£5&%
However back to the nitty gritty ... hard evidence ... can't get much harder than unidentified fingerprints and hair samples. I'm unsure from where in the apartment the so far unidentified prints were lifted or how many are involved. The middle finger and index finger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the inside of the window pane; were the other three the ones which were circulated to other countries and which remain unidentified?
For an apartment that people were living in there was an extraordinary cleanliness and lack of useable fingerprints from those who were legitimately in the apartment, almost as if someone had taken great pains to wipe down all available surfaces which might have been touched.
Nota bene ... the legitimate occupants would not have required to wipe down the apartment to the extent only Kate McCann's fresh prints and the GNR fresh prints were the only ones deposited.
So to say no hard evidence was left is wrong when there remains unidentified prints and hair samples to be accounted for.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 26, 2015, 02:44:33 AM
Logical isn't it ... and we are both sometime logical thinkers. 8(0(*
Borne out by the fact that neither Dr McCann was charged with any offence in relation to their daughter's disappearance ~ there is not a shred of evidence linking either them or their friends to what happened to Madeleine.
That leaves wandering off ... or abduction.
There is no evidence that Madeleine wandered off.
Whether members like it or not there is evidence that there had been an intrusion to the apartment. Dr McCann's statement to how she found the apartment window on her return is evidence.
Ever wondered why Sylvia Baptista's assessment of the situation has carried such weight in the doubters' lexicon ... her suspicions when Dr McCann requested pastoral support have become legendary ... but no-one mentions that she also claims to have seen Robert Murat ...
**snip She doesn't remember who was with him, whether he came walking or in some vehicle. That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT. Robert speaks fluently English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR of Lagos and later the PJ, translating the testimony of some British persons. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
So it is very much a pick and mix of which evidence internet detectives will choose to illustrate their point or their prejudice ... fortunately, with the eyes of the world on Madeleine McCann's case the rule of evidence and therefore the rule of law had to be seen to be being applied.
Baptista never claimed she saw Robert Murat, can't you read and digest your own quotes?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 26, 2015, 02:51:56 AM
Now why didn't I think of that ... how remiss. %£5&%
However back to the nitty gritty ... hard evidence ... can't get much harder than unidentified fingerprints and hair samples. I'm unsure from where in the apartment the so far unidentified prints were lifted or how many are involved. The middle finger and index finger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the inside of the window pane; were the other three the ones which were circulated to other countries and which remain unidentified?
For an apartment that people were living in there was an extraordinary cleanliness and lack of useable fingerprints from those who were legitimately in the apartment, almost as if someone had taken great pains to wipe down all available surfaces which might have been touched.
Nota bene ... the legitimate occupants would not have required to wipe down the apartment to the extent only Kate McCann's fresh prints and the GNR fresh prints were the only ones deposited.
So to say no hard evidence was left is wrong when there remains unidentified prints and hair samples to be accounted for.
Unidentified fingerprints in a holiday apartment inhabited and visited by so many and which presumably wasnt forensically cleaned daily don't mean that much...they just mean unidentified, they could have been anyones. Likewise, unidentified hairs do not automatically mean an "abductor's hairs"
Try harder on the "hard evidence of abduction" theme.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 26, 2015, 02:54:10 AM
Now why didn't I think of that ... how remiss. %£5&%
However back to the nitty gritty ... hard evidence ... can't get much harder than unidentified fingerprints and hair samples. I'm unsure from where in the apartment the so far unidentified prints were lifted or how many are involved. The middle finger and index finger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the inside of the window pane; were the other three the ones which were circulated to other countries and which remain unidentified?
For an apartment that people were living in there was an extraordinary cleanliness and lack of useable fingerprints from those who were legitimately in the apartment, almost as if someone had taken great pains to wipe down all available surfaces which might have been touched.
Nota bene ... the legitimate occupants would not have required to wipe down the apartment to the extent only Kate McCann's fresh prints and the GNR fresh prints were the only ones deposited.
So to say no hard evidence was left is wrong when there remains unidentified prints and hair samples to be accounted for.
The reading of your essays is always an interesting and amusing diversion. Unfortunately it can also be unrewarding when read through the prism of “Can one identify a significant fact”. The paucity of significant facts in the latest missive interwoven as they are within a veritable multiplicity of words both superfluous and oft times condescending in nature leads one to but one conclusion. It is an attempt to create within the essay the illusion of substance and significance. In this instance it is with some regret I have to inform you that you have been unsuccessful. Please do not let this discourage you in any way from making further submissions.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2015, 10:51:51 AM
The reading of your essays is always an interesting and amusing diversion. Unfortunately it can also unrewarding when read through the prism of “Can one identify a significant fact”. The paucity of significant facts in the latest missive interwoven as they are within a veritable multiplicity of words both superfluous and oft times condescending in nature leads one to but one conclusion. It is an attempt to create within the essay the illusion of substance and significance. In this instance it is with some regret I have to inform you that you have been unsuccessful. Please do not let this discourage you in any way from making further submissions.
Brilliant! @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 10:56:24 AM
The reading of your essays is always an interesting and amusing diversion. Unfortunately it can also be unrewarding when read through the prism of “Can one identify a significant fact”. The paucity of significant facts in the latest missive interwoven as they are within a veritable multiplicity of words both superfluous and oft times condescending in nature leads one to but one conclusion. It is an attempt to create within the essay the illusion of substance and significance. In this instance it is with some regret I have to inform you that you have been unsuccessful. Please do not let this discourage you in any way from making further submissions.
No. Self. Awareness. What. So. Ever.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2015, 11:08:32 AM
The reading of your essays is always an interesting and amusing diversion. Unfortunately it can also be unrewarding when read through the prism of “Can one identify a significant fact”. The paucity of significant facts in the latest missive interwoven as they are within a veritable multiplicity of words both superfluous and oft times condescending in nature leads one to but one conclusion. It is an attempt to create within the essay the illusion of substance and significance. In this instance it is with some regret I have to inform you that you have been unsuccessful. Please do not let this discourage you in any way from making further submissions.
I posters relied on facts to make submissions this forum would not exist clever dick
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 11:13:54 AM
Unidentified fingerprints in a holiday apartment inhabited and visited by so many and which presumably wasnt forensically cleaned daily don't mean that much...they just mean unidentified, they could have been anyones. Likewise, unidentified hairs do not automatically mean an "abductor's hairs"
Try harder on the "hard evidence of abduction" theme.
What hard evidence would you expect to find left behind by an abductor? A note that said "I have just abducted you're child, in case you were wondering where she'd got to"? Or what, if not that?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 12:14:19 PM
G-Unit stated that open windows and shutters are not evidence of abduction. Forget for a moment the question of whether they were or not in this case, but refer to the scenario that I gave. Are open windows and shutters evidence of abduction, or are they not? If not, why not?
Seriously?
No, shutters open- closed or upside down are not evidence of anything, other than, they are open- closed or upside down.
My window was open last night- no one was abducted. but there is evidence the window was open!
If you want we can say, for talking sake, that someone opened the window then ran away - Maddie go up and climbed out...
The open/ shut /whooshingcurtains story, needs to be laid to rest. It was an invention to merely cover the fact the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment- and Maddie could have 'woke and wandered'. A scenario the parents NEVER want to be discussed...Ask your self why.
If there was an abduction, it would have been via open/unlocked door.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 12:23:39 PM
The reading of your essays is always an interesting and amusing diversion. Unfortunately it can also be unrewarding when read through the prism of “Can one identify a significant fact”. The paucity of significant facts in the latest missive interwoven as they are within a veritable multiplicity of words both superfluous and oft times condescending in nature leads one to but one conclusion. It is an attempt to create within the essay the illusion of substance and significance. In this instance it is with some regret I have to inform you that you have been unsuccessful. Please do not let this discourage you in any way from making further submissions.
8((()*/ needed to be said! I must confess, we do laugh at some of the sillyness of her posts
The intellegence posturing is too funny for words sometimes!
on topic: No hard evidence Maddie was abducted via windows.whoooosh!
Then...
Brietta said"However back to the nitty gritty ... hard evidence ... can't get much harder than unidentified fingerprints and hair samples. I'm unsure from where in the apartment the so far unidentified prints were lifted or how many are involved. The middle finger and index finger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the inside of the window pane; were the other three the ones which were circulated to other countries and which remain unidentified?"
Unidetified means no one knows who they belong to. SO please explain the hard evidence they belong to an 'abductor'.
How very bloody carelss of him/her leaving a couple of hairs and a fingerprint.. mind you he did wipe his DNA from the 'window' and 'shutters' ooh err I say! I do love a clean,tidy man.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 12:33:22 PM
No, shutters open- closed or upside down are not evidence of anything, other than, they are open- closed or upside down.
My window was open last night- no one was abducted. but there is evidence the window was open!
If you want we can say, for talking sake, that someone opened the window then ran away - Maddie go up and climbed out...
The open/ shut /whooshingcurtains story, needs to be laid to rest. It was an invention to merely cover the fact the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment- and Maddie could have 'woke and wandered'. A scenario the parents NEVER want to be discussed...Ask your self why.
If there was an abduction, it would have been via open/unlocked door.
So, you are telling me that if you left your small child asleep in a room with the windows closed and then when you looked in on her she was gone and the windows were open this would not be evidence of anything apart from the windows being open? Riiiiight.... &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 26, 2015, 12:41:17 PM
How many times have you utilized this phrase on this forum? More or less than Faith and her "irony klaxon" I wonder... &%+((£
Well posters could make it a redundant term Alf were they a little less predictable in their responses to certain stimuli. The herding instinct in some, however, does not seem to have a manual override. Look no smiley.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 12:44:26 PM
Well posters could make it a redundant term Alf were they a little less predictable in their responses to certain stimuli. The herding instinct in some, however, does not seem to have a manual override. Look no smiley.
You always jump to my bait. That deserves this smiley. 8)--))
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 12:52:24 PM
So, you are telling me that if you left your small child asleep in a room with the windows closed and then when you looked in on her she was gone and the windows were open this would not be evidence of anything apart from the windows being open? Riiiiight.... &%+((£
Um yeah. lets break this down...
child sleeping - window closed
parent comes in opens window- walks away forgetting to close it
child sees open window - climbs out.
Yes? No? don't know?
you see what you are suggesting is: open window + missing child = abduction. That is a suggestion not evidence dear.
You want to make the story fit all nice.... but it just doesn't, no matter how you try.
No HARD (physical) EVIDENCE to show abductor entered that apartment via window and shutters being jemmied.
Perhaps an unlocked door? hm maybe?
Now lets look back at Team McCanns talking about the shutters being 'damaged' before Maddies disappearance Gerry had a look at them? what happened to his fingerprints Hmm?
Was the scene being set?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 12:56:42 PM
parent comes in opens window- walks away forgetting to close it
child sees open window - climbs out.
Yes? No? don't know?
you see what you are suggesting is: open window + missing child = abduction. That is a suggestion not evidence dear.
You want to make the story fit all nice.... but it just doesn't, no matter how you try.
No HARD (physical) EVIDENCE to show abductor entered that apartment via window and shutters being jemmied.
Perhaps an unlocked door? hm maybe?
Now lets look back at Team McCanns talking about the shutters being 'damaged' before Maddies disappearance Gerry had a look at them? what happened to his fingerprints Hmm?
Was the scene being set?
So, you are telling me that if you left your small child asleep in a room with the windows closed and then when you looked in on her she was gone and the windows were open this would not be evidence of anything apart from the windows being open? I had to ask it again because you didn't really answer my question. Are you able to put yourself in the scenario I have painted or not? Because if you haven't the imagination then please don't bother to reply again.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 01:03:02 PM
For those who don't seem to understand the meaning of the word evidence:
Quote
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
You leave a room with the window closed and when you next look in to it the window is open - that is evidence that someone other than yourself opened it. If you left a small child asleep in that room and they are not there when you return you have to ask yourself is the window evidence that links to the child's disappearance? If the answer is yes, then you have to ask yourself: is it likely that my small child opened the window by themselves. If you conclude that the answer to that question is no or unlikely then you may well consider the fact that someone else opened the window and took your child. It ain't rocket science.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 01:03:15 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
36 minutes in here, Prof. Dave Barclay takes a nuanced look at things re: shutters.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 01:04:53 PM
So, you are telling me that if you left your small child asleep in a room with the windows closed and then when you looked in on her she was gone and the windows were open this would not be evidence of anything apart from the windows being open? I had to ask it again because you didn't really answer my question. Are you able to put yourself in the scenario I have painted or not? Because if you haven't the imagination then please don't bother to reply again.
I answered your question! open window+missing child does NOT = abduction. I also suggested another two scenarios of which you chose to ignore.
If I had a briused face would that mean I was battered by a husband/boyfriend? or did I fall on a mountain last week!?
oh The amount of people who asked me if I 'wanted to talk in confidence about my bruised face was endearing, but could I convince people NO!...I fell over...seriously. check camera phone for EVIDENCE.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 26, 2015, 01:09:14 PM
Please try and stay within the Topic of the thread. Thank you.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 02:06:54 PM
I answered your question! open window+missing child does NOT = abduction. I also suggested another two scenarios of which you chose to ignore.
If I had a briused face would that mean I was battered by a husband/boyfriend? or did I fall on a mountain last week!?
oh The amount of people who asked me if I 'wanted to talk in confidence about my bruised face was endearing, but could I convince people NO!...I fell over...seriously. check camera phone for EVIDENCE.
I give up.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 02:12:07 PM
Anyone who thinks that an open window in a room from whence a child has gone missing is not evidence of something has rocks in their heads IMO. Of course it is evidence, which when put together with other known facts such as the age of the missing child, the likelihood of them being able to open the window, etc helps to point to certain conclusions. I don't expect one singe "sceptic" to agree, but that's their problem.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 02:13:09 PM
Anyone who thinks that an open window in a room from whence a child has gone missing is not evidence of something has rocks in their heads IMO. Of course it is evidence, which when put together with other known facts such as the age of the missing child, the likelihood of them being able to open the window, etc helps to point to certain conclusions. I don't expect one singe "sceptic" to agree, but that's their problem.
You're certainly right. That is evidence of 'something.' In these scenarios, the next step is to analyse forensically the window and room and see who has been handling it / been present in the room. That will be indicative of who interfered with the window or shutter.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2015, 02:18:56 PM
You're certainly right. That is evidence of 'something.' In these scenarios, the next step is to analyse forensically the window and room and see who has been handling it / been present in the room. That will be indicative of who interfered with the window or shutter.
Having first confirmed that the shutters and window were indeed found open.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 02:19:37 PM
I will also add, from that analysis, you can update your working theories for what happened that night and test the validity of statements made by witnesses.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 02:20:37 PM
You're certainly right. That is evidence of 'something.' In these scenarios, the next step is to analyse forensically the window and room and see who has been handling it / been present in the room. That will be indicative of who interfered with the window or shutter.
Thank god. Someone with a modicum of sense.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 02:24:42 PM
Having first confirmed that the shutters and window were indeed found open.
Agreed - and in this case, witnesses can attest to an open window and the fact that the McCanns were stating it was open. Which when tallied up with the forensic evidence leads to a worrying conclusion.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 02:27:18 PM
8((()*/ needed to be said! I must confess, we do laugh at some of the sillyness of her posts
The intellegence posturing is too funny for words sometimes!
on topic: No hard evidence Maddie was abducted via windows.whoooosh!
Then...
Brietta said"However back to the nitty gritty ... hard evidence ... can't get much harder than unidentified fingerprints and hair samples. I'm unsure from where in the apartment the so far unidentified prints were lifted or how many are involved. The middle finger and index finger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the inside of the window pane; were the other three the ones which were circulated to other countries and which remain unidentified?"
Unidetified means no one knows who they belong to. SO please explain the hard evidence they belong to an 'abductor'.
How very bloody carelss of him/her leaving a couple of hairs and a fingerprint.. mind you he did wipe his DNA from the 'window' and 'shutters' ooh err I say! I do love a clean,tidy man.
Oh Lordy, Lordy ~ does that mean ~ %#£% ~ fingerprints and hair samples are not 'evidence' until identified??
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2015, 02:27:58 PM
Agreed - and in this case, witnesses can attest to an open window and the fact that the McCanns were stating it was open. Which when tallied up with the forensic evidence leads to a worrying conclusion.
Which witnesses attested to the open window?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 02:29:23 PM
G-Unit - a young worker named Amy.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 02:29:47 PM
parent comes in opens window- walks away forgetting to close it
child sees open window - climbs out.
Yes? No? don't know?
you see what you are suggesting is: open window + missing child = abduction. That is a suggestion not evidence dear.
You want to make the story fit all nice.... but it just doesn't, no matter how you try.
No HARD (physical) EVIDENCE to show abductor entered that apartment via window and shutters being jemmied.
Perhaps an unlocked door? hm maybe?
Now lets look back at Team McCanns talking about the shutters being 'damaged' before Maddies disappearance Gerry had a look at them? what happened to his fingerprints Hmm?
Was the scene being set?
Was the scene being set? ... for what exactly?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 02:33:11 PM
Oh Lordy, Lordy ~ does that mean ~ %#£% ~ fingerprints and hair samples are not 'evidence' until identified??
No, good hivings whatever made you think that is what I meant..Tsk...
They are evidence that hair and fingerprints are in the apartment! in fact hair and fingerprints are in ALL the apartments I am informed.. nothing more than that..unless, no! unless, you are saying the evidence found on the open window i.e Kates fingerprints, are evidence she abducted her daughter! my oh my what a revelation.. How could you think such a thing!
Ofcource you are implying the 'evidence of hair and finger prints are from the 'abductor'. I am claiming NO that is NOT hard evidence of an abductor!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 02:35:33 PM
Agreed - and in this case, witnesses can attest to an open window and the fact that the McCanns were stating it was open. Which when tallied up with the forensic evidence leads to a worrying conclusion.
What hard evidence supports your conclusion?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 02:40:18 PM
Is there any hard evidence that Madeleine McCann was not abducted via the window? NO!
OH MY GOD..Hahahahaah you want evidence of something which did NOT happen? seriously hahahaaha how you make me laugh!
No trace of maddies DNA on the window, no Abductors DNA on or near the window, no scuff marks on white wall below the window, now that would take some doing, with someone stealing a child on a whim with little or no time...
So anyway the unlocked door and the missing child...
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 02:42:33 PM
No, good hivings whatever made you think that is what I meant..Tsk...
They are evidence that hair and fingerprints are in the apartment! in fact hair and fingerprints are in ALL the apartments I am informed.. nothing more than that..unless, no! unless, you are saying the evidence found on the open window i.e Kates fingerprints, are evidence she abducted her daughter! my oh my what a revelation.. How could you think such a thing!
Ofcource you are implying the 'evidence of hair and finger prints are from the 'abductor'. I am claiming NO that is NOT hard evidence of an abductor!
This thread is not discussing whether or not Madeleine McCann was abducted ... it is discussing hard evidence ... much of which was destroyed by inept forensic work and lack of preservation of the crime scene.
The middle and forefinger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the window pane. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Other unidentified prints were circulated abroad for identification.
Clear evidence that people who were not previous occupants of the apartment and who had no legitimate reason for being there on the 3rd May had left fingerprints behind them.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 02:56:46 PM
OH MY GOD..Hahahahaah you want evidence of something which did NOT happen? seriously hahahaaha how you make me laugh!
No trace of maddies DNA on the window, no Abductors DNA on or near the window, no scuff marks on white wall below the window, now that would take some doing, with someone stealing a child on a whim with little or no time...
So anyway the unlocked door and the missing child...
Do please try to behave like an adult ... you may find it quite a refreshing thing to aspire to. To reiterate, this thread isn't about abduction ... it is about hard evidence ... so why not try to come up with something along those lines worth discussing.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2015, 03:00:38 PM
This thread is not discussing whether or not Madeleine McCann was abducted ... it is discussing hard evidence ... much of which was destroyed by inept forensic work and lack of preservation of the crime scene.
The middle and forefinger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the window pane. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Other unidentified prints were circulated abroad for identification.
Clear evidence that people who were not previous occupants of the apartment and who had no legitimate reason for being there on the 3rd May had left fingerprints behind them.
Or rather clear evidence that the fingerprints left behind were not on any law enforcement data base, which would be the case with most holidaymakers.
As to evidence being destroyed if we don't know if it was there in the first place how can we possibly know if it was destroyed ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2015, 03:03:43 PM
The one piece of hard evidence is the statement by Redwood saying that the McCanns were not suspects. That would indicate that up to that time there was nothing to implicate the McCanns in Maddie's disappearance
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 26, 2015, 03:06:49 PM
No, good hivings whatever made you think that is what I meant..Tsk...
They are evidence that hair and fingerprints are in the apartment! in fact hair and fingerprints are in ALL the apartments I am informed.. nothing more than that..unless, no! unless, you are saying the evidence found on the open window i.e Kates fingerprints, are evidence she abducted her daughter! my oh my what a revelation.. How could you think such a thing!
Ofcource you are implying the 'evidence of hair and finger prints are from the 'abductor'. I am claiming NO that is NOT hard evidence of an abductor!
The topic of this thread, unless it get modified (as many do), appears to be:
"Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?"
Has there been any agreement on what "hard evidence" actually means?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 03:07:42 PM
This thread is not discussing whether or not Madeleine McCann was abducted ... it is discussing hard evidence ... much of which was destroyed by inept forensic work and lack of preservation of the crime scene.
The middle and forefinger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the window pane. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Other unidentified prints were circulated abroad for identification.
Clear evidence that people who were not previous occupants of the apartment and who had no legitimate reason for being there on the 3rd May had left fingerprints behind them.
[/color]
which part of abroad and where were these evidenced finger prints found?
cite please? Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2015, 03:09:31 PM
She did indeed, but she was in the apartment at the same time as the parents and a friend of theirs. As far as I can tell, none of their friends saw the open shutters/window.
In reply to the question asked, she said that the back door (porta das traseiras) that leads to the parking area was closed, but she doesn't know whether the front door (porta da frente) was locked as when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there and that is why the door was open. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2015, 03:10:03 PM
The one piece of hard evidence is the statement by Redwood saying that the McCanns were not suspects. That would indicate that up to that time there was nothing to implicate the McCanns in Maddie's disappearance
Has the statement been repeated since the new investigation was instigated in 2013 ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 03:10:20 PM
This thread is not discussing whether or not Madeleine McCann was abducted ... it is discussing hard evidence ... much of which was destroyed by inept forensic work and lack of preservation of the crime scene.
The middle and forefinger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the window pane. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Other unidentified prints were circulated abroad for identification.
Clear evidence that people who were not previous occupants of the apartment and who had no legitimate reason for being there on the 3rd May had left fingerprints behind them.
Correction!.. evidence which MAY have shown an intruder, was cleared away by the family and friends of the missing girl! lets try and keep it real here Breet
You have no known knowledge of missing or lost evidence have you?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 26, 2015, 03:11:11 PM
This thread is not discussing whether or not Madeleine McCann was abducted ... it is discussing hard evidence ... much of which was destroyed by inept forensic work and lack of preservation of the crime scene.
The middle and forefinger of Madeleine's mother's left hand were lifted from the window pane. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Other unidentified prints were circulated abroad for identification. Clear evidence that people who were not previous occupants of the apartment and who had no legitimate reason for being there on the 3rd May had left fingerprints behind them.
Why should these prints and hairs date from the 3rd? They might have been there for weeks or months, even.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 03:14:07 PM
She did indeed, but she was in the apartment at the same time as the parents and a friend of theirs. As far as I can tell, none of their friends saw the open shutters/window.
In reply to the question asked, she said that the back door (porta das traseiras) that leads to the parking area was closed, but she doesn't know whether the front door (porta da frente) was locked as when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there and that is why the door was open. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
Also, forgot to note the GNR officer, Antonio.
Indeed G-Unit, but the point I was implicitly making was that the very fact that some of these versions of events can be corroborated, means that as Prof. Barclay noted, 'staging' must be considered.
For the record, I do believe the window was open by the time the alert was made. My next consideration is: who opened it. If you can gain a firm indication on that point (namely Mrs McCann's fingerprints), then one can start to piece together other pieces of evidence (or lack thereof) to substantiate Mr Barclay's point about staging.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 26, 2015, 03:20:04 PM
Hard evidence would imply physical evidence or independent witness statements. That is my take on the thread question.
Is that what you meant G?
facts, statements, or objects that help to prove whether or not someone has committed a crime
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 03:29:09 PM
Evidence is simply not forensic. Words (in combination with other evidence) can be used as evidence to prove particular crimes - for example, perverting the course of justice.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 03:33:49 PM
Why should it be repeated...it shows that at that time the parents were not suspects...so all this discussion about open shutters is irrelevant
Even if Redwood had said it yesterday, the sceptics would cling to the belief that either it was a bluff or that in the 24 hours since he said it that his opinion had changed. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 03:35:45 PM
Alfred - you shouldn't confuse Operation Grange public statements with the personal opinions of the detectives who are shaping the case.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on April 26, 2015, 03:39:07 PM
Hard evidence would imply physical evidence or independent witness statements. That is my take on the thread question.
Is that what you meant G?
Does the fact that Madeleine's whereabouts appear to be unknown count as "hard evidence"?
I ask as there are still a few respected posters in certain quarters who appear convinced that she never existed in the first place and that anything suggesting that she did is only part of the wheel of a conspiracy of intergalactic proportions with a view to total mind control. Or something.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 03:40:06 PM
Alfred - you shouldn't confuse Operation Grange public statements with the personal opinions of the detectives who are shaping the case.
Have you any evidence whatsoever to support the view that what Redwood said vis-à-vis the McCanns not being persons of interest differs from his personal opinion?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 26, 2015, 03:40:41 PM
Indeed G-Unit, but the point I was implicitly making was that the very fact that some of these versions of events can be corroborated, means that as Prof. Barclay noted, 'staging' must be considered.
For the record, I do believe the window was open by the time the alert was made. My next consideration is: who opened it. If you can gain a firm indication on that point (namely Mrs McCann's fingerprints), then one can start to piece together other pieces of evidence (or lack thereof) to substantiate Mr Barclay's point about staging.
I think the GNR officer may have been outside, as he says he didn't enter the apartment;
As regards the searches, he say that he did not enter the apartment, as it had already been searched, but instead remained outside. When questioned he replies that he remembers that the blinds of the window of the child's room were open, but inclined (the lower part, at about a hand's width). He does not remember if the window was open or what the state of the curtains was. He did not enter the room because he was told, he does not remember by whom, that the twins were sleeping. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_DUARTE.htm
The problem with staging is that the window was closed before anyone saw it, which surely lessened the impact.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 03:42:24 PM
which part of abroad and where were these evidenced finger prints found?
cite please? Thanks in advance!
Is there any good reason why you appear to be incapable of following links and retrieving the information for yourself?
Snip 06 Processo 6 Page 1470 to 1477 TRANSLATED BY ALBYM C - Pages 1470-07, 1498 Processo vol 6 Various Interpol communications from police in eight countries around the world re: comparison of fingerprints with those retained in the databases of those countries Several prints were unusable for comparison purposes; all others were compared with no results. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 03:48:05 PM
I think the GNR officer may have been outside, as he says he didn't enter the apartment;
As regards the searches, he say that he did not enter the apartment, as it had already been searched, but instead remained outside. When questioned he replies that he remembers that the blinds of the window of the child's room were open, but inclined (the lower part, at about a hand's width). He does not remember if the window was open or what the state of the curtains was. He did not enter the room because he was told, he does not remember by whom, that the twins were sleeping. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_DUARTE.htm
The problem with staging is that the window was closed before anyone saw it, which surely lessened the impact.
The point remains: if KM says the window was open, and she is an immediate witness, and this is corroborated by others, then the reason the window was open must be investigated.
Thankfully windows and shutters mark very easily, as Prof. Barclay pointed out, so one can gain a clear viewpoint as to who opened it, especially if there are finger prints. Alternatively, because gloves still leave a mark, one could also find out if it was opened by someone who concealed their finger prints. As no evidence was found to suggest this, it is indicative that the window was opened most likely by the person whose prints were upon it.
And in that case, a detective must adapt to reason from the evidence, rather than adapting the evidence to meet a more palatable theory - as indeed the PJ did.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 03:55:57 PM
Why should these prints and hairs date from the 3rd? They might have been there for weeks or months, even.
Quite.
The PJ did contact previous occupants of the apartment for elimination purposes I presume.
I presume the same process would apply to all those with a legitimate reason for being in the apartment on the 3rd.
Hairs and fingerprints found in 5A are evidence ... to eliminate them they have to be identified ... surprised you cannot see that unless you are just having another little wum post.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on April 26, 2015, 03:57:21 PM
The topic of this thread, unless it get modified (as many do), appears to be:
"Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?"
Has there been any agreement on what "hard evidence" actually means?
Anything that can be considered as case evidence, such as forensics, witness statements and anything else that is evidence of the crime that has been committed (whatever the crime may be).............but no speculation as Mr Mod has said already (not exact words) :-
This is an evidence thread. Posts which are not considered part of the case evidence will be removed as per the forum rules.
speculation does not belong on this thread, so please do not post such. Thank you.
Persistent offenders will face sanctions.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 26, 2015, 03:58:33 PM
Okay. Enough. I don't want to start deleting but I will if I must.
Hard Evidence, if you please.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on April 26, 2015, 04:00:58 PM
Anything that can be considered as case evidence, such as forensics, witness statements and anything else that is evidence of the crime that has been committed (whatever the crime may be).............but no speculation as Mr Mod has said already (not exact words) :-
This is an evidence thread. Posts which are not considered part of the case evidence will be removed as per the forum rules.
speculation does not belong on this thread, so please do not post such. Thank you.
Persistent offenders will face sanctions.
Snap, Anna. You and me both.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 04:04:55 PM
Indeed G-Unit, but the point I was implicitly making was that the very fact that some of these versions of events can be corroborated, means that as Prof. Barclay noted, 'staging' must be considered.
For the record, I do believe the window was open by the time the alert was made. My next consideration is: who opened it. If you can gain a firm indication on that point (namely Mrs McCann's fingerprints), then one can start to piece together other pieces of evidence (or lack thereof) to substantiate Mr Barclay's point about staging.
If they were fabricating a scenario why did they allow the 'carefully staged' set piece to be disturbed prior to the arrival of the police?
How about your opinion on that?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 04:08:57 PM
If they were fabricating a scenario why did they allow the 'carefully staged' set piece to be disturbed prior to the arrival of the police?
How about your opinion on that?
Who said anything about the scene being 'carefully staged'? I have simply introduced the hard evidence -- KM's fingerprints and the forensic evidence collected in the bedroom -- as something that Prof. Barclay picked up on as a line of inquiry.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 04:12:50 PM
The point remains: if KM says the window was open, and she is an immediate witness, and this is corroborated by others, then the reason the window was open must be investigated.
Thankfully windows and shutters mark very easily, as Prof. Barclay pointed out, so one can gain a clear viewpoint as to who opened it, especially if there are finger prints. Alternatively, because gloves still leave a mark, one could also find out if it was opened by someone who concealed their finger prints. As no evidence was found to suggest this, it is indicative that the window was opened most likely by the person whose prints were upon it.
And in that case, a detective must adapt to reason from the evidence, rather than adapting the evidence to meet a more palatable theory - as indeed the PJ did.
- Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Who do you know who opens a sliding window by placing the index and middle finger on the glass pane when there is a functioning handle there designed specifically for the task?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 04:17:22 PM
Who said anything about the scene being 'carefully staged'? I have simply introduced the hard evidence -- KM's fingerprints and the forensic evidence collected in the bedroom -- as something that Prof. Barclay picked up on as a line of inquiry.
Professor Barclay? who he? ... you are the member here hopefully capable of expressing your very own opinion.
Why wouldn't Dr McCann's fingerprints be in the bedroom and/or all over the apartment? What I find truly amazing is that there were not more family fingerprints to be found all over the place. Why would that be?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 04:20:40 PM
My question to you Alfred would be: have ever you worked in a company or institution and have had a 'message' to deliver at the public coalface, that you knew not to be 100% the truth?
No. Now perhaps you could answer my question?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 04:23:20 PM
Professor Barclay is a former FSS specialist who helped the shape best practice in forensic work in the UK. He looked at the shutters and introduced some lines of inquiry. See 36:30 in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE .
My view is that his perspective is one that needs listening to. It is nuanced, fair minded and objective.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 04:27:37 PM
My view is that Andy Redwood believed the Tanner sighting was at best poor recall, and at worst, something more sinister. Second, I would say that Mr Redwood's key focus of the investigation - the Smith Sighting - is not found on Mr and Mrs McCann's website. This may suggest - on one reading of the situation - that there is a fundamental disagreement between the two camps. Further, the Find Madeline website states: "Based or {sic} more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person." That is strange since Mr Redwood said he is "almost certain" that it is not -- and what's more, he produced a witness, who himself believes he is the man in question.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 04:29:40 PM
Professor Barclay is a former FSS specialist who helped the shape best practice in forensic work in the UK. He looked at the shutters and introduced some lines of inquiry. See 36:30 in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE .
My view is that his perspective is one that needs listening to. It is nuanced, fair minded and objective.
Why is it your view that another expert on the documentary David Canter (who said 'I still feel abduction is the most likely possibility,') should be disregarded?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 04:33:37 PM
Why is it your view that another expert on the documentary David Canter (who said 'I still feel abduction is the most likely possibility,') should be disregarded?
David Canter is a criminal behaviouralist. This is a thread about hard evidence, and criminal behaviouralists do not provide hard evidence, they provide potential theories as to who is responsible for the crime - and during that documentary, Mr Canter does his best to provide some answers. On the other hand, Dave Barclay takes a scientific approach to his analysis - and finds it very hard to make the evidence tally up in the direction we all would like.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2015, 04:42:09 PM
Why is it your view that another expert on the documentary David Canter (who said 'I still feel abduction is the most likely possibility,') should be disregarded?
Wasn't the documentary made in 2007, long before the files were released ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 04:43:11 PM
My view is that Andy Redwood believed the Tanner sighting was at best poor recall, and at worst, something more sinister.
What has Redwood stated that leads you to believe that JT had either "poor recall" or was involved in something more sinister?
Quote
Second, I would say that Mr Redwood's key focus of the investigation - the Smith Sighting - is not found on Mr and Mrs McCann's website. This may suggest - on one reading of the situation - that there is a fundamental disagreement between the two camps. Further, the Find Madeline website states: "Based or {sic} more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person." That is strange since Mr Redwood said he is "almost certain" that it is not -- and what's more, he produced a witness, who himself believes he is the man in question.
That you choose to read something sinister or strange into this is an issue for you and has no bearing on the reality of the situation. You are merely surmising and speculating, nothing more.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 04:44:12 PM
Professor Barclay is a former FSS specialist who helped the shape best practice in forensic work in the UK. He looked at the shutters and introduced some lines of inquiry. See 36:30 in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE .
My view is that his perspective is one that needs listening to. It is nuanced, fair minded and objective.
Thank you.
Is he also the person who wondered at the information supposedly being 'leaked' from the FSS in relation to the DNA evidence ... as he considered such leaks unprecedented in his experience. Bearing in mind the documentary was released prior to the actual FSS findings being made public.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 04:47:58 PM
First, I think the poor recall is something that all detectives know about. Mr Redwood is no different and given that Mrs Tanner identified a man decisively during the private investigation who was later ruled out, I think his team felt comfortable in their efforts to sort out the Tanner sighting and put it on more stable ground.
Secondly, it is indeed strange that the "number one focus" to quote Mr Redwood of SY's investigation is not featured on the Find Madeleine website. I never said it was sinister, just simply strange given that that website is one of the key internet portals for information -- yet there is no image of this e-fit:
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 26, 2015, 04:50:48 PM
I suppose the reality is that in October 2013 (possibly before) DCI Andy deffed out "Tannerman The Abductor" and became interested in the elusive "Smithman" whom he wished to identify.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2015, 04:51:19 PM
No idea but what we do know is that at the time the new investigation was launched all the files had not been studied.
No idea??? Have you not read the files then??? What's with the "not all the files had been studied" nonsense? Are you saying the PJ just filed stuff without studying it?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 04:57:08 PM
Is he also the person who wondered at the information supposedly being 'leaked' from the FSS in relation to the DNA evidence ... as he considered such leaks unprecedented in his experience. Bearing in mind the documentary was released prior to the actual FSS findings being made public.
Yes, he said he did not believe FSS were leaking information of a 'live' investigation, as per his 20 odd years experience working in that field, and that people were guessing and reporting misinformation.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 05:01:00 PM
First, I think the poor recall is something that all detectives know about. Mr Redwood is no different and given that Mrs Tanner identified a man decisively during the private investigation who was later ruled out, I think his team felt comfortable in their efforts to sort out the Tanner sighting and put it on more stable ground.
So you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your claim and instead repeat an oft-cited myth that JT "decisively ID'ed" someone. Shame.
Quote
Secondly, it is indeed strange that the "number one focus" to quote Mr Redwood of SY's investigation is not featured on the Find Madeleine website. I never said it was sinister, just simply strange given that that website is one of the key internet portals for information -- yet there is no image of this e-fit:
[/quote]And yet these e-fits featured prominently on the Find Madeleine FB page (posted there on at least 3 separate occasions) at the time of the Crimewatch programme - perhaps their absence on the Find Madeleine page is more indicative of a poorly maintained website in favour of a far more active and well managed FB page? Or perhaps you're more comfortable with your "strange" feelings.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 05:01:48 PM
My view is that Andy Redwood believed the Tanner sighting was at best poor recall, and at worst, something more sinister. Second, I would say that Mr Redwood's key focus of the investigation - the Smith Sighting - is not found on Mr and Mrs McCann's website. This may suggest - on one reading of the situation - that there is a fundamental disagreement between the two camps. Further, the Find Madeline website states: "Based or {sic} more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person." That is strange since Mr Redwood said he is "almost certain" that it is not -- and what's more, he produced a witness, who himself believes he is the man in question.
I don't know where you get the impression there are 'two camps' when it comes to the Scotland Yard investigation and the parents of a missing child. Both have exactly the same aim ... and that is to find Madeleine McCann.
I am sure that SY and the PJ investigations have progressed way beyond tannerman and smithman and will have gleaned whatever there is from both while continuing to investigate evidential opportunities either discarded back in 2007 or which have developed into paths worth pursuing into 2015.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 05:02:11 PM
First, I think the poor recall is something that all detectives know about. Mr Redwood is no different and given that Mrs Tanner identified a man decisively during the private investigation who was later ruled out, I think his team felt comfortable in their efforts to sort out the Tanner sighting and put it on more stable ground.
Secondly, it is indeed strange that the "number one focus" to quote Mr Redwood of SY's investigation is not featured on the Find Madeleine website. I never said it was sinister, just simply strange given that that website is one of the key internet portals for information -- yet there is no image of this e-fit:
It is indeed strange since the fund is called 'no stone unturned' and yet this stone has not been recognised? If I were a worried parent, I would want to know who 'smithman' was... even to eliminate from the suspect list.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 05:04:00 PM
Alfred - in the documentary by Channel 5, Jane Tanner was revealed to have ID'd a market trader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLAqiisgBBY 21:00 here. "That is the guy that I saw carrying the child."
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 05:08:39 PM
It is indeed strange since the fund is called 'no stone unturned' and yet this stone has not been recognised? If I were a worried parent, I would want to know who 'smithman' was... even to eliminate from the suspect list.
There is no evidence that the efits to which you refer are representative of smithman, and I think you can be assured that Madeleine McCann's parents are up to speed with the available information.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 05:09:22 PM
So you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your claim and instead repeat an oft-cited myth that JT "decisively ID'ed" someone. Shame. And yet these e-fits featured prominently on the Find Madeleine FB page (posted there on at least 3 separate occasions) at the time of the Crimewatch programme - perhaps their absence on the Find Madeleine page is more indicative of a poorly maintained website in favour of a far more active and well managed FB page? Or perhaps you're more comfortable with your "strange" feelings.
Maybe you're right. I'm sure that the webmaster has not got around to updating the site, and i'm sure that no one has been in touch to point out that there seems to be more focus on the Barcelona lead than the 10pm lead that is linked to the location of the abduction - Luz.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 05:10:48 PM
There is no evidence that the efits to which you refer are representative of smithman, and I think you can be assured that Madeleine McCann's parents are up to speed with the available information.
Unfortunately Brietta, the Policia Judiciaria do not release information in that way. It is how they work, you see.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2015, 05:11:41 PM
No idea??? Have you not read the files then??? What's with the "not all the files had been studied" nonsense? Are you saying the PJ just filed stuff without studying it?
OG had not read all the files when Redwood made his statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23179230
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 26, 2015, 05:12:39 PM
There is no evidence that the efits to which you refer are representative of smithman, and I think you can be assured that Madeleine McCann's parents are up to speed with the available information.
Well whoever he was DCI Andy wanted to identify him. You can't odds that. So far no one has come forward that we have been advised of. Hint: does he remain on The Met site anywhere?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 05:14:47 PM
Alfred - in the documentary by Channel 5, Jane Tanner was revealed to have ID'd a market trader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLAqiisgBBY 21:00 here. "That is the guy that I saw carrying the child."
You seem a little riled. You may wish to withdraw your "shame" comment.
Nope, I'm not riled and I do not wish to withdraw anything. JT's recall of the man she saw carrying a child matched closely the description of the man subsequently ID'ed by the Met as a tourist. I'd say that her recall was pretty accurate in fact. You think what you like.
Incidentally the mysteriously missing e-fits that the McCanns are allegedly so afraid of were shared over 30,000 times when they appeared numerous times on the Find Madeleine FB page!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 26, 2015, 05:17:09 PM
Alfred - in the documentary by Channel 5, Jane Tanner was revealed to have ID'd a market trader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLAqiisgBBY 21:00 here. "That is the guy that I saw carrying the child."
You seem a little riled. You may wish to withdraw your "shame" comment.
No she didn't ... he said ~ she was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market place at which point she broke down and said that is ....
Seems Alfred's comment stands.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 05:17:15 PM
OG had not read all the files when Redwood made his statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23179230
We were talking about David Canter's view not Andy Redwood's! Read back.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 26, 2015, 05:19:06 PM
Perhaps tannerman and Smithman are the same person?and they don't need to update the site.. JT identified a pair of childs feet,from that she later identified Maddies jammies...she seemed to remember more as time went on...and her chats with the McCanns
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 05:22:30 PM
Actually I made a mistake. The Smithman e-fits have appeared on 7 separate occasions on the find Madeleine FB page and have been shared 74521 times.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Gadfly2.1 on April 26, 2015, 05:22:54 PM
No she didn't ... he said ~ she was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market place at which point she broke down and said that is ....
Seems Alfred's comment stands.
But unfortunately Brietta, your comments about the McCanns being in the loop does not unfortunately as the PJ do not operate in such a manner. Not sure Alfred's comments stand to be honest as we would have to disbelieve Mr Harvey.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: faithlilly on April 26, 2015, 05:26:02 PM
We were talking about David Canter's view not Andy Redwood's! Read back.
Apologies, doing two things at once.
When the programme was made David Canter had not read any of the files and was basing his opinion on, we can only assume, those 'damn Portuguese leaks'. Not terribly scientific I'm sure you'll agree.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 05:28:17 PM
When the programme was made David Canter had not read any of the files and was basing his opinion on, we can only assume, those 'damn Portuguese leaks'. Not terribly scientific I'm sure you'll agree.
And exactly the same can be said for the Barclay geezer whose views seem to be held in much greater store by some here!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on April 26, 2015, 05:28:55 PM
If I was shown a blue triangle for 5 seconds, and then a little later, I was asked to recall that blue triangle, yet I identified it is a green triangle, would you state my recall as good?
eh? What has that got to do with JT's statement? Are you saying her recall was faulty according to the Met?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 05:33:16 PM
The efits can be 'pinned' on the page so they are there permanently to be seen by anyone who visits.
Tell me Alfie what do you think is more important, some rousing quote about hope or the efits of the man who may have taken Madeleine ?
You like to speculate that the McCanns are deeply unsettled by the Smithman e-fits and have taken every opportunity to hide them and / or ignore them and are in conflict with the Met (despite some evidence to the contrary). Well, allow me to speculate for a moment if you would be so kind...? Following the widely disseminated Smithman e-fits in October 2013, the Met (for reasons best known to themselves) requested that emphasis on these e-fits be reduced or played down. Is this inconceivable? If so why?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 26, 2015, 05:41:35 PM
There is hard evidence that posts have been deleted...I cannot find two of mine on this thread, pointless posting here, sometimes when posts are removed and youre not told why, lets have another go
the ONLY hard evidence (for abduction) would be someone actually seeing Madeleine Mccann being abducted, that does not exist, therefore there is no hard evidence for an abduction
Am I wrong? i'm sure someone will run to tell me if I am
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2015, 07:19:34 AM
there is no hard evidence but if we take all the evidence...witness statements....there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Maddie was abducted...and this appears to be what SY believe. Strangely this on topic post of mine has been previously deleted
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2015, 07:23:48 AM
there is no hard evidence but if we take all the evidence...witness statements....there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Maddie was abducted...and this appears to be what SY believe. Strangely this on topic post of mine has been previously deleted
That's a bit vague, don't you think? Perhaps you need to provide more detail. Which witness statements etc?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2015, 07:35:43 AM
That's a bit vague, don't you think? Perhaps you need to provide more detail. Which witness statements etc?
First posters talk about proof without defining what they mean...it makes a massive difference.. Absolute proof....beyond reasonable doubt...on the balance of probabilities...
It is possible to prove something...balance of probability...without hard evidence
As far as supplying more info...it's pointless....the posts will be deleted anyway...ignore it if you disagree
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on April 27, 2015, 08:08:19 AM
First posters talk about proof without defining what they mean...it makes a massive difference.. Absolute proof....beyond reasonable doubt...on the balance of probabilities...
It is possible to prove something...balance of probability...without hard evidence
As far as supplying more info...it's pointless....the posts will be deleted anyway...ignore it if you disagree
I agree that statements taken together can provide hard evidence, but unless you say which ones your post is meaningless.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2015, 08:16:05 AM
Well, I tried. Your sole purpose it seems to me is to ridicule any evidence offered by others while refusing to provide anything to support your position.
Once again I am off topic, and once again it is due to trying to get some sense out of a 'believer'.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 27, 2015, 08:43:15 AM
there is no hard evidence but if we take all the evidence...witness statements....there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Maddie was abducted...and this appears to be what SY believe. Strangely this on topic post of mine has been previously deleted
I'm not one into mystic sightings or beliefs. So please tell us all who saw Madeleine being 'abducted'.
I await a logical response.
Not bluster.
Stephen a question for you. Why did Amaral follow up sightings?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on April 27, 2015, 11:51:15 AM
We tend to get 'hung up' on the efits alleged to represent smithman because it is something we know about from the internet files to which we have access.
There are however files to which we are not privy because they were withheld for various reasons. They remain evidence none the less. The nature of some of those reasons for disallowing general release would probably exclude civilian access, but I would imagine that some of the content may very well have provided SY with the added information which enabled Madeleine McCann's case to be reopened for avenues not investigated at the time to be followed through.
I find it interesting that individuals who resembled an efit ~ which efit would that be? one description given by an individual witness or different witnesses' description of a different or the same person?
**snip
Volume XV - Fls. 4085/4100: reference to a Portuguese citizen having physical similarities to the portrait (e-fit), with police record showing convictions for robbery, rape and kidnapping.
- Fls. 4102/4110: identification of an English individual having physical similarities to the portrait (e-fit).
- Fls. 4116/4127: work performed with an individual known through the practice of a crime of sexual abuse of minors, having a police record and convictions for that same crime.
Volume XVI, fls. 4130/4132: reference to a French citizen with physical similarities to the portrait (e-fit).
Regarding the material contained in those pages and for the reasons given, because we believe that, after their removal, the [rule of] judicial secrecy should remain, replacing it [the material] with a summary of what they [the pages] contained and the creation of an Appendix [Annexure file] to remain in the custody of an entity considered competent for its custody [safe-keeping], for the single purpose of demonstrating its existence, in terms of the requirement of Article 86 (7) of the CPP. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2015, 12:35:40 PM
You know damn well there's no evidence of abduction worth a grain of sand
First...unless you have forgotten everything that has been reported for the last seven years you would know that no one saw maddie being abducted...just as no one saw Ben Needham or the little Australian boy being abducted...that makes your question stupid on the first count...
Secondly I have posted today there is no hard evidence of abduction...that makes your question stupid on the second count.
However....you will agree that you do not need hard evidence to prove something....it's like the grains of sand you mention...one grain of sand is worthless but if you have enough you can make a very nice beach
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 27, 2015, 01:45:09 PM
First...unless you have forgotten everything that has been reported for the last seven years you would know that no one saw maddie being abducted...just as no one saw Ben Needham or the little Australian boy being abducted...that makes your question stupid on the first count...
Secondly I have posted today there is no hard evidence of abduction...that makes your question stupid on the second count.
However....you will agree that you do not need hard evidence to prove something....it's like the grains of sand you mention...one grain of sand is worthless but if you have enough you can make a very nice beach
So the bottom line remains, nothing in the way of hard evidence.
So believe away..........................
It isn't going to change a thing.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2015, 01:48:59 PM
SY have said there was a 'window of opportunity' that was enough for them.
So, why did Amaral follow up the sightings Stephen?
Maybe at the start he believed in the possibility of abduction.
However, there wasn't and that still remains the case.
I do wonder at people who believe in something there is no evidence for. &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2015, 01:54:33 PM
A little lesson for Stephen re the relevance of circumstantial evidence...
Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 27, 2015, 02:02:32 PM
A little lesson for Stephen re the relevance of circumstantial evidence...
Validity of circumstantial evidence
A 'belief' in abduction does not make it true.
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
I don't need any lessons from you dave.
You cannot get away from the bottom line.
SY have not found anything to indicate Madeleine's fate or how she disappeared from the apartment.
CAUSE UNKNOWN remains the status of the case.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2015, 02:02:48 PM
Well, I tried. Your sole purpose it seems to me is to ridicule any evidence offered by others while refusing to provide anything to support your position.
Once again I am off topic, and once again it is due to trying to get some sense out of a 'believer'.
you only have to look at stephens posts on here to see why I cannot be bothered to enter into any serious debate
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 27, 2015, 02:12:06 PM
Stephen a question for you. Why did Amaral follow up sightings?
Because, contrary to what some say, he did not just follow one line of inquiry.
In the inquiry it is clear that the PJ never dismissed any information or credible elements that might lead to the revelation of facts, with over 2000 formal and informal diligences carried out over the months, and the PJ having explored, nationally and internationally, all of the information with a higher or lower degree of credibility, with special relevance for tens of supposed sightings or trackings of the child, most of which were widely reported by the press. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 27, 2015, 02:19:35 PM
A little lesson for Stephen re the relevance of circumstantial evidence...
Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others.
There's circumstantial evidence in this case. Finding evidence of Madeleine and connecting it to mobile phone evidence may be the hard evidence required in this case. When are new forensics happening?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 27, 2015, 04:56:16 PM
Because, contrary to what some say, he did not just follow one line of inquiry.
In the inquiry it is clear that the PJ never dismissed any information or credible elements that might lead to the revelation of facts, with over 2000 formal and informal diligences carried out over the months, and the PJ having explored, nationally and internationally, all of the information with a higher or lower degree of credibility, with special relevance for tens of supposed sightings or trackings of the child, most of which were widely reported by the press. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
What do you mean he didn't just follow one line of inquiry? For three months he followed the abduction line of inquiry, even though he said in his book there was no evidence of one and that the McCann's faked the abduction.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 27, 2015, 05:12:17 PM
so for those able to follow...enough circumstantial evidence can lead to proof....proof must equate to hard evidence...close the door on your way out
There is much circumstantial evidence for abduction as there is for Madeleine being abducted by Entomologists from Gamma Eridani V on a boys night out.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 27, 2015, 06:08:40 PM
There is much circumstantial evidence for abduction as there is for Madeleine being abducted by Entomologists from Gamma Eridani V on a boys night out.
Richard hall who you greatly admire rates that possibility quite highly
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Lace on April 27, 2015, 06:16:30 PM
You do know lace that nothing has been found, don't you.
At the start they probably believed the parents until they realized the parents accounts were not consistent.
The fact is that Amaral followed the abduction route even though he said in his book there was no evidence of abduction. So you see there doesn't have to be evidence does there?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 27, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
Ah so maybe Amaral in the beginning believed in the possibility of abduction, but you say there is no evidence of an abduction.
Abduction was one of the theories they worked on, despite the very small window of opportunity given by the group's statements and the lack of evidence. That theory was just one of several.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on April 27, 2015, 08:03:43 PM
A little lesson for Stephen re the relevance of circumstantial evidence...
Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Good of you to acknowledge circumstantial evidence. The dog evidence certainly is that.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 23, 2015, 04:23:10 AM
Professor Barclay is a former FSS specialist who helped the shape best practice in forensic work in the UK. He looked at the shutters and introduced some lines of inquiry. See 36:30 in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE .
My view is that his perspective is one that needs listening to. It is nuanced, fair minded and objective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE Barclay seems to think that the two marks on the exterior of the shutter (36:51) were made from the inside of the room. I think they were maybe made from the outside.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 23, 2015, 06:56:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE Barclay seems to think that the two marks on the exterior of the shutter (36:51) were made from the inside of the room. I think they were maybe made from the outside.
Hmmm, he is a forensic expert?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 23, 2015, 08:47:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE Barclay seems to think that the two marks on the exterior of the shutter (36:51) were made from the inside of the room. I think they were maybe made from the outside.
For its time the Dispatches video presents the very clear, concise and unbiased opinion of experts who have approached the problem in an analytical manner and worked through the problems step by step. They have come to some very interesting conclusions despite not being in possession of all the facts since at that time much wasn't in the public domain and they were not allowed access to the McCann apartment.
For example ... they obviously did not know that it was possible to raise the window shutters from the outside thinking the internal mechanism was the only means of doing so ... or that the witnesses had interfered with the shutters. I think Dave Barclay also mentioned lichen on the cill.
36:58 "They're not two thumbs are they?"
"They look thumby"
"Is that from the outside ~ and trying to push it up? but you would never do that with those shutters because they've got a ratchet handle"[/b]
From 39:40 some very valid points are made about claims which Dave Barclay finds "almost incomprehensible"
40:31 " ... so we should just wait and see what the results show. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will completely exonerate the McCanns."
I wonder what type of conclusions might have been reached had the experts had access to the police files and the final report from the FSS?
The programme as a whole and in particular the summing up at the end gave one a glimpse of how different the approach of a British investigation would have been and the different outcomes which might have been achieved.
One thing which I believe would not have happened would have been the deliberate demonisation of the Drs McCann.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 23, 2015, 03:37:53 PM
The point remains: if KM says the window was open, and she is an immediate witness, and this is corroborated by others, then the reason the window was open must be investigated.
Thankfully windows and shutters mark very easily, as Prof. Barclay pointed out, so one can gain a clear viewpoint as to who opened it, especially if there are finger prints. Alternatively, because gloves still leave a mark, one could also find out if it was opened by someone who concealed their finger prints. As no evidence was found to suggest this, it is indicative that the window was opened most likely by the person whose prints were upon it.
And in that case, a detective must adapt to reason from the evidence, rather than adapting the evidence to meet a more palatable theory - as indeed the PJ did.
Lets look at the hard evidence that supposedly shows that KM opened the window. In https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s what is your assessment of the photograph at exactly 45:24 ? and again the close-up at exactly 45.31 ? What is your opinion of this photo? Convincing hard evidence that KM opened the window? wrong wrong wrong Here's a clue - that print was definitely not made from just inside the bedroom window, and it was definitely not made from just outside the bedroom window. Work that one out.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 23, 2015, 04:23:20 PM
Lets look at the hard evidence that supposedly shows that KM opened the window. In https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s what is your assessment of the photograph at exactly 45:24 ? and again the close-up at exactly 45.31 ? What is your opinion of this photo? Convincing hard evidence that KM opened the window? wrong wrong wrong Here's a clue - that print was definitely not made from just inside the bedroom window, and it was definitely not made from just outside the bedroom window. Work that one out.
Well spotted, Pegasus. Is the measurement 11 inches from the window handle?
If it was on outside.... The window opens to the inside of the room, so the only way the print could be on the outside, is if it was put there whilst the window was closed and shutters open.
If it was on the inside.... it was a long way from where she could have opened it. However she could have rested her hand there whilst looking out of the open window, which she found open. In fact she could have left the print, at any time when she slept in that room or checked behind the curtains.
I hope this is what you meant, forgive me if I was wrong and give us the answer to the riddle.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 23, 2015, 05:06:37 PM
Look at the fingerprint at exactly 45:24 (and the same fingerprint in close-up at exactly 45.31). Ignore the other photos for now. What can you tell me about this fingerprint? The crime expert in the video examines this fingerprint photo, and decides from it that KM opened the bedroom window. Can you spot the fundamental error in that conclusion? https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on May 23, 2015, 05:26:17 PM
Look at the fingerprint at exactly 45:24 (and the same fingerprint in close-up at exactly 45.31). Ignore the other photos for now. What can you tell me about this fingerprint? The crime expert in the video examines this fingerprint photo, and decides from it that KM opened the bedroom window. Can you spot the fundamental error in that conclusion?
https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s
Kate would have opened the window onto her own hand - is that what you are saying?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 23, 2015, 05:26:25 PM
Look at the fingerprint at exactly 45:24 (and the same fingerprint in close-up at exactly 45.31). Ignore the other photos for now. What can you tell me about this fingerprint? The crime expert in the video examines this fingerprint photo, and decides from it that KM opened the bedroom window. Can you spot the fundamental error in that conclusion? https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s
Part of the film is very blurred. The photo of the fingerprint...Is I believe from the patio door.
The fingerprint on the window frame looks smudged etc.....
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 23, 2015, 07:46:44 PM
Lets look at the hard evidence that supposedly shows that KM opened the window. In https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s what is your assessment of the photograph at exactly 45:24 ? and again the close-up at exactly 45.31 ? What is your opinion of this photo? Convincing hard evidence that KM opened the window? wrong wrong wrong Here's a clue - that print was definitely not made from just inside the bedroom window, and it was definitely not made from just outside the bedroom window. Work that one out.
A fingerprint on a window was not made from the inside or outside? Yup, That's a bit of a conundrum. Give us a clue please Pegasus.
&%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 23, 2015, 08:32:13 PM
The window handle is on the left hand side of the right hand window(central) so when slid open the handle goes to the extreme left of the window frame. Unless I am mistaken the fingerprints are shown on the side without a handle.
Either way, I cant see why Kate would touch a window to open it. She might touch the window too look out, but that would be the side without a handle.
One of the officers left a print n the balcony door and apparently Kate left one on the window, just another possible mix up.
The non-handle side of the window, would be exposed to anyone looking out of the window and not the side that had a handle.
I will check the file photos again.
The forensic team, took that window out for fingerprinting. Could this have caused confusion?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 23, 2015, 09:03:56 PM
A fingerprint on a window was not made from the inside or outside? Yup, That's a bit of a conundrum. Give us a clue please Pegasus. &%+((£
I said that the fingerprint at exactly 45.24 and exactly 45:31 in https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s "was definitely not made from just inside the bedroom window, and it was definitely not made from just outside the bedroom window". Actually the person who made that print (at 45.24 and 45:31) made it while standing either in the lounge or on the balcony. And no it wasn't Mr or Little Ms Tickle.
This is an example of how indisputable hard evidence (a fingerprint) can be grossly misinterpreted by a crime expert to reach a false conclusion.
(edited to correct times)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 23, 2015, 09:12:53 PM
The fingerprints from Kate and the officer, got confused? Pegasus.
Was it simply that the fingerprint taken from the Lounge was thought to be from the children's room?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 23, 2015, 09:25:02 PM
(snip) .... The photo of the fingerprint...Is I believe from the patio door.....(snip)
10 out of 10. Your belief about the fingerprint at 45.24 and 45:31 is correct. Did you find the proof yet?
The fingerprint is hard solid evidence but its interpretation to falsely accuse KM of opening the bedroomwindow was less solid than a melty marshmallow.
(edited to correct times)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 23, 2015, 09:38:45 PM
10 out of 10. Your belief about the fingerprint at 45.24 and 45:31 is correct. Did you find the proof yet?
The fingerprint is hard solid evidence but its interpretation to falsely accuse KM of opening the bedroomwindow was less solid than a melty marshmallow.
(edited to correct times)
Here it is: Evidence that Kate's fingerprints were on the Balcony (Janela/porta da Sala) door and not the bedroom.
Whose fingerprint? No you have the wrong person. The fingerprint at 45.24 and 45:31 in https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s is hard evidence but it is NOT on the bedroom window and is NOT made by KM. The hard forensic evidence (the forensic reports and photos) are correct, but they were then misinterpreted by people who didn't bother reading the forensics reports fully, didn't read the captions on the photos, got the room wrong, got the person wrong, and unjustly arguidaised an honest witness.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 23, 2015, 10:17:15 PM
Whose fingerprint? No you have the wrong person. The fingerprint at 45.24 and 45:31 in https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s is hard evidence but it is NOT on the bedroom window and is NOT made by KM.
No, they were the fingerprints of an officer, apparently. Where is the Bedroom window fingerprints? I thought they had got in a muddle. Why are they showing fingerprints that do not belong to Kate on a film showing the bedroom window, when the picture is actually the balcony window? OK .....I am off back to check the files again.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on May 23, 2015, 10:32:16 PM
No, they were the fingerprints of an officer, apparently. Where is the Bedroom window fingerprints? I thought they had got in a muddle. Why are they showing fingerprints that do not belong to Kate on a film showing the bedroom window, when the picture is actually the balcony window? OK .....I am off back to check the files again.
Yes Anna, Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa of the Lagos GNR.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 23, 2015, 10:54:28 PM
Whose fingerprint? No you have the wrong person. The fingerprint at 45.24 and 45:31 in https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s is hard evidence but it is NOT on the bedroom window and is NOT made by KM. The hard forensic evidence (the forensic reports and photos) are correct, but they were then misinterpreted by people who didn't bother reading the forensics reports fully, didn't read the captions on the photos, got the room wrong, got the person wrong, and unjustly arguidaised an honest witness.
Prints of Kate's 2 fingers were found on the inside window of the children's bedroom. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_884a.jpg
However, I agree that the still taken in that docu drama were from the living-room.
I always wondered where Amaral got the idea that her prints indicated an "opening position". There is nothing in the report on Kate's prints that says any such thing... Did he mix up her prints on the inside of the window with the ones (not hers) in the living-room?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 23, 2015, 10:57:04 PM
Yes Anna, Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa of the Lagos GNR.
Thanks DCI. What a muddle up there was. I will go through the files again later and try and make sense of it. That film has definitely got it all wrong.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on May 23, 2015, 11:01:49 PM
Thanks DCI. What a muddle up there was. I will go through the files again later and try and make sense of it. That film has definitely got it all wrong.
Was it a deliberate muddle, though, Anna?
As Pegusus said
"The hard forensic evidence (the forensic reports and photos) are correct, but they were then misinterpreted by people who didn't bother reading the forensics reports fully, didn't read the captions on the photos, got the room wrong, got the person wrong, and unjustly arguidaised an honest witness."
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 23, 2015, 11:09:39 PM
"The hard forensic evidence (the forensic reports and photos) are correct, but they were then misinterpreted by people who didn't bother reading the forensics reports fully, didn't read the captions on the photos, got the room wrong, got the person wrong, and unjustly arguidaised an honest witness."
Why would they do such a thing, purposely??? &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on May 23, 2015, 11:37:36 PM
Prints of Kate's 2 fingers were found on the inside window of the children's bedroom. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P4/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_884a.jpg
However, I agree that the still taken in that docu drama were from the living-room.
I always wondered where Amaral got the idea that her prints indicated an "opening position". There is nothing in the report on Kate's prints that says any such thing... Did he mix up her prints on the inside of the window with the ones (not hers) in the living-room?
Possibly Carana, That film certainly has them confused.
Report, in a kind of English. Can you improve it?
Method and means of operating:-
1.Number of supposed established authors 2.Abandoned Objects 3.Or objects values on which focused the afraccao (Perpetrator) 4.Prejudice to the importance suffered
observations The Vestigeos lofoscopicos collected if indentificam with the finger of the left hand middle (3) and index finger of the left hand (2) The mother of the child disappeared. The lofoscopica inspection was in effect just inside her side window as it was on the night. Getting local salodo and kept, so that the brightness of the conditions allowed the completion of the inspection of the residence
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 12:00:08 AM
However, I agree that the still taken in that docu drama were from the living-room.... (snip)
To be precise, the print at 45.24 and 45:31 is not of KM and is not of the bedroom. Hard evidence (you can't get much harder evidence than a fingerprint), accidentally misinterpreted.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 24, 2015, 12:05:01 AM
That evidential film, was in no way hard evidence, however it did demonstrate something... What can be accepted or presented as evidence, by some, does not mean that it is.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 12:14:01 AM
No no no. The error is accidental and similar to equally big mistakes in interpreting hard evidence by for example the experts in Dispatches.
I did not say otherwise, Pegasus.
It was in reply to.........
Was it a deliberate muddle, though, Anna?
As Pegusus said
"The hard forensic evidence (the forensic reports and photos) are correct, but they were then misinterpreted by people who didn't bother reading the forensics reports fully, didn't read the captions on the photos, got the room wrong, got the person wrong, and unjustly arguidaised an honest witness."
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 12:56:01 AM
There is hard evidence in this case, including forensics of human hand marks The problem starts when experts start to interpret the hard evidence. Check the Dispatches expert solution of these 2 marks - IMO it's unlikely and has no reason.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 01:09:58 AM
Agreed. BTW if you post the original text of "The Vestigeos lofoscopicos collected....." I can translate.
Not sure how accurate it is, as I had to copy type it from the files
Modo e Meios de operar Numero suposto estabelecido de autores Objectos Abandonados, Objectos Ou valores sobre os quais incidiu a afraccao Importance do prejuizo sofrido
Observacoes,,,Os Vestigeos lofoscopicos, recolhidos se indentificam com os dedos medio da mao esquerda (3) e dedo indicador da mao esquerdo (2) Da mae da crianca desparecida A inspeccao lofoscopica foi effectuada apenas no lado interior la janela visto que era da noite Ficando o local salado e Preservado, para que assim que as condicoes de Luminosidade o permitissim fosse finalizada a inspeccao a residencia
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 01:49:50 AM
@Anna. "Observations: The fingerprint forensics collected were identified as the middle finger of the left hand (three prints) and the index finger of the left hand (two prints) of the mother of the missing child. The fingerprint inspection was made only on the interior side of the window, because it was dark. The scene was preserved, so that the when daylight came the inspection could be completed." IMO
BTW elsewhere a forensics document clearly states that her 5 prints were all on the inside surface of the glass, that's the hard forensic evidence, fully consistent with leaning out (and completely inconsistent with an opening acton), which confirms this witness is telling the truth.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 24, 2015, 01:57:09 AM
What an interesting analysis.
Well done you guys.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 02:16:29 AM
@Anna. "Observations: The fingerprint forensics collected were identified as the middle finger of the left hand (three prints) and the index finger of the left hand (two prints) of the mother of the missing child. The fingerprint inspection was made only on the interior side of the window, because it was dark. The scene was preserved, so that the when daylight came the inspection could be completed." IMO
BTW elsewhere a forensics document clearly states that her 5 prints were all on the inside surface of the glass, that's the hard forensic evidence, fully consistent with leaning out (and completely inconsistent with an opening acton), which confirms this witness is telling the truth.
thank you, for that, Pegasus.
If Kate opened the window with the handle, there would only be fingerprints on outer side of the handle , Surely.
One would put their hand inside the handle (as demonstrated on the film, by moustache man) and your fingers wouldn't come in contact with anything, except possibly the outer side of the handle.
There was no such fingerprints on the handle, so the window prints had to be from hanging out of the window.
If the fingerprints were on the handle side of the bedroom window, it was the wrong side according to the film....or did they get that wrong too?
It showed the window handle to the left of the right window, which slid left, so that the handle was up against the left side of the frame, when open.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 24, 2015, 10:14:28 AM
To be precise, the print at 45.24 and 45:31 is not of KM and is not of the bedroom. Hard evidence (you can't get much harder evidence than a fingerprint), accidentally misinterpreted.
Well done for spotting that, Pegasus. 8((()*/
The photos of the red powder on the living-room window edge could have been used in the docu drama for "illustrative" purposes (the actual pic of fingerprints on the paper document doesn't have much dramatic visual appeal).
However... although they may have been innocent substitutions by the film's editor, they were nonetheless used to support Amaral's assertion that Kate had opened the window - and he's repeated the same thing in several interviews.
43.25 - Final Evidence
43.28 – With the help from one of the major experts from the Scientific Police, who worked for the Polícia Judiciária, Alexandre Simas, Gonçalo Amaral intends to prove, first, that it was impossible for the child to be abducted, starting by demonstrating that the indications prove that the apartment's window and door were not forced.
43.47 - How does one open a door like this, without the key?
43.51 – Alexandre Simas, Expert (Former Polícia Judiciária): "This type of apartment door, normally there are only three possibilities: to extract the lock's cannon, which didn't happen, or it would have been reported; a false key, a copy or one that was used without permission; or using a malleable material, as long as it's not locked, it's introduced, and it makes the lock go back inside. But when it goes in, even if it did, it would hit this screw. If it hits the screw, no matter how much I force it, it doesn't jump to open the lock for me.
44.33 – "If the door wasn't opened without a key, the window doesn't bear any traces of having been forced, either.
44.40 – "These windows have a very good characteristic to check if they were forced or not. Being made of lacquered aluminium, any screwdriver, any instrument that is used to make the lock jump, immediately leaves a mark. What we can see here, there is no break-in, the mark that is there belongs to the lock itself as it rotates, sometimes one does this with the lock in place, and it hits there. So, to open this window, all we have to do is this. To close it, it's impossible, because either one has a magnet on his fingers to pull the window…"
45.18 – Another important fact is revealed by the fingerprints that are left on the bedroom window, which the McCanns insist they left closed, and is supposedly found open when the mother notices her daughter is missing. The only fingerprints that are found belong to Kate McCann, and reveal that they were made by opening the window.
45.42 – These three indications mean that there was no abduction, and that is proved. No abductor entered apartment 5A, through the door or through the window.
45.54 – Finally, it was impossible for anyone to leave with the child through the window on his own, without supporting himself on the bed, and leaving traces of abrasion on the window.
46.03 – If I carry a child in my arms, a package, in this case, the window is already open, I have to walk through here, and then I have to place my feet here, I can't…
46.15 – We tried to prove this difficulty, taking a child through the window, keeping everything the way it was found: the beds, without a trace of being stepped on, and no signs of abrasion on the window sill. It seems to be practically impossible for one single abductor, like the one that Jane Tanner saw, carrying the child on the street.
46.37 – Let's review: First, the front door and the window were not forced. Second, the window was opened by the mother. Third, it's impossible for a lone abductor to carry out the child without leaving traces on the beds and on the window.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id225.html
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on May 24, 2015, 10:27:49 AM
Amaral's interview with The Locksmith was such a joke. I know these locks, and you don't need a key to open them from the inside. I have always thought that The Abductor got in through The Patio Door, before Gerry made his first check, and then hid when he heard Gerry coming. Hence the more open bedroom door. And the bedroom door is hard evidence of an Abductor.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 24, 2015, 10:33:53 AM
Amaral's interview with The Locksmith was such a joke. I know these locks, and you don't need a key to open them from the inside. I have always thought that The Abductor got in through The Patio Door, before Gerry made his first check, and then hid when he heard Gerry coming. Hence the more open bedroom door. And the bedroom door is hard evidence of an Abductor.
Pure supposition and nothing more than that.
Your use of an 'abductor' as a fact is inappropriate.
That has not been determined and a 'belief' in abduction is not evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 24, 2015, 10:37:31 AM
@Anna. "Observations: The fingerprint forensics collected were identified as the middle finger of the left hand (three prints) and the index finger of the left hand (two prints) of the mother of the missing child. The fingerprint inspection was made only on the interior side of the window, because it was dark. The scene was preserved, so that the when daylight came the inspection could be completed." IMO
BTW elsewhere a forensics document clearly states that her 5 prints were all on the inside surface of the glass, that's the hard forensic evidence, fully consistent with leaning out (and completely inconsistent with an opening acton), which confirms this witness is telling the truth.
Exactly. Over time, people have come up with implausible explanations as to why she would have used two fingers of her left hand on the glass to slide open a window with a view to simulating an abduction, as opposed to simply sliding it via the handle.
I'd always found that odd, but I hadn't realised that he'd confused prints in two different rooms.
Even if he had been correct that Kate's prints were found on the right-hand side of the bedroom windowframe, I still don't understand his logic:
- If she had slid it open by sliding the edge of the window to the left, either she would have opened it using the handle first anyway (so unless it was stuck, why not carry on sliding it via the handle?).
Or - It had been left partially open and she just had to slide her fingers to push it further open. But why would anyone use the fingers of their left hand to slide open the right-hand side of a window-frame that had to be pushed to the left, again unless it was stuck? I did check to see if there was any mention of the window being hard to open, but found nothing to that effect.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on May 24, 2015, 10:44:48 AM
Supposition is often a very good pointer. That bedroom door was moved somehow or another.
I manage a holiday property, and I always know if someone has been in this often empty property because of the way in which I leave the doors. Although these days I do it deliberately. But in the beginning it was just my instincts. And I was never wrong.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 24, 2015, 10:45:34 AM
The poor man was looking for obvious signs of breaking in through the front door when in fact there didn't have to be any. There were two other ways to get into that appartment, neither of which have ever been disproved.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 24, 2015, 10:59:06 AM
Supposition is often a very good pointer. That bedroom door was moved somehow or another.
I manage a holiday property, and I always know if someone has been in this often empty property because of the way in which I leave the doors. Although these days I do it deliberately. But in the beginning it was just my instincts. And I was never wrong.
You need a lot more than supposition to show abduction.
and more pertinently, how do we know for sure the door had moved ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 24, 2015, 11:05:13 AM
The poor man was looking for obvious signs of breaking in through the front door when in fact there didn't have to be any. There were two other ways to get into that appartment, neither of which have ever been disproved.
But even that demonstration of the alleged unique burglar's tool - the credit card - jamming on an invisible prominent screw doesn't make sense...
And the narration doesn't make sense, either. Let's assume for a second that no burglar has ever used any other implement other than a spare Benfica membership card to force a door open.
Although mentioned, this so-called "hard evidence" glides over the possibility of a spare or duplicate key...
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 24, 2015, 11:10:58 AM
The poor man was looking for obvious signs of breaking in through the front door when in fact there didn't have to be any. There were two other ways to get into that appartment, neither of which have ever been disproved.
It's bleeding obvious the sliding door wasn't used, unless you are stupid enough to believe that the polite abductor closed everything behind him on his way in/out.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on May 24, 2015, 11:18:30 AM
It's bleeding obvious the sliding door wasn't used, unless you are stupid enough to believe that the polite abductor closed everything behind him on his way in/out.
There is nothing stupid about me, Sweet Cheeks. Although I worry about you sometimes. Which is probably the least offensive thing I can think of to say about you.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 24, 2015, 11:22:59 AM
Why mention the door if it hadn't moved? It would hardly have been pertinent in the great scheme of a false abduction.
Just dumped the dead body of my daughter. Must remember to mention a moving door that hadn't moved, just so they think The Abductor done it.
I don't believe in the abductor thesis, never have.
Gerry's story and that it is all that it is has not been verified.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on May 24, 2015, 11:34:28 AM
David Payne Rogatory:
'as we were walking up towards the flat she said err you know they've taken her and it was, you know, and I know there's been a controversy about what was actually said but you know that is very accurately what had been said. Like I say, as I say you know you could just never forget her face and those words, and err as we were, you know, approaching their apartment I was just saying to Kate, I said well look how do you know that is the case, and err you know again I, I can't remember the exact words then, but I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like when she'd got there to see who'd left err doors open or etcetera. And from my point of view you know the things that were, I think it was really pertinent to me was that there was two, there was two gates on the back entrance from that apartment. There's the gate which is immediately bring, you know brings you on to the err the road and then there was another child gate, that was at the top and I, you know, and given the fact that the front door was shut I was just saying well what was the state of those two gates, were those gates open when you went up or were they shut, and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted.
If you really are claiming to believe it's likely that some polite abductor went closing gates, curtains & doors behind him, then you have to be either stupid, or have an agenda, hence a liar.
It's that simple.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on May 24, 2015, 12:34:14 PM
It is perfectly feasible that any polite abductor could have entered via the patio door & left by the front door. We know from Mrs Fenn's niece that she saw someone repeatedly testing gates on the day in question. After all, Kate, Gerry & Matt all entered & exited the apartment that night via the patio, closing doors, gates & adjusting curtains behind them.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 24, 2015, 12:40:08 PM
Before some of you go off on your personal slanging matches again... I'm still interested in Pegasus's find re the window.
From his book: However, on the glass, on the handle and on the right-hand frame of Madeleine's bedroom window, we had lifted five fingerprints - three from a middle finger and two from an index finger - all from a left hand, identified as belonging to Kate McCann.
The only mention in the files is that her fingerprints were found on the glass pane, nowhere else... no mention of prints found on the handle, nor on the bedroom window frame, and - as Pegasus has discovered - the right-hand frame was of the living-room sliding door, NOT the bedroom window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on May 24, 2015, 12:43:58 PM
Members need no reminding that mutual respect and tolerance of others views should be respected.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 24, 2015, 02:02:41 PM
Before some of you go off on your personal slanging matches again... I'm still interested in Pegasus's find re the window.
From his book: However, on the glass, on the handle and on the right-hand frame of Madeleine's bedroom window, we had lifted five fingerprints - three from a middle finger and two from an index finger - all from a left hand, identified as belonging to Kate McCann.
The only mention in the files is that her fingerprints were found on the glass pane, nowhere else... no mention of prints found on the handle, nor on the bedroom window frame, and - as Pegasus has discovered - the right-hand frame was of the living-room sliding door, NOT the bedroom window.
It is all so illogical that I am totally confused. I think there has been a collective blind spot, because of the belief no-body can manipulate 'hard' evidence ... we never considered they can misinterpret it.
I've been trying to get my head round this ever since Pegasus posed the riddle ... I couldn't see it then, and well done to Anna for working it out for us.
If these extra prints claimed by Mr Amaral to be Kate's are not hers ... whose are they? It seems there are more than those identified in the files.
I'm going to remain totally confused until someone is kind enough to explain it all in words commensurate with my level of understanding on this ... one syllable or 'ladybird' level won't cause offence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 02:13:46 PM
In this tiny picture are several pieces of hard evidence. Recorded accurately by the forensics team on 4th May. Did the leading crime scene experts in CR PJ Dispatches Panorama SY etc interpret them or even see them when they looked at this tiny area? IMO the answer to that is ..... no.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on May 24, 2015, 02:34:36 PM
Before some of you go off on your personal slanging matches again... I'm still interested in Pegasus's find re the window.
From his book: However, on the glass, on the handle and on the right-hand frame of Madeleine's bedroom window, we had lifted five fingerprints - three from a middle finger and two from an index finger - all from a left hand, identified as belonging to Kate McCann.
The only mention in the files is that her fingerprints were found on the glass pane, nowhere else... no mention of prints found on the handle, nor on the bedroom window frame, and - as Pegasus has discovered - the right-hand frame was of the living-room sliding door, NOT the bedroom window.
The files don't say exactly where the fingerprints were, just the inside of the window;
VESTIGES COLLECTED 5….. Fingerprints….Inside interior window of the children’s bedroom…..DBT…..Suf
The fingerprint traces collected are identified as being the middle finger of the left hand (3x) and forefinger of the left hand (2x), of the missing girl’s mother, The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time, the location was sealed and preserved so that light conditions would permit the inspection of the residence to be finalised. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 24, 2015, 03:18:50 PM
It is all so illogical that I am totally confused. I think there has been a collective blind spot, because of the belief no-body can manipulate 'hard' evidence ... we never considered they can misinterpret it.
I've been trying to get my head round this ever since Pegasus posed the riddle ... I couldn't see it then, and well done to Anna for working it out for us.
If these extra prints claimed by Mr Amaral to be Kate's are not hers ... whose are they? It seems there are more than those identified in the files.
I'm going to remain totally confused until someone is kind enough to explain it all in words commensurate with my level of understanding on this ... one syllable or 'ladybird' level won't cause offence.
It goes like this, Brietta;-
The fingerprints seen in the documentary are not from the bedroom window or from Kate, They are from a GNR officer and located on the frame of the patio door.
The files show that there were 3 fingerprints (middle finger of left hand) and 2 fingerprints (index finger of left hand ) on the bedroom window. The handle is not mentioned.
That film/Documentary:-
Over 50 people took part in the making of that film.
And nobody noticed something wrong in the fingerprints?
It makes me wonder how many more mistakes there were.
BTW this isn’t the film that has recently been banned, is it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Madeleine McCann The Truth of the Lie
Published on 17 Jun 2014
Madeleine McCann - The Truth of the Lie - English Narration FULL Documentary - BANNED & Later Overturned
FULL Documentary BANNED by the McCanns (Overturned) Goncalo Amaral
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 24, 2015, 03:52:36 PM
In this tiny picture are several pieces of hard evidence. Recorded accurately by the forensics team on 4th May. Did the leading crime scene experts in CR PJ Dispatches Panorama SY etc interpret them or even see them when they looked at this tiny area? IMO the answer to that is ..... no.
Another riddle, Pegasus? That photo is I believe the left hand side of the shutters with some sort of smudge marks. However Gerry and Diane both touched them.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 04:21:08 PM
To interpret the hard evidence of the window and shutter forensics Mr A was relying on crime scene experts including experts from the UK.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
@Anna for example what's that thing sticking out?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 24, 2015, 04:37:52 PM
I've wondered about that. I've had a blind like that, and the only thing that seems vaguely similar are hard stoppers of some kind on either side to stop the blinds going up too high and disappearing into the rolling mechanism.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 04:38:27 PM
It's bleeding obvious the sliding door wasn't used, unless you are stupid enough to believe that the polite abductor closed everything behind him on his way in/out.
Would a person going furtively through two gates would leave them both open? The top gate closes by itself IMO, and the street gate is same design as the one in CT statement. But this is not hard evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 04:57:21 PM
I've wondered about that. I've had a blind like that, and the only thing that seems vaguely similar are hard stoppers of some kind on either side to stop the blinds going up too high and disappearing into the rolling mechanism.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6209.0;attach=5098;image That is what I thought it was at first, stopping the shutter closing too far. But that was wrong answer. No need to solve what it is, save that for a rainy day, the important hard evidence is that there are 2 things that stick out. Another bit of hard evidence is its distance from the bottom of the shutter?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 24, 2015, 05:01:14 PM
First visual check of the week, there had to be a reason to look in the room & not just listen.
...and so the door had moved.
Yes, first visual check of the week! never mind the evening. Ignore the whooshing curtains and jemmmied shutter scenario- no one seems to be able to say what time Maddie disappeared. It could have been just after parents left for the Tapas. Hours for an abductor to pop in via the door and out again...if we are looking at the ' stranger abduciton' thesis.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 24, 2015, 05:04:55 PM
I don't know Pegasus, but since there is one each side and they have a hole in the middle of them, Could they be a release lock of some sort, or just screws that connect to the winding up tapes on the inside?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 24, 2015, 05:05:48 PM
Yes, first visual check of the week! never mind the evening. Ignore the whooshing curtains and jemmmied shutter scenario- no one seems to be able to say what time Maddie disappeared. It could have been just after parents left for the Tapas. Hours for an abductor to pop in via the door and out again...if we are looking at the ' stranger abduciton' thesis.
I thought we had Gerry looking down at his daughter at about 9 pm and thinking how fortunate he was - or was that an earlier, retracted version of events ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 24, 2015, 05:08:54 PM
Please stay on topic. Thank you.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 05:16:12 PM
I don't know Pegasus, but since there is one each side and they have a hole in the middle of them, Could they be a release lock of some sort, or just screws that connect to the winding up tapes on the inside?
Good someone noticed its a hollow tube. No it's not a release or webbing screw. The important thing is that they stick out and that is hard evidence. How far above the sill are they when the shutter is down?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 24, 2015, 05:24:37 PM
Good someone noticed its a hollow tube. It's none of above IMO. The important thing is that they stick out and that is hard evidence. How far above the sill are they when the shutter is down?
They are right at the bottom, so probably rain/moisture drainage? Sticking out....Easy to grip by two people without leaving marks except the smudges around them?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 05:32:40 PM
They are right at the bottom, so probably rain/moisture drainage? Sticking out....Easy to grip by two people without leaving marks except the smudges around them?
Yes drainage you are observant, but its function is not important Yes smudges around it (revealed in red dust). Accurate forensics. When experts looked at the shutter they missed this evidence. They should have tested the same model of shutter (not an electric one in the Estrela complex).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 24, 2015, 05:48:06 PM
Yes drainage you are observant, but its function is not important Yes smudges around it (revealed in red dust). Accurate forensics. When experts looked at the shutter they missed this evidence. They should have tested the same model of shutter (not an electric one in the Estrela complex).
So the shutter could be raised from outside, in this manner by hand or using something like a screwdriver, to enable the opening of the window and rolling up the shutter by the inside straps?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 06:23:25 PM
So the shutter could be raised from outside, in this manner by hand or using something like a screwdriver, to enable the opening of the window and rolling up the shutter by the inside straps?
There is plenty gap between sill and thing to use by hand to start raising shutter from outside. Raise by one finger thickness then put hand under shutter and raise to one arm thickness, slide window, use strap. No scratches, no damage. BTW shutter does not recess into sill - it sits on top of sloping sill. Hard physical evidence, missed by experts.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 24, 2015, 06:57:05 PM
There is plenty gap between sill and thing to use by hand to start raising shutter from outside. Raise by one finger thickness then put hand under shutter and raise to one arm thickness, slide window, use strap. No scratches, no damage. BTW shutter does not recess into sill - it sits on top of sloping sill. Hard physical evidence, missed by experts.
I'm not sure that I follow you on this bit.
This protrusion thing looks like a stopper and as it has a hole may also serve as a ventilation conduit. (Is there another one at the other end?)
So far ok.
But, if the blind had been fully down, I don't see where the finger space would be under the bottom of the blind.
Matt thought that some light was coming into the room - which might have indicated that the blind wasn't fully down (i.e. with spaces in between the slats), and possibly easier to lift slightly for finger space.
Alternatively, that protuberance could have been used to raise the shutter a little to give finger space.
If whoever lifted the blind had done so from inside, I don't understand why the strap wasn't used.
I'm not convinced that anyone entered via that window, but it's a possibility.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 07:40:07 PM
This protrusion thing looks like a stopper and as it has a hole may also serve as a ventilation conduit. (Is there another one at the other end?)
So far ok.
But, if the blind had been fully down, I don't see where the finger space would be under the bottom of the blind.
Matt thought that some light was coming into the room - which might have indicated that the blind wasn't fully down (i.e. with spaces in between the slats), and possibly easier to lift slightly for finger space.
Alternatively, that protuberance could have been used to raise the shutter a little to give finger space.
If whoever lifted the blind had done so from inside, I don't understand why the strap wasn't used.
I'm not convinced that anyone entered via that window, but it's a possibility.
There are 2, they are not stoppers. When the shutter is closed there is a gap about 2 fingerwidths between them and the sill. IMO they are metal. The hard evidence is they are certainly there, and the left one has marks around it in the red dust.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 24, 2015, 08:08:50 PM
There are 2, they are not stoppers. When the shutter is closed there is a gap about 2 fingerwidths between them and the sill. IMO they are metal. The hard evidence is they are certainly there, and the left one has marks around it in the red dust.
How very observant of you Pegasus.
When I enlarged the image x400, I could clearly see the G shape of a hand around the sticking out thing.
The left hand was used and the Y shape between the thumb and first finger was firmly against the bottom of tube thingy in order to push up. The print of the thumb, first and middle finger can be clearly seen. It is so clear that you can even see the finger joints [sections of the fingers]
Well done Pegasus! Brilliant sleuthing.
So someone did open the shutters from out side !
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on May 24, 2015, 08:16:32 PM
When I enlarged the image x400, I could clearly see the G shape of a hand around the sticking out thing.
The left hand was used and the Y shape between the thumb and first finger was firmly against the bottom of tube thingy in order to push up. The print of the thumb, first and middle finger can be clearly seen. It is so clear that you can even see the finger joints [sections of the fingers]
Well done Pegasus! Brilliant sleuthing.
So someone did open the shutters from out side !
I wonder if any of those inadequate prints were the forensic woman's?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 24, 2015, 09:08:14 PM
The crime scene was compromised before the police got there. The shutters should never have been touched. Gerry broke the one in their bedroom &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 24, 2015, 09:12:03 PM
The crime scene was compromised before the police got there. The shutters should never have been touched. Gerry already broke the one in their bedroom &%+((£
Yep, it was absolutely ages after the Tapas group alerted, before the Police arrived.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 24, 2015, 09:16:36 PM
No excuses. They should never have been tampered with. There's no evidence of anybody passing through the window which doesn't surprise me.
Fact, Pathfinder that the PJ Pollice did not arrive until, was it over an hour after the alert?
And the GNR, who aparantly were in Odiaxere did not arrive until IIRC about 45 minutes after the alert.
Seems the reception was to blame for the delay. Possibly Ocean Club protocol played its part?
In hindsight we all know that neither Gerry nor anyone else should have touched anything .... but think of the panic and the puzzle of what happened. They were not professional police just ordinary people doing their best, or so they thought.
And it seems that once the GNR finally arrioved, they failed to safe guard the crime scene. Now they were professionals!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on May 24, 2015, 09:51:02 PM
Fact, Pathfinder that the PJ Pollice did not arrive until, was it over an hour after the alert?
And the GNR, who aparantly were in Odiaxere did not arrive until IIRC about 45 minutes after the alert.
Seems the reception was to blame for the delay. Possibly Ocean Club protocol played its part?
In hindsight we all know that neither Gerry nor anyone else should have touched anything .... but think of the panic and the puzzle of what happened. They were not professional police just ordinary people doing their best, or so they thought.
And it seems that once the GNR finally arrioved, they failed to safe guard the crime scene. Now they were professionals!
GNR called 10.41 arrived 11pm.
PJ called by GNR arrived 12 midnight.
Kate says she saw that Madeleine's toy Cuddle Cat had been left behind, but was careful not to touch it in case it held a clue to who took her.
She says: "I knew straight away a crime had been committed, we had no doubt about that. We were very conscious of not touching things."
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 24, 2015, 10:09:42 PM
Kate says she saw that Madeleine's toy Cuddle Cat had been left behind, but was careful not to touch it in case it held a clue to who took her.
She says: "I knew straight away a crime had been committed, we had no doubt about that. We were very conscious of not touching things."
I erred considerably on the "safe side" because I rarely look facts up any more. Eyesight probs.
So both lots of Polkice were considerably after the alert at 10 pm. Even the GNR did not get there for an hour and the PJ about 2 hours. Kate and Gerry must have been in a blind panic ... almost demented I would imagine.
Kate was speaking in your extract .... and probably they both thought that the crime scene was the bedroom.
Gerry is a different person ... and a go-getter. He has an inquisitive mind and would want to know if it were possible to raise the shutters from outside.. I bet he never thought twice about the rights and wrongs of touching anything outside
But the GNR, when they finally arrived, did not close off the crime scene. They should have known better.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 10:24:39 PM
I wonder if any of those inadequate prints were the forensic woman's?
That is is obviously the one person who did not make the marks. IMO the marks on the outside of the shutter are mainly by GM and DW (amateurs had who never opened a shutter from outside before), with a much smaller contribution by the earlier opener (who probably had done it before).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 10:50:33 PM
I erred considerably on the "safe side" because I rarely look facts up any more. Eyesight probs.
So both lots of Polkice were considerably after the alert at 10 pm. Even the GNR did not get there for an hour and the PJ about 2 hours. Kate and Gerry must have been in a blind panic ... almost demented I would imagine.
Kate was speaking in your extract .... and probably they both thought that the crime scene was the bedroom.
Gerry is a different person ... and a go-getter. He has an inquisitive mind and would want to know if it were possible to raise the shutters from outside.. I bet he never thought twice about the rights and wrongs of touching anything outside
But the GNR, when they finally arrived, did not close off the crime scene. They should have known better.
Your last point is very interesting and we do have one important bit of hard evidence about this - the fact that after the GNR commander arrived there was a long time with only one GNR man near the apartment (other two were searching the town). One man alone can't guard the front and the back - it's impossible. Anyone could have gone in and out and the lone GNR man wouldn't have seen.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 24, 2015, 11:10:20 PM
Your last point is very interesting and we do have one important bit of hard evidence about this - the fact that after the GNR commander arrived there was a long time with only one GNR man near the apartment (other two were searching the town). One man alone can't guard the front and the back - it's impossible. Anyone could have gone in and out and the lone GNR man wouldn't have seen.
I take your point pegasus
But he could have locked the front door or the patio doors .... and altho not foolproof, that would have helped.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 11:31:08 PM
But he could have locked the front door or the patio doors .... and altho not foolproof, that would have helped.
IMO the hard evidence is that 3 GNR statements state that for a period there was only 1 GNR near the apartment, maybe we discuss the risks of this on a later day another thread.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 24, 2015, 11:54:30 PM
Sorry to go on about fingerprints and handmarks but IMO they are the most definite hard evidence in the case. Here are some marks on the outside of the shutter. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6209.0;attach=5094;image Have a look at the solution by the experts in the Dispatches film. Very clever but why would anyone try to open or close the shutter from inside with their hands twisted so the thumbs are outside, when there is an strap there which opens or closes the shutter with ease?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 25, 2015, 12:12:35 AM
Sorry to go on about fingerprints and handmarks but IMO they are the most definite hard evidence in the case. Here are some marks on the outside of the shutter. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6209.0;attach=5094;image Have a look at the solution by the experts in the Dispatches film. Very clever but why would anyone try to open or close the shutter from inside with their hands twisted so the thumbs are outside, when there is an strap there which opens or closes the shutter with ease?
Yes, they do look like thumbprints and I never believed that they were made from inside.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 25, 2015, 12:30:37 AM
The two plastic sticking out things at the bottom of the shutter are plastic bump stops which as Anna earlier stated prevent the shutter from rising too far.
The two plastic sticking out things at the bottom of the shutter are plastic bump stops which as Anna earlier stated prevent the shutter from rising too far.
Thanks, agreed, to stop rising too far, but IMO they are probably metal like the window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 12:44:38 AM
Wonderful
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 25, 2015, 12:49:07 AM
Yes, they do look like thumbprints and I never believed that they were made from inside.
On Dispatches film the experts say a person is standing inside, the shutter is high, and the person is inside "easing" it down, with hands close together, their thumbs outside and fingers inside. The bed location and the fact there is a strap there make that unlikely IMO and what would be the point?. I do not know the answer to this yet but I think the person must be outside and it is probably one of the "disbelief" tests from outside just after the alarm?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 25, 2015, 12:54:06 AM
I said that the fingerprint at exactly 45.24 and exactly 45:31 in https://youtu.be/xCKceTe1J20?t=45m19s "was definitely not made from just inside the bedroom window, and it was definitely not made from just outside the bedroom window". Actually the person who made that print (at 45.24 and 45:31) made it while standing either in the lounge or on the balcony. And no it wasn't Mr or Little Ms Tickle.
This is an example of how indisputable hard evidence (a fingerprint) can be grossly misinterpreted by a crime expert to reach a false conclusion.
(edited to correct times)
Dont believe you
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on May 25, 2015, 01:05:42 AM
On Dispatches film the experts say a person is standing inside, the shutter is high, and the person is inside "easing" it down, with hands close together, their thumbs outside and fingers inside. The bed location and the fact there is a strap there make that unlikely IMO and what would be the point?. I do not know the answer to this yet but I think the person must be outside and it is probably one of the "disbelief" tests from outside just after the alarm?
It is possible that someone came in the front door or balcony door and opened the blinds with the strap and passed madeleine out. If this was the case, then all of the marks would have been from Gerry and Diane trying to open them. However if these sticky out things were made of rubber or plastic, they probably wouldn't be strong enough to lift the shutter and they would have to revert to lifting it by the bottom. looking at all the smudges, it appears that someone tried though or they were stronger than they look.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on May 25, 2015, 01:23:44 AM
An aluminium vertical shutter is very light and can easily be lifted with one finger since the only resistance is gravity. The only trick is to keep both sides level as you lift it.
The two sticky-out thingys referred to earlier are actually called up-stops.
See video from 5.10 (If slow to load watch on YouTube}
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 01:59:38 AM
Deleted/wrong question.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 25, 2015, 02:34:51 AM
Thanks for facts and video and photos. If the up-stops are plastic they will have a metal screw inside which adds strength. The up-stops are strong enough to not break when someone tries to open the shutter too far. So they are strong enough to use to lift the shutter a liitle. The gap between the sill and the up-stops this 5A window is IMO plenty to get fingers around it. Lift it only 10mm is good, then place fingers under shutter.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 25, 2015, 09:04:30 AM
It is possible that someone came in the front door or balcony door and opened the blinds with the strap and passed madeleine out. If this was the case, then all of the marks would have been from Gerry and Diane trying to open them. However if these sticky out things were made of rubber or plastic, they probably wouldn't be strong enough to lift the shutter and they would have to revert to lifting it by the bottom. looking at all the smudges, it appears that someone tried though or they were stronger than they look.
If someone entered by the front door, I cannot see any possible reason why they should have passed Madeleine, or indeed anything else through the window, access to which was partially obstructed by two cots and a bed.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 25, 2015, 09:06:59 AM
Thanks for facts and video and photos. If the up-stops are plastic they will have a metal screw inside which adds strength. The up-stops are strong enough to not break when someone tries to open the shutter too far. So they are strong enough to use to lift the shutter a liitle. The gap between the sill and the up-stops this 5A window is IMO plenty to get fingers around it. Lift it only 10mm is good, then place fingers under shutter.
The abductor didn't even have to enter the apartment to take Madeleine out, nor was an accomplice inside the apartment required to pass her out through the window.
Madeleine could have been awakened by the shutter being raised; she could have sleepily approached the window to see what was going on and been lifted through.
Heri shows exactly how that could have happened and the timescale it would have involved.
The abductor didn't even have to enter the apartment to take Madeleine out, nor was an accomplice inside the apartment required to pass her out through the window.
Madeleine could have been awakened by the shutter being raised; she could have sleepily approached the window to see what was going on and been lifted through.
Heri shows exactly how that could have happened and the timescale it would have involved.
if we look at all the facts...facts are evidence... in the case we can see that the most likely cause by a mile for Maddie's disappearance is abduction...hence SYs remit
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 25, 2015, 09:52:06 AM
if we look at all the facts...facts are evidence... in the case we can see that the most likely cause by a mile for Maddie's disappearance is abduction...hence SYs remit
Well they can say what they wish.
They have found nothing.
Hardly surprising when they don't now what crime occurred.
P.S. Belief of an abduction, does not mean abduction.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 25, 2015, 10:55:16 AM
The abductor didn't even have to enter the apartment to take Madeleine out, nor was an accomplice inside the apartment required to pass her out through the window.
Madeleine could have been awakened by the shutter being raised; she could have sleepily approached the window to see what was going on and been lifted through.
Heri shows exactly how that could have happened and the timescale it would have involved.
Added ... It would also explain why the window was left open and the shutter raised. A person carrying a child would have been unable to do this.
If abduction occurred that is what I think could have happened Brie but it is a big IF. That would also explain the absence of any incriminating forensics within the apartment. Could also be a crying child attracted unwelcome attention on more than one night?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on May 25, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
The only way this guy can support his 'abduction by burglar' thesis is to accuse Jane Tanner of lying about the time of her sighting then? How can his theory be included in a thread about hard evidence then? He has none.
May 3rd. 2007: Jane Tanner saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 21:50 hours, in the street, near apartment 5A. The abductor trousers were described as “between beige and gold”. Surely it was white or similar, being the color perceived different due to street sodium lamps. Jane stayed at her apartment 5D and Russell returned to the Tapas Bar. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 25, 2015, 11:28:33 AM
The only way this guy can support his 'abduction by burglar' thesis is to accuse Jane Tanner of lying about the time of her sighting then? How can his theory be included in a thread about hard evidence then? He has none.
May 3rd. 2007: Jane Tanner saw the abductor carrying Madeleine at approximately 21:50 hours, in the street, near apartment 5A. The abductor trousers were described as “between beige and gold”. Surely it was white or similar, being the color perceived different due to street sodium lamps. Jane stayed at her apartment 5D and Russell returned to the Tapas Bar. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
It has been a puzzlement why ... the window was open ... and the shutter was raised.
The most likely time for that to have occurred was after the last witness statement which placed Madeleine McCann sleeping soundly in her bed.
If you wish to discount witness evidence either because you have arbitrarily chosen which witnesses you will believe or because the statement does not fit the particular axe you are grinding ... be my guest ... but it is evidence nonetheless.
Heri has demonstrated exactly the method that could have been used. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html and why you have deduced from that, the suggestion that to make it possible he would have to accuse Jane Tanner of lying about anything is beyond me.
His hypothesis explains a lot and makes a nonsense of the accused 'staged' scenario.
(a) demonstrates method (b) demonstrates time taken (c) demonstrates no entry was required (d) demonstrates that the burden of the child could have precluded closing both window and shutter
Anyone with an awareness that burglaries had been taking place where ingress was via a window, two of which had occurred in the same apartment block as the one from which a child had vanished, would I think have taken that on board to arrive at a different theory from the one which drove the investigation.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 25, 2015, 12:51:20 PM
I would have liked to have seen an update of that programme using the same experts when the FSS report was in the public domain and the denied burglaries and assaults which had taken place on British children were known about. Although they were refused permission to enter the tapas or have access to the apartment ... I think it would have been informative for them to have indulged in a little 'eyeball' exercise without cameras just to familiarise themselves with the area ... in that way the lack of green lichen might have been noticed.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: John on May 25, 2015, 01:07:00 PM
The abductor didn't even have to enter the apartment to take Madeleine out, nor was an accomplice inside the apartment required to pass her out through the window.
Madeleine could have been awakened by the shutter being raised; she could have sleepily approached the window to see what was going on and been lifted through.
Heri shows exactly how that could have happened and the timescale it would have involved.
Added ... It would also explain why the window was left open and the shutter raised. A person carrying a child would have been unable to do this.
In my view an awake Madeleine might very well have been enticed to the bedroom window on some pretext but would have howled the place down when she saw a stranger, unless she was grabbed and sedated in some way. There was also the risk that one of the twins would have woke up and saw what was going on.
But I do agree, the claimed but uncorroborated open window and raised shutter are puzzling.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 01:14:52 PM
It has been a puzzlement why ... the window was open ... and the shutter was raised.
The most likely time for that to have occurred was after the last witness statement which placed Madeleine McCann sleeping soundly in her bed.
If you wish to discount witness evidence either because you have arbitrarily chosen which witnesses you will believe or because the statement does not fit the particular axe you are grinding ... be my guest ... but it is evidence nonetheless.
Heri has demonstrated exactly the method that could have been used. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html and why you have deduced from that, the suggestion that to make it possible he would have to accuse Jane Tanner of lying about anything is beyond me.
His hypothesis explains a lot and makes a nonsense of the accused 'staged' scenario.
(a) demonstrates method (b) demonstrates time taken (c) demonstrates no entry was required (d) demonstrates that the burden of the child could have precluded closing both window and shutter
Anyone with an awareness that burglaries had been taking place where ingress was via a window, two of which had occurred in the same apartment block as the one from which a child had vanished, would I think have taken that on board to arrive at a different theory from the one which drove the investigation.
That theory does not explain a) how Jane Tanner saw Gerry Mccann and Jeremy Wilkins chatting at 21.50 - totally out by both mens' witness statements and b) why the "abductor" was seen by Jane Tanner walking eastwards and ten minutes later being seen by the Smith family walking westward. It also does not explain how a near 4 year old could be lifted out of a window without leaving any trace evidence. It seems ths time has been "invented" to cover the fact that the window and shutters were not open when Matthew Oldfield looked in at around 21.30, IMO. &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 25, 2015, 02:53:01 PM
It is possible that someone came in the front door or balcony door and opened the blinds with the strap and passed madeleine out. ...(snip)
It is 10 times quicker and easier to go out the front door. To make the "out window" theory work you have to add the complication that a checker enters the balcony door while the perp is in bedroom. That is the only way to make perp use window. Then you need another complication, the checker now in the lounge is deaf and cannot hear the shutter being raised in bedroom. I already posted my opinion for the window and shutter: a person opened them from outside and did not enter, but to everyone else that is an illogical laughable nonsense. In all the films I've only ever seen one expert who maybe has the careful logic needed to see the simplicity and inevitability of it.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 25, 2015, 03:11:33 PM
It is 10 times quicker and easier to go out the front door. To make the "out window" theory work you have to add the complication that a checker enters the balcony door while the perp is in bedroom. That is the only way to make perp use window. Then you need another complication, the checker now in the lounge is deaf and cannot hear the shutter being raised in bedroom. I already posted my opinion for the window and shutter: a person opened them from outside and did not enter, but to everyone else that is an illogical laughable nonsense. In all the films I've only ever seen one expert who maybe has the careful logic needed to see the simplicity and inevitability of it.
In that case, why bother with the window at all?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 25, 2015, 03:14:31 PM
It is 10 times quicker and easier to go out the front door. To make the "out window" theory work you have to add the complication that a checker enters the balcony door while the perp is in bedroom. That is the only way to make perp use window. Then you need another complication, the checker now in the lounge is deaf and cannot hear the shutter being raised in bedroom. I already posted my opinion for the window and shutter: a person opened them from outside and did not enter, but to everyone else that is an illogical laughable nonsense. In all the films I've only ever seen one expert who maybe has the careful logic needed to see the simplicity and inevitability of it.
The window and shutter could be explained by an opportunist thief ... I can think of no logical reason why people 'staging' an abduction would not have made a better job of it or why they would have raised the alarm when they did rather than wait for a few hours till morning giving themselves much greater scope.
Therefore although no-one knows why the scene was left as it was ... I think it has to stand as evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 25, 2015, 03:26:38 PM
If it was a staged event, then it worked pretty well, as there has never been any sign of Madeleine since then and no evidence has been found to charge anyone.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 25, 2015, 03:34:24 PM
If it was a staged event, then it worked pretty well, as there has never been any sign of Madeleine since then and no evidence has been found to charge anyone.
It seems identical to the Ben Needham disappearance
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 25, 2015, 04:28:21 PM
If it was a staged event, then it worked pretty well, as there has never been any sign of Madeleine since then and no evidence has been found to charge anyone.
One wonders just how much of whatever evidence was available was misinterpreted and aggressively promoted and portrayed as pejorative fact over a period of years.
For example it has taken Pegasus's investigative analysis to reveal that in his video, also in his book and in numerous media appearances over the years Mr Amaral postulated entirely the wrong information about Kate McCann's prints being on the wrong window, as proof she had opened the window contrary to what she said about how she had found it.
How could he have been so wrong? and what else did he misinterpret and get wrong?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 25, 2015, 04:35:13 PM
Well never fear, SY are here to put things to right. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: colombosstogey on May 25, 2015, 04:40:22 PM
If abduction occurred that is what I think could have happened Brie but it is a big IF. That would also explain the absence of any incriminating forensics within the apartment. Could also be a crying child attracted unwelcome attention on more than one night?
Would the child get onto the bed to be lifted though? Surely at 4 she is old enough to be wary of strangers and keep well away thought she would be too scared and it was dark in the room too.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on May 25, 2015, 04:42:03 PM
It has been a puzzlement why ... the window was open ... and the shutter was raised.
The most likely time for that to have occurred was after the last witness statement which placed Madeleine McCann sleeping soundly in her bed.
If you wish to discount witness evidence either because you have arbitrarily chosen which witnesses you will believe or because the statement does not fit the particular axe you are grinding ... be my guest ... but it is evidence nonetheless.
Heri has demonstrated exactly the method that could have been used. http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html and why you have deduced from that, the suggestion that to make it possible he would have to accuse Jane Tanner of lying about anything is beyond me.
His hypothesis explains a lot and makes a nonsense of the accused 'staged' scenario.
(a) demonstrates method (b) demonstrates time taken (c) demonstrates no entry was required (d) demonstrates that the burden of the child could have precluded closing both window and shutter
Anyone with an awareness that burglaries had been taking place where ingress was via a window, two of which had occurred in the same apartment block as the one from which a child had vanished, would I think have taken that on board to arrive at a different theory from the one which drove the investigation.
He has put the time of her sighting back by over half an hour. It is he who is choosing not to believe a witness.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 25, 2015, 04:58:02 PM
Would the child get onto the bed to be lifted though? Surely at 4 she is old enough to be wary of strangers and keep well away thought she would be too scared and it was dark in the room too.
The open window and shutter has always bothered me but there is another possibility which has never to my knowledge been explored.
A burglar could have again targeted block 5 thinking the occupants were all out, lifted the shutter and opened the window. Realising he had just disturbed a young child he panicks and scarpers. The scared Madeleine then gets up only to find her parents gone so attempts to look for them, opens the unlocked front door and disappears into the night.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 25, 2015, 05:06:35 PM
if we look at all the facts...facts are evidence... in the case we can see that the most likely cause by a mile for Maddie's disappearance is abduction...hence SYs remit
You keep saying that even though most missing children either wander, leave home or are removed by a relative.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 25, 2015, 05:24:09 PM
He has put the time of her sighting back by over half an hour. It is he who is choosing not to believe a witness.
Heri does not refute what the witness has said any more than Scotland Yard did ... had you read further you would have been able to follow his reasoning on the vagaries of memory and on why Jane may have got her times wrong. I recommend reading it as it is interesting in whatever context ... but I suggest that you withdraw the statement that he " is choosing not to believe a witness " ... because you have got that entirely wrong.
**snip Jane Tanner was in a similar context twice in half an hour: she went from Tapas Bar to Block 5 at 21:15 and at 21:45 that day.
I think she saw Gerry and Jez at 21:15, but she saw the abductor with Madeleine at 21:45.
After the processes of attention, perception, storing in memory, redefinition of the importance of the sighting a posteriori, discussion with her friends, and recalling memories, she mistakenly reports the two situations in a similar context as occurring both at 21:15.
A burglar could have ... thinking the occupants were all out, lifted the shutter and opened the window. Realising he had just disturbed a young child he panicks and scarpers. The scared ....
Precisely. And I had thought no-one else could see this. But you can. A complete solution of the first room in one line.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 05:51:45 PM
If anyone ever wanted to discount JT as a witness, this is the way to do it.
Who wants to discount Jane Tanner as a witness ... apart from those who called her liar for years?
As far as SY are concerned she is a credible witness and I think that opinion carries a lot of weight.
Pity it took six years after the event for competent investigation to tie up two witness statements and crèche records into the resolution which allowed progression to other pieces of evidence to be checked in their turn.
One wonders what other evidence was overlooked as this so obviously was.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 05:54:11 PM
Precisely. And I had thought no-one else could see this. But you can. A complete solution of the first room in one line.
How is it complete when there is no way of knowing if the window was left open? And thus able to be slid open from outside? IIRC Kate Mccann said in one of her statements the window was shut.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 25, 2015, 05:58:04 PM
How is it complete when there is no way of knowing if the window was left open? And thus able to be slid open from outside? IIRC Kate Mccann said in one of her statements the window was shut.
Oh mercury, I dont believe it.
Maybe you are new to the scene, but Kate says that the window was shut when they went out. When she came back, it was open. Dont you remember Kate saying about the door slamming and the curtains whooshing? The window had to be open for that.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 25, 2015, 06:02:08 PM
How is it complete when there is no way of knowing if the window was left open? And thus able to be slid open from outside? IIRC Kate Mccann said in one of her statements the window was shut.
The statements of both the adult tenants say they do not know whether the window was locked or not.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 06:08:34 PM
Who wants to discount Jane Tanner as a witness ... apart from those who called her liar for years?
As far as SY are concerned she is a credible witness and I think that opinion carries a lot of weight.
Pity it took six years after the event for competent investigation to tie up two witness statements and crèche records into the resolution which allowed progression to other pieces of evidence to be checked in their turn.
One wonders what other evidence was overlooked as this so obviously was.
The more her story changes the less it can be trusted.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 25, 2015, 06:45:29 PM
The fingerprint forensics are hard evidence. (i've used them to make an opinion that the witness who said the window was already open is telling the truth). Also the photographs taken that night by the PJ of all the rooms and balcony are hard evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 08:39:51 PM
Maybe you are new to the scene, but Kate says that the window was shut when they went out. When she came back, it was open. Dont you remember Kate saying about the door slamming and the curtains whooshing? The window had to be open for that.
The discussion was about how the window came to be opened from the outside as per Heribert's theory.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 25, 2015, 09:09:47 PM
A quick google brings up kitchen appliances! What's a CDA?
8()-000(
Ask Brietta and one or two others I make reference to it a lot; they have never queried it so either know or unlike you are too embarrassed to show they don't.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 25, 2015, 09:41:34 PM
Ask Brietta and one or two others I make reference to it a lot; they have never queried it so either know or unlike you are too embarrassed to show they don't.
I'd rather not if it's OK as all responses to questions and comments come as a sarcastic scolding and a lesson or accusation or two rammed
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 09:56:05 PM
Give the closed window a tiny sideways push and it slides open. There is hard video evidence of this.
If a window with a handle is closed, I don't believe it can just be slid open but if there is video evidence of this, I'd love to see it. What's the point of a handle/closing mechanism then?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 25, 2015, 10:00:35 PM
Like I said, the photos taken in the apartment that same night are hard evidence. For example if we want to know what was at a certain location in the apartment. A photo taken that night is hard evidence of what was there. No guessing required. IMO the PJ photo evidence can be used to show that a certain accusation by the original joint investigation was illogical at best.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2015, 10:03:35 PM
Like I said, the photos taken in the apartment that same night are hard evidence. For example if we want to know what was at a certain location in the apartment. A photo taken that night is hard evidence of what was there. No guessing required. IMO the PJ photo evidence can be used to show that a certain accusation by the original joint investigation was illogical at best.
?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 25, 2015, 10:31:32 PM
The open window and shutter has always bothered me but there is another possibility which has never to my knowledge been explored.
A burglar could have again targeted block 5 thinking the occupants were all out, lifted the shutter and opened the window. Realising he had just disturbed a young child he panicks and scarpers. The scared Madeleine then gets up only to find her parents gone so attempts to look for them, opens the unlocked front door and disappears into the night.
Not impossible, in theory, and I'd wondered about it as well, but I just can't imagine a not-quite-four-year-old quietly going out of the front door into the night into what may have seemed like a creepy parking lot having just been frightened by a bogeyman.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 25, 2015, 10:44:52 PM
Would the child get onto the bed to be lifted though? Surely at 4 she is old enough to be wary of strangers and keep well away thought she would be too scared and it was dark in the room too.
Nothing's impossible, but I just can't imagine why a child of that age would happily wander off towards a stranger who'd lifted a noisy blind and opened a window at night.
Wandering off towards a puppy or kitten during the day, yes, but would even that kind of lure work at night?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 25, 2015, 11:16:33 PM
Nothing's impossible, but I just can't imagine why a child of that age would happily wander off towards a stranger who'd lifted a noisy blind and opened a window at night.
Wandering off towards a puppy or kitten during the day, yes, but would even that kind of lure work at night?
Why not look at the instinctive direction instead? And BTW there is a huge physical clue confirming what the direction was.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 25, 2015, 11:32:08 PM
According to Kate Mccann the window was closed, as it had been all week, so how did the intruder open it from outside?
Pegasus thinks he got lucky finding an unlocked window after lifting noisy shutters but the kids wouldn't hear them. They have to ignore the obvious to try and find their truth. A door was said to be moved and Tannerman was the one. Their abductor has gone - SY have got rid so all eyes are now on the hidden less important one. But not for number 1 enemy Amaral. That man was firmly in his sights. Somebody was in the apartment not via the window and took her out not via the window and he is still unidentified.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 26, 2015, 12:28:07 AM
Pegasus thinks he got lucky finding an unlocked window after lifting noisy shutters but the kids wouldn't hear them. They have to ignore the obvious to try and find their truth. A door was said to be moved and Tannerman was the one. Their abductor has gone - SY have got rid so all eyes are now on the hidden less important one. But not for number 1 enemy Amaral. That man was firmly in his sights. Somebody was in the apartment not via the window and took her out not via the window and he is still unidentified.
Pegasus hasn't demonstrated that a) the window was open or able to be opened from a closed position or b) any evidence that a stranger opened it, unless I missed something
I am seeing so many different theories to try and prove Madeleine was abducted, including the stupid one by Heribert who thnks an abductor pulled Madeleine out of a window, just like that! Ala Tommy Cooper
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2015, 12:44:16 AM
If a window with a handle is closed, I don't believe it can just be slid open but if there is video evidence of this, I'd love to see it. What's the point of a handle/closing mechanism then?
Heriberto's video shows a sliding window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on May 26, 2015, 12:54:54 AM
Maybe you are new to the scene, but Kate says that the window was shut when they went out. When she came back, it was open. Dont you remember Kate saying about the door slamming and the curtains whooshing? The window had to be open for that.
There was no forensic evidence that either the shutter or the window were forced so if the window was shut/locked then it COULD NOT BE OPENED FROM THE OUTSIDE.
For the McCanns scenario to work the window was unlocked ie not secured.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 26, 2015, 09:44:56 AM
Not impossible, in theory, and I'd wondered about it as well, but I just can't imagine a not-quite-four-year-old quietly going out of the front door into the night into what may have seemed like a creepy parking lot having just been frightened by a bogeyman.
She could have thought it one of her parents and decided to go out?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on May 26, 2015, 09:57:42 AM
There are several statements by people who never checked the lock buttons on windows before they went out.
The burglar tries the window which takes a few seconds. If it slides he operates strap, if not he tries another apartment. Easy.
I think that may be too logical for some to grasp. Although one must remember that burglaries taking place on the Algarve were hotly disputed and Kate McCann was called a liar when she mentioned in her book the home invasions and assaults on British children which had taken place while their parents slept.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 26, 2015, 10:25:50 AM
I don't think a child of Madeleine's age would go out and wander off without her shoes on.
It is debatable whether she could reach the (yale type) lock on the wooden door and be able to open it, but had she done so she would have left prints, there is also the probability she would not have pulled it after her and with no through draft it would not have blown shut . I wonder if that was an area dusted for prints?
I agree that a child who was almost four would have put her shoes on before walking out. Of the cases I have looked at, the children have put on outerwear if they are old enough, so I would imagine they would put on their shoes ~ which most are capable of doing ~ or at least slippers.
The toddler, who just turned 3 last week, put on a pair of little ruby red shoes, threw her jacket on over her nightdress, and went out the front door without a sound. http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/22/news/down-east/3-year-old-baileyville-girl-leaves-home-walks-nearly-a-mile-to-the-store/
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 26, 2015, 10:34:14 AM
Heri does not refute what the witness has said any more than Scotland Yard did ... had you read further you would have been able to follow his reasoning on the vagaries of memory and on why Jane may have got her times wrong. I recommend reading it as it is interesting in whatever context ... but I suggest that you withdraw the statement that he " is choosing not to believe a witness " ... because you have got that entirely wrong.
**snip Jane Tanner was in a similar context twice in half an hour: she went from Tapas Bar to Block 5 at 21:15 and at 21:45 that day.
I think she saw Gerry and Jez at 21:15, but she saw the abductor with Madeleine at 21:45.
After the processes of attention, perception, storing in memory, redefinition of the importance of the sighting a posteriori, discussion with her friends, and recalling memories, she mistakenly reports the two situations in a similar context as occurring both at 21:15.
Pure speculation, not reasoning. SY accepted Jane's sighting at the time she said and produced the man she saw. How can someone promote a theory which relies on suggesting that a witness forgot, within an hour of the occurrence, when she saw something? Theories should fit the facts as known, not change them. Using the reasoning of your friend Heri we could have numerous theories if we suggest that no witnesses had a clue what time it was. Maybe Gerry and Jeremy were chatting at 9.50 too? @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 26, 2015, 11:11:54 AM
Why not look at the instinctive direction instead? And BTW there is a huge physical clue confirming what the direction was.
Kids aren't always predictable and whatever seems logical based on experience with some kids won't necessarily be what a particular child would do, but anyway...
The front door isn't impossible, but if she'd got up and decided to wander off, I'd have thought she'd head towards the light (a light in the living-room was on) and try to get out via the patio and downhill towards the Tapas (noise, possibly familiar voices, and more light). Running that way would make more sense as well if she'd been frightened by someone tampering with the blind / window.
But then, would a child that age have thought to close the patio door, the child gate (unless it automatically sprang back to close) and the bottom gate (unless that, too, had a tendency to swing back to closed)? And wouldn't she have instinctively taken Cuddle Cat with her? I'm less convinced she'd have put shoes on unless she had slip-on sandals (i.e., no straps to fiddle with).
I can only think of a few likely reactions if scared by noise: - freeze, grab CC and pull the bedclothes over her head. This didn't happen, judging by the way the bed was left. - scream the place down (but no one heard a child that night), grab CC and run out of the patio. However, that would assume that the handle was accessible to her and that she was strong enough to slide it (possible), and, particularly if scared, would she have thought to close it behind her?
An alternative, which I find plausible, is that she'd got out of bed for a pee (hence bed still tidy and no thought to grab CC) and was already up when an intruder did get in via whichever way. A big hand over a little face to stop her screaming could have unintentially killed her or at least knocked her out. The next question, IMO, would the intruder have carried off a dead / unconscious child or just let her drop and run off?
It may seem intuitive to speculate drop and run as the most likely, but Vincent Tabak went to considerable effort to carry out and hide poor Jo Yeates's body.
The problem with all of that is that there is no hard evidence... Wouldn't a child leave prints on the patio door? Would that necessarily mean anything significant if there had been? (She had lived there for five days.)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 26, 2015, 02:09:59 PM
I don't think a child of Madeleine's age would go out and wander off without her shoes on.
I can't believe you posted that Benice, are you a parent? Young children routinely wander about without shoes on, maybe she was woken by a burglar opening the window, thought it was mum or dad so jumped out of bed and went over to see.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 26, 2015, 02:12:03 PM
It is debatable whether she could reach the (yale type) lock on the wooden door and be able to open it, but had she done so she would have left prints, there is also the probability she would not have pulled it after her and with no through draft it would not have blown shut . I wonder if that was an area dusted for prints?
I agree that a child who was almost four would have put her shoes on before walking out. Of the cases I have looked at, the children have put on outerwear if they are old enough, so I would imagine they would put on their shoes ~ which most are capable of doing ~ or at least slippers.
The toddler, who just turned 3 last week, put on a pair of little ruby red shoes, threw her jacket on over her nightdress, and went out the front door without a sound. http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/22/news/down-east/3-year-old-baileyville-girl-leaves-home-walks-nearly-a-mile-to-the-store/
There would have been a through draught if a burglar had opened the shutter and window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 26, 2015, 02:40:04 PM
It is debatable whether she could reach the (yale type) lock on the wooden door and be able to open it, but had she done so she would have left prints, there is also the probability she would not have pulled it after her and with no through draft it would not have blown shut . I wonder if that was an area dusted for prints?
I agree that a child who was almost four would have put her shoes on before walking out. Of the cases I have looked at, the children have put on outerwear if they are old enough, so I would imagine they would put on their shoes ~ which most are capable of doing ~ or at least slippers.
The toddler, who just turned 3 last week, put on a pair of little ruby red shoes, threw her jacket on over her nightdress, and went out the front door without a sound. http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/22/news/down-east/3-year-old-baileyville-girl-leaves-home-walks-nearly-a-mile-to-the-store/
In 5A the shoes were not missing, they were still there. Any "went outside to find adults" theory needs to insert the word "barefoot" and provide a logical reason for that.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on May 26, 2015, 04:40:11 PM
I can't believe you posted that Benice, are you a parent? Young children routinely wander about without shoes on, maybe she was woken by a burglar opening the window, thought it was mum or dad so jumped out of bed and went over to see.
Yes I am a parent Angelo. I also know what it's like to step on a tiny pebble with bare feet. It hurts. I'm not disputing that an almost 4yr old would go outside with no shoes on - but I can't see them walking any distance on a hard surface like a carpark or a footpath. A four year old is quite capable of putting on their own shoes in my experience - and they are also aware that putting their shoes on before they go out is something they always do first.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2015, 04:52:18 PM
Nothing's impossible, but I just can't imagine why a child of that age would happily wander off towards a stranger who'd lifted a noisy blind and opened a window at night. Wandering off towards a puppy or kitten during the day, yes, but would even that kind of lure work at night?
Why not look at the instinctive direction instead? And BTW there is a huge physical clue confirming what the direction was.
Heriberto's theory IMO leaves the room in this state: Bedroom window open. Bedroom shutter open. Bedroom door almost closed.
Heriberto's theory after correction by replacing his "walks towards window" with "instinctively goes in the direction away from danger" leaves the room in this state. Bedroom window= open Bedroom shutter = open. Bedroom door = open.
The huge clue which immeditly tells us the real direction is: the bedroom door. In what position was the bedroom door found at 10pm? open.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on May 26, 2015, 05:59:01 PM
Heriberto's theory IMO leaves the room in this state: Bedroom window open. Bedroom shutter open. Bedroom door almost closed.
Heriberto's theory after correction by replacing his "walks towards window" with "instinctively goes in the direction away from danger" leaves the room in this state. Bedroom window= open Bedroom shutter = open. Bedroom door = open.
The huge clue which immeditly tells us the real direction is: the bedroom door. In what position was the bedroom door found at 10pm? open.
That theory does not explain why the door had moved on at least one previous occasion that night. Had Madeleine left her bedroom, where would she have headed? Her parents' room? Had that door moved? Where would she have tried to hide? No evidence of any disturbance to the furniture. There have been previous discussions about the draught coming through the opening patio door during checks. If that was the case, does that suggest that on previous evenings that either a)there was little or no wind or b)Thursday really was the first night the rear door was used for access?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 26, 2015, 06:03:13 PM
So as there is no hard evidence...there is no case against the parents
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 26, 2015, 06:16:45 PM
Heriberto's theory IMO leaves the room in this state: Bedroom window open. Bedroom shutter open. Bedroom door almost closed.
Heriberto's theory after correction by replacing his "walks towards window" with "instinctively goes in the direction away from danger" leaves the room in this state. Bedroom window= open Bedroom shutter = open. Bedroom door = open.
The huge clue which immeditly tells us the real direction is: the bedroom door. In what position was the bedroom door found at 10pm? open.
Who told you the door moved and the window was open? The one who said the door moved didn't check the apartment and the one who said the window was open didn't check the car park. At least both are consistent with their strange behaviour.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2015, 07:49:38 PM
That theory does not explain why the door had moved on at least one previous occasion that night. Had Madeleine left her bedroom, where would she have headed? Her parents' room? Had that door moved? Where would she have tried to hide? No evidence of any disturbance to the furniture. There have been previous discussions about the draught coming through the opening patio door during checks. If that was the case, does that suggest that on previous evenings that either a)there was little or no wind or b)Thursday really was the first night the rear door was used for access?
Door open at 9.05pm would mean the child opened it to leave the room, to have a wee, its of no interest IMO because all is well at this time.
The door open at 10pm means the child opened it to leave the room IMO but obviously for a different reason.
A pint too many of draught beer and its easy for peeps to forget that 99% of times a door is opened, its opened by a person. There were three people in the apartment, only one of them was mobile, therefore that is who opened the door.
BTW the draught direction was the wrong way to open the door, see KM statement.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 26, 2015, 07:57:49 PM
Who told you the door moved and the window was open? The one who said the door moved didn't check the apartment and the one who said the window was open didn't check the car park. At least both are consistent with their strange behaviour.
IIRC in your theory the south bedroom is irrelevant because the child was not in there. What is the first room of great importance in your theory? Lets look at the hard evidence there.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2015, 09:42:19 PM
(This will be about hard evidence and its misinterpretation) At the restarant last night Fred was wearing a pink shirt. Where was his green shirt? It is not a trick question its commonsense. An approximate answer will do.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 26, 2015, 10:11:49 PM
Do you agree with Angelo that there would be a through draught if there were two north facing openings and no others?
That would depend on, but not limited to, how well the south elevation is sealed, the wind velocity, its direction, any heating effect inside the building and any forced ventilation.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 26, 2015, 10:26:03 PM
IIRC in your theory the south bedroom is irrelevant because the child was not in there. What is the first room of great importance in your theory? Lets look at the hard evidence there.
Who said the child was in bed? Who said the door moved? Who said the window was open? Who said she was tired so didn't go out to play? Who didn't go to the beach with the others? Who said the apartment was unlocked at 8:30 so why did he use a key?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 26, 2015, 10:31:52 PM
(This will be about hard evidence and its misinterpretation) At the restarant last night Fred was wearing a pink shirt. Where was his green shirt? It is not a trick question its commonsense. An approximate answer will do.
OK, I will bite. At home in his wardrobe.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 26, 2015, 10:37:34 PM
Door open at 9.05pm would mean the child opened it to leave the room, to have a wee, its of no interest IMO because all is well at this time.
The door open at 10pm means the child opened it to leave the room IMO but obviously for a different reason.
A pint too many of draught beer and its easy for peeps to forget that 99% of times a door is opened, its opened by a person. There were three people in the apartment, only one of them was mobile, therefore that is who opened the door.
BTW the draught direction was the wrong way to open the door, see KM statement.
Matt found the door in the same position as Gerry said it moved to but that was supposed to be Kate's check @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 26, 2015, 11:51:44 PM
Matt found the door in the same position as Gerry said it moved to but that was supposed to be Kate's check @)(++(*
If there was no evidence of someone illegally gaining access to 5a, why, after 7 years, did somebody in Portugal claim the OC copy keys to block 5 were lost in the days before Madeleine went missing?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 27, 2015, 12:42:33 AM
I think that once again [soz] you have got it all wrong. £5%4%
Cites please Pfinder.
Read the statements I'm right and you are wrong. You always accuse me of being wrong when you are and it's getting tiresome. Moved from ajar to half-open then back to ajar (Gerry's check) then half-open. Kate was scheduled to do the 9:30 check not Matt. So Matt found the door in the same position as where Gerry said it moved to.
At 20H35, they left the apartment in the direction of the TAPAS. Before they left and because the children's bedroom door was ajar as always, he opened it a little more, listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence he did not enter, returning the door to its previous position, with a space of about 10cm.
At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were. ----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described
Around 9.30pm was the time the interviewee should have gone to see her children, but her friend Matt (a member of the group) had just done a check in his apartment then gone to the interviewee's.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
So Matt didn't tell them he saw it half-open but he told the police. That was my revelation moment ?>)()<
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on May 27, 2015, 01:52:01 AM
Read the statements I'm right and you are wrong. You always accuse me of being wrong when you are and it's getting tiresome. Moved from ajar to half-open then back to ajar (Gerry's check) then half-open. Kate was scheduled to do the 9:30 check not Matt. So Matt found the door in the same position as where Gerry said it moved to.
At 20H35, they left the apartment in the direction of the TAPAS. Before they left and because the children's bedroom door was ajar as always, he opened it a little more, listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence he did not enter, returning the door to its previous position, with a space of about 10cm.
At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were. ----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described
Around 9.30pm was the time the interviewee should have gone to see her children, but her friend Matt (a member of the group) had just done a check in his apartment then gone to the interviewee's.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
So Matt didn't tell them he saw it half-open but he told the police. That was my revelation moment ?>)()<
Why would Matt mention the door position after his check? It wasn't important at that time. Door positions would have only been discussed at a later stage.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 27, 2015, 10:37:03 AM
(This will be about hard evidence and its misinterpretation) At the restarant last night Fred was wearing a pink shirt. Where was his green shirt? It is not a trick question its commonsense. An approximate answer will do.
Where is it stated that Fred had a green one?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 27, 2015, 11:44:43 AM
Why would Matt mention the door position after his check? It wasn't important at that time. Door positions would have only been discussed at a later stage.
At least is good to see that witness statements made by the McCann party are accepted as being a true record of events.
It shows the value of taking statements, collating them, and with that evidence being able to move to the next step.
The witnesses detailed the scene as they saw it, at the time each was in ignorance of the others' experience. I see no great mystery or conspiracy here.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 29, 2015, 05:12:35 AM
Good. His green shirt is at home. For example might be in a wardrobe or a laundry basket, something like that. Final question, then I promise to get to some hard evidence. While Fred is at the restaurant wearing his pink shirt, I scribble on his green shirt at his home. Does Fred sitting at the restaurant have any knowledge of this? (it's not a trick question)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 29, 2015, 08:44:43 AM
Good. His green shirt is at home. For example might be in a wardrobe or a laundry basket, something like that. Final question, then I promise to get to some hard evidence. While Fred is at the restaurant wearing his pink shirt, I scribble on his green shirt at his home. Does Fred sitting at the restaurant have any knowledge of this? (it's not a trick question)
Not unless there's some kind of communication system - you and Fred are in contact by phone and you admit it; or a third party informs Fred; or Fred has CCTV remote access to his laundry basket.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 29, 2015, 01:45:52 PM
Not unless there's some kind of communication system - you and Fred are in contact by phone and you admit it; or a third party informs Fred; or Fred has CCTV remote access to his laundry basket.
Or it is by pre-arrangement.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 29, 2015, 02:19:21 PM
Not sure where Pegasus is going with this, but I expect that there's an interesting concept behind it... If the idea is about "hard evidence", what are the options other than a recorded CCTV clip with an accurate recording time catching Pegasus red-handed?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 29, 2015, 05:00:31 PM
Not sure where Pegasus is going with this, but I expect that there's an interesting concept behind it... If the idea is about "hard evidence", what are the options other than a recorded CCTV clip with an accurate recording time catching Pegasus red-handed?
I don't know what sort of processes go on inside Pegasus' brain ... I was sooo impressed 8@??)( with the deduction regarding the fingerprints ... that I doubt very much if that can be surpassed.
So come on Pegasus!! Don't keep us in suspense ... what have you come up with this time?
It will be on topic ... because you always are ... so it is evidence. Just where are you taking us with it?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on May 29, 2015, 05:18:27 PM
I don't know what sort of processes go on inside Pegasus' brain ... I was sooo impressed 8@??)( with the deduction regarding the fingerprints ... that I doubt very much if that can be surpassed.
So come on Pegasus!! Don't keep us in suspense ... what have you come up with this time?
It will be on topic ... because you always are ... so it is evidence. Just where are you taking us with it?
I too was VERY impressed by the fingerprint deductions, but whilst good, Pegasus doesn't always get it right
I wonder if this conundrum is setting us up for "whilst Kate was at the table, Gerry was at the apartment doing nasty things" .... or the reverse. Or Matt etc doing nasty things?
Hope that I am wrong.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 29, 2015, 05:48:52 PM
I too was VERY impressed by the fingerprint deductions, but whilst good, Pegasus doesn't always get it right
I wonder if this conundrum is setting us up for "whilst Kate was at the table, Gerry was at the apartment doing nasty things" .... or the reverse. Or Matt etc doing nasty things?
Hope that I am wrong.
Ah, only impressed when headed in one direction.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 30, 2015, 05:28:35 AM
Peeps have missed the important conclusion that the window and shutter being opened from outside leads to. It solves who opens the internal door. And that's one thing Mr A did get right IMO.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 30, 2015, 09:32:37 AM
Peeps have missed the important conclusion that the window and shutter being opened from outside leads to. It solves who opens the internal door. And that's one thing Mr A did get right IMO.
perhaps you could explain what you think we have missed...at the moment you are not making much sense I'm afraid
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 30, 2015, 11:16:21 AM
I dont think that you are very scientifically minded, Angelo. I don't think that you understand the nature of draughts. 8)-)))
Try and work out what I am saying, there's a good fella. 8((()*/
Kate is adamant that there was 'whooooshing' are you calling her a liar?
"I wonder if this conundrum is setting us up for "whilst Kate was at the table, Gerry was at the apartment doing nasty things" .... or the reverse. Or Matt etc doing nasty things?"
Well, that is what the McCanns are telling us... something nasty happened to Maddie in that apartment... and for her to disappear allegedly from that apartment is worth looking at.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 30, 2015, 11:56:36 AM
Peeps have missed the important conclusion that the window and shutter being opened from outside leads to. It solves who opens the internal door. And that's one thing Mr A did get right IMO.
I don't follow you on that...
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 30, 2015, 01:40:50 PM
So somebody opened the window and the child opened the bedroom door and went into the living room. Nobody went through the window and if any intruder opened a window (that was conveniently unlocked) how did they get inside. If they had a key they wouldn't open a window to try and gain access from that side. The other side was unlocked so nobody was watching the apartment in that scenario because they would know it was unlocked. No door or gates were found open. This case will be solved when they find out what was going on inside 5A at 6:30 because all later evidence connects to that time period. They must be tracking phone evidence to where they're searching or Smithman. Phone evidence can be used as hard evidence if they find anything and connect it.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on May 30, 2015, 03:14:18 PM
So somebody opened the window and the child opened the bedroom door and went into the living room. Nobody went through the window and if any intruder opened a window (that was conveniently unlocked) how did they get inside. If they had a key they wouldn't open a window to try and gain access from that side. The other side was unlocked so nobody was watching the apartment in that scenario because they would know it was unlocked. No door or gates were found open. This case will be solved when they find out what was going on inside 5A at 6:30 because all later evidence connects to that time period. They must be tracking phone evidence to where they're searching or Smithman. Phone evidence can be used as hard evidence if they find anything and connect it.
Is this relevant? I wonder if the 1700 time is correct?;
"I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne." but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
When asked with whom he was on the afternoon of May 3rd, he declares that this information was already offered to the police and cannot remember if anyone else was there.
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 30, 2015, 05:41:54 PM
Is this relevant? I wonder if the 1700 time is correct?;
"I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne." but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
When asked with whom he was on the afternoon of May 3rd, he declares that this information was already offered to the police and cannot remember if anyone else was there.
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
Is this relevant? I wonder if the 1700 time is correct?;
"I read carefully the written document/questionnaire provided by David Payne." but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
When asked with whom he was on the afternoon of May 3rd, he declares that this information was already offered to the police and cannot remember if anyone else was there.
I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her depositions, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
I've never understood what the LP chap was actually reading. It sounds as if it had been through some kind of automatic translator or he'd been sent a draft translation.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on May 30, 2015, 06:24:50 PM
So in theory David Payne could have been at the McCann apartment at 17H00, but were the McCanns both there at that time? Not according to the statements, I think. Fiona says she left her apartment and went for a run at 19H30, not 19H00, so could she have been at the apartment at 19H00? It's a very strange bit of information from this Leicester policeman.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 30, 2015, 06:31:29 PM
So in theory David Payne could have been at the McCann apartment at 17H00, but were the McCanns both there at that time? Not according to the statements, I think. Fiona says she left her apartment and went for a run at 19H30, not 19H00, so could she have been at the apartment at 19H00? It's a very strange bit of information from this Leicester policeman.
It sounds like he was trying to understand gibberish.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on May 30, 2015, 06:46:03 PM
This is potential hard evidence as it suggests the truth of the kids bath time is being hidden for some reason.
00:44:18 1485 "Okay, and when you finished, I'm just trying to put this in order here, when you actually, when you finished and you went back to the apartment, did you say anything to Gerry about, about the fact that his family were fine' Or''
Reply "Yeah, err yeah, I haven't mentioned this before, but yes, yeah I'd certainly, when we met up I said oh yeah, you know everything's fine there, you know probably along the lines of you know you've got a bit more of a free pass you know you can carry on for a bit longer, Kate's fine without everyone you know all the children are, are happy, there's no difficulties with bath time or anything so you know, without actually saying all that just conveying to him that you know I don't think you need to err rush back, you've got a free pass for a bit longer.' (DP)
Gerry said, were just absolutely knackered and Kate was getting them bathed and ready for bed. (FP)
That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men. (GM)
They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM, earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00PM. At the flat they both bathed the children, and close to 6:00PM Gerry went to the tennis courts, soon after the children had finished their bath. (KM)
Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes. After showering, at around 6:30/6:40PM and while she was getting dry, she heard somebody knocking at the veranda door. She wrapped herself in a towel and went to see who it was. This door was closed but not locked as Gerry had left by this door. She confirmed it was David Payne. (KM Sep)
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example'' Reply "I can't, no.' (DP)
Madeleine and the twins went to bed at around 7.30. They were in their respective beds. The interviewee and her husband stayed in their apartment to relax until 8.30pm. She took a bath, did her make-up and drank a glass of New Zealand wine with her husband. Just after 8.30pm, the interviewee and her husband, after checking on their children, joined the other adults of the group at the "TAPAS" restaurant. (KM May)
At 19H30, the twins were already in their respective cots and MADELEINE in the bed next to the bedroom door. He does not know if they were asleep but from the silence he presumed that they were. As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already had one, they talked a little and drank wine or beer. (GM 10 May)
After dinner at 17.00, they would bath the children and get them ready for the night and play with them for a few moments in the recreation area near the tennis courts, always supervised by the parents. (GM 4 May)
At 17h00 the OCEAN CLUB nursery care workers conducted MADELEINE and the other children in creche on the 1st floor of the main reception to [the area] next to the TAPAS, under awnings, where they [the children] had dinner under the supervision of the employees and, at times, with their parents. The dinner ended at 17h30 the time at which the employee supervision ended and the parents took over watching the children in the play area until 18h30. Following this they returned to the apartment, the deponent opened the main door with his key and, then, the rear door through which KATE and the children entered. ----- The hygiene done, the children were put to bed about 19h30, it being that the deponent and KATE left for dinner at the TAPAS at 20h30. Between 19h30 and 20h30 they took a bath and drank wine, Portuguese or New Zealand, and a beer. (GM 10 May)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 30, 2015, 11:24:23 PM
The person was planning to climb in but didn't because he saw/heard someone inside the room go out that door. It's the only possible scenario which fits the hard evidence of the window and shutter and bedroom door and solves the riddle of why the person suddenly changed mind about climbing in. So Mr Amaral was right about who pulled that bedroom door open and went into another room IMO..
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 30, 2015, 11:48:49 PM
The person was planning to climb in but didn't because he saw/heard someone inside the room go out that door. It's the only possible scenario which fits the hard evidence of the window and shutter and bedroom door and solves the riddle of why the person suddenly changed mind about climbing in. So Mr Amaral was right about who pulled that bedroom door open and went into another room IMO..
Certainly is a reasonable explanation of the open window ... but it didn't have to be Madeleine who was seen ... the abductor could already have been in the apartment having gained entry via the front door with a key or through the patio door.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 12:27:23 AM
Not unless there's some kind of communication system - you and Fred are in contact by phone and you admit it; or a third party informs Fred; or Fred has CCTV remote access to his laundry basket.
No tricks, he cannot see his green shirt from the restaurant. Moving from that fiction case, imagine a clothing item is alerted, but the person who owns it says it was not being worn on that evening and truthfully knows nothing that could cause the indication. The crimescene photos are the hard evidence. They prove that there were large numbers of clothing not being worn but laying in apartment. So the witness is right, and this interpretation by the investigation, of an alert, was incorrect.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 12:40:23 AM
Certainly is a reasonable explanation of the open window ... but it didn't have to be Madeleine who was seen ... the abductor could already have been in the apartment having gained entry via the front door with a key or through the patio door.
KM's account says that that someone had opened the shutter and window and I believe it.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 31, 2015, 01:06:33 AM
No tricks, he cannot see his green shirt from the restaurant. Moving from that fiction case, imagine a clothing item is alerted, but the person who owns it says it was not being worn on that evening and truthfully knows nothing that could cause the indication. The crimescene photos are the hard evidence. They prove that there were large numbers of clothing not being worn but laying in apartment. So the witness is right, and this interpretation by the investigation, of an alert, was incorrect.
The crime scene photos only reflect the state of the apartment at 2-3am, when they were taken. We do not know what was where at 10pm. Can you see any sports clothing laying around?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 31, 2015, 01:24:32 AM
KM's account says that that someone had opened the shutter and window and I believe it.
... and so do I ... however I totally reject Mr Amaral's theory ... I firmly believe there was a stranger in that apartment and like you I don't think entry was made via the window, although there is absolutely nothing to say it wasn't.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 02:05:43 AM
... and so do I ... however I totally reject Mr Amaral's theory ... I firmly believe there was a stranger in that apartment and like you I don't think entry was made via the window, although there is absolutely nothing to say it wasn't.
You could turn my theory into an abduction from a hiding place in another room. But not likley, because any burglar would flee asa he saw someone running out the room, he would not climb in.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 31, 2015, 04:20:52 AM
... and so do I ... however I totally reject Mr Amaral's theory ... I firmly believe there was a stranger in that apartment and like you I don't think entry was made via the window, although there is absolutely nothing to say it wasn't.
Entry via the window.
1. You have to know the shutter can be pushed up from the outside, something which is extremely unusual, but obviously in this case it worked.
2. You have to be able to get through double-glazed windows with not sign of them being forced. The only way I can work this is the cleaner was deliberately leaving windows unlocked so a collaborator thief could burgle. I have no interest in an opportunity thief came along, tried the shutter perchance, found that Kate had left the window open, then decided to snatch Madeleine. I rate alien abduction as more probable.
Assuming the window was not an entry point, we can move on to more interesting questions.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 01:50:46 PM
1. You have to know the shutter can be pushed up from the outside, something which is extremely unusual, but obviously in this case it worked.
2. You have to be able to get through double-glazed windows with not sign of them being forced. The only way I can work this is the cleaner was deliberately leaving windows unlocked so a collaborator thief could burgle. I have no interest in an opportunity thief came along, tried the shutter perchance, found that Kate had left the window open, then decided to snatch Madeleine. I rate alien abduction as more probable.
Assuming the window was not an entry point, we can move on to more interesting questions.
1. There is evidence that burglars did know that this design shutter can be raised a little from outside. See photo of the shutter of the window of 5G upstairs. It is the same design and IMO same method was used there. Same method probably at 5L. And 5J by PJ. All had same design shutters and windows as 5A.
2. The burglar raises the shutter a little, and tries the window. It takes a few seconds. If window is locked he goes away. Sometimes people don't bother checking if window is locked, because they get false sense of security from shutters, see rogs.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 31, 2015, 02:10:10 PM
You could turn my theory into an abduction from a hiding place in another room. But not likley, because any burglar would flee asa he saw someone running out the room, he would not climb in.
No-one knows what a burglar may be capable of. Drugs dependency has been mentioned in the tabloids in relation to other burglaries and at the end of the day anything with a value will be vulnerable either to pay a drug debt or ensure a fix.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 31, 2015, 02:12:40 PM
1. You have to know the shutter can be pushed up from the outside, something which is extremely unusual, but obviously in this case it worked.
2. You have to be able to get through double-glazed windows with not sign of them being forced. The only way I can work this is the cleaner was deliberately leaving windows unlocked so a collaborator thief could burgle. I have no interest in an opportunity thief came along, tried the shutter perchance, found that Kate had left the window open, then decided to snatch Madeleine. I rate alien abduction as more probable.
Assuming the window was not an entry point, we can move on to more interesting questions.
If ever the window was left unlocked, a cleaner deliberately leaving the window unlocked for an accomplice would seem to be a possibility, but it could also be that in the general rush to clean the apartment for the next guests, ensuring that the window was actually locked simply wasn't on the checklist of reminders.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 02:34:18 PM
If ever the window was left unlocked, a cleaner deliberately leaving the window unlocked for an accomplice would seem to be a possibility, but it could also be that in the general rush to clean the apartment for the next guests, ensuring that the window was actually locked simply wasn't on the checklist of reminders.
There is direct evidence in the rogs that some other members of this group of tourists thought there was no need to check whether or not windows were locked, because they thought closed shutters alone provided complete security. The cleaners would be under the same illusion as the doctors, because neither the doctors or the cleaners are burglars.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 31, 2015, 02:40:47 PM
There is direct evidence in the rogs that some other members of this group of tourists thought there was no need to check whether or not windows were locked, because they thought closed shutters alone provided complete security. The cleaners would be under the same illusion as the doctors, because neither the doctors or the cleaners are burglars.
All pretty irrelevant, though, if you then go out, deliberately leaving the 'back door' unlocked.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 02:53:29 PM
Before that night, the group didnt check whether windows were locked or not:
"The windows, to be honest, in x’s room, we didn’t ever check the window." “we assumed they were locked”
But after the disappearance obviously the whole group checked whether their windows were locked or not. Here is indisputable hard evidence, that many windows were unlocked.
"I checked some of the windows in our apartment and they weren’t locked"
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 31, 2015, 02:59:10 PM
What a feckless lot they appear to have been.
Just trying using that excuse in any insurance claim and see where it gets you @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 03:21:46 PM
Just trying using that excuse in any insurance claim and see where it gets you @)(++(*
The important thing is that the 2 peeps I quoted above (FP DW) are being completely honest. They give us extremely valuable information. That many windows were unlocked. It could not be more important. It means 5A south north bedroom window and shutter were almost certainly opened from outside. Then it is elementary to work out the next few seconds, and there is only one solution possible for who pulled open the door. (Edited to correct a wrong word error by me).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 03:46:09 PM
Using only the hard evidence of the technical designs of the window and shutter and internal door, and the fingerprints and handmarks, and the account of the honest witness who discovered the scene, one room is solved. The progress made is about 3 metres, into another room.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 31, 2015, 04:44:30 PM
The important thing is that the 2 peeps I quoted above (FP DW) are being completely honest. They give us extremely valuable information. That many windows were unlocked. It could not be more important. It means 5A south bedroom window and shutter were almost certainly opened from outside. Then it is elementary to work out the next few seconds, and there is only one solution possible for who pulled open the door.
The windows must surely lock themselves. And you press the button in to open and slide. Is that correct?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 31, 2015, 06:12:21 PM
There is direct evidence in the rogs that some other members of this group of tourists thought there was no need to check whether or not windows were locked, because they thought closed shutters alone provided complete security. The cleaners would be under the same illusion as the doctors, because neither the doctors or the cleaners are burglars.
The doctors were visitors who were unfamiliar with shutters and their mechanism. The cleaners were locals and eminently familiar with the workings of the shutters.
Easy to deduce that the Portuguese cleaners most certainly would not be under the same illusion as the British doctors. The Portuguese were familiar with shuttered windows probably from birth.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on May 31, 2015, 06:17:59 PM
The important thing is that the 2 peeps I quoted above (FP DW) are being completely honest. They give us extremely valuable information. That many windows were unlocked. It could not be more important. It means 5A south bedroom window and shutter were almost certainly opened from outside. Then it is elementary to work out the next few seconds, and there is only one solution possible for who pulled open the door.
I really don't follow you on that. And you mention the "south" bedroom window / blind?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 06:29:27 PM
The doctors were visitors who were unfamiliar with shutters and their mechanism. The cleaners were locals and eminently familiar with the workings of the shutters.
Easy to deduce that the Portuguese cleaners most certainly would not be under the same illusion as the British doctors. The Portuguese were familiar with shuttered windows probably from birth.
Some of the windows at 5G were unlocked. Definitely. See DW rog. And 5G was cleaned. This proves that cleaners leave things how they find them - its not their job to lock windows that aren't locked.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on May 31, 2015, 06:54:50 PM
Some of the windows at 5G were unlocked. Definitely. See DW rog. And 5G was cleaned. This proves that cleaners leave things how they find them - its not their job to lock windows that aren't locked.
The doctors were under the impression that that when the shutters were down they were, in effect, locked and therefore secure. Even if they had a regime of opening window and shutter, they may not have realised the importance of locking the window on closure. The cleaners would know the shutters were not locked and could be raised from outside. It would be simplicity itself for a cleaner to deliberately unlock or leave a window unlocked.
The fact that they immediately checked the shutters and window locks on return to their own apartments provides further confirmation, if any were needed, of the veracity of Kate's statement.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 07:02:12 PM
The windows must surely lock themselves. And you press the button in to open and slide. Is that correct?
The window definitely doesn't lock itself. The handle is fixed. It has two buttons. To lock the window you have to also press the lock button. It does not press itself. There is no latch, no autolock. This is why some of the sliding windows in these apartments were fully closed but completely unlocked, proof is in DW rog.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 07:14:26 PM
The doctors were under the impression that that when the shutters were down they were, in effect, locked and therefore secure.
Correct, see FP rog "The windows,to be honest, in x’s room, we didn’t ever check the window ... we assumed it was sort of locked and closed and the shutter was down."
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on May 31, 2015, 07:20:18 PM
Some of the windows at 5G were unlocked. Definitely. See DW rog. And 5G was cleaned. This proves that cleaners leave things how they find them - its not their job to lock windows that aren't locked.
Quite.It is the responsibility of the occupant to check and ensure the security of their accommodation.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on May 31, 2015, 07:22:05 PM
Kate is adamant that there was 'whooooshing' are you calling her a liar?
"I wonder if this conundrum is setting us up for "whilst Kate was at the table, Gerry was at the apartment doing nasty things" .... or the reverse. Or Matt etc doing nasty things?"
Well, that is what the McCanns are telling us... something nasty happened to Maddie in that apartment... and for her to disappear allegedly from that apartment is worth looking at.
Angelo was on about a window and door, both on the north side of 5a and almost adjacent, causing a draught.
Usually a draught is caused by openings on opposite sides or adjacent sides, BUT NOT on the same side.
Was one of the side lounge windows open? or Did someone slip out of the Mccanns bedroom patio door creating a draught? or Was the main patio door, where Kate had entered, not quite closed?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 01, 2015, 01:21:48 AM
The draught through the bedroom was in the window and out the bedroom door, as KM testified It's impossible for a north to south draught to open the bedroom door. Therefore the only mobile person in the apartment (a child) opened the door. Amazing that so many detectives have missed this. Therefore if there was an abduction (or anything else), it happened in a different room (the the lounge, or the other bedroom, or balcony). Why does every abduction theory blindly follow the mantra - never never never consider other rooms?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 01, 2015, 01:24:46 AM
The draught through the bedroom was in the window and out the bedroom door, as KM testified It's impossible for a north to south draught to open the bedroom door. Therefore the only mobile person in the apartment (a child) opened the door. Amazing that so many detectives have missed this. Therefore if there was an abduction (or anything else), it happened in a different room (the the lounge, or the other bedroom, or balcony). Why does every abduction theory blindly follow the mantra - never never never consider other rooms?
The sheets were too neat, Pegasus. Any child leaving their bed in a panic would fling the covers back to free their legs. If the crime scene photos are a true reflection of the state of the bed when it was discovered then Madeleine did not leave her bed in a hurry.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 01, 2015, 01:29:59 AM
The draught through the bedroom was in the window and out the bedroom door, as KM testified It's impossible for a north to south draught to open the bedroom door. Therefore the only mobile person in the apartment (a child) opened the door. Amazing that so many detectives have missed this. Therefore if there was an abduction (or anything else), it happened in a different room (the the lounge, or the other bedroom, or balcony). Why does every abduction theory blindly follow the mantra - never never never consider other rooms?
Someone came in through the front door Pegasus ... and that is why the bedroom door was ajar
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 01, 2015, 01:38:44 AM
Thanks, I've considered that misty, but my opinion is the witness is telling the truth. I think based on experience that if a tired child goes to bed it is possible that the bed may remain fairly neat, even if a parent and other children has sat on it, I did look at all the details, and that's my opinion. The hard evidence fits that this witness is telling the truth, everything including the book fits that IMO.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 01, 2015, 01:45:23 AM
Thanks, I've considered that misty, but my opinion is the witness is telling the truth. I think based on experience that if a tired child goes to bed it is possible that the bed may remain fairly neat, even if a parent and other children has sat on it, I did look at all the details, and that's my opinion. The hard evidence fits that this witness is telling the truth, everything including the book fits that IMO.
I have just edited my post to reflect further reasoning. The bedroom door would also have been wide open imo if Madeleine had exited in a panic. What about the "bump" noise that MO heard coming from the bedroom during the 9.30 check & the child safety gate possibly being open?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 01, 2015, 01:59:42 AM
I have just edited my post to reflect further reasoning. The bedroom door would also have been wide open imo if Madeleine had exited in a panic. What about the "bump" noise that MO heard coming from the bedroom during the 9.30 check & the child safety gate possibly being open?
I agree the neatness of the bed is an issue, but after considering many things I am sure the witness account is honest. The 2nd line of your current post is on the ball JIMO. I don't know anything about a bump noise, source would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 01, 2015, 02:14:52 AM
I agree the neatness of the bed is an issue, but after considering many things I am sure the witness account is honest. The 2nd line of your current post is on the ball JIMO. I don't know anything about a bump noise, source would be appreciated.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm Page 886 Portimao Criminal Investigation Department 201/07.OGALGS O INSPECTOR M.P. ATTACHED On this date, I attached to these official papers 3 computer printed pages, relating to the description of the events, that have been collectively prepared by the nine people of the group in question, that was delivered to this Police Officer by the British Liaison Official, before the start of re-questioning of those same people. Portimao, 10 May 2007 INSPECTOR M.P.
*snip* 2125: After starters, MO and RJO go back to the apartments via the car park entrance to check all flats. They go first to 5D where RJO's daughter Evie is heard crying. RJO enters flat, whilst MO checks inside 5B, and then returns to 5D. 2130: RJO remains in 5D as daughter has vomited. MO goes to check on 5A via the patio gate entrance. The outside gate is probably shut, but the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open. The patio door is closed but unlocked. MO enters flat, hears a sound in the children's bedroom that is probably one of the twins rolling over in their cot. He does not enter the bedroom but can see through a now quite open door (greater than 45 degrees) into the room. He sees the two twins in their cot, but does not check Madeleine formally as no sounds and twins asleep. He recalls the room did seem lighter than expected, perhaps suggesting the shutter had been raised or the curtains opened? 2135: MO returns to restaurant table, by which time main courses are arriving or being eaten. MO tells JT that Evie unwell
Thankyou Misty, your link has the noise and the gate, both I had not known before, thankyou.
I didn't either, particularly as neither issue is mentioned in any of MO's statements online. I stumbled across it when looking for info regarding the position of the patio curtain during the Thursday checks.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 01, 2015, 02:41:36 AM
I didn't either, particularly as neither issue is mentioned in any of MO's statements online. I stumbled across it when looking for info regarding the position of the patio curtain during the Thursday checks.
Good stumbling misty. IMO this might be a summary of statements taken by private company CR then passed to PJ via UK police liaison officer ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 01, 2015, 03:07:41 AM
Good stumbling misty. IMO this might be a summary of statements taken by private company CR then passed to PJ via UK police liaison officer ?
I would have thought the summary was prepared by one of the Leicestershire liaison officers. It was delivered before the 2nd round of statements, so I wonder why MO apparently omitted those 2 potentially vital pieces of information? An open safety gate does not fit in with any staged abduction.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 01, 2015, 03:31:20 AM
The upper gate is a child-gate. If it was open at 9.30, then either the 910 checker accidentally left it open, or a child opened it later. But then the lounge sliding door would be open? No witness says that.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 01, 2015, 07:38:01 AM
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm Page 886 Portimao Criminal Investigation Department 201/07.OGALGS O INSPECTOR M.P. ATTACHED On this date, I attached to these official papers 3 computer printed pages, relating to the description of the events, that have been collectively prepared by the nine people of the group in question, that was delivered to this Police Officer by the British Liaison Official, before the start of re-questioning of those same people. Portimao, 10 May 2007 INSPECTOR M.P.
*snip* 2125: After starters, MO and RJO go back to the apartments via the car park entrance to check all flats. They go first to 5D where RJO's daughter Evie is heard crying. RJO enters flat, whilst MO checks inside 5B, and then returns to 5D. 2130: RJO remains in 5D as daughter has vomited. MO goes to check on 5A via the patio gate entrance. The outside gate is probably shut, but the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open. The patio door is closed but unlocked. MO enters flat, hears a sound in the children's bedroom that is probably one of the twins rolling over in their cot. He does not enter the bedroom but can see through a now quite open door (greater than 45 degrees) into the room. He sees the two twins in their cot, but does not check Madeleine formally as no sounds and twins asleep. He recalls the room did seem lighter than expected, perhaps suggesting the shutter had been raised or the curtains opened? 2135: MO returns to restaurant table, by which time main courses are arriving or being eaten. MO tells JT that Evie unwell
I was there to check, erm, no, no funny sort of smells, no sort of funny draughts, no sort of funny sort of noises, no, erm, nothing that I can think of for that. I mean, it was a complete just a shock out of the blue when, you know, I'd been in and then suddenly somebody's saying Madeleine's missing, there was nothing that made me think, oh'.
4078 'But you didn't touch the door'' Reply 'No' . 4078 'You didn't need to because it was already open''
Reply 'It was already open. I mean, it must have been, it must have been sort of at that sort of angle, so it's just over forty-five degrees'.
The curtains were shut, they were closed, they weren't sort of blowing about, because I'm sure I'd have noticed if there was sort of movement like that. But the room seemed light, and we spent a lot of time talking about this, whether it could be light coming in from the street outside, but there was a light behind us in the room and for some reason I thought, I got the impression of light coming through the doorway from behind me, which his why I said that I thought perhaps the moon was out, erm, but there as no sort of, you know, it's a questions of whether, there was no sort of slats of light coming through the back that particularly caught my eye. So I didn't specifically see the shutters and I couldn't say that they were definitely open, but certainly the curtains were shut and everything was quiet'.(MO)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 02, 2015, 02:20:24 AM
IMO this http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm information was obtained from interviews of group by company CR and then handed to LP liaison officer who handed to PJ. These CR interviews are mentioned in KM book IIRC? It is accurate information IMO. So now we have a sound from the bedroom.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 02, 2015, 07:37:44 AM
IMO this http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm information was obtained from interviews of group by company CR and then handed to LP liaison officer who handed to PJ. These CR interviews are mentioned in KM book IIRC? It is accurate information IMO. So now we have a sound from the bedroom.
By Control Risks who said the key was on the counter then we have Matt's own statement which is the true source!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 02, 2015, 02:33:54 PM
They are working for and being paid by the McCanns.
A source close to the couple's legal team confirmed that CRG had been working with the family since May but refused to discuss how the company was being paid.
There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, in the kitchen’s counter. Right away, the lies started. (Gonçalo Amaral)
A private investigator in charge of the case would likely "start with the parents, Mr. and Mrs. McCann," said Cliff Knuckey, a former detective inspector with Scotland Yard and managing director of the private investigations firm Risc Management.
They would work outward from there, Knuckey said, "to the circle of relatives, and the circle of friends that were there in Praia de Luz. Just to help piece together a profile."
Roy Ramm, a former commander of specialist operations at New Scotland Yard and chairman of the British private security firm Commercial Security International, also said private detectives would start with those closest to the case.
"Basically what they'll do is re-interview all the witnesses, going back over it in a methodical way," Ramm told ABC News. "They'll try to get to a point where they either do a physical or virtual reconstruction of what happened and literally start again."
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 02, 2015, 04:37:04 PM
They are working for and being paid by the McCanns.
A source close to the couple's legal team confirmed that CRG had been working with the family since May but refused to discuss how the company was being paid.
There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, in the kitchen’s counter. Right away, the lies started. (Gonçalo Amaral)
A private investigator in charge of the case would likely "start with the parents, Mr. and Mrs. McCann," said Cliff Knuckey, a former detective inspector with Scotland Yard and managing director of the private investigations firm Risc Management.
They would work outward from there, Knuckey said, "to the circle of relatives, and the circle of friends that were there in Praia de Luz. Just to help piece together a profile."
Roy Ramm, a former commander of specialist operations at New Scotland Yard and chairman of the British private security firm Commercial Security International, also said private detectives would start with those closest to the case.
"Basically what they'll do is re-interview all the witnesses, going back over it in a methodical way," Ramm told ABC News. "They'll try to get to a point where they either do a physical or virtual reconstruction of what happened and literally start again."
Ignoring for a moment the fact that Operation Grange used files from the McCann PIs as part of the review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance you have just given a perfect example (not only of prejudice) of exactly why official law enforcement agencies have to find and investigate evidence in a criminal case.
In that way the chain of evidence is or should be clear and unable to be challenged as you have question the involvement of the McCann detectives and the evidence they have produced.
That there has been so much resistance to the official investigation now taking place gives me leave to wonder the motivation for it ... I can only surmise there are those who do not want Madeleine found whatever the evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on June 02, 2015, 04:42:05 PM
Ignoring for a moment the fact that Operation Grange used files from the McCann PIs as part of the review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance you have just given a perfect example (not only of prejudice) of exactly why official law enforcement agencies have to find and investigate evidence in a criminal case.
In that way the chain of evidence is or should be clear and unable to be challenged as you have question the involvement of the McCann detectives and the evidence they have produced.
That there has been so much resistance to the official investigation now taking place gives me leave to wonder the motivation for it ... I can only surmise there are those who do not want Madeleine found whatever the evidence.
Where, in your opinion, is all this resistance coming from?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 02, 2015, 11:23:57 PM
Imo, you guys are being whipped up by some organisation that doesn't want Madeleine found.
Some are pulling the strings and some are having them pulled .... even on here.
You will have to work it out yourself.
Do the parents belong to this organisation?
I do agree the parents are pulling strings- and using PR companies to do their service.
Why would a woman who noticed her daughter missing fom her bed, window and shutters open, run and shout our child has been abducted please help and call the police( she didn't say call the police did she? or anyone ...then claim she looked for her.. if Maddie was abducted why look for her in cupboards, under beds,etc? why call out her name as if the 'abductor' would let her shout mummie Im over here? Oh get real!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 07, 2015, 04:25:12 PM
I do agree the parents are pulling strings- and using PR companies to do their service.
Why would a woman who noticed her daughter missing fom her bed, window and shutters open, run and shout our child has been abducted please help and call the police( she didn't say call the police did she? or anyone ...then claim she looked for her.. if Maddie was abducted why look for her in cupboards, under beds,etc? why call out her name as if the 'abductor' would let her shout mummie Im over here? Oh get real!
Why, also, did Jane Tanner not speak out with urgency? Why didn't she tell the men to check in the direction she saw the man with the child heading? She said she stayed silent so as not to alarm the parents, but they already thought it was an abduction. Had she spoken at least they would have had a direction to search in.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 07, 2015, 05:03:31 PM
I do agree the parents are pulling strings- and using PR companies to do their service.
Why would a woman who noticed her daughter missing fom her bed, window and shutters open, run and shout our child has been abducted please help and call the police( she didn't say call the police did she? or anyone ...then claim she looked for her.. if Maddie was abducted why look for her in cupboards, under beds,etc? why call out her name as if the 'abductor' would let her shout mummie Im over here? Oh get real!
Even if your gut feeling is that your child has been abducted, I don't see why that would stop you from double-checking that your worst fear may in fact not be the correct assumption.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 08, 2015, 05:28:59 PM
Do the parents belong to this organisation? I do agree the parents are pulling strings- and using PR companies to do their service.
Why would a woman who noticed her daughter missing fom her bed, window and shutters open, run and shout our child has been abducted please help and call the police( she didn't say call the police did she? or anyone ...then claim she looked for her.. if Maddie was abducted why look for her in cupboards, under beds,etc? why call out her name as if the 'abductor' would let her shout mummie Im over here? Oh get real!
Belong to YOUR Organisations? Of course they dont. It was quite clear that I was talking about YOUR side, but you had to change its meaning, for some reason?. Why? Any reasonable person would realise that Kates first re-action would be to look in cupboards, under beds etc
And the sordid truth would dawn on her, that she had been abducted. It would be a natural reaction to shout out her name.
Wouldn't you have bothered?
Neither to search for Madeleine in those first precious minutes, nor to call out to her?
Hmmm %56&
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: slartibartfast on June 08, 2015, 06:06:22 PM
Belong to YOUR Organisations? Of course they dont. It was quite clear that I was talking about YOUR side, but you had to change its meaning, for some reason?. Why? Any reasonable person would realise that Kates first re-action would be to look in cupboards, under beds etc
And the sordid truth would dawn on her, that she had been abducted. It would be a natural reaction to shout out her name.
Wouldn't you have bothered?
Neither to search for Madeleine in those first precious minutes, nor to call out to her?
Hmmm %56&
Since you won't tell us what this organisation is, how are we supposed to know whose side they are on?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 08, 2015, 06:24:21 PM
Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Well there would appear to be no hard evidence of this organisation.
Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
I can think of some.
The only fingerprints on the window were Kate McCann's. The McCanns had a private investigation company working for them the week after Madeleine disappeared, despite it being against the law in Portugal. Kate McCann seems to have driven the Renault whilst uninsured. On 4th May Gerald McCann couldn't remember which door he used on 3rd May. Within an hour of their daughter disappearing the parents deleted all their messages and all their call history from their mobile phones. From 4th May the McCanns and Paynes had 2 PAYG mobiles which the PJ didn't know about.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ferryman on June 08, 2015, 07:40:34 PM
Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
I can think of some.
The only fingerprints on the window were Kate McCann's. The McCanns had a private investigation company working for them the week after Madeleine disappeared, despite it being against the law in Portugal. Kate McCann seems to have driven the Renault whilst uninsured. On 4th May Gerald McCann couldn't remember which door he used on 3rd May. Within an hour of their daughter disappearing the parents deleted all their messages and all their call history from their mobile phones. From 4th May the McCanns and Paynes had 2 PAYG mobiles which the PJ didn't know about.
VESTIGES COLLECTED 5….. Fingerprints….Inside interior window of the children’s bedroom… Observations: The fingerprint traces collected are identified as being the middle finger of the left hand (3x) and forefinger of the left hand (2x), of the missing girl’s mother, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 08, 2015, 08:26:38 PM
I think that submitted, is this the company investigating on behalf of Gerry and Kate'” Reply “Yeah, yeah, but the time, the timeline was done by us and us alone, the one that you got out yesterday”. 1578 “Okay. So ‘Control Risk’ needs to come out'” Reply “Yeah, so I don’t know whether we gave, we probably gave them a copy as well, although I don’t remember specifically, but, you know, Gerry, Gerry had a copy of the file just as, as we did, but Control Risk, I don’t think were even, were even there at that point”. 1578 “Okay”. Reply “Erm, and so that was a timeline that was made purely by the nine of us, erm, and, yeah, so Control Risk, certainly Control Risk had no part of it. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 08, 2015, 08:33:28 PM
I think that submitted, is this the company investigating on behalf of Gerry and Kate'” Reply “Yeah, yeah, but the time, the timeline was done by us and us alone, the one that you got out yesterday”. 1578 “Okay. So ‘Control Risk’ needs to come out'” Reply “Yeah, so I don’t know whether we gave, we probably gave them a copy as well, although I don’t remember specifically, but, you know, Gerry, Gerry had a copy of the file just as, as we did, but Control Risk, I don’t think were even, were even there at that point”. 1578 “Okay”. Reply “Erm, and so that was a timeline that was made purely by the nine of us, erm, and, yeah, so Control Risk, certainly Control Risk had no part of it. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Control Risks are not a private investigation company.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Risks *snipped* Control Risks is a global risk and strategic consulting firm specialising in political, security and integrity risk. Operating from 36 offices, the company’s primary services include anti-corruption audits, consultancy and training, eDiscovery, political risk analysis and a broad range of security and crisis management support.[2]
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 08, 2015, 09:03:31 PM
Control Risks are not a private investigation company.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Risks *snipped* Control Risks is a global risk and strategic consulting firm specialising in political, security and integrity risk. Operating from 36 offices, the company’s primary services include anti-corruption audits, consultancy and training, eDiscovery, political risk analysis and a broad range of security and crisis management support.[2]
Who brought Control Risks in ... reading their remit it looks like they would be an appropriate choice for a company like Mark Warner to have links to?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 08, 2015, 09:22:07 PM
Who brought Control Risks in ... reading their remit it looks like they would be an appropriate choice for a company like Mark Warner to have links to?
I rather suspect you have it in one.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on June 08, 2015, 09:37:38 PM
Belong to YOUR Organisations? Of course they dont. It was quite clear that I was talking about YOUR side, but you had to change its meaning, for some reason?. Why? Any reasonable person would realise that Kates first re-action would be to look in cupboards, under beds etc
And the sordid truth would dawn on her, that she had been abducted. It would be a natural reaction to shout out her name.
Wouldn't you have bothered?
Neither to search for Madeleine in those first precious minutes, nor to call out to her?
Hmmm %56&
It would be a natural reaction to shout out her name.
Do we have any evidence this happened? Is it in Kate's statement (first only, as second got chopped too soon)? Is it in Kate's book? Does Mrs Fenn recall this primal scream?
I am having a bit of a bad time on accuracy at the moment, so have I mucked up again?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on June 08, 2015, 09:40:25 PM
Who brought Control Risks in ... reading their remit it looks like they would be an appropriate choice for a company like Mark Warner to have links to?
Seems it was a donor, Brietta!
On 24 September Control Risks, a British security company, took hair samples from the McCann twins at their parents' request. An anonymous donor paid for Control Risks' services. The McCanns were concerned that the abductor might have given the children sedatives; the twins had slept through the commotion in apartment 5A after Madeleine was reported missing, but despite requests the Portuguese police had not taken samples. Control Risks took a sample from Kate McCann too, to rebut allegations that she was on medication. No trace of drugs was found.[110]
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 08, 2015, 11:13:56 PM
I don't know what that thread is about, but it has nothing to do with my point. The only fingerprints on the children's bedroom window were Kate McCann's.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 09, 2015, 07:56:14 AM
I don't know what that thread is about, but it has nothing to do with my point. The only fingerprints on the children's bedroom window were Kate McCann's.
And this is hard evidence that Kate McCann had been in the children's bedroom - very sus.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2015, 09:01:17 AM
Also that she seems to have been the only person who touched that window on 3rd May 2007.
How can anyone know for sure when she touched it? It could have been at the beginning of the holiday on the day they closed the shutters and left them closed.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on June 09, 2015, 09:29:46 AM
On 24 September Control Risks, a British security company, took hair samples from the McCann twins at their parents' request. An anonymous donor paid for Control Risks' services. The McCanns were concerned that the abductor might have given the children sedatives; the twins had slept through the commotion in apartment 5A after Madeleine was reported missing, but despite requests the Portuguese police had not taken samples. Control Risks took a sample from Kate McCann too, to rebut allegations that she was on medication. No trace of drugs was found.[110]
I can find no records of requests to the PJ to take samples. The only reference to this is;
One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening.
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
The story about the twins crying later evolved into Madeleine crying, but Markley is correct, originally it was the twins;
04 May 2007
(11:15am)
Gerry McCann
(First police interview) Madeleine reported to Gerry McCann Who was crying? The twins
...on the morning of May 3rd, MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into the room when the twins were crying. Gerry had heard nothing and had not gone into the room. It was the first time that MADELEINE had made that kind of comment. 04 May 2007
(2.20pm)
Kate McCann
(First police interview) Madeleine reported to Kate McCann Who was crying? The twins
She only refers to one episode on the morning of the 3rd, when Madeleine asked her why she had not come to her room when the twins were crying. Kate, as she did not hear anything, did not go to the room and found this a strange comment for her daughter to make to her. This was the first time that she made such a comment.
The story grew later;
on the day Madeleine vanished, when the little girl disconcerted her mother by asking: ‘Why didn’t you come when Sean and I cried last night?’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384828/Kate-McCann-fears-daughter-Madeleine-tried-warn-intruder.html#ixzz3cYGcPa4j Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2015, 09:33:49 AM
I'm just documenting the hard evidence. The only evidence that anyone touched that window at all.
It's unlikely that Kate McCann was the only person ever to have touched the window, but she is the only person proven to have touched the window which is evidence, but not of wrong-doing IMO.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 09, 2015, 11:09:22 AM
It's unlikely that Kate McCann was the only person ever to have touched the window, but she is the only person proven to have touched the window which is evidence, but not of wrong-doing IMO.
It isn't the presence of fingerprints from the occupants of the apartment which is strange it is the absence.
I think I am going to go on a mission to Portugal to track down the apartment cleaner and pay her to come back with me for a couple of days ~ what an absolute treasure she must be ~ going on the forensic cleanliness she manages to achieve so effortlessly
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 09, 2015, 11:31:25 AM
I think we all agree that Kate's fingerprints were on the inside window pane. It's physical evidence, but is consistent with what she said happened.
Was the handle dusted? It looks devoid of red powder.
Unfortunately, hard forensic evidence is dependent on what was searched. The absence of evidence can presumably be of as much interest as the presence of it, but presumably only in the light of a thorough sweep.
The frame of that window doesn't appear to have been dusted, nor the outside of that window, nor the inside of the patio doors.
The assumption seems to have been that someone came in through the patio door (hence the interest in the outside glass door and the frame) and opened the window from the inside (hence the dusting of the inside of the kids' window), plus checking for signs of lifting the shutter from the outside.
Checking other entry / exit scenarios doesn't appear to have happened: e.g., that someone came through the front door (as there doesn't appear to be a record of that), nor
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 09, 2015, 11:40:34 AM
It isn't the presence of fingerprints from the occupants of the apartment which is strange it is the absence.
I think I am going to go on a mission to Portugal to track down the apartment cleaner and pay her to come back with me for a couple of days ~ what an absolute treasure she must be ~ going on the forensic cleanliness she manages to achieve so effortlessly
Here is a video interview with the cleaner Watch from 5:07 to 7:35 There are 3 cleaners in the video, the 5A cleaner is the older of the three, in blue. She is a very nice lady. http://youtu.be/46axwTbsKCo?t=5m7s
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 09, 2015, 12:14:49 PM
I would think that the cleaning staff wipe the windows on changeover day (the Saturday), unless there were obvious smear marks. The McCanns apparently didn't touch the kids' bedroom window until the Thursday, so if the blind was left down, with the curtain drawn, and the kids were only in there at bedtime, I don't see an issue.
There may well have been prints on the inside of the patio door, but it doesn't seem to have been dusted.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 09, 2015, 12:23:18 PM
Here is a video interview with the cleaner Watch from 5:07 to 7:35 There are 3 cleaners in the video, the 5A cleaner is the older of the three, in blue. She is a very nice lady. http://youtu.be/46axwTbsKCo?t=5m7s
She said the McCanns left the apartment that morning via the patio door. Interesting.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 09, 2015, 12:43:07 PM
I wondered about that too, Misty. If they had asked her to lock the door after them, she didn't say.
But was she asked? That's a problem with that type of police statement: you're only expected to answer questions and even then what gets recorded is only what the police officer deems potentially important.
If she had been asked to recount her day and everything that she could remember, there might have been extra information...
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 09, 2015, 01:29:35 PM
02-Processos Volume II Pages 346 - 349
TRANSLATIONS BY INES
Marina Paula Raposo Baptista Castela
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 11H10 General Governess
(...)
That she has been an employee of 'The Ocean Club' for about 20 years, being actually responsible for the 'Department of Hygiene and Comfort' of all the apartments in the tourist complex.
(...)
. During the stay, as with any other client, the cleaning is carried out on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The collection of rubbish is carried out on Tuesdays and Thursdays with Saturdays being the day were a deeper cleaning is carried out. Referring to block 5 where the McCann family lodged, the person responsible for cleaning there is employee Mara Julia Serafim Da Silva; also being an aid to the preparation of the apartment before check-in for new guests. Before the McCann check-in, Maria Julia had aided Dina Maria Does Reis Rocha as she was more available;
(...)
. There is a preference to clean those apartments with children guests in the morning, with the rest being reserved for the afternoon;
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 09, 2015, 01:40:00 PM
Thanks Carana. "There is a preference to clean those apartments with children guests in the morning" So when we examine the hard evidence of the prints, we can say the apartment was cleaned on Wednesday probably at about 9AM? and the family went out through the balcony door. What time did the kidsclubs start? But we don't know whether this included cleaning the inside of the window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 09, 2015, 01:45:06 PM
She said the McCanns left the apartment that morning via the patio door. Interesting.
Not very interesting if you read the rogs. Leaving it unlocked at night is interesting.
I mean if we were just sort of all popping out and just quickly to the pool, we'd go out the patio doors and just leave them unlocked, erm cos you couldn't lock them from the outside. (RO)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 09, 2015, 01:50:52 PM
Not very interesting if you read the rogs. Leaving it unlocked at night is interesting.
I mean if we were just sort of all popping out and just quickly to the pool, we'd go out the patio doors and just leave them unlocked, erm cos you couldn't lock them from the outside. (RO)
It is interesting, in that it demonstrates how safe they felt (or how careless they were) even during the daytime, when gardening staff were working nearby.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 09, 2015, 01:55:47 PM
Not very interesting if you read the rogs. Leaving it unlocked at night is interesting.
I mean if we were just sort of all popping out and just quickly to the pool, we'd go out the patio doors and just leave them unlocked, erm cos you couldn't lock them from the outside. (RO)
Thanks pathfinder and at another apartment in daytime the frontdoor key was left under the doormat. But back to the topic the hard evidence like fingerprints on window and hairs on floor. It will be useful to know what time on Wednesday the apartment was cleaned because this involved cleaning the floor and maybe cleaning the inside only of the window?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 09, 2015, 02:02:22 PM
Thanks Carana. "There is a preference to clean those apartments with children guests in the morning" So when we examine the hard evidence of the prints, we can say the apartment was cleaned on Wednesday probably at about 9AM? and the family went out through the balcony door. What time did the kidsclubs start? But we don't know whether this included cleaning the inside of the window.
Amaral stated that they had been cleaned the day before, but that's not specified in the cleaning lady's statement. Nor does it seem likely.
So I've no idea what facts he was basing that on.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 09, 2015, 02:04:18 PM
I do believe...IIRC, that the cleaner said that she cleaned the apartments where there were children in the morning and others in the afternoon, in the interview link provided by Pegasus.
If the cleaner was present she would need to clean the balcony, so no point in asking her to lock it when they exited via the patio doors. It does however make me wonder how many other knew that they used the patio doors to leave the apartment, knowing that they cannot be locked from outside?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 09, 2015, 02:22:46 PM
It is interesting, in that it demonstrates how safe they felt (or how careless they were) even during the daytime, when gardening staff were working nearby.
The kids were at the creche. The kids were inside alone at night. Big difference.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 09, 2015, 02:26:10 PM
I do believe...IIRC, that the cleaner said that she cleaned the apartments where there were children in the morning and others in the afternoon, in the interview link provided by Pegasus.
If the cleaner was present she would need to clean the balcony, so no point in asking her to lock it when they exited via the patio doors. It does however make me wonder how many other knew that they used the patio doors to leave the apartment, knowing that they cannot be locked from outside?
Hello, Anna.
It was the "governess" (head of cleaning) who stated that that was the preference - see above.
But yes, in context, the situation seems quite ordinary. A cleaning lady is in there, and the McCanns go out via the patio door rather than taking the long way round. There doesn't appear to have any particular reason to go out via the front door.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 09, 2015, 02:27:15 PM
The kids were at the creche. The kids were inside alone at night. Big difference.
Does anybody seriously think that the cleaner took time out to clean all the windows, or washed all the floors each time she cleaned? I seriously doubt her duties extended much further than changing the towels, bed linen, cleaning the bathroom & wiping down some surfaces. There were a lot of apartments to clean - and not that many cleaners. Wonder who cleaned the exterior of the windows at OC?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 09, 2015, 02:29:52 PM
Amaral stated that they had been cleaned the day before, but that's not specified in the cleaning lady's statement. Nor does it seem likely. So I've no idea what facts he was basing that on.
"When I went there on Wednesday , they were there. It was they who opened the door for me" http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/05/front-line-after-madie-video-reportage.html (Relevant to thread because to interpret hard evidence (prints, hairs, etc) we need to know when the apartment was cleaned)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 09, 2015, 03:58:13 PM
"When I went there on Wednesday , they were there. It was they who opened the door for me" http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/05/front-line-after-madie-video-reportage.html (Relevant to thread because to interpret hard evidence (prints, hairs, etc) we need to know when the apartment was cleaned)
Agreed.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 09, 2015, 04:01:01 PM
"When I went there on Wednesday , they were there. It was they who opened the door for me" http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/05/front-line-after-madie-video-reportage.html (Relevant to thread because to interpret hard evidence (prints, hairs, etc) we need to know when the apartment was cleaned)
The cleaning lady did indeed say she'd been there, but what did she clean during that time? How long did she spend there? There's no mention of cleaning the kids' bedroom window (there was probably no need to).
More interestingly (IMO), did she sweep / wash the floor? Not all of the hairs found corresponded to the haplotype of anyone known to have been in there that week (although a couple near the bed by the window in the kids' bedroom were of the same haplotype as the mother and child of a previous occupant).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 09, 2015, 05:03:59 PM
The cleaning lady did indeed say she'd been there, but what did she clean during that time? How long did she spend there? There's no mention of cleaning the kids' bedroom window (there was probably no need to).
More interestingly (IMO), did she sweep / wash the floor? Not all of the hairs found corresponded to the haplotype of anyone known to have been in there that week (although a couple near the bed by the window in the kids' bedroom were of the same haplotype as the mother and child of a previous occupant).
IMO on Wednesday the cleaner cleaned at least the floor of the big traffic room which is the living-dining-kitchen-hall (all one room) because IMO any good cleaner would do at least that. BTW I don't know about insides of windows, but outsides of some windows in this block were cleaned by a different person but I don't know if that includes 5A. (Edited)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 09, 2015, 06:01:48 PM
"When I went there on Wednesday , they were there. It was they who opened the door for me" http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/05/front-line-after-madie-video-reportage.html (Relevant to thread because to interpret hard evidence (prints, hairs, etc) we need to know when the apartment was cleaned)
Well, we know it was cleaned now. We also know about the cots;
MARK WARNER entered the apartment and proceeded to place two children's beds.
the couple was sleeping in the room located opposite the entrance, where she confirmed the presence of a child's bed (crib). The room gives onto an outdoor garden by means of a terrace, as it is on the ground floor,. In the room next to the entrance to the apartment there was a bed placed next to the wall (where she supposed the missing child slept), and also the second child's bed (crib). All these beds were untidy at the time, meaning that they had been used. She also declares that in the room next to the entrance was another bed that had not been used. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_CLEANER.htm
Kate also says there were two cots;
The apartment has two beds in one bedroom, and two in another where there are also two cots on loan from the Ocean Club. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
Later she decides there were originally three cots. I wonder why?
She also says that when she arrived there weren't two but three cribs in the same place, one was lent to the Payne family. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 09, 2015, 06:16:11 PM
Please adhere to the topic and refrain from disrupting the thread. Thank you.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 09, 2015, 07:36:26 PM
IMO on Wednesday the cleaner cleaned at least the floor of the big traffic room which is the living-dining-kitchen-hall (all one room) because IMO any good cleaner would do at least that. BTW I don't know about insides of windows, but outsides of some windows in this block were cleaned by a different person but I don't know if that includes 5A. (Edited)
Would the same mop and bucket be used in all the apartments cleaned, or would they have a cupboard in each apartment ?
If the same mop and bucket was used in all the apartments cleaned in that area/level, it could account for the unidentified hairs etc.
I think all the apartment’s tiled floors would be washed during each cleaning session. It doesn’t take long.
I should have thought that one of the handymen would clean all the external windows in a block.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 09, 2015, 08:18:58 PM
I don't know, Pegasus. I didn't see a cleaning cupboard anywhere though. I suppose they would have to call reception if cleaning was required after spillage or sickness. I would have thought the cleaners would have at least one cleaning cupboard on each floor.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 09, 2015, 08:35:08 PM
I don't know, Pegasus. I didn't see a cleaning cupboard anywhere though. I suppose they would have to call reception if cleaning was required after spillage or sickness. I would have thought the cleaners would have at least one cleaning cupboard on each floor.
I agree probably the cleaning dept use their own equipment. The lift means there is no need for a cupboard on every floor.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 09, 2015, 08:36:45 PM
Good point, Anna. Something else the PJ should have checked.
If the same mop and bucket were used after the McCanns left 5a, surely whatever the dogs alerted too in 5A, would also cause an alert in the other apartments on that floor. Hair can be so easily transferred on brooms, mops and dusters. Strange that it wasn't checked.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 09, 2015, 09:09:02 PM
If the same mop and bucket were used after the McCanns left 5a, surely whatever the dogs alerted too in 5A, would also cause an alert in the other apartments on that floor. Hair can be so easily transferred on brooms, mops and dusters. Strange that it wasn't checked.
For example almost certainly the adult bedroom floor was mopped by cleaners several times between 3rd May and 31st July and if there was scent on floor would it be transferred between many apartments by mop?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 10, 2015, 12:00:52 AM
Where ever that same mop and bucket was used, would carry hair and all sorts into 5A . The same applies to hair etc being transferred into other apartments from 5a .
Anywhere the cleaning equipment was used between the McCanns leaving 5a and the dogs coming in would also have been contaminated by whatever the dogs alerted too (if they were positive alerts, that is) Therefore being transferred/cross contaminated into other areas being cleaned.
It shows how something possibly useful can come indirectly from discussing hard evidence (prints). But we are straying a little.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 10, 2015, 12:21:36 AM
It shows how something possibly useful can come indirectly from discussing hard evidence (prints). But we are straying a little.
My apologies, Cleaning posts is what led to my post. So I guess you are correct in saying it is straying from the topic of hard evidence. Hairs found are evidence of who was there, but the unidentified ones can not be used as such until identified. No more than unidentified fingerprints on the outside of the shutters can be used as hard evidence.
There is no hard evidence that we know of, except for fingerprints that appear to be from kate. Not however on the window handle as one would expect, if one believes that Kate opened the window(as some people do ).
I will put the bucket/mop post somewhere else and we can hopefully get back on the topic of the thread.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 10, 2015, 12:30:06 AM
The marks on the outside of the shutter are hard evidence. The marks are indisputably there in photos. The fact they cannot be identified does not stop them being hard evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 10, 2015, 12:37:13 AM
The marks on the outside of the shutter are hard evidence. The marks are indisputably there in photos. The fact they cannot be identified does not stop them being hard evidence.
But we don't know where they came from any more than the unidentified hairs Pegasus. It could have been an intruder, window cleaner, repair man, or one of many other people who left them there.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 10, 2015, 12:48:35 AM
But we don't know where they came from any more than the unidentified hairs Pegasus. It could have been an intruder, window cleaner, repair man, or one of many other people who left them there.
Yes but the marks are indisputably there. They can be interpreted many ways. Who made them, and whether they have any relevance, are matters of opinion. But no-one can claim they are not there. (Definition of hard evidence IMO).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 10, 2015, 01:38:30 AM
Yes but the marks are indisputably there. They can be interpreted many ways. Who made them, and whether they have any relevance, are matters of opinion. But no-one can claim they are not there. (Definition of hard evidence IMO).
Unidentified hair.Unidentified fingerprints,Marks on shutters Yes, they are evidence, but it requires proof or elimination before it is classed as hard evidence.
Recognized fingerprints are Hard evidence as are recognized hair, DNA and several other factors.
The witnessed fact that the twins appeared to be in an unnatural deep sleep, would also cause someone to believe it was evidence of some drug being administered to the children. However they tested negative of any drug content. So evidence and suspicion was eliminated.
Open window-Yes evidence. Evidence of what?......that is still to be verified.
It’s all too iffy.Elimination by studying all other possibilities is the only way that a conclusion can be reached(if at all). We must be careful not to determine verifiability of evidence and put it in the category of hard evidence.
That is why I was trying to find evidence that might be a possible and simple reason for the existence of unidentified hairs in 5A.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 10, 2015, 02:34:17 AM
The missing girl's hair in the boot will solve this case. It shouldn't be there. Case closed and thank you dogs.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 10, 2015, 03:50:17 AM
The drug tests commissioned by that company would, if released, be hard evidence that no drug traces were present in the hairs tested. To claim it is hard evidence about hair many months earlier requires providing data of the lengths of the hairs tested. If someone has long hair you can look a long time back. If someone has short hair you can look only a short time back IMO is that correct?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on June 10, 2015, 06:32:07 AM
The missing girl's hair in the boot will solve this case. It shouldn't be there. Case closed and thank you dogs.
Madeline's hair and/or dna being found in the hire car can easily be explained as secondary transfer from clothing or other items which she had contact with. Minute hairs attach themselves to all sorts of garments and can be found months later, its not rocket science.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 10, 2015, 07:25:48 AM
Madeline's hair and/or dna being found in the hire car can easily be explained as secondary transfer from clothing or other items which she had contact with. Minute hairs attach themselves to all sorts of garments and can be found months later, its not rocket science.
Not only that, but the fragments were never able to be positively identified. There were no roots * for DNA analysis, and they were too short for for mtDNA analysis - which would have been pointless anyway as the forensic mtDNA profile would have been the same for anyone of Kate's mother's bloodline, if ever they were from the family in the first place.
* ETA correction: a couple had a bit, but not enough.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 10, 2015, 07:46:58 AM
Not only that, but the fragments were never able to be positively identified. There were no roots for DNA analysis, and they were too short for for mtDNA analysis - which would have been pointless anyway as the forensic mtDNA profile would have been the same for anyone of Kate's mother's bloodline, if ever they were from the family in the first place.
It's another example of how the sceptics have misunderstood the evidence
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on June 10, 2015, 08:01:30 AM
Pathfinder definitely misunderstands the relevance of hair in the car
Since Madeleine was one of five members of that family and one of three children who all shared their parents dna I find it very unlikely that analysis will ever prove anything of much value.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on June 10, 2015, 08:28:52 AM
Since Madeleine was one of five members of that family and one of three children who all shared their parents dna I find it very unlikely that analysis will ever prove anything of much value.
pathfinder seems to think it's relevant...that's why I say he misunderstands the evidence
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 10, 2015, 08:37:25 AM
He was in charge for four months in a 14 month investigation. His cock ups, if any, could have been cleared up afterwards by his successor but then the common thread would have been the magistrate in charge. The archiving report said "nature of crime unknown" i.e as at July 2008 it was all up in the air with no evidence one way or another. It seems to be pretty much the same the now after four years of investigation by The Met and a further two by the Portuguese.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 10, 2015, 10:11:57 AM
He was in charge for four months in a 14 month investigation. His cock ups, if any, could have been cleared up afterwards by his successor but then the common thread would have been the magistrate in charge. The archiving report said "nature of crime unknown" i.e as at July 2008 it was all up in the air with no evidence one way or another. It seems to be pretty much the same the now after four years of investigation by The Met and a further two by the Portuguese.
Five months (just nit-picking). ;)
Some of his "misunderstandings" were clarified... e.g., the DNA / dog ones. The context of the Smith parents' doubt was clarified.
An issue now is that there is little forensic evidence to check aside from phone use or pings (unless they find the missing hairs from the bed that went walkies). Other potentially useful information concerns the child sex attacks / burglaries, the strong possibility that Tannerman was innocentdadman.
Unfortunately, it may be too late to go back into potential spare / duplicate keys or the suspicious purchase of key-duplicating, lock-picking equipment. The idea that no self-respecting Portuguese burglar knew how to pick a bog standard lock without the use of a credit card is mind-boggling to me.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 10, 2015, 10:16:33 AM
pathfinder seems to think it's relevant...that's why I say he misunderstands the evidence
They had kids clothes washed asap on Saturday 5th May. This car was rented on 27th May. They got away with things they shouldn't have. Those clothes should have taken off them for analysis immediately.
Do you think that you made any mistakes?
I made one. The error of the first hour. There are things about which I still cannot speak. But we know that there are things which could have been done in another way. No one should be shocked if we begin, immediately, to wonder if the parents were involved. (GA)
British detectives probing Madeleine McCann’s disappearance want to retest some of the hairs as well as curtains hanging in the Algarve apartment where she vanished.
Scotland Yard are expected to apply for permission in a sixth international letter of request to take the samples from a Portuguese lab so experts can look at them in the UK.
Conclusion In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 10, 2015, 10:29:07 AM
They couldn't find any of her hair in 5A and had to go to England to get it. Secondary transfer lol they were getting clothes washed asap on Saturday 5th May. This car was rented on 27th May. They got away with things they shouldn't have
Do you think that you made any mistakes?
I made one. The error of the first hour. There are things about which I still cannot speak. But we know that there are things which could have been done in another way. No one should be shocked if we begin, immediately, to wonder if the parents were involved. (GA)
British detectives probing Madeleine McCann’s disappearance want to retest some of the hairs as well as curtains hanging in the Algarve apartment where she vanished.
Scotland Yard are expected to apply for permission in a sixth international letter of request to take the samples from a Portuguese lab so experts can look at them in the UK.
- There was no way of knowing whether the hairs in 5A were actually hers or not. It wasn't her hair that was important, it was attempting to find a sample of her DNA.
- Unless the laundry lady was familiar with Madeleine's clothes (why would she be?), the fact that a load supposedly with the "McCann" account on it means nothing as MW would logically have picked up the tab as part of their support for associated odd-bods who either stayed beyond their holiday-time or came out to help the family.
- What were the errors of the first hour? The only thing that comes to mind that he's ever mentioned is that the police didn't take photos of what everyone was wearing that night. Another, but hardly of the first hour, was that he didn't think to get his officers to check CCTV images before they got wiped a week later.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 10, 2015, 10:33:06 AM
- There was no way of knowing whether the hairs in 5A were actually hers or not. It wasn't her hair that was important, it was attempting to find a sample of her DNA.
- Unless the laundry lady was familiar with Madeleine's clothes (why would she be?), the fact that a load supposedly with the "McCann" account on it means nothing as MW would logically have picked up the tab as part of their support for associated odd-bods who either stayed beyond their holiday-time or came out to help the family.
- What were the errors of the first hour? The only thing that comes to mind that he's ever mentioned is that the police didn't take photos of what everyone was wearing that night. Another, but hardly of the first hour, was that he didn't think to get his officers to check CCTV images before they got wiped a week later.
Amaral should have taken the clothes off them on the 4th. Big mistake as they were washed on the 5th. You pack clothes in bags and if there's no twins hair found in the boot but the missing girl's then it doesn't take a genius to work out where they came from.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on June 10, 2015, 10:38:35 AM
Amaral should have taken the clothes off them on the 4th. Big mistake as they were washed on the 5th. You pack clothes in bags and if there's no twins hair found in the boot but the missing girl's then it doesn't take a genius to work out where they came from.
With every post you demonstrate how you misunderstand (wilfully or not it's hard to tell) the evidence.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 10, 2015, 10:42:35 AM
Amaral should have taken the clothes off them on the 4th. Big mistake as they were washed on the 5th. You pack clothes in bags and if there's no twins hair found in the boot but the missing girl's then it doesn't take a genius to work out where they came from.
They should have taken which clothes off whom?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 10, 2015, 10:47:36 AM
Amaral should have taken the clothes off them on the 4th. Big mistake as they were washed on the 5th. You pack clothes in bags and if there's no twins hair found in the boot but the missing girl's then it doesn't take a genius to work out where they came from.
A magistrate will only authorise a search and seize warrant on the basis of evidence which in this case was not immediately available until much later.
In the case of a missing child, police have to tread very carefully and exercise some compassion regardless of what they are thinking privately.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 10, 2015, 10:53:39 AM
A magistrate will only authorise a search and seize warrant on the basis of evidence.
There was no evidence of a break-in or an abduction and fingerprints found on the window so that is enough evidence to investigate the family asap. Also tampering of the crime scene.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ferryman on June 10, 2015, 10:58:21 AM
There was never any clue to be had from examination of clothing.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Angelo222 on June 10, 2015, 11:00:40 AM
There was never any clue to be had from examination of clothing.
The PJ bagged up certain clothing from the Murat villa. Whatever happened to the forensics on those items (and why didn't Eddie & Keela get to have a sniff?).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 10, 2015, 03:50:13 PM
- There was no way of knowing whether the hairs in 5A were actually hers or not. It wasn't her hair that was important, it was attempting to find a sample of her DNA.
- Unless the laundry lady was familiar with Madeleine's clothes (why would she be?), the fact that a load supposedly with the "McCann" account on it means nothing as MW would logically have picked up the tab as part of their support for associated odd-bods who either stayed beyond their holiday-time or came out to help the family.
- What were the errors of the first hour? The only thing that comes to mind that he's ever mentioned is that the police didn't take photos of what everyone was wearing that night. Another, but hardly of the first hour, was that he didn't think to get his officers to check CCTV images before they got wiped a week later.
There is a statement (Cravinho) about clothing being taken by MW to the OC laundry on Sat 5th. Also there is hard evidences that a small quantity of clothing was taken from 5A on Fri 4th and then the majority of it taken from 5A on Sat 5th, so the evidence (photographs) matches the statement.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 14, 2015, 01:14:05 AM
The PJ bagged up certain clothing from the Murat villa. Whatever happened to the forensics on those items (and why didn't Eddie & Keela get to have a sniff?).
Eddie and keela had a sniff as you put it at murats house, nothing to report, unlike 5a where they both alerted, troublesome anyway you look at it
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 14, 2015, 01:38:30 AM
Eddie and keela had a sniff as you put it at murats house, nothing to report, unlike 5a where they both alerted, troublesome anyway you look at it
The clothes the PJ seized in May 2007 were not at the Murat villa when Eddie & Keela went there. They were not returned to him until 2008.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id218.html Police give Murat computers back The Press Association
Released 23 March 2008, 01:18am
Portuguese police have returned computers and other possessions they seized from Madeleine McCann "suspect" Robert Murat, he has said.
He described the move as a "very positive sign" - but is still waiting to be officially cleared of involvement in the young girl's disappearance.
Mr Murat, 34, lives just yards from the holiday apartment in the Portuguese seaside resort of Praia da Luz where Madeleine vanished on May 3 last year.
Detectives took him in for questioning 11 days after the child went missing and made him the first "arguido", or formal suspect, in the case.
They also searched the villa he shares with his mother and seized a number of his possessions, including three computers, clothes and a pair of shoes.
Police returned these items to Mr Murat on Thursday, although they did not give any clues about the progress of their investigation.
The Anglo-Portuguese ex-pat said: "It is a very positive sign - there's no doubt about that whatsoever. Why would they return something if it was in the middle of being investigated in any way, shape or form?
"We are very happy to have the computers back, and I hope I will have my arguido status dropped very shortly."
Mr Murat said he was "considering his options" for taking legal action over allegedly libellous articles printed about him in the wake of the apologies to Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, published by four national newspapers this week.
He strenuously denies any involvement in the missing girl's disappearance, as do fellow arguidos Mr and Mrs McCann
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 14, 2015, 01:41:07 AM
If you think murat abducted madeleine mccann why not just say it? But we both suspect its so unlikely and quite a pathetic theory
Try harder misty, but for now, goodnight
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 14, 2015, 01:53:12 AM
If you think murat abducted madeleine mccann why not just say it? But we both suspect its so unlikely and quite a pathetic theory
Try harder misty, but for now, goodnight
I was pointing out that hard evidence seized from one of the arguidos was not subjected to the same "forensic" examination as that belonging to the McCanns - which, given the number of witnesses who put him at the scene that night, seems rather an oversight.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 14, 2015, 01:59:07 AM
I was pointing out that hard evidence seized from one of the arguidos was not subjected to the same "forensic" examination as that belonging to the McCanns - which, given the number of witnesses who put him at the scene that night, seems rather an oversight.
none of those "witnesses" are credible and some have had words put into their mouths, really have to go now, catch up tomorrow maybe
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 14, 2015, 08:26:27 AM
I was pointing out that hard evidence seized from one of the arguidos was not subjected to the same "forensic" examination as that belonging to the McCanns - which, given the number of witnesses who put him at the scene that night, seems rather an oversight.
I agree with you on that. They took a dark blue jacket from the VW and 4 pairs of trousers from CL. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1461.jpg
But then what? The PJ doesn't appear to have done anything with them. They did check the VW and CL's bed for hairs, but I can't see anything about the clothes, which seems a bit odd. As it happens, none of the hairs found in either could have been Madeleine's and none of RM's haplotype was found in 5A.
They also checked out a potential entrance to the crawl space in CL, but then there's no record of having done the same under Block 5 (or any of the others).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: slartibartfast on June 14, 2015, 07:28:48 PM
I think that a far larger space than that at Casa Liliana must exist under apartment 5A. The front entrance is at street level and the back entrance is at the top of a steep flight of stairs. The layout of my house is similar and although my staircase is about half as high as the one at 5A, it is possible to stand upright in the cellar.
I think there must be an entrance somewhere and I find it extraordinary if the elevator shaft and the area under the apartment wasn't checked.
So who do you think hide Madeleine under there?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 14, 2015, 08:31:32 PM
Topic Please
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 15, 2015, 12:40:09 AM
Topic heading...Is there any hard evidence.
Please redirect your posts regarding witnesses to the appropriate Thread. Thank you.
Murat link : http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1392.msg216848#msg216848
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 01:30:49 AM
Are several witness testimonies not hard evidence - or does this topic refer to physical evidence only? Testimonies are not soft evidence.
Sorry Misty, but I believe it has to be evidence of a material sort to be classed as hard evidence in this instance. There are many threads on witnesses etc. This thread has been a discussion concerning ...Hair, DNA, fingerprints, clothing etc. Hard evidence should have material proof.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 01:51:10 AM
Sorry Misty, but I believe it has to be evidence of a material sort to be classed as hard evidence in this instance. There are many threads on witnesses etc. This thread has been a discussion concerning ...Hair, DNA, fingerprints, clothing etc. Hard evidence should have material proof.
Ok, that's fine. I'd just googled "hard evidence" & the definition is a bit vague. The issue of RM's seized clothing cannot therefore be classed as hard evidence as it doesn't appear to have been subjected to any forensic testing.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 02:06:41 AM
Example of hard evidence = the PJ photos taken on 4th May. If something is in one of those photos, then it was definitely there, and in the exact location shown in the photo, when the photo was taken - no-one can dispute it.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 02:25:15 AM
Example of hard evidence = the PJ photos taken on 4th May. If something is in one of those photos, then it was definitely there, and in the exact location shown in the photo, when the photo was taken - no-one can dispute it.
What about the ability to photo-shop? None of the photos in the files have a time & date stamp on them.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 02:56:27 AM
What about the ability to photo-shop? None of the photos in the files have a time & date stamp on them.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PJ photoshopped their 4th May crime-scene photos? Ironically, I was going to use them to show a huge mistake in a certain portugese film.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 03:14:31 AM
Are you seriously suggesting that the PJ photoshopped their 4th May crime-scene photos? Ironically, I was going to use them to show a huge mistake in a certain portugese film.
All I can say is that I don't think those particular photos, if they are copies of genuine photos, would be admissible as evidence in a UK court. I don't know what the Portugues procedures stipulated in 2007 regarding date stamps, but there is the same problem with the Levy VRD videos, isn't there? How authentic is anything in this case?
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/forensic-photography.html *snipped* All photographs or video taken at a crime scene are indelibly time and date stamped.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 03:21:41 AM
All I can say is that I don't think those particular photos, if they are copies of genuine photos, would be admissible as evidence in a UK court. I don't know what the Portugues procedures stipulated in 2007 regarding date stamps, but there is the same problem with the Levy VRD videos, isn't there? How authentic is anything in this case?
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/forensic-photography.html *snipped* All photographs or video taken at a crime scene are indelibly time and date stamped.
If you claim the 4th May official PJ photos are photoshopped, its pointless to describe the mistake in the film.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 03:37:58 AM
If you claim the 4th May official PJ photos are photoshopped, its pointless to describe the mistake in the film.
I'm not claiming that they actually are photoshopped, but if they were to be used in evidence & someone said, e.g, there was no clothes airer on the patio that night - how could the PJ prove otherwise? By all means describe the mistake you see in the film for discussion purposes - we're not the ones responsible for what makes it to any courtroom. Night, Pegasus.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 03:54:34 AM
IMO the photo of the airer is hard evidence. If it was relevant, a court could examine that photo, the time it was taken, and the statement of the officer who took the photo, and conclude that the airer was on the balcony, with those clothes on it. The only significance of the airer in that photo IMO is to prove that the alerted clothes were not on the airer that night (therefore they were inside the apartment).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on June 15, 2015, 08:51:58 AM
IMO the photo of the airer is hard evidence. If it was relevant, a court could examine that photo, the time it was taken, and the statement of the officer who took the photo, and conclude that the airer was on the balcony, with those clothes on it. The only significance of the airer in that photo IMO is to prove that the alerted clothes were not on the airer that night (therefore they were inside the apartment).
I for one would appreciate reading what you say about a mistake you have found using the information we, the general public, have to hand.
From my very first viewing, I have always had issues with the Levy videos ... one of which is the lack of a time and date stamp.
I have no reason to suppose that the photographic evidence supplied by the photographer at the crime scene would not have followed the stringent procedures carried out at a later date as supervised by Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ and described by M Harrison.
**snip
3. How did the searches evolve? Between the 31.07.2007 and 07.08.2007 the searches took place in Praia da Luz were under the command and supervision of the Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ. He was personally present at the searches and at his request I accompanied him as an advisor. The searches evolved were multidisciplinary and involved the PJ, GNR, UK Police and the University of Aveiro. All the searches that occurred were documented in video by the PJ, including location, time and date stamps. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2015, 10:24:23 AM
The police spent lot of time and energy looking for a missing child who they believed had wandered, in a search no doubt radiating from the centre as that is not only protocol but the sensible course of action.
Where is more central than Block 5? There are no outbuildings to be searched ... but there may be a cellar. We know from the evidence that the crawl space under Casa Liliana was searched. There is no evidence that ... (a) block five has a deep cellar underneath (b) there is no evidence that if it has, that area was searched.
There are many instances of people and children falling into lift shafts (just Google it).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 15, 2015, 11:24:24 AM
The police spent lot of time and energy looking for a missing child who they believed had wandered, in a search no doubt radiating from the centre as that is not only protocol but the sensible course of action.
Where is more central than Block 5? There are no outbuildings to be searched ... but there may be a cellar. We know from the evidence that the crawl space under Casa Liliana was searched. There is no evidence that ... (a) block five has a deep cellar underneath (b) there is no evidence that if it has, that area was searched.
There are many instances of people and children falling into lift shafts (just Google it).
The crawl space in CL wasn't actually searched, AFAIK, as the entrance to it had been blocked up for years and tiled over. However, the architect did send in the plans and the fact that the entrance was blocked was verified.
However, as we have both been trying to point out.... was any such verification done for Block 5 (or others nearby for that matter)?
Choosing to block up an entrance to a crawlspace in a private home may not equate to the same considerations in an apartment block.
Perhaps Alice has a view on this?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2015, 11:45:43 AM
The crawl space in CL wasn't actually searched, AFAIK, as the entrance to it had been blocked up for years and tiled over. However, the architect did send in the plans and the fact that the entrance was blocked was verified.
However, as we have both been trying to point out.... was any such verification done for Block 5 (or others nearby for that matter)?
Choosing to block up an entrance to a crawlspace in a private home may not equate to the same considerations in an apartment block.
Perhaps Alice has a view on this?
Possibly an irrelevance ... I have blocked the outside access to my cellar ... the entry I have retained from inside the house would be very difficult for someone who didn't know exactly where it is to find ... and unless one knew there was a void under the house no-one would be looking for it anyway.
It remains possible that there may be such a concealed entrance somewhere around the apartment in Praia da Luz.
I assumed that having located the entrance inside the villa, Carana, the police would have dropped down and physically inspected it. I know that the architect had difficulty when he tried to pass on the information and the drawings. If memory serves me well, part of which was as a result of language difficulties when using the phone, but that is for another thread to discuss. We have no idea what and where the dogs checked when they inspected ... the mind boggles if they weren't put into the space under the villa.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 15, 2015, 12:11:10 PM
Possibly an irrelevance ... I have blocked the outside access to my cellar ... the entry I have retained from inside the house would be very difficult for someone who didn't know exactly where it is to find ... and unless one knew there was a void under the house no-one would be looking for it anyway.
It remains possible that there may be such a concealed entrance somewhere around the apartment in Praia da Luz.
I assumed that having located the entrance inside the villa, Carana, the police would have dropped down and physically inspected it. I know that the architect had difficulty when he tried to pass on the information and the drawings. If memory serves me well, part of which was as a result of language difficulties when using the phone, but that is for another thread to discuss. We have no idea what and where the dogs checked when they inspected ... the mind boggles if they weren't put into the space under the villa.
I thought I'd posted drawing and photos of that here... somewhere.
Back to topic, an issue isn't just what hard evidence exists (however that is defined), but what is missing. And that would seem to be twofold: a) what the forensic people didn't look for (or somehow lost) is something we'll probably never know and b) any significance or lack therof that could be attached to what they did find or didn't find where they did search that could have been equally significant.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 12:29:00 PM
I thought I'd posted drawing and photos of that here... somewhere.
Back to topic, an issue isn't just what hard evidence exists (however that is defined), but what is missing. And that would seem to be twofold: a) what the forensic people didn't look for (or somehow lost) is something we'll probably never know and b) any significance or lack therof that could be attached to what they did find or didn't find where they did search that could have been equally significant.
That is an opportunity to ask about the significance of the rotting meat found in 5J in relation to the abduction theories. Who put the foodstuffs in the fridge & when? Why was it put there? The PJ reported 5J had been unoccupied for months. It took them a week to get an access key. But SOMEBODY had recently had access - the fact that the food was smelling indicated it was very actively decomposing, therefore relatively fresh. Why wasn't 5J forensically examined?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 15, 2015, 01:54:03 PM
That is an opportunity to ask about the significance of the rotting meat found in 5J in relation to the abduction theories. Who put the foodstuffs in the fridge & when? Why was it put there? The PJ reported 5J had been unoccupied for months. It took them a week to get an access key. But SOMEBODY had recently had access - the fact that the food was smelling indicated it was very actively decomposing, therefore relatively fresh. Why wasn't 5J forensically examined?
Why should it have been? None of the other apartments were, only G5A.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 15, 2015, 02:14:25 PM
Why should it have been? None of the other apartments were, only G5A.
The PT sniffer dogs were interested in that apartment. The police eventually found that there was rotting food in it and that was accepted as a likely explanation as to the interest and that was the end of it. Wouldn't that situation have been worth further exploration? Who was in there? When did they leave? An innocent oversight or a rushed departure?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2015, 02:16:08 PM
Why should it have been? None of the other apartments were, only G5A.
Interesting. A child is missing. Police dogs react to a supposedly empty apartment in the same apartment block from which she has disappeared. Nobody bothers to organise entry till some days later.
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables. Annex B. Report on the Sniffer Dog Search and Rescue Team
I can just see why a civilian would think there was little significance ... I would have thought those organising a professional police force in the search for a missing child to take a different view and send in a forensics team.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 15, 2015, 02:39:12 PM
OK lets try and define what hard evidence is. It was my understanding that anything found and proved to be associated with the crime, but not witness statements, as they cannot always have the proof to substantiate them.
The dogs smelling rotten meat is only evidence that the dogs smelled rotten meat.
I agree that this should have been investigated further, since a cleaner would have cleaned the apartment after the departure of a guest, unless of course the owner made her own arrangements for cleaning……………..Anyway it should have been checked out, but was not.
Therefore in the instance of the rotten meat, there was no hard evidence of the crime which was being investigated.
If you disagree with this then please supply a site that proves otherwise.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on June 15, 2015, 02:43:39 PM
OK lets try and define what hard evidence is. It was my understanding that anything found and proved to be associated with the crime, but not witness statements, as they cannot always have the proof to substantiate them.
The dogs smelling rotten meat is only evidence that the dogs smelled rotten meat.
I agree that this should have been investigated further, since a cleaner would have cleaned the apartment after the departure of a guest, unless of course the owner made her own arrangements for cleaning……………..Anyway it should have been checked out, but was not.
Therefore in the instance of the rotten meat, there was no hard evidence of the crime which was being investigated.
If you disagree with this then please supply a site that proves otherwise.
It did cross my mind that someone might have been staying in the apartment without the knowledge of the owner. Although I have no proof of this, other than rotten food in the fridge.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 15, 2015, 02:50:06 PM
It did cross my mind that someone might have been staying in the apartment without the knowledge of the owner. Although I have no proof of this, other than rotten food in the fridge.
I think I've seen it mentioned that quite a lot of illicit sub-letting happens, making it difficult to tie down who was where at any given time.
@Anna ... don't have an opinion about the definition of 'hard' evidence ... quite content to leave it to your good judgement.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 15, 2015, 02:51:42 PM
It did cross my mind that someone might have been staying in the apartment without the knowledge of the owner. Although I have no proof of this, other than rotten food in the fridge.
Exactly, Eleanor. I also had these suspicions as do some others. However there is no proof of anything, connected to that apartment because it was not investigated(that we know of)and nothing was found that can be classed as hard evidence, relating to the crime being discussed.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 15, 2015, 02:54:59 PM
The police spent lot of time and energy looking for a missing child who they believed had wandered, in a search no doubt radiating from the centre as that is not only protocol but the sensible course of action.
Where is more central than Block 5? There are no outbuildings to be searched ... but there may be a cellar. We know from the evidence that the crawl space under Casa Liliana was searched. There is no evidence that ... (a) block five has a deep cellar underneath (b) there is no evidence that if it has, that area was searched.
There are many instances of people and children falling into lift shafts (just Google it).
IMO the cavities in between the foundation walls underneath the south halves of apartments 5A to 5F would have been filled with rubble before construction of the the concrete floors of 5A to 5F.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 15, 2015, 03:04:23 PM
Hard evidence is the subject of this discussion. Please adhere to this. Thank you.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 03:08:29 PM
Exactly, Eleanor. I also had these suspicions as do some others. However there is no proof of anything, connected to that apartment because it was not investigated(that we know of)and nothing was found that can be classed as hard evidence, relating to the crime being discussed.
OK lets try and define what hard evidence is. It was my understanding that anything found and proved to be associated with the crime, but not witness statements, as they cannot always have the proof to substantiate them.
The dogs smelling rotten meat is only evidence that the dogs smelled rotten meat.
I agree that this should have been investigated further, since a cleaner would have cleaned the apartment after the departure of a guest, unless of course the owner made her own arrangements for cleaning……………..Anyway it should have been checked out, but was not.
Therefore in the instance of the rotten meat, there was no hard evidence of the crime which was being investigated.
If you disagree with this then please supply a site that proves otherwise.
The search & rescue dogs were looking what was supposedly Madeleine's scent, nothing else. Do search & rescue dogs show an interest in every dead animal they come across whilst searching the mountainside? Or do they only signal to their handlers when they scent what they are trained to? Illicit sub-letting or otherwise - someone unknown had recently put food in that apartment, presumably with the intention of it being eaten within the apartment. Surely, when a child goes missing, and there is hard evidence a stranger HAD been in 5J but was no longer there, that person should have been looked for/at as a matter of priority?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 03:16:05 PM
That is an opportunity to ask about the significance of the rotting meat found in 5J in relation to the abduction theories. Who put the foodstuffs in the fridge & when? Why was it put there? The PJ reported 5J had been unoccupied for months. It took them a week to get an access key. But SOMEBODY had recently had access - the fact that the food was smelling indicated it was very actively decomposing, therefore relatively fresh. Why wasn't 5J forensically examined?
Police were completely unable to obtain a door key for 5J (and there is hard evidence for that).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Eleanor on June 15, 2015, 03:23:59 PM
The search & rescue dogs were looking what was supposedly Madeleine's scent, nothing else. Do search & rescue dogs show an interest in every dead animal they come across whilst searching the mountainside? Or do they only signal to their handlers when they scent what they are trained to? Illicit sub-letting or otherwise - someone unknown had recently put food in that apartment, presumably with the intention of it being eaten within the apartment. Surely, when a child goes missing, and there is hard evidence a stranger HAD been in 5J but was no longer there, that person should have been looked for/at as a matter of priority?
That's what I think. Someone watching?
Neither Owners or legitimate guests go off and leave rotting food in the fridges of holiday appartments. This I know for a fact.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 03:44:53 PM
Indeed, but presumably we don't know when this food was placed there. Maybe it was weeks or months old.
All the more reason to find out, don't you think? Or is it standard police practice to overlook empty apartments which show signs of recent habitation when a child has gone missing?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on June 15, 2015, 04:02:27 PM
What were the signs of recent habitation, other than rotting food of an uncertain age ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 04:13:23 PM
What were the signs of recent habitation, other than rotting food of an uncertain age ?
If the PJ couldn't obtain the key, then presumably there was no key kept locally in PDL. Why would someone travel to 5J, deposit some (presumably locally purchased) food in the fridge, leave the fridge door open & then leave?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on June 15, 2015, 04:19:27 PM
I guess we don't have the information to answer that question. Unless there is some definitive date regarding occupancy, all else is merely supposition and speculation.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 04:28:13 PM
Door J5 was deadlocked. No key available. Here is GNR dog waiting to be let in through a window. PJ are inside and just starting to raise shutter.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 15, 2015, 05:00:06 PM
Thanks, but I can't see the dog in that photo. If the PJ were already inside, why was the GNR dog waiting to go in through a window?
The green suit is the handler, the dog head is visible, it is looking at the window shutter being raised by the PJ inside. The door cannot be opened from inside because it is deadlocked and no key available. The dog is let in through the only dog accessible window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 15, 2015, 05:23:11 PM
The green suit is the handler, the dog head is visible, it is looking at the window shutter being raised by the PJ inside. The door cannot be opened from inside because it is deadlocked and no key available. The dog is let in through the only dog accessible window.
Maybe it's my eyesight. I can see two men, one below, one on a balcony. I can't work out the dog, but never mind. But if the PJ were inside, how did they get in? If they got in via a door, why didn't the dog go in that way as well?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 05:49:58 PM
This should help, Carana. https://pipeandviolin.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/page/2/
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on June 15, 2015, 06:33:15 PM
This is an interesting photo, Misty https://pipeandviolin.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/hello-world/
We were told nobody could climb in on or out of those windows. Why aren't these pics in the files?
Couldn't have the public knowing the PJ were ace at breaking & entering, DCI - meaning that another myth would bite the dust. I think the photos are stills from news footage but the pipeandviolin is the only source I could find. Perhaps contacting the owner of the blog would shed some light on it all. The writing style is somewhat familiar. &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 08:14:55 PM
The hard evidence (photo) is that there was no key available for 5J. That is the reason a window was used. It was the same at 5A - the burglar did not have a key, so he opened a window - it's not rocket science.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 08:21:27 PM
I have a PJ photo taken that night which shows a layout in the apartment (hard evidence, it is definitely the layout PJ discovered that night). But to compare, another photo with the layout wrong.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 08:43:09 PM
The hard evidence (photo) is that there was no key available for 5J. That is the reason a window was used. It was the same at 5A - the burglar did not have a key, so he opened the window - it's not rocket science.
It's not the same at all. Somebody DID have a key to 5J - the presence of the food proves that - but for whatever reason that key was not made available to the PJ. Any intruder in 5a - several options on the table regarding method of entry.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 08:47:05 PM
I have a PJ photo taken that night which shows a layout in the apartment (hard evidence, it is definitely the layout PJ discovered that night). But to compare, another photo with the layout wrong.
Interesting. Please continue.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 08:53:26 PM
It's not the same at all. Somebody DID have a key to 5J - the presence of the food proves that - but for whatever reason that key was not made available to the PJ. Any intruder in 5a - several options on the table regarding method of entry.
Someone in another town or country probably UK had a key to 5J. The key was not available to the PJ and GNR handlers. It was not available from MW or from OC or from any of the local property management companies. So they opened a window. Not rocket science, nor is 5A where it is obvious the person who opened the window did not have a door key that's why they intended to climb in a window instead. Same at 5G, and maybe at 4A and 5L also, no key so use window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 09:00:37 PM
Someone in another town or country probably UK had a key to 5J. The key was not available to the PJ and GNR handlers. It was not available from MW or from OC or from any of the local property management companies. So they opened a window. Not rocket science, nor is 5A where it is obvious the person who opened the window did not have a door key that's why they intended to climb in a window instead.
I agree, up until your last sentence. The interrupted intruder idea does not explain how Madeleine disappeared without trace, or any of the subsequent cover-ups. Any flies around the rotting food, do you know?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 15, 2015, 09:27:48 PM
Someone in another town or country probably UK had a key to 5J. The key was not available to the PJ and GNR handlers. It was not available from MW or from OC or from any of the local property management companies. So they opened a window. Not rocket science, nor is 5A where it is obvious the person who opened the window did not have a door key that's why they intended to climb in a window instead. Same at 5G, and maybe at 4A and 5L also, no key so use window.
Hmmm. I can agree with some of that, but I have doubts about other bits.
The GNR didn't have a key available - ok and decided to go in through a window. Ok.
The police could have knocked the door out with an appropriate warrant, but they chose to go in in a less destructive way. Ok.
The GNR's immediate concern, bless them, was that she could have been in there as the dogs reacted.
However, I find it impossible to believe that no self-respecting PT burglar has worked out how to duplicate keys or pick bog standard locks.
It doesn't explain, eiher, why the PJ doesn't appear to have checked out why rotting food was there, nor whether that was the only explanation for the smell.
Perhaps the UK / PJ investigations now have done and have ruled it out... or not.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 10:16:09 PM
I agree, up until your last sentence. The interrupted intruder idea does not explain how Madeleine disappeared without trace, or any of the subsequent cover-ups. Any flies around the rotting food, do you know?
It explains leaving the bedroom, fast, Misty. Then which is the more likely continuation - run and hide, or run towards help? Re 5J the files say old meat and veg, nothing else is mentioned.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 15, 2015, 10:20:41 PM
It explains keaving the bedroom Misty. Then which is the more likely continuation - run and hide, or run towards help? Re 5J it was just old meat and veg, nothing else is mentioned.
Pegasus.
You keep pushing that Madeleine ran.
I dont believe she did.
I am utterly convinced from evidence / pointers afterwards, that she was abducted .... and that she still lives.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 10:35:46 PM
It explains leaving the bedroom, fast, Misty. Then which is the more likely continuation - run and hide, or run towards help? Re 5J the files say old meat and veg, nothing else is mentioned.
If she ran & hid - she would have been found. If she ran for help - why didn't she meet a single human being who would have reunited her with her parents?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 10:45:27 PM
I am utterly convinced from evidence / pointers afterwards, that she was abducted .... and that she still lives.
It seems like normal behavior to me. If I was woken by noises and sights at my window I would run from that room. It fits IMO with the hard evidence in that room - 1. the window has no autolock, 2. the shutter has no lock, 3. the door is at the opposite end of the room to the window.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 15, 2015, 11:04:05 PM
Someone in another town or country probably UK had a key to 5J. The key was not available to the PJ and GNR handlers. It was not available from MW or from OC or from any of the local property management companies. So they opened a window. Not rocket science, nor is 5A where it is obvious the person who opened the window did not have a door key that's why they intended to climb in a window instead. Same at 5G, and maybe at 4A and 5L also, no key so use window.
Who, in all likelihood, would have known the owner/occupiers of 5J over the preceding 5 or so years?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 15, 2015, 11:10:35 PM
If she ran & hid - she would have been found. If she ran for help - why didn't she meet a single human being who would have reunited her with her parents?
Very good point and question. But staying on topic I can find no other explanation possible for the hard evidence in the child bedroom. Other theories of that bedroom including Mr Amaral's are collections of unlikely behavior and ridiculous lies or distractions which are IMO impossible.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 15, 2015, 11:41:49 PM
Very good point and question. But staying on topic I can find no other explanation possible for the hard evidence in the child bedroom. Other theories of that bedroom including Mr Amaral's are collections of unlikely behavior and ridiculous lies or distractions which are IMO impossible.
Pegasus
You have forgotten tht Madeleine returned from tea time absolutely exhausted. She had to be carried.
And then she was too tired to go out and play, as she normally loved to do.
I think that she was already drugged at tea-time.
And furthermorwe, I think that she was drugged a second time in the apartment by the lifter. I dont think that she knew a thing about what was going on. She "slept" thru it all.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 16, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
You have forgotten tht Madeleine returned from tea time absolutely exhausted. She had to be carried.
And then she was too tired to go out and play, as she normally loved to do.
I think that she was already drugged at tea-time.
And furthermorwe, I think that she was drugged a second time in the apartment by the lifter. I dont think that she knew a thing about what was going on. She "slept" thru it all.
Your "exhausted" is a very good argument against Mr Amaral's theory that the child woke up for no reason (as acted in his film). But here is another piece of hard evidence - The metal shutters are noisy inside the room if the window is open while the shutter strap is operated.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 01:07:51 AM
You have forgotten tht Madeleine returned from tea time absolutely exhausted. She had to be carried.
And then she was too tired to go out and play, as she normally loved to do.
I think that she was already drugged at tea-time.
And furthermorwe, I think that she was drugged a second time in the apartment by the lifter. I dont think that she knew a thing about what was going on. She "slept" thru it all.
And the twins aswell? How extraordinary.
That was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.
That was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.
You have forgotten tht Madeleine returned from tea time absolutely exhausted. She had to be carried.
And then she was too tired to go out and play, as she normally loved to do.
I think that she was already drugged at tea-time.
And furthermorwe, I think that she was drugged a second time in the apartment by the lifter. I dont think that she knew a thing about what was going on. She "slept" thru it all.
That would involve a very unlikely level of planning to make sure only those three drinks have something added at tapas tea time but not other childrens.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 16, 2015, 02:22:06 AM
More and more posts are mounting up that are not on topic. Could we please get back on "Hard evidence" while we wait for someone to move your posts. They are too interesting to delete, really. A lot can go on the new thread "what/where................"
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 16, 2015, 02:43:25 AM
Hard evidence = PJ photo, taken that night, of the left cupboard in the adult bedroom. On the floor of the cupboard is nothing visible. On the first shelf up is a large jumbled pile of many unfolded clothes, of many colours. On the second shelf up is a large bag/case. On the third shelf up is nothing visible. On the fourth shelf up is a small item. Above that, the top doors are closed, we can not see in there.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 16, 2015, 09:30:45 AM
Your "exhausted" is a very good argument against Mr Amaral's theory that the child woke up for no reason (as acted in his film). But here is another piece of hard evidence - The metal shutters are noisy inside the room if the window is open while the shutter strap is operated.
I do not think that the shutters were opened from the outside. I think that the lifters first job was to raise the shutters and open the window from inside. - Escape route - Encouragement from outside for a fearful lifter - To pass ?chloroform and maybe instruct on its administration - To throw a little light on the scene, from the poor "masked" street lighting Maybe someone outside had a torch which they shone in to illuminate specific parts of the room? - To give a false impression that Madeleine had left of her own initiative .... so mess up the search - To take the investigators eye of the fact that the front door was used for entry and for carrying Madeleine away. So there must be a key involved. To have a key, points to the likelyhood of there being a connection to someone from OC and via that to the perps. - Possibly to disipate fumes and other smells from the room.
At the time she was lifted, I think that Madeleine was already drugged/ sedated to some extent ... drugged at teatime or maybe just before tea, at the creche? And that is why she was so tired that afternoon, that she had to be carried home and also was too tired to go out for her surely favourite daily play withn her friends.
Then she was further drugged before carrying her off
But I think that she had to be further drugged to ensure that she did not scream out.
So all this, Pegasus, to say that I think the shutters were opened from inside the room before opening the windows, so pretty quiet.
Additionally, I think that there are three peeps involved, altho two could have just about managed it. I found it VERY interesting that SY were interested in three peeps.
Oh, and of course, I have multiple pointers that Madeleine was taken up to Porto. Vila Nova de Gaia (VNG) to be precise.
But I am listening to you.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 16, 2015, 10:23:51 AM
Pointers,pointers, pointers and not one jot of evidence.
A bit like you lot.
You have only ONE supposed pointer ... and that has no forensic backing !
ONE POINTER WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ... the dogs..
It makes you look rather silly ... and VERY cruel, castigating The Mccanns as you do, on NO EVIDENCE.
I have a multitude of pointers, which fit together perfectly, but I share NO names despite having them. What a shame that I cannot share them with you.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 16, 2015, 10:26:32 AM
You have only ONE supposed pointer ... and that has no forensic backing !
ONE POINTER WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ... the dogs..
It makes you look rather silly ... and VERY cruel, castigating The Mccanns as you do, on NO EVIDENCE.
I have a multitude of pointers, which fit together perfectly, but I share NO names despite having them. What a shame that I cannot share them with you.
You have your pointers sadie.
Which are in fact your opinions.
However, that's all they are, unless you can provide evidence to back them up.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 16, 2015, 10:28:23 AM
More and more posts are mounting up that are not on topic. Could we please get back on "Hard evidence" while we wait for someone to move your posts. They are too interesting to delete, really. A lot can go on the new thread "what/where................"
We could do that on one quite short post I feel 8(0(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 16, 2015, 10:37:15 AM
We could do that on one quite short post I feel 8(0(*
It is more to do with discussing the hard evidence. Fingerprints from the window, was a good discussion and Pegasus found some very interesting information on them. You are correct in that there is very little in Hard evidence to be found. However, the Topic heading is what the postings should really be about and not theories.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 16, 2015, 10:44:55 AM
Please note{ I have reposted this because I accidentally left out a few rather vtal words re the Cueta Spanish border inland with Morocco. Now corrected.
Carrying on from my previous post:....
Then on from there ... abroad ...
I am particularly interested in the name of the owners/ senior crew of the boat that Raymond Hewletts van was craned on to, [?in Faro]. I am wondering, and I emphasize it is only wondering if Madeleine could have been imported into Morocco, via Cueta in Hewletts van.
Cueta is a small Spanish enclave in the North of Morocco. There would be no Customs to go through when the boat arrived in Cueta Port, because altho it is part of Spain legally, it is also part of the landmass of Morocco. Rather like the British enclave of Gibralter in Spain
Can you imagine the turmoil with 6 kids crammed in such a tiny claustrophobic, maybe smelly, space + maybe one kid "poorly and sleeping" ? My bet is that the Spanish Cueta / Morocco inland border, Customs officers would be only too glad to rush them thru
Additionally the van was partly filled with old Mercedes vehicle parts, which Hewlett was intending to sell in Morocco. In Morocco they have /had two types of Taxis. 1. The petite taxis = bashed up tiny Fiats 2) The Grande Taxis = bashed up old Mercedes limousines. These are shared by a number of often unrelated people and you have to wait until the taxi fills up before departing... or pay extra.
Hewlett says that he could get good money for these parts, if sold in Morocco ... and he probably found them on tips/ scrap yards in Portugal
But all this is only conjecture. I could very well be wrong. It fits however with the day that Madeleine was seen on the wo/mans back with suitcases and the same day it seems Hewlett suddenly packed up and returned home. Along that very road that the Madeleine on a wo/mans back group were walking towards. They were surely going to be picked up, cos they couldn't have walked all the way to the airport or the sea port. Nothing nearby at all.
Hewlett had just received a last minute phone call IIRC and he packed up suddenly and departed.
Also, Raymond Hewlett is reported as having said that he had seen Madeleine. Now was that twice? I rather think it was. Can anyone remember?
To Morocco and back from Morocco?
Just conjecture, but that almost certainly was Madeleine in Zinat. It certainly was NOT Bushra.
Sorry Mods, I think I have strayed, but this evolved from remarks on the thread.
Please post elsewhere if you wish. It would be a shame just to destroy it, I think.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 16, 2015, 10:48:36 AM
I am particularly interested in the name of the owners/ senior crew of the boat that Raymond Hewletts van was craned on to, [?in Faro]. I am wondering, and I emphasize it is only wondering if Madeleine could have been imported into Morocco, via Cueta in Hewletts van.
Cueta is a small Spanish enclave in the North of Morocco. There would be no Customs to go through when the boat arrived in Cueta Port, because altho it is part of Spain legally, it is also part of the landmass of Morocco. Rather like the British enclave of Gibralter in Spain
Can you imagine the turmoil with 6 kids crammed in such a tiny claustrophobic, maybe smelly, space + maybe one kid "poorly and sleeping" ? My bet is that the Spanish /Cueta border Customs officers would be only too glad to rush them thru
Additionally the van was partly filled with old Mercedes vehicle parts, which Hewlett was intending to sell in Morocco. In Morocco they have /had two types of Taxis. 1. The petite taxis = bashed up tiny Fiats 2) The Grande Taxis = bashed up old Mercedes limousines. These are shared by a number of often unrelated people and you have to wait until the taxi fills up before departing... or pay extra.
Hewlett says that he could get good money for these parts, if sold in Morocco ... and he probably found them on tips/ scrap yards in Portugal
But all this is only conjecture. I could very well be wrong. It fits however with the day that Madeleine was seen on the wo/mans back with suitcases and the same day it seems Hewlett suddenly packed up and returned home. Along that very road that the Madeleine on a wo/mans back group were walking towards. They were surely going to be picked up, cos they couldn't have walked all the way to the airport or the sea port. Nothing nearby at all.
Hewlett had just received a last minute phone call IIRC and he packed up suddenly and departed.
Also, Raymond Hewlett is reported as having said that he had seen Madeleine. Now was that twice? I rather think it was. Can anyone remember?
To Morocco and back from Morocco?
Just conjecture, but that almost certainly was Madeleine in Zinat. It certainly was NOT Bushra.
Your clutching at straws.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 11:00:58 AM
Fiona is being honest. Tue - Crying Wed - no crying and they stayed out later that night. Go figure.
Unbelievable
That's OK. I was interested in your perception of her honesty regarding recollections of that night. It's important because of who she remembers being at the scene.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 11:39:18 AM
Now on to Thur 3 May morning.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 16, 2015, 01:00:22 PM
Why do you persist in posting video after video sometimes without comment sometimes with minimal comment?
It is my understanding that Lizzie Taylor is making a reasonable income from the type of video you are posting. Give me one good reason why I should contribute to that income in any way whatsoever?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 16, 2015, 02:34:48 PM
Why do you persist in posting video after video sometimes without comment sometimes with minimal comment?
It is my understanding that Lizzie Taylor is making a reasonable income from the type of video you are posting. Give me one good reason why I should contribute to that income in any way whatsoever?
At one stage, it was agreed that Lizzie Taylor, "hideho" videos would not be allowed in this forum. Because of their biased innacurate content designed to mislead.
A couple of years ago, the wonderful gilet, along with some others, proved their inaccuracies and mis/ disinformation.
Seems mis/ disinformation is allowed now?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 02:39:30 PM
Why do you persist in posting video after video sometimes without comment sometimes with minimal comment?
It is my understanding that Lizzie Taylor is making a reasonable income from the type of video you are posting. Give me one good reason why I should contribute to that income in any way whatsoever?
I've posted that information before on here. First time I saw that video today but it agrees with a lot of my posts here. So instead of typing it all out again it was easier to post the vid.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 16, 2015, 03:46:43 PM
It is more to do with discussing the hard evidence. Fingerprints from the window, was a good discussion and Pegasus found some very interesting information on them. You are correct in that there is very little in Hard evidence to be found. However, the Topic heading is what the postings should really be about and not theories.
IMO the PJ photos taken that night are hard evidence. I posted a description of one of those photos, including facts no-one noticed before. That photo is hard evidence because it is definite - those items were definitely on those exact shelves when PJ took the photo - indisputably.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 16, 2015, 03:55:48 PM
IMO the PJ photos taken that night are hard evidence. I posted a description of one of those photos, including facts no-one noticed before. That photo is hard evidence because it is definite - those items were definitely on those exact shelves when PJ took the photo - indisputably.
Yes I suppose the photos are hard evidence. I didn't notice that there cupboards above the wardrobes though. These are usually blanket/pillow cupboards.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 16, 2015, 04:24:06 PM
Yes I suppose the photos are hard evidence. I didn't notice that there cupboards above the wardrobes though. These are usually blanket/pillow cupboards.
The hard evidence about the left top cupboard is that it exists & has doors which hide what if anything is in it (PJ photo). Anything more, like guessing that anyone searched in it that night, or guessing it was empty, or guessing it had blankets or pillows in, is conjectures and assumptions.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 16, 2015, 04:50:33 PM
I've posted that information before on here. First time I saw that video today but it agrees with a lot of my posts here. So instead of typing it all out again it was easier to post the vid.
If you have something to say, I for one would prefer you to say it ... quite simply, I seldom watch any of the videos you post particularly when one is expected to sit through forty five minutes of drivel trying to second guess your point since you seldom bother with indexing.
I have my own opinion of these videos and if at one time the forum disallowed them, I think it might be an idea to have a look at their reintroduction, I see no value in them at all apart from bias and disinformation.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 16, 2015, 04:51:24 PM
IMO the PJ photos taken that night are hard evidence. I posted a description of one of those photos, including facts no-one noticed before. That photo is hard evidence because it is definite - those items were definitely on those exact shelves when PJ took the photo - indisputably.
1. Why were those photos of the parents' room not with the PJ Photographic report -18 photos as per the header? http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html
2. Have you looked at the photo on page 2564 of the living room area/table? Spot the differences between that one & photo 12 in the official report.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 16, 2015, 04:55:25 PM
IMO the PJ photos taken that night are hard evidence. I posted a description of one of those photos, including facts no-one noticed before. That photo is hard evidence because it is definite - those items were definitely on those exact shelves when PJ took the photo - indisputably.
A time and date stamp would have been useful and would have made that at least indisputable.
Please don't think I'm saying that to annoy ... I appreciate the intelligent thought behind many of your posts ... just a statement of fact.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 16, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Hard evidence (PJ photo taken that very night) The large pile of unfolded clothes on the first shelf up above the floor of the left cupboard includes 1. at least one grey item 2. at least one white item 3. at least one red item
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 16, 2015, 05:20:47 PM
The hard evidence about the left top cupboard is that it exists & has doors which hide what if anything is in it (PJ photo). Anything more, like guessing that anyone searched in it that night, or guessing it was empty, or guessing it had blankets or pillows in, is conjectures and assumptions.
I did no mention the contents of that particular cupboard. I have no idea what if anything was in it. If like me, you have stayed in a Hotels/apartments, that is where extra pillows and blankets are likely to be found. Top of a wardrobe or in cupboards above.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 16, 2015, 05:30:42 PM
Hard evidence (PJ photo taken that very night) The large pile of unfolded clothes on the first shelf up above the floor of the left cupboard includes 1. at least one grey item 2. at least one white item 3. at least one red item
Because there is no time and date stamp on the photographs it is impossible to say what the sequence of events was.
For example, when was the pen and A4 pad on the dining table ... before or after the image showing it wasn't there? Where and what is the blue bag? Now you see it now you don't. (well spotted, Misty)
Even the furniture positions vary ... look at the dining chair.
We know that the crime scene was compromised ... but these photographs seem to be evidence that it continued to be compromised between one shot and another.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 05:37:41 PM
If you have something to say, I for one would prefer you to say it ... quite simply, I seldom watch any of the videos you post particularly when one is expected to sit through forty five minutes of drivel trying to second guess your point since you seldom bother with indexing.
I have my own opinion of these videos and if at one time the forum disallowed them, I think it might be an idea to have a look at their reintroduction, I see no value in them at all apart from bias and disinformation.
Nobody is forcing you to watch it and you don't have to respond to my post. Signed police statements can be used as evidence. Discrepancies and inconsistencies in stories are investigated.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 16, 2015, 05:39:06 PM
Because there is no time and date stamp on the photographs it is impossible to say what the sequence of events was.
For example, when was the pen and A4 pad on the dining table ... before or after the image showing it wasn't there? Where and what is the blue bag? Now you see it now you don't. (well spotted, Misty)
Even the furniture positions vary ... look at the dining chair.
We know that the crime scene was compromised ... but these photographs seem to be evidence that it continued to be compromised between one shot and another.
Look very carefully at the clothes draped over the dining chair............enlarge & compare.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 05:41:31 PM
Hard evidence = PJ photo, taken that night, of the left cupboard in the adult bedroom. On the floor of the cupboard is nothing visible. On the first shelf up is a large jumbled pile of many unfolded clothes, of many colours. On the second shelf up is a large bag/case. On the third shelf up is nothing visible. On the fourth shelf up is a small item. Above that, the top doors are closed, we can not see in there.
The second main luggage bag they took to PDL is not shown in crime scene photos. And we have a shelf full of clothes where Eddie alerted.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 16, 2015, 05:42:52 PM
Because there is no time and date stamp on the photographs it is impossible to say what the sequence of events was.
For example, when was the pen and A4 pad on the dining table ... before or after the image showing it wasn't there? Where and what is the blue bag? Now you see it now you don't. (well spotted, Misty)
Even the furniture positions vary ... look at the dining chair.
We know that the crime scene was compromised ... but these photographs seem to be evidence that it continued to be compromised between one shot and another.
In the jumbled pile of many clothes in the left cupboard that night there was included a red item, and a white item, and a grey item, all in the same photo, all photographed in the same fraction of a second, hard evidence
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 16, 2015, 05:48:16 PM
Nobody is forcing you to watch it and you don't have to respond to my post. Signed police statements can be used as evidence. Discrepancies and inconsistencies in stories are investigated.
Precisely ... but what a boring forum it would be if we all posted a video instead of debating. Sometimes videos can make an interesting point, but as a rule of thumb ... nothing adulterated by Lizzie Taylor or other propagandists does ... an index point (because usually the pertinent section is only about a minute or two in length).
I'm quite content with leaving the police to interpret so called discrepancies and inconsistencies ... they have the expertise and all the information to hand to enable them to reach valid conclusions.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 05:49:41 PM
Because there is no time and date stamp on the photographs it is impossible to say what the sequence of events was.
For example, when was the pen and A4 pad on the dining table ... before or after the image showing it wasn't there? Where and what is the blue bag? Now you see it now you don't. (well spotted, Misty)
Even the furniture positions vary ... look at the dining chair.
We know that the crime scene was compromised ... but these photographs seem to be evidence that it continued to be compromised between one shot and another.
First photos were taken on early morning on 4 May.
Second set of photos:
On 4 May 2007, at 15:30, a Crime Scene team from the Police Science Laboratory, comprising the undersigned, went, at the request of DIC PJ Portimao, to a dwelling situated at Apartment 5A, of Block A of the tourist accommodation building, "Ocean Club" - Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to perform a specialist examination of the location.There follow photograph displays of the exterior of the apartment to be examined as well as detail of the entrance thereto.
In the jumbled pile of many clothes in the left cupboard that night there was included a red item, and a white item, and a grey item, all in the same photo, all photographed in the same fraction of a second, hard evidence
You and Misty are leaving me behind on this pegasus'
Pathfinder has posted crime scene photographs showing the cupboard when it has been cleared.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 06:18:36 PM
The sofa had to be away from the wall at some point for the curtain to be in that position.
Here is another of those vivid, now cherished memories: Madeleine, in her Eeyore pyjamas, sitting on my lap and cuddling in – something of which she was especially fond when she was tired. We were on one of the two blue sofas, the one facing the patio doors, with Sean and Amelie to our right. I read them a Mog story by Judith Kerr. Auntie Ail – my cousin Aileen – and Uncle Andy had bought this for Madeleine on her third birthday and it remained one of her favourites. She asked if she could wear my engagement ring, which she often liked to do. I took it off and she put it on her middle finger for a few minutes. Gerry arrived back promptly at 7pm, sat down on the other couch and we all chatted for a while. Then we shepherded our three weary little ones through to the bathroom to brush their teeth and for Madeleine to do her bedtime ‘wee-wee’. I took them all into their bedroom. Madeleine got into her bed and then Amelie, Sean and I settled ourselves on top of it, with our backs against the wall, for our final story, If you’re happy and you know it!, another present to Madeleine, this one from Great-Auntie Janet and Great-Uncle Brian. If you’re happy and you know it, clap your hands! says the monkey. Stamp your feet! says the elephant. If you’re happy and you know it . . . It seemed so fitting at the time. Madeleine was obviously exhausted and her head sank down on her pillow intermittently, although she did join in with the babbled responses of her little brother and sister. It’s strange the things you remember. Two pages at the end of the book are divided up into squares, most of them containing one of the animals featured earlier. Madeleine started to count these. She included a couple of the blank squares and I was about to point this out to her when I checked myself, realizing that she was counting the squares regardless of whether or not there was an animal inside. What did it matter, anyway? I felt a surge of pride in her. A boring and redundant detail, you may think, but now any memory of my baby is to be treasured, especially one of the last to date I have to cling on to. Gerry came through to say goodnight. We helped Sean and Amelie give their big sister a ‘night-night’ kiss before laying them in their adjacent travel cots. Then we kissed the twins, and kissed Madeleine, already snuggled down with her ‘princess’ blanket and Cuddle Cat – a soft toy she’d been given soon after she was born and never went to bed without. We were in no doubt that all three would be asleep in an instant. As always, we left the door a few inches open to allow a glimmer of light into the room. Between 7.15 and 7.30pm Gerry took his shower and I went to blow-dry my wayward fringe and put on a bit of make-up. We then sat down together in the sitting room for three-quarters of an hour or so and relaxed with a drink. We talked about the holiday and whether we’d do anything differently if we were to come again, which we had been considering. We both thought that another time we’d quite like to stay in the apartment on our own some evenings (the other couples probably felt that way, too), have a leisurely dinner in the sitting room or on the veranda, and enjoy one of our famous early nights. In fact, we’d wondered about doing that tonight, but as it was such a short holiday, and almost over, it seemed a bit unsociable not to join in with everyone else. Another decision that could have gone either way. (Madeleine)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 16, 2015, 06:25:57 PM
You and Misty are leaving me behind on this pegasus'
Pathfinder has posted crime scene photographs showing the cupboard when it has been cleared.
Pathfinder posted photos taken on 4/5/2007 after 1530hrs.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
*snip* - OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSES PERFORMED - On 4 May 2007, at 15:30, a Crime Scene team from the Police Science Laboratory, comprising the undersigned, went, at the request of DIC PJ Portimao, to a dwelling situated at Apartment 5A, of Block A of the tourist accommodation building, "Ocean Club" - Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to perform a specialist examination of the location.There follow photograph displays of the exterior of the apartment to be examined as well as detail of the entrance thereto.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: DCI on June 16, 2015, 06:45:41 PM
Pathfinder posted photos taken on 4/5/2007 after 1530hrs.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm)
*snip* - OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSES PERFORMED - On 4 May 2007, at 15:30, a Crime Scene team from the Police Science Laboratory, comprising the undersigned, went, at the request of DIC PJ Portimao, to a dwelling situated at Apartment 5A, of Block A of the tourist accommodation building, "Ocean Club" - Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to perform a specialist examination of the location.There follow photograph displays of the exterior of the apartment to be examined as well as detail of the entrance thereto.
Have you noticed just how much has been moved around, between the times the two crime scene photo's were taken?
Cots moved nearer Madeliene's bed, wicker chair moved, window removed and placed where chair was, table cleared. That's just the few I noticed up to now!
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 16, 2015, 06:54:27 PM
Have you noticed just how much has been moved around, between the times the two crime scene photo's were taken?
Cots moved nearer Madeliene's bed, wicker chair moved, window removed and placed where chair was, table cleared. That's just the few I noticed up to now!
I also thought CSI officers would have been in suitable protective clothing.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 16, 2015, 07:15:59 PM
I found the photographic memory drawing for inclusion in Mr Amaral's book intriguing.
Does it show the actual gap between the other single bed and the window wall?
ammended No it doesn't ... just realised that is the chair at the side.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 16, 2015, 09:41:17 PM
Hard evidence of photo before dawn 4th May: There is white grey and red items in the pile on the first shelf up. It is not possible with the photo quality to see exactly which white grey and red items.
Now moving briefly from hard evidence to its interpretation which is opinion: IMO it is maybe there is white top and red top and grey trousers somewhere in that pile at the moment of photography and many hours preceding.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 09:53:16 PM
Hard evidence of photo before dawn 4th May: There is white grey and red items in the pile on the first shelf up. It is not possible with the photo quality to see exactly which white grey and red items.
Now moving briefly from hard evidence to its interpretation which is opinion: IMO it is maybe there is white top and red top and grey trousers somewhere in that pile at the moment of photography and many hours preceding.
Hard evidence of photo before dawn 4th May: There is white grey and red items in the pile on the first shelf up. It is not possible with the photo quality to see exactly which white grey and red items.
Now moving briefly from hard evidence to its interpretation which is opinion: IMO it is maybe there is white top and red top and grey trousers somewhere in that pile at the moment of photography and many hours preceding.
There is also something black & another something blue directly in contact with the something red(?), something white & something grey. I don't see a something black/white check, though. I also don't think Eddie was very interested in that particular shelf.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 16, 2015, 11:53:10 PM
There is also something black & another something blue directly in contact with the something red(?), something white & something grey. I don't see a something black/white check, though. I also don't think Eddie was very interested in that particular shelf.
IMO the photo quality is not good enough to say whether something is grey or is grey white check. Also we see only the items on top of the visible part of the pile, not the items lower in the pile, or to the left or right. Re that particular shelf, I guess pathfinders image collection will soon have something to say about that, so I won't stick my nose in :)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 16, 2015, 11:57:30 PM
There is also something black & another something blue directly in contact with the something red(?), something white & something grey. I don't see a something black/white check, though. I also don't think Eddie was very interested in that particular shelf.
I think he was very interested in it. A pile of clothes and one bag missing from pics. You would think the other bag would be on another shelf but it's not. You're right Pegasus 8(0(* those clothes are probably mostly the kids that were in a bag. Kids jacket hanging on door. Gerry collected them from the shelf the next day and the biege item on bed before 2nd set of crime photos.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 17, 2015, 12:09:17 AM
I'm surprised you don't have an exact nose position shot pathfinder. Back to hard evidence, just looking at the PJ photos of this pair of cupboards you can see 4 places no-one mentioned searching.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 17, 2015, 12:11:41 AM
I think he was very interested in it. A pile of clothes and one bag missing from pics. You would think the other bag would be on another shelf but it's not.
As the photos have no time & date stamp on them, it's a little difficult to state when the clothes & the case were removed from the wardrobe. Pegasus supplied this photo dated 5/5/07 a while ago, showing luggage being moved.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 17, 2015, 01:02:03 AM
I'm surprised you don't have an exact nose position shot pathfinder. Back to hard evidence, just looking at the PJ photos of this pair of cupboards you can see 4 places no-one mentioned searching.
As the photos have no time & date stamp on them, it's a little difficult to state when the clothes & the case were removed from the wardrobe. Pegasus supplied this photo dated 5/5/07 a while ago, showing luggage being moved.
White bag need to verify from airport cctv SAT 28 April 2007.
Eddie's nose is at the wrong end of the wardrobe, P/F 8)--)). Have you found the exact locations of all 5 backpacks in the crime scene photos, per chance?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 17, 2015, 01:43:49 AM
Eddie's nose is at the wrong end of the wardrobe, P/F 8)--)). Have you found the exact locations of all 5 backpacks in the crime scene photos, per chance?
The door is closed that side. 3 carry on luggage - Kate's green one, Gerry's red and a black/white one.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 17, 2015, 02:58:39 AM
Eddie's nose is at the wrong end of the wardrobe, P/F 8)--)). Have you found the exact locations of all 5 backpacks in the crime scene photos, per chance?
No it's not the wrong end. It is correct. In pathfinder's very good pair of photos, Eddies nose is exactly at the left end of the jumbled pile of clothes. The PJ photo is hard evidence which tells us exactly which shelf the pile of clothes was on.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 17, 2015, 08:55:26 AM
No it's not the wrong end. It is correct. In pathfinder's very good pair of photos, Eddies nose is exactly at the left end of the jumbled pile of clothes. The PJ photo is hard evidence which tells us exactly which shelf the pile of clothes was on.
Hmmmm ... so Eddie's nose for 'the scent of death' homed in on a shelf on which clothing had been placed.
The 'hard evidence' for which is a still taken from a video ... please check the video again to confirm that Eddie's nose was all over the place in the video and only fleetingly ~ between 16:53 and 16:54 ~ was in the area shown in the still.
That one definitely isn't going to hold water, Pegasus, in common with everything else to do with the 'record' we have seen of the searches in Duarte Levy's videos.
Not hard evidence ... not really any evidence at all.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: xtina on June 17, 2015, 10:26:24 AM
Clearly some sort of computer glitch. Where does it show the date?
from what i gather the wayback machine makes a copy of all website pages so yeah it doesnt mean anything imo could be a wrong date on he orginal webpage hosting it etc
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 17, 2015, 10:52:43 AM
The page says “Help Find Madeleine McCann” and it features an old photo of Madeleine taken before her holiday in Portugal.
The Wayback Machine has grabbed billions of pages dating back to the 1990s.
What were CEOP doing advertising Madeleine as missing on their website, 3-days before she was reported missing to Portuguese police
Probably a bug. What happened to all the images that were uploaded to:
www.madeleine.ceopupload.com
Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre, said: "No matter how small or insignificant the information may seem to you, it could be the missing part of the jigsaw, so let us decide if it is important."
"We are looking for anyone who was at the Ocean Club Resort or surrounding area in the two weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on 3 May, who have photographs that might help our work."
Did the PJ receive them? Where are they?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6677803.stm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on June 17, 2015, 10:56:18 AM
Probably a bug. What happened to all the images that were uploaded to:
www.madeleine.ceopupload.com
Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre, said: "No matter how small or insignificant the information may seem to you, it could be the missing part of the jigsaw, so let us decide if it is important."
"We are looking for anyone who was at the Ocean Club Resort or surrounding area in the two weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on 3 May, who have photographs that might help our work."
Did the PJ receive them? Where are they?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6677803.stm
You might have answered your own question.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 17, 2015, 10:57:23 AM
"We do not think what we did was irresponsible" Dr. Gerry McCann
25 May 2007
yes it was Mr. McCann.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 17, 2015, 12:34:16 PM
In PJ photos of this room's cupboards are 4 places of interest Under clothes pile In bag-case In top left cupboard In top right cupboard. Look in files - no mention searching in these 4 places by anyone. The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 17, 2015, 07:24:22 PM
In PJ photos of this room's cupboards are 4 places of interest Under clothes pile In bag-case In top left cupboard In top right cupboard. Look in files - no mention searching in these 4 places by anyone. The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes
There is no reason to believe any of those places were overlooked during the initial searches. GNR even checked inside the fridge. Back to CSI photos - here's another one taken of the living area, during daylight hours.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 17, 2015, 07:54:39 PM
There is no reason to believe any of those places were overlooked during the initial searches. GNR even checked inside the fridge. Back to CSI photos - here's another one taken of the living area, during daylight hours.
Where is my magnifying glass 8)--)) There is a much bigger pic I've seen before 8(0(*
Thank you. Some of us aren't very good at the tecno stuff. Still, we do have at least 3 different crime scene photos of the living area. Just shows how little we should rely on any of them as being an accurate reflection of the scene at 10pm on 3/5/07.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: jassi on June 17, 2015, 08:07:54 PM
As it appears to be daylight, it is not going to be 10.30 pm. However, each digital photo will have a time and date electronically embedded into it, so the police will know the exact sequence of photos.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 17, 2015, 08:10:40 PM
Thank you. Some of us aren't very good at the tecno stuff. Still, we do have at least 3 different crime scene photos of the living area. Just shows how little we should rely on any of them as being an accurate reflection of the scene at 10pm on 3/5/07.
That black item is still seen on the sofa.
Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot. (PS)
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 17, 2015, 08:42:21 PM
Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot. (PS)
Please stop obsessing over the colour of clothing items rather than admitting it is almost impossible to categorically determine from the photos the exact type of attire it is. The statement from TA can equally be applied to clothing seized at Casa Liliana.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 17, 2015, 09:02:12 PM
There is no reason to believe any of those places were overlooked during the initial searches. GNR even checked inside the fridge. Back to CSI photos - here's another one taken of the living area, during daylight hours.
No statement mentions looking under the pile of clothes, or in the bag, or in the left top or right top cupboards. So I assume each person didn't, until proven otherwise. Never trust to general impressions.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Benice on June 17, 2015, 09:10:13 PM
Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot. (PS)
If that was Gerry's jacket and he had carried a dead body against it - it would reek of cadaverscent, and so would the settee where it had lain for hours on end. But no alert by Eddie from that settee.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 17, 2015, 10:17:24 PM
Early photos are hard evidence, useful for the observation of trifles http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/foto1.jpg
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 18, 2015, 08:57:48 AM
No statement mentions looking under the pile of clothes, or in the bag, or in the left top or right top cupboards. So I assume each person didn't, until proven otherwise. Never trust to general impressions.
I quite often get castigated when I remark on what I think may be the shortcomings in the police investigations. I have criticised some of the aspects of the search, but it has never occurred to me that they failed to open cupboard doors to check clothing or the contents of bags some think large enough to hold a child's body.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Carana on June 18, 2015, 09:59:23 AM
Police were completely unable to obtain a door key for 5J (and there is hard evidence for that).
Picking up on this, Pegasus. Where did you find that the police were unable to find a key for 5J?
All I can find from the files is this, which doesn't make it clear whether they'd found a key or not. If they hadn't, the PJ would have presumably needed a search warrant (and I haven't checked that yet). On the other hand, I haven't found anything to suggest that there was any follow-up to this.
On 10th May at about 20.10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.
All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.
During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 18, 2015, 10:00:03 AM
I quite often get castigated when I remark on what I think may be the shortcomings in the police investigations. I have criticised some of the aspects of the search, but it has never occurred to me that they failed to open cupboard doors to check clothing or the contents of bags some think large enough to hold a child's body.
How do you know they didn't?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 18, 2015, 10:32:50 AM
Please stop obsessing over the colour of clothing items rather than admitting it is almost impossible to categorically determine from the photos the exact type of attire it is. The statement from TA can equally be applied to clothing seized at Casa Liliana.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/8xj5hh.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2u7qczr.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/e7b3v6.jpg)
The efits don't look like Robert Murat nor the man's physical description (Average build, in good shape) and the dogs didn't alert at his property or his vehicles.
Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately. (MS)
And what's it doing on the sofa? It had to be worn that night. You wear a jacket when it's cold at night not in the daytime. Both items were worn that night or they would be in the wardrobe IMO.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 18, 2015, 10:35:53 AM
I quite often get castigated when I remark on what I think may be the shortcomings in the police investigations. I have criticised some of the aspects of the search, but it has never occurred to me that they failed to open cupboard doors to check clothing or the contents of bags some think large enough to hold a child's body.
Just saying, in that early 4th May photo are several spaces we can't see into, that's all, examining the evidence, not making any assumptions based on theories.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 18, 2015, 10:50:55 AM
He gave them the key to the church on the 7th or 8th May upon the suggestion of John Geraghty, a resident of the parish, so that they could calmly go to the church without any media pressure. Someone from the church gave the key to John Geraghty, who then passed it on to the McCann's, with Father Pacheco's permission.
The efits don't look like Robert Murat nor the man's physical description (Average build, in good shape) and the dogs didn't alert at his property or his vehicles.
Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately. (MS)
And what's it doing on the sofa? It had to be worn that night. You wear a jacket when it's cold at night not in the daytime. Both items were worn that night or they would be in the wardrobe IMO.
Smithman was not RM, I agree 100%.
Would Gerry have left his jacket off whilst he was out searching in the cold of the night? How many jackets do you think he had with him?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 18, 2015, 10:01:53 PM
Would Gerry have left his jacket off whilst he was out searching in the cold of the night? How many jackets do you think he had with him?
If he was wearing those items then it matches the description. If there's no photos you have to talk to eye witnesses who saw him out searching on the night.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 18, 2015, 10:31:09 PM
If he was wearing those items then it matches the description. If there's no photos you have to talk to eye witnesses who saw him out searching on the night.
What about the shoes?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 18, 2015, 11:06:35 PM
What about them? It don't matter they can't get him on that if it's him but it will put them on the right path.
Of course the shoes matter. Did Gerry have a pair of shoes in 5a on that holiday which matched the description given by the Smiths? Is there any photographic evidence of them?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 18, 2015, 11:33:43 PM
Of course the shoes matter. Did Gerry have a pair of shoes in 5a on that holiday which matched the description given by the Smiths? Is there any photographic evidence of them?
Who cares they are long gone. Gonna match his track prints 8 years later are they @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 19, 2015, 12:42:17 AM
@Carana Because the dog entered by window. No-one would use a window if they had a key. I assume there is a clause in the ownership deeds of each apartment allowing access in emergencies. If not a search warrant can be obtained very quickly (the search warrant for the Flores house took only about a day to get IIRC).
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 19, 2015, 01:15:44 AM
@Carana Because the dog entered by window. No-one would use a window if they had a key. I assume there is a clause in the ownership deeds of each apartment allowing access in emergencies. If not a search warrant can be obtained very quickly (the search warrant for the Flores house took only about a day to get IIRC).
In some cases a delay might be OK.
But in a missing child case, a day is a long time.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 19, 2015, 01:39:25 AM
But in a missing child case, a day is a long time.
The search warrant for the R Das Flores house is in the files and it was issued by the judge in a few hours. Apt 5J IMO probably didn't need a warrant.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 19, 2015, 01:46:29 AM
The search warrant for the R Das Flores house is in the files and it was issued by the judge in a few hours. Apt 5J IMO probably didn't need a warrant.
I imagine a scent dog search doesn't require a warrant to enter any area as it is not suspect related?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 19, 2015, 02:26:06 AM
But in a missing child case, a day is a long time.
...not really as far as collecting evidence is concerned. Some cases are very old but detectives still manage to retrieve 'evidence' which can convict someone...
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 21, 2015, 07:05:54 PM
...not really as far as collecting evidence is concerned. Some cases are very old but detectives still manage to retrieve 'evidence' which can convict someone...
So it was OK that the dogs were alerting it seemed to 5J. Madeleine might have been in there?
Yet a days wait didn't / doesn't matter?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 21, 2015, 08:40:41 PM
So it was OK that the dogs were alerting it seemed to 5J. Madeleine might have been in there?
Yet a days wait didn't / doesn't matter?
All the searches were carried out under the control of the GNR. The PJ asked them to use the dogs on 7th May to search the apartment blocks. They showed interest in 5A & 5J. I assume a report was then given to the PJ who then asked for the searches to be repeated on 10th May, but this time entering the apartments also. There are discrepancies in the GNR statements about when these searches were carried out, by the way. The dog handler says 8th May for the second search. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 22, 2015, 04:59:10 AM
All the searches were carried out under the control of the GNR. The PJ asked them to use the dogs on 7th May to search the apartment blocks. They showed interest in 5A & 5J. I assume a report was then given to the PJ who then asked for the searches to be repeated on 10th May, but this time entering the apartments also. There are discrepancies in the GNR statements about when these searches were carried out, by the way. The dog handler says 8th May for the second search. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html
But there was enough of an alert for the PJ to want to go in and look?
I maintain that having to wait a day is too long in missing child cases especially.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 22, 2015, 08:59:37 AM
But there was enough of an alert for the PJ to want to go in and look?
I maintain that having to wait a day is too long in missing child cases especially.
Exactly. The PJ didn't ignore the alerts, they asked the dog handlers to take the next step and examine inside the apartments. The delay would be because of reporting up the chain of command and getting further instructions and because the dogs didn't indicate that Madeleine's scent was present. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but investigations are a process, done step by step. There is no evidence to suggest that 5J was significant even now.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 22, 2015, 09:30:18 AM
Exactly. The PJ didn't ignore the alerts, they asked the dog handlers to take the next step and examine inside the apartments. The delay would be because of reporting up the chain of command and getting further instructions and because the dogs didn't indicate that Madeleine's scent was present. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but investigations are a process, done step by step. There is no evidence to suggest that 5J was significant even now.
Let's get this in perspective. A child is missing. Dogs being used in the search for her show a great deal of interest outside the door of a vacant apartment which overlooks the place from which she was taken. Officers are not directed by their chain of command to effect immediate entry.
Sounds entirely logical when one considers the way in which senior command conducted almost every other diligence connected with Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 22, 2015, 09:46:34 AM
Let's get this in perspective. A child is missing. Dogs being used in the search for her show a great deal of interest outside the door of a vacant apartment which overlooks the place from which she was taken. Officers are not directed by their chain of command to effect immediate entry.
Sounds entirely logical when one considers the way in which senior command conducted almost every other diligence connected with Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
The dogs gave no indication that they had found the scent they were looking for. Had they done so I'm sure the police would have reacted immediately.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 22, 2015, 11:33:51 AM
The dogs gave no indication that they had found the scent they were looking for. Had they done so I'm sure the police would have reacted immediately.
Your opinion on the scent followed by the dogs is not substantiated by the details in the handler's report
**snip After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there.
It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time.
Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
It was only when all the searches of the apartments in blocks 4 and 5 were complete, that the behaviour described above was registered.
It is certain that this kind of work does not correspond to the area that these dogs were trained in, but given that these types of dogs manage to discriminate a specific odour from others, although it could be a remote possibility that they related the odour of the missing girl with a possible location where she could have been. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.
During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
The dogs showed an interest outside the door of 5J on the 7th May with both dogs independently reacting outside 5A and nowhere else, apart from perhaps a tray.
No search of 5J took place until the 10th of May when entry was made seven days after Madeleine's disappearance, with a visual search ~ no forensic examination ~ determining there was no trace of Madeleine there.
The evidence provided by the dogs' interest was ignored and the area indicated by them ignored also. What other potential evidence was discarded in like manner?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 22, 2015, 01:09:14 PM
Independent Witnesses
I am police Inspector McGarvey of the Leicestershire police force, currently based in the criminal unit.
In relation to the above I would like to mention that at approximately20.00 on the 5th May, I arrived at the McCann apartment with other family communications officers. We were asked several times during this meeting about questions that Gerald and Kate would like to have followed up and responded to by the PJ.
I remember that during the meetings, Kate revealed that Madeleine had spoken with her in the morning of her disappearance and said that she remembered the twins had cried during the night and that she wanted to know why neither her mother or father had appeared. Kate asked herself whether this fact could have any relation with Madeleine's disappearance.
I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.
One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 22, 2015, 02:55:15 PM
Re crying. There is a bit of hard evidence which the investigation did not obtain, but possibly SIO HM could do so now. Get Portugal Telecom records for the late evenings of 1st May and 2nd May, to determine on which of those two dates the late evening call to EG was. This will decide for certain which late evening crying was.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 22, 2015, 04:25:39 PM
Your opinion on the scent followed by the dogs is not substantiated by the details in the handler's report
**snip After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there.
It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time.
Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.
It was only when all the searches of the apartments in blocks 4 and 5 were complete, that the behaviour described above was registered.
It is certain that this kind of work does not correspond to the area that these dogs were trained in, but given that these types of dogs manage to discriminate a specific odour from others, although it could be a remote possibility that they related the odour of the missing girl with a possible location where she could have been. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5 J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behaviour it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the dour came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.
During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
The dogs showed an interest outside the door of 5J on the 7th May with both dogs independently reacting outside 5A and nowhere else, apart from perhaps a tray.
No search of 5J took place until the 10th of May when entry was made seven days after Madeleine's disappearance, with a visual search ~ no forensic examination ~ determining there was no trace of Madeleine there.
The evidence provided by the dogs' interest was ignored and the area indicated by them ignored also. What other potential evidence was discarded in like manner?
The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for. Witness Statement of Antonio Freitas Silva, 09 May 2007
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 22, 2015, 04:53:46 PM
The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for. Witness Statement of Antonio Freitas Silva, 09 May 2007
At risk of stating the obvious ... if dogs are brought in to assist in a search and they independently display interest in one place associated with the known subject of the search and display exactly the same behaviour in one other place where the subject had no locus ... is it inappropriate or appropriate to immediately investigate that place?
What exactly was the purpose of bringing the dogs in if their behaviour was to be disregarded?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 22, 2015, 11:00:44 PM
At risk of stating the obvious ... if dogs are brought in to assist in a search and they independently display interest in one place associated with the known subject of the search and display exactly the same behaviour in one other place where the subject had no locus ... is it inappropriate or appropriate to immediately investigate that place?
What exactly was the purpose of bringing the dogs in if their behaviour was to be disregarded?
Could ask the same question around the cadaver and blood dog
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 22, 2015, 11:09:02 PM
Did the PJ or Grime disregard any aspect of the behaviour & alerts by Eddie & Keela?
I was referring to the naysayers of Eddie and Keelas findings.
As regards the scent dog being interested in 5j, as it had rotting food in it, that's what some dogs do, but Eddie and Keela from what I have read were trained to disregard this kind of thing, can you say the same for live human scent search dogs?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 22, 2015, 11:56:30 PM
I was referring to the naysayers of Eddie and Keelas findings.
As regards the scent dog being interested in 5j, as it had rotting food in it, that's what some dogs do, but Eddie and Keela from what I have read were trained to disregard this kind of thing, can you say the same for live human scent search dogs?
Yeah ... and that will be why we all saw Eddie running around a kitchen holding a juicy morsel he had retrieved from a waste bin while he was supposed to be 'working'. So I suppose that could be classed as evidence that Eddie may not bother with road kill ... but a juicy kebab might just be too much competition for his trained response.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 22, 2015, 11:59:22 PM
I was referring to the naysayers of Eddie and Keelas findings.
As regards the scent dog being interested in 5j, as it had rotting food in it, that's what some dogs do, but Eddie and Keela from what I have read were trained to disregard this kind of thing, can you say the same for live human scent search dogs?
Each & every alert by Eddie & Keela was addressed. As these dogs were not taken to 5J we do not know what they may have alerted to, rotten meat or otherwise. Live human scent dogs also do what they are trained to do but there are various limitations, depending on their training. Tracking children under 10 requires specialist training. The S&R dogs did show an interest in 5J but it wasn't treated as a priority. Similarly, the scent outside the apartments was followed, then lost, outside Block 6. Why weren't the dogs taken into Block 6, if only to rule out the presence of any further scent?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 23, 2015, 01:18:35 AM
Yeah ... and that will be why we all saw Eddie running around a kitchen holding a juicy morsel he had retrieved from a waste bin while he was supposed to be 'working'. So I suppose that could be classed as evidence that Eddie may not bother with road kill ... but a juicy kebab might just be too much competition for his trained response.
Did anyone see Eddie running around a kitchen holding a juicy morsel in his mouth? I must have missed it.
I WILL need a video confirmation or any other for this to take you seriously Brietta, thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 23, 2015, 01:21:54 AM
Each & every alert by Eddie & Keela was addressed. As these dogs were not taken to 5J we do not know what they may have alerted to, rotten meat or otherwise. Live human scent dogs also do what they are trained to do but there are various limitations, depending on their training. Tracking children under 10 requires specialist training. The S&R dogs did show an interest in 5J but it wasn't treated as a priority. Similarly, the scent outside the apartments was followed, then lost, outside Block 6. Why weren't the dogs taken into Block 6, if only to rule out the presence of any further scent?
I only asked if person scent dogs were trained to ignore other smells....as Eddie and Keela were trained, as to what was smelt in block 5 and 6 by them sorry, I'm not au fair with all those details
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 23, 2015, 07:59:53 AM
At risk of stating the obvious ... if dogs are brought in to assist in a search and they independently display interest in one place associated with the known subject of the search and display exactly the same behaviour in one other place where the subject had no locus ... is it inappropriate or appropriate to immediately investigate that place?
What exactly was the purpose of bringing the dogs in if their behaviour was to be disregarded?
As i understand it there was a lot of sniffing but no alerting. It doesn't explain how these dogs alerted. I expect sniffing equals exploring the different scents present to see if the one they are looking for is one of them. Strange, considering that they should have alerted to 5A and possibly 5H, as Madeleine had been in those apartments.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 23, 2015, 08:36:46 AM
Did anyone see Eddie running around a kitchen holding a juicy morsel in his mouth? I must have missed it.
I WILL need a video confirmation or any other for this to take you seriously Brietta, thanks in advance.
@)(++(* So you've never seen Eddie with the kebab in his mouth?? Just check it out on the video in the forum library, as you probably already know, you_ will_ see_ it_ there.
You should probably have worked out by now that I neither lie nor post anything I cannot substantiate ... but if my word isn't good enough for you ... how about this man's ...
Apartment 5 D We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 23, 2015, 08:40:09 AM
@)(++(* So you've never seen Eddie with the kebab in his mouth?? Just check it out on the video in the forum library, as you probably already know, you_ will_ see_ it_ there.
You should probably have worked out by now that I neither lie nor post anything I cannot substantiate ... but if my word isn't good enough for you ... how about this man's ...
Apartment 5 D We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
You never lie ? &%+((£
How can you substantiate that ?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 23, 2015, 08:48:38 AM
@)(++(* So you've never seen Eddie with the kebab in his mouth?? Just check it out on the video in the forum library, as you probably already know, you_ will_ see_ it_ there.
You should probably have worked out by now that I neither lie nor post anything I cannot substantiate ... but if my word isn't good enough for you ... how about this man's ...
Apartment 5 D We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
And your point is? Did he alert? No, so this behaviour is immaterial. It's not evidence and not relevant.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 23, 2015, 10:37:10 AM
And your point is? Did he alert? No, so this behaviour is immaterial. It's not evidence and not relevant.
It is very relevant indeed.
A VRD should not under any circumstances 'mouth' items at a crime scene. We have seen Eddie continually lift items which might have constituted evidence in his mouth.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 23, 2015, 07:54:18 PM
@)(++(* So you've never seen Eddie with the kebab in his mouth?? Just check it out on the video in the forum library, as you probably already know, you_ will_ see_ it_ there.
You should probably have worked out by now that I neither lie nor post anything I cannot substantiate ... but if my word isn't good enough for you ... how about this man's ...
Apartment 5 D We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
What is so funny?
Maybe I need to go to Specsavers.
I couldn't see anywhere in the video where Eddie was running all around any kitchen with a juicy kebab in his mouth. Frankly, your argument that Eddie alerts to food is, if not a lie, then questionable at best.
Eddie may have shown interest as a "dog" to various smells, but this is not the same as "alerting". This applies to your previous comment about roadkill too. He has never alerted to roadkill OR "juicy kebabs". Seeing as you are using Mr Grime as an expert to quote as back up for your statements, you should already have known all this.
As an aside, the video in the video library which I watched is NOT the original video as placed on the website mccannfiles.com some years ago. The order of the dog searches has been changed. Where is the original? perhaps I can find the kebab in that one.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 23, 2015, 08:00:17 PM
I couldn't see anywhere in the video where Eddie was running all around any kitchen with a juicy kebab in his mouth. Frankly, your argument that Eddie alerts to food is, if not a lie, then questionable at best.
Eddie may have shown interest as a "dog" to various smells, but this is not the same as "alerting". This applies to your previous comment about roadkill too. He has never alerted to roadkill OR "juicy kebabs". Seeing as you are using Mr Grime as an expert to quote as back up for your statements, you should already have known all this.
As an aside, the video in the video library which I watched is NOT the original video as placed on the website mccannfiles.com some years ago. The order of the dog searches has been changed. Where is the original? perhaps I can find the kebab in that one.
It is quite rematprkable how many mccann supporters have become 'google dog handling experts'.
Now if the dogs don't bother themthem, why all the fuss. &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pegasus on June 23, 2015, 08:12:36 PM
It is quite rematprkable how many mccann supporters have become 'google dog handling experts'.
Now if the dogs don't bother themthem, why all the fuss. &%+((£
It will backfire. The GBP will not fall for "the alerts are rubbish".
The GBP have seen the high value placed on skilled dogs by UK police in other cases.
For example in the ongoing case in York, this type of dog has been deployed many times, and never once has anyone claimed the dogs or their handlers are rubbish.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 23, 2015, 08:16:01 PM
I couldn't see anywhere in the video where Eddie was running all around any kitchen with a juicy kebab in his mouth. Frankly, your argument that Eddie alerts to food is, if not a lie, then questionable at best.
Eddie may have shown interest as a "dog" to various smells, but this is not the same as "alerting". This applies to your previous comment about roadkill too. He has never alerted to roadkill OR "juicy kebabs". Seeing as you are using Mr Grime as an expert to quote as back up for your statements, you should already have known all this.
As an aside, the video in the video library which I watched is NOT the original video as placed on the website mccannfiles.com some years ago. The order of the dog searches has been changed. Where is the original? perhaps I can find the kebab in that one.
&%+((£ Where did I say Eddie alerted to food?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 23, 2015, 08:40:23 PM
It will backfire. The GBP will not fall for "the alerts are rubbish".
The GBP have seen the high value placed on skilled dogs by UK police in other cases.
For example in the ongoing case in York, this type of dog has been deployed many times, and never once has anyone claimed the dogs or their handlers are rubbish.
The purpose of dogs is to indicate where evidence can be found; please indicate what evidence was found in Praia da Luz by either the Portuguese or the British animals.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 23, 2015, 08:46:10 PM
Perhaps you would rather we discussed the latest myth paraded as proof it was the parentswotdunit - WayBackMachine?
Ah Misty, do try and keep your on the fence perspective. The twitters and twitters shouldn't transform you into ALFred or Brietta. Youre worth more. Bye for a bit, my PC is playing up.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 23, 2015, 09:23:44 PM
LOL ... Xtina happened to mention it when it hit the headlines. Too stoopid for words.
They're deadly serious about it, Brietta. The proof has been forwarded to the PJ. Madeleine was declared missing before it even happened and it must be true because it said so on the internet.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on June 23, 2015, 09:31:37 PM
If anyone has any hard evidence, OTHER THAN Martin Grime's statements re Eddie and Keela, concerning how those dogs were trained, I would love to see it.
It would be very enlightening indeed.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 23, 2015, 10:36:19 PM
If anyone has any hard evidence, OTHER THAN Martin Grime's statements re Eddie and Keela, concerning how those dogs were trained, I would love to see it.
It would be very enlightening indeed.
Mr Grime did not train these dogs on his own, there were two other trainers
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on June 23, 2015, 11:05:00 PM
If anyone has any hard evidence, OTHER THAN Martin Grime's statements re Eddie and Keela, concerning how those dogs were trained, I would love to see it.
It would be very enlightening indeed.
There is some information here, regarding Morse and Keela. Doesn't give an insight to training methods but quite interesting nonetheless.
No problemo ... it is an interesting read ... and this caught my eye just before the submission of the training record for the dogs
B. EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Before trial, Lane moved to exclude the cadaver dog evidence, contending in part that it was not admissible under MRE 702.
At the evidentiary hearing, Stockham testified that he had started a science-based victim recovery dog program for the FBI.
The program’s protocol called for regular single- and double-blind testing of the dogs throughout their working lives.
Stockham’s program had three full-time dog handlers in its program, including Grime. Stockham testified that Grime was a recognized expert in the field of animal behavior in the United Kingdom who worked with and trained Morse and Keela.
Stockham tested Grime and Morse in 2011. On one occasion, Morse gave a “nonproductive response” when he “barked in a blank room.” No samples were in the room, but Stockham could not exclude the possibility that trace matter was there.
According to Stockham, no instruments can detect and confirm the presence of human remains. It is not clear whether a dog reacts to single compound or a combination of compounds in a decomposing body.
Therefore, nonproductive responses cannot be verified as correct or incorrect. Instead, Stockham assumes that the result is correct if the dog has routinely passed testing before and after the incident.
Grime admitted that there was no scientific testing method that could corroborate Morse’s responses in this case.
Re crying. There is a bit of hard evidence which the investigation did not obtain, but possibly SIO HM could do so now. Get Portugal Telecom records for the late evenings of 1st May and 2nd May, to determine on which of those two dates the late evening call to EG was. This will decide for certain which late evening crying was.
That would have been checked out. I don't know why you're still banging on about WED. Rachel was next door all night and didn't hear anything. Pamela Fenn said Tuesday night and it started just after all those phone calls on Kate's mobile. There is no evidence of crying on Wed only a contradictory statement story the next morning. First it was the twins who cried then it changed to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 23, 2015, 11:55:31 PM
the pertinent question is if they have been tasked to NOT find perpetrator if the parents are involved
It's all a game and they don't want a media circus that's for certain. I think this is like many other tricky cases where they know who did it but can't prove it yet so the real work is done behind the scenes.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on June 24, 2015, 12:02:42 AM
It's all a game and they don't want a media circus that's for certain. I think this is like many other tricky cases where they know who did it but can't prove it yet so the real work is done behind the scenes.
IF the Mccanns are guilty and they have evidence the only reason the police are not acting is political interferance,what else?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 24, 2015, 12:21:52 AM
Was Smithman wearing gloves?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 24, 2015, 12:37:02 AM
Not when he was seen and they haven't found him after all the publicity so he's definitely number 1 suspect. I wonder how many possible names they have received &%+((£
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 24, 2015, 12:52:19 AM
Not when he was seen and they haven't found him after all the publicity so he's definitely number 1 suspect. I wonder how many possible names they have received &%+((£
Did the cadaver dogs alert to Gerry's mobile phone?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 24, 2015, 01:13:17 AM
Did the cadaver dogs alert to Gerry's mobile phone?
I think Gerry would have that on him. I haven't heard their mobiles were examined by the dogs. The fact is if you touch a dead body and then something else like CC it will be contaminated.
The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles.
per·vi·ous ˈpərvēəs/Submit adjective (of a substance) allowing water to pass through; permeable.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 24, 2015, 01:26:40 AM
IF the Mccanns are guilty and they have evidence the only reason the police are not acting is political interferance,what else?
Enough evidence to close it for good. They seem to be spending a great deal of money to do a cover up. I think they want to solve it because SY's reputation is on the line.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: misty on June 24, 2015, 01:46:07 AM
I think Gerry would have that on him. I haven't heard their mobiles were examined by the dogs. The fact is if you touch a dead body and then something else like CC it will be contaminated.
The dog has also been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles.
per·vi·ous ˈpərvēəs/Submit adjective (of a substance) allowing water to pass through; permeable.
OK. If we are in agreement that cadaver odour can permeate items such as cotton clothing (see the German carpet squares test), then by the same means, Smithmans hands must have been contaminated when carrying a corpse away from 5a. Said corpse had already left its odour in various places at 5a. Smithman carried that corpse for a minimum of 3 minutes, possibly longer, so plenty long enough to establish contamination on his hands. After 10pm:- Gerry touched the shutters Gerry touched his phone Gerry put his phone in his trouser pockets. Presumably Gerry touched the patio door/front door handles. Gerry probably touched a whole host of other things after handling his phone.
No alerts, P/F. Not one.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: sadie on June 24, 2015, 06:51:07 AM
OK. If we are in agreement that cadaver odour can permeate items such as cotton clothing (see the German carpet squares test), then by the same means, Smithmans hands must have been contaminated when carrying a corpse away from 5a. Said corpse had already left its odour in various places at 5a. Smithman carried that corpse for a minimum of 3 minutes, possibly longer, so plenty long enough to establish contamination on his hands. After 10pm:- Gerry touched the shutters Gerry touched his phone Gerry put his phone in his trouser pockets. Presumably Gerry touched the patio door/front door handles. Gerry probably touched a whole host of other things after handling his phone.
No alerts, P/F. Not one.
Fabulous thinking misty. 8@??)(
In one short post, you have proved that Gerry was not Smithman
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on June 24, 2015, 08:27:27 AM
What makes you think Smithman was carrying a corpse?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 24, 2015, 09:34:09 AM
OK. If we are in agreement that cadaver odour can permeate items such as cotton clothing (see the German carpet squares test), then by the same means, Smithmans hands must have been contaminated when carrying a corpse away from 5a. Said corpse had already left its odour in various places at 5a. Smithman carried that corpse for a minimum of 3 minutes, possibly longer, so plenty long enough to establish contamination on his hands. After 10pm:- Gerry touched the shutters Gerry touched his phone Gerry put his phone in his trouser pockets. Presumably Gerry touched the patio door/front door handles. Gerry probably touched a whole host of other things after handling his phone.
No alerts, P/F. Not one.
As soon as Eddie got to that apartment his behaviour changed. That is in the reports. Eddie only bark alerts when he is certain so he naturally finds the strongest scent when he is certain. Two places he alerted - behind sofa and at wardrobe.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on June 24, 2015, 06:40:41 PM
Please return to the topic of the thread
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on July 02, 2015, 12:02:41 AM
bar starting a new thread, I thought this to be ok to post here, after having searched for an "evidence of abduction" thread but not finding one...Mods are welcome to move to one if one exists
I do believe that the “Evidence of abduction” have already been discussed here…. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.msg188780#msg188780
This thread however is related to “Any hard evidence in the case” Not necessarily associated to an abduction. Just any hard evidence that may indicate the possible cause of Madeleine’s disappearance. Please feel free to move your post to the link, that I have suggested.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: ferryman on July 02, 2015, 12:10:48 AM
As soon as Eddie got to that apartment his behaviour changed. That is in the reports. Eddie only bark alerts when he is certain so he naturally finds the strongest scent when he is certain. Two places he alerted - behind sofa and at wardrobe.
No it didn't.
Eddie sat and waited for Grime to take off his lead.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on July 02, 2015, 12:15:31 AM
I do believe that the “Evidence of abduction” have already been discussed here…. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4142.msg188780#msg188780
This thread however is related to “Any hard evidence in the case” Not necessarily associated to an abduction. Just any hard evidence that may indicate the possible cause of Madeleine’s disappearance. Please feel free to move your post to the link, that I have suggested.
Thanks Anna
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Anna on July 02, 2015, 12:17:12 AM
You're welcome, mercury
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: mercury on July 02, 2015, 12:25:13 AM
@1.56 Probably off topic, but might settle an argument
I notice the front door was already open so Eddie couldn't have done anything on opening the front door that we can see there
Hmmm but he is a dog handler and knows his animals reactions
Mr Grime knew footage was being recorded so why lie? as has been levelled at him. I don't think he did, I believe he is first and foremost a dog handler and not an English language professor
Many are willing to excuse huge discrepancies in the McCann story with a whole list of excuses, see?
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: pathfinder73 on July 02, 2015, 01:11:21 AM
Eddie sat and waited for Grime to take off his lead.
He tried to get inside whilst still on the lead.
13:20
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on July 05, 2015, 06:10:10 PM
Some people assert that the continual comings and goings that we know about dictates that the theory of an intruder taking Madeleine is ruled out entirely because there was such a small window of opportunity.
These are the people we know about and I would be very surprised if there were not more people passing the apartment than those.
For example Mr and Mrs Moyes do not appear in the files ... although they entered the the building from a different route ... they were out and about at the requisite time.
If there were other passers by the window of opportunity is even shorter for a severely injured little girl dressed in light coloured pyjamas to lie unseen at the bottom of the stairs.
Had she been seen ... the first port of call for anyone seeking to contact emergency services would have been reception at the tapas restaurant or the restaurant itself.
IMO no-one would have attempted to move her for any reason.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 07:21:14 PM
Some people assert that the continual comings and goings that we know about dictates that the theory of an intruder taking Madeleine is ruled out entirely because there was such a small window of opportunity.
These are the people we know about and I would be very surprised if there were not more people passing the apartment than those.
For example Mr and Mrs Moyes do not appear in the files ... although they entered the the building from a different route ... they were out and about at the requisite time.
If there were other passers by the window of opportunity is even shorter for a severely injured little girl dressed in light coloured pyjamas to lie unseen at the bottom of the stairs.
Had she been seen ... the first port of call for anyone seeking to contact emergency services would have been reception at the tapas restaurant or the restaurant itself.
IMO no-one would have attempted to move her for any reason.
It's probably less likely to be seen than an abductor carrying a child, opening shutters etc.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on July 05, 2015, 07:41:11 PM
Sorry, Brietta, it's difficult to convey meaning sometimes. I wasn't being aggressive, it was bewilderment as his theory was different so had no relevance. I'll take the opportunity to apologise for misunderstanding some of your posts too. I often read them as condescending and I'm sure that's not what you are intending to convey.
The problem with his theory was not that it "was different" but that it was entirely wrong. He should have known that trying to fit the evidence to any theory whatsoever was an elementary mistake to make in any investigation.
It was right and proper to initially investigate those closest to the missing child but to keep all other avenues clear and to assess evidence as it came in. There was no allowance made for technical errors on the part of his chain of command which had there been evidence of an intruder meant it would have been would have been completely destroyed. We will never know the answer to that one.
Thank you for your kind apology it is much appreciated.
Please don't apologise for misunderstanding some of my posts though; if they are coming over as condescending ... it is probably because they are.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Brietta on July 05, 2015, 07:46:33 PM
It's probably less likely to be seen than an abductor carrying a child, opening shutters etc.
If shutters are opened from inside in a village of shuttered dwellings ... who would even notice? If a parent is seen carrying a child in a village where such a sight is commonplace ... who would remark?
If a child is discovered lying at the foot of a stone staircase, that would be an unusual occurrence. I still can't see why the response to that would be to pick her up and hide her.
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 07:53:33 PM
The problem with his theory was not that it "was different" but that it was entirely wrong. He should have known that trying to fit the evidence to any theory whatsoever was an elementary mistake to make in any investigation.
It was right and proper to initially investigate those closest to the missing child but to keep all other avenues clear and to assess evidence as it came in. There was no allowance made for technical errors on the part of his chain of command which had there been evidence of an intruder meant it would have been would have been completely destroyed. We will never know the answer to that one.
Thank you for your kind apology it is much appreciated.
Please don't apologise for misunderstanding some of my posts though; if they are coming over as condescending ... it is probably because they are.
There is more evidence to suggest a death in G5A than there is to suggest an abduction. I wonder why you are condescending? A misplaced sense of superiority perhaps. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: G-Unit on July 05, 2015, 07:56:31 PM
If shutters are opened from inside in a village of shuttered dwellings ... who would even notice? If a parent is seen carrying a child in a village where such a sight is commonplace ... who would remark? If a child is discovered lying at the foot of a stone staircase, that would be an unusual occurrence. I still can't see why the response to that would be to pick her up and hide her.
If shutters are opened from inside in a village of shuttered dwellings ... who would even notice? Inside? If a parent is seen carrying a child in a village where such a sight is commonplace ... who would remark? Jane Tanner and the Smiths
If a child is discovered lying at the foot of a stone staircase, that would be an unusual occurrence. I still can't see why the response to that would be to pick her up and hide her. I can
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: Mr Gray on July 05, 2015, 08:16:46 PM
There is more evidence to suggest a death in G5A than there is to suggest an abduction. I wonder why you are condescending? A misplaced sense of superiority perhaps. @)(++(*
there is no evidence to suggest a death in 5a...you think your conclusions are based on evidence ..they are not
Title: Re: Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?
Post by: stephen25000 on July 05, 2015, 08:24:53 PM