UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Alfred R Jones on May 25, 2015, 10:52:03 AM
-
....over to the "sceptics" to explain this one.
-
Come on, this should be an easy one for those of you who take enjoyment from ridiculing the notion that Madeleine was abducted. Apart from the fact that there is a lack of forensic evidence of an abduction (something I fully acknowledge) perhaps someone could exlain why (given all the known facts of the case) it is highly unlikely and most definitely implausible that Madeleine was abducted?
-
Come on, this should be an easy one for those of you who take enjoyment from ridiculing the notion that Madeleine was abducted. Apart from the fact that there is a lack of forensic evidence of an abduction (something I fully acknowledge) perhaps someone could exlain why (given all the known facts of the case) it is highly unlikely and most definitely implausible that Madeleine was abducted?
Well, let's start with a point, I've made many times before.
This case has had unparalleled worldwide publicity, and with an abduction, it would not involve just one person.
Other people would know or have suspicions if someone had behaved out of the ordinary, and with a reward on offer, at one time I believe , approx a £miilion, someone would have snitched.
-
Well, let's start with a point, I've made many times before.
This case has had unparalleled worldwide publicity, and with an abduction, it would not involve just one person.
Other people would know or have suspicions if someone had behaved out of the ordinary, and with a reward on offer, at one time I believe , approx a £miilion, someone would have snitched.
And that is your sole reason for believing that the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible?
So, let's say there were two or three people involved in the abduction - if one person "snitched" on the other two do you think they would a) be rewarded financially or b) be charged with being involved in a child abduction?
-
Indeed it could.
and the mere fact that they left the children for extended periods undefended, whilst they wined and dined. &%+((£
Do you agree that Madeleine's parents are intelligent people?
-
And that is your sole reason for believing that the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible?
So, let's say there were two or three people involved in the abduction - if one person "snitched" on the other two do you think they would a) be rewarded financially or b) be charged with being involved in a child abduction?
No, far from my only reason.
More to come.
-
Do you agree that Madeleine's parents are intelligent people?
Why would 'intelligent' people leave children in a precarious situation in an unknown country.
One thing for sure, they were arrogant.
-
No, far from my only reason.
More to come.
OK, well whilst you are preparing more reasons for why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible perhaps you could answer the question I posed to you in response to your first reason concerning your belief that somebody would have come forward and spilt the beans in return for claiming the reward.
-
OK, well whilst you are preparing more reasons for why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible perhaps you could answer the question I posed to you in response to your first reason concerning your belief that somebody would have come forward and spilt the beans in return for claiming the reward.
Money, pure and simple.
Now that has been said, many times.
-
Question Misty. Do you think the couple seem narcasistic taking them at face value from all the TV interviews we have seen?
-
If we look at the possibilities as to what happened to Maddie...look at all the facts then abduction is by a mile the most probable scenario...and SY seem to agree..
Despite all the bluster NO ONE has been able to come up with an a possible accident scenario......
-
If we look at the possibilities as to what happened to Maddie...look at all the facts then abduction is by a mile the most probable scenario...and SY seem to agree..
Despite all the bluster NO ONE has been able to come up with an a possible accident scenario......
It has been done before dave.
Abduction meanwhile, zero evidence.
-
Money, pure and simple.
Now that has been said, many times.
That is not answering the question I put to you.
Here it is again:
So, let's say there were two or three people involved in the abduction - if one person "snitched" on the other two do you think they would a) be rewarded financially or b) be charged with being involved in a child abduction?
-
It has been done before dave.
Abduction meanwhile, zero evidence.
Then you can easily give me a reasonable scenario...you cannot because no one was able to come up with one
-
Question Misty. Do you think the couple seem narcasistic taking them at face value from all the TV interviews we have seen?
That is rather like asking if I find Nigel Farage competent to run the country, based on his television performances.
-
This thread is to discuss the reasons why, when examining all the known facts of this case, abduction is neither probable nor plausible - can we please keep on topic, thanks!
-
This thread is to discuss the reasons why, when examining all the known facts of this case, abduction is neither probable nor plausible - can we please keep on topic, thanks!
it obviously is probable and plausible...can anyone give a reason that it is not
-
it obviously is probable and plausible...can anyone give a reason that it is not
That's what I'm asking.
-
I wrote this on another thread, and in an attempt to bring this one back on topic I thought it would be helpful to repeat it here:
I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL. It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm. It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts.
Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is both improbable and implausible?
-
That's what I'm asking.
I'll play devil's advocate.
1. The window being open is nonsensical.
2. Dogs woofing in the apartment.
3. The timeframe was extremely tight if you are following SY's Crimewatch timeline.
4. These types of abductions are extremley rare in Portugal. At least the available statistics seems to indicate this.
5. There would be easier children to snatch. Especially if you knew the parents/friends were back and forth and often as they say they were and an abductor was watching.
6. It is statistically speaking usually a family member or a close friend or someone who knew the child who is responsible.
Just some reasons off the top of my head. The trouble with this case is with no real clues how can we know? Sure I can imagine an opportunistic abductor darting in or opening the window and coaxing the girl over. It's happened before. I do agree that with the parents that dunnit angle it's hard to imagine how it could be done.
-
If we look at the possibilities as to what happened to Maddie...look at all the facts then abduction is by a mile the most probable scenario...and SY seem to agree..
Despite all the bluster NO ONE has been able to come up with an a possible accident scenario......
No-one has been able to come up with any scenario at all which would fit with disposing of a child's body ... neither a plausible one nor an implausible one.
-
As one does if discovering one's child has died after falling behind a couch the first thought that springs immediately to mind is to cover the death up and get all your friends to agree to be complicit.
Obvious is it not!!
Why would they have to be complicit?
-
I'll play devil's advocate.
1. The window being open is nonsensical.
2. Dogs woofing in the apartment.
3. The timeframe was extremely tight if you are following SY's Crimewatch timeline.
4. These types of abductions are extremley rare in Portugal. At least the available statistics seems to indicate this.
5. There would be easier children to snatch. Especially if you knew the parents/friends were back and forth and often as they say they were and an abductor was watching.
6. It is statistically speaking usually a family member or a close friend or someone who knew the child who is responsible.
Just some reasons off the top of my head. The trouble with this case is with no real clues how can we know? Sure I can imagine an opportunistic abductor darting in or opening the window and coaxing the girl over. It's happened before. I do agree that with the parents that dunnit angle it's hard to imagine how it could be done.
Let's start with your first reason.
Why is the fact that the window was found open an indicator that abduction is an improbable and implausible theory?
-
This has got nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Actually, it has. It is questioning whether the parents display acceptable post-traumatic personalities to render their abduction claim plausible.
The general consensus seems to be.......why does Mitchell still have to speak on their behalf?
-
The window point was rather a generalisation thrown out there as it's often an argument put forward to demonstrate the implausibility as per the despatches documentary and David Barclays comments. But ok, the reason imo it is implausible the window would be open is that there seriously would be no reason to open it. You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy and secondly no-one imo is going in and out of that window without leaving serious forensic traces. Even if those forensic traces are bootprints on the chair or bed to get out.
-
Why would they have to be complicit?
Oh silly me ... is that not part and parcel of Mr Amaral's theory? ... I thought someone who agrees with it might be able to come up with a reason.
Obviously you do not deign to be that person.
-
The window point was rather a generalisation thrown out there as it's often an argument put forward to demonstrate the implausibility as per the despatches documentary and David Barclays comments. But ok, the reason imo it is implausible the window would be open is that there seriously would be no reason to open it. You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy and secondly no-one imo is going in and out of that window without leaving serious forensic traces. Even if those forensic traces are bootprints on the chair or bed to get out.
So, in your opinion an abductor opening a window of the bedroom of his intended target is highly implausible and improbable? If that is the case, then the only other explanation for the open window is that someone deliberately opened it to make it look like an abduction, yet if it is highly implausible for an abductor to open a window why would whoever staged the abduction open the window...? &%+((£
-
The window point was rather a generalisation thrown out there as it's often an argument put forward to demonstrate the implausibility as per the despatches documentary and David Barclays comments. But ok, the reason imo it is implausible the window would be open is that there seriously would be no reason to open it. You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy and secondly no-one imo is going in and out of that window without leaving serious forensic traces. Even if those forensic traces are bootprints on the chair or bed to get out.
1) From your post - no reason to open a window - apart from to improve light levels, to keep a lookout, to communicate with other(s), to pass a child through.
2) You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy - and yet the twins slept through all the commotion that followed the alarm being raised.
3)Serious forensic traces should have been left - maybe, maybe not, depends what the window was actually used for and how it was opened. Also - can we be sure that the forensic examination was 100% thorough?
-
That's an easy one Alfred. Maybe it didn't matter if they did? What were tiny toddlers going to say to anyone especially as the window could have been opened at 10ish? Or maybe they knew the children would not wake? In fact it was obviously surprising they did not wake to both witnesses and indeed the parents.
Anyway, I'll let someone take over the helm of being a sceptic as I can't say that I feel too passionate about the job - you see I think the parents may be innocent whilst at the same time admitting I have my doubts. If there is a lack of information people tend to fill in the missing parts with their imagination....
-
1) From your post - no reason to open a window - apart from to improve light levels, to keep a lookout, to communicate with other(s), to pass a child through.
2) You could bring the house down with babies crying opening something that noisy - and yet the twins slept through all the commotion that followed the alarm being raised.
3)Serious forensic traces should have been left - maybe, maybe not, depends what the window was actually used for and how it was opened. Also - can we be sure that the forensic examination was 100% thorough?
To pass a child through - yeah makes sense. Also, in defence of the plausibility of abduction it could be that the front door was locked and they were too scared to exit via the patio door again as it was hairy getting in. The window argument is a point of debate though imo...
-
That's an easy one Alfred. Maybe it didn't matter if they did? What were tiny toddlers going to say to anyone especially as the window could have been opened at 10ish? Or maybe they knew the children would not wake? In fact it was obviously surprising they did not wake to both witnesses and indeed the parents.
Anyway, I'll let someone take over the helm of being a sceptic as I can't say that I feel too passionate about the job - you see I think the parents may be innocent whilst at the same time admitting I have my doubts. If there is a lack of information people tend to fill in the missing parts with their imagination....
OK, well thanks for making an attempt at addressing the thread. Personally, I think that giving an open window as a reason for why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible is a pretty poor one....
-
Lord Pookles reasons 2 & 3 for why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible are:
2. Dogs woofing in the apartment.
3. The timeframe was extremely tight if you are following SY's Crimewatch timeline.
leaving the dogs for the time being (done to death on numerous other threads) and focusing on reason 3:
The Met have forensically examined the timeline and have stated that they believe there was a window of opportunity for an abduction to have occurred. In other words they have confirmed that abduction by a stranger is a plausible theory. It may be a tight window of opportunity but that does not mean abduction is implausible or improbable, in my opinion (or that of the Met's apparently!)
-
Lord Pookles reason 4 why abduction theory is both improbable and implausible
4. These types of abductions are extremely rare in Portugal. At least the available statistics seems to indicate this.
Yes, this is true, not just of Portugal but of most countries, that is not a solid reason for ruling out an abduction though. It is extremely rare for a child to be abducted from their baths whilst a parent is in the house or for a girl to be raped and murdered in a dormitory in which her fellow classmates slept but both events occurred.
-
Reason 5
5. There would be easier children to snatch. Especially if you knew the parents/friends were back and forth and often as they say they were and an abductor was watching.
Which children were easier to snatch and why?
-
I wrote this on another thread, and in an attempt to bring this one back on topic I thought it would be helpful to repeat it here:
Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is both improbable and implausible?
The time span you quote is incorrect. The slot is 21:05 ish to 22:00 ish. Gerry made a check at 21:05 and saw Madeleine. Given that MO made a check at 21:30 via the patio gate it is becoming a bit more like 21:35 to 22:00. Andy Redwood said that the deffing out of Tannerman as the abductor increased the timeline, one wonders what he meant.
I have asked this before and never had a thought out reasoned response:
For the child to be abducted the paths of the child and abductor must cross; therefore the child left the apartment or the abductor gained entrance. There would appear to be no incontrovertible evidence that either happened.
Unless one goes all xenophobic and "Johnny Foreigner rozzer is a dullard" it is difficult to comprehend why the police would not have investigated and possibly eliminated all the obvious options for both possible occurrences?
IMO it is starting to look improbable. Implausible? well no as Cocker's Law applies everywhere.
-
Reason 6
6. It is statistically speaking usually a family member or a close friend or someone who knew the child who is responsible.
Statistics are not a very good reason for discounting a theory, but if you insist - what ARE the statistics for child abduction? None available for Portugal but these are recent(ish) from the UK
It highlighted a Home Office report from 2004, which looked at 798 police reports of child abduction in England and Wales. Just over half (399) were attempted abductions. Out of the 798 reports, 56% (447) involved a stranger, 47% (375) were attempted abductions by a stranger and 9% (72) of all reports were successful child abductions by a stranger; 23% (183) of all reported abductions were parental. Those parental reports are only counted as a child abduction by police if the children are taken abroad.
If we look at murders of children in the year 2007/8 in the UK (most recent figures I could find) 52 out of 63 deaths were committed by someone known to the victim. That leaves 11 stranger murders in that year, nearly one a month, so whilst rare, not unheard of. Certainly not rare enough to make abduction and murder implausible.
-
The time span you quote is incorrect. The slot is 21:05 ish to 22:00 ish. Gerry made a check at 21:05 and saw Madeleine. Given that MO made a check at 21:30 via the patio gate it is becoming a bit more like 21:35 to 22:00. Andy Redwood said that the deffing out of Tannerman as the abductor increased the timeline, one wonders what he meant.
I have asked this before and never had a thought out reasoned response:
For the child to be abducted the paths of the child and abductor must cross; therefore the child left the apartment or the abductor gained entrance. There would appear to be no incontrovertible evidence that either happened.
Unless one goes all xenophobic and "Johnny Foreigner rozzer is a dullard" it is difficult to comprehend why the police would not have investigated and possibly eliminated all the obvious options for both possible occurrences?
IMO it is starting to look improbable. Implausible? well no as Cocker's Law applies everywhere.
Is 21:35 to 22.00 not sufficient time for a child abduction to take place then, in your opinion?
-
To pass a child through - yeah makes sense. Also, in defence of the plausibility of abduction it could be that the front door was locked and they were too scared to exit via the patio door again as it was hairy getting in. The window argument is a point of debate though imo...
Perhaps there was never an intention to use the window for anything other than an escape route should the need arise.
(a) slide the shutter up and open the window as demonstrated on various videos
(b) enter via front door using a key
(c) enter bedroom, lift child from the bed
(d) exit the apartment by the front door carrying the child
(e) carry the child to a vehicle and drive off
If someone had returned to the apartment the intruder would have heard and would have had plenty of time to exit and make good his/her escape. The whole episode could have been concluded in minutes.
-
That is not answering the question I put to you.
Here it is again:
So, let's say there were two or three people involved in the abduction - if one person "snitched" on the other two do you think they would a) be rewarded financially or b) be charged with being involved in a child abduction?
Oh, that old chestnut.
They would turn states evidence, or in abdication, they wouldn't be charged if they weren't involved, would they.
-
Reason 5
5. There would be easier children to snatch. Especially if you knew the parents/friends were back and forth and often as they say they were and an abductor was watching.
Which children were easier to snatch and why?
if there was an abduction, why not choose Madeleine's younger sister.
Same bloodline, after all.
The latter one was for sadie.
-
if there was an abduction, why not choose Madeleine's younger sister.
Same bloodline, after all.
The latter one was for sadie.
@)(++(*
-
These are all grains of sand that pile up though, no? The timeline, window, statistics, dogs etc. I'm also fully aware that anyone could make a case however weak, for their agenda, which is why people pay big money for good lawyers. FWIW, hopefully we will eventually find out the truth to quench this speculation. In my heart I believe the McCanns are innocent, but I would not be unduly surprised to find out the reverse is true. If we look at the situation from the parents that dunnit angle, Madeleine could have passed away before they went out for the night. If we also consider hypothetically that they are narcissists and quite in control of their emotions it is not inconceivable that thinking people would devise a plan to move the body and stage an abduction. This becomes even easier and even more believable imo if there was a conspiracy between 1 or 2 other members of the group. I don't know the McCanns and neither do I suspect people on this forum do though of course it would not be surprising if one or two of you did know them in some way. Therefore, I do not know what they may or may not be capable of. They had motive imo. And that motive was the complete loss of their way of life, income, children - basically everything.
-
Oh, that old chestnut.
They would turn states evidence, or in abdication, they wouldn't be charged if they weren't involved, would they.
Anyone who has known for 8 years who abducted Madeleine McCann and didn't come forward sooner would be more likely to be charged than rewarded, unless you have evidence to the contrary?
-
if there was an abduction, why not choose Madeleine's younger sister.
Same bloodline, after all.
The latter one was for sadie.
Why choose her?
-
Anyone who has known for 8 years who abducted Madeleine McCann and didn't come forward sooner would be more likely to be charged than rewarded, unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Exactly.
Another reason why I don't believe in abduction.
-
Why choose her?
You are kidding, aren't you ?
-
These are all grains of sand that pile up though, no? The timeline, window, statistics, dogs etc. I'm also fully aware that anyone could make a case however weak, for their agenda, which is why people pay big money for good lawyers. FWIW, hopefully we will eventually find out the truth to quench this speculation. In my heart I believe the McCanns are innocent, but I would not be unduly surprised to find out the reverse is true. If we look at the situation from the parents that dunnit angle, Madeleine could have passed away before they went out for the night. If we also consider hypothetically that they are narcissists and quite in control of their emotions it is not inconceivable that thinking people would devise a plan to move the body and stage an abduction. This becomes even easier and even more believable imo if there was a conspiracy between 1 or 2 other members of the group. I don't know the McCanns and neither do I suspect people on this forum do though of course it would not be surprising if one or two of you did know them in some way. Therefore, I do not know what they may or may not be capable of. They had motive imo. And that motive was the complete loss of their way of life, income, children - basically everything.
And even if that was not going to be the case, they couldn't be sure of that at the time.
-
These are all grains of sand that pile up though, no? The timeline, window, statistics, dogs etc. I'm also fully aware that anyone could make a case however weak, for their agenda, which is why people pay big money for good lawyers. FWIW, hopefully we will eventually find out the truth to quench this speculation. In my heart I believe the McCanns are innocent, but I would not be unduly surprised to find out the reverse is true. If we look at the situation from the parents that dunnit angle, Madeleine could have passed away before they went out for the night. If we also consider hypothetically that they are narcissists and quite in control of their emotions it is not inconceivable that thinking people would devise a plan to move the body and stage an abduction. This becomes even easier and even more believable imo if there was a conspiracy between 1 or 2 other members of the group. I don't know the McCanns and neither do I suspect people on this forum do though of course it would not be surprising if one or two of you did know them in some way. Therefore, I do not know what they may or may not be capable of. They had motive imo. And that motive was the complete loss of their way of life, income, children - basically everything.
No, these are not grains of sand (making a large sand dune of evidence), they are simply worn out "sceptic" arguments that have been trotted out time and again over the last 8 years and which don't stand up to close scrutiny.
-
These are all grains of sand that pile up though, no? The timeline, window, statistics, dogs etc. I'm also fully aware that anyone could make a case however weak, for their agenda, which is why people pay big money for good lawyers. FWIW, hopefully we will eventually find out the truth to quench this speculation. In my heart I believe the McCanns are innocent, but I would not be unduly surprised to find out the reverse is true. If we look at the situation from the parents that dunnit angle, Madeleine could have passed away before they went out for the night. If we also consider hypothetically that they are narcissists and quite in control of their emotions it is not inconceivable that thinking people would devise a plan to move the body and stage an abduction. This becomes even easier and even more believable imo if there was a conspiracy between 1 or 2 other members of the group. I don't know the McCanns and neither do I suspect people on this forum do though of course it would not be surprising if one or two of you did know them in some way. Therefore, I do not know what they may or may not be capable of. They had motive imo. And that motive was the complete loss of their way of life, income, children - basically everything.
Good post.
-
Good post.
Seconded.
-
Exactly.
Another reason why I don't believe in abduction.
You've just argued against yourself there. @)(++(*
-
You are kidding, aren't you ?
No, I'm not kidding at all, why would I kid about a thing like that?
-
These are all grains of sand that pile up though, no? The timeline, window, statistics, dogs etc. I'm also fully aware that anyone could make a case however weak, for their agenda, which is why people pay big money for good lawyers. FWIW, hopefully we will eventually find out the truth to quench this speculation. In my heart I believe the McCanns are innocent, but I would not be unduly surprised to find out the reverse is true. If we look at the situation from the parents that dunnit angle, Madeleine could have passed away before they went out for the night. If we also consider hypothetically that they are narcissists and quite in control of their emotions it is not inconceivable that thinking people would devise a plan to move the body and stage an abduction. This becomes even easier and even more believable imo if there was a conspiracy between 1 or 2 other members of the group. I don't know the McCanns and neither do I suspect people on this forum do though of course it would not be surprising if one or two of you did know them in some way. Therefore, I do not know what they may or may not be capable of. They had motive imo. And that motive was the complete loss of their way of life, income, children - basically everything.
That is an excellent post.
8((()*/
IMO abduction is not too implausible but definitely not "probable".
For the above and a few other reasons, including a very simple and basic one, I do not believe the Mccanns ....
-
It's good to see so many sceptics agreeing with someone who doesn't (in his heart of hearts) believe that the McCanns dunnit! 8((()*/
-
You've just argued against yourself there. @)(++(*
No alfred.
I know you're a bit slow.
If there was an abduction.
Someone's would have snitched a long time ago.
Do keep up. 8)--)) 8((()*/
-
No alfred.
I know you're a bit slow.
If there was an abduction.
Someone's would have snitched a long time ago.
Do keep up. 8)--)) 8((()*/
Is that a fact? Some sort of scientific law? Who has snitched in the case of Ben Needham? Claudia Lawrence? Suzy Lamplugh? Do tell.
-
It's good to see so many sceptics agreeing with someone who doesn't (in his heart of hearts) believe that the McCanns dunnit! 8((()*/
Accidental death does not mean the mccanns were involved.
Try again alfred.
-
It's good to see so many sceptics agreeing with someone who doesn't (in his heart of hearts) believe that the McCanns dunnit! 8((()*/
Yes, do enjoy, it's not impossible after all. Then again it's also entirely possible it's wrong. Honest people will accept this.
8((()*/
-
Accidental death does not mean the mccanns were involved.
Try again alfred.
Eh?
-
Yes, do enjoy, it's not impossible after all. Then again it's also entirely possible it's wrong. Honest people will accept this.
8((()*/
So are you too are agreeing that Madeleine may have been abducted?
-
It's good to see so many sceptics agreeing with someone who doesn't (in his heart of hearts) believe that the McCanns dunnit! 8((()*/
Apart from the fact that I may not agree with Lordpookies it was still a good post. It helps to have an open mind.
Sceptic or doubter implies not being certain, unlike believer.
-
Is that a fact? Some sort of scientific law? Who has snitched in the case of Ben Needham? Claudia Lawrence? Suzy Lamplugh? Do tell.
Just provide evidence of abduction alfred that can stand up with reason and logic.
-
Eh?
Not in a death alfred.
The aftermath would be a different story.
-
No, I'm not kidding at all, why would I kid about a thing like that?
Why would an abductor carry a heavier child when a younger one was available and lighter to carry ?
-
Just provide evidence of abduction alfred that can stand up with reason and logic.
Now you are deflecting again Stephen. You stated as fact that it can't be an abduction because someone would have snitched by now. Is this a serious piece of evidence in your opinion as to why Madeleine was not abducted? If so, perhaps you could explain why no one has "snitched" in the other cases I have mentioned - were they not abducted then?
-
Why would an abductor carry a heavier child when a younger one was available and lighter to carry ?
I didn't realise kids were abducted according to how much they weigh. I've heard it all now.
-
Now you are deflecting again Stephen. You stated as fact that it can't be an abduction because someone would have snitched by now. Is this a serious piece of evidence in your opinion as to why Madeleine was not abducted? If so, perhaps you could explain why no one has "snitched" in the other cases I have mentioned - were they not abducted then?
Possibly not the the case of the two adults. They may well have gone off somewhere willingly to meet someone, even if they were later killed, as is sadly likely.
-
Possibly not the the case of the two adults. They may well have gone off somewhere willingly to meet someone, even if they were later killed, as is sadly likely.
Kind of irrelevant. Stephen claims that Madeleine could not have been taken without someone snitching. Surely the same principle should apply in any case of a missing person whose fate is in the hands of other(s)?
-
Possibly not the the case of the two adults. They may well have gone off somewhere willingly to meet someone, even if they were later killed, as is sadly likely.
Incidentally: abducted: take (someone) away illegally by force or deception; kidnap.
So, if Claudia and Suzy were not abducted, then what would you call it?
-
Kind of irrelevant. Stephen claims that Madeleine could not have been taken without someone snitching. Surely the same principle should apply in any case of a missing person whose fate is in the hands of other(s)?
Only if more than one person knows.
-
Only if more than one person knows.
1) we don't know how many people were involved in Madeleine's disappearance 2) there is no golden rule that says when more than one person is involved in a crime, at least one person will eventually snitch on the other.
-
I didn't realise kids were abducted according to how much they weigh. I've heard it all now.
Rollocks.
Who would be easier to carry., a small cild or larger, and garner less attention ?
-
Now alfred let's have some coherent and readoned evidence of abduction.
It's long overdue.
-
Oh silly me ... is that not part and parcel of Mr Amaral's theory? ... I thought someone who agrees with it might be able to come up with a reason.
Obviously you do not deign to be that person.
Indeed, if you believe it is essential for all 9 to be complicit.
-
So are you too are agreeing that Madeleine may have been abducted?
I already said it is not implausible.
-
Now alfred let's have some coherent and readoned evidence of abduction.
It's long overdue.
Could you kindly keep to the topic, thanks.
-
Stephen has cited Madeleine's weight (compared to that of her sister's) as a reason why abduction is both improbable and implausible. Any thoughts, anyone else?
-
I already said it is not implausible.
Great, so we can agree on something - abduction is a plausible theory to explain Madeleine's disappearance..
-
Stephen has cited Madeleine's weight (compared to that of her sister's) as a reason why abduction is both improbable and implausible. Any thoughts, anyone else?
As we have seen in a more recent case, a child was abducted because she would have fitted the photograph on the passport of another child.
-
Is 21:35 to 22.00 not sufficient time for a child abduction to take place then, in your opinion?
I didn't say that I merely pointed out your posted time period of when the McCanns went to dinner and 22:00 was incorrect.
But if everyone is hacking up and the street randomly like commuters at knocking off time the average ne'er do well who had been casing the joint for the past god knows how many days (allegedly) would be likely to call it off.
-
I didn't say that I merely pointed out your posted time period of when the McCanns went to dinner and 22:00 was incorrect.
But if everyone is hacking up and the street randomly like commuters at knocking off time the average ne'er do well who had been casing the joint for the past god knows how many days (allegedly) would be likely to call it off.
1) My time period is only incorrect if you accept as the truth every statement made by the McCann group, something which I'm sure you don't so I'm surprised at you making such an observation and
2) Can you please supply evidence that the street outside Apartment 5a was filled with so many people it was like commuters at rush hour?
-
1) My time period is only incorrect if you accept as the truth every statement made by the McCann group, something which I'm sure you don't so I'm surprised at you making such an observation and
2) Can you please supply evidence that the street outside Apartment 5a was filled with so many people it was like commuters at rush hour?
Why? Do you have reason to believe that Gerry was less than truthful about his "proud father" moment?
Check the timelines for those of T9 who hacked up and down the street add in folk we don't about (it is a thoroughfare after all) add in the owners of all the cars obscuring sight lines (see Jez n Jane n Gerry thread) and that would be enough to cock up any split second accurate timing arrangement. So we have a situation of you either I say eether.
-
I didn't say that I merely pointed out your posted time period of when the McCanns went to dinner and 22:00 was incorrect.
But if everyone is hacking up and the street randomly like commuters at knocking off time the average ne'er do well who had been casing the joint for the past god knows how many days (allegedly) would be likely to call it off.
Rubbish
The back streets of Pdl are almost like a ghost town at the beginning of May.
Go and look for yourself
-
The Hatton Garden Heist happened. A busy London street & plenty of security didn't stop it. Windows of opportunity aren't limited to a few minutes.
-
Why? Do you have reason to believe that Gerry was less than truthful about his "proud father" moment?
Check the timelines for those of T9 who hacked up and down the street add in folk we don't about (it is a thoroughfare after all) add in the owners of all the cars obscuring sight lines (see Jez n Jane n Gerry thread) and that would be enough to cock up any split second accurate timing arrangement. So we have a situation of you either I say eether.
No, I have no reason to doubt the McCann statements, how about you though? Do you believe that all the statements given that night were given as truthful accounts of events that evening? If you believe that something unspeakable happened to Madeleine that evening and that her parents were involved in a cover up then I guess you'd be struggling with the "proud father" statement, correct?
Where are all these car owners' etc statements then, if they were busy traipsing around outside Apt 5a all evening?
-
One or two sceptics have conceded here today that abduction is a plausible theory to explain Madeleine's disappearance - how do you feel about this Stephen? Are they wrong, in your opinion?
-
The abduction is both plausible and possible.....SY based their remit on it. No one is saying it's 100% certain..
-
The abduction is both plausible and possible.....SY based their remit on it. No one is saying it's 100% certain..
Just unlikely.
-
The abduction is both plausible and possible.....SY based their remit on it. No one is saying it's 100% certain..
They believeeeeeeeee @)(++(* 8)--))
-
One or two sceptics have conceded here today that abduction is a plausible theory to explain Madeleine's disappearance - how do you feel about this Stephen? Are they wrong, in your opinion?
Well do you believe in the accidental death scenario, or the usual alternative of Madeleine walking out of the apartment , and disappearing ?
People can believe what they wish.
Meanwhile we have the second comers, where the originator believes Madeleine is the second coming, and firmly believes, he and Madeleine are descended from JC. 8)--))
Well it takes all sorts, doesn't it Alfred ? 8(>((
-
Well do you believe in the accidental death scenario, or the usual alternative of Madeleine walking out of the apartment , and disappearing ?
People can believe what they wish.
Meanwhile we have the second comers, where the originator believes Madeleine is the second coming, and firmly believes, he and Madeleine are descended from JC. 8)--))
Well it takes all sorts, doesn't it Alfred ? 8(>((
You are obsessed with the Second Coming theory but that is not what this thread is about. Personally I think the abduction theory is the ONLY plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance as I am still waiting to hear an alternative that is remotely convincing. That said there are people who maintain that abduction is a ridiculous theory and it is to those people that this thread is appealing.
-
You are obsessed with the Second Coming theory but that is not what this thread is about. Personally I think the abduction theory is the ONLY plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance as I am still waiting to hear an alternative that is remotely convincing. That said there are people who maintain that abduction is a ridiculous theory and it is to those people that this thread is appealing.
Sorry alfred to disappoint you, but I'm not obsessed with the 'second coming', I'm laughing at it.
It reflects the mind set of several mccann supporters.
As to the 'abduction' , you support that , despite not one iota of evidence to support it. 8**8:/:
-
Sorry alfred to disappoint you, but I'm not obsessed with the 'second coming', I'm laughing at it.
It reflects the mind set of several mccann supporters.
As to the 'abduction' , you support that , despite note one iota of evidence to support it. 8**8:/:
The only person on here who ever mentions the Second Coming theory is you.
Now, I am not a "supporter" of the abduction theory, I simply happen to think it is the most plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance, do you agree that it is a plausible theory? If not, why not?
-
The only person on here who ever mentions the Second Coming theory is you.
Now, I am not a "supporter" of the abduction theory, I simply happen to think it is the most plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance, do you agree that it is a plausible theory? If not, why not?
Why is it the most plausible theory alfred ?
You have yet to answer that.
and not one even vague piecebof evidence to back it up ?
Now if you accept the accidental death theory and Madeleine walking out of the apartment, as plausible theories, we might find sdome common ground.
As to the 'second comers', this is merely exposing the lunatic fringe which exists in the realm of the mccann supporters, and some posters on here know full who I mean, as they post on here as well as the forum where the originator of the second coming dwells.
-
Rubbish
The back streets of Pdl are almost like a ghost town at the beginning of May.
Go and look for yourself
Like a ghost town apart from the T9 playing shuttle walks along there by their own admission. I am only quoting from posts on here. There seems to be a confusion whether there are people there or not or whether there are cars there or not or whether ....... well you name it, the arguments and detail will shift with the sands it would seem according to the point you wish to make.
Rubbish is hardly a definitive statement is it?
-
No, I have no reason to doubt the McCann statements, how about you though? Do you believe that all the statements given that night were given as truthful accounts of events that evening? If you believe that something unspeakable happened to Madeleine that evening and that her parents were involved in a cover up then I guess you'd be struggling with the "proud father" statement, correct?
Where are all these car owners' etc statements then, if they were busy traipsing around outside Apt 5a all evening?
If Gerry said he had a proud father moment I have no basis for a contrary opinion. You believe him therefore your time period quoted was in error. The start time is gone 21:00 not 20:45.
As for the car owners and statements I don't know. Ask those who insist that a shedful of parked cars cocked up the sight lines when Jane walked past Jez and Gerry. Bun and ha'penny old chap you can't have both.
-
The Hatton Garden Heist happened. A busy London street & plenty of security didn't stop it. Windows of opportunity aren't limited to a few minutes.
Shall we play spot the difference with respect to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and The Hatton Garden Heist?
-
If Gerry said he had a proud father moment I have no basis for a contrary opinion. You believe him therefore your time period quoted was in error. The start time is gone 21:00 not 20:45.
As for the car owners and statements I don't know. Ask those who insist that a shedful of parked cars cocked up the sight lines when Jane walked past Jez and Gerry. Bun and ha'penny old chap you can't have both.
Well that's interesting. You accept that Gerry's statement was truthful? Then surely it must be hard to reconcile Gerry's statement with theories of an accidental death leaving cadaver odour in the apartment, unless I have misunderstood?
I wasn't aware that there was a shed, nor that it was full of cars, anywhere near the apartment. Of course if there were cars parked along the road it doesn't necessarily follow that their owners were to'ing and fro'ing between car and elsewhere all night long. My car has been parked outside my house all day and I've not been anywhere near it since yesterday.
-
Why is it the most plausible theory alfred ?
You have yet to answer that.
and not one even vague piecebof evidence to back it up ?
Now if you accept the accidental death theory and Madeleine walking out of the apartment, as plausible theories, we might find sdome common ground.
As to the 'second comers', this is merely exposing the lunatic fringe which exists in the realm of the mccann supporters, and some posters on here know full who I mean, as they post on here as well as the forum where the originator of the second coming dwells.
Stephen, this thread is to discuss why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible - over to you...
-
Stephen, this thread is to discuss why the abduction theory is both improbable and implausible - over to you...
I.e. you have no answer.
I have already given some of my reasons.
That will suffice for now.
You clearly can't supply anything in the way of evidence to support your belief in abduction, other than the normal pro-mccann propaganda.
-
Well that's interesting. You accept that Gerry's statement was truthful? Then surely it must be hard to reconcile Gerry's statement with theories of an accidental death leaving cadaver odour in the apartment, unless I have misunderstood?
I wasn't aware that there was a shed, nor that it was full of cars, anywhere near the apartment. Of course if there were cars parked along the road it doesn't necessarily follow that their owners were to'ing and fro'ing between car and elsewhere all night long. My car has been parked outside my house all day and I've not been anywhere near it since yesterday.
Is it?
I said I had no basis for a contrary opinion.
Ha ha.
I did not say the car owners were to-ing and fro-ing.
So?
-
Great, so we can agree on something - abduction is a plausible theory to explain Madeleine's disappearance..
How many times would you like to state the same thing?
I don't remember anyone ever saying it is totally implausible, one of the main reasons being is that no one knows!
Whether it is probable is easier to answer, ie no, it is not "probable". That is taking too great a leap.
You are essentially just asking what people believe and why. Which is a bit of a pointless exercise IMO.
-
Is it?
I said I had no basis for a contrary opinion.
Ha ha.
I did not say the car owners were to-ing and fro-ing.
So?
so what are you saying, anything at all or just playing games?
-
I.e. you have no answer.
I have already given some of my reasons.
That will suffice for now.
You clearly can't supply anything in the way of evidence to support your belief in abduction, other than the normal pro-mccann propaganda.
You have given two reasons 1) someone would have snitched by now and 2) Madeleine was too heavy. Thanks for those, very compelling reasons @)(++(*
-
You have given two reasons 1) someone would have snitched by now and 2) Madeleine was too heavy. Thanks for those, very compelling reasons @)(++(*
Laugh all you like alfred.
There is not a shred of evidence of abduction.
So it would appear you like to live in cloud cuckoo land. 8)--))
You do indeed have a lot in common with the second comers. 8((()*/
Now tell me Alfred, why would an abductor remove an older chil!d rather than a younger bone, who would have fewer memories and be a lot easier to handle ?
As you know paedophile rings have been questioned and again, no trace of Madeleine has been revealed.
Perhaps sdhe is living with a really nice family who have never heard of this story. 8)-)))
-
Laugh all you like alfred.
There is not a shred of evidence of abduction.
So it would appear you like to live in cloud cuckoo land. 8)--))
Now tell me Alfred, why would an abductor remove an older chil!d rather than a younger bone, who would have fewer memories and be a lot easier to handle ?
As you know paedophile rings have been questioned and again, no trace of Madeleine has been revealed.
Perhaps sdhe is living with a really nice family who have never heard of this story. 8)-)))
there is evidence of abduction...fact
-
Why choose her?
Was Madeleine the chosen one? Or was she merely one of eight, all in a very young age range, thrown into an inherently vulnerable situation? Was Madeleine merely the unlucky one?
If there is a better thread for this line of conjecture, folks, I would appreciate it if you would point me at it.
8((()*/
-
Well do you believe in the accidental death scenario, or the usual alternative of Madeleine walking out of the apartment , and disappearing ?
People can believe what they wish.
Meanwhile we have the second comers, where the originator believes Madeleine is the second coming, and firmly believes, he and Madeleine are descended from JC. 8)--))
Well it takes all sorts, doesn't it Alfred ? 8(>((
Well we already have someone on this forum whose family believe they are descended from Jesus.
Lyall is a St Clare [Sinclair] and there is fairly wide belief that this family are descended from Jesus. The Sinclairs are also the people of the mysterious Rosslyn Chapel just seven miles south of Edinburgh [Dan Brown and all that]
It is widely thought that Jesus did NOT die on the cross but was rescued by Mary Magdelene and some friends. It is thought that he was taken initially to Cyprus, then on to the South of France. It is thought that he married Mary and together they produced a family, of which the St Clares are direct issue.
Look it up yourselves on the internet , if you dont believe me.
Despite what The Catholic Church claims, Jesus was a Jew. He came from what is now Israel and the people who lived in Israel, Judea, Ammon etc were called Caananites. It was a general term covering all 12 tribes of Dan in that region at Jesuses time..
Gerry McCann is also almost certainly of a Jewish bloodline, originating in Israel or one of the 12 Caananite sub-regions
PLEASE NOTE THAT SPELLINGS CHANGE THRU THE CENTURIES.
Mc / Mac means * OF *,
So Mccann means " OF Cann "
Kates family name, Healey, is definitely Jewish. I found that on a Jewish names website.
With both parents bloodlines being Jewish and it seems Gerrys (and possibly Kates) originatiing at Old Testament Biblical times from Caanan, [Palestine] there is a definite possibilty that Madeleine, (Beth!), could be descended from Jesus.
All the research has been done by me, as a keen ameteur ... and it is possible that I have reached incorrect conclusions.
BUT so much is now falling into place, that I think I am right.
Madeleine has Jewish blood and could be descended from Jesus.
Some people may be able to trace back via the Clare bloodline, or some other Jewish [ ?Clare, Mccann or Healey? ] bloodline. I am too tired to do that.
-
there is evidence of abduction...fact
Of course there is dave, and the moon is made of green cheese. *&*%£
-
Well we already have someone on this forum whose family believe they are descended from Jesus.
Lyall is a St Clare [Sinclair] and there is fairly wide belief that this family are descended from Jesus. The Sinclairs are also the people of the mysterious Rosslyn Chapel just seven miles south of Edinburgh [Dan Brown and all that]
It is widely thought that Jesus did NOT die on the cross but was rescued by Mary Magdelene and some friends. It is thought that he was taken initially to Cyprus, then on to the South of France. It is thought that he married Mary and together they produced a family, of which the St Clares are direct issue.
Look it up yourselves on the internet , if you dont believe me.
Despite what The Catholic Church claims, Jesus was a Jew. He came from what is now Israel and the people who lived in Israel, Judea, Ammon etc were called Cananites. It was a general term covering all 12 tribes of Dan in that region at Jesuses time..
Gerry McCann is also almost certainly of a Jewish bloodline, originating in Israel or one of the 12 Caananite sub-regions
Mc / Mac means * OF *,
So Mccann means " OF Cann "
Kates family name, Healey, is definitely Jewish. I found that on a Jewish names website.
With both parents bloodlines being Jewish and it seems Gerrys (and possibly Kates) originatiing at Old Testament Biblical times from Caanan, [Palestine] there is a definite possibilty that Madeleine, (Beth!), could be descended from Jesus.
All the research has been done by me, as a keen ameteur ... and it is possible that I have reached incorrect solutions,
BUT so much is now falling into place, that I think I am right.
Madeleine has Jewish blood and could be descended from Jesus.
Some people may be able to trace back via the Clare bloodline, or some other Jewish [ ?Clare, Mccann or Healey? ] bloodline. I am too tired to do that.
Beyond sight and sound….....
We have now entered the Twilight Zone. 8(*(
-
Beyond sight and sound….....
We have now entered the Twilight Zone. 8(*(
I'm sure a psychiatrist would have a field day, not to mention material for several learned publications @)(++(*
-
so what are you saying, anything at all or just playing games?
About twenty to five pm civilian time today I posted:
IMO it is starting to look improbable. Implausible? well no as Cocker's Law applies everywhere.
My opinion hasn't changed but for reasons best known to your self you ignored that preferring to ask questions which I answered.
My opinion however remains.
IMO it is starting to look improbable. Implausible? well no as Cocker's Law applies everywhere.
Is that plain enough now?
-
Well we already have someone on this forum whose family believe they are descended from Jesus.
Lyall is a St Clare [Sinclair] and there is fairly wide belief that this family are descended from Jesus. The Sinclairs are also the people of the mysterious Rosslyn Chapel just seven miles south of Edinburgh [Dan Brown and all that]
It is widely thought that Jesus did NOT die on the cross but was rescued by Mary Magdelene and some friends. It is thought that he was taken initially to Cyprus, then on to the South of France. It is thought that he married Mary and together they produced a family, of which the St Clares are direct issue.
Look it up yourselves on the internet , if you dont believe me.
Despite what The Catholic Church claims, Jesus was a Jew. He came from what is now Israel and the people who lived in Israel, Judea, Ammon etc were called Caananites. It was a general term covering all 12 tribes of Dan in that region at Jesuses time..
Gerry McCann is also almost certainly of a Jewish bloodline, originating in Israel or one of the 12 Caananite sub-regions
PLEASE NOTE THAT SPELLINGS CHANGE THRU THE CENTURIES.
Mc / Mac means * OF *,
So Mccann means " OF Cann "
Kates family name, Healey, is definitely Jewish. I found that on a Jewish names website.
With both parents bloodlines being Jewish and it seems Gerrys (and possibly Kates) originatiing at Old Testament Biblical times from Caanan, [Palestine] there is a definite possibilty that Madeleine, (Beth!), could be descended from Jesus.
All the research has been done by me, as a keen ameteur ... and it is possible that I have reached incorrect conclusions.
BUT so much is now falling into place, that I think I am right.
Madeleine has Jewish blood and could be descended from Jesus.
Some people may be able to trace back via the Clare bloodline, or some other Jewish [ ?Clare, Mccann or Healey? ] bloodline. I am too tired to do that.
You're having a laugh!! OMG!
&%54%
-
Beyond sight and sound….....
We have now entered the Twilight Zone. 8(*(
Be a little adventurous, Stephen and think laterally for a while.
It would broaden your horizons. %£&)**#
-
Be a little adventurous, Stephen and think laterally for a while.
It would broaden your horizons. %£&)**#
The entire works of Shakespeare have been translated into the 'original Klingon' language sadie.
I believe your theories as much as I believe that Klingonese is a real language. 8)--))
-
Quote
"I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL. It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm. It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts. "
Thankyou for the repeat quote.
Why would "someone" select Madeleine in particular.......and make her abduction plausible ?
A forensic timeline has identified an opportunity, as you say, at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10 PM.............Any window of opportunity has therefore been identified retrospectively.
Without this benefit of "hindsight", how would the alleged abductor know for how long and when any opportunity would last or end?
How would the unpredictable comings and goings impact on the potential risks involved...........and what would make the motivation to abduct this particular child irresistible?
-
Quote
"I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL. It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm. It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts. "
Thankyou for the repeat quote.
Why would "someone" select Madeleine in particular.......and make her abduction plausible ?
A forensic timeline has identified an opportunity, as you say, at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10 PM.............Any window of opportunity has therefore been identified retrospectively.
Without this benefit of "hindsight", how would the alleged abductor know for how long and when any opportunity would last or end?
How would the unpredictable comings and goings impact on the potential risks involved...........and what would make the motivation to abduct this particular child irresistible?
Madeleine, of course, was there at about 9 o'clock because Gerry says he saw her, so the window of opportunity has shrunk dramatically.
-
About twenty to five pm civilian time today I posted:
IMO it is starting to look improbable. Implausible? well no as Cocker's Law applies everywhere.
My opinion hasn't changed but for reasons best known to your self you ignored that preferring to ask questions which I answered.
My opinion however remains.
IMO it is starting to look improbable. Implausible? well no as Cocker's Law applies everywhere.
Is that plain enough now?
No, because you haven't elucidated the reasons why, based on the on the known facts of this case, you personally believe abduction to be improbable in this instance.
-
Quote
"I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL. It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm. It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts. "
Thankyou for the repeat quote.
Why would "someone" select Madeleine in particular.......and make her abduction plausible ?
A forensic timeline has identified an opportunity, as you say, at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10 PM.............Any window of opportunity has therefore been identified retrospectively.
Without this benefit of "hindsight", how would the alleged abductor know for how long and when any opportunity would last or end?
How would the unpredictable comings and goings impact on the potential risks involved...........and what would make the motivation to abduct this particular child irresistible?
This thread is for you to tell us why you believe abduction to be both improbable and implausible, not for me to justify my opinions, so over to you...
-
Like a ghost town apart from the T9 playing shuttle walks along there by their own admission. I am only quoting from posts on here. There seems to be a confusion whether there are people there or not or whether there are cars there or not or whether ....... well you name it, the arguments and detail will shift with the sands it would seem according to the point you wish to make.
Rubbish is hardly a definitive statement is it?
The area in the immediate vicinity of 5A is very quiet at night on every night after about 8PM for a simple reason.
There is no commercial venture open for a radius of perhaps 100m-150m at that time of night, with the exception of the Tapas.
During the day, the road beside 5A is on the normal route from the one-way system to Baptista (plus Commercial Centre) and it buzzes with traffic like flies on sugar.
At night it is much more quiet. Shutters get drawn. Locals go indoor to cook a meal. Turistas wander on foot to wherever they get half board.
The comment quoted above is correct. The T9 say shuttles were happening. Raj Balu and Neil Berry say their foursome was overlooking the Tapas entrance. The visitor to 605 says she was driven past block 5 shortly after 9.58.
If that lot is all true, the area was on hyper-drive.
-
This thread is for you to tell us why you believe abduction to be both improbable and implausible, not for me to justify my opinions, so over to you...
I`ll leave your thread, then, thanks.
You evidently feel that the two points I questioned are not a hindrance to your "opinion" as you call it in your quote.
They obviously are to me, or I wouldn`t have brought them up.
-
The area in the immediate vicinity of 5A is very quiet at night on every night after about 8PM for a simple reason.
There is no commercial venture open for a radius of perhaps 100m-150m at that time of night, with the exception of the Tapas.
During the day, the road beside 5A is on the normal route from the one-way system to Baptista (plus Commercial Centre) and it buzzes with traffic like flies on sugar.
At night it is much more quiet. Shutters get drawn. Locals go indoor to cook a meal. Turistas wander on foot to wherever they get half board.
The comment quoted above is correct. The T9 say shuttles were happening. Raj Balu and Neil Berry say their foursome was overlooking the Tapas entrance. The visitor to 605 says she was driven past block 5 shortly after 9.58.
If that lot is all true, the area was on hyper-drive.
So, is it your opinion then that abduction is an improbable and implausible theory? Incidentally, if what you are saying is correct then it follows that for the same reasons it is unlikely that Madeleine woke and wandered as she would undoubtedly have spotted by someone involved in the hyer-drive activity going on around the apartment.
-
I`ll leave your thread, then, thanks.
You evidently feel that the two points I questioned are not a hindrance to your "opinion" as you call it in your quote.
They obviously are to me, or I wouldn`t have brought them up.
So you have no opinion as to why abduction is both implausible and improbable? That surprises me.
-
Laugh all you like alfred.
There is not a shred of evidence of abduction.
So it would appear you like to live in cloud cuckoo land. 8)--))
You do indeed have a lot in common with the second comers. 8((()*/
Now tell me Alfred, why would an abductor remove an older chil!d rather than a younger bone, who would have fewer memories and be a lot easier to handle ?
As you know paedophile rings have been questioned and again, no trace of Madeleine has been revealed.
Perhaps sdhe is living with a really nice family who have never heard of this story. 8)-)))
Did you read the post in which I stated what I think happened to Madeleine? Where do "easier to handle" and "having fewer memories" come into play with a child that you intend to abuse and murder? I do not know why the abductor preferred Madeleine to either of her siblings, I'd rather not get into the mind of such an individual if that's OK with you?
-
So, is it your opinion then that abduction is an improbable and implausible theory? Incidentally, if what you are saying is correct then it follows that for the same reasons it is unlikely that Madeleine woke and wandered as she would undoubtedly have spotted by someone involved in the hyer-drive activity going on around the apartment.
Following a planned abduction hypothesis, I made planned abduction work on my blog perhaps a month or 6 weeks ago. It worked.
It could be done, even if all the T9 checks are real, even if the Carpenter evidence is accurate, even if the waiter and barman statements are accurate, even if the Balu/Berry statements are accurate.
The idea that it could be done does not say that it was done. There are other alternatives, which could have happened.
-
Following a planned abduction hypothesis, I made planned abduction work on my blog perhaps a month or 6 weeks ago. It worked.
It could be done, even if all the T9 checks are real, even if the Carpenter evidence is accurate, even if the waiter and barman statements are accurate, even if the Balu/Berry statements are accurate.
The idea that it could be done does not say that it was done. There are other alternatives, which could have happened.
Thank you. Have you described these alternatives on your blog in any detail? I have been waiting 8 years to read a plausible, logical alternative to the abduction theory so would be interested to read what you have to say on the matter.
-
Following a planned abduction hypothesis, I made planned abduction work on my blog perhaps a month or 6 weeks ago. It worked.
It could be done, even if all the T9 checks are real, even if the Carpenter evidence is accurate, even if the waiter and barman statements are accurate, even if the Balu/Berry statements are accurate.
The idea that it could be done does not say that it was done. There are other alternatives, which could have happened.
MI PdL.....
-
The area in the immediate vicinity of 5A is very quiet at night on every night after about 8PM for a simple reason.
There is no commercial venture open for a radius of perhaps 100m-150m at that time of night, with the exception of the Tapas.
During the day, the road beside 5A is on the normal route from the one-way system to Baptista (plus Commercial Centre) and it buzzes with traffic like flies on sugar.
At night it is much more quiet. Shutters get drawn. Locals go indoor to cook a meal. Turistas wander on foot to wherever they get half board.
The comment quoted above is correct. The T9 say shuttles were happening. Raj Balu and Neil Berry say their foursome was overlooking the Tapas entrance. The visitor to 605 says she was driven past block 5 shortly after 9.58.
If that lot is all true, the area was on hyper-drive.
When we were there in mid-summer 2010 [june or july, not sure which now] the road alonside 5A towards to Baptista supermarket was dead as a dodo in the middle of the day, and at night.. Busier this last visit, but still very quiet
Maybe Batista Supermarket closes for a siesta for several hours in the heat of the day in mid summer? Can you confirm, Shining?
-
Thank you. Have you described these alternatives on your blog in any detail? I have been waiting 8 years to read a plausible, logical alternative to the abduction theory so would be interested to read what you have to say on the matter.
Please don't hold your breath. I have been active on this from roughly since the time SY decided it was time to visit Luz last year, so I am playing catch up.
There is a small amount on my blog about all theories that I am aware of. The problem is I have just researched one single topic, phone calls in/around Luz on/around 3 May 2007, taking me about 3 - 4 days, and I would consider I have made about one small step forward.
I know that I will not be cracking this case any time in the near future.
-
You are obsessed with the Second Coming theory but that is not what this thread is about. Personally I think the abduction theory is the ONLY plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance as I am still waiting to hear an alternative that is remotely convincing. That said there are people who maintain that abduction is a ridiculous theory and it is to those people that this thread is appealing.
18:30 3 May 2007
Gerry had asked me just to pop in and check everything was alright err with Kate or you know again I can't remember the exact reason whether he was just making sure it was alright that he could stay there and you know more time but you know he'd asked me to pop in. (DP)
18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. (GM)
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)
1485 "But could you remember what Kate was wearing for example''
Reply "I can't, no.' (DP)
-
When we were there in mid-summer 2010 [june or july, not sure which now] the road alonside 5A towards to Baptista supermarket was dead as a dodo in the middle of the day, and at night.. Busier this last visit, but still very quiet
Maybe Batista Supermarket closes for a siesta for several hours in the heat of the day in mid summer? Can you confirm, Shining?
The one-way traffic system in Luz in 2007 forced traffic from the North, West and East into the road past 5A.
By 2010, Spar had opened up. All the rules changed.
Where were you? Which supermarket did you use?
-
Did you read the post in which I stated what I think happened to Madeleine? Where do "easier to handle" and "having fewer memories" come into play with a child that you intend to abuse and murder? I do not know why the abductor preferred Madeleine to either of her siblings, I'd rather not get into the mind of such an individual if that's OK with you?
'child that you intend to abuse and murder'
So where did you get this from ?
Are you therefore saying Madeleine was murdered ?
That is the direct implication.
Meanwhile absolutely nothing in the way of evidence of abduction, whilst SY continue to spend tax payers money.
-
'child that you intend to abuse and murder'
So where did you get this from ?
Are you therefore saying Madeleine was murdered ?
That is the direct implication.
Meanwhile absolutely nothing in the way of evidence of abduction, whilst SY continue to spend tax payers money.
Do you accept Stephen that evidence of an abduction may have been destroyed because of the amount of traffic in 5A before it was cordoned off? A simple yes or no will do.
-
Do you accept Stephen that evidence of an abduction may have been destroyed because of the amount of traffic in 5A before it was cordoned off? A simple yes or no will do.
Do you accept evidence of accidental death could have been destroyed in the amount of traffic in 5A ?
A simple Yes or No will suffice.
and we know who was responsible for that.
-
'child that you intend to abuse and murder'
So where did you get this from ?
Are you therefore saying Madeleine was murdered ?
That is the direct implication.
Meanwhile absolutely nothing in the way of evidence of abduction, whilst SY continue to spend tax payers money.
it is more than likely that Maddie has been murdered
-
'child that you intend to abuse and murder'
So where did you get this from ?
Are you therefore saying Madeleine was murdered ?
That is the direct implication.
Meanwhile absolutely nothing in the way of evidence of abduction, whilst SY continue to spend tax payers money.
Are you unable to read and understand plain English? I made it clear right from the start that that is what I believe to be the most likely scenario in this case, not stolen to order for a childless couple etc. Hence why I think your considerations about weight and whether or not the child would have memories of her past life would not have been shared by her abductor. I hope this is clear enough for you and no, before you ask, I have no evidence to support my scenario.
-
Are you unable to read and understand plain English? I made it clear right from the start that that is what I believe to be the most likely scenario in this case, not stolen to order for a childless couple etc. Hence why I think your considerations about weight and whether or not the child would have memories of her past life would not have been shared by her abductor. I hope this is clear enough for you and no, before you ask, I have no evidence to support my scenario.
and all you have is a belief.
ENOUGH SAID.
-
Do you accept evidence of accidental death could have been destroyed in the amount of traffic in 5A ?
A simple Yes or No will suffice.
and we know who was responsible for that.
If an accidental death involved a loss of blood - then no I don't think that evidence would be destroyed as traffic/cleaning etc would not have removed it completely. No evidence of a blood loss from Madeleine was found anywhere in 5A.
Do you accept that evidence left by an abductor - shoe prints, fibres, hairs for example - could have been destroyed/contaminated by the traffic in 5A? Or even missed by the forensic team whose skills Amaral tells us were somewhat lacking - even though it was through no fault of their own - but because of a lack of procedural instruction?
If not - can you explain why you don't?
-
If an accidental death involved a loss of blood - then no I don't think that evidence would be destroyed as traffic/cleaning etc would not have removed it completely. No evidence of a blood loss from Madeleine was found anywhere in 5A.
Do you accept that evidence left by an abductor - shoe prints, fibres, hairs for example - could have been destroyed/contaminated by the traffic in 5A? Or even missed by the forensic team whose skills Amaral tells us were somewhat lacking - even though it was through no fault of their own - but because of a lack of procedural instruction?
If not - can you explain why you don't?
.
Death, accidental or otherwise, doesn't always result in blood loss, minor or otherwise , and please remember the forensics were inconclusive.
-
.
Death, accidental or otherwise, doesn't always result in blood loss, minor or otherwise , and please remember the forensics were inconclusive.
Glad to see you acknowledging that ... what a pity that over the years the 'blood spatter' on the walls and the floor tiles has achieved such prominence and notoriety despite the fact that none of it was relatively fresh and none of it was Madeleine's.
Even had the intruder been kind enough to leave a full set of prints ~ footprints ~ cigarette ends with a full DNA profile, it is doubtful if the Portuguese police would have been able to obtain a match unless they were bothered enough to take forensics from the apartments which had already been burgled, two that we know of in block 5.
They would only have been of use if and when a perpetrator was apprehended.
-
.
Death, accidental or otherwise, doesn't always result in blood loss, minor or otherwise , and please remember the forensics were inconclusive.
Why are you ignoring my question? I answered yours.
Here it is again in case you missed it.
Do you accept that evidence left by an abductor - shoe prints, fibres, hairs for example - could have been destroyed/contaminated by the traffic in 5A? Or even missed by the forensic team whose skills Amaral tells us were somewhat lacking - even though it was through no fault of their own - but because of a lack of procedural instruction?
-
Glad to see you acknowledging that ... what a pity that over the years the 'blood spatter' on the walls and the floor tiles has achieved such prominence and notoriety despite the fact that none of it was relatively fresh and none of it was Madeleine's.
Even had the intruder been kind enough to leave a full set of prints ~ footprints ~ cigarette ends with a full DNA profile, it is doubtful if the Portuguese police would have been able to obtain a match unless they were bothered enough to take forensics from the apartments which had already been burgled, two that we know of in block 5.
They would only have been of use if and when a perpetrator was apprehended.
Unfortunately I have seen dead bodies close up, so i speak from experience.
As to 'intruder', us this the alternative term to 'abductor' ?
-
Why are you ignoring my question? I answered yours.
Here it is again in case you missed it.
Do you accept that evidence left by an abductor - shoe prints, fibres, hairs for example - could have been destroyed/contaminated by the traffic in 5A? Or even missed by the forensic team whose skills Amaral tells us were somewhat lacking - even though it was through no fault of their own - but because of a lack of procedural instruction?
Are you prepared by the same interpretation to say evidence of Madeleine's accidental death could have been lost ?
Back later.
-
Are you prepared by the same interpretation to say evidence of Madeleine's accidental death could have been lost ?
Back later.
LOL Why won't you just answer my question? It doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs.
Do you agree that evidence of an abductor in 5A could have been destroyed by traffic or overlooked by the forensic team ?
In view of your repeated claim that there is no evidence of an abduction - I think we should establish your opinion on that before proceeding further.
-
Unfortunately I have seen dead bodies close up, so i speak from experience.
As to 'intruder', us this the alternative term to 'abductor' ?
There was neither a dead body nor was there evidence of such in the McCann apartment.
Despite the lie that Kate had washed the curtains and the bedding there was no evidence that there had been any attempt to clean up the premises to remove blood ... what blood may have been there had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the McCann family.
Nonetheless 'blood splatter' suggestive that a chainsaw massacre type of event occurred is common currency.
It takes a particular type of mentality to argue that something did not happen because there is no evidence ... but to argue that something did happen, despite the fact there is no evidence for that either.
The admitted botched forensic job is perhaps pivotal to why Madeleine McCann's case was not solved. Bearing in mind that forensic evidence rules in as well as rules out scenarios ... and right from the start of the investigation ... the parents' logical conclusion that their daughter had been abducted provoked the smouldering outrage and indignation of the investigators, perhaps even an outright resistance and suspicion.
-
No, because you haven't elucidated the reasons why, based on the on the known facts of this case, you personally believe abduction to be improbable in this instance.
I set it out in the post to which I referred.
-
I wrote this on another thread, and in an attempt to bring this one back on topic I thought it would be helpful to repeat it here:
I have an opinion on what happened and that is that Madeleine was abducted by someone who wanted to abuse her and who then killed her and disposed of her body in the environs of PdL. It has already been proven by forensic examination of the timeline that there was an opportunity for an abductor to remove her from the apartment at some point between the time the McCanns left for dinner and 10pm. It's the only explanation as far as I am concerned that fits all the known facts.
Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is both improbable and implausible?
I certainly don't agree with that assessment Alfred. The known facts which you refer to (albethey few and far between) can support several other possibilities so why do you insist on the abduction claim?
My own preference is the woke and wandered theory with the possibility that a burglar opened the bedroom shutter and window intending to rob the apartment.
The Amaral theory is still a very valid contender since none of it has ever been disproved.
To answer the opening post however, my view is that the abduction theory is neither improbable nor implausible just as any of the other scenarios aren't.
Reasons why the abduction was improbable are:
1. Risk. Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?
2. Publicity. Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?
3. Appearance. Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?
4. Age. Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?
5. Locus. Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk? Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.
6. Time. Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about? Better the middle of the night.
-
Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is both improbable and implausible?
I certainly don't agree with that assessment Alfred. The known facts which you refer to (albethey few and far between) can support several other possibilities so why do you insist on the abduction claim?
My own preference is the woke and wandered theory with the possibility that a burglar opened the bedroom shutter and window intending to rob the apartment.
The Amaral theory is still a very valid contender since none of it has ever been disproved.
To answer the opening post however, my view is that the abduction theory is neither improbable nor implausible just as any of the other scenarios aren't.
Reasons why the abduction was improbable are:
1. Risk. Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?
2. Publicity. Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?
3. Appearance. Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?
4. Age. Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?
5. Locus. Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk? Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.
6. Time. Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about? Better the middle of the night.
Why an apartment with three children - more risk of awakening, noise etc.
If the checks were as frequent as reported, why take the chance of getting spotted/caught.
-
LOL Why won't you just answer my question? It doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs.
Do you agree that evidence of an abductor in 5A could have been destroyed by traffic or overlooked by the forensic team ?
In view of your repeated claim that there is no evidence of an abduction - I think we should establish your opinion on that before proceeding further.
Who are you trying to kid.
I have very good reasons for not believing in abduction and I certainly don't believe there is 'missing evidence' to support that belief.
-
Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is both improbable and implausible?
I certainly don't agree with that assessment Alfred. The known facts which you refer to (albethey few and far between) can support several other possibilities so why do you insist on the abduction claim?
My own preference is the woke and wandered theory with the possibility that a burglar opened the bedroom shutter and window intending to rob the apartment.
The Amaral theory is still a very valid contender since none of it has ever been disproved.
To answer the opening post however, my view is that the abduction theory is neither improbable nor implausible just as any of the other scenarios aren't.
Reasons why the abduction was improbable are:
1. Risk. Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?
2. Publicity. Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?
3. Appearance. Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?
4. Age. Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?
5. Locus. Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk? Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.
6. Time. Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about? Better the middle of the night.
Without pretence of knowing what may be in the mind of an abductor ... there are some logical assumptions which could be made ...
1. Risk. Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?
There was more suspicion and awareness in rural Portugal as a result of Joana's disappearance; the people of Figuera certainly come into that category.
I doubt if there could be many abductions carried out more easily and the child absconded with than in Madeleine's case.
2. Publicity. Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?
The media attention was unprecedented and would have been totally unexpected. The family were supposed to do the decent thing ... answer questions, then pack up and go home.
That the McCanns did not do this forms the genesis and the continuation of the vile attack they have been under for eight years.
3. Appearance. Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?
If a targeted abduction, did they know about the coloboma and did they care?
If a random abduction it would have made no difference.
4. Age. Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?
Ever tried to placate a two year old and try to 'control' it? It isn't called 'the terrible twos' for no reason. I can only imagine the strop of a baby used to frequent changing if in a soiled nappy.
IMO an older child is much more 'manageable'.
Perhaps the four year old in age and appearance fitted the abductor's preference.
5. Locus. Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk? Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.
If the abductor had been 'lucky' Madeleine may not have been missed till the morning. As events have shown there was no danger either of being disturbed or discovered ... Madeleine is still missing eight years after the event.
6. Time. Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about? Better the middle of the night.
... and if the McCanns had been in the game of 'staging' an abduction as per Mr Amaral's theory, would it not have been better for them to wait till the morning to do it?
-
Thanks Brietta, some interesting points. I haven't got time just now to respond but will do so later.
-
Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is both improbable and implausible?
I certainly don't agree with that assessment Alfred. The known facts which you refer to (albethey few and far between) can support several other possibilities so why do you insist on the abduction claim?
My own preference is the woke and wandered theory with the possibility that a burglar opened the bedroom shutter and window intending to rob the apartment.
The Amaral theory is still a very valid contender since none of it has ever been disproved.
To answer the opening post however, my view is that the abduction theory is neither improbable nor implausible just as any of the other scenarios aren't.
Reasons why the abduction was improbable are:
1. Risk. Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?
2. Publicity. Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?
3. Appearance. Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?
4. Age. Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?
5. Locus. Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk? Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.
6. Time. Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about? Better the middle of the night.
Abduction by aliens has not been disproved so must still be a valid contender and is about as likely as amaral's theory
-
Abduction by aliens has not been disproved so must still be a valid contender and is about as likely as amaral's theory
You've spent far too much time in your celestial teapot.
and that is where the abduction theory should be laid to rest.
-
Who are you trying to kid.
I have very good reasons for not believing in abduction and I certainly don't believe there is 'missing evidence' to support that belief.
Why on earth would I be trying to kid you? That makes no sense.
Anyway I take it you are not going to answer my question Stephen. So nothing new there then.
-
Why on earth would I be trying to kid you? That makes no sense.
Anyway I take it you are not going to answer my question Stephen. So nothing new there then.
Do you agree , yes or no, that there is missing evidence that could indicate accidental death ?
Yes or No will suffice.
-
LOL Why won't you just answer my question? It doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs.
Do you agree that evidence of an abductor in 5A could have been destroyed by traffic or overlooked by the forensic team ?
In view of your repeated claim that there is no evidence of an abduction - I think we should establish your opinion on that before proceeding further.
Given the shambles which existed that night, evidence could very well have been lost by a variety of means. With so many apparently intelligent people running around surely one of them could have suggested everyone vacate the scene of the alleged crime until CSI had an opportunity to assess it or was it a case of...
* too drunk to think
* in shock
* afraid to interfere
* just hoped she had got lost
* none of the above
-
Do you agree , yes or no, that there is missing evidence that could indicate accidental death ?
Yes or No will suffice.
How can anyone agree that there IS missing evidence that could indicate accidental death?
-
Given the shambles which existed that night, evidence could very well have been lost by a variety of means. With so many apparently intelligent people running around surely one of them could have suggested everyone vacate the scene of the alleged crime until CSI had an opportunity to assess it or was it a case of...
* too drunk to think
* in shock
* afraid to interfere
* just hoped she had got lost
* none of the above
I believe there did come a time when Gerry tried to keep people out of the bedroom John.
I really don't expect people who have just been catapulted from a completely relaxing situation into every parents worst nightmare - i.e. from one absolute extreme to the complete opposite - to even begin to think like policemen in the first 10/15 mins or so. The shock would be immense - and with so many people involved an initial 'shambles' would be inevitable IMO. Also of course they would search every inch of the apartment - who wouldn't? However I do expect policemen to know better. After all it is their job.
Whether evidence was destroyed or overlooked we don't know - but it is possible. Also IIRC there is evidence which it has not been possible to rule out as having no bearing on the case. Partial fingerprints, etc.
Because evidence was not found does not mean it was never there.
-
How can anyone agree that there IS missing evidence that could indicate accidental death?
The dogs alfred, the dogs.
and after all, which mccann supporter could admit to the possibility of accidental death and all that entails ?
&%+((£
-
Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is both improbable and implausible?
I certainly don't agree with that assessment Alfred. The known facts which you refer to (albethey few and far between) can support several other possibilities so why do you insist on the abduction claim?
My own preference is the woke and wandered theory with the possibility that a burglar opened the bedroom shutter and window intending to rob the apartment.
The Amaral theory is still a very valid contender since none of it has ever been disproved.
To answer the opening post however, my view is that the abduction theory is neither improbable nor implausible just as any of the other scenarios aren't.
Reasons why the abduction was improbable are:
1. Risk. Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?
2. Publicity. Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?
3. Appearance. Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?
4. Age. Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?
5. Locus. Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk? Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.
6. Time. Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about? Better the middle of the night.
Brietta did a good job of replying to these points which you addressed to me John, I would simply add that you could probably find similar reasons for questioning why any other child was ever abducted and / or murdered - why, for example, risk entering a house when a parent is home and stealing a child from a bath when there are children roaming about playing outside? Why risk entering a building filled with adults and girls, entering a dormitory and raping and murdering one whilst her friends slept on around her - surely another target would have been far less risky? Etc etc etc.
-
The dogs alfred, the dogs.
and after all, which mccann supporter could admit to the possibility of accidental death and all that entails ?
&%+((£
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "the dogs, Alfred, the dogs". Are you suggesting that the dogs PROVE there is missing evidence...? &%+((£
-
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "the dogs, Alfred, the dogs". Are you suggesting that the dogs PROVE there is missing evidence...? &%+((£
Of course you don't understand alfred.
8)-)))
-
Of course you don't understand alfred.
8)-)))
Perhaps you could explain then.
-
Given the shambles which existed that night, evidence could very well have been lost by a variety of means. With so many apparently intelligent people running around surely one of them could have suggested everyone vacate the scene of the alleged crime until CSI had an opportunity to assess it or was it a case of...
* too drunk to think
* in shock
* afraid to interfere
* just hoped she had got lost
* none of the above
I think the shambles which existed that night was down to GNR officers and Irene Travao. Amaral himself said what a mess they made of things.
The McCanns had stayed in that apartment all week, yet not one trace of the other 4 family members was found. Very conveniently just Kates fingerprints were found.
i think those inadequate prints were from Gerry, Diane and Irene Travao. If that was their best Forensic people, god help the worst.
-
No alibi for point 6 and it was nearly the perfect one until the Smiths arrived.
alibi - something that proves that someone was not where a crime happened and therefore could not have done it.
-
No alibi for point 6 and it was nearly the perfect one until the Smiths arrived.
alibi - something that proves that someone was not where a crime happened and therefore could not have done it.
You know the night of the Hatton Garden Jewellery Heist?
I was nearby ... and I dont have an alibi. 8**8:/:
Actually I wasn't there, honestly Gov
But do you get the picture?
-
You know the night of the Hatton Garden Jewellery Heist?
I was nearby ... and I dont have an alibi. 8**8:/:
Actually I wasn't there, honestly Gov
But do you get the picture?
No that case is not relevant to this one. Anyone who plans something and wants to get away with it knowing they will be prime suspects get a good alibi. Getting an alibi is at the top of the list for a cocky smart ass when committing a crime.
-
No that case is not relevant to this one. Anyone who plans something and wants to get away with it knowing they will be prime suspects get a good alibi. Getting an alibi is at the top of the list for a cocky smart ass when committing a crime.
It seems that good sleuthing can crack a case whatever alibi may be in place ... we await with interest the result of the impending trial of the eight charged with the Hatton Garden Jewellery Heist.
No doubt the PJ and SY have given the alibis and phone history of the arguidos in Madeleine McCann's case ~ remember them ~ a thorough going over.
It is worthwhile bearing in mind that none of the McCann party figure in that line of questioning.
So I think it would be a safe bet to consider that neither the PJ or SY subscribe to Mr Amaral's theory of parental involvement, and are doing what should have been done in 2007 when no evidence was found to support the theory and have cast the net a bit wider.
They are working the case step by step ... and are doing so because the evidence they have points to stranger abduction.
-
Evidence pointing to "stranger abduction" during which Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment.
How plausible and probable is that and why was it considered necessary for SY to point it out?
-
Evidence pointing to "stranger abduction" during which Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment.
How plausible and probable is that and why was it considered necessary for SY to point it out?
So a 'stranger abduction' where Madeleine may have been dead when she left the apartment but coincidentally the dogs alerted but not to that dead body because, of course, that body would have to have been dead for at least 90 minutes putting the McCanns firmly in the frame.
-
Perhaps the comment made about the possibility that Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment should be factored in when the improbability/implausibility of "the abduction theory" is considered?
-
Perhaps the comment made about the possibility that Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment should be factored in when the improbability/implausibility of "the abduction theory" is considered?
If the child was not alive when taken from the apartment she is unlikely to have been on the bed unless she was moved very quickly. The dogs didn't detect anything unusual in the children's bedroom.
-
Perhaps a "sceptic" would like to tell us why this explanation is both improbable and implausible?
I certainly don't agree with that assessment Alfred. The known facts which you refer to (albethey few and far between) can support several other possibilities so why do you insist on the abduction claim?
My own preference is the woke and wandered theory with the possibility that a burglar opened the bedroom shutter and window intending to rob the apartment.
The Amaral theory is still a very valid contender since none of it has ever been disproved.
To answer the opening post however, my view is that the abduction theory is neither improbable nor implausible just as any of the other scenarios aren't.
Reasons why the abduction was improbable are:
1. Risk. Why take the chance in a busy holiday resort when there are thousands of children in rural communities much easier to abduct and abscond with?
2. Publicity. Why abduct a child on holiday with all the media attention it would attract when abducting some little pleasant girl from the back of beyond would in all probability go unreported?
3. Appearance. Why abduct a child whose appearance was going to cause problems?
4. Age. Why abduct a nearly four-year-old when a younger child would have been both easier to hide and easier to control?
5. Locus. Why abduct in a situation where the abduction would be discovered any minute creating greater risk? Better some quiet backwater where a child might not be missed so soon.
6. Time. Why abduct in the evening with so many people moving about? Better the middle of the night.
I am slowly working through one particular planned abduction scenario at ShiningInLuz and this checklist of objections is going to come in very handy, so my thanks for this.
Point 4 bothered me quite a bit.
In the variant I am working on, the perpetrator had access to the OC records. These showed ages and genders once a child hit 2. Before that is was merely how many months old, and gender could not be determined.
The OC records (actually the MW records accessed by the OC) show Madeleine as being 3 when she was to return home.
So if it was an OC perp, they knew 3 years, but they did not know nearly 4 years.
Madeleine appears to have been small for her age. Therefore, my OC perp could have thought early 3. A perp without access to the OC records, judging purely by height and build, might well have gone for younger than this.
I have but two memories remaining from when I was 3. Neither relates to my parents, my siblings, or where I was living at age 3. A nearly completely blank sheet.
-
I think memories depend upon circumstances. I can remember things when I was 2 years old, because they were big things. Significant memories are retained imo. My husband remembers little before about 4 years of age, but nothing much happened to him.
-
I think memories depend upon circumstances. I can remember things when I was 2 years old, because they were big things. Significant memories are retained imo. My husband remembers little before about 4 years of age, but nothing much happened to him.
I don't believe the lack of memory is the reason for the dodgy timelines, who was where, when. I think it is deliberate. That is why so many including the police are suspicious of them. It is also interesting that there was NO physical checks, just listening, so we are unsure when Maddie was last seen by an independant witness that evening.
-
I don't believe the lack of memory is the reason for the dodgy timelines, who was where, when. I think it is deliberate. That is why so many including the police are suspicious of them. It is also interesting that there was NO physical checks, just listening, so we are unsure when Maddie was last seen by an independant witness that evening.
I think it entirely possible that having conducted a review of the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance ... the experts of Scotland Yard will be aware of timelines, memory and arrangements for checking the children and will have accounted for any so called discrepancies.
It is worth remembering that not only do they have proper translations of the files ... they have all the files.
Moving on to the present day ... neither SY or the PJ are showing any interest at all in the shibboleths of the past ... they are actually making investigations which do not feature Madeleine's parents or their friends ... we still have arguidos in Portugal and no doubt many further avenues will be pursued.
Surprised you hadn't noticed the fresh developments. I look forward to the possibility the identity of the abductor/s will soon be discovered, I'm sure you do too.
-
Why would an abductor carry a heavier child when a younger one was available and lighter to carry ?
An older child is much easier to manage. An older child can be given information such as 'Mummy asked me to collect you' 'Mummy and Daddy are waiting for you'. Later 'Mummy and Daddy don't want you back' 'Mummy and Daddy asked me to look after you'. Younger children would not understand any of that they would just scream the place down.
-
An older child is much easier to manage. An older child can be given information such as 'Mummy asked me to collect you' 'Mummy and Daddy are waiting for you'. Later 'Mummy and Daddy don't want you back' 'Mummy and Daddy asked me to look after you'. Younger children would not understand any of that they would just scream the place down.
Nope.
Try again.
-
I think memories depend upon circumstances. I can remember things when I was 2 years old, because they were big things. Significant memories are retained imo. My husband remembers little before about 4 years of age, but nothing much happened to him.
I remember having a photograph taken at 2...still have the photograph...it was no big occasion
-
An older child is much easier to manage. An older child can be given information such as 'Mummy asked me to collect you' 'Mummy and Daddy are waiting for you'. Later 'Mummy and Daddy don't want you back' 'Mummy and Daddy asked me to look after you'. Younger children would not understand any of that they would just scream the place down.
Exactly
Especially is she knew the abductor, an older child would listen to what was said and if it sounded reasonable with someone she mistakenly trusted, then she would co-operate.
Several years ago I read that abductors say things like "Mummy and Daddy have asked me to fetch you. Hush, dont tell the twins"
And later when the little one got restless and was starting to demand Mummy and Daddy, the abductor made up stories like "Mummy and daddy dont want you; they dont love you. They hate you. They were going to hurt you and I have rescued you".
Anything to attract the child initially and later to placate the child by turning her against her Mum and Dad.
Wicked.
-
An older child is much easier to manage. An older child can be given information such as 'Mummy asked me to collect you' 'Mummy and Daddy are waiting for you'. Later 'Mummy and Daddy don't want you back' 'Mummy and Daddy asked me to look after you'. Younger children would not understand any of that they would just scream the place down.
Spot on Lace. IMO being at the 'Terrible Two's' stage - plus nappy requirements etc. would put the twins in the most difficult age group for an abductor to manage.
-
From Lace
An older child is much easier to manage. An older child can be given information such as 'Mummy asked me to collect you' 'Mummy and Daddy are waiting for you'. Later 'Mummy and Daddy don't want you back' 'Mummy and Daddy asked me to look after you'. Younger children would not understand any of that they would just scream the place down.
uquote
Stephen - why don't you give your reasons why you disagree with Lace - otherwise your post is meaningless.
You don't abduct the deceased. If the child died her death was covered up because any evidence of her would convict the ones responsible. SY were searching for a body and the world knows it.
-
You don't abduct the deceased. If the child died her death was covered up because any evidence of her would convict the ones responsible. SY were searching for a body and the world knows it.
There is NOTHING to prove anyone died in 5A
Once again, you are making enourmous assumptions.
And that is NOT decent.
-
There is NOTHING to prove anyone died in 5A
Once again, you are making enourmous assumptions.
And that is NOT decent.
That is TOTALLY incorrect. There is more evidence to say someone died than otherwise.
-
That is TOTALLY incorrect. There is more evidence to say someone died than otherwise.
you are totally incorrect....there is no evidence of a death in 5a ...According to Grime
-
you are totally incorrect....there is no evidence of a death in 5a ...According to Grime
Indications dave.
There is nothing else in this case.
-
Indications dave.
There is nothing else in this case.
no evidence of death in the apartment...fact
-
no evidence of death in the apartment...fact
Inconclusive forensics as you know.
Indications of a possible death, which have not been disproved.
-
Inconclusive forensics as you know.
Indications of a possible death, which have not been disproved.
no evidence of death in the apartment...fact
-
no evidence of death in the apartment...fact
No evidence that she left the apartment alive.
and Redwood admitted that possibility.
-
No evidence that she left the apartment alive.
and Redwood admitted that possibility.
no evidence of death in the apartment...fact
-
no evidence of death in the apartment...fact
Circumstantial evidence of death.
Inconclusive forensics.
No evidence she left the apartment alive.
-
Circumstantial evidence of death.
Inconclusive forensics.
No evidence she left the apartment alive.
no evidence of death in the apartment...fact
-
no evidence of death in the apartment...fact
You're in a mobius loop.
Fact.
-
That is TOTALLY incorrect. There is more evidence to say someone died than otherwise.
there is no evidence of death in the apartment...the very fact that posters on here want to ignore the truth is an indication of why their conclusions are so wrong
-
there is no evidence of death in the apartment...the very fact that posters on here want to ignore the truth is an indication of why their conclusions are so wrong
it is evidence dave, it's called circumstantial.
Merely because it wasn't confirmed by the forensics did not mean it can be dismissed.
That is whet mccann tried bringing the matter up in the trial before the judge slapped him down. Metaphorically of course.
That showed the mccanns were and are still worried what the dogs indicated.
-
That is TOTALLY incorrect. There is more evidence to say someone died than otherwise.
Can you point me to this conclusion in the Final Report please?
-
it is evidence dave, it's called circumstantial.
Merely because it wasn't confirmed by the forensics did not mean it can be dismissed.
That is whet mccann tried bringing the matter up in the trial before the judge slapped him down. Metaphorically of course.
That showed the mccanns were and are still worried what the dogs indicated.
It shows the mccanns are concerned about lies being spread about the alerts..Grime confirms they are not evidence...posters like you are spreading lies...and others believe them
-
It shows the mccanns are concerned about lies being spread about the alerts..Grime confirms they are not evidence...posters like you are spreading lies...and others believe them
I am not spreading lies dave.
Merely the facts.
Don't kid yourself otherwise.
-
I am not spreading lies dave.
Merely the facts.
Don't kid yourself otherwise.
no evidence of death in the apartment...to say there is ...is lies
-
no evidence of death in the apartment...to say there is ...is lies
Wrong dave.
Circumstantial evidence of death.
Not proved or disproved by forensics/
So it remains a possibility.
-
Indications of death in the apartment - let's see the bit in the Final Report which lists them then.
-
Wrong dave.
Circumstantial evidence of death.
Not proved or disproved by forensics/
So it remains a possibility.
there is no circumstantial evidence..stop spreading lies
-
there is no circumstantial evidence..stop spreading lies
I am not the one telling lies dave.
-
I am not the one telling lies dave.
you are...no evidence of death...circumstantial or otherwise
-
you are...no evidence of death...circumstantial or otherwise
Wrong again dave.
-
you are...no evidence of death...circumstantial or otherwise
As usual you didn't actually read what I put.
-
That is TOTALLY incorrect. There is more evidence to say someone died than otherwise.
as there is no evidence of death your statement has to be wrong...it seem you don't understand what you post
-
as there is no evidence of death your statement has to be wrong...it seem you don't understand what you post
You seem hard of understanding. "Than otherwise" is the key bit.
-
You seem hard of understanding. "Than otherwise" is the key bit.
So there is more evidence that someone died in Apartment 5a than lived in Apartment 5a...? &%+((£
-
So there is more evidence that someone died in Apartment 5a than lived in Apartment 5a...? &%+((£
....than any other scenario.
-
....than any other scenario.
Right, now I have your attention could you please supply the reference in the Final Report which makes this clear, many thanks,
-
Right, now I have your attention could you please supply the reference in the Final Report which makes this clear, many thanks,
When you include the references to abduction.
-
When you include the references to abduction.
Why? You are the one making a claim that there are more indications of death in the apartment than there are for any other scenario so where was this conclusion officially reported? Over to you.
-
When you include the references to abduction.
Why did Amaral investigate the sightings that came in if he didn't think she might have been abducted?
-
Why? You are the one making a claim that there are more indications of death in the apartment than there are for any other scenario so where was this conclusion officially reported? Over to you.
I didn't realise we weren't supposed to come to our own conclusions?
-
I didn't realise we weren't supposed to come to our own conclusions?
LOL. So, it is merely your opinion that there are more indications of death in the apartment than for any other scenario? Fine, as long as you're not trying to make out that your opinion is based on anything remotely resembling the facts.
-
Why did Amaral investigate the sightings that came in if he didn't think she might have been abducted?
You make it sound as if it was a case a lone detective slaving away. I believe the investigation was carried out by a team, the leader of which, for a short time, was Amaral.
-
You make it sound as if it was a case a lone detective slaving away. I believe the investigation was carried out by a team, the leader of which, for a short time, was Amaral.
Amaral was in charge when the sightings were investigated.
-
LOL. So, it is merely your opinion that there are more indications of death in the apartment than for any other scenario? Fine, as long as you're not trying to make out that your opinion is based on anything remotely resembling the facts.
I have based my conclusions in the facts.
-
I have based my conclusions in the facts.
Perhaps if you took time to study the facts properly ... you would reach a more informed conclusion.
-
I have based my conclusions in the facts.
But not on any conclusions reached by the PT AG in his final report. Why do you think you're in a better position than he to decide what occurred in the apartment?
-
no evidence of death in the apartment...to say there is ...is lies
So SY are adding to the lies and misleading others who may believe it in stating that Madeleine may not have been alive when she left the apartment ?
Should they not have mentioned that possibility at all in case the search for a living findable child is hindered?
-
In the real world neither of Madeleine's parents are chained up in a dungeon ... while Scotland Yard and the Polícia Judiciária are looking for an abductor who is a stranger to the family. Interesting to say the least.
Then there is the seldom mentioned elephant in the room ... ARGUIDOS.
-
In the real world neither of Madeleine's parents are chained up in a dungeon ... while Scotland Yard and the Polícia Judiciária are looking for an abductor who is a stranger to the family. Interesting to say the least.
Then there is the seldom mentioned elephant in the room ... ARGUIDOS.
Who may have abducted her corpse from the apartment..........Let`s not forget to keep that possibility in mind.
-
In the real world neither of Madeleine's parents are chained up in a dungeon ... while Scotland Yard and the Polícia Judiciária are looking for an abductor who is a stranger to the family. Interesting to say the least.
Then there is the seldom mentioned elephant in the room ... ARGUIDOS.
We certainly haven't heard anything of them for quite a while - do any still exist?
-
The legal report said all theories remained possible, although it's opinion was that it seemed more likely that the child was dead;
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
The legal report said all theories remained possible, although it's opinion was that it seemed more likely that the child was dead;
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
But not that it was more likely she died in the apartment - glad that's cleared that one up then.
-
But not that it was more likely she died in the apartment - glad that's cleared that one up then.
No, it was Inspector Redwood who mentioned her possible demise in the apartment.
-
No, it was Inspector Redwood who mentioned her possible demise in the apartment.
Of course Maddie may have died in the apt....Redwood also said the parents are not suspects
-
The legal report said all theories remained possible, although it's opinion was that it seemed more likely that the child was dead;
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
"...nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely."
I see nothing in that about EVIDENCE indicating that she is more likely to be dead. In context, that was written 14 months after the event and - sadly - in the absence of a parental abduction scenario, not that many children missing for so long are found alive, although luckily some have been - with perhaps more hitting the media since her disappearance.
Personally, I can't think of anything worse than that state of limbo.
-
No, it was Inspector Redwood who mentioned her possible demise in the apartment.
It was indeed jassi. And what is the likelihood of Eddie scenting the smell of cadaver and that cadaver not being Madeleine ? Of course for that to be the case the child would have to have died at least 90 minutes before the 10pm alert putting the McCanns very much in the frame.
Of course if any supporter has another scenario I'd be glad to hear it.
-
No, it was Inspector Redwood who mentioned her possible demise in the apartment.
This is true Jassi , but IIRC it was made in relation to his info to the public about the monster who had sexually assaulted so many British children in their own apartments, and in their own beds - and not connected in any way to the McCanns.
This has previously been discussed here at length.
-
It was indeed jassi. And what is the likelihood of Eddie scenting the smell of cadaver and that cadaver not being Madeleine ? Of course for that to be the case the child would have to have died at least 90 minutes before the 10pm alert putting the McCanns very much in the frame.
Of course if any supporter has another scenario I'd be glad to hear it.
Hmm. Well let's see. Imagine (horrible to do, I know and please forgive me) that Shannon Matthews was killed and removed from the apartment shortly before the police got there to do a search with dogs. The dog would still have alerted but would it have been alerting to Shannon's body?
-
It was indeed jassi. And what is the likelihood of Eddie scenting the smell of cadaver and that cadaver not being Madeleine ? Of course for that to be the case the child would have to have died at least 90 minutes before the 10pm alert putting the McCanns very much in the frame.
Of course if any supporter has another scenario I'd be glad to hear it.
You can see why they don't like the dogs.
-
You can see why they don't like the dogs.
Scotland Yard don't seem too keen either.
-
Scotland Yard don't seem too keen either.
What have they said? Do tell us more .
-
You can see why they don't like the dogs.
Who has said they don't like the dogs?
-
What have they said? Do tell us more .
The McCanns are not suspects.
-
The McCanns are not suspects.
Good avoidance, there @)(++(* 8@??)(
-
Good avoidance, there @)(++(* 8@??)(
Avoidance of what?
-
Good avoidance, there @)(++(* 8@??)(
Thank you, Thank you. I wuz quite impressed myself. 8)--))
-
It was indeed jassi. And what is the likelihood of Eddie scenting the smell of cadaver and that cadaver not being Madeleine ? Of course for that to be the case the child would have to have died at least 90 minutes before the 10pm alert putting the McCanns very much in the frame.
Of course if any supporter has another scenario I'd be glad to hear it.
Martin Grime has given various reasons why an alert by Eddie does not prove that a dead body must have been present at the scene of the alert. It is because of these other possible scenarios that corroborating evidence must be obtained first - before any conclusions can be drawn.
To claim that an alert by Eddie DOES prove the presence of a dead body is to disbelieve Martin Grime.
-
A question for Faithlilly and / or Jassi - should the dog alerts have been enough to have charged the McCanns with covering up a death?
-
Martin Grime has given various reasons why an alert by Eddie does not prove that a dead body must have been present at the scene of the alert. It is because of these other possible scenarios that corroborating evidence must be obtained first - before any conclusions can be drawn.
To claim that an alert by Eddie DOES prove the presence of a dead body is to disbelieve Martin Grime.
So SY think Madeleine died in 5a but that wasn't the body the dogs alerted to ? Really ?
-
A question for Faithlilly and / or Jassi - should the dog alerts have been enough to have charged the McCanns with covering up a death?
I certainly think they were indicative of that and should have been given the necessary evidential weight.
-
So SY think Madeleine died in 5a but that wasn't the body the dogs alerted to ? Really ?
Do they? To the exclusion of all other theories?
-
I certainly think they were indicative of that and should have been given the necessary evidential weight.
So, if you were in charge you would have pressed charges based on the alerts?
-
A question for Faithlilly and / or Jassi - should the dog alerts have been enough to have charged the McCanns with covering up a death?
No. I believe you need more than just indicators before laying charges against anybody.
-
No. I believe you need more than just indicators before laying charges against anybody.
Why aren't the dog alerts sufficient indicator in your book then?
-
As far as I'm concerned they are good indicators that something was wrong in 5A, but sound evidence is required before criminal charges can be laid. These days, that invariable involves forensics, rather than just circumstantial findings.
It is in nobody's interest for people to be brought before a court of law without there being a strong likelyhood of conviction.
-
So, if you were in charge you would have pressed charges based on the alerts?
You seem to be trying to derail the discussion.
My question was if SY think that Madeleine died in the apartment and Eddie alerted to something that wasn't blood in that same apartment isn't it logical to postulate that what he was alerting to was Madeleine's body ? Would any other conclusion be simply ridiculous ?
-
You seem to be trying to derail the discussion.
My question was if SY think that Madeleine died in the apartment and Eddie alerted to something that wasn't blood in that same apartment isn't it logical to postulate that what he was alerting to was Madeleine's body ? Would any other conclusion be simply ridiculous ?
I answered your question earlier and you ignored it.
-
As far as I'm concerned they are good indicators that something was wrong in 5A, but sound evidence is required before criminal charges can be laid. These days, that invariable involves forensics, rather than just circumstantial findings.
It is in nobody's interest for people to be brought before a court of law without there being a strong likelyhood of conviction.
This indicates to me that you don't have faith in the dogs being 100% correct all the time and that the alerts cannot be treated as evidence without corroboration (of which there was none). 8((()*/
-
This indicates to me that you don't have faith in the dogs being 100% correct all the time and that the alerts cannot be treated as evidence without corroboration (of which there was none). 8((()*/
Of course, but neither should they be disregarded - their findings should be left on the table along with all other evidence until it has been proved to be false.
-
So SY think Madeleine died in 5a but that wasn't the body the dogs alerted to ? Really ?
IMO SY believe that it is possible that the man who is already known to have entered many other British childrens bedroom and sexually assaulted them - may have deliberately or accidentally killed Madeleine (maybe by putting his hand over her mouth) - and then removed her body to remove DNA evidence. That action would not entail cadaverscent IMO.
We do not know the origin of the cadaverscent Eddie alerted to. Full stop.
I also believe that if Martin Grime had instructed his dogs to spend as much time on non McCann related cars and apartments as he did on everything McCann related - then more alerts would have occurred. The alternative is to believe that over a period of years - no-one ever left any alertable 'material' in any of those other cars/apartments. That's a bridge too far for me.
-
Of course, but neither should they be disregarded - their findings should be left on the table along with all other evidence until it has been proved to be false.
I have no problem with that... except that there doesn't appear to have been a comprehensive investigation into potential alternative explanations, aside from casually asking around if anyone was aware of previous deaths there.
-
Of course Maddie may have died in the apt....Redwood also said the parents are not suspects
Certainly one can have both - the hypothetical possibility of a death, but with the complete innocence of the parents and group. ALL the uk dog alerts might be explained as the result of a stranger intruder (for example escalated burglary gone wrong), and absolutely nothing to do with any of the parents or group. Yes even the clothing alerts would be easily explained by secondary transfer in that pile in the wardrobe, instead of unjustly assuming someone was wearing them. (And the vehicle alert is then easy - transfer from those clothes or the bag during the move 2 months later).
-
SY did comment that Madeleine herself may not have been alive when she left the apartment.........This as specific rather than in connection with any thoughts about other possible deaths which may have occurred there.
-
IMO SY believe that it is possible that the man who is already known to have entered many other British childrens bedroom and sexually assaulted them - may have deliberately or accidentally killed Madeleine (maybe by putting his hand over her mouth) - and then removed her body to remove DNA evidence. That action would not entail cadaverscent IMO.
We do not know the origin of the cadaverscent Eddie alerted to. Full stop.
I also believe that if Martin Grime had instructed his dogs to spend as much time on non McCann related cars and apartments as he did on everything McCann related - then more alerts would have occurred. The alternative is to believe that over a period of years - no-one ever left any alertable 'material' in any of those other cars/apartments. That's a bridge too far for me.
Quite an achievement unobserved during a "window of opportunity" the length of which would be difficult for him to predict.
-
Quite an achievement during an unobserved "window of opportunity" the length of which would be difficult for him to predict.
It was quite an achievement (if that's the word you want to use) when this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Arce_Montes broke into a school dormitory and raped and murdered a girl while her classmates slept on around her. Just because you struggle to believe something is possible doesn't make it impossible.
-
I answered your question earlier and you ignored it.
No you didn't Alfie. You answered my question with another question. Now care to answer my question ?
-
No you didn't Alfie. You answered my question with another question. Now care to answer my question ?
OK then.
Hmm. Well let's see. Imagine (horrible to do, I know and please forgive me) that Shannon Matthews was killed and removed from the apartment shortly before the police got there to do a search with dogs. The dog would still have alerted but would it have been alerting to Shannon's body? The answer is no. Now over to you/.
-
OK then.
Hmm. Well let's see. Imagine (horrible to do, I know and please forgive me) that Shannon Matthews was killed and removed from the apartment shortly before the police got there to do a search with dogs. The dog would still have alerted but would it have been alerting to Shannon's body? The answer is no. Now over to you/.
Nope that still won't do Alfie.
SY believe Madeleine died in the apartment. Eddie alerted to something that wasn't blood. Now what are the chances that that alert WASN'T to Madeleine's body ? Easy enough to answer I'd have thought.
-
Nope that still won't do Alfie.
SY believe Madeleine died in the apartment. Eddie alerted to something that wasn't blood. Now what are the chances that that alert WASN'T to Madeleine's body ? Easy enough to answer I'd have thought.
Perhaps you can explain why my answer won't do first and then I'll attempt to counter your argument.
-
Nope that still won't do Alfie.
SY believe Madeleine died in the apartment. Eddie alerted to something that wasn't blood. Now what are the chances that that alert WASN'T to Madeleine's body ? Easy enough to answer I'd have thought.
Also, whilst you're countering my last point perhaps you can provide a cite for this definitive statement.
-
Nope that still won't do Alfie.
SY believe Madeleine died in the apartment. Eddie alerted to something that wasn't blood. Now what are the chances that that alert WASN'T to Madeleine's body ? Easy enough to answer I'd have thought.
Easy enough to answer
SY do not believe Maddie died in the apartment..... They believe she may have died in the apartment
Your reasoning is based on a falsehood
-
It was quite an achievement (if that's the word you want to use) when this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Arce_Montes broke into a school dormitory and raped and murdered a girl while her classmates slept on around her. Just because you struggle to believe something is possible doesn't make it impossible.
Many struggle to believe all sorts of possibilities in this case!
-
Of course, but neither should they be disregarded - their findings should be left on the table along with all other evidence until it has been proved to be false.
They don't like the idea of that column. Yes & no, but never "seemingly not quite kosher so let's see how it pans out over time"
-
Many struggle to believe all sorts of possibilities in this case!
Thats "Many"s problem then.
-
Nope that still won't do Alfie.
SY believe Madeleine died in the apartment. Eddie alerted to something that wasn't blood. Now what are the chances that that alert WASN'T to Madeleine's body ? Easy enough to answer I'd have thought.
I believe SY have said that Madeleine could have been a victim of a botched burglary and that she was killed and taken.
If that is so, then Madeleine's body would not have been in 5a long enough for the smell of death to be alerted by Eddie.
-
Yes, Faithlilly has given us an excellent example of taking a statement saying one thing, putting it through the "sceptic" spin machine and coming out with something a little different.
Andy Redwood said:
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options,"
Put through the "Sceptic" spin machine comes out as:
The Met believe Madeleine died in the apartment.
Nice one. 8((()*/
-
Yes, Faithlilly has given us an excellent example of taking a statement saying one thing, putting it through the "sceptic" spin machine and coming out with something a little different.
Andy Redwood said:
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options,"
Put through the "Sceptic" spin machine comes out as:
The Met believe Madeleine died in the apartment.
Nice one. 8((()*/
Faithlilly has he basic facts wrong...therefore her conclusions are wrong
-
Yes, Faithlilly has given us an excellent example of taking a statement saying one thing, putting it through the "sceptic" spin machine and coming out with something a little different.
Andy Redwood said:
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options,"
Put through the "Sceptic" spin machine comes out as:
The Met believe Madeleine died in the apartment.
Nice one. 8((()*/
Andy Redwood? Oh yes, the DCI who is enjoying his retirement now. DCI Wall is in charge now isn't she? What has she said? Absolutely nothing. What is she doing? We haven't a clue. The PJ have the lead. What have they said? Absolutely nothing. What are they doing? We haven't a clue. Whatever has been said or done in the past the investigation is now proceeding in complete silence. We haven't a clue what they are going to come up with.
-
Andy Redwood? Oh yes, the DCI who is enjoying his retirement now. DCI Wall is in charge now isn't she? What has she said? Absolutely nothing. What is she doing? We haven't a clue. The PJ have the lead. What have they said? Absolutely nothing. What are they doing? We haven't a clue. Whatever has been said or done in the past the investigation is now proceeding in complete silence. We haven't a clue what they are going to come up with.
That's all very well G, but it doesn't get Faithlilly off the hook when she claims the Met believe Madeleine died in the apartment.
-
Andy Redwood? Oh yes, the DCI who is enjoying his retirement now. DCI Wall is in charge now isn't she? What has she said? Absolutely nothing. What is she doing? We haven't a clue. The PJ have the lead. What have they said? Absolutely nothing. What are they doing? We haven't a clue. Whatever has been said or done in the past the investigation is now proceeding in complete silence. We haven't a clue what they are going to come up with.
Opportunity for endless speculation then. 8)--))
-
Andy Redwood? Oh yes, the DCI who is enjoying his retirement now. DCI Wall is in charge now isn't she? What has she said? Absolutely nothing. What is she doing? We haven't a clue. The PJ have the lead. What have they said? Absolutely nothing. What are they doing? We haven't a clue. Whatever has been said or done in the past the investigation is now proceeding in complete silence. We haven't a clue what they are going to come up with.
you might not have a clue and it doesn't surprise me...some of us can see exactly what is going on
-
you might not have a clue and it doesn't surprise me...some of us can see exactly what is going on
Perhaps you should share this information with the forum at large so we can discuss it.
It might throw up some interesting postulations.
-
you might not have a clue and it doesn't surprise me...some of us can see exactly what is going on
Do you have cosy chats with OP Grange too? Oh yes, even if you do, you can't tell anyone. £4%4£
I'll stay with my own opinions then.
-
Opportunity for endless speculation then. 8)--))
Until the next time the Met makes a statement in which they make it clear that the parents are not in the frame, following which there will be a day or so's respite - and then it will all start up again. That's what usually happens. 8(0(*
-
That's all very well G, but it doesn't get Faithlilly off the hook when she claims the Met believe Madeleine died in the apartment.
Have it your way Alfie. If SY are considering as a possible scenario that Madeleine died in 5a what do you think are the chances that the alert by Eddie in the bedroom, which wasn't to blood, wasn't to Madeleine's body ?
That do for you ?
-
Have it your way Alfie. If SY are considering as a possible scenario that Madeleine died in 5a what do you think are the chances that the alert by Eddie in the bedroom, which wasn't to blood, wasn't to Madeleine's body ?
That do for you ?
That's a bit of a strangulated sentence but I do get the gist of what you are trying to articulate. What are the chances? I haven't a clue. As we don't actually know for certain what Eddie did or did not alert to this is a bit of a pointless discussion.
It would be nice of you to admit that the Met did not say they believe Madeleine died in the apartment btw, only that it was a possibility they were considering. They have said nothing whatsoever about the dog alerts but assuming they have given them great significance in this case perhaps you can explain why the McCanns have not been reinstated as arguidos?
-
Andy Redwood? Oh yes, the DCI who is enjoying his retirement now. DCI Wall is in charge now isn't she? What has she said? Absolutely nothing. What is she doing? We haven't a clue. The PJ have the lead. What have they said? Absolutely nothing. What are they doing? We haven't a clue. Whatever has been said or done in the past the investigation is now proceeding in complete silence. We haven't a clue what they are going to come up with.
What was that remark Amaral made something on the lines of 'Justice moves in silence' or something? SY have said they will not give a running commentary on the investigation.
-
Have it your way Alfie. If SY are considering as a possible scenario that Madeleine died in 5a what do you think are the chances that the alert by Eddie in the bedroom, which wasn't to blood, wasn't to Madeleine's body ?
That do for you ?
Faithlilly, the only scenario that SY came up with was that a burglar might have killed Madeleine in a botched robbery. NOT that they found her dead.
If so, no scent of death would be in 5a.
-
Faithlilly, the only scenario that SY came up with was that a burglar might have killed Madeleine in a botched robbery. NOT that they found her dead.
If so, no scent of death would be in 5a.
Now that is quite remarkable as SY don't even know what crime took place.
-
Faithlilly, the only scenario that SY came up with was that a burglar might have killed Madeleine in a botched robbery. NOT that they found her dead.
If so, no scent of death would be in 5a.
I thought SY had concluded that every theorem that does not involve the T9 was possible? Burglars, abductors, and I can't remember them ruling out woke-and-wandered. Charity collectors, gungy smelly men, crime anywhere in the Algarve?
Must look up the date of the dig in Luz. Have we hit the first anniversary?
-
Now that is quite remarkable as SY don't even know what crime took place.
Well that didn't stop Amaral deciding what had happened did it?
The difference is SY are saying that is what COULD have happened.
-
Well that didn't stop Amaral deciding what had happened did it?
The difference is SY are saying that is what COULD have happened.
Indeed including death in the apartment.
-
Indeed including death in the apartment.
SY do not accuse the McCann's though Stephen, they say the McCann's are not suspects.
-
Thats "Many"s problem then.
Indeed...........
As is the "problem" of the "many" who may end up having, not only to believe what they felt to be impossible, but unthinkable too!
-
SY do not accuse the McCann's though Stephen, they say the McCann's are not suspects.
As far as I'm aware, nobody has yet been formerly accused of anything.
-
Yes, Faithlilly has given us an excellent example of taking a statement saying one thing, putting it through the "sceptic" spin machine and coming out with something a little different.
Andy Redwood said:
"There is always the potential that she didn't leave the apartment alive. What is important for us to do is consider all the options,"
Put through the "Sceptic" spin machine comes out as:
The Met believe Madeleine died in the apartment.
Nice one. 8((()*/
Whereas, put through the "Supporter" spin machine...........by the time the Chinese Whisper and Translation Error deflections have been brought into play,........... the wonder is that any such comment is accepted as existing at all!
-
Whereas, put through the "Supporter" spin machine...........by the time the Chinese Whisper and Translation Error deflections have been brought into play,........... the wonder is that any such comment is accepted as existing at all!
Since the comment was recorded live we know exactly what redwood said
Alfred has posted the exact words .... No spin
Faith has altered them. Spin or fraudulent
-
SY do not publish everything they do.
For example it is obvious they must have interviewed all the group.
They have never announced this.
I rest my case.
-
Since the comment was recorded live we know exactly what redwood said
Alfred has posted the exact words .... No spin
Faith has altered them. Spin or fraudulent
Errrr.........Yes, I know, Davel............
So what would be the point of your "Spin or Fraudulent?" accusation.......... which would therefore be a bit obvious?.........
(A mistake, maybe as another option?)
-
Whereas, put through the "Supporter" spin machine...........by the time the Chinese Whisper and Translation Error deflections have been brought into play,........... the wonder is that any such comment is accepted as existing at all!
Are you defending Faithlilly's blatant misrepresentation of the truth? How about some criticism where it's due, eh? I have spun nothing, she very obviously has - slag her off for a change!
-
Since the comment was recorded live we know exactly what redwood said
Alfred has posted the exact words .... No spin
Faith has altered them. Spin or fraudulent
Hardly fraudulent unless you are doing a Humpty Dumpty again.
-
Errrr.........Yes, I know, Davel............
So what would be the point of your "Spin or Fraudulent?" accusation.......... which would therefore be a bit obvious?.........
(A mistake, maybe as another option?)
.
Why did faith persist with something blatantly untrue..... Simple
If she stuck to the truth she would realise her theories have no basis
-
Hardly fraudulent unless you are doing a Humpty Dumpty again.
Why is it that you reserve your criticisms on this forum solely to those who are of the opinion that Madeleine was abducted?
-
Why is it that you reserve your criticisms on this forum solely to those who are of the opinion that Madeleine was abducted?
You mean you criticise McCann supporters?
Because they are the easiest targets?
Because I enjoy it?
Because I can?
Because in this instance it related to the incorrect of use of the word fraudulent?
Take your pick from the last four.
-
TOPC. PLEASE.