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: mercury on February 07, 2016, 09:36:36 PM
-
Its as if the heavens might come down if it were true
They just wont even contemplate the "idea"
That is being closed minded IMO
14
-
Its as if the heavens might come down if it were true
They just wont even contemplate the "idea"
That is being closed minded IMO
What on earth makes you think that most of those of us on this side of the fence have not considered all possibilities and in particular parental involvement. And having considered it in the light of all of the evidence currently available have rejected it as a solution to the mystery.
-
Its as if the heavens might come down if it were true
They just wont even contemplate the "idea"
That is being closed minded IMO
Of course we have considered parental involvement...but like SY...based on the evidence I believe the parents are not involved
-
If compelling evidence of parental involvement were to come to light, I would hold up my hands and acknowledge that I had exercised the presumption of innocence wrongly.
Never any shame in that.
I am (personally) of the opinion that there is not the slightest chance of that happening, though ....
-
I would be interested to hear the evidence that people believe rules the parents out. I have seen a couple of comments by DCI Redwood used as 'evidence', but what else is there? Mostly I see things like 'I believe' 'I assume' 'Why would they' 'Mostly its opinion, not evidence imo.
-
I would be interested to hear the evidence that people believe rules the parents out. I have seen a couple of comments by DCI Redwood used as 'evidence', but what else is there? Mostly I see things like 'I believe' 'I assume' 'Why would they' 'Mostly its opinion, not evidence imo.
I could post it and you would dismiss it....Redwood has said...based on the evidence the parents are not suspects so he agrees there is evidence and it does not point to the parents
-
Its as if the heavens might come down if it were true
They just wont even contemplate the "idea"
That is being closed minded IMO
.....
If anyone can provide a plausible and logical theory of parental invovlement I would be very interested to hear it and am quite prepared to consider thepossibility. Can you do so? If so please PM your theory to me.
-
I would be interested to hear the evidence that people believe rules the parents out. I have seen a couple of comments by DCI Redwood used as 'evidence', but what else is there? Mostly I see things like 'I believe' 'I assume' 'Why would they' 'Mostly its opinion, not evidence imo.
It does not work that way. The principle of presumption of innocence exists in a legal and moral context for a very good reason.
After some 9 years of various investigations nothing whatever has come to light which makes me suspect parental involvement in Madeleine mcanns disappearance,let alone proves it.
All of the so called evidence against them can be traced back to myth and propaganda used by the coordinator to sensationalise his book and video and by the various elements of the press to flog more newspapers. Had there been any 'proof' of parental involvement it would have been tested in court. (Unless you happen to believe in 'political cover up')
-
The Amaral investigation provided no evidence which implicated Madeleine's parents of involvement.
The Rebelo investigation likewise found no evidence either.
Scotland Yard have carried out a scoping exercise, leading to a review of all the evidence available which in turn led to the reopening of Madeleine's case.
The Policia Judiciaria did likewise and reopened Madeleine's case.
There is absolutely no evidence against Madeleine's parents ... but both SY and the PJ have evidence pointing away from them which they have been pursuing since the case reopened in late 2013.
Both Portuguese and British police are investigating stranger abduction and are actively following the evidence which is to be hoped will lead to the actual perpetrator/s.
-
I would be interested to hear the evidence that people believe rules the parents out. I have seen a couple of comments by DCI Redwood used as 'evidence', but what else is there? Mostly I see things like 'I believe' 'I assume' 'Why would they' 'Mostly its opinion, not evidence imo.
The mistake is that you need evidence of innocence.
You don't
You need evidence of guilt.
-
Thank you all for the replies. Although it's often said that the parents have been 'ruled out', not one person has suggested how that could have been done. I have to assume therefore that none of you can point to any evidence which could have been used to rule the parents out.
All I have seen offered is no evidence of guilt. There is no evidence of abduction either. Talking of 'watchers' and 'windows of opportunity' and mentioning other crimes in the area is not evidence.
-
Thank you all for the replies. Although it's often said that the parents have been 'ruled out', not one person has suggested how that could have been done. I have to assume therefore that none of you can point to any evidence which could have been used to rule the parents out.
All I have seen offered is no evidence of guilt. There is no evidence of abduction either. Talking of 'watchers' and 'windows of opportunity' and mentioning other crimes in the area is not evidence.
8@??)( exactly
-
Thank you all for the replies. Although it's often said that the parents have been 'ruled out', not one person has suggested how that could have been done. I have to assume therefore that none of you can point to any evidence which could have been used to rule the parents out.
All I have seen offered is no evidence of guilt. There is no evidence of abduction either. Talking of 'watchers' and 'windows of opportunity' and mentioning other crimes in the area is not evidence.
You concede there is no evidence of guilt...
I would say your post gives a perfect answer to the question posed
-
Thank you all for the replies. Although it's often said that the parents have been 'ruled out', not one person has suggested how that could have been done. I have to assume therefore that none of you can point to any evidence which could have been used to rule the parents out.
All I have seen offered is no evidence of guilt. There is no evidence of abduction either. Talking of 'watchers' and 'windows of opportunity' and mentioning other crimes in the area is not evidence.
There has been no credible evidence to 'rule the parents in' so it baffles me how they can be 'ruled out'. I take the seemingly old fashioned approach of presumption of innocence. Which is the only possible approach in a civilised society
You may be be comfortable accusing Madeleine's parents of various levels of criminal activity on the basis if tabloid gossip and a pot boiler written to make cash for a failed investigator but I am not.
I have been around for long enough to 'never say never' so if you or any other sceptic can come up with a credible scenario where 'the McCanns dun it' then I may change my position. But so far nobody has.
Nearly nine years down the line we are
-
There has been no credible evidence to 'rule the parents in' so it baffles me how they can be 'ruled out'. I take the seemingly old fashioned approach of presumption of innocence. Which is the only possible approach in a civilised society
You may be be comfortable accusing Madeleine's parents of various levels of criminal activity on the basis if tabloid gossip and a pot boiler written to make cash for a failed investigator but I am not.
I have been around for long enough to 'never say never' so if you or any other sceptic can come up with a credible scenario where 'the McCanns dun it' then I may change my position. But so far nobody has.
Nearly nine years down the line we are
As far as the case is concerned, the mccanns remain the last known people to see Madeleine alive.
As to what happened to Madeleine, several theories remain on the table, neither proved or disproved.
-
IMO supporters appear to have made up their minds and are very resistant to anything that disturbs that conviction. Sceptics are less wedded to a specific theory, have a more flexible approach to the evidence and indications and less willing to discard inconvenient facts which may contradict their current theory.
The why is more difficult. We know that some supporters have a personal connection o the McCs no matter how tenuous, others appear to put the McCs on a pedestal as Doctors whilst still others display xenophobia.
-
I take my hat off to you, Stephen and Carly. It's a rare bird that has never made a mistake or an error of judgement. And to find two such exemplary souls on the same forum - what are the chances! I congratulate you both.
-
IMO supporters appear to have made up their minds and are very resistant to anything that disturbs that conviction. Sceptics are less wedded to a specific theory, have a more flexible approach to the evidence and indications and less willing to discard inconvenient facts which may contradict their current theory.
The why is more difficult. We know that some supporters have a personal connection o the McCs no matter how tenuous, others appear to put the McCs on a pedestal as Doctors whilst still others display xenophobia.
Excellent post Slarti. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Excellent post Slarti. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
8@??)(
seconded it wouldnt suprise me at all that some supporters on the net are real life friends with the mcanns would it?
-
seconded it wouldnt suprise me at all that some supporters on the net are real life friends with the mcanns would it?
8(0(*
-
IMO supporters appear to have made up their minds and are very resistant to anything that disturbs that conviction. Sceptics are less wedded to a specific theory, have a more flexible approach to the evidence and indications and less willing to discard inconvenient facts which may contradict their current theory.
The why is more difficult. We know that some supporters have a personal connection o the McCs no matter how tenuous, others appear to put the McCs on a pedestal as Doctors whilst still others display xenophobia.
IMO many "sceptics" like to think they are special, with superior intelligence, connections and insight into this case that the blind "sheeple" McCann supporters are unable to access, either because they believe them to be McCann worshippers, McCann shills or just plain dumb. This is laughable nonsense. I have thrown down a challenge for someone, anyone to put together a plausible and logical theory of parental involvement, something that will make me slap my forehead and go "of course! That's how they dunnit!!" but so far not one person has been able to do so, not now not ever. I am very open to having my ideas challenged which is why I post on a forum like this. If I wasn't, why would I bother posting here at all? Surely you don't really believe it is simply blind Mcdevotion or paid propaganda that has seen me wash up here? It's so insulting. Your post is so insulting.
-
IMO many "sceptics" like to think they are special, with superior intelligence, connections and insight into this case that the blind "sheeple" McCann supporters are unable to access, either because they believe them to be McCann worshippers, McCann shills or just plain dumb. This is laughable nonsense. I have thrown down a challenge for someone, anyone to put together a plausible and logical theory of parental involvement, something that will make me slap my forehead and go "of course! That's how they dunnit!!" but so far not one person has been able to do so, not now not ever. I am very open to having my ideas challenged which is why I post on a forum like this. If I wasn't, why would I bother posting here at all? Surely you don't really believe it is simply blind Mcdevotion or paid propaganda that has seen me wash up here? It's so insulting. Your post is so insulting.
You support a theory which has no evidence to show an abduction occurred, other than the required supposition, namely to support the mccanns.
As to the mccanns having people 'monitoring' the internet, WELL KNOWN.
-
IMO many "sceptics" like to think they are special, with superior intelligence, connections and insight into this case that the blind "sheeple" McCann supporters are unable to access, either because they believe them to be McCann worshippers, McCann shills or just plain dumb. This is laughable nonsense. I have thrown down a challenge for someone, anyone to put together a plausible and logical theory of parental involvement, something that will make me slap my forehead and go "of course! That's how they dunnit!!" but so far not one person has been able to do so, not now not ever. I am very open to having my ideas challenged which is why I post on a forum like this. If I wasn't, why would I bother posting here at all? Surely you don't really believe it is simply blind Mcdevotion or paid propaganda that has seen me wash up here? It's so insulting. Your post is so insulting.
Thank you for your post.
You express my feelings exactly on Slarti's post.
As a "supporter", whatever that means, I too find find his/her post most insulting.
-
IMO many "sceptics" like to think they are special, with superior intelligence, connections and insight into this case that the blind "sheeple" McCann supporters are unable to access, either because they believe them to be McCann worshippers, McCann shills or just plain dumb. This is laughable nonsense. I have thrown down a challenge for someone, anyone to put together a plausible and logical theory of parental involvement, something that will make me slap my forehead and go "of course! That's how they dunnit!!" but so far not one person has been able to do so, not now not ever. I am very open to having my ideas challenged which is why I post on a forum like this. If I wasn't, why would I bother posting here at all? Surely you don't really believe it is simply blind Mcdevotion or paid propaganda that has seen me wash up here? It's so insulting. Your post is so insulting.
There is no forehead slapping solution to this mystery. The timeline has been questioned by both sides.
-
IMO supporters appear to have made up their minds and are very resistant to anything that disturbs that conviction. Sceptics are less wedded to a specific theory, have a more flexible approach to the evidence and indications and less willing to discard inconvenient facts which may contradict their current theory.
The why is more difficult. We know that some supporters have a personal connection o the McCs no matter how tenuous, others appear to put the McCs on a pedestal as Doctors whilst still others display xenophobia.
it doesnt go unnoticed....
-
IMO supporters appear to have made up their minds and are very resistant to anything that disturbs that conviction. Sceptics are less wedded to a specific theory, have a more flexible approach to the evidence and indications and less willing to discard inconvenient facts which may contradict their current theory.
The why is more difficult. We know that some supporters have a personal connection o the McCs no matter how tenuous, others appear to put the McCs on a pedestal as Doctors whilst still others display xenophobia.
Absolute total rubbish.....gunit has admitted there is no evidence against the mccans...does it not occur to you that is why they are supported...as for personal connections that you know exist...please explain as you have stated this as a fact
-
You concede there is no evidence of guilt...
I would say your post gives a perfect answer to the question posed
Once again you misunderstood what I posted. I didn't concede anything, I said that supporters say there is no evidence of guilt, not that I agreed with them.
-
There has been no credible evidence to 'rule the parents in' so it baffles me how they can be 'ruled out'. I take the seemingly old fashioned approach of presumption of innocence. Which is the only possible approach in a civilised society
You may be be comfortable accusing Madeleine's parents of various levels of criminal activity on the basis if tabloid gossip and a pot boiler written to make cash for a failed investigator but I am not.
I have been around for long enough to 'never say never' so if you or any other sceptic can come up with a credible scenario where 'the McCanns dun it' then I may change my position. But so far nobody has.
Nearly nine years down the line we are
Perhaps people can now stop saying that the parents have been 'ruled out' therefore. I do not accuse the McCanns of various levels of criminal activity, but I do criticise some of their behaviour and I point out inconsistencies in the group's statements. I try to base my opinions on information in the files because media stories cannot be relied on unless they have direct quotes and I haven't read either 'pot boiler', so neither of them are the basis of my opinions.
The presumption of innocence? Does that mean that no-one can express their opinion on any case until it has been tried in a court? In that case we might as well stop all debate on the McCann case here and now. I presume neither innocence or guilt, but I reserve the right to give my opinion based on any evidence I see as credible.
-
Perhaps people can now stop saying that the parents have been 'ruled out' therefore. I do not accuse the McCanns of various levels of criminal activity, but I do criticise some of their behaviour and I point out inconsistencies in the group's statements. I try to base my opinions on information in the files because media stories cannot be relied on unless they have direct quotes and I haven't read either 'pot boiler', so neither of them are the basis of my opinions.
The presumption of innocence? Does that mean that no-one can express their opinion on any case until it has been tried in a court? In that case we might as well stop all debate on the McCann case here and now. I presume neither innocence or guilt, but I reserve the right to give my opinion based on any evidence I see as credible.
8@??)( exactly everybody is entitled to their own opinion but if you say anything bad about the mcanns supporters want you silenced ??
-
IMO many "sceptics" like to think they are special, with superior intelligence, connections and insight into this case that the blind "sheeple" McCann supporters are unable to access, either because they believe them to be McCann worshippers, McCann shills or just plain dumb. This is laughable nonsense. I have thrown down a challenge for someone, anyone to put together a plausible and logical theory of parental involvement, something that will make me slap my forehead and go "of course! That's how they dunnit!!" but so far not one person has been able to do so, not now not ever. I am very open to having my ideas challenged which is why I post on a forum like this. If I wasn't, why would I bother posting here at all? Surely you don't really believe it is simply blind Mcdevotion or paid propaganda that has seen me wash up here? It's so insulting. Your post is so insulting.
Most of what you say about sceptics is your personal opinion. I have been abused because I don't swear and don't like the mindset of those who think it's acceptable. I have been accused of thinking I'm perfect because I wouldn't leave small children home alone in an unlocked apartment. I have been accused of thinking I have superior intelligence and all I can say is I'm intelligent enough not to constantly break the forum rules.
You like issuing challenges, but not accepting them. I asked for evidence which could have 'ruled out' the McCanns, and you respond by asking for a theory showing how they did it. Does that mean that the only reason you believe they're innocent is because no-one has produced a theory which you believe is credible? Has it never occurred to you that no-one wants to 'convert' you? If there was an evidence based coherent theory of parental involvement they would have been arrested by now, surely? All there is is peculiarities in their behaviour and narrative which leads some to be sceptical of them. Others see their behaviour as perfectly natural. Each to his own, I say.
-
Absolute total rubbish.....gunit has admitted there is no evidence against the mccans...does it not occur to you that is why they are supported...as for personal connections that you know exist...please explain as you have stated this as a fact
You yourself say your son studied under Gerry?
-
You yourself say your son studied under Gerry?
Indeed, Slarti.
Imagine that. 8(*(
-
Most of what you say about sceptics is your personal opinion. I have been abused because I don't swear and don't like the mindset of those who think it's acceptable. I have been accused of thinking I'm perfect because I wouldn't leave small children home alone in an unlocked apartment. I have been accused of thinking I have superior intelligence and all I can say is I'm intelligent enough not to constantly break the forum rules.
You like issuing challenges, but not accepting them. I asked for evidence which could have 'ruled out' the McCanns, and you respond by asking for a theory showing how they did it. Does that mean that the only reason you believe they're innocent is because no-one has produced a theory which you believe is credible? Has it never occurred to you that no-one wants to 'convert' you? If there was an evidence based coherent theory of parental involvement they would have been arrested by now, surely? All there is is peculiarities in their behaviour and narrative which leads some to be sceptical of them. Others see their behaviour as perfectly natural. Each to his own, I say.
Everything Slarti said about McCann supporters is personal opinion, everything I think about you is my personal opinion, your veiled insult regarding my intelligence has been noted. Now here's a funny thing - again my personal opinion - "sceptics" like to think that they are free thinking, going against the flow, non-sheeple, justice seekers, kicking against the shady forces of the "High ups" who control society, yet when that sort of spirit is displayed here on this forum (not going with the flow, being prepared to take a risk, challenging authority etc) this is seen by you as a lack of intelligence. Perhaps you could explain how not conforming to the status quo = a lack of intelligence?
As for the challenge you believe you have thrown down at me, I have already answered this question a thousand times in one way or another over the years. The fact that you don't or won't accept what I say is not my problem really.
-
People have given some reasons as to why they support the McCanns, but none of the posts explain why they become so incensed that they resort to insults if others criticise the parents. That seems to stem from an emotional approach to the case. Sceptics seem to me to have a less emotional, more objective approach.
-
Most of what you say about sceptics is your personal opinion. I have been abused because I don't swear and don't like the mindset of those who think it's acceptable. I have been accused of thinking I'm perfect because I wouldn't leave small children home alone in an unlocked apartment. I have been accused of thinking I have superior intelligence and all I can say is I'm intelligent enough not to constantly break the forum rules.
You like issuing challenges, but not accepting them. I asked for evidence which could have 'ruled out' the McCanns, and you respond by asking for a theory showing how they did it. Does that mean that the only reason you believe they're innocent is because no-one has produced a theory which you believe is credible? Has it never occurred to you that no-one wants to 'convert' you? If there was an evidence based coherent theory of parental involvement they would have been arrested by now, surely? All there is is peculiarities in their behaviour and narrative which leads some to be sceptical of them. Others see their behaviour as perfectly natural. Each to his own, I say.
Quite. It's all subjective - you think the McCanns are odd, unlikeable, mendacious (shades of Lindy Chamberlain here) and based on this you've let your collective imaginations run riot - others look at the facts of the case without the biased goggles you are obviously viewing the case through.
-
People have given some reasons as to why they support the McCanns, but none of the posts explain why they become so incensed that they resort to insults if others criticise the parents. That seems to stem from an emotional approach to the case. Sceptics seem to me to have a less emotional, more objective approach.
Yeah, I've noticed that, too.
-
Yeah, I've noticed that, too.
Haven't we all.
-
Everything Slarti said about McCann supporters is personal opinion, everything I think about you is my personal opinion, your veiled insult regarding my intelligence has been noted. Now here's a funny thing - again my personal opinion - "sceptics" like to think that they are free thinking, going against the flow, non-sheeple, justice seekers, kicking against the shady forces of the "High ups" who control society, yet when that sort of spirit is displayed here on this forum (not going with the flow, being prepared to take a risk, challenging authority etc) this is seen by you as a lack of intelligence. Perhaps you could explain how not conforming to the status quo = a lack of intelligence?
As for the challenge you believe you have thrown down at me, I have already answered this question a thousand times in one way or another over the years. The fact that you don't or won't accept what I say is not my problem really.
My comment about breaking forum rules wasn't directed just at you Alfred, it was a general observation.
Once again you are generalising about the thoughts and personalities of 'sceptics'. I think the sceptics are as different as any other random group of people with just one interest in common. I expect the supporters are just as varied and would never assume they must share other characteristics.
I joined the forum to discuss the case. I'm not interested in insulting people or attracting points for doing so because a) insulting people probably means I'm losing the argument and can't think of a better response and b) being sanctioned or banned limits or stops me from joining in discussions, so it's counter-productive.
I am capable of challenging authority if I feel that it's necessary. I have never found it necessary on this forum because the people running it and moderating it are doing me a favour by providing me with a platform to express my opinions freely so long as I keep to the rules. I would be biting the hands that feed me by making their jobs harder. They are doing me a favour and in return I respect them when they do their job, even if I privately disagree sometimes.
I'm not surprised that you won't attempt to list the reasons why you support the parents because I've never seen anything at all credible in the time I've been on the forum; just opinion, attempts at emotional blackmail and outrage if anyone suggests they are less than perfect and above suspicion.
-
My comment about breaking forum rules wasn't directed just at you Alfred, it was a general observation.
Once again you are generalising about the thoughts and personalities of 'sceptics'. I think the sceptics are as different as any other random group of people with just one interest in common. I expect the supporters are just as varied and would never assume they must share other characteristics.
I joined the forum to discuss the case. I'm not interested in insulting people or attracting points for doing so because a) insulting people probably means I'm losing the argument and can't think of a better response and b) being sanctioned or banned limits or stops me from joining in discussions, so it's counter-productive.
I am capable of challenging authority if I feel that it's necessary. I have never found it necessary on this forum because the people running it and moderating it are doing me a favour by providing me with a platform to express my opinions freely so long as I keep to the rules. I would be biting the hands that feed me by making their jobs harder. They are doing me a favour and in return I respect them when they do their job, even if I privately disagree sometimes.
I'm not surprised that you won't attempt to list the reasons why you support the parents because I've never seen anything at all credible in the time I've been on the forum; just opinion, attempts at emotional blackmail and outrage if anyone suggests they are less than perfect and above suspicion.
well said again emotional blackmail is used quite oftern by mcann supporters
-
Quite. It's all subjective - you think the McCanns are odd, unlikeable, mendacious (shades of Lindy Chamberlain here) and based on this you've let your collective imaginations run riot - others look at the facts of the case without the biased goggles you are obviously viewing the case through.
Once again you are telling me what I think about the McCanns. To be perfectly clear, my doubts about them are not based on my opinion of their personalities, they're based on verifiable facts in the case. That's why I post lots of cites.
-
You yourself say your son studied under Gerry?
My son studied medicine at Leicester where Gerry was a tutor
Lots of students and lots of tutors
Is that the personal connection you are talking about
Who else were you referring to
-
8@??)( exactly everybody is entitled to their own opinion but if you say anything bad about the mcanns supporters want you silenced ??
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion carly that is why we are debating the case, there would be no debating if everyone agreed would there?
AS to wanting anyone silenced if they say anything bad about the McCann's, well. I wouldn't want them silenced I would want to know why they are saying it, and debate their views.
I get a bit sick and tired when people say things such as 'McCann worshippers' or similar just because I think the McCann's are innocent.
-
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, being unwilling to listen and counter opposing views is little pointless in a discussion forum.
-
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, being unwilling to listen and counter opposing views is little pointless in a discussion forum.
And who are you saying is guilty of that
-
And who are you saying is guilty of that
I was leaving that as an exercise for the readers.
-
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, being unwilling to listen and counter opposing views is little pointless in a discussion forum.
exactly but using passive agressive arguments/emotional blackmail like for the last 9 years we have tortured the grieving parents of a missing child doesnt do anything for me because they are the main cause of her vanishing and also dont most supporters and the mcanns believe maddie is alive? grief is when someone dies...
-
I was leaving that as an exercise for the readers.
As I have repeatedly said.... Imo.. Sceptics simply do not understand the evidence
If they did they would understand exactly why Posters support the McCanns
-
exactly but using passive agressive arguments/emotional blackmail like for the last 9 years we have tortured the grieving parents of a missing child doesnt do anything for me because they are the main cause of her vanishing and also dont most supporters and the mcanns believe maddie is alive? grief is when someone dies...
Grief can be felt when a child is lost to an unknown fate.
I believe that Madeleine could well be alive. We have nothing to suggest otherwise.
-
They are ruled out because there is no evidence against them
That's it...... Simple
-
As I have repeatedly said.... Imo.. Sceptics simply do not understand the evidence
If they did they would understand exactly why Posters support the McCanns
Are you inferring that sceptics have such a limited mental capacity that they are unable to understand what people with your enviable mental abilities understand? I have asked before and I'm asking again. Put it to the test and explain just what it is that we are unable to understand. I for one am always open to being educated and having my mind stretched.
-
Are you inferring that sceptics have such a limited mental capacity that they are unable to understand what people with your enviable mental abilities understand? I have asked before and I'm asking again. Put it to the test and explain just what it is that we are unable to understand. I for one am always open to being educated and having my mind stretched.
i love learning life is learning
-
Are you inferring that sceptics have such a limited mental capacity that they are unable to understand what people with your enviable mental abilities understand? I have asked before and I'm asking again. Put it to the test and explain just what it is that we are unable to understand. I for one am always open to being educated and having my mind stretched.
Unfortunately, we have seen these pattern of behaviour on many occasions, and it is riddled with illogic.
-
Unfortunately, we have seen these pattern of behaviour on many occasions, and it is riddled with illogic.
i personally dont like people with closed minds i was brought up to think for myself
-
Can I ask - do you believe that Robert Murat has been ruled out?
-
They are ruled out because there is no evidence against them
That's it...... Simple
To rule someone out as a suspect requires irrefutable evidence of their non participation in a crime. We do not have that in this case, all three arguidos (suspects) had that status removed because of a lack of evidence and not because they were proved innocent.
-
Can I ask - do you believe that Robert Murat has been ruled out?
Ruled out of what exactly?
-
Ruled out of what exactly?
Involvement in Madeleine's disappearance - what else?
-
Hasn't everyone been ruled out so far?
Has anyone been ruled in ?
-
Can I ask - do you believe that Robert Murat has been ruled out?
I don't believe that anyone has been 'ruled out'. It's supporters who keep insisting the Mccanns have been 'ruled out'. I am asking them to explain how that was accomplished.
-
I don't believe that anyone has been 'ruled out'. It's supporters who keep insisting the Mccanns have been 'ruled out'. I am asking them to explain how that was accomplished.
Just remind me of the McCanns legal status vis a vis this case?
Was I asleep when they were arrested and charged?
-
I don't believe that anyone has been 'ruled out'. It's supporters who keep insisting the Mccanns have been 'ruled out'. I am asking them to explain how that was accomplished.
a perfectly valid question imo
-
To rule someone out as a suspect requires irrefutable evidence of their non participation in a crime. We do not have that in this case, all three arguidos (suspects) had that status removed because of a lack of evidence and not because they were proved innocent.
no it doesn't and no one needs to be proved innocent...they are ruled out because the evidence does not support their involvement
-
Just remind me of the McCanns legal status vis a vis this case?
Was I asleep when they were arrested and charged?
Every criminal in the world is legally innocent until found guilty. That doesn't stop them from being suspected and investigated though, otherwise none of them would ever be caught and punished.
-
Every criminal in the world is legally innocent until found guilty. That doesn't stop them from being suspected and investigated though, otherwise none of them would ever be caught and punished.
Shall we run through a list of figures in history who weren't brought to trial but committed various crimes, let alone mass murder ?
-
Shall we run through a list of figures in history who weren't brought to trial but committed various crimes, let alone mass murder ?
oj simpson for many years before re trialed
-
no it doesn't and no one needs to be proved innocent...they are ruled out because the evidence does not support their involvement
You stated they were ruled out, that is incorrect. This is a forum and not a court of law, different rules apply.
You claim the evidence dies not support their involvement but I don't agree. The evidence as exists is neutral so cannot rule anyone out.
-
You stated they were ruled out, that is incorrect. This is a forum and not a court of law, different rules apply.
They were ruled out when we were told they were not suspects
-
They were ruled out when we were told they were not suspects
Being ruled out is not the same thing as not being a suspect no matter how much you like to spin it davel.
Take note of the missing child case in Idaho Falls. The parents were initially declared not suspects but hey ho, seven months later and they are the prime suspects. Things change, investigations move on, new evidence is revealed.
-
Shall we run through a list of figures in history who weren't brought to trial but committed various crimes, let alone mass murder ?
Why?
There was evidence against all them.
There is no evidence against the McCanns.
-
They were ruled out when we were told they were not suspects
Why do you say we you dont speak for all of us
-
Why do you say we you dont speak for all of us
Do you seriously exclude yourself from those who were told the McCanns are not suspects?
Perhaps you do ....
-
Why?
There was evidence against all them.
There is no evidence against the McCanns.
Unless you can cite facts to the contrary, they were the last people to see her alive before she disappeared.
On those grounds alone, they should still remain in the frame.
Even Mitchell said there is no evidence of a break in, in the apartment.
-
Being ruled out is not the same thing as not being a suspect no matter how much you like to spin it davel.
Take note of the missing child case in Idaho Falls. The parents were initially declared not suspects but hey ho, seven months later and they are the prime suspects. Things change, investigations move on, new evidence is revealed.
Being ruled out is the same as not being suspects ....
-
Do you seriously exclude yourself from those who were told the McCanns are not suspects?
Perhaps you do ....
What have SY found ferryman ?
-
Unless you can cite facts to the contrary, they were the last people to see her alive before she disappeared.
On those grounds alone, they should still remain in the frame.
Even Mitchell said there is no evidence of a break in, in the apartment.
Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
It is very highly likely the Smiths saw Madeleine's abductor.
-
Being ruled out is not the same thing as not being a suspect no matter how much you like to spin it davel.
Take note of the missing child case in Idaho Falls. The parents were initially declared not suspects but hey ho, seven months later and they are the prime suspects. Things change, investigations move on, new evidence is revealed.
The parents in that case were inititially ruled out
There is no precise legal definition of the word so it's fair to say the McCanns have been ruled out
-
no it doesn't and no one needs to be proved innocent...they are ruled out because the evidence does not support their involvement
Opinion, not fact. No-one can be 'ruled out' by lack of evidence of involvement. A person can be ruled out by an irrefutable alibi placing them elsewhere than at the scene of a crime when the crime was committed. No-one knows in this case if a crime was committed and if it was, what it was and what time it occurred.
-
Opinion, not fact. No-one can be 'ruled out' by lack of evidence of involvement. A person can be ruled out by an irrefutable alibi placing them elsewhere than at the scene of a crime when the crime was committed. No-one knows in this case if a crime was committed and if it was, what it was and what time it occurred.
And therein lies the problem that, to date, no one has solved.
-
Opinion, not fact. No-one can be 'ruled out' by lack of evidence of involvement. A person can be ruled out by an irrefutable alibi placing them elsewhere than at the scene of a crime when the crime was committed. No-one knows in this case if a crime was committed and if it was, what it was and what time it occurred.
Opinion...not fact
You and othe sceptics seem to be under the illusion that being ruled out has a precise legal definition....it doesn't... If you disagree go ahead and give the definition
I don't expect a reply
-
So a bit of a meaningless term, then?
-
?8)@)-)
I don't believe that anyone has been 'ruled out'. It's supporters who keep insisting the Mccanns have been 'ruled out'. I am asking them to explain how that was accomplished.
So Murat's still in the frame then...interesting.... &%+((£
-
Opinion, not fact. No-one can be 'ruled out' by lack of evidence of involvement. A person can be ruled out by an irrefutable alibi placing them elsewhere than at the scene of a crime when the crime was committed. No-one knows in this case if a crime was committed and if it was, what it was and what time it occurred.
Which means that certainly no one in Praia Da Luz has been ruled out (except of course we've been told in no uncertain terms that the McCanns and their friends have been by a senior copper, but he's "Yesterday's Man" now so we can conveniently forget everything he ever said and pin all our hopes on the Lady copper who hasn't said a word yet but who we hope will come out soon and announce that dawn raids on Rothley are imminent).
-
Who knows what tomorrow will bring ?{)(**
-
Who knows what tomorrow will bring ?{)(**
Another day of disappointment for the "Bang 'em up and throw away the key" brigade I'll wager...
-
Which means that certainly no one in Praia Da Luz has been ruled out (except of course we've been told in no uncertain terms that the McCanns and their friends have been by a senior copper, but he's "Yesterday's Man" now so we can conveniently forget everything he ever said and pin all our hopes on the Lady copper who hasn't said a word yet but who we hope will come out soon and announce that dawn raids on Rothley are imminent).
Redwood found , with the aid of his collegues a big fat zero.
-
Redwood found , with the aid of his collegues a big fat zero.
Though he did say something along the lines that not everyone was in agreement, so perhaps some of his juniors had other opinions that were not given credence.
-
Redwood found , with the aid of his collegues a big fat zero.
Why do you always sound so pleased about it?
-
Why do you always sound so pleased about it?
Haven't you worked that one out yet.
How do you find evidence if none exists in the first place ?
-
Haven't you worked that one out yet.
How do you find evidence if none exists in the first place ?
You plant it, of course. @)(++(*
-
Haven't you worked that one out yet.
How do you find evidence if none exists in the first place ?
No, I haven't worked out why you are so pleased that Redwood failed. Perhaps you could tell me.
-
Which means that certainly no one in Praia Da Luz has been ruled out (except of course we've been told in no uncertain terms that the McCanns and their friends have been by a senior copper, but he's "Yesterday's Man" now so we can conveniently forget everything he ever said and pin all our hopes on the Lady copper who hasn't said a word yet but who we hope will come out soon and announce that dawn raids on Rothley are imminent).
Would you care to provide a cite which quotes a senior copper saying 'the McCanns have been ruled out'?
-
Gerry was in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
It is very highly likely the Smiths saw Madeleine's abductor.
What proof is there of abduction ferryman ?
-
Would you care to provide a cite which quotes a senior copper saying 'the McCanns have been ruled out'?
What, again???! But if you insist...
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects" - Andy Redwood.
-
You plant it, of course. @)(++(*
The PJ have been accused of that.
-
No, I haven't worked out why you are so pleased that Redwood failed. Perhaps you could tell me.
Try reading my post again.
-
The PJ have been accused of that.
Given the pigs' ear (at most charitable) that was made of interpreting the forensic results, why do you find it so outlandish that evidence might have been planted?
-
Try reading my post again.
I asked: Why do you always sound so pleased about it (Andy Redwood finding a "big fat zero")?
You replied "Haven't you worked that one out yet? How do you find evidence if none exists in the first place"
So, no I haven't worked out why you always sound so pleased that Andy Redwood has found nothing. Your second sentence above only serves to muddy the waters - are you pleased that there was no evidence to find? Or what? Once again - why do you always sound so pleased that Andy Redwood found "a big fat zero"?
-
I'm disappointed that SY have, so far, proved to no more effective than the PJ, despite the substantial resources available to them.
-
Being ruled out is not the same thing as not being a suspect no matter how much you like to spin it davel.
Take note of the missing child case in Idaho Falls. The parents were initially declared not suspects but hey ho, seven months later and they are the prime suspects. Things change, investigations move on, new evidence is revealed.
Who has ever claimed that "being ruled out" is a status that is carved in stone, never to change? The McCanns and / or their friends and / or Robert Murat could become suspects again who knows? I think that's highly unlikely but from everything we know currently they remain "ruled out" and will remain "ruled out" until or unless we and they are informed otherwise.
-
Given the pigs' ear (at most charitable) that was made of interpreting the forensic results, why do you find it so outlandish that evidence might have been planted?
If you say evidence has been planted.
CITE.
-
I'm disappointed that SY have, so far, proved to no more effective than the PJ, despite the substantial resources available to them.
Some crimes just cannot be solved no matter how many resources you throw at them, but that doesn't mean every possible resource should not have been used in an attempt to solve them.
-
Given the pigs' ear (at most charitable) that was made of interpreting the forensic results, why do you find it so outlandish that evidence might have been planted?
Perhaps a pig's ear was actually used? 8(0(*
-
I asked: Why do you always sound so pleased about it (Andy Redwood finding a "big fat zero")?
You replied "Haven't you worked that one out yet? How do you find evidence if none exists in the first place"
So, no I haven't worked out why you always sound so pleased that Andy Redwood has found nothing. Your second sentence above only serves to muddy the waters - are you pleased that there was no evidence to find? Or what? Once again - why do you always sound so pleased that Andy Redwood found "a big fat zero"?
Well, let's make it easy for you, I never expected him or his team to find evidence of something which I never believe happened.
Tell me, were you happy, when damages were awarded against Amaral ?
-
Perhaps a pig's ear was actually used? 8(0(*
Does that equate to the mccanns displaying 'responsible parenting skills' ? 8**8:/:
-
Well, let's make it easy for you, I never expected him or his team to find evidence of something which I never believe happened.
Tell me, were you happy, when damages were awarded against Amaral ?
Re: the bit in bold above - so why does that make you happy?
As for the question - you bet I was!! Delighted.
-
Does that equate to the mccanns displaying 'responsible parenting skills' ? 8**8:/:
That makes no sense, sorry.
-
Re: the bit in bold above - so why does that make you happy?
As for the question - you bet I was!! Delighted.
Why are you delighted by it .. you are over emotionally involved in the McCann case imo btw I'm on my iPad just in case it auto corrects
-
Re: the bit in bold above - so why does that make you happy?
As for the question - you bet I was!! Delighted.
Of course you were happy, just like gerry and kate mccann. 8)-)))
......and of course that case would never have happened but for that pair.
As to Redwood, I predicted right at the start once I heard it was 'abduction or bust' they would find nothing.
Hall of course is a specialist in murder cases.
-
That makes no sense, sorry.
I presume you understand sarcasm.
After all alfred, but for the mccanns 'responsible parenting skills', these threads would not exist, would they.
8(0(*
-
I presume you understand sarcasm.
After all alfred, but for the mccanns 'responsible parenting skills', these threads would not exist, would they.
8(0(*
he will never admit that
-
he will never admit that
That would be rather unlikely.
-
Why are you delighted by it .. you are over emotionally involved in the McCann case imo btw I'm on my iPad just in case it auto corrects
I was delighted because Amaral's book was rubbish, designed to get back at the McCanns who he perceived had ruined his life, it was vindictive, libellous, inaccurate and made him hundreds of thousands of pounds off the back of a missing child. That's why I was delighted when the judgement went against him. It also delighted me that the judgement so upset his rather grotesque little fan club.
Put it this way. I was as delighted with the result as you would have been had it gone his way and the McCanns had been ruined instead. And don't try and pretend you wouldn't have been.
-
Of course you were happy, just like gerry and kate mccann. 8)-)))
......and of course that case would never have happened but for that pair.
As to Redwood, I predicted right at the start once I heard it was 'abduction or bust' they would find nothing.
Hall of course is a specialist in murder cases.
So, you are happy that you were proved right, never mind about Madeleine or justice or anything like that. I see, I have no idea what your last sentence refers to.
-
I presume you understand sarcasm.
After all alfred, but for the mccanns 'responsible parenting skills', these threads would not exist, would they.
8(0(*
I understand sarcasm but I didn't understand what your comment under mine was meant to communicate. It was a non sequitur as so many of your replies to my posts seem to be.
-
I was delighted because Amaral's book was rubbish, designed to get back at the McCanns who he perceived had ruined his life, it was vindictive, libellous, inaccurate and made him hundreds of thousands of pounds off the back of a missing child. That's why I was delighted when the judgement went against him. It also delighted me that the judgement so upset his rather grotesque little fan club.
Put it this way. I was as delighted with the result as you would have been had it gone his way and the McCanns had been ruined instead. And don't try and pretend you wouldn't have been.
Didn't upset me I'm not emotionally involved like that
-
Didn't upset me I'm not emotionally involved like that
Well bully for you. Strange that you are not emotionally involved in this case after 8 solid years of commenting on it, what are you getting out of it then?
-
Didn't upset me I'm not emotionally involved like that
Nor me, but has been mentioned earlier, only supporters are so emotionally involved.
-
Didn't upset me I'm not emotionally involved like that
The sceptics claim to support free speech... But will not want this post to stay on the thread
-
Nor me, but has been mentioned earlier, only supporters are so emotionally involved.
unhealthily imo
-
So, you are happy that you were proved right, never mind about Madeleine or justice or anything like that. I see, I have no idea what your last sentence refers to.
Cliche, after cliche, after cliche.
You can't find evidence if none exists, can you alfred ?
As to justice, this case shows no signs of being solved.
...and your idea of 'justice' is keeping the mccanns out of the firing line.
As to the last sentence, let's try and make it simple.
THESE THREADS WOULD NOT EXIST, BUT FOR THE MCCANNS ACTIONS. 8)-)))
-
Cliche, after cliche, after cliche.
You can't find evidence if none exists, can you alfred ?
As to justice, this case shows no signs of being solved.
...and your idea of 'justice' is keeping the mccanns out of the firing line.
As to the last sentence, let's try and make it simple.
THESE THREADS WOULD NOT EXIST, BUT FOR THE MCCANNS ACTIONS. 8)-)))
8@??)(
-
I understand sarcasm but I didn't understand what your comment under mine was meant to communicate. It was a non sequitur as so many of your replies to my posts seem to be.
You know perfectly well what I am referring to, but you can't cut a logical response.
You and ferryman enjoyed a quip about pigs, but perhaps David Cameron would be the best person to ask questions on that. 8((()*/
-
What, again???! But if you insist...
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects" - Andy Redwood.
There's nothing there about anyone being 'ruled out'. Ruling someone out is a permanent state of affairs, they have been exonerated, eliminated. The police have been known to make statements such as Redwood's and then change their minds later.
-
The sceptics claim to support free speech... But will not want this post to stay on the thread
I support free speech, even when it's meaningless rubbish. I care not a jot if your post stays or goes, let those who read be the judges.
Have you found that evidence yet which sceptics are allegedly too dim to understand?
-
I support free speech, even when it's meaningless rubbish. I care not a jot if your post stays or goes, let those who read be the judges.
Have you found that evidence yet which sceptics are allegedly too dim to understand?
8@??)( 8@??)(
-
There's nothing there about anyone being 'ruled out'. Ruling someone out is a permanent state of affairs, they have been exonerated, eliminated. The police have been known to make statements such as Redwood's and then change their minds later.
Analysis of the files supports Redwood's position.
The only thing that (conceivably) might change it is new (hitherto, to us), unknown evidence.
Can't entirely rule that out.
But speculation that will happen is just idle tittle-tattle.
-
Analysis of the files supports Redwood's position.
The only thing that (conceivably) might change it is new (hitherto, to us), unknown evidence.
Can't entirely rule that out.
But speculation that will happen is just idle tittle-tattle.
I'll give you 1/10 for trying it on.
There is no evidence, let alone forensic indications to show an abduction occurred.
-
Analysis of the files supports Redwood's position.
The only thing that (conceivably) might change it is new (hitherto, to us), unknown evidence.
Can't entirely rule that out.
But speculation that will happen is just idle tittle-tattle.
Really? Would that be your analysis? Do tell us more.
Let's not forget Redwood's other pronouncement;
there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
Now why would he say that when there's allegedly no evidence to suggest a death in G5A?
-
Really? Would that be your analysis? Do tell us more.
Let's not forget Redwood's other pronouncement;
there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
Now why would he say that when there's allegedly no evidence to suggest a death in G5A?
Burglaries of villas.
Do keep up.
-
has any mcann supporter posted an answer to the orginal question?
-
Burglaries of villas.
Do keep up.
Straw clutching, yet again.
-
Really? Would that be your analysis? Do tell us more.
Let's not forget Redwood's other pronouncement;
there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
Now why would he say that when there's allegedly no evidence to suggest a death in G5A?
Don't expect a logical reply anytime soon.
-
has any mcann supporter posted an answer to the orginal question?
Perhaps there are only Madeleine & justice supporters on this forum, Carly.
-
Perhaps there are only Madeleine & justice supporters on this forum, Carly.
You mean mccann supporters, not Madeleine supporters. 8)-)))
-
You mean mccann supporters, not Madeleine supporters. 8)-)))
No, Stephen. Read my answer again & comprehend.
-
You mean mccann supporters, not Madeleine supporters. 8)-)))
Madeleine is the one who matter gerry and kate were in their mid 30s at the time old enough to be responsible maddie was 3
-
Burglaries of villas.
Do keep up.
No need to be tetchy! I don't know what that answer means. It has nothing to do with your 'analysis of the files' which I was hoping you would share. Equally, it has nothing to do with the apparent lack of evidence of a death in G5A.
-
No need to be tetchy! I don't know what that answer means. It has nothing to do with your 'analysis of the files' which I was hoping you would share. Equally, it has nothing to do with the apparent lack of evidence of a death in G5A.
tough crowd with some on here today isnt it @)(++(*
-
No, Stephen. Read my answer again & comprehend.
I fully comprehend what you are doing.
Now tell me how what you are doing on this forum helps Madeleine ?
-
I fully comprehend what you are doing.
Now tell me how what you are doing on this forum helps Madeleine ?
it doesnt and imo it was never about her
-
Are we not all doing so well. I am so pleased to see this. You see, there is always a way.
-
Perhaps there are only Madeleine & justice supporters on this forum, Carly.
I think everyone who posts on the forum is a Madeleine supporter. Something happened to that child and I definitely want whoever did it to face justice. I don't know who they are or what they did, but I'm willing to accept it could be anyone who had opportunity and motive. I have seen nothing which excludes anyone.
-
I think everyone who posts on the forum is a Madeleine supporter. Something happened to that child and I definitely want whoever did it to face justice. I don't know who they are or what they did, but I'm willing to accept it could be anyone who had opportunity and motive. I have seen nothing which excludes anyone.
a open mind is a good thing to have the media around the world were warned to be mcann supporters were they not?
-
A judgemental mind (closed to any concept other than 'guilt') is a less good thing to have.
-
Nor me, but has been mentioned earlier, only supporters are so emotionally involved.
This is nonsense. Every time a "sceptic" makes an impassioned speech about how they would never leave their babies alone to go on the piss, or about how Kate and Gerry should be banged up, about poor Madeleine crying all night, about their disgust at Kate's f..king tossers comment, about the jogging, about "if it was me I'd have knocked on every door in Portugal" about the martyr Brenda Leyland, about the McCanns ruining poor old Ammy's life etc etc etc ad infinitum these are all statement sthat show emotional involvement in the case. Everyone who posts on this case on a regular basis is emotionally involved and it's ridiculous to pretend other wise. You are the exception of course, you genuinely seem so completely cynical and "cool" I would agree that you are probably one of a small minority who really doesn't give a shit about anything, and is just here for the laffs.
-
a open mind is a good thing to have
If only. If only.
-
I think everyone who posts on the forum is a Madeleine supporter. Something happened to that child and I definitely want whoever did it to face justice. I don't know who they are or what they did, but I'm willing to accept it could be anyone who had opportunity and motive. I have seen nothing which excludes anyone.
I have seen lots that excludes the parents
-
There's nothing there about anyone being 'ruled out'. Ruling someone out is a permanent state of affairs, they have been exonerated, eliminated. The police have been known to make statements such as Redwood's and then change their minds later.
Can I have a cite for "ruling out" being a permanent state of affairs please.
-
A judgemental mind (closed to any concept other than 'guilt') is a less good thing to have.
So it's not just abduction then for you ?
-
I fully comprehend what you are doing.
Now tell me how what you are doing on this forum helps Madeleine ?
Maintaining a high profile for her case. Letting her know she's not forgotten, if she's out there somewhere & able to view a computer. Having faith that everything possible is being done to find her & support her loved ones.
-
This is nonsense. Every time a "sceptic" makes an impassioned speech about how they would never leave their babies alone to go on the piss, or about how Kate and Gerry should be banged up, about poor Madeleine crying all night, about their disgust at Kate's f.....g tossers comment, about the jogging, about "if it was me I'd have knocked on every door in Portugal" about the martyr Brenda Leyland, about the McCanns ruining poor old Ammy's life etc etc etc ad infinitum these are all statement sthat show emotional involvement in the case. Everyone who posts on this case on a regular basis is emotionally involved and it's ridiculous to pretend other wise. You are the exception of course, you genuinely seem so completely cynical and "cool" I would agree that you are probably one of a small minority who really doesn't give a shit about anything, and is just here for the laffs.
I see an excess of emotion in the above post. Some of the bold bits are your words being inserted to add emotional involvement to what were factual posts, some are things I've never seen posted by sceptics (banged up? poor old Ammy? crying all night?).
-
Can I have a cite for "ruling out" being a permanent state of affairs please.
As I have said there is no precise legal definition of having been ruled out
Therefore I am fully entitled to use this rather loose term ... gunit is wrong again in thinking it has some precise definition
-
If she was alive she wouldnt remember anything from her past also most likely wouldnt speak english the human brain can't remember much before the age of 5 or 6
You might not be able to
I can remember lots
Going back to two years old
-
Have you being paying attention ?
That's what this case has had for a long time.
and how many people read the threads on this case, who don't already know she is missing ?
By the way, as a supporter, have you searched for Madeleine yourself ?
Give it a rest, Stephen. Your negativity serves no purpose other than to provoke.
-
I am now getting cross. Stick to The Topic. Or else
-
I have seen lots that excludes the parents
Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting and if, indeed, the Smiths saw Madeleine's abductor, that would definitively rule out the McCanns ....
-
Give it a rest, Stephen. Your negativity serves no purpose other than to provoke.
i.e. you can't answer the questions.
-
So sceptics want to believe McCann supporters are basically a stupid lot with a closed mind who refuse to even consider that the McCanns may be involved
Nothing I or any other supporter posts will change this
Fortunately those that really matter...SY ...have said the McCanns are not suspects thereby ruling them out
Show me evidence that implicates the McCanns and I'm quite happy to reconsider
-
Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting and if, indeed, the Smiths saw Madeleine's abductor, that would definitively rule out the McCanns ....
Do you really think that by typing abduction again and again and again, people will believe you ?
-
I see an excess of emotion in the above post. Some of the bold bits are your words being inserted to add emotional involvement to what were factual posts, some are things I've never seen posted by sceptics (banged up? poor old Ammy? crying all night?).
you've led a bit of a sheltered life then, as far as this case is concerned. Is thismthe only forum you've ever belonged to or read rearding this case? Never read:
The Mirror Forum
The Three Arguidos
Facebook Controversy page
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann
Hideho's propangda videos and various blogs and fora
#McCann on twitter
Joana Morais
Blacksmith
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
If not (and excuse me if I find it very hard to believe that you have not) then you probably won't know what I'm talking about.
-
you've led a bit of a sheltered life then, as far as this case is concerned. Is thismthe only forum you've ever belonged to or read rearding this case? Never read:
The Mirror Forum
The Three Arguidos
Facebook Controversy page
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann
Hideho's propangda videos and various blogs and fora
#McCann on twitter
Joana Morais
Blacksmith
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
If not (and excuse me if I find it very hard to believe that you have not) then you probably won't know what I'm talking about.
Ah, memories, memories.
-
Do you really think that by typing abduction again and again and again, people will believe you ?
There is a question of belief.
And there is a question of knowledge.
Some people decline to believe knowledge.
Nothing to be done about that.
-
Do you really think that by typing abduction again and again and again, people will believe you ?
It's what SY are investigating
That means something to any sensible person
-
Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting and if, indeed, the Smiths saw Madeleine's abductor, that would definitively rule out the McCanns ....
Who says he was there at 10pm? What if Smithman had nothing to do with it? Back to the drawing board...........
-
the main reason why I find it difficult to believe the parents dunnit is the fact that Madeleine's body was not recovered in the aftermath of the disappearance. Bearing i. mind that the McCanns had limited opportunities to transport and dispose of a body how do "sceptics" deal with this detail?
-
As I have said there is no precise legal definition of having been ruled out
Therefore I am fully entitled to use this rather loose term ... gunit is wrong again in thinking it has some precise definition
Why legal? It means something has been excluded or someone has been exonerated or eliminated. That has never been said by any policeman, senior or otherwise to my knowledge. You can use it as much as you like, but you can't attribute it to the police.
-
you've led a bit of a sheltered life then, as far as this case is concerned. Is thismthe only forum you've ever belonged to or read rearding this case? Never read:
The Mirror Forum
The Three Arguidos
Facebook Controversy page
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann
Hideho's propangda videos and various blogs and fora
#McCann on twitter
Joana Morais
Blacksmith
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
If not (and excuse me if I find it very hard to believe that you have not) then you probably won't know what I'm talking about.
So your post wasn't about the people posting on this forum? It would help next time you have an emotional rant if you make it clear who you're talking about. This forum is moderated so excesses from either side are not allowed. That's why I'm here. What happens elsewhere does not concern me.
-
So your post wasn't about the people posting on this forum? It would help next time you have an emotional rant if you make it clear who you're talking about. This forum is moderated so excesses from either side are not allowed. That's why I'm here. What happens elsewhere does not concern me.
You didn't answer my question.
-
Why legal? It means something has been excluded or someone has been exonerated or eliminated. That has never been said by any policeman, senior or otherwise to my knowledge. You can use it as much as you like, but you can't attribute it to the police.
for the third time...what definition of ruled out are you using...could you provide a cite...if SY say the mccanns are not suspects then they have ruled them out
-
the main reason why I find it difficult to believe the parents dunnit is the fact that Madeleine's body was not recovered in the aftermath of the disappearance. Bearing i. mind that the McCanns had limited opportunities to transport and dispose of a body how do "sceptics" deal with this detail?
Quote; "anything is possible"; unquote.
-
Why legal? It means something has been excluded or someone has been exonerated or eliminated. That has never been said by any policeman, senior or otherwise to my knowledge. You can use it as much as you like, but you can't attribute it to the police.
so when Redwood said the McCanns are not suspects he wasn't ruling them out? Puh-lease.
-
Quote; "anything is possible"; unquote.
such as? Lets examine some possibilities and see how realistic they are.
-
such as? Lets examine some possibilities and see how realistic they are.
You are the one who said "anything is possible" so either it is or it isn't which would you like it to be this time?
Or are you doing a Humpty Dumpty?
-
You are the one who said "anything is possible" so either it is or it isn't which would you like it to be this time?
Or are you doing a Humpty Dumpty?
yes anything's possible, so let's explore possible body disposal methods and how likely they would be in reality. I'm not quite sure wher HD fits into it though.
-
yes anything's possible, so let's explore possible body disposal methods and how likely they would be in reality. I'm not quite sure wher HD fits into it though.
Before disposal we have to work how maddie managed to roll off the sofa and immediately die
-
Before disposal we have to work how maddie managed to roll off the sofa and immediately die
Why?
-
Why?
because that's what amaral said happened
-
Before disposal we have to work how maddie managed to roll off the sofa and immediately die
good point.
-
Why?
why are sceptics reluctant to consider what may have happened and how it could have happened? Is it because it gets in the way of their blind belief in the McCanns guilt?
-
why are sceptics reluctant to consider what may have happened and how it could have happened? Is it because it gets in the way of their blind belief in the McCanns guilt?
Yet you have clearly blind belief in the McCanns.
-
Yet you have clearly blind belief in the McCanns.
stephen quoted the odds of winning the lottery ...but unfortunately he got the number of the balls wrong....for the mcccanns to be involved we would have to take those odds and raise them to the power of 4
-
Andy Redwood: "Neither the McCanns nor their friends are persons of interest or suspects (but we haven't ruled them out") @)(++(*
-
Andy Redwood: "Neither the McCanns nor their friends are persons of interest or suspects (but we haven't ruled them out") @)(++(*
Brilliant @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
because that's what amaral said happened
So?
-
Andy Redwood: "Neither the McCanns nor their friends are persons of interest or suspects (but we haven't ruled them out") @)(++(*
Redwood said, she might be alive or dead.
Perhaps we should consult Schrodinger on this. 8)-)))
-
So?
so...all the sceptics think amarals a genioss
-
Why legal? It means something has been excluded or someone has been exonerated or eliminated. That has never been said by any policeman, senior or otherwise to my knowledge. You can use it as much as you like, but you can't attribute it to the police.
The McCanns have been ruled out.
That need not be permanent.
The precise meaning (in context) is that nothing indicates guilt (of the McCanns).
New information could change that.
Absence of contrary information (or apprehension of the true culprit(s) will make the 'ruled out' status permanent.
The McCanns are ruled out (having initially been suspected) at the present juncture.
-
Redwood said, she might be alive or dead.
Perhaps we should consult Schrodinger on this. 8)-)))
whether she is alive or dead the mccanns are not suspects...and schrodinger's dead
-
for the third time...what definition of ruled out are you using...could you provide a cite...if SY say the mccanns are not suspects then they have ruled them out
Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.
-
Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.
for the fourth time ..on what basis do you define "ruled out"...just your personal view without a cite...you continue to prove my point
-
Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.
you are making all this up...pleas provide a cite....fifth time...to show I am wrong
-
Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.
Slightly contradictory post there as you concede people can be ruled in again at a later date, ie: it's not a permanent designation as you previously said.
-
why are sceptics reluctant to consider what may have happened and how it could have happened? Is it because it gets in the way of their blind belief in the McCanns guilt?
We have only one fact. The child disappeared into thin air on 3rd May 2007 sometime between 17:30 hrs and 22:00 hrs. In 9 years less or more since that date two national police forces and three possibly four private detective agencies have investigated and thus far come up empty handed.
So until the definitive solution of the conundrum has been established anything is possible.
To expand upon the one fact we have would be speculation which we are urged not to do by the forum management.
-
Not necessarily. The Police have said that before then arrested people. Ruling someone out means they have been thoroughly checked out and it's not possible for them to have committed a crime. I could be ruled out because I wasn't there. If I was there and spent the hours between 8.30pm and 10pm working in one of the bars and I was seen there during those times by lots of people I could be ruled out because I had an alibi. If my alibi was a friend who said I was with them it would rule me out also, but if my friend changed their mind and said I wasn't with them I'd be ruled in again. Simples! From what we know the Mccanns didn't have rock solid alibis from 5.30pm to 10pm. SY can't invent any.
you are making up your own definition of ruled out
-
If the McCanns have nothing to fear, why all this commotion ?
and why did gerry mccann mention the dogs in court ?
-
We have only one fact. The child disappeared into thin air on 3rd May 2007 sometime between 17:30 hrs and 22:00 hrs. In 9 years less or more since that date two national police forces and three possibly four private detective agencies have investigated and thus far come up empty handed.
So until the definitive solution of the conundrum has been established anything is possible.
To expand upon the one fact we have would be speculation which we are urged not to do by the forum management.
there are a lot more facts than that...that's why the mccanns are not suspects..
-
If the McCanns have nothing to fear, why all this commotion ?
and why did gerry mccann mention the dogs in court ?
because the dogs tell us nothing...didnt realise this was the dog thread.
-
We have only one fact. The child disappeared into thin air on 3rd May 2007 sometime between 17:30 hrs and 22:00 hrs. In 9 years less or more since that date two national police forces and three possibly four private detective agencies have investigated and thus far come up empty handed.
So until the definitive solution of the conundrum has been established anything is possible.
To expand upon the one fact we have would be speculation which we are urged not to do by the forum management.
Don't be daft. There are thousands of established facts concerning this case and anything is possible is just a get out to enable sceptics not to have to apply their logical faculties to all the known facts.
-
Slightly contradictory post there as you concede people can be ruled in again at a later date, ie: it's not a permanent designation as you previously said.
Because my alibi was false and the authorities were misled into thinking they could rule me out. When my friend confessed they realised their mistake.
-
Because my alibi was false and the authorities were misled into thinking they could rule me out. When my friend confessed they realised their mistake.
and your point is...? You claimed being ruled out was a permanent state which implies you cannot be ruled back in. Now you're saying that based on new evidence you can, which is exactly what the rest of us have been saying!!
-
Because my alibi was false and the authorities were misled into thinking they could rule me out. When my friend confessed they realised their mistake.
Until your alibi was exposed as false, you were ruled out
-
Who has ever claimed that "being ruled out" is a status that is carved in stone, never to change? The McCanns and / or their friends and / or Robert Murat could become suspects again who knows? I think that's highly unlikely but from everything we know currently they remain "ruled out" and will remain "ruled out" until or unless we and they are informed otherwise.
Bumping for G-Unit. So which bit of what I wrote above do you disagree with?
-
Until your alibi was exposed as false, you were ruled out
the expression "it's like pulling teeth" comes to mind again.
-
Don't be daft. There are thousands of established facts concerning this case and anything is possible is just a get out to enable sceptics not to have to apply their logical faculties to all the known facts.
I have applied my logic to it and posted it several times.
-
Andy Redwood: "Neither the McCanns nor their friends are persons of interest or suspects (but we haven't ruled them out") @)(++(*
DCI Redwood's boss; 'Take this McCann case on Andy, would you'.
Redwood; 'OK whats the remit?'
Boss; 'To investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK'
Redwood; 'Right you are Sir'
Reporter; 'Are you investigating the McCanns DCI Redwood?'
Redwood; 'The McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest, I'm investigating an abduction mate'
Never ruled in, not investigated, therefore not ruled out.
-
DCI Redwood's boss; 'Take this McCann case on Andy, would you'.
Redwood; 'OK whats the remit?'
Boss; 'To investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK'
Redwood; 'Right you are Sir'
Reporter; 'Are you investigating the McCanns DCI Redwood?'
Redwood; 'The McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest, I'm investigating an abduction mate'
Never ruled in, not investigated, therefore not ruled out.
What do you think the shelved enquiry was all about?
-
DCI Redwood's boss; 'Take this McCann case on Andy, would you'.
Redwood; 'OK whats the remit?'
Boss; 'To investigate the abduction as if it occurred in the UK'
Redwood; 'Right you are Sir'
Reporter; 'Are you investigating the McCanns DCI Redwood?'
Redwood; 'The McCanns and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest, I'm investigating an abduction mate'
Never ruled in, not investigated, therefore not ruled out.
So now you're hearing imaginary conversations in your head, I see...
-
"Not ruled out" would be a status of "suspected" (but not necessarily charged).
On all (available) evidence, the McCanns are "ruled out"; also, their friends ....
-
and your point is...? You claimed being ruled out was a permanent state which implies you cannot be ruled back in. Now you're saying that based on new evidence you can, which is exactly what the rest of us have been saying!!
By your own admission therefore the mantra of 'the Mccanns are not suspects' is a waste of time as an argument. That could have changed the day after Redwood said it, so hopefully people will now stop using it as the 'answer to the world the universe and everything'. It's not evidence and never was.
-
there are a lot more facts than that...that's why the mccanns are not suspects..
Name one other fact please. If we have to do it one fact at a time I'm a very patient person.
-
Name one other fact please. If we have to do it one fact at a time I'm a very patient person.
Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
(For a moment, indulging wild fantasy) suppose Kate had found Madeleine's body.
How would she communicate that news to Gerry, oblivious and unaware in the restaurant, without anyone else noticing?
What would the McCanns have done with "the body" (how I hate that phrase) in 3 weeks before hiring a car?
We know Eddie (accurately) alerted to spots of Gerry's blood in the Renault.
Why did he "fail" to detect any cadaver scent in the Renault?
Perhaps because there was none to detect (no failure at all, good dog, Eddie)?
-
By your own admission therefore the mantra of 'the Mccanns are not suspects' is a waste of time as an argument. That could have changed the day after Redwood said it, so hopefully people will now stop using it as the 'answer to the world the universe and everything'. It's not evidence and never was.
Wrong. The police have made one statement about the McCanns' status in this investigation and that is that they are not suspects, in other words they have been ruled out. That is a fact. It is a fact to say that the police have ruled the McCanns out, we heard it from the horse's mouth. It is possible that things may change in the future (anything's possible!) but at the moment we know only that the McCanns are not suspects so we will continue to use that "mantra" until or unless other facts emerge that supersede it.
-
By your own admission therefore the mantra of 'the Mccanns are not suspects' is a waste of time as an argument. That could have changed the day after Redwood said it, so hopefully people will now stop using it as the 'answer to the world the universe and everything'. It's not evidence and never was.
By the way are you now backtracking on your "ruled out is a permanent status" pronouncement?
-
I have applied my logic to it and posted it several times.
Have you? Must have missed it amongst all the wisecracks and Humpty Dumpty references.
-
Have you? Must have missed it amongst all the wisecracks and Humpty Dumpty references.
Yes on at least three occasions.
Oh yes I had forgotten you don't "do" literature and poetry do you?
-
Sometimes, people not ruled out are neither charged (at a given moment).
Sometimes people are initially suspected, then not (ruled out)
The antithesis of ruled out (short of charged) might be under investigation.
The McCanns are not under investigation.
Therefore, the McCanns are ruled out; also their friends and Robert Murat ....
-
Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
(For a moment, indulging wild fantasy) suppose Kate had found Madeleine's body.
How would she communicate that news to Gerry, oblivious and unaware in the restaurant, without anyone else noticing?
What would the McCanns have done with "the body" (how I hate that phrase) in 3 weeks before hiring a car?
We know Eddie (accurately) alerted to spots of Gerry's blood in the Renault.
Why did he "fail" to detect any cadaver scent in the Renault?
Perhaps because there was none to detect (no failure at all, good dog, Eddie)?
People did leave the table and if the timeline is wrong everything is wrong. Who said he failed to detect cadaver scent? That's what he went in first to find.
-
Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
(For a moment, indulging wild fantasy) suppose Kate had found Madeleine's body.
How would she communicate that news to Gerry, oblivious and unaware in the restaurant, without anyone else noticing?
What would the McCanns have done with "the body" (how I hate that phrase) in 3 weeks before hiring a car?
We know Eddie (accurately) alerted to spots of Gerry's blood in the Renault.
Why did he "fail" to detect any cadaver scent in the Renault?
Perhaps because there was none to detect (no failure at all, good dog, Eddie)?
It isn't a fact that Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant at 10pm. It's a fact that he and his friends (mostly) said he was. There is no proof that Smithman was carrying Madeleine, so he's immaterial anyway until (if ever) he's found. Please don't assume I subscribe to other people's theories, I don't. I certainly don't subscribe to any theories about the hire car. Blood was alerted to and some inconclusive forensic results were obtained.
-
Name one other fact please. If we have to do it one fact at a time I'm a very patient person.
evidence to charge the mccanns of a crime has not been found...fact
-
It isn't a fact that Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant at 10pm. It's a fact that he and his friends (mostly) said he was. There is no proof that Smithman was carrying Madeleine, so he's immaterial anyway until (if ever) he's found. Please don't assume I subscribe to other people's theories, I don't. I certainly don't subscribe to any theories about the hire car. Blood was alerted to and some inconclusive forensic results were obtained.
I'm delighted to burst your bubble, but it is (a fact).
Or, if it isn't (a fact) point to who commented on Gerry's absence from the restaurant at the time of Kate's alert (which coincided with the Smith sighting).
And point to efforts to find him, including where he was when found and who found him.
If you can't (you can't!) there is only one obvious and logical solution, Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant, at the time of Kate's alert and also the time of the Smith sighting.
-
evidence to charge the mccanns of a crime has not been found...fact
That's all that's needed. You don't need 'proof' of innocence, except in so far as absence of evidence of guilt is, itself, 'proof'.
Forget whether they entered by the front door and left by the back (or vice versa) even assuming it is clear which is 'front' or 'back' (which I don't think it is).
Translation issues over prepositions doubtless plays a part ....
-
Without the abduction scenario, where are the mccanns ?
Up SC without a paddle.
-
Without the abduction scenario, where are the mccanns ?
Up SC without a paddle.
the abduction thesis is alive and well
-
Yes on at least three occasions.
Oh yes I had forgotten you don't "do" literature and poetry do you?
I don't like poetry but I'm very well read - is what you contribute to this forum classed as literature and poetry? Oh my!
-
The theory of accidental death remains plausible.
Some should take gerry mccanns advice.
-
The theory of accidental death remains plausible.
Some should take gerry mccanns advice.
There appears to be a misconception that all sceptics believe GA's theory.
-
There appears to be a misconception that all sceptics believe GA's theory.
Indeed.
Other theories have been espoused on here.
-
There appears to be a misconception that all sceptics believe GA's theory.
I think we, who hold to (and hold out for) truth and justice, understand there are other 'theories' (I use the term in the loosest sense) still more madcap and whacky than Amaral's.
Amaral, at least, had the (comparative) sense to dismiss those.
He, after all, presided (for a few months) over an investigation that found no evidence against the McCanns, or any of their friends (as made plain in the Prosecutors' archiving report).
-
Wrong. The police have made one statement about the McCanns' status in this investigation and that is that they are not suspects, in other words they have been ruled out. That is a fact. It is a fact to say that the police have ruled the McCanns out, we heard it from the horse's mouth. It is possible that things may change in the future (anything's possible!) but at the moment we know only that the McCanns are not suspects so we will continue to use that "mantra" until or unless other facts emerge that supersede it.
I'm sure you will, because it seems to be all you have, judging by this thread. As to whether it means what you think (or hope) it means, everyone knows the Police can change their minds. They won't tell you, of course because it's for them to know what they're doing. The Portuguese finally managed to shut SY up, I believe.
-
I think we, who hold to (and hold out for) truth and justice, understand there are other 'theories' (I use the term in the loosest sense) still more madcap and whacky than Amaral's.
Amaral, at least, had the (comparative) sense to dismiss those.
He, after all, presided (for a few months) over an investigation that found no evidence against the McCanns, or any of their friends (as made plain in the Prosecutors' archiving report).
Yet you cling to the whacky theory of abduction, despite there being no proof of it at all in this case.
-
There appears to be a misconception that all sceptics believe GA's theory.
That's because we're all part of a hate filled 'gang' who have no minds of our own and are only here to heap criticism upon the heads of two innocent, heartbroken, caring, people because we just don't like them. How on earth could such an unintelligent rabble read the files, study the videos and news reports, and work out theories of their own? It's obvious we're unintelligent because if we weren't we'd be able to see how wrong we are. 8**8:/:
-
That's because we're all part of a hate filled 'gang' who have no minds of our own and are only here to heap criticism upon the heads of two innocent, heartbroken, caring, people because we just don't like them. How on earth could such an unintelligent rabble read the files, study the videos and news reports, and work out theories of their own? It's obvious we're unintelligent because if we weren't we'd be able to see how wrong we are. 8**8:/:
Don't tempt them... 8(0(*
-
There appears to be a misconception that all sceptics believe GA's theory.
That GA's theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny is possibly something that most of us here can actually agree on...
-
That's because we're all part of a hate filled 'gang' who have no minds of our own and are only here to heap criticism upon the heads of two innocent, heartbroken, caring, people because we just don't like them. How on earth could such an unintelligent rabble read the files, study the videos and news reports, and work out theories of their own? It's obvious we're unintelligent because if we weren't we'd be able to see how wrong we are. 8**8:/:
Well I've been told I'm a 'McCann worshipper' 'In fantasy land' etc. etc. All because I read the files and came to the conclusion the McCann's are innocent.
It's not that you heap criticism upon the heads of two innocent, heartbroken, caring people because you just don't like them. End of quote. It's because some arguments as to the McCann's being guilty are full of pettiness, eg. they smiled, they mixed up whose photo was used, David P. isn't good at time, why didn't the McCann's watch Madeleine on the boat etc. etc. all absolute rubbish and nothing to do with what happened to Madeleine
-
That GA's theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny is possibly something that most of us here can actually agree on...
Accidental death remains a possibility.
As does walking out of the apartment.
Essentially, non of the theories have enough evidence to take to court.
-
Well I've been told I'm a 'McCann worshipper' 'In fantasy land' etc. etc. All because I read the files and came to the conclusion the McCann's are innocent.
It's not that you heap criticism upon the heads of two innocent, heartbroken, caring people because you just don't like them. End of quote. It's because some arguments as to the McCann's being guilty are full of pettiness, eg. they smiled, they mixed up whose photo was used, David P. isn't good at time, why didn't the McCann's watch Madeleine on the boat etc. etc. all absolute rubbish and nothing to do with what happened to Madeleine
As the crime is unknown, the verdict of, not guilty or guilty of a crime, is in the hands of a court.
Are the mccanns innocent of leaving their children unprotected in unlocked accomodation, with infrequent and mostly unverified checks ?
-
Accidental death remains a possibility.
As does walking out of the apartment.
Essentially, non of the theories have enough evidence to take to court.
Didn't SY mention that Madeleine may have been killed by accident during a burglary?
The walking out of the apartment looks to have been ruled out, Madeleine was almost four, no child of that age would bother closing doors and gates behind them, especially as one of the gates [child gate] was on top of a flight of steps, she would have to have turned around in the dark to close it.
-
As the crime is unknown, the verdict of, not guilty or guilty of a crime, is in the hands of a court.
Are the mccanns innocent of leaving their children unprotected in unlocked accomodation, with infrequent and mostly unverified checks ?
SY have ruled them out, obviously by reading all the files.
As to last question ZZZZZZ
-
The obvious question is, why haven't SY arrested the McCann's if they think they are guilty? Instead of spending years and 12 million pounds?
-
SY have ruled them out, obviously by reading all the files.
As to last question ZZZZZZ
The last question is the one you can't answer, because you know it's factual.
Unlike the 'abductor'.
-
I think the simple answer is that the police don't have sufficient evidence to arrest anyone.
-
Didn't SY mention that Madeleine may have been killed by accident during a burglary?
The walking out of the apartment looks to have been ruled out, Madeleine was almost four, no child of that age would bother closing doors and gates behind them, especially as one of the gates [child gate] was on top of a flight of steps, she would have to have turned around in the dark to close it.
Take gerry mccanns advice.
Ask the dogs.
As to getting out of the apartment. Quite possible.
How do you know the child gate was closed ?
-
Well I've been told I'm a 'McCann worshipper' 'In fantasy land' etc. etc. All because I read the files and came to the conclusion the McCann's are innocent.
It's not that you heap criticism upon the heads of two innocent, heartbroken, caring people because you just don't like them. End of quote. It's because some arguments as to the McCann's being guilty are full of pettiness, eg. they smiled, they mixed up whose photo was used, David P. isn't good at time, why didn't the McCann's watch Madeleine on the boat etc. etc. all absolute rubbish and nothing to do with what happened to Madeleine
I haven't called anybody anything, it's against the rules. Police pay very close attention to what witnesses say looking for inconsistencies as that is a red flag. They also pay close attention if stories change over time. You may think such things are nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine but in a lot of cases clues come from examining witnesse's statements and actions closely.
-
I haven't called anybody anything, it's against the rules. Police pay very close attention to what witnesses say looking for inconsistencies as that is a red flag. They also pay close attention if stories change over time. You may think such things are nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine but in a lot of cases clues come from examining witnesse's statements and actions closely.
police also know that some inconsistencies are expected
-
Didn't SY mention that Madeleine may have been killed by accident during a burglary?
The walking out of the apartment looks to have been ruled out, Madeleine was almost four, no child of that age would bother closing doors and gates behind them, especially as one of the gates [child gate] was on top of a flight of steps, she would have to have turned around in the dark to close it.
I hate to say it, but to pursue the woke and wandered theory SY would have to completely discount the dog alerts. No matter what people want to believe, that's a sticking point. It's probably why Redwood mentioned the fact that she may not have left the apartment alive. Unless anyone can think of any other reason why he might think she died within the apartment. The burglar theory is a non starter really. Very few burglars kill, they run away if they can like Mrs Fenn's intruder.
-
police also know that some inconsistencies are expected
I think inconsistencies between different witnesses is fairly common, between different statements from the same witness, less so.
-
I think inconsistencies between different witnesses is fairly common, between different statements from the same witness, less so.
More common in statements translated and re-translated. ...
-
More common in statements translated and re-translated. ...
As well as not being verbatim or recorded in audio or video format.
-
I'm sure you will, because it seems to be all you have, judging by this thread. As to whether it means what you think (or hope) it means, everyone knows the Police can change their minds. They won't tell you, of course because it's for them to know what they're doing. The Portuguese finally managed to shut SY up, I believe.
IT isn't all there si...the statement by the police is just confirmation that having read the files and examined all the evidence they do not consider the mccanns suspects...that mean they do not think all the so called inconsistencies concern them. Of course things can change if new evidence comes along but it seems after 9 yrs there is none...which suggests there won't be
-
IT isn't all there si...the statement by the police is just confirmation that having read the files and examined all the evidence they do not consider the mccanns suspects...that mean they do not think all the so called inconsistencies concern them. Of course things can change if new evidence comes along but it seems after 9 yrs there is none...which suggests there won't be
The case is then destined for the dusty shelves with no result again.
-
police also know that some inconsistencies are expected
Police use a variety of methods when investigating a crime. One of the things they have to decide is whether or not there are innocent explanations for any inconsistencies and story changing. In the DeOrr Kunz case the police seem to have decided that the reasons were not innocent. In the McCann case John Stalker felt something was being covered up. A policeman spends a lot of his time listening to lies and evasions and is probably very good at spotting them as a result.
-
I'm sure you will, because it seems to be all you have, judging by this thread. As to whether it means what you think (or hope) it means, everyone knows the Police can change their minds. They won't tell you, of course because it's for them to know what they're doing. The Portuguese finally managed to shut SY up, I believe.
AS it stands the McCanns have been ruled out. I know it's hard for you to come to terms with but there we are, no amount of semantic quibbling about the definition of the term "ruled out" changes that. Of course I accept that things may change in the future but IMO the likelihood of the McCanns being ruled back in is very small indeed. Maybe you hope and believe otherwise. One day one of us will be proved right and I am supremely confident that it will be me. ?{)(**
-
That's because we're all part of a hate filled 'gang' who have no minds of our own and are only here to heap criticism upon the heads of two innocent, heartbroken, caring, people because we just don't like them. How on earth could such an unintelligent rabble read the files, study the videos and news reports, and work out theories of their own? It's obvious we're unintelligent because if we weren't we'd be able to see how wrong we are. 8**8:/:
Finally the penny drops!
-
IT isn't all there si...the statement by the police is just confirmation that having read the files and examined all the evidence they do not consider the mccanns suspects...that mean they do not think all the so called inconsistencies concern them. Of course things can change if new evidence comes along but it seems after 9 yrs there is none...which suggests there won't be
On the other hand they may not have paid much attention to the statements except for the timeline if they were looking only at abduction. You are simply assuming that they examined and dismissed inconsistencies, it's not a fact because you can't verify it.
-
On the other hand they may not have paid much attention to the statements except for the timeline if they were looking only at abduction. You are simply assuming that they examined and dismissed inconsistencies, it's not a fact because you can't verify it.
SO you think they have spent 12 mill investigating in portugal and not even looked at the parents...I would say that is ridiculous
-
Outside of forums, in the physical world, I've heard people discussing the case, they 100% assume live abduction by stranger, and are completely unaware of the UK dogs.
PR works, it works extremely well.
-
SO you think they have spent 12 mill investigating in portugal and not even looked at the parents...I would say that is ridiculous
Some assume they have. I have seen nothing which supports that belief. Perhaps one day they will clarify the situation. You are not the only one you sees it as ridiculous, believe me.
-
Some assume they have. I have seen nothing which supports that belief. Perhaps one day they will clarify the situation. You are not the only one you sees it as ridiculous, believe me.
and you are assuming they haven't.......saying the parents are not suspects supports the belief
-
Outside of forums, in the physical world, I've heard people discussing the case, they 100% assume live abduction by stranger, and are completely unaware of the UK dogs.
PR works, it works extremely well.
I will have to disagree with you on that. From my experience people do know about the case, and most believe Madeleine is dead. Only one person I know of thinks an abduction happened.
Some people need to realize that others can come to the same conclusion themselves by reading about the case.
For a reference point on another matter, it was 49, now 59.
-
I will have to disagree with you on that. From my experience people do know about the case, and most believe Madeleine is dead. Only one person I know of thinks an abduction happened.
that is after you give them all your so called biased evidence
-
I will have to disagree with you on that. From my experience people do know about the case, and most believe Madeleine is dead. Only one person I know of thinks an abduction happened.
Some people need to realize that others can come to the same conclusion themselves by reading about the case.
For a reference point on another matter, it was 49, now 59.
Maybe they are being polite? If in RL you parrot "No evidence of abduction" as often as you do here, I would not be a bit surprised. 8(0(*
-
Maybe they are being polite? If in RL you parrot "No evidence of abduction" as often as you do here, I would not be a bit surprised. 8(0(*
8@??)( 8@??)(
-
I hate to say it, but to pursue the woke and wandered theory SY would have to completely discount the dog alerts. No matter what people want to believe, that's a sticking point. It's probably why Redwood mentioned the fact that she may not have left the apartment alive. Unless anyone can think of any other reason why he might think she died within the apartment. The burglar theory is a non starter really. Very few burglars kill, they run away if they can like Mrs Fenn's intruder.
In my opinion the Met have completely discounted the dog alerts.
-
Maybe they are being polite? If in RL you parrot "No evidence of abduction" as often as you do here, I would not be a bit surprised. 8(0(*
No JP.
I let them read the files.
You really don't get it, that people think the abduction is made up drivel ?
-
In my opinion the Met have completely discounted the dog alerts.
Yet Redwood said Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.
-
Now I wonder when McCann supporters keep repeating abduction, do people get tired of that ?
8**8:/: %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
-
Maybe they are being polite? If in RL you parrot "No evidence of abduction" as often as you do here, I would not be a bit surprised. 8(0(*
@)(++(* 8@??)(
I really laugh at the 'everyone I know' mantra.
-
Yet Redwood said Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.
When they were following the burglary gone wrong theory that is.
-
@)(++(* 8@??)(
I really laugh at the 'everyone I know' mantra.
I laugh when mccann supporters do it.
The infamous 1100 of Nessling, and the second coming.
*&*%£
-
When they were following the burglary gone wrong theory that is.
In the apartment.
Woof.
-
Yet Redwood said Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive.
Which is true, she may not, but if it was her body that left cadaver odour in the apartment and the Met had faith in the dog alerts then they would have no choice but to make the McCanns their chief suspects. Any evidence that they have?
-
In my opinion the Met have completely discounted the dog alerts.
Explain why the possibility of death in the apartment was mentioned then? What else suggests that death may have occurred in the apartment?
-
Which is true, she may not, but if it was her body that left cadaver odour in the apartment and the Met had faith in the dog alerts then they would have no choice but to make the McCanns their chief suspects. Any evidence that they have?
When did SY question the mccanns then ?
-
Explain why the possibility of death in the apartment was mentioned then? What else suggests that death may have occurred in the apartment?
No-one heard the sound of a child, distressed or otherwise, coming from either inside or outside the apartment.
The child Tannerman was carrying uttered no audible sound at the time of the sighting.
The child Smithman was carrying uttered no audible sound at the time of the sighting.
-
Explain why the possibility of death in the apartment was mentioned then? What else suggests that death may have occurred in the apartment?
The dogs were brought in because death on the apartment was a possibility.... So it was a ossibility before the dogs were brought in
I too think SY do not have faith in the alerts
How else could redwood consider Maddie might still be alive
-
As far as this case goes now, Redwood is irrelevant and out of the picture.
He clearly achieved nothing in this case, and had far longer on it than Amaral.
So why do mccann supporters hark on about Redwood, when it is Hall in charge now ?
and we know what her specialism is in.
-
The dogs were brought in because death on the apartment was a possibility.... So it was a ossibility before the dogs were brought in
I too think SY do not have faith in the alerts
How else could redwood consider Maddie might still be alive
It sounds like he was covering all possibilities to me, or just waffling.
-
It sounds like he was covering all possibilities to me, or just waffling.
it is only possible for maddie to be alive if the dog did not react to a cadaver in 5a
-
Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.
(For a moment, indulging wild fantasy) suppose Kate had found Madeleine's body.
How would she communicate that news to Gerry, oblivious and unaware in the restaurant, without anyone else noticing?
What would the McCanns have done with "the body" (how I hate that phrase) in 3 weeks before hiring a car?
We know Eddie (accurately) alerted to spots of Gerry's blood in the Renault.
Why did he "fail" to detect any cadaver scent in the Renault?
Perhaps because there was none to detect (no failure at all, good dog, Eddie)?
Five people who disagree with the 10pm alarm. Nine people said it was 10pm, but they colluded.
21:20, Executive Chef A.E.G.F.P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few metres away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.
At around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
Property manager B.J.J.W. heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21:30 – 21:40 from P.B., a Dutchman and owner of the Atlántico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in Praia da Luz, and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine. He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21:45 – 21:50. At this time various local people and MW staff were present. When questioned he said that the police had not yet arrived and that about 5 minutes had passed.
Dinner finished at around 21:45 and some minutes passed where waiter R.A.E.D.L.O. looked towards the table but saw no one—his colleague told him that all the guests of that table left rapidly and abruptly. He remembers having heard shouts in the direction of the McCann apartment;
Between 21.30 and 22:00 Fitness instructor/Waiter J.R.S. went over to the table and joked with Dianne Webster: "They've left you alone?" She responded more of less with these words: "No, they went to see if the little girl was there." I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man, who I knew later to be Madeleine's father, running to the pool and to the children's play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Millennium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21:30 and 22:00 but do not remember with certainty.
Bar chef M.J.d.S.R. heard about it on that night at about 22:00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millennium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
-
Explain why the possibility of death in the apartment was mentioned then? What else suggests that death may have occurred in the apartment?
Because it's a possibility. Even if the dogs had never set foot on Apartment 5a it would still be a possibility. Madeleine having been killed in the apartment does not depend on the dog alerts!
-
Five people who disagree with the 10pm alarm. Nine people said it was 10pm, but they colluded.
21:20, Executive Chef A.E.G.F.P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few metres away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.
At around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
Property manager B.J.J.W. heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21:30 – 21:40 from P.B., a Dutchman and owner of the Atlántico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in Praia da Luz, and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine. He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21:45 – 21:50. At this time various local people and MW staff were present. When questioned he said that the police had not yet arrived and that about 5 minutes had passed.
Dinner finished at around 21:45 and some minutes passed where waiter R.A.E.D.L.O. looked towards the table but saw no one—his colleague told him that all the guests of that table left rapidly and abruptly. He remembers having heard shouts in the direction of the McCann apartment;
Between 21.30 and 22:00 Fitness instructor/Waiter J.R.S. went over to the table and joked with Dianne Webster: "They've left you alone?" She responded more of less with these words: "No, they went to see if the little girl was there." I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man, who I knew later to be Madeleine's father, running to the pool and to the children's play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Millennium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21:30 and 22:00 but do not remember with certainty.
Bar chef M.J.d.S.R. heard about it on that night at about 22:00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millennium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
Is "colluded" really the word you meant to use? I would say it inferred that all nine were plotting to deceive, is that what you mean?
-
Five people who disagree with the 10pm alarm. Nine people said it was 10pm, but they colluded.
21:20, Executive Chef A.E.G.F.P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few metres away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.
At around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
Property manager B.J.J.W. heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21:30 – 21:40 from P.B., a Dutchman and owner of the Atlántico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in Praia da Luz, and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine. He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21:45 – 21:50. At this time various local people and MW staff were present. When questioned he said that the police had not yet arrived and that about 5 minutes had passed.
Dinner finished at around 21:45 and some minutes passed where waiter R.A.E.D.L.O. looked towards the table but saw no one—his colleague told him that all the guests of that table left rapidly and abruptly. He remembers having heard shouts in the direction of the McCann apartment;
Between 21.30 and 22:00 Fitness instructor/Waiter J.R.S. went over to the table and joked with Dianne Webster: "They've left you alone?" She responded more of less with these words: "No, they went to see if the little girl was there." I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man, who I knew later to be Madeleine's father, running to the pool and to the children's play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Millennium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21:30 and 22:00 but do not remember with certainty.
Bar chef M.J.d.S.R. heard about it on that night at about 22:00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millennium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
collusion
kəˈl(j)uːʒ(ə)n/Submit
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.
do you have any evidence of collusion or is it just your imagination
-
Is "colluded" really the word you meant to use? I would say it inferred that all nine were plotting to deceive, is that what you mean?
They produced a timeline together. I apologise for the 'collude' word I thought it meant co-operating. However, because they worked on it as a group, it realistically only counts as one statement with five opposing it. That's why the 'alarm' time can't be seen as a 'fact' imo.
-
They produced a timeline together. I apologise for the 'collude' word I thought it meant co-operating. However, because they worked on it as a group, it realistically only counts as one statement with five opposing it. That's why the 'alarm' time can't be seen as a 'fact' imo.
what rot.
-
Which is true, she may not, but if it was her body that left cadaver odour in the apartment and the Met had faith in the dog alerts then they would have no choice but to make the McCanns their chief suspects. Any evidence that they have?
Why would they reveal them to be suspects if they haven't got the evidence to charge them. What would that achieve? That would be a dumb move IMO.
-
Why would they reveal them to be suspects if they haven't got the evidence to charge them. What would that achieve? That would be a dumb move IMO.
why did the PJ do it then?
-
why did the PJ do it then?
Because the McCanns were leaving days later so they rushed it.
-
The dogs were brought in because death on the apartment was a possibility.... So it was a ossibility before the dogs were brought in
I too think SY do not have faith in the alerts
How else could redwood consider Maddie might still be alive
That doesn't make any sense. SY brought the death scenting dogs back to Portugal and were searching areas Eddie didn't in 2007.
-
That doesn't make any sense. SY brought the death scenting dogs back to Portugal and were searching areas Eddie didn't in 2007.
the value in the dogs goes not lie in the alerts...it lies in evidence found...the dogs were brought in to find evidence
-
the value in the dogs goes not lie in the alerts...it lies in evidence found...the dogs were brought in to find evidence
What sort of evidence of a live abduction did Mr Redwood think Tito and Muzzy might find?
-
Because the McCanns were leaving days later so they rushed it.
i thought the McCanns scarpered because they'd been made arguidos, isn't that the "sceptic" view?
-
What sort of evidence of a live abduction did Mr Redwood think Tito and Muzzy might find?
I would hope you could answer that question yourself
-
i thought the McCanns scarpered because they'd been made arguidos, isn't that the "sceptic" view?
They were accused privately in early August so it's no wonder they arranged to leave before being made arguidos.
p.s. not suspects but victims the PJ repeated to the public in August
-
what rot.
Would you care to attempt a more meaningful comment? Nine people agreed the alarm was raised at around 10pm. Five people independently stated other times, all before 10pm. Therefore a time of 10pm for the alarm being raised cannot be described as a 'fact'.
-
Would you care to attempt a more meaningful comment? Nine people agreed the alarm was raised at around 10pm. Five people independently stated other times, all before 10pm. Therefore a time of 10pm for the alarm being raised cannot be described as a 'fact'.
there are very few facts...but one is that SY declared the McCanns not suspects...thus ruling them out
-
I would hope you could answer that question yourself
I could and here's the answer: None.
Tito and Muzzy were not trained to alert to live abduction.
-
there are very few facts...but one is that SY declared the McCanns not suspects...thus ruling them out
Like the PJ did?
-
They were accused privately in early August so it's no wonder they arranged to leave before being made arguidos.
p.s. not suspects but victims the PJ repeated to the public in August
If they were privately accused in early August then why didn't they leave then?
-
Would you care to attempt a more meaningful comment? Nine people agreed the alarm was raised at around 10pm. Five people independently stated other times, all before 10pm. Therefore a time of 10pm for the alarm being raised cannot be described as a 'fact'.
Tell it to the PJ in whose final report the following is written (if you disagree with their version of reality it must be because you know better, eh?)
According to that police force, the disappearance would have occurred at 22H40 (later on it was verified that the detection and the subsequent alarm of the same, in reality happened, between 22H00 and 22H10 of the day 3 of May of 2007, in one of the apartments of the tourist resort 'Ocean Club', located at Vila da Luz, Lagos, where a family composed by a couple and 3 children under aged were staying.
-
If they were privately accused in early August then why didn't they leave then?
Run away quickly with the world watching? Why are they running away? Maybe the press reports are right.
-
Run away quickly with the world watching? Why are they running away? Maybe the press reports are right.
According to the sceptic community they ran away as soon as possible anyway and this confirmed they were guilty as hell, so makes no difference does it?
-
Because the McCanns were leaving days later so they rushed it.
The actual reason is not because the McCanns were leaving but because of some imminent change in the law which meant you actually needed a shred of evidence before making someone an arguido, or something along those lines, Carana will help me out here..,
-
According to the sceptic community they ran away as soon as possible anyway and this confirmed they were guilty as hell, so makes no difference does it?
Everyone would think they were guilty if they ran away before being made suspects. They run away and then the PJ name them as prime suspects. Now we know the reason why. They always said they weren't leaving Portugal without Madeleine. You have a chance of the public's support if you fight back guilty or not. Look at Darren Vickers. He was fighting for that poor boy more than anyone and he did it!
-
there are very few facts...but one is that SY declared the McCanns not suspects...thus ruling them out
They did. Just one fact to support your beliefs.
-
Everyone would think they were guilty if they ran away before being made suspects. They run away and then the PJ name them as prime suspects. Now we know the reason why. They always said they weren't leaving Portugal without Madeleine. You have a chance of the public's support if you fight back guilty or not. Look at Darren Vickers. He was fighting for that poor boy more than anyone and he did it!
LOL. Even I thought they were guilty in September 2007 whether they'd ran away before or after would have made no difference.
-
Tell it to the PJ in whose final report the following is written (if you disagree with their version of reality it must be because you know better, eh?)
"According to that police force, the disappearance would have occurred at 22H40 (later on it was verified that the detection and the subsequent alarm of the same, in reality happened, between 22H00 and 22H10 ...."
22H40 is the time the police were first phoned Alfred (22H42 to be exact) so that's the time the police logged the call. The difference between 22H40 and 22H00 consists entirely of the 40 minutes during which none of the group's 8 working mobiles made any call to the mystery 3 digit number which is so secret that only about 95% of brit tourists who have ventured to the continent before know it, and BTW it has english speaking operators.
-
xnip... (For a moment, indulging wild fantasy) suppose Kate had found Madeleine's body ...snip
I am certain she did not Ferryman, that's one point we can agree on!
-
22H40 is the time the police were first phoned Alfred (22H42 to be exact) so that's the time the police logged the call. The difference between 22H40 and 22H00 consists entirely of the 40 minutes during which none of the group's 8 working mobiles made any call to the mystery 3 digit number which is so secret that only about 95% of brit tourists who have ventured to the continent before know it, and BTW it has english speaking operators.
The OC landline called the GNR at 22.41. The OC had a mobile phone also. If there is a record of calls made via that, I am unaware of it. 22.41 fits the events in various statements.
I have just indexed chapter 4 (events of 3 May) of Kate's book in some detail. The results are quite odd in places.
p72 "Just after 10 past 10, Gerry asked Matt to run to the Ocean Club's 24 hour reception to get the staff to call the police."
p73 "At 10:35 the police had still not arrived," "Gerry asked Matt if he would go back down to the 24hr reception"
"John Hill … came up to the veranda behind our apartment." "Where are the police?' I yelled at him." "He tried to reassure me they'd be with us soon."
p74 "Gerry had been over to the Mini Club above the 24hr reception, thinking if Madeleine had been left somewhere, she might possibly make her way back to any place that was familiar to her," "Our friends were running to and from the Tapas area, pleading with people to ring the police again from there." "Some sense of the necessity to approach the crisis calmly appeared to kick in among our friends" "as they tried to exert a modicum of control over the chaos." "David was saying, ´We need roadblocks set up. The borders to Spain, Morocco and Algiers need to be alerted.”
I have yet to x-ref this to the statements. From memory, Matthew says he went to reception once (not under Gerry's direction), but did not actually enforce a call to the police. Gerry supposedly went past 24hr reception to the Mini Club, but did not bother to ask for or enforce a call to the police.
So, roadblocks and sealed borders seem to have been prioritised over actually phoning the police.
-
Everyone would think they were guilty if they ran away before being made suspects. They run away and then the PJ name them as prime suspects. Now we know the reason why. They always said they weren't leaving Portugal without Madeleine. You have a chance of the public's support if you fight back guilty or not. Look at Darren Vickers. He was fighting for that poor boy more than anyone and he did it!
Ran away?
I think you have (just about) fathomed that the McCanns returned home after being made arguido/a.
They were themselves under investigation.
It requires no more than a modicum of intelligence to work out how being under investigation hampered and limited their ability to conduct their own search, particularly in the country (Portugal) where they were being investigated.
The vow not to return was made before events turned in the direction of suspicion directed against them. I don't suppose it occurred to them (at that juncture) that suspicion would fall on them ...
-
Ran away?
I think you have (just about) fathomed that the McCanns returned home after being made arguido/a.
They were themselves under investigation.
It requires no more than a modicum of intelligence to work out how being under investigation hampered and limited their ability to conduct their own search, particularly in the country (Portugal) where they were being investigated.
The vow not to return was made before events turned in the direction of suspicion directed against them. I don't suppose it occurred to them (at that juncture) that suspicion would fall on them ...
The mccanns weren't searching themselves ferryman.
They employed a string of people who didn't have a clue.
Remember.
As to suspicion, why do you forget it is standard practice to investigate the parents in such circumstances ?
and the mccanns being 'intelligent' should have known that. 8)-)))
-
The mccanns weren't searching themselves ferryman.
They employed a string of people who didn't have a clue.
Remember.
they were responsible for organising the search..a hopeless task unfortunately
-
22H40 is the time the police were first phoned Alfred (22H42 to be exact) so that's the time the police logged the call. The difference between 22H40 and 22H00 consists entirely of the 40 minutes during which none of the group's 8 working mobiles made any call to the mystery 3 digit number which is so secret that only about 95% of brit tourists who have ventured to the continent before know it, and BTW it has english speaking operators.
And your point is? Can we have a cite for 95% of all touriststo PT in 2007 knowing the number of the emergency services while you're at it, ta.
-
The OC landline called the GNR at 22.41. The OC had a mobile phone also. If there is a record of calls made via that, I am unaware of it. 22.41 fits the events in various statements.
I have just indexed chapter 4 (events of 3 May) of Kate's book in some detail. The results are quite odd in places.
p72 "Just after 10 past 10, Gerry asked Matt to run to the Ocean Club's 24 hour reception to get the staff to call the police."
p73 "At 10:35 the police had still not arrived," "Gerry asked Matt if he would go back down to the 24hr reception"
"John Hill … came up to the veranda behind our apartment." "Where are the police?' I yelled at him." "He tried to reassure me they'd be with us soon."
p74 "Gerry had been over to the Mini Club above the 24hr reception, thinking if Madeleine had been left somewhere, she might possibly make her way back to any place that was familiar to her," "Our friends were running to and from the Tapas area, pleading with people to ring the police again from there." "Some sense of the necessity to approach the crisis calmly appeared to kick in among our friends" "as they tried to exert a modicum of control over the chaos." "David was saying, ´We need roadblocks set up. The borders to Spain, Morocco and Algiers need to be alerted.”
I have yet to x-ref this to the statements. From memory, Matthew says he went to reception once (not under Gerry's direction), but did not actually enforce a call to the police. Gerry supposedly went past 24hr reception to the Mini Club, but did not bother to ask for or enforce a call to the police.
So, roadblocks and sealed borders seem to have been prioritised over actually phoning the police.
How do you figure that out if Matt went to reception at 10.10pm? Did he explicitly state that Gerry did not tell him to go?
-
And your point is? Can we have a cite for 95% of all touriststo PT in 2007 knowing the number of the emergency services while you're at it, ta.
At this moment the number is in the Ocean Club paperwork. They were able to borrow a laptop to e mail Sky News but not to ask anyone for the emergency services telephone number? Strange priorities.
-
At this moment the number is in the Ocean Club paperwork. They were able to borrow a laptop to e mail Sky News but not to ask anyone for the emergency services telephone number? Strange priorities.
Surely that is the kind of information you would go abroad with, in case of emergencies &%+((£
and don't forget they were writing their time lines as well.
-
How do you figure that out if Matt went to reception at 10.10pm? Did he explicitly state that Gerry did not tell him to go?
What?
I don't care when Matt went to reception. The point is he did not ensure that the police were called, according to him.
His statement also has the following "Fiona, I think, asked me to go and phone the Police." Does it matter?
And why are you asking me to x-ref to statements, when I made it clear I had not yet x-refed to statements?
Kate's book has 3 visits to the OC reception, and gives the impression that both the GNR and the PJ were tardy in responding. The reality is different.
-
What?
I don't care when Matt went to reception. The point is he did not ensure that the police were called, according to him.
His statement also has the following "Fiona, I think, asked me to go and phone the Police." Does it matter?
And why are you asking me to x-ref to statements, when I made it clear I had not yet x-refed to statements?
Kate's book has 3 visits to the OC reception, and gives the impression that both the GNR and the PJ were tardy in responding. The reality is different.
If the first course of action was to go to reception to get them to phone the police then how do you arrive at the conclusion that their prioity was roadblocks and sealed borders? In any case how do you achieve this without first enlisting the support of the police? I'm surprised you "don't care" when Matt went to reception, you seem to have an inordinate amount of interest in most of the minutiae of this case.
-
At this moment the number is in the Ocean Club paperwork. They were able to borrow a laptop to e mail Sky News but not to ask anyone for the emergency services telephone number? Strange priorities.
I don't see any connection between the two. They all thought the police had already been called from Reception at Matts request - (but apparently they had not been) - and the email was something which was sent some time after they thought the police had been called.
The Emergency services telephone no. would be irrelevant to them once they believed (as they did) that the police had already been called from Reception.
Two completely separate events and nothing to do with priorities - 'strange' or otherwise. IMO.
-
If the first course of action was to go to reception to get them to phone the police then how do you arrive at the conclusion that their prioity was roadblocks and sealed borders? In any case how do you achieve this without first enlisting the support of the police? I'm surprised you "don't care" when Matt went to reception, you seem to have an inordinate amount of interest in most of the minutiae of this case.
I made clear why I don't care, but I see you have not addressed this, but tried to turn it into something else.
I also see you have not addressed the point about depicting the police response as tardy in the book. The rogs were in English. Did Kate miss the fact that Matthew did not insist on a phone call, or that he was asked by Fiona. I see you have not addressed that either.
Kate says Gerry went to OC reception to check the Mini Club. If so, why not check on the police status personally, instead of supposedly asking Matthew. I see you have not addressed this.
So, in summary, you are not addressing the points raised by Kate's book. And Kate's book paints a picture quite different to the reality of the case. The latter I care about. How about you?
-
I made clear why I don't care, but I see you have not addressed this, but tried to turn it into something else.
I also see you have not addressed the point about depicting the police response as tardy in the book. The rogs were in English. Did Kate miss the fact that Matthew did not insist on a phone call, or that he was asked by Fiona. I see you have not addressed that either.
Kate says Gerry went to OC reception to check the Mini Club. If so, why not check on the police status personally, instead of supposedly asking Matthew. I see you have not addressed this.
So, in summary, you are not addressing the points raised by Kate's book. And Kate's book paints a picture quite different to the reality of the case. The latter I care about. How about you?
Your "points" are all non-points IMO. You seem to be expecting Kate to criticise Matt in her book for not standing over reception whilst simultaneously berating them until they called the police. Well she didn't so address your perplexing points to her. In the meantime It was you who made the claim that the group cared more about roadblocks and closing ports than calling the police and it is that comment which I'm challenging. If you don't like the question you can always ignore it, that's what most people seem to do when I ask questions they cannot or don't want to answer.
-
Surely that is the kind of information you would go abroad with, in case of emergencies &%+((£
and don't forget they were writing their time lines as well.
I'm going to three non European countries this year and have no idea what the emergency number is or are, nor would it occur to me to find out in advance, I guess I'm not the worrying type.
-
At this moment the number is in the Ocean Club paperwork. They were able to borrow a laptop to e mail Sky News but not to ask anyone for the emergency services telephone number? Strange priorities.
They asked someone on the OC staff to phone, why is that strange?
-
They asked someone on the OC staff to phone, why is that strange?
if they were going to a area that speaks portugese shouldnt they have learnt a few words before they went there? ie emergancy etc for example alot of australians go to indonesia most australians speak some indonesion
-
if they were going to a area that speaks portugese shouldnt they have learnt a few words before they went there? ie emergancy etc for example alot of australians go to indonesia most australians speak some indonesion
Having lived in France for fifteen years, I had no idea of the emergency number until I got involved with this case. Probably because I don't see emergencies looming.
-
if they were going to a area that speaks portugese shouldnt they have learnt a few words before they went there? ie emergancy etc for example alot of australians go to indonesia most australians speak some indonesion
So tell us what's "help, I think my 3 year old daughter's been abducted from our holiday apartment, we're staying in The Ocean Club Holiday apartment number 5a, come quick" in Indonesian?
-
So tell us what's "help, I think my 3 year old daughter's been abducted from our holiday apartment, we're staying in The Ocean Club Holiday apartment number 5a, come quick" in Indonesian?
i didnt say i speak it i said most australians do
-
Your "points" are all non-points IMO. You seem to be expecting Kate to criticise Matt in her book for not standing over reception whilst simultaneously berating them until they called the police. Well she didn't so address your perplexing points to her. In the meantime It was you who made the claim that the group cared more about roadblocks and closing ports than calling the police and it is that comment which I'm challenging. If you don't like the question you can always ignore it, that's what most people seem to do when I ask questions they cannot or don't want to answer.
I am aware of the way your opinion works, and I gave up on influencing your opinion months ago.
I am more interested in influencing others on the forum.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether Gerry telling Matt to phone was appropriate or not. As in, why didn't Gerry do this himself? And did Gerry ever tell Matt to do this, or was it Jane?
They can, and will, make up their own minds about why Gerry supposedly went to the Mini Club, but seemingly did not emphasise the need to call, or even check if a call had been made.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether roadblocks and border controls loomed larger than the simple need to get police on site.
I have made up mine. It is up to others to make their own evaluation.
-
I am aware of the way your opinion works, and I gave up on influencing your opinion months ago.
I am more interested in influencing others on the forum.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether Gerry telling Matt to phone was appropriate or not. As in, why didn't Gerry do this himself? And did Gerry ever tell Matt to do this, or was it Jane?
They can, and will, make up their own minds about why Gerry supposedly went to the Mini Club, but seemingly did not emphasise the need to call, or even check if a call had been made.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether roadblocks and border controls loomed larger than the simple need to get police on site.
I have made up mine. It is up to others to make their own evaluation.
exactly alfie trys to control what others think it doesnt go down well
-
I am aware of the way your opinion works, and I gave up on influencing your opinion months ago.
I am more interested in influencing others on the forum.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether Gerry telling Matt to phone was appropriate or not. As in, why didn't Gerry do this himself? And did Gerry ever tell Matt to do this, or was it Jane?
They can, and will, make up their own minds about why Gerry supposedly went to the Mini Club, but seemingly did not emphasise the need to call, or even check if a call had been made.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether roadblocks and border controls loomed larger than the simple need to get police on site.
I have made up mine. It is up to others to make their own evaluation.
Why are you interested in influencing others' opinion? Sounds a bit sinister to me. You're on a hiding to nothing anyway, minds were made up years ago.
-
So tell us what's "help, I think my 3 year old daughter's been abducted from our holiday apartment, we're staying in The Ocean Club Holiday apartment number 5a, come quick" in Indonesian?
"bantuan, saya pikir anak saya berusia 3 tahun telah diculik dari apartemen liburan kami, kami tinggal di The Ocean Club Holiday nomor apartemen 5a, datang cepat"
Not a reasonable test, though, as 'posh' words in English and Portuguese come from Latin, and so are very similar in languages with a root in Latin. If two medical doctors did not know this, then please keep them off my case.
Abduction <-> abducção (which when pronounced sounds pretty close to abdooction).
Apartment <-> apartamento.
-
i didnt say i speak it i said most australians do
So you've never been to Indonesia then? Do you think most Australians would be able to say the sentence I described above in the native lingo then? Seriously??
-
"bantuan, saya pikir anak saya berusia 3 tahun telah diculik dari apartemen liburan kami, kami tinggal di The Ocean Club Holiday nomor apartemen 5a, datang cepat"
Not a reasonable test, though, as 'posh' words in English and Portuguese come from Latin, and so are very similar in languages with a root in Latin. If two medical doctors did not know this, then please keep them off my case.
Abduction <-> abducção (which when pronounced sounds pretty close to abdooction).
Apartment <-> apartamento.
@)(++(* very good. Are you proficient in Malay as well as everything else, or did google come in handy? And now pronounce it in meaningful Malay doewn the phone, in a panic, with police asking you questions that you cant't understand. Nice one.
-
So you've never been to Indonesia then? Do you think most Australians would be able to say the sentence I described above in the native lingo then? Seriously??
most likley indonesion is taught in australian schools from like grade 2
-
Why are you interested in influencing others' opinion? Sounds a bit sinister to me. You're on a hiding to nothing anyway, minds were made up years ago.
Feel free to hold this opinion. As I said, I gave up on your opinion months back.
As to influencing others, I'm simply putting facts into the pool of information, which they are free to take on board, or otherwise, as they so choose.
-
Feel free to hold this opinion. As I said, I gave up on your opinion months back.
As to influencing others, I'm simply putting facts into the pool of information, which they are free to take on board, or otherwise, as they so choose.
And very informative it often proves to be. 8((()*/
-
@)(++(* very good. Are you proficient in Malay as well as everything else, or did google come in handy? And now pronounce it in meaningful Malay doewn the phone, in a panic, with police asking you questions that you cant't understand. Nice one.
Therein lies the point. You are building in an assumption that no one in the police or the emergency services speaks English within Portugal. I know for a fact that they do, and why they do.
As to Indonesia, it is simply not comparable. HOWEVER, I would anticipate that if Indonesia has a significant tourist trade based on Australians, and knowing that Australians speak English, I would be ASTOUNDED to find that an exchange in very plain and simple English would not get through to the Indonesian authorities.
Portugal v UK. Two different languages with a shared origin. Portuguese folks who are obliged to study English in school for years on end.
Indonesia v Australia. Two different languages with no shared origin (I think). And I have no idea if any English is taught in Indonesian schools.
Popping back to the T9 situation, does anyone else think that NOT asking for an emergency number was the way to go?
(Apologies for the caps. I am not shouting. For some reason, I cannot get the smileys to work or any emphasis method, so all I've got left is caps.)
-
Therein lies the point. You are building in an assumption that no one in the police or the emergency services speaks English within Portugal. I know for a fact that they do, and why they do.
As to Indonesia, it is simply not comparable. HOWEVER, I would anticipate that if Indonesia has a significant tourist trade based on Australians, and knowing that Australians speak English, I would be ASTOUNDED to find that an exchange in very plain and simple English would not get through to the Indonesian authorities.
Portugal v UK. Two different languages with a shared origin. Portuguese folks who are obliged to study English in school for years on end.
Indonesia v Australia. Two different languages with no shared origin (I think). And I have no idea if any English is taught in Indonesian schools.
Popping back to the T9 situation, does anyone else think that NOT asking for an emergency number was the way to go?
(Apologies for the caps. I am not shouting. For some reason, I cannot get the smileys to work or any emphasis method, so all I've got left is caps.)
when my mum was at school aussies were taught french you can also learn japanese in schools here australia is very diverse
-
They asked someone on the OC staff to phone, why is that strange?
Allegedly. The receptionist was a terrible witness but he didn't mention seeing Matt or Gerald. Did Gerald ask the receptionist if he'd seen a little girl? Apparently not. Did he ask Charlotte Pennington, who was on duty at the night creche if she'd seen the child? Apparently not. Did he say in his statements that he went to the Mini Club? No. The receptionist said Gerald came with John Hill. Kate says John Hill came to the apartment at 10.35. If he then went with Gerald to reception that fits, because the first phone call was six minutes later.
Charlotte should have been at the Mini Club because Jacqueline says she stayed to wait for the remaining parents, who had until 11pm to collect their children. She was still there when the missing child procedure was started at 10.25pm;
The witness immediately helped in the searches, whilst her colleague Charlotte remained at the crêche, looking after the other children that were there and waiting for the arrival of the last parents, after which she also began searching.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
Gerald's arguido statement. Would that have been when he went with John Hill then? He doesn't mention going twice and the receptionist saw him once, with John Hill.
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom.
-
I am aware of the way your opinion works, and I gave up on influencing your opinion months ago.
I am more interested in influencing others on the forum.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether Gerry telling Matt to phone was appropriate or not. As in, why didn't Gerry do this himself? And did Gerry ever tell Matt to do this, or was it Jane?
They can, and will, make up their own minds about why Gerry supposedly went to the Mini Club, but seemingly did not emphasise the need to call, or even check if a call had been made.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether roadblocks and border controls loomed larger than the simple need to get police on site.
I have made up mine. It is up to others to make their own evaluation.
Matt said Fiona told him to go. Fiona said she told Matt to go. Kate said Gerry asked Matt to go and that is the inconsistency. Nobody saw Gerry at the creche/reception before Matt went there. He is not at the apartment either because Dianne didn't see him (she tried raising the shutters but couldn't like you see in the crime scene pics) and when Emma Knight arrived at 10:20 only Kate and Fiona were there.
"There was plenty of running around through the back streets (where Smithman was seen! PF) and back to the apartment and then, you know, where's the, where are the Police, where are the Police, erm, and so went back down to the reception, this would have been about thirty minutes or so later, erm, back to reception, erm, and at that point, Gerry had come down as well." (MO)
-
I am aware of the way your opinion works, and I gave up on influencing your opinion months ago.
I am more interested in influencing others on the forum.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether Gerry telling Matt to phone was appropriate or not. As in, why didn't Gerry do this himself? And did Gerry ever tell Matt to do this, or was it Jane?
They can, and will, make up their own minds about why Gerry supposedly went to the Mini Club, but seemingly did not emphasise the need to call, or even check if a call had been made.
They can, and will, make up their own minds about whether roadblocks and border controls loomed larger than the simple need to get police on site.
I have made up mine. It is up to others to make their own evaluation.
you will not influence anyone on this forum
-
"bantuan, saya pikir anak saya berusia 3 tahun telah diculik dari apartemen liburan kami, kami tinggal di The Ocean Club Holiday nomor apartemen 5a, datang cepat"
Not a reasonable test, though, as 'posh' words in English and Portuguese come from Latin, and so are very similar in languages with a root in Latin. If two medical doctors did not know this, then please keep them off my case.
Abduction <-> abducção (which when pronounced sounds pretty close to abdooction).
Apartment <-> apartamento.
what a nasty post directed at two parents who have lost their daughter in terrible circumstances
-
you will not influence anyone on this forum
That comes about 5 posts after I get a thumbs up for adding information.
-
what a nasty post directed at two parents who have lost their daughter in terrible circumstances
If they are doctors and don't understand terms in Greek and Latin I don't want them anywhere near to treating me.
Would you want someone ignorant of Greek and Latin terms treating you? Someone, say, who could not tell the difference between hyper and hypo?
That would be truly scary.
-
If they are doctors and don't understand terms in Greek and Latin I don't want them anywhere near to treating me.
Would you want someone ignorant of Greek and Latin terms treating you? Someone, say, who could not tell the difference between hyper and hypo?
That would be truly scary.
with indonesia luz they can and do speak english but since many australians go there to holiday it is good that the language is taught in schools imo becauselike portugal not everybody in indonesia speak english
-
most likley indonesion is taught in australian schools from like grade 2
Really? Wow. No one gets taught Portuguese from Grade 2 (or any grade) in UK State schools as far as I'm aware...
-
Feel free to hold this opinion. As I said, I gave up on your opinion months back.
As to influencing others, I'm simply putting facts into the pool of information, which they are free to take on board, or otherwise, as they so choose.
Is it a fact that the McCanns and their friends were more interested in instigating road blocks and closing ports than they were in contacting the police, as you claimed? It's such a stupid claim I can barely believe I'm having to write it.
-
Therein lies the point. You are building in an assumption that no one in the police or the emergency services speaks English within Portugal. I know for a fact that they do, and why they do.
As to Indonesia, it is simply not comparable. HOWEVER, I would anticipate that if Indonesia has a significant tourist trade based on Australians, and knowing that Australians speak English, I would be ASTOUNDED to find that an exchange in very plain and simple English would not get through to the Indonesian authorities.
Portugal v UK. Two different languages with a shared origin. Portuguese folks who are obliged to study English in school for years on end.
Indonesia v Australia. Two different languages with no shared origin (I think). And I have no idea if any English is taught in Indonesian schools.
Popping back to the T9 situation, does anyone else think that NOT asking for an emergency number was the way to go?
(Apologies for the caps. I am not shouting. For some reason, I cannot get the smileys to work or any emphasis method, so all I've got left is caps.)
If I had been in the McCanns position I would have done exactly what they did. I would not have spent minutes googling the emergency number, or riffling about for OC paperwork, or translating phrases to speak to the operator or police who may or may not have spoken English, I would have gone straight to someone who would know straight away a) who to phone and b) what to say and c) to give accurate information about my location. But why am I telling you this? You don't care for my opinion, and it will only reinforce Carly's belief that I think that the world revolves around me. @)(++(*
-
Allegedly. The receptionist was a terrible witness but he didn't mention seeing Matt or Gerald. Did Gerald ask the receptionist if he'd seen a little girl? Apparently not. Did he ask Charlotte Pennington, who was on duty at the night creche if she'd seen the child? Apparently not. Did he say in his statements that he went to the Mini Club? No. The receptionist said Gerald came with John Hill. Kate says John Hill came to the apartment at 10.35. If he then went with Gerald to reception that fits, because the first phone call was six minutes later.
Charlotte should have been at the Mini Club because Jacqueline says she stayed to wait for the remaining parents, who had until 11pm to collect their children. She was still there when the missing child procedure was started at 10.25pm;
The witness immediately helped in the searches, whilst her colleague Charlotte remained at the crêche, looking after the other children that were there and waiting for the arrival of the last parents, after which she also began searching.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm
Gerald's arguido statement. Would that have been when he went with John Hill then? He doesn't mention going twice and the receptionist saw him once, with John Hill.
While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom.
So, you seem to be implying that no one from the group went to the OC to ask them to phone the police, and that Matt & "Gerald" are lying, correct?
-
If they are doctors and don't understand terms in Greek and Latin I don't want them anywhere near to treating me.
Would you want someone ignorant of Greek and Latin terms treating you? Someone, say, who could not tell the difference between hyper and hypo?
That would be truly scary.
You seem to be saying that because the McCanns are doctors that should give them an automatic ability to communicate in Portuguese at some level. I've heard it all now.... @)(++(*
-
Therein lies the point. You are building in an assumption that no one in the police or the emergency services speaks English within Portugal. I know for a fact that they do, and why they do.
As to Indonesia, it is simply not comparable. HOWEVER, I would anticipate that if Indonesia has a significant tourist trade based on Australians, and knowing that Australians speak English, I would be ASTOUNDED to find that an exchange in very plain and simple English would not get through to the Indonesian authorities.
Portugal v UK. Two different languages with a shared origin. Portuguese folks who are obliged to study English in school for years on end.
Indonesia v Australia. Two different languages with no shared origin (I think). And I have no idea if any English is taught in Indonesian schools.
Popping back to the T9 situation, does anyone else think that NOT asking for an emergency number was the way to go?
(Apologies for the caps. I am not shouting. For some reason, I cannot get the smileys to work or any emphasis method, so all I've got left is caps.)
There is some misguided opinion that French people learn English at school. This is entirely untrue. They don't. Very few people that I come across actually do, although there is no reason for why they should.
If I needed help then I would be able in some small measure to ask for it, but in no way would I depend on my ability to speak to The Emergency Services, certainly not in a state of collapse.
So to suggest that The McCanns should have asked for the number is a bit silly and unfeeling.
-
If they are doctors and don't understand terms in Greek and Latin I don't want them anywhere near to treating me.
Would you want someone ignorant of Greek and Latin terms treating you? Someone, say, who could not tell the difference between hyper and hypo?
That would be truly scary.
That's a silly thing to say they will know those terms from their studies without having to study Greek or Latin
I think it's totally unfair to expect them to know abduction is similar in Portuguese as most words seem to be entirely different
English evidently comes from the same root as German
-
You seem to be saying that because the McCanns are doctors that should give them an automatic ability to communicate in Portuguese at some level. I've heard it all now.... @)(++(*
As per usual, you are attributing to me something I did not say. Not the smartest attempt at discussion.
The McCanns spoke to EVERYONE on their holiday in English, EVEN the Portuguese people.
They hired transport from the airport. In English.
They booked into the Ocean Club. In English.
They dealt with maintenance staff. In English.
They bought food from the supermarket. In English.
They ordered food and drink. In English.
Someone in the group booked the Tapas, explaining the situation. In English.
They arranged the loan of a buggy, for the beach trip. In English.
Just how much English do local Portuguese people have to speak before you concede that communication was CONSISTENTLY in English, not Portuguese?
So how can you possibly claim they thought the emergency services were unable to speak English, when every other Portuguese person they met did?
-
There is some misguided opinion that French people learn English at school. This is entirely untrue. They don't. Very few people that I come across actually do, although there is no reason for why they should.
If I needed help then I would be able in some small measure to ask for it, but in no way would I depend on my ability to speak to The Emergency Services, certainly not in a state of collapse.
So to suggest that The McCanns should have asked for the number is a bit silly and unfeeling.
What?
When did the incident get moved to France? What has France got to do with it? I do not know about the system in France and I don't care, because it is not Portugal, where the incident happened.
I DO know that in Portugal teaching English at school is mandatory for at least 8 years, and that requirement has been in place for years. This came from a Portuguese hairdresser, speaking in fluent English.
The McCanns consistently spoke to Portuguese people in English, as did the rest of the Tapas 9. To not ask for the number is more than a bit silly, and unfeeling towards Madeleine.
-
If I had been in the McCanns position I would have done exactly what they did. I would not have spent minutes googling the emergency number, or riffling about for OC paperwork, or translating phrases to speak to the operator or police who may or may not have spoken English, I would have gone straight to someone who would know straight away a) who to phone and b) what to say and c) to give accurate information about my location. But why am I telling you this? You don't care for my opinion, and it will only reinforce Carly's belief that I think that the world revolves around me. @)(++(*
Just common sense.
Most people directly involved in such a situation would possibly be finding it difficult to communicate effectively in their native tongue.
A reception desk can be expected to have emergency numbers, contacts, procedures and the training to set everything in motion.
-
As per usual, you are attributing to me something I did not say. Not the smartest attempt at discussion.
The McCanns spoke to EVERYONE on their holiday in English, EVEN the Portuguese people.
They hired transport from the airport. In English.
They booked into the Ocean Club. In English.
They dealt with maintenance staff. In English.
They bought food from the supermarket. In English.
They ordered food and drink. In English.
Someone in the group booked the Tapas, explaining the situation. In English.
They arranged the loan of a buggy, for the beach trip. In English.
Just how much English do local Portuguese people have to speak before you concede that communication was CONSISTENTLY in English, not Portuguese?
So how can you possibly claim they thought the emergency services were unable to speak English, when every other Portuguese person they met did?
We are told ... Mr Amaral doesn't speak English.
-
As per usual, you are attributing to me something I did not say. Not the smartest attempt at discussion.
The McCanns spoke to EVERYONE on their holiday in English, EVEN the Portuguese people.
They hired transport from the airport. In English.
They booked into the Ocean Club. In English.
They dealt with maintenance staff. In English.
They bought food from the supermarket. In English.
They ordered food and drink. In English.
Someone in the group booked the Tapas, explaining the situation. In English.
They arranged the loan of a buggy, for the beach trip. In English.
Just how much English do local Portuguese people have to speak before you concede that communication was CONSISTENTLY in English, not Portuguese?
So how can you possibly claim they thought the emergency services were unable to speak English, when every other Portuguese person they met did?
Perhaps you can point me to this claim I am alleged to have made? And whilst you're at it perhaps you can explain your reason for making this apparent completely off-topic observation unless by it you were implying that the McCanns should have found it easier to communicate in Portuguese by dint of their chosen profession?
If they are doctors and don't understand terms in Greek and Latin I don't want them anywhere near to treating me.
Would you want someone ignorant of Greek and Latin terms treating you? Someone, say, who could not tell the difference between hyper and hypo?
and this
Not a reasonable test, though, as 'posh' words in English and Portuguese come from Latin, and so are very similar in languages with a root in Latin. If two medical doctors did not know this, then please keep them off my case.
-
That's a silly thing to say they will know those terms from their studies without having to study Greek or Latin
I think it's totally unfair to expect them to know abduction is similar in Portuguese as most words seem to be entirely different
English evidently comes from the same root as German
If you think a medical doctor does not know that medical terms come from Greek and Latin then we inhabit different realities.
I said 'posh' English words originate in Greek or Latin. Four letter words tend to have the same root as German. Abduction is not a four letter word.
-
Just common sense.
Most people directly involved in such a situation would possibly be finding it difficult to communicate effectively in their native tongue.
A reception desk can be expected to have emergency numbers, contacts, procedures and the training to set everything in motion.
And that, is precisely what the McCanns did not do.
-
If you think a medical doctor does not know that medical terms come from Greek and Latin then we inhabit different realities.
I said 'posh' English words originate in Greek or Latin. Four letter words tend to have the same root as German. Abduction is not a four letter word.
Read my post again and you will see I never said that...my family has a medical background so I am well aware of what doctors do and do not know....Ordering a beer in a bar is not the same as trying to explain your daughter has disappeared
-
What?
When did the incident get moved to France? What has France got to do with it? I do not know about the system in France and I don't care, because it is not Portugal, where the incident happened.
I DO know that in Portugal teaching English at school is mandatory for at least 8 years, and that requirement has been in place for years. This came from a Portuguese hairdresser, speaking in fluent English.
The McCanns consistently spoke to Portuguese people in English, as did the rest of the Tapas 9. To not ask for the number is more than a bit silly, and unfeeling towards Madeleine.
You obviously didn't read my post with any attempt to understand. I was perfectly able to buy a Kilo of Butter and Lamb Chop without being able to speak a foreign language. So grocery buying was the least of my problems.
I would dispute "Mandatory", unless you can come up with a proven cite for that. But then "Hairdressers" always were a par for the course.
The fact remains that most English people would not be able to speak a foreign language under duress, and nor would any foreigner be able to explain themselves under similar circumstances.
So it is silly and unfeeling to expect otherwise.
-
So, you seem to be implying that no one from the group went to the OC to ask them to phone the police, and that Matt & "Gerald" are lying, correct?
I am just giving the facts which are in the files so people can draw their own conclusions.
-
We are told ... Mr Amaral doesn't speak English.
It is quite possible that he doesn't, or that he doesn't speak it well.
The info about kids being taught English for 8 years at school seemingly applies to anyone under the age of 60. I have not checked when it was made mandatory.
Back to Mr Amaral. He was not a front-line officer, dealing with anyone in English. He was higher up the food chain, where quite clearly he would have been communicating in Portuguese, not English. I can't think of any situation where he would have required English, but to be honest, I haven't given it a great deal of thought.
I learned Latin for 3 years to age 15. Since then, I have not used it in any significant way. The longest joined up sentence I can manage now is 'te amo', which is not useful in an emergency.
There are clear instances in the files where people were not confident about speaking in English. Like Mr Amaral, I would expect the GNR commander that night to conduct his work in Portuguese, not English. I would not expect the cooks, chefs, gardeners and cleaners were not required to speak English.
But this is all irrelevant. The Tapas 9 spoke to Portuguese people in English, not Portuguese. To now make a language barrier a reason for not calling the authorities directly does not bear scrutiny. They did not call the authorities directly. They did not ensure English speaking staff called the authorities in a prompt manner.
Despite this, chapter 4 of Kate's book informs her audience that the response was tardy. p73 "Just after 10 past 10, Gerry asked Matt to run to the Ocean Club's 24 hour reception to get the staff to call the police." Thus putting into the reader's mind that there was a very swift call to the police, when Matthew's statement in English makes it plain this did not happen.
Followed by p73 "At 10:35 the police had still not arrived,". Despite the fact that Kate claimed to be something of an expert of the files, she may not have twigged that the first call was at 10.41. But the reader gets the perception of a tardy response, even before the police were called.
Followed by p75 "It was not until about 11.10pm that two policeman arrived from the nearest town, Lagos," The reader now has the perception that the patrol came from Lagos, not Odiaxere, the other side of Lagos. The reader has the perception that the response time was 60 minutes, not 30 minutes.
This is gross disinformation.
Before the GNR arrived, they were already discussing roadblocks and sealing borders. It is impossible to tell from the book whether this discussion occurred before or after the first phone call to the GNR, because the actual time of the first call to the GNR is not in the book.
-
We are told ... Mr Amaral doesn't speak English.
And he had a Degree in Law. Or so we are told. But he never learned to speak English.
-
And he had a Degree in Law. Or so we are told. But he never learned to speak English.
So what, that he never learned to speak English.
-
Perhaps you can point me to this claim I am alleged to have made? And whilst you're at it perhaps you can explain your reason for making this apparent completely off-topic observation unless by it you were implying that the McCanns should have found it easier to communicate in Portuguese by dint of their chosen profession?
and this
There were a few digs at me about unsavoury comments, one relating to the fact that I expected to find doctors able to understand medical terms.
If someone has a pop at me, I am happy to correct the situation.
Before I get a response on this, no one IMO exceeded the forum rules. However, words like stupid, unfeeling or unsavoury definitely deserve a response.
-
So what, that he never learned to speak English.
You missed the point, Stephen. As ever.
-
Read my post again and you will see I never said that...my family has a medical background so I am well aware of what doctors do and do not know....Ordering a beer in a bar is not the same as trying to explain your daughter has disappeared
I see that no one has addressed the fact that they neither called directly nor ensured staff did.
-
You missed the point, Stephen. As ever.
There was a point ??
-
You obviously didn't read my post with any attempt to understand. I was perfectly able to buy a Kilo of Butter and Lamb Chop without being able to speak a foreign language. So grocery buying was the least of my problems.
I would dispute "Mandatory", unless you can come up with a proven cite for that. But then "Hairdressers" always were a par for the course.
The fact remains that most English people would not be able to speak a foreign language under duress, and nor would any foreigner be able to explain themselves under similar circumstances.
So it is silly and unfeeling to expect otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Portugal
I was wrong. It is mandatory for 9 years. Then they have to study a foreign language of their choice for a further 3 years. According to my "Hairdresser" source, having studied English for so long, most choose to stick with English.
I would be grateful if you would cease from adding things like "silly and unfeeling" in posts directed towards me.
-
There was a point ??
So you missed the point as well. No surprises there.
-
And he had a Degree in Law. Or so we are told. But he never learned to speak English.
Why would someone taking a degree in Portuguese law need to learn English? A degree in Portuguese law taught within Portugal would be in Portuguese, unless it was really weird.
-
So you missed the point as well. No surprises there.
Lets have a poll and see if anyone knows what you are on about.
-
There was someone who spoke perfect English, Portuguese and Spanish. He served the McCanns in the Tapas and often helped his Portuguese colleagues when they weren't sure what English people were saying. They interacted with this person all week. He served their meals. He was nearby, he spoke to Gerry, so I'm surprised they didn't ask him for help. This is his rog. statement;
I am a Portuguese national and I am fluent in Portuguese and Spanish. I have lived in the U.K. with my parents since 10 year of age......
I began working as a functionary at the Ocean Club on the 4th of April 2007 and my charge was to serve the bar and the Tapas Bar tables........
The other employees of the Tapas Bar on my schedule were Ricardo, Ze and Tiago?all of them Portuguese and with little knowledge of the English language. As a result of this, I was frequently called to attend British clients.......
I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone......I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty..........
I saw the head of the Milenium Restaurant in the Tapas and asked him to telephone the restaurant......
One of the employees looked to be organizing the searches and told us the name of the child. We were sent to the beach zone and looked in all the alleys and called out the name of the child but did not find her. Later, we returned to the Tapas where we found John, the Manager of Mark Warner.......
I do not know when the police were called but the first time I saw them was around 23h00-23h00 that night.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Portugal
I was wrong. It is mandatory for 9 years. Then they have to study a foreign language of their choice for a further 3 years. According to my "Hairdresser" source, having studied English for so long, most choose to stick with English.
I would be grateful if you would cease from adding things like "silly and unfeeling" in posts directed towards me.
And I would be pleased if you didn't tell me that I don't know what I am talking about.
Do you know what "Mandatory" even means?
It is probably mandatory that French is available to be learned in UK, but don't tell me that this is enforceable. It only means that it is available.
-
Lets have a poll and see if anyone knows what you are on about.
What was the point? I often can't remember.
-
What was the point? I often can't remember.
No idea - perhaps there wasn't one.
-
I see that no one has addressed the fact that they neither called directly nor ensured staff did.
i can fully understand why the didn't call the police themselves...and far as I can see they asked staff who were bilingual to call the police...what is wrong with that
-
I am just giving the facts which are in the files so people can draw their own conclusions.
Lovely that your post began with the word "Allegedly" when referring to Matt's statement that he went to reception to ask them to phone the police. This implies strongly that you think there is some doubt about whether this ever happened. The conclusion that I draw from what you have written is that you think Matt is a liar.
-
No idea - perhaps there wasn't one.
Probably not. no Charges and no Arrest, and absolutely no chance of a Conviction against The McCanns.
-
There were a few digs at me about unsavoury comments, one relating to the fact that I expected to find doctors able to understand medical terms.
If someone has a pop at me, I am happy to correct the situation.
Before I get a response on this, no one IMO exceeded the forum rules. However, words like stupid, unfeeling or unsavoury definitely deserve a response.
I said nothing about 'unsavoury' or 'unfeeling' but I did use the word stupid, about your claim, in the post below:
Is it a fact that the McCanns and their friends were more interested in instigating road blocks and closing ports than they were in contacting the police, as you claimed? It's such a stupid claim I can barely believe I'm having to write it.
It is a stupid claim in my opinion, as one cannot have ports closed and roads blocked without the police first being called.
Happy to correct THAT situation.
-
Probably not. no Charges and no Arrest, and absolutely no chance of a Conviction against The McCanns.
Nor, indeed, against anyone else, it would seem.
-
i can fully understand why the didn't call the police themselves...and far as I can see they asked staff who were bilingual to call the police...what is wrong with that
There isn't anything wrong with that. There never will be. Just something that idiots want it to be.
-
There was someone who spoke perfect English, Portuguese and Spanish. He served the McCanns in the Tapas and often helped his Portuguese colleagues when they weren't sure what English people were saying. They interacted with this person all week. He served their meals. He was nearby, he spoke to Gerry, so I'm surprised they didn't ask him for help. This is his rog. statement;
I am a Portuguese national and I am fluent in Portuguese and Spanish. I have lived in the U.K. with my parents since 10 year of age......
I began working as a functionary at the Ocean Club on the 4th of April 2007 and my charge was to serve the bar and the Tapas Bar tables........
The other employees of the Tapas Bar on my schedule were Ricardo, Ze and Tiago?all of them Portuguese and with little knowledge of the English language. As a result of this, I was frequently called to attend British clients.......
I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone......I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty..........
I saw the head of the Milenium Restaurant in the Tapas and asked him to telephone the restaurant......
One of the employees looked to be organizing the searches and told us the name of the child. We were sent to the beach zone and looked in all the alleys and called out the name of the child but did not find her. Later, we returned to the Tapas where we found John, the Manager of Mark Warner.......
I do not know when the police were called but the first time I saw them was around 23h00-23h00 that night.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
So, faced with the choice of running to reception where you know there will be an English speaking person sat in front of a phone, who probably has the local police number on speed dial, or a waiter serving in a restaurant that has taken your order for wine and food, you would gravitate towards the latter would you?
-
Nor, indeed, against anyone else, it would seem.
I wouldn't bank on that if I were you.
-
You have inside information? Ooh do tell.
-
You have inside information? Ooh do tell.
Use your common sense. I am sure you must have some
-
Use your common sense. I am sure you must have some
Now you're asking me to speculate. I can see no solution in sight. I believe there will not be one.
-
Now you're asking me to speculate. I can see no solution in sight.
So, we have to speculate about your common sense? That could be interesting, since no Sceptic seems to have any, least of all you. Although you personally never cause great controversy.
You have my thanks for that.
-
So, we have to speculate about your common sense? That could be interesting, since no Sceptic seems to have any, least of all you. Although you personally never cause great controversy.
You have my thanks for that.
Dear me, insults.
Should I report you? Nah can't be arsed.
-
Dear me, insults.
Should I report you? Nah can't be arsed.
Happy hour again!
-
Dear me, insults.
Should I report you? Nah can't be arsed.
If you think that is insulting ... you've never read my 'fan' mail. Oh, wait a minute ... I think you may have made a couple of contributions, so you'll know what I'm talking about.
-
If you think that is insulting ... you've never read my 'fan' mail. Oh, wait a minute ... I think you may have made a couple of contributions, so you'll know what I'm talking about.
I don't think so, I usually just ignore you.
-
I don't think so, I usually just ignore you.
many do....
-
If they are doctors and don't understand terms in Greek and Latin I don't want them anywhere near to treating me.
Would you want someone ignorant of Greek and Latin terms treating you? Someone, say, who could not tell the difference between hyper and hypo?
That would be truly scary.
Which medical Latin or Greek terms do you think would have been helpful to explain that their child had been taken and where their apartment was?
-
Happy hour again!
how about some french wine 8(0(*
-
Matthew gives a description of what happened when he went to reception to ask them to phone the police, I see no reason why he would lie about it. Though everyone has to be lying so as the McCann's can be made out to be these nasty people who didn't even want to phone the police straight away.
In my opinion it happened just the way Matthew said it did, they didn't want to call the police, they thought Madeleine had just wandered off and she would turn up. I think he didn't call the police instead he called the OC to report Madeleine missing, as according to a Nanny they had children disappear before and they had been found. They had a special drill that they followed for that type of thing.
-
I said nothing about 'unsavoury' or 'unfeeling' but I did use the word stupid, about your claim, in the post below:
It is a stupid claim in my opinion, as one cannot have ports closed and roads blocked without the police first being called.
Happy to correct THAT situation.
At no time did I claim that a single poster had used all 3 words, nor did I get near to it.
I see you STILL have not addressed the key point, which is they moved on to discussing blocking roads and sealing borders WITHOUT ensuring the police were called.
So at this point, did Matt chip in that he wasn't certain the police had been called, as per his rogatory, or was this another failed check?
If you think discussing roadblocks and sealing borders before ensuring the police had been called makes sense, I think I am out of this non-discussion.
-
Which medical Latin or Greek terms do you think would have been helpful to explain that their child had been taken and where their apartment was?
I don't.
I have made perfectly clear the conversation would have taken place in English. I was asked for, and provided, a cite that shows that English lessons in school are mandatory for 9 years.
I have listed all the T9 interactions that took place, in English.
I have shown that no-one in the T9 ensured the police had been called before deciding what the police actions should be.
It would appear that no-one can dispute these points, but I must admit, I have got tired of reading some of the dross surrounding this, so I may have skipped a post or two.
-
many do....
Unfortunately not as many as I would like.
-
At no time did I claim that a single poster had used all 3 words, nor did I get near to it.
I see you STILL have not addressed the key point, which is they moved on to discussing blocking roads and sealing borders WITHOUT ensuring the police were called.
So at this point, did Matt chip in that he wasn't certain the police had been called, as per his rogatory, or was this another failed check?
If you think discussing roadblocks and sealing borders before ensuring the police had been called makes sense, I think I am out of this non-discussion.
If there was such a discussion I don't see it happening without them believing that the police had been alerted.
There is a record that there was much distress about the length of time it was taking for the police to arrive. They thought reception had phoned as soon as they were informed. Every minute must have seemed like an hour while they waited.
When the police did arrive and given how long the child had been searched for ... I find it strange they appeared to have no protocols on hand to initiate the appropriate response in the event a child goes missing.
-
i can fully understand why the didn't call the police themselves...and far as I can see they asked staff who were bilingual to call the police...what is wrong with that
Would that be the same reason why they didn't search themselves? How do you know the receptionist was bilingual?
Steve Carpenter was at the 24 hour reception on 4th with Gerry's 'surfing' friends;
We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
-
At no time did I claim that a single poster had used all 3 words, nor did I get near to it.
I see you STILL have not addressed the key point, which is they moved on to discussing blocking roads and sealing borders WITHOUT ensuring the police were called.
So at this point, did Matt chip in that he wasn't certain the police had been called, as per his rogatory, or was this another failed check?
If you think discussing roadblocks and sealing borders before ensuring the police had been called makes sense, I think I am out of this non-discussion.
You're right it is a non-discussion. Goodbye.
-
Would that be the same reason why they didn't search themselves? How do you know the receptionist was bilingual?
Steve Carpenter was at the 24 hour reception on 4th with Gerry's 'surfing' friends;
We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
LOL - but EVERYONE in PdL speaks English!!!!
-
Lovely that your post began with the word "Allegedly" when referring to Matt's statement that he went to reception to ask them to phone the police. This implies strongly that you think there is some doubt about whether this ever happened. The conclusion that I draw from what you have written is that you think Matt is a liar.
A claim or statement that is alleged hasn't been proven true. In this case the receptionist didn't confirm Matt's statement therefore we don't know if it's true or not. I drew no conclusion either way. I don't need your opinions about what I meant, thank you, I already know what I meant.
-
So Shining In Luz believes she has stumbled upon a noteworthy point. The McCanns and their friends were allegedly more interested in road blocks and closing the ports than they were in making sure the police had been called. This is because:
1) They were all bit sloppy and simply not pushy enough
2) They were all crazy
3) They were all drunk
4) They were having a laugh
5) They all knew Madeleine wasn't coming back so they were just having a general chat about what they would do if a child really was abducted
6) They actually believed the police had been called and were on their way
Or something else..? What is the significance of thisnoteworthy point I wonder... &%+((£
-
So, faced with the choice of running to reception where you know there will be an English speaking person sat in front of a phone, who probably has the local police number on speed dial, or a waiter serving in a restaurant that has taken your order for wine and food, you would gravitate towards the latter would you?
I think you may find you're wrong in your assumption;
We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
-
Interesting article in the mail where a boy died because australian emergency services could not understand his scottish father which delayed them......it seems most aussies are fluent in indonesian but not the scottish accent...how neglectful of this father not to learn to speak without an accent when going on holiday
-
Interesting article in the mail where a boy died because australian emergency services could not understand his scottish father which delayed them......it seems most aussies are fluent in indonesian but not the scottish accent...how neglectful of this father not to learn to speak without an accent when going on holiday
A bit like in the UK with the rest of the population trying to understand Brummy and Yam Yam.
-
A bit like in the UK with the rest of the population trying to understand Brummy and Yam Yam.
so you can see why the mccanns did not make the phone call themselves
-
so you can see why the mccanns did not make the phone call themselves
I would have had someone else do it for me and would have stood next to them to ensure they did.
-
I would have had someone else do it for me and would have stood next to them to ensure they did.
Too right and also to be able to answer any questions that the police might have.
-
I would have had someone else do it for me and would have stood next to them to ensure they did.
Bully for you...are you ...along with others ...criticising the mccanns because they didn't do what you would
-
Too right and also to be able to answer any questions that the police might have.
I certainly wouldn't have stood by them whilst they phoned
-
I would have had someone else do it for me and would have stood next to them to ensure they did.
Have you seriously no idea of how daft that comment is?
-
Too right and also to be able to answer any questions that the police might have.
exactly its callled personal reponsibilty is it not?
-
Too right and also to be able to answer any questions that the police might have.
Which Language would you prefer?
-
Have you seriously no idea of how daft that comment is?
So you would just delegate and hope for the best, would you?
-
So you would just delegate and hope for the best, would you?
I would have been comatosed by terror. How would you have been?
-
LOL - but EVERYONE in PdL speaks English!!!!
It was you, Alfred who said the receptionist would speak English and have the police on speed dial, when I said they could have asked Joe, their waiter, to tell them the phone number. If, as Kate said, her friends were running back to the Tapas begging for help, did those organising the searches ignore them? They were English. She says Gerry sent Matt off again (Matt doesn't mention this);
At 10.35 the police had still not arrived, so Gerry asked Matt if he would go back down to the twenty-four-hour reception and find out what was happening.
Madeleine chapter 5
-
I think you may find you're wrong in your assumption;
We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
You just can't get the staff can you? Nevertheless, Shining In Luz who has boots on the ground has told us that everywhere the McCanns went that holiday they spoke to and were responded to in English, indeed it would seem that the person on reception at the time Matt "allegedly" raised the alarm also spoke English, so what is wrong with my assumption, exactly...?
-
I would have been comatosed by terror. How would you have been?
Gerry wasn't though, was he? Could still find time to lift shutters and peer in cupboards. Clearly made of sterner stuff than you.
-
I would have had someone else do it for me and would have stood next to them to ensure they did.
whilst simultaneously knocking on every door in Portugal naturally.
-
It was you, Alfred who said the receptionist would speak English and have the police on speed dial, when I said they could have asked Joe, their waiter, to tell them the phone number. If, as Kate said, her friends were running back to the Tapas begging for help, did those organising the searches ignore them? They were English. She says Gerry sent Matt off again (Matt doesn't mention this);
At 10.35 the police had still not arrived, so Gerry asked Matt if he would go back down to the twenty-four-hour reception and find out what was happening.
Madeleine chapter 5
Did the receptionist that night, the one Matt "allegedly" asked to phone the police speak English or not? A simple yes / no will suffice.
-
Gerry wasn't though, was he? Could still find time to lift shutters and peer in cupboards. Clearly made of sterner stuff than you.
Who are we talking about here? Gerry or Kate? Or any other English man who couldn't speak Portuguese?
Is this the pathetic best you can do to slag them off?
-
Who are we talking about here? Gerry or Kate? Or any other English man who couldn't speak Portuguese?
Is this the pathetic best you can do to slag them off?
Its quite clear in my post that I was referring to Gerry. Kate never went anywhere near the reception that night.
-
Would a sceptic kindly explain what this issue about the time of the phone call to the police and who went where and who didn't do what is actually supposed to prove?
-
No idea - just going with the flow.
-
No idea - just going with the flow.
@)(++(* at least you're honest 8((()*/
-
Did the receptionist that night, the one Matt "allegedly" asked to phone the police speak English or not? A simple yes / no will suffice.
I thought you were the expert on the linguistic skills of the receptionist Alfred. If not why did you say;
So, faced with the choice of running to reception where you know there will be an English speaking person sat in front of a phone, who probably has the local police number on speed dial,
(snip)
-
I thought you were the expert on the linguistic skills of the receptionist Alfred. If not why did you say;
So, faced with the choice of running to reception where you know there will be an English speaking person sat in front of a phone, who probably has the local police number on speed dial,
(snip)
Answer the question.
-
Answer the question.
is jassi in a court of law your honor?
-
I'm not even in the frame, let alone the dock @)(++(*
-
is jassi in a court of law your honor?
I was talking to G- Unit, do keep up.
-
I'm not even in the frame, let alone the dock @)(++(*
When did you prove you are innocent?
-
Answer the question.
Not a chance. 8(>((
-
Dead easy. I have a group of friends who will testify that I was in Sc..thorpe at exactly the time that whatever happened happened and any similarity to any e-fit is pure coincidence 8(>((
-
I was talking to G- Unit, do keep up.
You were attempting to order G-Unit around which is a rather silly thing to try to do.
-
You were attempting to order G-Unit around which is a rather silly thing to try to do.
I know, quite absurd of me to expect G-Unit to actually answer my question because to do so she would have to concede I have a point, never mind I can live with the fact that once again she has wriggled out of giving a straight answer. 8(>((
-
Dead easy. I have a group of friends who will testify that I was in Sc..thorpe at exactly the time that whatever happened happened and any similarity to any e-fit is pure coincidence 8(>((
so you say, some of us know different... 8(>((
-
so you say, some of us know different... 8(>((
Just malicious rumour put about by those jealous of my good looks and success as a celebrity chef.
-
I know, quite absurd of me to expect G-Unit to actually answer my question because to do so she would have to concede I have a point, never mind I can live with the fact that once again she has wriggled out of giving a straight answer. 8(>((
What point? That despite your certainty that the receptionist spoke English you actually have no idea whether he did or not? @)(++(*
-
whilst simultaneously knocking on every door in Portugal naturally.
Good Lord no. Where did you get that strange idea? That's what the cops is for.
Don't buy a dog and bark yourself.
(For all those who think the universe began on May 3rd 2007 the dog crack predates Gene Keela and Eddie).
-
What point? That despite your certainty that the receptionist spoke English you actually have no idea whether he did or not? @)(++(*
I do know, because I've read the files.
-
I do know, because I've read the files.
Really? What's the point of asking me then? Did Helder Luis speak English or not, do tell.
-
The actual reason is not because the McCanns were leaving but because of some imminent change in the law which meant you actually needed a shred of evidence before making someone an arguido, or something along those lines, Carana will help me out here..,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2127.msg70219#msg70219
-
So what, that he never learned to speak English.
That's something that I don't understand.
I have been frequently told that most Portuguese, particularly in the Algarve, understood / could communicate in English.
Yet this doesn't appear to be the case at the time for those involved.
-
Really? What's the point of asking me then? Did Helder Luis speak English or not, do tell.
I am of the opinion that he did, based on two small scraps of information.
He was the sole rep at OC reception from 4pm to midnight on 3 May. The main language spoken by guests was English. To have a single rep on duty who could not speak English when the principal language used to communicate with guests was English does not make sense to me.
Matthew Oldfield said he spoke to the receptionist to request a telephone call, but did not insist on it. What he did not mention is any difficulty in communicating with a receptionist in limited English.
So Helder spoke English, or he was not the only receptionist.
-
I am of the opinion that he did, based on two small scraps of information.
He was the sole rep at OC reception from 4pm to midnight on 3 May. The main language spoken by guests was English. To have a single rep on duty who could not speak English when the principal language used to communicate with guests was English does not make sense to me.
Matthew Oldfield said he spoke to the receptionist to request a telephone call, but did not insist on it. What he did not mention is any difficulty in communicating with a receptionist in limited English.
So Helder spoke English, or he was not the only receptionist.
I would find it unusual for 24-hour receptionists in a tourist resort popular with Brit tourists to not have a conversant understanding of English.
It may be less important for restaurant staff if you could just point to a menu or use sign language to point out what you wanted.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2127.msg70219#msg70219
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2127.msg70219#msg70219 In other words the rush to make the Drs McCann "suspects" in Madeleine's disappearance was because of a change in the law due to come into effect days later ... which meant there had to be evidence to enable such a step to be taken.
As we know there was none at the time nor has any been found since
It is worth bearing in mind that change in the law was in force when the present investigations constituted persons arguidos. This means that there was some evidence which justified that; the fact that we have not been told what that is is neither here nor there; in the meantime Madeleine's case is live.
I find that a hopeful situation.
-
I am of the opinion that he did, based on two small scraps of information.
He was the sole rep at OC reception from 4pm to midnight on 3 May. The main language spoken by guests was English. To have a single rep on duty who could not speak English when the principal language used to communicate with guests was English does not make sense to me.
Matthew Oldfield said he spoke to the receptionist to request a telephone call, but did not insist on it. What he did not mention is any difficulty in communicating with a receptionist in limited English.
So Helder spoke English, or he was not the only receptionist.
The receptionist on duty the following day didn't speak English, which casts doubt on your first assumption.
Matthew, who seems to have been the group errand boy, is supposed to have gone to reception twice. The receptionist didn't mention seeing him at all. Neither of them are very reliable witnesses. You have decided that Matthew's statement was correct. I will suspend judgement, as there's nothing to support his claim that he went there.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2127.msg70219#msg70219 In other words the rush to make the Drs McCann "suspects" in Madeleine's disappearance was because of a change in the law due to come into effect days later ... which meant there had to be evidence to enable such a step to be taken.
As we know there was none at the time nor has any been found since
It is worth bearing in mind that change in the law was in force when the present investigations constituted persons arguidos. This means that there was some evidence which justified that; the fact that we have not been told what that is is neither here nor there; in the meantime Madeleine's case is live.
I find that a hopeful situation.
It's not entirely clear to me.
The PJ did show the doggie film show, but I have no idea whether they were able to read the DNA results or not.
Were the McCanns able to read the forensic results or not?
-
The receptionist on duty the following day didn't speak English, which casts doubt on your first assumption.
Matthew, who seems to have been the group errand boy, is supposed to have gone to reception twice. The receptionist didn't mention seeing him at all. Neither of them are very reliable witnesses. You have decided that Matthew's statement was correct. I will suspend judgement, as there's nothing to support his claim that he went there.
You'll need to point me at the incident if you wish me to comment on it.
-
I am of the opinion that he did, based on two small scraps of information.
He was the sole rep at OC reception from 4pm to midnight on 3 May. The main language spoken by guests was English. To have a single rep on duty who could not speak English when the principal language used to communicate with guests was English does not make sense to me.
Matthew Oldfield said he spoke to the receptionist to request a telephone call, but did not insist on it. What he did not mention is any difficulty in communicating with a receptionist in limited English.
So Helder spoke English, or he was not the only receptionist.
Matt Oldfield also says in his Rog interview that the receptionist said to him that she had probably just wandered off somewhere, if I recall correctly....
-
The receptionist on duty the following day didn't speak English, which casts doubt on your first assumption.
Matthew, who seems to have been the group errand boy, is supposed to have gone to reception twice. The receptionist didn't mention seeing him at all. Neither of them are very reliable witnesses. You have decided that Matthew's statement was correct. I will suspend judgement, as there's nothing to support his claim that he went there.
Why would Matt Oldfield invent this detail?
-
You'll need to point me at the incident if you wish me to comment on it.
We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
-
We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
Which employee was Steve Carpenter referring to?
Someone, at least, understood enough English to get the internal missing child system organised.
-
It's not entirely clear to me.
The PJ did show the doggie film show, but I have no idea whether they were able to read the DNA results or not.
Were the McCanns able to read the forensic results or not?
Kate says in her book, "When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s document in the air and saying, ‘It is the dogs that are important!’".
I don't think they were allowed to see the forensic results although both were asked about them.
I think there has to be some question of whether or not there was any discussion with the Portuguese forensic scientists about the email received on the 3rd September and translated on the 4th giving details of the inconclusive nature of the results ... or did they just fire ahead regardless?
**Snip
The couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "There was never any 100 per cent match with Madeleine's DNA. Caution was expressed from the very start.
"Police were wrong to pursue this line so vigorously, and the Portuguese legal system has now accepted that there was no evidence to support it.
"I can confirm that the Portuguese police put it to Gerry as a fact that Madeleine's DNA had been found in both the apartment and the vehicle when it is now clear that the initial FSS report had made no such claim.
"You have to ask yourself what the police were trying to achieve by overstating evidence that they didn't have, nor could claim to have.
"One wonders, under those circumstances, what the motivation was."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2501055/Madeleine-McCann-Portuguese-detectives-lied-to-Gerry-McCann-about-DNA-evidence.html
-
Would it not be unusual for any police force to allow public access to forensic reports ?
-
Would it not be unusual for any police force to allow public access to forensic reports ?
If that evidence were used in a police interview then it is reasonable for the suspect to be allowed to see what they are claiming to have. Can't see a problem with that.
-
Would it not be unusual for any police force to allow public access to forensic reports ?
The video, which I presume could have been classed as 'evidence' was played to the arguidos, stopped at the juicy bits for questions to be asked, and so on.
If they were being asked about DNA forensic results ... I would imagine they or their representative were likewise entitled to have sight of them.
Their new found arguido status meant they were unfortunately no longer ordinary victims or ordinary members of the public.
-
Kate says in her book, "When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s document in the air and saying, ‘It is the dogs that are important!’".
I don't think they were allowed to see the forensic results although both were asked about them.
I think there has to be some question of whether or not there was any discussion with the Portuguese forensic scientists about the email received on the 3rd September and translated on the 4th giving details of the inconclusive nature of the results ... or did they just fire ahead regardless?
**Snip
The couple's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "There was never any 100 per cent match with Madeleine's DNA. Caution was expressed from the very start.
"Police were wrong to pursue this line so vigorously, and the Portuguese legal system has now accepted that there was no evidence to support it.
"I can confirm that the Portuguese police put it to Gerry as a fact that Madeleine's DNA had been found in both the apartment and the vehicle when it is now clear that the initial FSS report had made no such claim.
"You have to ask yourself what the police were trying to achieve by overstating evidence that they didn't have, nor could claim to have.
"One wonders, under those circumstances, what the motivation was."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2501055/Madeleine-McCann-Portuguese-detectives-lied-to-Gerry-McCann-about-DNA-evidence.html
Did Paiva (or any other officer) allow them to read Lowe's report or not? If not, why not?
-
If that evidence were used in a police interview then it is reasonable for the suspect to be allowed to see what they are claiming to have. Can't see a problem with that.
Why?
-
If that evidence were used in a police interview then it is reasonable for the suspect to be allowed to see what they are claiming to have. Can't see a problem with that.
Of course, from a police perspective, there would be a problem (with allowing the suspect to see the evidence) if the evidence says something completely different from that purported by the police (and especially if different innocent rather than different implicating or suspicious) ....
-
Would police in UK allow such a situation prior to somebody being charged with an offence?
-
Why would Matt Oldfield invent this detail?
The matter of who called the police and when was never particularly clear. I can't find anything in early statements about calling the police, it seems to make it's first appearance in the rogatory interviews, done in April 2008. Perhaps it was hard for Matthew to recall exactly what happened a year after the events? After all, he doesn't mention being sent to reception again a little while later.
Danny Collins, in his book on the case says it would have been the responsibility of the manager (Vanished - The Truth About the Disappearance of Madeline McCann). Maybe he was right and that's why the receptionist only did it when John Hill appeared.
-
We walked towards the supermarket and ended up at the 24 hour reception where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
I am having a lot of difficulty of making sense out of this statement, so help me out if I get things wrong.
The Carpenters were in FP02, just south of Casa Liliana.
The relevant bit starts on the morning of 4 May. It is after the news breaks airs on GMTV and Stephen twigs it is likely to be the McCanns.
Do we know when the GMTV news was aired? Do we know if Stephen knew about where the McCanns were lodged?
So he heads to MW reception to see if he can help. That looks like the Tapas reception, for all sorts of reasons.
He meets 2 of Gerry's (surfing) friends, seemingly waiting for news. They decide to take the long way to OC 24hr reception.
"where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese."
It might be man or men making the request and it might be employee or employees not speaking English. It doesn't seem to be Gerry's friends making the request, or if it is, it is weird phrasing. We don't know why the man or men needed or wanted to use the OC phone. We don't know why Gerry's friends and Stephen headed to OC 24hr reception. By the way, what is the universal way to communicate - me - phone? It's as simple as point at yourself, the shape your hand like a phone at your ear.
They returned to the Tapas reception, and Stephen let them know he was willing to help. As a working premise, that means the Tapas receptionist was in, and various bits of evidence point to the Tapas receptionist being able to speak English.
Stephen then heads back towards FP02, taking the route through the car park south of block 6, and interacts with Robert Murat.
Stephen then retraces his route via the car park south of block 6, and introduces Murat, as a translator, to Gerry McCann. At this time, Gerry is not in 5A, he is in 5H. Did Stephen chance upon him outside? Wasn't block 5 sealed off by this time? And if so, how did Stephen and Murat manage to persuade the GNR to let them through? Did the GNR let through anyone who wanted to see the McCanns?
This is all beginning to sound like something straight out of Textusa. You're not Textusa, by any chance?
Joking aside, what do we have?
It's triggered by the GMTV news.
"everything was very quiet and there was nobody around." Does this mean nobody up on his journey to Tapas reception? Does it mean it was quiet around block 5 i.e. the media had not yet descended? Does it mean Baptista was quiet at that time of the morning?
By the time he and Gerry's friends had gone to OC 24hr reception and returned to Tapas reception, it looks very much like the Tapas receptionist was at work No one else in that area would have been worthwhile in trying to register his offer to help.
So ... we need the time of the GMTV news, and the time the receptionist started work.
Before I expend any time or effort on this, please come back as to whether this outline is correct, or whether it needs to be amended.
-
Would police in UK allow such a situation prior to somebody being charged with an offence?
One of the many reasons for having good legal representation at any police interview. If the police were to claim to have a certain piece of evidence then they would have to reveal it if requested. Or risk that evidence being excluded if the case came to trial. The rules in Portugal are similar - if not a little more strict on evidence as a reaction to the ancien regime.
-
Would police in UK allow such a situation prior to somebody being charged with an offence?
Perhaps it has happened in the UK, but it certainly shouldn't.
And, of course, recorded interviews (UK) makes it much harder (for police) to bend the rules.
-
Would it not be unusual for any police force to allow public access to forensic reports ?
What do you mean by "public access"?
-
Anyone who was not a suspect or potential suspect
-
One of the many reasons for having good legal representation at any police interview. If the police were to claim to have a certain piece of evidence then they would have to reveal it if requested. Or risk that evidence being excluded if the case came to trial. The rules in Portugal are similar - if not a little more strict on evidence as a reaction to the ancien regime.
In PT there were interviews, and, erm "interviews"...
My question is still the same: were the McCanns able to READ the so-called forensic evidence, or not?
-
Anyone who was not a suspect or potential suspect
Was this an answer to my question?
-
I am having a lot of difficulty of making sense out of this statement, so help me out if I get things wrong.
The Carpenters were in FP02, just south of Casa Liliana.
The relevant bit starts on the morning of 4 May. It is after the news breaks airs on GMTV and Stephen twigs it is likely to be the McCanns.
Do we know when the GMTV news was aired? Do we know if Stephen knew about where the McCanns were lodged?
So he heads to MW reception to see if he can help. That looks like the Tapas reception, for all sorts of reasons.
He meets 2 of Gerry's (surfing) friends, seemingly waiting for news. They decide to take the long way to OC 24hr reception.
"where some men tried to speak to some Portuguese employees in the attempt to make a phone call, but communication became complicated because the employee did not speak English and the man did not speak Portuguese."
It might be man or men making the request and it might be employee or employees not speaking English. It doesn't seem to be Gerry's friends making the request, or if it is, it is weird phrasing. We don't know why the man or men needed or wanted to use the OC phone. We don't know why Gerry's friends and Stephen headed to OC 24hr reception. By the way, what is the universal way to communicate - me - phone? It's as simple as point at yourself, the shape your hand like a phone at your ear.
They returned to the Tapas reception, and Stephen let them know he was willing to help. As a working premise, that means the Tapas receptionist was in, and various bits of evidence point to the Tapas receptionist being able to speak English.
Stephen then heads back towards FP02, taking the route through the car park south of block 6, and interacts with Robert Murat.
Stephen then retraces his route via the car park south of block 6, and introduces Murat, as a translator, to Gerry McCann. At this time, Gerry is not in 5A, he is in 5H. Did Stephen chance upon him outside? Wasn't block 5 sealed off by this time? And if so, how did Stephen and Murat manage to persuade the GNR to let them through? Did the GNR let through anyone who wanted to see the McCanns?
This is all beginning to sound like something straight out of Textusa. You're not Textusa, by any chance?
Joking aside, what do we have?
It's triggered by the GMTV news.
"everything was very quiet and there was nobody around." Does this mean nobody up on his journey to Tapas reception? Does it mean it was quiet around block 5 i.e. the media had not yet descended? Does it mean Baptista was quiet at that time of the morning?
By the time he and Gerry's friends had gone to OC 24hr reception and returned to Tapas reception, it looks very much like the Tapas receptionist was at work No one else in that area would have been worthwhile in trying to register his offer to help.
So ... we need the time of the GMTV news, and the time the receptionist started work.
Before I expend any time or effort on this, please come back as to whether this outline is correct, or whether it needs to be amended.
To be honest the only bit that interested me was the bit about the receptionist. I find most of Carpenter's evidence quite strange. Good luck if you try to make sense of it, I got really bored when I read it. (I'm not Textusa btw lol)
-
Was this an answer to my question?
probably.
-
probably.
LOL.
I'll repeat my question: were the McCanns given the chance to read the forensic results or not?
-
Which employee was Steve Carpenter referring to?
Someone, at least, understood enough English to get the internal missing child system organised.
That was done by the Nannies. A holiday maker collecting a child from the night creche between 10.05pm and 10.15pm told them a child named Maddie had disappeared and her parents needed help looking for her. Amy Tierney got on the phone and phoned her supervisor and it went from there. The McCann group didn't set that in motion.
-
That was done by the Nannies. A holiday maker collecting a child from the night creche between 10.05pm and 10.15pm told them a child named Maddie had disappeared and her parents needed help looking for her. Amy Tierney got on the phone and phoned her supervisor and it went from there. The McCann group didn't set that in motion.
Was the holiday-maker the only person to have alerted others?
-
Was the holiday-maker the only person to have alerted others?
Quite a few people alerted others. Someone alerted the Millenium. Someone alerted the 24 hour reception. People rang each other. People told each other in the streets. There was alerting going on all over the place. The news spread like wildfire.
-
To be honest the only bit that interested me was the bit about the receptionist. I find most of Carpenter's evidence quite strange. Good luck if you try to make sense of it, I got really bored when I read it. (I'm not Textusa btw lol)
GMTV is, allegedly, attributed to 7.45am.
I would not expect the media scrum to have broken for a while after that. I would not expect many OC guests to be up and about at that time. I don't think Baptista is open at that time. So all in all, we have Carpenter's depiction of quiet.
The Tapas receptionist is Louisa Coutinho who says "and only returned at 08.00 on 4th May.
It was on this day at 08.30 when she arrived that she was informed about the disappearance by colleagues."
So, if this is correct, and if Carpenter lodged his interest with the Tapas receptionist, it was at 8.30 or later. Couple of ifs and a memory test in there.
This suggests the OC 24hr meeting occurred at a time when the day shift was at work. Another assumption, I know.
What I do know is that the OC 24hr reception had at least one staff member working there who had no requirement to be able to converse in English. He might or might not, but his duties did not require it. Carpenter did not claim the Portuguese person was actually a receptionist.
So what do we have? A somewhat odd statement that includes an incident of unidentified individuals being unable to break the English Portuguese language barrier re a phone call. And a generalised requirement that receptionists (applied to one specific receptionist) that in a resort predominantly used by English-speaking people the receptionist should be able to converse in English.
I don't see this being resolved until Helder is grilled.
-
GMTV is, allegedly, attributed to 7.45am.
I would not expect the media scrum to have broken for a while after that. I would not expect many OC guests to be up and about at that time. I don't think Baptista is open at that time. So all in all, we have Carpenter's depiction of quiet.
The Tapas receptionist is Louisa Coutinho who says "and only returned at 08.00 on 4th May.
It was on this day at 08.30 when she arrived that she was informed about the disappearance by colleagues."
So, if this is correct, and if Carpenter lodged his interest with the Tapas receptionist, it was at 8.30 or later. Couple of ifs and a memory test in there.
This suggests the OC 24hr meeting occurred at a time when the day shift was at work. Another assumption, I know.
What I do know is that the OC 24hr reception had at least one staff member working there who had no requirement to be able to converse in English. He might or might not, but his duties did not require it. Carpenter did not claim the Portuguese person was actually a receptionist.
So what do we have? A somewhat odd statement that includes an incident of unidentified individuals being unable to break the English Portuguese language barrier re a phone call. And a generalised requirement that receptionists (applied to one specific receptionist) that in a resort predominantly used by English-speaking people the receptionist should be able to converse in English.
I don't see this being resolved until Helder is grilled.
it seems to be of no importance so I don't see anyone being bothered to resolve it
-
GMTV is, allegedly, attributed to 7.45am.
I would not expect the media scrum to have broken for a while after that. I would not expect many OC guests to be up and about at that time. I don't think Baptista is open at that time. So all in all, we have Carpenter's depiction of quiet.
The Tapas receptionist is Louisa Coutinho who says "and only returned at 08.00 on 4th May.
It was on this day at 08.30 when she arrived that she was informed about the disappearance by colleagues."
So, if this is correct, and if Carpenter lodged his interest with the Tapas receptionist, it was at 8.30 or later. Couple of ifs and a memory test in there.
This suggests the OC 24hr meeting occurred at a time when the day shift was at work. Another assumption, I know.
What I do know is that the OC 24hr reception had at least one staff member working there who had no requirement to be able to converse in English. He might or might not, but his duties did not require it. Carpenter did not claim the Portuguese person was actually a receptionist.
So what do we have? A somewhat odd statement that includes an incident of unidentified individuals being unable to break the English Portuguese language barrier re a phone call. And a generalised requirement that receptionists (applied to one specific receptionist) that in a resort predominantly used by English-speaking people the receptionist should be able to converse in English.
I don't see this being resolved until Helder is grilled.
Unfortunately he wasn't, and it's a bit late now. His statement should have been noticed because he said he was phoned from the Tapas between 9.30pm and 10pm. That needed checking. They needed to check if he saw Matthew (twice) or Gerry (once). They also needed to find out how he called his boss, because he didn't use the OC landline to do that, as discussed previously.
-
The matter of who called the police and when was never particularly clear. I can't find anything in early statements about calling the police, it seems to make it's first appearance in the rogatory interviews, done in April 2008. Perhaps it was hard for Matthew to recall exactly what happened a year after the events? After all, he doesn't mention being sent to reception again a little while later.
Danny Collins, in his book on the case says it would have been the responsibility of the manager (Vanished - The Truth About the Disappearance of Madeline McCann). Maybe he was right and that's why the receptionist only did it when John Hill appeared.
So, is it your contention that none of the group thought about calling the police then?
ETA: if you're being charitable and allowing for Matt's misremembering exactly when he went to chase up the police that still leaves us with the fact that the receptionist was clearly able to understand and speak English, unless you think he's misremembering that detail also?
-
Quite a few people alerted others. Someone alerted the Millenium. Someone alerted the 24 hour reception. People rang each other. People told each other in the streets. There was alerting going on all over the place. The news spread like wildfire.
Hardly surprising.
If someone, whoever it was, hadn't alerted the reception and asked the receptionist (who presumably spoke fluent Portuguese) to explain the situation to the police and where to come to), how long would it have taken for the missing child protocol to be engaged?
-
Hardly surprising.
If someone, whoever it was, hadn't alerted the reception and asked the receptionist (who presumably spoke fluent Portuguese) to explain the situation to the police and where to come to), how long would it have taken for the missing child protocol to be engaged?
You don't know when and why he called the police then? It was nothing at all to do with the missing child protocol which MW staff began at around 10.20pm. The GNR were called at 10.41pm. May I respectfully suggest you read the PJ files?
-
Unfortunately he wasn't, and it's a bit late now. His statement should have been noticed because he said he was phoned from the Tapas between 9.30pm and 10pm. That needed checking. They needed to check if he saw Matthew (twice) or Gerry (once). They also needed to find out how he called his boss, because he didn't use the OC landline to do that, as discussed previously.
Agreed.
-
Some statements almost tally but can be an hour out.
Unless there is a time warp running through PdL, why didn't the PJ check this out at the time?