-
An open question.
-
i dont because it doesnt make any sense also why would a abductor take a almost 4 year old and not a 2 year old that wouldnt remmeber anythinng?
-
because they want the McCanns to have dunnit, god knows why but let's face it - many "sceptics" decided they didn't like the look of the parents from day one and so want to have their dislike confirmed with a conviction for something, anything.
-
because they want the McCanns to have dunnit, god knows why but let's face it - many "sceptics" decided they didn't like the look of the parents from day one and so want to have their dislike confirmed with a conviction for something, anything.
Pathetic but predictable reply.
Now, let's start with the simple, the apartment was locked, then changed to being unlocked.
-
Pathetic but predictable reply.
Now, let's start with the simple, the apartment was locked, then changed to being unlocked.
they said they didnt have mobile phones on that holiday but police traced calls etc
-
they said they didnt have mobile phones on that holiday but police traced calls etc
No they didn't.
-
Pathetic but predictable reply.
Now, let's start with the simple, the apartment was locked, then changed to being unlocked.
Ooh yes lets. Lets keep on having the same pathetic argument every day for the rest of our lives because we have nothing better else to do.
-
i dont because it doesnt make any sense also why would a abductor take a almost 4 year old and not a 2 year old that wouldnt remmeber anythinng?
If the idea was that one had lost a 3 year old, then the ideal replacement would be a 3 year old.
Just to clarify, 'lost' here does not mean innocently lost. There is more likely to be, in this scenario, something dark in the origin.
In this purely hypothetical scenario, the replacement would be 3, and probably a small 3. May I ask how many memories you have from when you were early 3?
Madeleine was on the MW documentation as being 3 when she was to return home. And she seems to have been a petite 3, not a big 3. Therefore an ideal fit.
All purely hypothetical, of course (except the age and build).
-
If the idea was that one had lost a 3 year old, then the ideal replacement would be a 3 year old.
Just to clarify, 'lost' here does not mean innocently lost. There is more likely to be, in this scenario, something dark in the origin.
In this purely hypothetical scenario, the replacement would be 3, and probably a small 3. May I ask how many memories you have from when you were early 3?
Madeleine was on the MW documentation as being 3 when she was to return home. And she seems to have been a petite 3, not a big 3. Therefore an ideal fit.
All purely hypothetical, of course (except the age and build).
i have no memories from being 3 most people dont because the human brain develops most real memories after 5 or 6 so maddie wouldnt remmeber anything at all if she was alive
-
Ooh yes lets. Lets keep on having the same pathetic argument every day for the rest of our lives because we have nothing better else to do.
It's not pathetic and it is the truth.
Now Alfred , locked then unlocked, which one is the lie ?
They both can't be true, can they.
-
If the idea was that one had lost a 3 year old, then the ideal replacement would be a 3 year old.
Just to clarify, 'lost' here does not mean innocently lost. There is more likely to be, in this scenario, something dark in the origin.
In this purely hypothetical scenario, the replacement would be 3, and probably a small 3. May I ask how many memories you have from when you were early 3?
Madeleine was on the MW documentation as being 3 when she was to return home. And she seems to have been a petite 3, not a big 3. Therefore an ideal fit.
All purely hypothetical, of course (except the age and build).
Surely, in that case, one of the twins would also have been ideal.
A bereaved parent looking for a replacement wouldn't necessarily be too choosy
-
No they didn't.
So what did they say Eleanor ?
-
So what did they say Eleanor ?
i clearly remmeber the PJ traced calls from that night fromthe tapas 7 didnt they??
-
Surely, in that case, one of the twins would also have been ideal.
A bereaved parent looking for a replacement wouldn't necessarily be too choosy
Precisely.
A younger child would be easier to carry, and we are told they were sleeping heavily.
The spurious arguments as to taking an older child don't hold any water.
-
Surely, in that case, one of the twins would also have been ideal.
A bereaved parent looking for a replacement wouldn't necessarily be too choosy
I agree on this point, in this hypothetical scenario.
I have wondered for a while, assuming a pre-planned abduction scenario, whether Madeleine was THE target as opposed to simply A suitable target.
If Amelie had disappeared that night, I dare say we would now be discussing the disappearance of Amelie McCann.
-
i have no memories from being 3 most people dont because the human brain develops most real memories after 5 or 6 so maddie wouldnt remmeber anything at all if she was alive
I think she might. I certainly remember odd things from being three years old, but only pertinent when circumstances arise. I suppose that this depends on the quality of one's brain. Some of us are born with more active brains than others. And some of us remember traumas.
-
I do believe that Madeleine was abducted.
I would ask that the title of this thread be changed to some people.
I do not know anyone who does not believe that Madeleine was abducted.
I accept that some do, therefore the heading should be qualified.
-
Surely, in that case, one of the twins would also have been ideal.
A bereaved parent looking for a replacement wouldn't necessarily be too choosy
They might have to be if they wished to present an abducted child as their own.
-
So what did they say Eleanor ?
They certainly didn't say that they had no cell phones with them on holiday. Even you know that.
-
i have no memories from being 3 most people dont because the human brain develops most real memories after 5 or 6 so maddie wouldnt remmeber anything at all if she was alive
I have memories from being two years old, and they stem from traumatic events. It was years before I realised what the memories related to, though. Until then all I had was a memory of a couple of things which I occasionally puzzled over. If Madeleine were alive and with new parents she may have peculiar memories from her past, but not know why. If she were told now that they weren't her birth parents and she went to live with them when she was three, she would then be able to 'join the dots' as I did. (My experience was adoption at the age of two).
-
i clearly remmeber the PJ traced calls from that night fromthe tapas 7 didnt they??
So? When did they say that they had no cell phones? I think you need to qualify your statement.
-
I have memories from being two years old, and they stem from traumatic events. It was years before I realised what the memories related to, though. Until then all I had was a memory of a couple of things which I occasionally puzzled over. If Madeleine were alive and with new parents she may have peculiar memories from her past, but not know why. If she were told now that they weren't her birth parents and she went to live with them when she was three, she would then be able to 'join the dots' as I did. (My experience was adoption at the age of two).
yep i understand ..... do you get what im saying though?? most humans cant remmeber much from being a toddler and a syou say with trauma they are not happy memories some mcann supporters have said over the years maddie will basically leep into gerry and kates arms if she is alive she wouldnt know them at all....
-
they said they didnt have mobile phones on that holiday but police traced calls etc
If you really believe what you have just claimed - then that on its own should give people an idea why some people don't believe the McCanns. You obviously don't realise that what you claim is totally untrue - and belongs with the scores of other myths lies and disinformation which have been introduced into this case by sceptics and are still believed by many people - and IMO is a major reason why some people don't believe the McCanns.
Unfortunately for some bizarre reason some people appear to WANT to believe the myths etc and so simply ignore anything which shows them to be false - rather than acknowledge that they got it wrong. Weird.
AIMO.
-
I have memories from being two years old, and they stem from traumatic events. It was years before I realised what the memories related to, though. Until then all I had was a memory of a couple of things which I occasionally puzzled over. If Madeleine were alive and with new parents she may have peculiar memories from her past, but not know why. If she were told now that they weren't her birth parents and she went to live with them when she was three, she would then be able to 'join the dots' as I did. (My experience was adoption at the age of two).
Without wishing to pick into the details, how old were you when you were adopted?
I have two memories from when I was perhaps 2 or younger. Neither would allow me to work out I was not with my biological parents.
-
If you really believe what you have just claimed - then that on its own should give people an idea why some people don't believe the McCanns. You obviously don't realise that what you claim is totally untrue - and belongs with the scores of other myths lies and disinformation which have been introduced into this case by sceptics and are still believed by many people - and IMO is a major reason why some people don't believe the McCanns.
Unfortunately for some bizarre reason some people appear to WANT to believe the myths etc and so simply ignore anything which shows them to be false - rather than acknowledge that they got it wrong. Weird.
AIMO.
Gerry couldn't even remember if he brought his mobile phone with him. That's even more unbelievable especially when no call log records were found the next day by the PJ @)(++(*
"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
And they left it unlocked allegedly!
-
I have memories from being two years old, and they stem from traumatic events. It was years before I realised what the memories related to, though. Until then all I had was a memory of a couple of things which I occasionally puzzled over. If Madeleine were alive and with new parents she may have peculiar memories from her past, but not know why. If she were told now that they weren't her birth parents and she went to live with them when she was three, she would then be able to 'join the dots' as I did. (My experience was adoption at the age of two).
Absolutely correct. But mostly to do with a trauma of some kind. And if waking up one morning with a different set of parents isn't a trauma, then God knows what is.
I do so hope that your experience was a good one. Mine were mostly to do with The War and my mother being mortally ill, which went on for some time, so there is quite a lot that I remember about being three years old.
-
An open question.
It is all really terribly simple. Please note the date on the following article.
Within hours of Madeleine's disappearance the investigation was already using the media to malign her parents.
Because the source seemed to be of the highest integrity ... it was believed. Some people continue to believe it. Just as some people continue to believe the subsequent lies and propaganda which continued to be disseminated from the same source during Goncalo Amaral's tenure on the case.
"Esta é uma história muito mal contada"
"This is a verypoorly told story"
05 DE MAIO DE 2007
JOSÉ MANUEL OLIVEIRA e PAULA MARTINHEIRA
**Snip
O desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann, a criança inglesa de três anos que se encontrava de férias em Lagos, "é uma história muito mal contada", confidenciou ao DN fonte da Polícia Judiciária de Portimão.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the British child of three who was on holiday in Lagos, "is a very badly told story," confided the source DN of the Judicial Police of Portimão. The affirmation reflects the doubts of the authorities in the face of testimony "confused" expressed yesterday by witnesses throughout the day.
**Snip
Os pais, que foram levados a meio da manhã para a PJ de Portimão, recusaram-se a falar aos jornalistas, mas a órgãos de informação ingleses avançaram a ideia de que o apartamento teria sido arrombado.
The parents, who were taken mid-morning for the PJ in Portimão, refused to speak to reporters, but British media outlets have advanced the idea that the apartment had been broken into. However, the leaders of the village and the GNR guarantee "not be any evidence of tampering."
http://www.dn.pt/arquivo/2007/interior/esta-e-uma-historia-muito-mal-contada-657013.html
-
Surely, in that case, one of the twins would also have been ideal.
A bereaved parent looking for a replacement wouldn't necessarily be too choosy
Perhaps neither fitted the age or the photograph on the passport.
-
yep i understand ..... do you get what im saying though?? most humans cant remmeber much from being a toddler and a syou say with trauma they are not happy memories some mcann supporters have said over the years maddie will basically leep into gerry and kates arms if she is alive she wouldnt know them at all....
I find it difficult to believe that anyone could be that naive after all the years that have passed.
-
Despite Kate telling us in the book that they were aware not to touch things, they interfered with the only piece of evidence - the open shutter and windows. So important was it that that's how Kate 'knew' immediately that Madeleine had been abducted. So vital that it eliminated (for her) any possibility of woke and wandered. So important because she knew Madeleine couldn't have opened them, so someone else must have.
Not only was that important evidence interfered with, within hours relatives and friends were convinced that the locked apartment had been broken into by someone forcing, breaking or jemmying the shutters. They didn't invent that, they were told it by the McCanns.
-
Despite Kate telling us in the book that they were aware not to touch things, they interfered with the only piece of evidence - the open shutter and windows. So important was it that that's how Kate 'knew' immediately that Madeleine had been abducted. So vital that it eliminated (for her) any possibility of woke and wandered. So important because she knew Madeleine couldn't have opened them, so someone else must have.
Not only was that important evidence interfered with, within hours relatives and friends were convinced that the locked apartment had been broken into by someone forcing, breaking or jemmying the shutters. They didn't invent that, they were told it by the McCanns.
kates fingerprints were found on them right? wiping away any crime fingerprints etc if there were any
-
I find it difficult to believe that anyone could be that naive after all the years that have passed.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone has ever said that in the first place.
-
It is all really terribly simple. Please note the date on the following article.
Within hours of Madeleine's disappearance the investigation was already using the media to malign her parents.
Because the source seemed to be of the highest integrity ... it was believed. Some people continue to believe it. Just as some people continue to believe the subsequent lies and propaganda which continued to be disseminated from the same source during Goncalo Amaral's tenure on the case.
"Esta é uma história muito mal contada"
"This is a verypoorly told story"
05 DE MAIO DE 2007
JOSÉ MANUEL OLIVEIRA e PAULA MARTINHEIRA
**Snip
O desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann, a criança inglesa de três anos que se encontrava de férias em Lagos, "é uma história muito mal contada", confidenciou ao DN fonte da Polícia Judiciária de Portimão.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the British child of three who was on holiday in Lagos, "is a very badly told story," confided the source DN of the Judicial Police of Portimão. The affirmation reflects the doubts of the authorities in the face of testimony "confused" expressed yesterday by witnesses throughout the day.
**Snip
Os pais, que foram levados a meio da manhã para a PJ de Portimão, recusaram-se a falar aos jornalistas, mas a órgãos de informação ingleses avançaram a ideia de que o apartamento teria sido arrombado.
The parents, who were taken mid-morning for the PJ in Portimão, refused to speak to reporters, but British media outlets have advanced the idea that the apartment had been broken into. However, the leaders of the village and the GNR guarantee "not be any evidence of tampering."
http://www.dn.pt/arquivo/2007/interior/esta-e-uma-historia-muito-mal-contada-657013.html
I hate to disappoint you, but people can think for themselves, read the files, and state an abduction never happened.
P.S. using different fonts and colours won't change that.
-
I find it difficult to believe that anyone has ever said that in the first place.
That too, but some people do say strange things.
-
Gerry couldn't even remember if he brought his mobile phone with him. That's even more unbelievable especially when no call log records were found the next day by the PJ @)(++(*
"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
And they left it unlocked allegedly!
My post was in reply to this claim made by Carly.:-
Quote
they said they didnt have mobile phones on that holiday
Unquote
Your ref to Gerry's comments re his mobile would appear to confirm that what Carly claimed is completely untrue - which of course it is. Maybe your post should have been in response to hers and not mine?
-
That too, but some people do say strange things.
Tell me about it.
-
I hate to disappoint you, but people can think for themselves, read the files, and state an abduction never happened.
P.S. using different fonts and colours won't change that.
Is it your opinion that propaganda doesn't work??
In my opinion "Esta é uma história muito mal contada" is a perfect example of the art ... the mere fact that it is still a sceptic shibboleth gives proof of that.
Particularly as no lay person had access to the files at that time to "think for themselves" they were still being fed what to think. Unfortunately some have never got over it.
-
Without wishing to pick into the details, how old were you when you were adopted?
I have two memories from when I was perhaps 2 or younger. Neither would allow me to work out I was not with my biological parents.
I was two, but I can't remember my exact age atm. The memories had nothing to do with my previous surroundings before the adoption, they were connected to the journey I was taken on when I was handed over to my adoptive parents. They stayed with me because it was a big car with slippery leather seats which I kept sliding off, and the lady with me told me off and scared me. Years later my Mother said I was brought in a taxi by the District nurse, and I joined the dots. In those days car or taxi journeys were extremely rare, of course.
-
I do believe that Madeleine was abducted.
I would ask that the title of this thread be changed to some people.
I do not know anyone who does not believe that Madeleine was abducted.
I accept that some do, therefore the heading should be qualified.
So I am expected to believe you don't know anyone who questions abduction.
However, when I say the reverse, bar one person, I am quizzed over it.
Double standards or what.
-
Is it your opinion that propaganda doesn't work??
In my opinion "Esta é uma história muito mal contada" is a perfect example of the art ... the mere fact that it is still a sceptic shibboleth gives proof of that.
Particularly as no lay person had access to the files at that time to "think for themselves" they were still being fed what to think. Unfortunately some have never got over it.
You mean your and other mccanns supporters propaganda ?
It won't wash with me.
-
I find it difficult to believe that anyone could be that naive after all the years that have passed.
That's because what Carly is saying is not true
-
So I am expected to believe you don't know anyone who questions abduction.
However, when I say the reverse, bar one person, I am quizzed over it.
Double standards or what.
I really don't mind whether you believe me or not.
I know folk who had doubts at the time, but not now and that includes a DC with Police Scotland who is amazed that anyone can still view the McCanns as suspects.
-
You mean your and other mccanns supporters propaganda ?
It won't wash with me.
"Esta é uma história muito mal contada" was on the newstands on the 5th of May ... the source of which, questioning that Madeleine had been abducted, was the Policia Judiciaria.
By definition the propagandists were therefore the Policia Judiciaria. That the propaganda was effective can be judged by the title of this thread.
-
I really don't mind whether you believe me or not.
I know folk who had doubts at the time, but not now and that includes a DC with Police Scotland who is amazed that anyone can still view the McCanns as suspects.
Likewise, I know a few police officers who don't believe the mccanns version of events.
So what next ?
The mccanns have changed their stories....................
-
"Esta é uma história muito mal contada" was on the newstands on the 5th of May ... the source of which, questioning that Madeleine had been abducted, was the Policia Judiciaria.
By definition the propagandists were therefore the Policia Judiciaria. That the propaganda was effective can be judged by the title of this thread.
Utter and complete rubbish.
I did not read the Portuguese headlines at the time.
-
Utter and complete rubbish.
I did not read the Portuguese headlines at the time.
either did i i cant speak portugese
-
Fair enough. I can't top that . I have only spoken to one Detective Constable.
He is a family member. I've never had the opportunity to discuss this case with a few police officers.
Sorry this was a reply to Stephen.
-
Absolutely correct. But mostly to do with a trauma of some kind. And if waking up one morning with a different set of parents isn't a trauma, then God knows what is.
I do so hope that your experience was a good one. Mine were mostly to do with The War and my mother being mortally ill, which went on for some time, so there is quite a lot that I remember about being three years old.
I would say I had post traumatic stress for years, so not good, no. On the plus side, I am very self-aware, I know myself inside out. On the minus side no carefree childhood for me.
-
Fair enough. I can't top that . I have only spoken to one Detective Constable.
He is a family member. I've never had the opportunity to discuss this case with a few police officers.
Sorry this was a reply to Stephen.
I wasn't trying to top you talking to a DC.
I merely stated I have discussed the case with a few police officers.
-
either did i i cant speak portugese
Really? But you expect The McCanns to be able.
-
It is all really terribly simple. Please note the date on the following article.
Within hours of Madeleine's disappearance the investigation was already using the media to malign her parents.
Because the source seemed to be of the highest integrity ... it was believed. Some people continue to believe it. Just as some people continue to believe the subsequent lies and propaganda which continued to be disseminated from the same source during Goncalo Amaral's tenure on the case.
"Esta é uma história muito mal contada"
"This is a verypoorly told story"
05 DE MAIO DE 2007
JOSÉ MANUEL OLIVEIRA e PAULA MARTINHEIRA
**Snip
O desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann, a criança inglesa de três anos que se encontrava de férias em Lagos, "é uma história muito mal contada", confidenciou ao DN fonte da Polícia Judiciária de Portimão.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the British child of three who was on holiday in Lagos, "is a very badly told story," confided the source DN of the Judicial Police of Portimão. The affirmation reflects the doubts of the authorities in the face of testimony "confused" expressed yesterday by witnesses throughout the day.
**Snip
Os pais, que foram levados a meio da manhã para a PJ de Portimão, recusaram-se a falar aos jornalistas, mas a órgãos de informação ingleses avançaram a ideia de que o apartamento teria sido arrombado.
The parents, who were taken mid-morning for the PJ in Portimão, refused to speak to reporters, but British media outlets have advanced the idea that the apartment had been broken into. However, the leaders of the village and the GNR guarantee "not be any evidence of tampering."
http://www.dn.pt/arquivo/2007/interior/esta-e-uma-historia-muito-mal-contada-657013.html
Not quite as simple as some think. This article was dated the day before the one above.
The Sun, 4th May 2007
"They were all sound asleep, windows shut, shutters shut," said Trish Cameron, Madeleine's aunt. "Kate went back at 10pm to check, the front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jammied open, and Madeleine was missing."
John Hill, the manager at the British-run Mark Warner resort, said Madeleine's parents and twin siblings were distraught and that sniffer dogs had been brought in to comb the resort, while border police in Portugal and Spain had been alerted to her disappearance.
He denied reports that the windows to the apartment had been forced open, while another spokesman said a set of French windows had been left unlocked.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/04-05-07-Times-Transcript.htm
-
Child is abducted => paths of abductor and child crossing => child got out or abductor got in.
Parents say no way child can get out (?) => abductor must have got in.
Police and MW manager (J Hill?) say there was no evidence of break in => abductor used a front door key and exited the same way OR:
The abductor gained entry and exit through patio door, very tidily closing the door and safety gate after himself on the way out OR:
The abductor was Zeus pulling the golden rain trick again.
“Right ma’am nothing suspicious here”
-
people don't believe in abduction because they do not understand the evidence
-
Child is abducted => paths of abductor and child crossing => child got out or abductor got in.
Parents say no way child can get out (?) => abductor must have got in.
Police and MW manager (J Hill?) say there was no evidence of break in => abductor used a front door key and exited the same way OR:
The abductor gained entry and exit through patio door, very tidily closing the door and safety gate after himself on the way out OR:
The abductor was Zeus pulling the golden rain trick again.
“Right ma’am nothing suspicious here”
Yes the abductor got in and that may explain why it was unlocked 8(>(( Who do those hidden efits look like again &%+((£
-
Utter and complete rubbish.
I did not read the Portuguese headlines at the time.
You didn't have to ... all you had to do was to wait for the English tabloids to print the same stories from the same sources.
For information I refer you to :-
WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID HAMILTON PILDITCH
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-David-Pilditch.pdf
which explains in great detail exactly how and from where the information printed in the British tabloids was obtained.
-
Yes the abductor got in and that may explain why it was unlocked 8(>(( Who do those hidden efits look like again &%+((£
Very like a person who is under house arrest at the moment charged with a variety of criminal offences ... and who had enough information about the case to write one of the first books about it.
-
Very like a person who is under house arrest at the moment charged with a variety of criminal offences ... and who had enough information about the case to write one of the first books about it.
Was he named by any witness?
-
You didn't have to ... all you had to do was to wait for the English tabloids to print the same stories from the same sources.
For information I refer you to :-
WITNESS STATEMENT OF DAVID HAMILTON PILDITCH
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-David-Pilditch.pdf
which explains in great detail exactly how and from where the information printed in the British tabloids was obtained.
You still don't understand Brietta.
I don't take tabloids as accurate sources of information, far from it.
A friend of mine helped search for Madeleine, the night she disappeared.
I also know a family who arrived in PDL a week later after Madeleine disappeared. They had friends already there, who witnessed the aftermath of what happened, and the blanket press coverage which ensued in the days after.
There is more as regards the latter, but at best secondary information.
-
Was he named by any witness?
Had any of the witnesses been exposed to blanket news and television coverage of this spot on lookalike on a daily basis over a period of months? Had any of the witnesses ever seen his photograph or know anything about him?
By the way ... I am not suggesting that this lookalike had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance as apart from the remarkable resemblance there is no evidence to suggest he is indeed the lookalike.
Pity you do not follow the same standard.
-
You still don't understand Brietta.
I don't take tabloids as accurate sources of information, far from it.
A friend of mine helped search for Madeleine, the night she disappeared.
I also know a family who arrived in PDL a week later after Madeleine disappeared. They had friends already there, who witnessed the aftermath of what happened, and the blanket press coverage which ensued in the days after.
There is more as regards the latter, but at best secondary information.
Your opinion is informed.
I have read some of those sources and watched those videos too ... and they have been instrumental in forming my opinion too.
There is no doubt that from the beginning the Drs McCann were traduced ... there is no doubt as to the source of that vilification. There is no doubt that whether believed or not it has become a convenient peg on which to hang a smear campaign.
From the 5th May 2007 ... right through to 10th February 2016 ~ takes some motivation.
Prior to any investigation into all the circumstances which could have led to Madeleine's disappearance ... the Policia Judiciaria had decided their theory of death and concealment and unsubtly were rubbishing the abduction theory.
Operation Grange and the Policia Judiciaria had to go back to the very beginning before they could start their investigations ... can you guess what theory it is they are still actively pursuing and why they have interviewed suspects?
-
Had any of the witnesses been exposed to blanket news and television coverage of this spot on lookalike on a daily basis over a period of months? Had any of the witnesses ever seen his photograph or know anything about him?
By the way ... I am not suggesting that this lookalike had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance as apart from the remarkable resemblance there is no evidence to suggest he is indeed the lookalike.
Pity you do not follow the same standard.
There's so much more that's why the timeline is key.
-
yep i understand ..... do you get what im saying though?? most humans cant remmeber much from being a toddler and a syou say with trauma they are not happy memories some mcann supporters have said over the years maddie will basically leep into gerry and kates arms if she is alive she wouldnt know them at all....
Please give a link to anyone who has said that Madeleine will leap into Gerry and Kates arms, I have never heard anyone say that.
I really find it rather offensive that you and others think that people who have hope that Madeleine is still alive, have no idea that she may be going through a traumatic experience and if found will no doubt be mentally damaged by it.
The McCann's said years ago that this may be the case and that they would somehow get through it, they will no doubt be given trauma specialists to help them.
No doubt Madeleine wouldn't go back to the McCann's straight away, there would be a slow readjustment period which she would have to go through.
Why do you think that people who think the McCann's are innocent and that there is a slim chance Madeleine is still alive are too stupid to know all this?
-
Yes the abductor got in and that may explain why it was unlocked 8(>(( Who do those hidden efits look like again &%+((£
'
Amaral's mate isn't it. &%+((£
-
You still don't understand Brietta.
I don't take tabloids as accurate sources of information, far from it.
A friend of mine helped search for Madeleine, the night she disappeared.
I also know a family who arrived in PDL a week later after Madeleine disappeared. They had friends already there, who witnessed the aftermath of what happened, and the blanket press coverage which ensued in the days after.
There is more as regards the latter, but at best secondary information.
As members of the public they wouldn't have been witness to anything going on in 5a.
-
It is quite laughable that some think the McCann's are guilty because a relative said she had been told the door was wide open and the windows jimmied.
The door which was the bedroom door was opened more that the McCann's usually left it, and the shutters were up which the McCann's found could be opened from the outside, and so they had been forced up, as they were supposed to be raised from inside 5a. The fact is that this relative who said that Gerry at times was hard to understand as he was crying so much, used different words to express what she had heard.
This is taken as the MCCANN'S MUST BE GUILTY laughable.
-
It is quite laughable that some think the McCann's are guilty because a relative said she had been told the door was wide open and the windows jimmied.
The door which was the bedroom door was opened more that the McCann's usually left it, and the shutters were up which the McCann's found could be opened from the outside, and so they had been forced up, as they were supposed to be raised from inside 5a. The fact is that this relative who said that Gerry at times was hard to understand as he was crying so much, used different words to express what she had heard.
This is taken as the MCCANN'S MUST BE GUILTY laughable.
No doubt the McCanns are having a quiet chortle about it at this very moment .
-
The forum is packed with all the details of why people don't believe the McCann's story of abduction. Those who doubt them are not part of a 'group', they are individuals who have reached their conclusions alone. They are not Amaral fans and don't subscribe to his theory. They are not fans of the MSM and take everything they say with a huge pinch of salt. They're normal people with doubts, and they have provided good reasons for their doubts.
On the other hand are a group of people who believe the McCann's story of abduction. The forum is not packed with lots of details showing why they believe it. They bolster their belief with one fact - what DCI Redwood said in 2013. Many of their posts seem to be made with the intention of discrediting the original investigation, particularly it's co-ordinator. Others are aimed at a UK dog handler and they verge on libel imo. Their answers to those who doubt seem mostly designed to ridicule them in the hope that will nullify their arguments.
-
The forum is packed with all the details of why people don't believe the McCann's story of abduction. Those who doubt them are not part of a 'group', they are individuals who have reached their conclusions alone. They are not Amaral fans and don't subscribe to his theory. They are not fans of the MSM and take everything they say with a huge pinch of salt. They're normal people with doubts, and they have provided good reasons for their doubts.
On the other hand are a group of people who believe the McCann's story of abduction. The forum is not packed with lots of details showing why they believe it. They bolster their belief with one fact - what DCI Redwood said in 2013. Many of their posts seem to be made with the intention of discrediting the original investigation, particularly it's co-ordinator. Others are aimed at a UK dog handler and they verge on libel imo. Their answers to those who doubt seem mostly designed to ridicule them in the hope that will nullify their arguments.
so sceptics are not part of a group but supporters are...do you realise how silly that sounds
-
The forum is packed with all the details of why people don't believe the McCann's story of abduction. Those who doubt them are not part of a 'group', they are individuals who have reached their conclusions alone. They are not Amaral fans and don't subscribe to his theory. They are not fans of the MSM and take everything they say with a huge pinch of salt. They're normal people with doubts, and they have provided good reasons for their doubts.
On the other hand are a group of people who believe the McCann's story of abduction. The forum is not packed with lots of details showing why they believe it. They bolster their belief with one fact - what DCI Redwood said in 2013. Many of their posts seem to be made with the intention of discrediting the original investigation, particularly it's co-ordinator. Others are aimed at a UK dog handler and they verge on libel imo. Their answers to those who doubt seem mostly designed to ridicule them in the hope that will nullify their arguments.
I will tell you why I believe the McCann's are innocent, it is because there is no way they could have discovered Madeleine dead, cleared up, decided what to do, hide the body all in the space of time given.
I have pointed out what I think many times.
There is also no where the McCann's could have hidden Madeleine's body where she couldn't be discovered, they didn't know the area they were in.
There is no way Kate McCann was putting on an act when she found Madeleine as witnesses have pointed out how she behave after the event.
Amaral's theory is flawed, he misinterpreted the DNA results, nothing was found to say that Madeleine did die in 5a and the idea that the McCann's took Madeleine's body from the safe place where no one had discovered her and transported her in a car to somewhere else is I'm sorry just ridiculous.
-
so sceptics are not part of a group but supporters are...do you realise how silly that sounds
I presume you mean this to be droll rather than serious considering the last sentence of the post to which it is your response.
-
It is quite laughable that some think the McCann's are guilty because a relative said she had been told the door was wide open and the windows jimmied.
The door which was the bedroom door was opened more that the McCann's usually left it, and the shutters were up which the McCann's found could be opened from the outside, and so they had been forced up, as they were supposed to be raised from inside 5a. The fact is that this relative who said that Gerry at times was hard to understand as he was crying so much, used different words to express what she had heard.
This is taken as the MCCANN'S MUST BE GUILTY laughable.
The above are one part of the many problems with the story, not the totality. The problems create doubt not guilt
I find it laughable that people are ignorant of the fact that four people were told during the night of 3rd/4th May that the apartment had been broken into. People were woken up in the middle of the night to be told. They were told the front door was lying open, not the bedroom door.
Perhaps you can explain who moved that bedroom door between 8.30pm and 9.05pm? It wasn't crecheman, No-one was hiding in the apartment during Gerry's visit. It is said to have moved again by the time Matt checked. Who did that? It wasn't the 'abductor because the shutters were closed. Don't congratulate yourself on your cleverness unless you can explain that without resorting to opinion or imagination.
-
I will tell you why I believe the McCann's are innocent, it is because there is no way they could have discovered Madeleine dead, cleared up, decided what to do, hide the body all in the space of time given.
I have pointed out what I think many times.
There is also no where the McCann's could have hidden Madeleine's body where she couldn't be discovered, they didn't know the area they were in.
There is no way Kate McCann was putting on an act when she found Madeleine as witnesses have pointed out how she behave after the event.
Amaral's theory is flawed, he misinterpreted the DNA results, nothing was found to say that Madeleine did die in 5a and the idea that the McCann's took Madeleine's body from the safe place where no one had discovered her and transported her in a car to somewhere else is I'm sorry just ridiculous.
Thank you for a reasoned response, Lace. I will answer each point with my thoughts.
I don't know what time you are assuming the child could have died or why there would be a need to clear up. As to decision making, again, it depends on the time available and the people involved. Some people think very clearly in an emergency and can quickly evaluate the situation and make decisions. Not everyone falls apart.
You are assuming the McCanns didn't know the area. They could have been very familiar with it, they had been there for six days and did a lot of running around the area in that time. You may be right, but it's not a definite.
Kate's friends found her reaction terrible, but there's no way they could know what caused it. Naturally, given the circumstances, they assumed it was the abduction of her daughter.
I do not subscribe to Amaral's theory, so that's not relevant for me.
-
I presume you mean this to be droll rather serious considering the last sentence of the post to which it is your response.
Either that or (s)he just proved my point 8(>((
-
The above are one part of the many problems with the story, not the totality. The problems create doubt not guilt
I find it laughable that people are ignorant of the fact that four people were told during the night of 3rd/4th May that the apartment had been broken into. People were woken up in the middle of the night to be told. They were told the front door was lying open, not the bedroom door.
Perhaps you can explain who moved that bedroom door between 8.30pm and 9.05pm? It wasn't crecheman, No-one was hiding in the apartment during Gerry's visit. It is said to have moved again by the time Matt checked. Who did that? It wasn't the 'abductor because the shutters were closed. Don't congratulate yourself on your cleverness unless you can explain that without resorting to opinion or imagination.
Are you stating as a fact that the abductor was not hiding in 5a when Gerry did his check?
It is quite possible that the abductor entered the children's bedroom after Matthew did his check, Matthew listened outside the children's window. The abductor may have thought that he was safe for half an hour after Matthew left. He was then disturbed by Gerry, he could easily have hidden in the parents bedroom or behind the sofa in the lounge area, Gerry wouldn't be expecting anyone to be in 5a so he wouldn't be looking for anyone hiding. Or the abductor could easily have slipped out through the front door when he heard Gerry coming.
Then when Gerry left, he opened the window so if he was disturbed suddenly he had a way of escape.
-
Are you stating as a fact that the abductor was not hiding in 5a when Gerry did his check?
It is quite possible that the abductor entered the children's bedroom after Matthew did his check, Matthew listened outside the children's window. The abductor may have thought that he was safe for half an hour after Matthew left. He was then disturbed by Gerry, he could easily have hidden in the parents bedroom or behind the sofa in the lounge area, Gerry wouldn't be expecting anyone to be in 5a so he wouldn't be looking for anyone hiding. Or the abductor could easily have slipped out through the front door when he heard Gerry coming.
Then when Gerry left, he opened the window so if he was disturbed suddenly he had a way of escape.
Or abductorman could purely be a figment of your imagination.
-
Thank you for a reasoned response, Lace. I will answer each point with my thoughts.
I don't know what time you are assuming the child could have died or why there would be a need to clear up. As to decision making, again, it depends on the time available and the people involved. Some people think very clearly in an emergency and can quickly evaluate the situation and make decisions. Not everyone falls apart.
You are assuming the McCanns didn't know the area. They could have been very familiar with it, they had been there for six days and did a lot of running around the area in that time. You may be right, but it's not a definite.
Kate's friends found her reaction terrible, but there's no way they could know what caused it. Naturally, given the circumstances, they assumed it was the abduction of her daughter.
I do not subscribe to Amaral's theory, so that's not relevant for me.
I am referring to the time when either Gerry did his check or Kate. I can't believe that if Gerry found Madeleine dead, he would have been able to clean up [Amaral believes Madeleine fell from the sofa and hit her head and that the blood under the tile was hers] decided not to ring for an ambulance but instead hid her body all of this in time to chat quite casually and calmly to Jez by about quarter past nine.
Or if it was Kate who found Madeleine, to do the same, but put on an act that Madeleine had been abducted where on earth would she have hidden Madeleine?
You say that some can deal with stress, well the McCann's couldn't, they may well have been trained to deal with other people's stress but when it came down to the disappearance of their daughter they were out of their minds.
-
Or abductorman could purely be a figment of your imagination.
My opinion was asked for.
-
The above are one part of the many problems with the story, not the totality. The problems create doubt not guilt
I find it laughable that people are ignorant of the fact that four people were told during the night of 3rd/4th May that the apartment had been broken into. People were woken up in the middle of the night to be told. They were told the front door was lying open, not the bedroom door.
Perhaps you can explain who moved that bedroom door between 8.30pm and 9.05pm? It wasn't crecheman, No-one was hiding in the apartment during Gerry's visit. It is said to have moved again by the time Matt checked. Who did that? It wasn't the 'abductor because the shutters were closed. Don't congratulate yourself on your cleverness unless you can explain that without resorting to opinion or imagination.
Mrs Fenn told Gerry he could use her phone to call the police 10 minutes before they were. But was told it has already been done. Did he phone Matt to check that it had been done? No. Matt didn't see Gerry from when they split up to search until he came to reception at 10:40.
"Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30."
-
Are you stating as a fact that the abductor was not hiding in 5a when Gerry did his check?
It is quite possible that the abductor entered the children's bedroom after Matthew did his check, Matthew listened outside the children's window. The abductor may have thought that he was safe for half an hour after Matthew left. He was then disturbed by Gerry, he could easily have hidden in the parents bedroom or behind the sofa in the lounge area, Gerry wouldn't be expecting anyone to be in 5a so he wouldn't be looking for anyone hiding. Or the abductor could easily have slipped out through the front door when he heard Gerry coming.
Then when Gerry left, he opened the window so if he was disturbed suddenly he had a way of escape.
How did he enter the apartment? Where was he when he heard Gerry coming? Would he have heard him when he was outside the patio doors or only when he slid them open? If the shutters were up and the window open when Matt checked why didn't he notice? Kate found the shutters, window and curtains open, remember. The curtains were closed according to Matt.
-
Are you stating as a fact that the abductor was not hiding in 5a when Gerry did his check?
It is quite possible that the abductor entered the children's bedroom after Matthew did his check, Matthew listened outside the children's window. The abductor may have thought that he was safe for half an hour after Matthew left. He was then disturbed by Gerry, he could easily have hidden in the parents bedroom or behind the sofa in the lounge area, Gerry wouldn't be expecting anyone to be in 5a so he wouldn't be looking for anyone hiding. Or the abductor could easily have slipped out through the front door when he heard Gerry coming.
Then when Gerry left, he opened the window so if he was disturbed suddenly he had a way of escape.
The sofa bit depends on Gerry not noticing the sofa he says he had pushed up against the wall to stop the kids playing behind it had now moved forward enough to conceal an abductor behind.
Did Gerry check in the parent's bedroom? I thought he had re the moved door and the thought Madeleine might have gone there. I can't remember so if anyone can spare me another trawl through his statements, I would be grateful for clarification.
-
The sofa bit depends on Gerry not noticing the sofa he says he had pushed up against the wall to stop the kids playing behind it had now moved forward enough to conceal an abductor behind.
Did Gerry check in the parent's bedroom? I thought he had re the moved door and the thought Madeleine might have gone there. I can't remember so if anyone can spare me another trawl through his statements, I would be grateful for clarification.
Didn't he stand looking down on his daughter & thinking how lucky was - while all the time abductorman was holding his breath while standing in a non-existent space behind the door ?
If so, why should he check his bedroom?
-
I am referring to the time when either Gerry did his check or Kate. I can't believe that if Gerry found Madeleine dead, he would have been able to clean up [Amaral believes Madeleine fell from the sofa and hit her head and that the blood under the tile was hers] decided not to ring for an ambulance but instead hid her body all of this in time to chat quite casually and calmly to Jez by about quarter past nine.
Or if it was Kate who found Madeleine, to do the same, but put on an act that Madeleine had been abducted where on earth would she have hidden Madeleine?
You say that some can deal with stress, well the McCann's couldn't, they may well have been trained to deal with other people's stress but when it came down to the disappearance of their daughter they were out of their minds.
I thought detectives look for any routine changes from the norm and start there. One that stands out from the norm was hours before Gerry said he did a check. Gerry himself said he did his first visual check of the week and had his last proud father moment which was another routine change from the norm.
-
Mrs Fenn told Gerry he could use her phone to call the police 10 minutes before they were. But was told it has already been done. Did he phone Matt to check that it had been done? No. Matt didn't see Gerry from when they split up to search until he came to reception at 10:40.
"Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30."
Hmm. I wonder why Kate's book seems to be quite at odds with this? Roughly speaking, around 11pm, a woman above asked what the noise was, and when told what had happened, gave a neutral response, offered no help, and "I recall that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."
Were there two women appearing above?
-
I am referring to the time when either Gerry did his check or Kate. I can't believe that if Gerry found Madeleine dead, he would have been able to clean up [Amaral believes Madeleine fell from the sofa and hit her head and that the blood under the tile was hers] decided not to ring for an ambulance but instead hid her body all of this in time to chat quite casually and calmly to Jez by about quarter past nine.
Or if it was Kate who found Madeleine, to do the same, but put on an act that Madeleine had been abducted where on earth would she have hidden Madeleine?
You say that some can deal with stress, well the McCann's couldn't, they may well have been trained to deal with other people's stress but when it came down to the disappearance of their daughter they were out of their minds.
You are assuming it happened after 8.30pm then? There are other possibilities. Once again you are quoting Amaral, but his theory was his theory and not THE theory that all must subscribe to. There was no requirement for blood, people can die without bleeding or making a mess.
Many people are able to mask their feelings and act relatively normally if it's important enough to do so. You don't know if this applies to the McCanns or not. They displayed iron control over their emotions during media interviews.
They did indeed make a lot of noise after the alarm. Screaming, kicking and roaring all over the place. They were able to speak coherently enough on the telephone to those back home, however. Mr McKenzie was able to understand Gerry from a distance of three metres.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
-
I will tell you why I believe the McCann's are innocent, it is because there is no way they could have discovered Madeleine dead, cleared up, decided what to do, hide the body all in the space of time given.
I have pointed out what I think many times.
There is also no where the McCann's could have hidden Madeleine's body where she couldn't be discovered, they didn't know the area they were in.
There is no way Kate McCann was putting on an act when she found Madeleine as witnesses have pointed out how she behave after the event.
Amaral's theory is flawed, he misinterpreted the DNA results, nothing was found to say that Madeleine did die in 5a and the idea that the McCann's took Madeleine's body from the safe place where no one had discovered her and transported her in a car to somewhere else is I'm sorry just ridiculous.
You are wasting your time, Lace. They don't want to know.
-
Didn't he stand looking down on his daughter & thinking how lucky was - while all the time abductorman was holding his breath while standing in a non-existent space behind the door ?
If so, why should he check his bedroom?
I've looked at his 10 May statement. He thought Madeleine might have gone to the parent's bedroom, but at no time did he check inside the parent's bedroom.
-
I presume you mean this to be droll rather than serious considering the last sentence of the post to which it is your response.
Have The McCanns been arrested? Did I miss something?
-
Cut from the PJ Final Report which apparently, according to another thread here, nailed the time line accurately.
"The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal)".
-
Hmm. I wonder why Kate's book seems to be quite at odds with this? Roughly speaking, around 11pm, a woman above asked what the noise was, and when told what had happened, gave a neutral response, offered no help, and "I recall that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."
Were there two women appearing above?
Gerry's arguido statement. Quite vague;
He remembers that at one time the lady who lived in the apartment above theirs, went onto her veranda and asked what was going on. He does not remember specifically who replied to this lady, but he remembers that somebody spoke to her, assuming it was himself who did so.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
-
Mrs Fenn told Gerry he could use her phone to call the police 10 minutes before they were. But was told it has already been done. Did he phone Matt to check that it had been done? No. Matt didn't see Gerry from when they split up to search until he came to reception at 10:40.
"Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30."
It sounds as though Gerry thought the person had called the police.
-
It sounds as though Gerry thought the person had called the police.
He had a phone. He was using it a lot once the police arrived and telling everyone about the abductor. He didn't even tell Mrs Fenn it was his own daughter that had gone missing. A little girl has gone missing. Some refer to that as distancing &%+((£
-
How did he enter the apartment? Where was he when he heard Gerry coming? Would he have heard him when he was outside the patio doors or only when he slid them open? If the shutters were up and the window open when Matt checked why didn't he notice? Kate found the shutters, window and curtains open, remember. The curtains were closed according to Matt.
The abductor would have heard the patio doors opening, or he could have had an accomplice who warned him.
Matt did say the room seemed light he thought it was because the moon was out, would he be looking to see if the window was open. It seems to me he just glanced in quickly and left.
-
Didn't he stand looking down on his daughter & thinking how lucky was - while all the time abductorman was holding his breath while standing in a non-existent space behind the door ?
If so, why should he check his bedroom?
As I said he could have slipped back through the front door. I didn't say anything about him being behind the door.
-
The abductor would have heard the patio doors opening, or he could have had an accomplice who warned him.
Matt did say the room seemed light he thought it was because the moon was out, would he be looking to see if the window was open. It seems to me he just glanced in quickly and left.
Yes, so quick that he didn't even spare the time to check if Madeleine was present.
-
As I said he could have slipped back through the front door. I didn't say anything about him being behind the door.
It wasn't you that I was quoting and replying to.
-
As I said he could have slipped back through the front door. I didn't say anything about him being behind the door.
Matt was listening outside that window only minutes before Gerry left. There was definitely no open window on Gerry's check! Imagine his proud father moment with whooshing curtains 8(0(* Next.
-
Did Matt say if he checked on his own children at 9.30 ish, as it would have meant entering 5A through the sliding doors, then retracing his steps and then going round the building to get to his own door. Does he mention that, anywhere?
-
Matt was listening outside that window only minutes before Gerry left. There was definitely no open window on Gerry's check! Imagine his proud father moment with whooshing curtains 8(0(* Next.
Matthew says he listened outside the children's window then went back to the OC and then Gerry went to check.
-
Did Matt say if he checked on his own children at 9.30 ish, as it would have meant entering 5A through the sliding doors, then retracing his steps and then going round the building to get to his own door. Does he mention that, anywhere?
Matt checked on his first then went to Russell's and checked 5A last using the car park route to the side gate before entering.
-
Matthew says he listened outside the children's window then went back to the OC and then Gerry went to check.
Yes read his rog. Gerry was gone a long time. I investigate the timeline to every minute and there's unaccounted time.
"Back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check ." MO
-
Yes read his rog. Gerry was gone a long time. I investigate the timeline to every minute.
"Back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check ." MO
He needed the loo and he stopped to talk to Jes.
-
He needed the loo and he stopped to talk to Jes.
Jes/Gerry said 3 or 4 minutes brief chat. Jane left nearly 10 minutes after Gerry because they were talking at the table why has had been so long and Kate said he was probably watching football. Gerry said he was in the apartment for only 2/3 miniutes. If he wasn't watching footy he was doing something else.
"He adds that he never entered any other part of the residence [his bedroom or the kitchen] where he was for only two or three minutes leaving yet again through the rear door that he closed but did not lock.." GM 10 May
-
The above are one part of the many problems with the story, not the totality. The problems create doubt not guilt
I find it laughable that people are ignorant of the fact that four people were told during the night of 3rd/4th May that the apartment had been broken into. People were woken up in the middle of the night to be told. They were told the front door was lying open, not the bedroom door.
Perhaps you can explain who moved that bedroom door between 8.30pm and 9.05pm? It wasn't crecheman, No-one was hiding in the apartment during Gerry's visit. It is said to have moved again by the time Matt checked. Who did that? It wasn't the 'abductor because the shutters were closed. Don't congratulate yourself on your cleverness unless you can explain that without resorting to opinion or imagination.
So in other words, don't say anything unless you were actually there and witnessed the door moving. Wow. So, you're free to raise your doubts and imply guilt left right and centre but McCann supporters must keep quiet unless they actually witnessed events first hand. That's reasonable. Not!!!
-
Cut from the PJ Final Report which apparently, according to another thread here, nailed the time line accurately.
"The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal)".
Yes, it was tight, but as we now know from the Met's reappraisal of all the information and feeding it into HOLMES they have identified a window of opportunity for an abductor to have taken her.
-
Yes, it was tight, but as we now know from the Met's reappraisal of all the information and feeding it into HOLMES they have identified a window of opportunity for an abductor to have taken her.
And I've just shown you it.
-
Hmm. I wonder why Kate's book seems to be quite at odds with this? Roughly speaking, around 11pm, a woman above asked what the noise was, and when told what had happened, gave a neutral response, offered no help, and "I recall that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."
Were there two women appearing above?
Did she say 11pm so meaning after the 10:41 call? It was just after news at 10 had finished before they called the police. They do have strange timelines @)(++(*
-
Did she say 11pm so meaning after the 10:41 call? It was just after news at 10 had finished before they called the police. They do have strange timelines @)(++(*
it doesnt take a genius to know what kate said to mrs fenn does it?? @)(++(*
-
it doesnt take a genius to know what kate said to mrs fenn does it?? @)(++(*
She is now saying Plummy asked after they called the police by saying 11pm. Amazing if people can't see what is happening here 8(0(*
-
And I've just shown you it.
What have you just shown me?
-
She is now saying Plummy asked after they called the police by saying 11pm. Amazing if people can't see what is happening here 8(0(*
plummy also heard maddie crying for 75 minutes didnt she??
-
What have you just shown me?
The opportunity and unaccounted time from a suspect.
-
Yes, it was tight, but as we now know from the Met's reappraisal of all the information and feeding it into HOLMES they have identified a window of opportunity for an abductor to have taken her.
Just what do you think HOLMES is?
-
The opportunity and unaccounted time from a suspect.
I don't know what that means, kindly spell it out in words that we can all understand.
-
Just what do you think HOLMES is?
I think it's this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOLMES_2
Now you tell me what you think it is.
-
I think it's this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOLMES_2
Now you tell me what you think it is.
What is says in your link and what I posted about it a few weeks ago on this very forum
It is a management system.
It does not solve crimes. It's a big fast dumb adding machine that knows FA til you tell it something. If you tell it the sun rises in the west it will believe you but thereafter if you say the sun rises in the east it will tell you you are wrong.
GI=GO
-
I don't know what that means, kindly spell it out in words that we can all understand.
I don't believe you. You have to get somebody away from the crime scene before the alarm is raised. So you go back from the alarm to find those opportunities. A checker or anyone seen close by is a suspect because they have the opportunity but anybody with unaccounted time becomes a prime suspect. If they can't account for their time then they'd better do it quick! Two checkers looked inside that room because of the door position. One didn't because he didn't know what position the door was supposed to be. Matt saw it half-open and so did Emma Knight.
"The twins were still asleep in the children's bedroom and the door was half open."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA-LOUISE.htm
-
Let's imagine that a little girl disappears from her bed while on holiday. On discovering her missing her parents believe she has been abducted because her bedroom window was open.
A day later the press are printing that the investigation has let it be known that the parents are lying and that the abduction scene has been fabricated.
What impression does that give??
-
What is says in your link and what I posted about it a few weeks ago on this very forum
It is a management system.
It does not solve crimes. It's a big fast dumb adding machine that knows FA til you tell it something. If you tell it the sun rises in the west it will believe you but thereafter if you say the sun rises in the east it will tell you you are wrong.
GI=GO
If it solved crimes the crime would be solved. It is however a bit more than the electric abacus and filing cabinet you believe it to be.
-
HOLMES employs computational intelligence.
The methods used are close to the human’s way of reasoning, i.e. it uses non exact and non-complete knowledge, and it is able to produce control actions in an adaptive way. CI therefore uses a combination of 5 main complementary techniques.[1] The fuzzy logic which enables the computer to understand natural language,[2][3] artificial neural networks which permits the system to learn experiential data by operating like the biological one, evolutionary computing which is based on the process of natural selection, learning theory, and probabilistic methods which helps dealing with uncertainty imprecision.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_intelligence
So perhaps a little more sophisticated than Alice"s ZX Spectrum.
-
I don't believe you. You have to get somebody away from the crime scene before the alarm is raised. So you go back from the alarm to find those opportunities. A checker or anyone seen close by is a suspect because they have the opportunity but anybody with unaccounted time becomes a prime suspect. If they can't account for their time then they'd better do it quick! Two checkers looked inside that room because of the door position. One didn't because he didn't know what position the door was supposed to be. Matt saw it half-open and so did Emma Knight.
"The twins were still asleep in the children's bedroom and the door was half open."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA-LOUISE.htm
What don't you believe? That I find most of your posts impossible to follow? Well sorry to tell you but it's true and this one is no exception.
-
I don't believe you. You have to get somebody away from the crime scene before the alarm is raised. So you go back from the alarm to find those opportunities. A checker or anyone seen close by is a suspect because they have the opportunity but anybody with unaccounted time becomes a prime suspect. If they can't account for their time then they'd better do it quick! Two checkers looked inside that room because of the door position. One didn't because he didn't know what position the door was supposed to be. Matt saw it half-open and so did Emma Knight.
"The twins were still asleep in the children's bedroom and the door was half open."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA-LOUISE.htm
We've been through all this before.
The door positions were noted retrospectively. You are using the benefit of hindsight which the checkers did not have at the time.
Therefore as a reason to doubt that Madeleine was abducted it does not even reach first base.
-
It's totally amazing that the Changing Position Of The Door doesn't merit a mention in the PJ or the AG's final report, considering how hugely significant it now appears to be.
-
It's totally amazing that the Changing Position Of The Door doesn't merit a mention in the PJ or the AG's final report, considering how hugely significant it now appears to be.
Down to police incompetence, innit.
-
Down to police incompetence, innit.
Is it? I thought it was more about armchair defectives making something out of nothing.
-
As members of the public they wouldn't have been witness to anything going on in 5a.
No, not inside.
They did see however see the press intrusion in the area following May the 3 rd, which by their account with quite a few people going home early.
Some interesting second hand comments about the evening of the 2 nd May as well.
-
HOLMES employs computational intelligence.
The methods used are close to the human’s way of reasoning, i.e. it uses non exact and non-complete knowledge, and it is able to produce control actions in an adaptive way. CI therefore uses a combination of 5 main complementary techniques.[1] The fuzzy logic which enables the computer to understand natural language,[2][3] artificial neural networks which permits the system to learn experiential data by operating like the biological one, evolutionary computing which is based on the process of natural selection, learning theory, and probabilistic methods which helps dealing with uncertainty imprecision.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_intelligence
So perhaps a little more sophisticated than Alice"s ZX Spectrum.
Do you understand what you have just posted Alf ?. If so put it in simple English there's a good chap I am an ignoramus.
-
Is it? I thought it was more about armchair defectives making something out of nothing.
That door made them look inside the bedroom so it's very important. Two were involved and I know who and how it was done. This was planned before anybody arrived at the table that night.
-
Do you understand what you have just posted Alf ?. If so put it in simple English there's a good chap I am an ignoramus.
I couldn't put it any better or plainer that what was written in the post I quoted. What's your problem? You've highlighted the word "perhaps" - do you need me to explain that?
-
That door made them look inside the bedroom so it's very important. Two were involved and I know who and how it was done. This was planned before anybody arrived at the table that night.
Fascinating. I do hope you've communicated your incredible knowledge to Ms Wall.
-
No, not inside.
They did see however see the press intrusion in the area following May the 3 rd, which by their account with quite a few people going home early.
Some interesting second hand comments about the evening of the 2 nd May as well.
And its taken you how many years before you have mentioned this on a forum....
-
I couldn't put it any better or plainer that what was written in the post I quoted. What's your problem? You've highlighted the word "perhaps" - do you need me to explain that?
Coo coo daddy-o; message received and understood.
-
The abductor would have heard the patio doors opening, or he could have had an accomplice who warned him.
Matt did say the room seemed light he thought it was because the moon was out, would he be looking to see if the window was open. It seems to me he just glanced in quickly and left.
If he was in the children's bedroom and heard the patio doors sliding where could he hide? If he exited the bedroom he would have been seen. How would an accomplice warn him? By phone? shouting? Matt was there long enough to see the twins breathing (one of them he saw breathing was in a cot with a solid end). He described the colour of the closed curtains.
-
It's totally amazing that the Changing Position Of The Door doesn't merit a mention in the PJ or the AG's final report, considering how hugely significant it now appears to be.
The moving door was highlighted by the McCanns, no-one else made a big thing out of it.
-
Coo coo daddy-o; message received and understood.
Did someone shout bingo...
-
Look at their website:
http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
(http://findmadeleine.com/images/witness_accounts_right.png)
"These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE"
They will never drop the patsy to rule sombody out of the Smithman sighting.
-
The moving door was highlighted by the McCanns, no-one else made a big thing out of it.
And now you're using it against them, does this make any sense?
-
Did someone shout bingo...
Nah Someone tried to slip me a Belgian Waffle ?{)(**
-
If he was in the children's bedroom and heard the patio doors sliding where could he hide? If he exited the bedroom he would have been seen. How would an accomplice warn him? By phone? shouting? Matt was there long enough to see the twins breathing (one of them he saw breathing was in a cot with a solid end). He described the colour of the closed curtains.
He could have been warned as soon as the accomplice saw Gerry leave the Tapas Bar, and so have plenty of time to leave the children's bedroom, he wouldn't be thinking about closing the door to the exact amount the McCann's had left it either.
The accomplice could have rang him, he could have had his phone on vibrate.
-
Surely, in that case, one of the twins would also have been ideal.
A bereaved parent looking for a replacement wouldn't necessarily be too choosy
A baby would have been much riskier, screaming baby couldn't be calmed down by someone saying 'don't worry Mummy and Daddy asked me to look after you for a while' or similar.
Nappies all sorts.
Or who ever wanted her wanted a child of three.
-
He had a phone. He was using it a lot once the police arrived and telling everyone about the abductor. He didn't even tell Mrs Fenn it was his own daughter that had gone missing. A little girl has gone missing. Some refer to that as distancing &%+((£
It was pretty noisy at the time Mrs Fenn thought he said 'A little girl has gone missing'. I think it's far more likely that he said 'OUR little girl has gone missing'. An easy mistake for Mrs Fenn to make from a distance - even more so if you take into account Gerry's accent.
-
He could have been warned as soon as the accomplice saw Gerry leave the Tapas Bar, and so have plenty of time to leave the children's bedroom, he wouldn't be thinking about closing the door to the exact amount the McCann's had left it either.
The accomplice could have rang him, he could have had his phone on vibrate.
Nerves of steel these abductors. Most of us would have been out of there double quick. So why didn't Matt see the open window, shutters and curtains? Why didn't the super-sleeper twins wake up shivering on this very cold night? Too many questions and not enough sensible answers for me, I'm afraid.
-
It was pretty noisy at the time Mrs Fenn thought he said 'A little girl has gone missing'. I think it's far more likely that he said 'OUR little girl has gone missing'. An easy mistake for Mrs Fenn to make from a distance - even more so if you take into account Gerry's accent.
''where is the child''
-
''where is the child''
Ben Needham, you mean?
No one (at least of honest mind) has any idea.
-
Nerves of steel these abductors. Most of us would have been out of there double quick. So why didn't Matt see the open window, shutters and curtains? Why didn't the super-sleeper twins wake up shivering on this very cold night? Too many questions and not enough sensible answers for me, I'm afraid.
I'll drink to that!
-
Nerves of steel these abductors. Most of us would have been out of there double quick. So why didn't Matt see the open window, shutters and curtains? Why didn't the super-sleeper twins wake up shivering on this very cold night? Too many questions and not enough sensible answers for me, I'm afraid.
Can they bend steel bars with their hands ? %£5&% %£5&%
-
We've been through all this before.
The door positions were noted retrospectively. You are using the benefit of hindsight which the checkers did not have at the time.
Therefore as a reason to doubt that Madeleine was abducted it does not even reach first base.
I'm stating facts from the actual witnesses. The McCanns were always going on about the moving door. The first door moves connects to patsy but the window doesn't! The unforeseen checker changed everything. Two were involved in this pre-planned operation.
8:30 door ajar - children asleep - window/shutters closed
8:58 Matt listening check - window/shutters closed
9:02 door half-open (first move) - children asleep - Madeleine in same sleeping position according to the father
9:03 back to ajar window closed
9:30 door half-open (second move) window closed - Matt (didn't enter the room to see if Madeleine was in bed)
9:52 door wide open (third move) mother finds window open/whooshing curtains
The first two doors moves connects to patsy taking Madeleine away i.e. taken away after Gerry checked.
The third door move and whooshing curtains connects to another i.e. two are involved and worked as a team.
-
It was pretty noisy at the time Mrs Fenn thought he said 'A little girl has gone missing'. I think it's far more likely that he said 'OUR little girl has gone missing'. An easy mistake for Mrs Fenn to make from a distance - even more so if you take into account Gerry's accent.
Stop making excuses. Kate was probably annoyed because she offered to call the cops before they actually did and her changing that time to 11pm is desperate stuff. Who does she think she is trying to fool by changing timelines. SY should be looking closely at the timeline because they have been trying to change it since day 1 and sadly getting away with it. You only have to look at the first timelines and they went to check at first light when Fiona said it was still cold and dark when they left. They may easily fool you but it don't work on me!
-
Nerves of steel these abductors. Most of us would have been out of there double quick. So why didn't Matt see the open window, shutters and curtains? Why didn't the super-sleeper twins wake up shivering on this very cold night? Too many questions and not enough sensible answers for me, I'm afraid.
I presume they had heating in 5a?
Matthew was concentrating on looking at the twins, he said he thought it was lighter in the room, he thought the moon was out, read his statement.
-
Stop making excuses. Kate was probably annoyed because she offered to call the cops before they actually did and her changing that time to 11pm is desperate stuff. Who does she think she is trying to fool by changing timelines. SY should be looking closely at the timeline because they have been trying to change it since day 1 and sadly getting away with it. You only have to look at the first timelines and they went to check at first light when Fiona said it was still cold and dark when they left. They may easily fool you but it don't work on me!
The first glimpse of dawn isn't the same as broad daylight.
-
The first glimpse of dawn isn't the same as broad daylight.
Can you remember what sort of time that was roughly''
FP: 'Erm it was still very cold and, and dark, erm I think it was you know, between five and six, I say, I say, I think we'd, we'd, we'd just dozed off, so erm it was still very early.
-
Stop making excuses. Kate was probably annoyed because she offered to call the cops before they actually did and her changing that time to 11pm is desperate stuff. Who does she think she is trying to fool by changing timelines. SY should be looking closely at the timeline because they have been trying to change it since day 1 and sadly getting away with it. You only have to look at the first timelines and they went to check at first light when Fiona said it was still cold and dark when they left. They may easily fool you but it don't work on me!
What are you on about? What has any of that got to do with my comment that Gerry may have said ''OUR little girl has gone missing'' and not ''A little girl has gone missing''? I didn't even mention Kate.
For all Kate and Gerry knew any number of members of the public could have phoned the police once the alarm had been raised. The idea that they were somehow able to control or prevent that possibility is preposterous.
Fiona couldn't even say for definite what time K&G left - ''between 5 and 6'' was the best she could do. Anyone who can find something majorly sinister in what she said and what Kate said about the level of light is taking nitpicking to a whole new level IMO.
-
Gerry Mccann outside a Portuguese Court in Lisbon......
''where is the child''
-
What are you on about? What has any of that got to do with my comment that Gerry may have said ''OUR little girl has gone missing'' and not ''A little girl has gone missing''? I didn't even mention Kate.
For all Kate and Gerry knew any number of members of the public could have phoned the police once the alarm had been raised. The idea that they were somehow able to control or prevent that possibility is preposterous.
Fiona couldn't even say for definite what time K&G left - ''between 5 and 6'' was the best she could do. Anyone who can find something majorly sinister in what she said and what Kate said about the level of light is taking nitpicking to a whole new level IMO.
Yes a guess because they were just about to nod off so it would have been around 5am. Searches had finished at 4am. They were all back in their apartments and about an hour later (when the Payne's were nodding off) they tell them they are going back out to search and they were all alone according to Kate. So it's reasonable to suggest they left sometime after 5am and that's not at first light.
-
I presume they had heating in 5a?
Matthew was concentrating on looking at the twins, he said he thought it was lighter in the room, he thought the moon was out, read his statement.
You presume? Is that a statement or a question? If it's a question I can't imagine why I would know. Even if there was heating, a wind which needed five layers of clothes for adults would have been blowing across those kid's backs for 45 minutes and they only had pj's on.
I've um err um read all the tut um statements. Matt thought there were two windows in the room, he got the colours of the curtains wrong and he found a non existent bookcase in the apartment. Very observant. Even he would have felt the wind blowing out the bedroom door I imagine. If it was as cold as we've been told he should have heard the twin's teeth chattering, let alone spotting them breathing.
-
You presume? Is that a statement or a question? If it's a question I can't imagine why I would know. Even if there was heating, a wind which needed five layers of clothes for adults would have been blowing across those kid's backs for 45 minutes and they only had pj's on.
I've um err um read all the tut um statements. Matt thought there were two windows in the room, he got the colours of the curtains wrong and he found a non existent bookcase in the apartment. Very observant. Even he would have felt the wind blowing out the bedroom door I imagine. If it was as cold as we've been told he should have heard the twin's teeth chattering, let alone spotting them breathing.
The McCann's and friends were OUTSIDE that is why they needed layers of clothes, the twins were tucked up in their cots with the heating on. The wind wasn't constantly blowing through the window, as Kate said thee was a sudden gust of wind which blew the curtains out.
If the 'um err um' is a reference to Matt's statement, I would point out to you that everyone uses those when speaking, we don't even notice we are doing it, they had to write down everything said. Listen to Prince Charles the next time he does a speech.
Thing is, Matthew was concentrating on looking at the twins, he saw them they were breathing, there was quiet in the room, he thought they were all asleep, he also thought the room looked light as if the moon had come out.
All your reference to the twins shivering etc. has no bearing on this what so ever.
-
The McCann's and friends were OUTSIDE that is why they needed layers of clothes, the twins were tucked up in their cots with the heating on. The wind wasn't constantly blowing through the window, as Kate said thee was a sudden gust of wind which blew the curtains out.
If the 'um err um' is a reference to Matt's statement, I would point out to you that everyone uses those when speaking, we don't even notice we are doing it, they had to write down everything said. Listen to Prince Charles the next time he does a speech.
Thing is, Matthew was concentrating on looking at the twins, he saw them they were breathing, there was quiet in the room, he thought they were all asleep, he also thought the room looked light as if the moon had come out.
All your reference to the twins shivering etc. has no bearing on this what so ever.
Where did you get that information from?
-
The McCann's and friends were OUTSIDE that is why they needed layers of clothes, the twins were tucked up in their cots with the heating on. The wind wasn't constantly blowing through the window, as Kate said thee was a sudden gust of wind which blew the curtains out.
If the 'um err um' is a reference to Matt's statement, I would point out to you that everyone uses those when speaking, we don't even notice we are doing it, they had to write down everything said. Listen to Prince Charles the next time he does a speech.
Thing is, Matthew was concentrating on looking at the twins, he saw them they were breathing, there was quiet in the room, he thought they were all asleep, he also thought the room looked light as if the moon had come out.
All your reference to the twins shivering etc. has no bearing on this what so ever.
Listen to anyone. Every body does it. Even Mr. Bennett. And me sometimes. It's usually a small pause for thought.
-
The McCann's and friends were OUTSIDE that is why they needed layers of clothes, the twins were tucked up in their cots with the heating on. The wind wasn't constantly blowing through the window, as Kate said thee was a sudden gust of wind which blew the curtains out.
If the 'um err um' is a reference to Matt's statement, I would point out to you that everyone uses those when speaking, we don't even notice we are doing it, they had to write down everything said. Listen to Prince Charles the next time he does a speech.
Thing is, Matthew was concentrating on looking at the twins, he saw them they were breathing, there was quiet in the room, he thought they were all asleep, he also thought the room looked light as if the moon had come out.
All your reference to the twins shivering etc. has no bearing on this what so ever.
So you now know there was heating and that it was turned on. Could you please provide a cite for that?
-
So you now know there was heating and that it was turned on. Could you please provide a cite for that?
Why wouldn't there be heating? Were the McCann's having to wear layers of clothes inside 5a? You are being pedantic now aren't you.
All apartments especially when you pay what the McCann's did would have heating.
-
Where did you get that information from?
What information?
-
Why wouldn't there be heating? Were the McCann's having to wear layers of clothes inside 5a? You are being pedantic now aren't you.
All apartments especially when you pay what the McCann's did would have heating.
Yet they couldn't pay a baby sitter.
-
What information?
About the heating being on - as per my highlighting.
-
About the heating being on - as per my highlighting.
Sorry skimming didn't see the highlighting.
Well it's obvious to me that there would have been heating, everywhere I have been in May has had heating, the McCann's never mentioned having to pile bedding on the bed because it was cold.
-
Yet they couldn't pay a baby sitter.
They explained why they didn't have a baby sitter, it had nothing to do with money.
-
They explained why they didn't have a baby sitter, it had nothing to do with money.
The explanation was illogical.
The children were left with people they didn't know at the creche.
They could have employed a creche worker or someone recommended from there as a babysitter.
-
The explanation was illogical.
The children were left witH people they didn't know at the creche.
They could have employed a creche worker or someone recommended from there as a babysitter.
They didn't take the children to the crèche as they said the children were in a routine for bedtime, taking them to the crèche they said would have upset the routine, the noise with people coming and going would have stopped them sleeping properly.
I don't know if they could have employed one of the creche workers to baby sit, they had their jobs there so don't know if it was possible.
-
The explanation was illogical.
The children were left with people they didn't know at the creche.
They could have employed a creche worker or someone recommended from there as a babysitter.
or they could have stayed in their apartment like most normal parents of little children and had a wine together/with the tapas in their apartment while the children slept
-
Of course the thought of staying in and looking after them themselves probably never entered their heads, not once in the whole week.
-
Of course the thought of staying in and looking after them themselves probably never entered their heads, not once in the whole week.
jinx i just wrote the same thing
-
Why wouldn't there be heating? Were the McCann's having to wear layers of clothes inside 5a? You are being pedantic now aren't you.
All apartments especially when you pay what the McCann's did would have heating.
If I was paying a lot I would expect air conditioning for the hot months, but there wasn't any in many of the apartments. You are just assuming and can't back up your assumption that a) there was heating and b) it was turned on.
-
jinx i just wrote the same thing
I know, you just beat me to it ?{)(**
-
Of course the thought of staying in and looking after them themselves probably never entered their heads, not once in the whole week.
Yes they could have I agree, I wouldn't have left my children alone.
-
If I was paying a lot I would expect air conditioning for the hot months, but there wasn't any in many of the apartments. You are just assuming and can't back up your assumption that a) there was heating and b) it was turned on.
I am assuming there was as there was no mention that it was freezing in the apartment.
-
If I was paying a lot I would expect air conditioning for the hot months, but there wasn't any in many of the apartments. You are just assuming and can't back up your assumption that a) there was heating and b) it was turned on.
Can you back up what you said that the twins would have been shivering in their cots?
Can you say that the heating was NOT turned on?
-
They didn't take the children to the crèche as they said the children were in a routine for bedtime, taking them to the crèche they said would have upset the routine, the noise with people coming and going would have stopped them sleeping properly.
I don't know if they could have employed one of the creche workers to baby sit, they had their jobs there so don't know if it was possible.
Dear oh dear! May I recommend reading the PJ Files? So useful;
we also used three babysitters, Pauline, Emma and Leanne. Emma and Leanne would look after our children in the evenings, they were all British and employees of MW.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
-
Can you back up what you said that the twins would have been shivering in their cots?
Can you say that the heating was NOT turned on?
Neither of us know about the heating. At least I admit it, you just make assumptions. Even if it existed and was turned on having an open window for 45 minutes on a cold night would have chilled the room. Small children with just a blanket to cover them would have become cold. I think the reason Gerry gave for closing the window and shutters was that the twins were in the room.
-
They didn't take the children to the crèche as they said the children were in a routine for bedtime, taking them to the crèche they said would have upset the routine, the noise with people coming and going would have stopped them sleeping properly.
I don't know if they could have employed one of the creche workers to baby sit, they had their jobs there so don't know if it was possible.
That is not an excuse for not having a babysitter.
-
Dear oh dear! May I recommend reading the PJ Files? So useful;
we also used three babysitters, Pauline, Emma and Leanne. Emma and Leanne would look after our children in the evenings, they were all British and employees of MW.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
We know the McCann's didn't have babysitters, they give their reason why.
I don't see the point of this.
-
That is not an excuse for not having a babysitter.
It is what they said, no doubt they regret their decision now, but as they say we can't put the clock back.
I thought this thread was about 'why don't people believe the McCann's story of Abduction' we have ended up debating the McCann's leaving the children YET AGAIN.
-
Neither of us know about the heating. At least I admit it, you just make assumptions. Even if it existed and was turned on having an open window for 45 minutes on a cold night would have chilled the room. Small children with just a blanket to cover them would have become cold. I think the reason Gerry gave for closing the window and shutters was that the twins were in the room.
What did you admit? You said Matthew would have felt the wind blowing out through the door and the heard the twins teeth chattering.
The room may have been chilled by the open window, but you said you imagined it would be so cold the twins teeth would be chattering.
You also by what you said sound as if you are calling Matthew a liar.
-
We know the McCann's didn't have babysitters, they give their reason why.
I don't see the point of this.
The point was to inform your ignorance of the baby-sitting arrangements available at the resort. One of their reasons not to have a baby-sitter was to do with 'people they didn't know'. All the creche workers were available to baby-sit, including, no doubt, Catriona Baker who spent all week with Madeleine and Sinead Vine who spent all week with the twins.
-
The point was to inform your ignorance of the baby-sitting arrangements available at the resort. One of their reasons not to have a baby-sitter was to do with 'people they didn't know'. All the creche workers were available to baby-sit, including, no doubt, Catriona Baker who spent all week with Madeleine and Sinead Vine who spent all week with the twins.
I certainly would not allow any stranger - (and I would regard someone I had just met that day for the first time to be a stranger) - to spend hours alone with my children in my apartment after just one short meeting. It wouldn't matter what their job was or how nice they seemed.
Also IIRC there was no guarantee on who babysat - as there was a rota system and you were advised to book in advance. (from memory - so am happy to be corrected if necessary).
-
I certainly would not allow any stranger - (and I would regard someone I had just met that day for the first time to be a stranger) - to spend hours alone with my children in my apartment after just one short meeting. It wouldn't matter what their job was or how nice they seemed.
Also IIRC there was no guarantee on who babysat - as there was a rota system and you were advised to book in advance. (from memory - so am happy to be corrected if necessary).
Kate was happy to leave Madeleine with a stranger for hours each day. The stranger took her swimming and to the beach. The possibility of accidents would have been greater during this time than if the stranger sat in the apartment when she was asleep. They could have popped back for the first couple of evenings just to make sure everything was OK, it only took a few minutes. It would certainly have been a better idea than leaving children home alone which is asking for trouble.
I don't know if there was a rota or not. The Carpenter's used the same people so maybe there was a choice so early in the season. The only time a nanny would have been unavailable would be if she was working at the night creche or if she didn't want to do it.
-
...
A friend of mine helped search for Madeleine, the night she disappeared.
I also know a family who arrived in PDL a week later after Madeleine disappeared. They had friends already there, who witnessed the aftermath of what happened, and the blanket press coverage which ensued in the days after.
There is more as regards the latter, but at best secondary information.
I would assume you are not going to name names. I can understand why one would not. But it is a shame. Any tiny sliver of information about the reality of Luz in May 2007 is extremely valuable.
So may I ask you a quite different question? It is small, but important, and it does not involve identifying your friend.
I would be most interested in knowing the precise route by which your friend got from Faro to the Ocean Club. Let me simplify this to 2 options. One was an MW bus, and MW did the registration and keys on board. The other was that your friend headed to the OC without MW intervention, and so had to register at OC 24hr reception.
I happen to be interested in the latter. But of course, that does not influence the route your friend took.
Perhaps you could also enquire of the family you know who went out a week later? Two bites at the cherry?
-
I would assume you are not going to name names. I can understand why one would not. But it is a shame. Any tiny sliver of information about the reality of Luz in May 2007 is extremely valuable.
So may I ask you a quite different question? It is small, but important, and it does not involve identifying your friend.
I would be most interested in knowing the precise route by which your friend got from Faro to the Ocean Club. Let me simplify this to 2 options. One was an MW bus, and MW did the registration and keys on board. The other was that your friend headed to the OC without MW intervention, and so had to register at OC 24hr reception.
I happen to be interested in the latter. But of course, that does not influence the route your friend took.
Perhaps you could also enquire of the family you know who went out a week later? Two bites at the cherry?
Hello SIL.
I have sent you a PM on this.
-
Kate was happy to leave Madeleine with a stranger for hours each day. The stranger took her swimming and to the beach. The possibility of accidents would have been greater during this time than if the stranger sat in the apartment when she was asleep. They could have popped back for the first couple of evenings just to make sure everything was OK, it only took a few minutes. It would certainly have been a better idea than leaving children home alone which is asking for trouble.
I don't know if there was a rota or not. The Carpenter's used the same people so maybe there was a choice so early in the season. The only time a nanny would have been unavailable would be if she was working at the night creche or if she didn't want to do it.
There's a vast difference IMO in leaving children at a creche with other nannies around and parents popping in and out - the same goes for any outside activities - and leaving someone you hardly know alone in your apartment with your children for hours.
-
There's a vast difference IMO in leaving children at a creche with other nannies around and parents popping in and out - the same goes for any outside activities - and leaving someone you hardly know alone in your apartment with your children for hours.
Yeah, much wiser to leave them home alone.
-
Yeah, much wiser to leave them home alone.
I thought we were talking about the reasons for not wanting to have babysitters. But I see you've resorted to the same old 'sceptic' mantra. So what's new.
-
Kate was happy to leave Madeleine with a stranger for hours each day. The stranger took her swimming and to the beach. The possibility of accidents would have been greater during this time than if the stranger sat in the apartment when she was asleep. They could have popped back for the first couple of evenings just to make sure everything was OK, it only took a few minutes. It would certainly have been a better idea than leaving children home alone which is asking for trouble.
I don't know if there was a rota or not. The Carpenter's used the same people so maybe there was a choice so early in the season. The only time a nanny would have been unavailable would be if she was working at the night creche or if she didn't want to do it.
What has the fact that they didn't use a babysitter got to do with the fact that you don't believe the McCanns?
-
What has the fact that they didn't use a babysitter got to do with the fact that you don't believe the McCanns?
They didn't want to leave the children with a stranger, but were happy to leave them with strangers all day every day. The children never woke up, apparently so they wouldn't have known they were with a stranger. Even if they had woken, it would have taken a matter of minutes to summon a parent if necessary. Leaving them alone for 30 minutes meant it could have been 25 minutes before anyone came.
Just like their abduction story it doesn't stand up under scrutiny. The only people who think that's logical are those who want to, in my opinion.
-
What has the fact that they didn't use a babysitter got to do with the fact that you don't believe the McCanns?
It's part of their story, and the excuses given do hold up to logic.
-
It's part of their story, and the excuses given do hold up to logic.
Come up with a workable alternative to the abduction theory and you may get some attention ... bearing in mind no-one else has been able to.
Woke and wandered ... to where?
Plot by parents and their friends ... I'm all ears.
-
Come up with a workable alternative to the abduction theory and you may get some attention ... bearing in mind no-one else has been able to.
Woke and wandered ... to where?
Plot by parents and their friends ... I'm all ears.
There are two workable alternative theories.
Either of which you will not accept.
As to ABDUCTION, there is no evidence to take to court and if you think there is .... 8(*(
-
They didn't want to leave the children with a stranger, but were happy to leave them with strangers all day every day. The children never woke up, apparently so they wouldn't have known they were with a stranger. Even if they had woken, it would have taken a matter of minutes to summon a parent if necessary. Leaving them alone for 30 minutes meant it could have been 25 minutes before anyone came.
Just like their abduction story it doesn't stand up under scrutiny. The only people who think that's logical are those who want to, in my opinion.
So you can see absolutely no difference between leaving your children in a daytime crèche with numerous nannies in attendance and leaving your children alone in a bedroom at night with one individual nanny in attendance? Fair enough. That's your opinion, but believe it or not, not everyone thinks and feels the same way as you do. What you may deem to be illogical, may not be so to others. Which is all by the by because it does not explain why this decision on their part makes you think they made up an abduction story...
-
Has anyone come up with a convincing abduction theory yet?
One which acknowledges the police and Mr Hill saying there was no sign of a break in.
-
Has anyone come up with a convincing abduction theory yet?
One which acknowledges the police and Mr Hill saying there was no sign of a break in.
why would there be any signs of a break in if the patio doors were open
-
There are two workable alternative theories.
Either of which you will not accept.
As to ABDUCTION, there is no evidence to take to court and if you think there is .... 8(*(
I believe I may have mentioned both.
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/80c76fe1d6aad4b0573be501bd90e348/tumblr_nua32aWI8Q1td6160o1_250.png)
If you are so convinced that Madeleine was not abducted ... surely you cannot be shy about explaining what evidence led you to that conclusion.
-
There are two workable alternative theories.
Either of which you will not accept.
As to ABDUCTION, there is no evidence to take to court and if you think there is .... 8(*(
there is no workable theory that involves the parents
-
So you can see absolutely no difference between leaving your children in a daytime crèche with numerous nannies in attendance and leaving your children alone in a bedroom at night with one individual nanny in attendance? Fair enough. That's your opinion, but believe it or not, not everyone thinks and feels the same way as you do. What you may deem to be illogical, may not be so to others. Which is all by the by because it does not explain why this decision on their part makes you think they made up an abduction story...
Which would you choose? Leaving your small children home alone in an unlocked apartment or using a trained child care worker to baby-sitter?
You really should know by now that no one incident or decision made me doubt the McCann's story. There are many things with a cumulative effect, adding up to a body of evidence which casts serious doubt upon their version of events.
-
why would there be any signs of a break in if the patio doors were open
OK then off you go........ come up with a convincing theory using the open patio door.
See my earlier post on the topic about page 4 on here.
-
I believe I may have mentioned both.
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/80c76fe1d6aad4b0573be501bd90e348/tumblr_nua32aWI8Q1td6160o1_250.png)
If you are so convinced that Madeleine was not abducted ... surely you cannot be shy about explaining what evidence led you to that conclusion.
Wow that was amazing.
A suitable choice of a catchphrase from a fictional series.
Ideal for the 'abduction'.
As believable as the investigation of the Victoria Beckham lookalike . £4%4% %£5&% %£5&%
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/15/article-0-05F9243F000005DC-237_468x286.jpg)
(http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/authors70/tmb/bart-simpson-quote-the-truth-is-not-out-there.jpg)
-
Has anyone come up with a convincing abduction theory yet?
One which acknowledges the police and Mr Hill saying there was no sign of a break in.
yup.
-
So you can see absolutely no difference between leaving your children in a daytime crèche with numerous nannies in attendance and leaving your children alone in a bedroom at night with one individual nanny in attendance? Fair enough. That's your opinion, but believe it or not, not everyone thinks and feels the same way as you do. What you may deem to be illogical, may not be so to others. Which is all by the by because it does not explain why this decision on their part makes you think they made up an abduction story...
Well either the Nannies/Baby Sitters are properly security checked or not. In this country we have had a number of cases of "responsible" adults in child care centres getting up to some fairly nasty stuff.
-
Which would you choose? Leaving your small children home alone in an unlocked apartment or using a trained child care worker to baby-sitter?
You really should know by now that no one incident or decision made me doubt the McCann's story. There are many things with a cumulative effect, adding up to a body of evidence which casts serious doubt upon their version of events.
Why have you now moved the goalposts? I asked why the McCanns decision not to use a babysitter had any bearing on your refusal to accept the McCanns version of events. It seems you can't offer a plausible reason, beyond "just because..."
-
Why have you now moved the goalposts? I asked why the McCanns decision not to use a babysitter had any bearing on your refusal to accept the McCanns version of events. It seems you can't offer a plausible reason, beyond "just because..."
OK. In words of one syllable. It is just one of the many things done and said by the McCanns which cause doubt. If you want to know all of them they are in the threads on the forum, I don't have a list to hand.
-
OK. In words of one syllable. It is just one of the many things done and said by the McCanns which cause doubt. If you want to know all of them they are in the threads on the forum, I don't have a list to hand.
extremely subjective
-
OK. In words of one syllable. It is just one of the many things done and said by the McCanns which cause doubt. If you want to know all of them they are in the threads on the forum, I don't have a list to hand.
How rude you are. Why should this specific decision cause any doubt about their honesty and integrity? There is no reason, it's just that you have chosen to criticise every single one of their decisions because you enjoy doing so, it's a shame you can't be honest and admit it!
-
Well either the Nannies/Baby Sitters are properly security checked or not. In this country we have had a number of cases of "responsible" adults in child care centres getting up to some fairly nasty stuff.
And there are very many more examples of children being abused when left alone with a solitary adult. Your point is...?
-
And there are very many more examples of children being abused when left alone with a solitary adult. Your point is...?
Security checked adults?
-
How rude you are. Why should this specific decision cause any doubt about their honesty and integrity? There is no reason, it's just that you have chosen to criticise every single one of their decisions because you enjoy doing so, it's a shame you can't be honest and admit it!
I think you could give me lessons in rudeness Alfred! I have said what I think and if you disagree fair enough, I wouldn't expect you to criticise them no matter what they did. I'm not dishonest and don't have anything to admit, so please don't accuse me of lying.
-
I think you could give me lessons in rudeness Alfred! I have said what I think and if you disagree fair enough, I wouldn't expect you to criticise them no matter what they did. I'm not dishonest and don't have anything to admit, so please don't accuse me of lying.
I didn't accuse you of lying, I said it's a shame you can't be honest and admit that this (non) issue has F all to do with any reason for doubting the McCanns version of events.
-
Has anyone come up with a convincing abduction theory yet?
One which acknowledges the police and Mr Hill saying there was no sign of a break in.
I have. A convincing abduction theory which acknowledges the police and has Mr Hill saying there was no sign of a break in.
Out of the possibilities on my table, this one is the favourite.
But I am happy to leave the other possibilities on my table as I cannot get close to proving my convincing abduction theory. Not to myself, let alone anyone else.
-
there is no workable theory that involves the parents
There is a workable theory that involves the parents.
It just happens to be extremely unlikely.
-
There is a workable theory that involves the parents.
It just happens to be extremely unlikely.
Then it's not really workable is it?
-
yup.
To paraphrase Delia Smith:
"OK then let's be 'avin yer"
-
Then it's not really workable is it?
When I say it is workable, but not likely, please do not try to turn it into something else.
My statement says something about me. Your twist says something about you.
I will stick with it is workable, but not likely.
You can go your own way. (Go your own way.)
You can call it another lonely day.
-
When I say it is workable, but not likely, please do not try to turn it into something else.
My statement says something about me. Your twist says something about you.
I will stick with it is workable, but not likely.
You can go your own way. (Go your own way.)
You can call it another lonely day.
I haven't heard a theory which involves the parents and /or their holiday companions which is either likely or workable.
Some of them are so convoluted and bizarre one wonders what universe their proponents have come from.
The huge movement against the abduction theory arose initially because of a total misunderstanding of the operation of the shutters.
Everyone from the PJ to passing bloggers insisted they could not be opened from outside. Therefore the 'badly told story' of jemmied shutters became common currency.
Until two prominent sceptics demonstrated the shutter of 5A could be raised from outside and Heri demonstrated exactly how simple it was to raise the shutter from outside and ensure it remained raised the impossibility became possible.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
-
How you can be in two places at once is workable and it was. It's actually shown in "Evil under the Sun" on ITV now. You change the time 8(0(*
-
I haven't heard a theory which involves the parents and /or their holiday companions which is either likely or workable.
Some of them are so convoluted and bizarre one wonders what universe their proponents have come from.
The huge movement against the abduction theory arose initially because of a total misunderstanding of the operation of the shutters.
Everyone from the PJ to passing bloggers insisted they could not be opened from outside. Therefore the 'badly told story' of jemmied shutters became common currency.
Until two prominent sceptics demonstrated the shutter of 5A could be raised from outside and Heri demonstrated exactly how simple it was to raise the shutter from outside and ensure it remained raised the impossibility became possible.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
The shutter happens to be important.
The state of the shutter (open) increases the probability that 'the McCanns dun it' and decreases the probability that someone external was involved, obviously IMO. Personally, I would love to see the result of a lie-detector test, by Kate, on the state of the shutter. Clearly not admissible in court. Shutter up? Complex scene not suggesting abduction. Shutter down? Simple scene, weighted heavily in favour of abduction.
-
How you can be in two places at once is workable and it was. It's actually shown in "Evil under the Sun" on ITV now. You change the time 8(0(*
That's brilliant, Pathfinder. %&5%£
Was the time altered backwards or forwards?
-
The shutter happens to be important.
The state of the shutter (open) increases the probability that 'the McCanns dun it' and decreases the probability that someone external was involved, obviously IMO. Personally, I would love to see the result of a lie-detector test, by Kate, on the state of the shutter. Clearly not admissible in court. Shutter up? Complex scene not suggesting abduction. Shutter down? Simple scene, weighted heavily in favour of abduction.
I disagree.
In the unlikely event the Drs McCann "dunnit" I would expect them to have come up with a more convincing scenario than the actual crime scene was.
They did not know the the shutters could be raised from outside.
Hence the wrecking of the carefully staged scene ... by lowering them??? Had they staged it, they would have at the least made sure the shutter really had been 'jemmied' and Madeleine's bed disturbed.
They are not stupid.
However, there remains the small problem of hiding the remains of a nearly four year old child. The difficulty of which you have already rehearsed.
We now know there was a lot going on in the area as regards home invasions the importance of which seemed only to have become a concern with the advent of Scotland Yard's arrival on the scene.
Madeleine resort man 'suspicion' Daily Mirror
By Martin Fricker
5/03/2010
DOSSIER
Portuguese police ignored warnings from UK cops about a suspicious British worker at the resort where Madeleine McCann disappeared.
They urged them to investigate him after a tourist, who stayed at a sister complex with her girl, nine, in 2006, accused him of inappropriate sexual innuendoes.
The holiday worker, who cannot be named, also met Kate and Gerry McCann on their stay at the Praia da Luz resort. The woman from Leicestershire came forward in 2008 and said he entered her villa uninvited while she slept with her girl, claiming the air conditioning needed repairing.
Police sent a report to Portuguese cops but they had already shelved the case. A 2,000-page dossier obtained by the Mirror also revealed a Norwegian man reported seeing Madeleine with a man in a restaurant in St Valentin, Austria, in 2007. He said the girl, about four, pleaded "help me!" walking by their table.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Dossier.htm
There are too many loose ends emanating from the original investigation to place any faith at all in the case coordinator's vain attempt to save face by his subtle and not so subtle accusations to shift blame onto two of the victims of the case.
Some of which may very well have been the need to close the case expeditiously before anyone connected the case of a missing girl from Figueira with the case of a missing girl in Luz.
-
I disagree.
In the unlikely event the Drs McCann "dunnit" I would expect them to have come up with a more convincing scenario than the actual crime scene was.
They did not know the the shutters could be raised from outside.
Hence the wrecking of the carefully staged scene ... by lowering them??? Had they staged it, they would have at the least made sure the shutter really had been 'jemmied' and Madeleine's bed disturbed.
They are not stupid.
However, there remains the small problem of hiding the remains of a nearly four year old child. The difficulty of which you have already rehearsed.
We now know there was a lot going on in the area as regards home invasions the importance of which seemed only to have become a concern with the advent of Scotland Yard's arrival on the scene.
Madeleine resort man 'suspicion' Daily Mirror
By Martin Fricker
5/03/2010
DOSSIER
Portuguese police ignored warnings from UK cops about a suspicious British worker at the resort where Madeleine McCann disappeared.
They urged them to investigate him after a tourist, who stayed at a sister complex with her girl, nine, in 2006, accused him of inappropriate sexual innuendoes.
The holiday worker, who cannot be named, also met Kate and Gerry McCann on their stay at the Praia da Luz resort. The woman from Leicestershire came forward in 2008 and said he entered her villa uninvited while she slept with her girl, claiming the air conditioning needed repairing.
Police sent a report to Portuguese cops but they had already shelved the case. A 2,000-page dossier obtained by the Mirror also revealed a Norwegian man reported seeing Madeleine with a man in a restaurant in St Valentin, Austria, in 2007. He said the girl, about four, pleaded "help me!" walking by their table.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Dossier.htm
There are too many loose ends emanating from the original investigation to place any faith at all in the case coordinator's vain attempt to save face by his subtle and not so subtle accusations to shift blame onto two of the victims of the case.
Some of which may very well have been the need to close the case expeditiously before anyone connected the case of a missing girl from Figueira with the case of a missing girl in Luz.
I agree with your disagreement.
One problem with the incident scene, as described by Kate McCann, could have been known of. By this, I mean the shutters could be raised from the outside.
1) The Mccanns tested it in advance. Thus probably making them guilty of a serious crime indeed.
2) It was tested as per Kate's book. Gerry lowered the shutter, raced outside, and tested the shutter. It would seem he did not trust Kate's version of events, but that is not significant.
I would love that Kate McCann takes a lie detector test about solely the state of the apartment when she did her check. Not admissible in court, But I would love to have more surety about this.
I would also love to see a lie detector test about how the checks were conducted. Here is my prediction. The T9 would fail. What does this mean, apart from the T9 not telling the truth?
MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR ABDUCTION.
It is easier to pencil in abduction if the shutter was not open, and there were not frequent checks. With an open shutter and frequent checks, it makes it much tougher to make abduction feasible.
-
I agree with your disagreement.
One problem with the incident scene, as described by Kate McCann, could have been known of. By this, I mean the shutters could be raised from the outside.
1) The Mccanns tested it in advance. Thus probably making them guilty of a serious crime indeed.
2) It was tested as per Kate's book. Gerry lowered the shutter, raced outside, and tested the shutter. It would seem he did not trust Kate's version of events, but that is not significant.
I would love that Kate McCann takes a lie detector test about solely the state of the apartment when she did her check. Not admissible in court, But I would love to have more surety about this.
I would also love to see a lie detector test about how the checks were conducted. Here is my prediction. The T9 would fail. What does this mean, apart from the T9 not telling the truth?
MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR ABDUCTION.
It is easier to pencil in abduction if the shutter was not open, and there were not frequent checks. With an open shutter and frequent checks, it makes it much tougher to make abduction feasible.
Lie detectors are unreliable....you apparent desire to see them used casts doubt on your credibility. If they were of any use they would have been used.
I have said for along time that if the McCanns are telling the truth and the shutters were open then Maddie was almost certainly abducted...it really is that simple...
-
There is a workable theory that involves the parents.
It just happens to be extremely unlikely.
Your theory...like any other is subjective...post details and lets see if it holds water... I doubt it will but am happy to be proved wrong
-
I didn't accuse you of lying, I said it's a shame you can't be honest and admit that this (non) issue has F all to do with any reason for doubting the McCanns version of events.
I can't work out whether you really don't understand or whether you're doing it deliberately. Think what you like, I'm not wasting any more time on you.
-
When I say it is workable, but not likely, please do not try to turn it into something else.
My statement says something about me. Your twist says something about you.
I will stick with it is workable, but not likely.
You can go your own way. (Go your own way.)
You can call it another lonely day.
Ah, a Mac fan (but clearly not a McFan). Can you please show me we what I twisted? I asked a simple question. If a theory of parental involvement strikes you as highly unlikely then please may I ask how it can be workable? Unless we are expected to suspend disbelief in order to make it so?
-
I can't work out whether you really don't understand or whether you're doing it deliberately. Think what you like, I'm not wasting any more time on you.
I understand alright, and so do you. You just refuse to admit I have a valid point. It's only to be expected I guess.
-
That's brilliant, Pathfinder. %&5%£
Was the time altered backwards or forwards?
Forwards of course when the prime suspect was seen (Smithman knew he was seen!). Have you seen the first timelines written down and compare them to the rogs? They're 10 minutes fast e.g. Jane left at 9:20 (it was 9:10). Gerry left at different times and much later (Matt said he left straight away when he returned to the table at 9). Bringing the times forward ultimately pushes the alarm time forward and rules them out of that sighting but nobody's ruled out of that sighting from that group 8(0(*
Fiona Payne thought the alarm could have been raised as early as 9:45 not after 10pm. Somebody said Kate left the table after 10 (see below). Matt said 9:50. This is the key to fantasy luzland. Changing the time to be able to be in two places at once. And if SY detectives have forensically examined the timeline like they said then they should come to the same conclusion. None are ruled out!
-
Forwards of course when the prime suspect was seen (Smithman knew he was seen!). Have you seen the first timelines written down and compare them to the rogs? They're 10 minutes fast e.g. Jane left at 9:20 (it was 9:!0). Gerry left at different times and much later (Matt said he left straight away when he returned to the table at 9). Bringing the times forward ultimately puts the alarm time forward and rules them out of that sighting but nobody's ruled out of that sighting from that group 8(0(*
Fiona Payne thought the alarm could have been raised as early as 9:45 not after 10pm. Somebody said Kate left the table after 10 (see below). Matt said 9:50. This is the key to fantasy luzland. Changing the time to be able to be in two places at once. And if SY detectives have forensically examined the timeline like they said then they should come to the same conclusion. None are ruled out!
Anyone who thinks 9 people - (who unless they were specifically engaged in some pre-determined 'exercise' which required them to keep precise mental notes of the times of not only each and every one of their own movements - but also those of 8 other people) - could possibly be as exact as you seem to expect them to be is being totally unrealistic IMO
FGS - they were on holiday - not military manouvres.
For example - IIRC Russell first thought that Jane and Gerry had left the table together. However, once he was reminded that she was still at the table when they were commenting on how long Gerry had been away - he would realise that he'd got that wrong and change his mind.
No doubt you will be able to read something sinister into that. Thank goodness SY know it's perfectly normal for different people to have completely different recollections of the same happening and so they do not assume that someone must be lying.
It's also quite normal that when people discussed what happened amongst themselves that some people would remember what other people had forgotten or had not even noticed in the first place. Therefore this combined knowledge would result in a more accurate overall timeline. IMO.
-
I have a workable theory for Abduction. But it involves too much of what Scotland Yard and The PJ could be looking at.
-
The shutter happens to be important.
The state of the shutter (open) increases the probability that 'the McCanns dun it' and decreases the probability that someone external was involved, obviously IMO. Personally, I would love to see the result of a lie-detector test, by Kate, on the state of the shutter. Clearly not admissible in court. Shutter up? Complex scene not suggesting abduction. Shutter down? Simple scene, weighted heavily in favour of abduction.
I don't think so, SIL.
If there had been a staged abduction, it would have been more convincing, IMO, to make sure that the shutter appeared forced from the outside and to ensure that several witnesses were present immediately to take note of it.
-
I don't think so, SIL.
If there had been a staged abduction, it would have been more convincing, IMO, to make sure that the shutter appeared forced from the outside and to ensure that several witnesses were present immediately to take note of it.
We have witness statements of two messing with shutters. How do you know it wasn't their intention to force/damage them? Dianne twisted them and they stuck as seen in crime scene pics therefore she couldn't raise them any further. The question is, why did Kate get Dianne to take a look at them when Gerry claimed he already did so and could raise them from the outside? There was no point IF that is what happened.
-
Why fiddle with them in the first place? Madeleine was gone and it didn't matter at that moment how she had gone. That would be a matter later for the investigators.
-
Why fiddle with them in the first place? Madeleine was gone and it didn't matter at that moment how she had gone. That would be a matter later for the investigators.
Of course it mattered how she had gone
If the shutters were opened from the outside......abduction is pretty well confirmed
-
Of course it mattered how she had gone
If the shutters were opened from the outside......abduction is pretty well confirmed
Indeed, but that is/was for the police to decide, not the McCanns, even though Kate 'knew' right from the start that Madeleine had been taken.
-
Of course it mattered how she had gone
If the shutters were opened from the outside......abduction is pretty well confirmed
At least you know if they were opened what it leads to. Why would an abductor leave shutters fully raised and an open window for the world to see? Nobody saw them raised except Gerry & Kate. God knows how David didn't when he entered at the same time &%+((£
-
Indeed, but that is/was for the police to decide, not the McCanns, even though Kate 'knew' right from the start that Madeleine had been taken.
It was natural for the McCanns to want to work out what had happened immediately
-
Ah, a Mac fan (but clearly not a McFan). Can you please show me we what I twisted? I asked a simple question. If a theory of parental involvement strikes you as highly unlikely then please may I ask how it can be workable? Unless we are expected to suspend disbelief in order to make it so?
How good is your understanding of probability theory?
According to probability theory, if you attach a value to each alternative, and sum up the totals, then the result should be 1 (one). If it isn't, then there is something wrong with your model.
I would say that if I stick a value on each alternative that I know of, the total would be about 0.4 (zero point four).
That in turn tells me that I know that I don't know. I can be pretty confident that I don't know. I have a rigorously defined area of doubt and uncertainty.
In simple language, I can make parental involvement work, just as I can woke and wandered, non-planned abduction (burglary gone wrong) and pre-planned abduction. I cannot get any alternative close to the point of being a slam-dunk. But clearly, one of the alternatives must have happened.
So all I know is that my model is not good enough.
What I do not know is that 'highly unlikely' does not mean 'did not happen' or 'unworkable'. One of these 'unlikely' scenarios happened. All are workable.
-
How good is your understanding of probability theory?
According to probability theory, if you attach a value to each alternative, and sum up the totals, then the result should be 1 (one). If it isn't, then there is something wrong with your model.
I would say that if I stick a value on each alternative that I know of, the total would be about 0.4 (zero point four).
That in turn tells me that I know that I don't know. I can be pretty confident that I don't know. I have a rigorously defined area of doubt and uncertainty.
In simple language, I can make parental involvement work, just as I can woke and wandered, non-planned abduction (burglary gone wrong) and pre-planned abduction. I cannot get any alternative close to the point of being a slam-dunk. But clearly, one of the alternatives must have happened.
So all I know is that my model is not good enough.
What I do not know is that 'highly unlikely' does not mean 'did not happen' or 'unworkable'. One of these 'unlikely' scenarios happened. All are workable.
If you place parental involvement at 1%
The abduction and woke and wandered have to add up to 99%
That makes anduction odds on
-
I don't think so, SIL.
If there had been a staged abduction, it would have been more convincing, IMO, to make sure that the shutter appeared forced from the outside and to ensure that several witnesses were present immediately to take note of it.
This requires the presence of a forcing tool (whether that is a jemmy or otherwise). Plus the ability to get witnesses to the scene quickly to see the evidence of such forcing. Plus an explanation of how such an intruder managed to get in through the window, which was also undamaged.
All the while, the unlocked patio door is a simple means of entry.
The shutter up/window open can be worked into any of the scenarios I am aware of. It complicates each and alters the relative probabilities of each.
If the shutter was down or the window locked, the probabilities would change, and things would become simpler. To cut a long story short, we would be focussing on the front door (key required) or the patio door (Known to be open? Tried at random?).
But as I say, the chance of such a lie-detector test is about as likely as my roof being buzzed by a low-flying pig.
-
I haven't heard a theory which involves the parents and /or their holiday companions which is either likely or workable.
Some of them are so convoluted and bizarre one wonders what universe their proponents have come from.
The huge movement against the abduction theory arose initially because of a total misunderstanding of the operation of the shutters.
Everyone from the PJ to passing bloggers insisted they could not be opened from outside. Therefore the 'badly told story' of jemmied shutters became common currency.
Until two prominent sceptics demonstrated the shutter of 5A could be raised from outside and Heri demonstrated exactly how simple it was to raise the shutter from outside and ensure it remained raised the impossibility became possible.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
I would have loved to have been standing next to the pair of them when they made their videos. Then I would have been able to see the interesting bits which are inexplicably missing on the videos that have been posted.
Does anyone have a drawing of the shutter mechanism?
-
If you place parental involvement at 1%
The abduction and woke and wandered have to add up to 99%
That makes anduction odds on
My total quite clearly maxxed out at 40%.
You have now invented some random figures, not covered each possibility, and claim to make the total 100%.
-
My total quite clearly maxxed out at 40%.
You have now invented some random figures, not covered each possibility, and claim to make the total 100%.
Then you don't understand probability
It has to add up to one.... yours do not because you have assigned the variable the wrong values
-
Then you don't understand probability
It has to add up to one.... yours do not because you have assigned the variable the wrong values
Only if every possible cause is identified and every contributing factor identified to improve the estimated probability. Using you method we would go 25% for each of the four causes identified.
-
Only if every possible cause is identified and every contributing factor identified to improve the estimated probability. Using you method we would go 25% for each of the four causes identified.
I would say we have identified every possible cause that has any significant value
Your ref to 25% is plainly wrong
-
I would say we have identified every possible cause that has any significant value
Your ref to 25% is plainly wrong
Why?
-
Why?
Because all the variables do not have equal probability .... Like tossing a coin
-
Because all the variables do not have equal probability .... Like tossing a coin
...and how have you calculated their probabilities?
-
...and how have you calculated their probabilities?
Based on what I have read about the case... Same as everyone else
The point is that the major possibilities need to add up to near 1..
If sil only gets to 0.4 ... Then she has assigned the wrong values to the major possibilities
-
Lie detectors are unreliable....you apparent desire to see them used casts doubt on your credibility. If they were of any use they would have been used.
I have said for along time that if the McCanns are telling the truth and the shutters were open then Maddie was almost certainly abducted...it really is that simple...
To be blunt, I do not care about your opinion of my credibility.
I will leave it to the forum participants to make up their own minds on both points. Just as I will leave it to them to place faith in, or not, the sole witness to a crucial piece of evidence.
If Kate really wishes no unturned stones, she has the opportunity of turning one unturned stone I doubt the lady is for turning.
-
To be blunt, I do not care about your opinion of my credibility.
I will leave it to the forum participants to make up their own minds on both points. Just as I will leave it to them to place faith in, or not, the sole witness to a crucial piece of evidence.
If Kate really wishes no unturned stones, she has the opportunity of turning one unturned stone I doubt the lady is for turning.
Anyone who places value on a lie detect should not be taken seriously and gives you little credibility
Did you say you had offered the McCanns your services and been rejected...you seem to have an inflated opinion of yourself.....
Quite simply... The major possibilities have to add up to near one... If they don't... As you have said is the case in your model.... Then your model is flawed
-
Based on what I have read about the case... Same as everyone else
The point is that the major possibilities need to add up to near 1..
If sil only gets to 0.4 ... Then she has assigned the wrong values to the major possibilities
You don't appear to understand probability theory.
Under your scheme of things, if the only possibility I considered was the McCanns dun it, then instead of it being unlikely, I would have to expand this to make it 100%. Just as well for the McCanns that probability theory does not work your way round, as that logic would see them banged up in no time.
Your position that it is 1% for the McCanns and 99% for abduction is simply untenable.
-
Anyone who places value on a lie detect should not be taken seriously and gives you little credibility
Did you say you had offered the McCanns your services and been rejected...you seem to have an inflated opinion of yourself.....
Quite simply... The major possibilities have to add up to near one... If they don't... As you have said is the case in your model.... Then your model is flawed
Here we go again with your evaluation of me. I am aware of your opinion of me. I have heard it many a time.
Did I say I had offered the McCanns my services and the offer had been rejected? No I didn't, so even on this you have the wrong end of the stick. What I said was that I had sent an offer, by a standard channel used to funnel information to McCann supporters. That my offer was, should another PI team be set up, to take them on tour in Luz, as a method of getting them up to speed quickly and saving cash.
Have the Mccanns appointed new PIs? I don't know for certain, but I don't think so. It would be difficult for a non-appointed team to take up the offer of a tour round Luz.
Have the McCanns, or those working the communication channel responded in any form. No. I have not had acceptance or rejection, and not even acknowledgement that the McCanns have been made aware of my offer.
Personally, I would not expect anything, other perhaps than the civility of an acknowledgement of receipt of the communication. I would not expect the McCanns to reveal their intentions to a total stranger. Further, if a new team is appointed, I would expect them to have a significant say in whether they took a tour or not. After all, the conduct of such a tour places in my hands considerable knowledge of the team and what is of interest to them. AKA a valuable news story.
Should this offer come to be relevant, I would expect some form of vetting and quite possibly a non-disclosure agreement.
Here is my offer to you. Stop banging on about your opinion of me, and I will be happy to stop responding about what I think of your opinion. I would think other forum members would be quite appreciative of this.
Now lets get back to probability theory, shall we?
I explained right at the start that if the model was to be credible that the total probability of all alternatives should add to 1 or 100%. I further explained, right at the start, that my model probably comes to about 40%. And that as a result of this, my model cannot possibly be accurate. All of that came out in my first post re probabilities.
You then took the incorrect step of saying that either I did not understand probability theory (which I clearly do) or that to make the figures add up to 100%, there should be manipulation of my probability estimates (which clearly demonstrates a lack of what one can and cannot do in probability theory).
Probability theory prohibits me from manipulation, such as taking every figure and multiplying it by 2.5 to increase from 40% to 100%, and then claiming a good model. It insists that I point out there must be stuff going on here that I am not aware of. And that fact is as clear to me as the nose on my face. And that fact came out in my first post.
You, on the other hand, assert you have a good model, that it is 1% McCann and 99% abduction, and provide absolutely zero to support this. This is as bad as asserting it is 99% McCann and 1% abduction, with absolutely zero to support this. Two models, both supposedly good based on them adding up to 100%, and each almost completely the opposite of the other. Pure nonsense.
-
If you place parental involvement at 1%
The abduction and woke and wandered have to add up to 99%
That makes anduction odds on
So what do you conclude from that statement?. Working, for the sake of argument for the time being, on the presumption that the statement is correct.
-
Statistics are (largely) meaningless.
You just have to be sure that an event all the evidence points to could happen.
It is certainly possible that Madeleine could have been abducted.
All the evidence points to that as the most likely explanation (of the conundrum of what happened to Madeleine) ....
-
Here we go again with your evaluation of me. I am aware of your opinion of me. I have heard it many a time.
Did I say I had offered the McCanns my services and the offer had been rejected? No I didn't, so even on this you have the wrong end of the stick. What I said was that I had sent an offer, by a standard channel used to funnel information to McCann supporters. That my offer was, should another PI team be set up, to take them on tour in Luz, as a method of getting them up to speed quickly and saving cash.
Have the Mccanns appointed new PIs? I don't know for certain, but I don't think so. It would be difficult for a non-appointed team to take up the offer of a tour round Luz.
Have the McCanns, or those working the communication channel responded in any form. No. I have not had acceptance or rejection, and not even acknowledgement that the McCanns have been made aware of my offer.
Personally, I would not expect anything, other perhaps than the civility of an acknowledgement of receipt of the communication. I would not expect the McCanns to reveal their intentions to a total stranger. Further, if a new team is appointed, I would expect them to have a significant say in whether they took a tour or not. After all, the conduct of such a tour places in my hands considerable knowledge of the team and what is of interest to them. AKA a valuable news story.
Should this offer come to be relevant, I would expect some form of vetting and quite possibly a non-disclosure agreement.
Here is my offer to you. Stop banging on about your opinion of me, and I will be happy to stop responding about what I think of your opinion. I would think other forum members would be quite appreciative of this.
Now lets get back to probability theory, shall we?
I explained right at the start that if the model was to be credible that the total probability of all alternatives should add to 1 or 100%. I further explained, right at the start, that my model probably comes to about 40%. And that as a result of this, my model cannot possibly be accurate. All of that came out in my first post re probabilities.
You then took the incorrect step of saying that either I did not understand probability theory (which I clearly do) or that to make the figures add up to 100%, there should be manipulation of my probability estimates (which clearly demonstrates a lack of what one can and cannot do in probability theory).
Probability theory prohibits me from manipulation, such as taking every figure and multiplying it by 2.5 to increase from 40% to 100%, and then claiming a good model. It insists that I point out there must be stuff going on here that I am not aware of. And that fact is as clear to me as the nose on my face. And that fact came out in my first post.
You, on the other hand, assert you have a good model, that it is 1% McCann and 99% abduction, and provide absolutely zero to support this. This is as bad as asserting it is 99% McCann and 1% abduction, with absolutely zero to support this. Two models, both supposedly good based on them adding up to 100%, and each almost completely the opposite of the other. Pure nonsense.
You need to think about this more clearly and look exactly at what I have said.
If...that is if....the McCanns are not involved we are left with two main possibilities.You must accept that these must add up to close to 100%. Abduction or woke and wandered...the archiving report dismissed w and w....so have the mcccanns...that makes abduction itself close to 100...perfect logic.
All this relies on the McCanns being ruled out. As I have said for a very long time if Kate is telling the truth then Maddie was probably abducted and the shutter was open. I would say that SY have spoken to the mccanns and decided they are telling the truth and that is why they are investigating abduction.
You have suggested a lie detector...do you not realise they are not reliable...your apparent belief reduces your credibility...as does your inference that Kate should take one....
would you share your model that adds up to 40
-
Statistics are (largely) meaningless.
You just have to be sure that an event all the evidence points to could happen.
It is certainly possible that Madeleine could have been abducted.
All the evidence points to that as the most likely explanation (of the conundrum of what happened to Madeleine) ....
Belief again.
-
Belief again.
Belief?
Fact!
-
Belief again.
probablity supports abduction if the mccanns are not suspects....and according to SY they are not
-
So what do you conclude from that statement?. Working, for the sake of argument for the time being, on the presumption that the statement is correct.
we have had that conversation before
-
My total quite clearly maxxed out at 40%.
You have now invented some random figures, not covered each possibility, and claim to make the total 100%.
Try this...if there are 10 possible outcomes then with no more information each one has a probablity of 10%...
If we get further information then some probabilities rise in value and some fall...it still has to add up to a 100. If your adds up to 40 then you have not included all possibilites or assigned the wrong value to the existing ones...
-
Belief?
Fact!
Saying fact does not make it so.
-
Saying belief doesn't make it so.
Citing a witness statement does (make it so).
Unless you have reason to disbelieve the witness statement.
-
You need to think about this more clearly and look exactly at what I have said.
If...that is if....the McCanns are not involved we are left with two main possibilities.You must accept that these must add up to close to 100%. Abduction or woke and wandered...the archiving report dismissed w and w....so have the mcccanns...that makes abduction itself close to 100...perfect logic.
All this relies on the McCanns being ruled out. As I have said for a very long time if Kate is telling the truth then Maddie was probably abducted and the shutter was open. I would say that SY have spoken to the mccanns and decided they are telling the truth and that is why they are investigating abduction.
You have suggested a lie detector...do you not realise they are not reliable...your apparent belief reduces your credibility...as does your inference that Kate should take one....
would you share your model that adds up to 40
The whole argument is reliant on the innocence of the McCanns. If that's false, your conclusion is false.
-
Saying belief doesn't make it so.
Citing a witness statement does (make it so).
Unless you have reason to disbelieve the witness statement.
It doesn't say what you said.
-
Yes.
It does.
-
Yes.
It does.
As you like to discuss forensics ferryman, tell me of any forensic examination results which show an abduction took place.
-
The whole argument is reliant on the innocence of the McCanns. If that's false, your conclusion is false.
If you read my post you will see that is exactly what I have said.....
But the probability must add up to one
-
If you read my post you will see that is exactly what I have said.....
But the probability must add up to one
And the probability is the police would have discovered at least one glove mark. There were none. We know they identified some finger prints but as Gerry and Dianne said they were raising shutters there's would have been on them. But this fantasy abductor didn't even wear gloves @)(++(*
-
And the probability is the police would have discovered at least one glove mark. There was none. We know they identiified some of the finger prints but as Gerry and Dianne said they were raising shutters there's would have been on them. But this fantasy abductor didn't even wear gloves @)(++(*
I prefer to go with SY
-
And the probability is the police would have discovered at least one glove mark. There were none. We know they identified some finger prints but as Gerry and Dianne said they were raising shutters there's would have been on them. But this fantasy abductor didn't even wear gloves @)(++(*
...and the forensic results to indicate abduction, a resounding 0.0 %.
-
...and the forensic results to indicate abduction, a resounding 0.0 %.
as in the Ben Needham case but you avoid that fact...plus trhe PJ did not carry out a full forensic analysis of the bedclothes......'so what is the evidence for Maddie dying by accident in the apartment...zero
-
I prefer to go with SY
"The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless." MPS
-
"The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless." MPS
well as the McCanns are not suspects they are not being investigated
-
...and the forensic results to indicate abduction, a resounding 0.0 %.
They did have some reports of people standing and looking in the direction of apartment blocks. I betcha don't see that every day ?{)(**
-
They did have some reports of people standing and looking in the direction of apartment blocks. I betcha don't see that every day ?{)(**
Wow, people looking at buildings.
Well, I never. %£5&%
-
as in the Ben Needham case but you avoid that fact...plus trhe PJ did not carry out a full forensic analysis of the bedclothes......'so what is the evidence for Maddie dying by accident in the apartment...zero
The probability of the evidence that exists pointing to Madleine's death in the Apartment is calculable and definitely not zero.
-
...and the forensic results to indicate abduction, a resounding 0.0 %.
How can it be 0% with all those unidentified hairs?
-
How can it be 0% with all those unidentified hairs?
Unidentified hairs are not evidence of abduction.
Why do you think they would be ?
-
The probability of the evidence that exists pointing to Madleine's death in the Apartment is calculable and definitely not zero.
you need to read the post properly before replying... I never mentioned probability in the post you are responding to
-
Unidentified hairs are not evidence of abduction.
Why do you think they would be ?
How can you exclude them until they've been identified?
-
You need to think about this more clearly and look exactly at what I have said.
If...that is if....the McCanns are not involved we are left with two main possibilities.You must accept that these must add up to close to 100%. Abduction or woke and wandered...the archiving report dismissed w and w....so have the mcccanns...that makes abduction itself close to 100...perfect logic.
All this relies on the McCanns being ruled out. As I have said for a very long time if Kate is telling the truth then Maddie was probably abducted and the shutter was open. I would say that SY have spoken to the mccanns and decided they are telling the truth and that is why they are investigating abduction.
You have suggested a lie detector...do you not realise they are not reliable...your apparent belief reduces your credibility...as does your inference that Kate should take one....
would you share your model that adds up to 40
Still throwing in character evaluation? I thought this had been discussed elsewhere on the forum recently. And that is was generally regarded as a poor debating technique. Perhaps I am wrong.
What you say about your opinion of what SY would have done wrt to the McCanns remains just that i.e. what your opinion is on this point. If you have any evidence to support your opinion, this would be a very good time to bring such evidence to the forum.
The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not to be investigated. DCI Redwood has made statements that are in support of this remit, and I have no intention of debating this, or whether such apposition may have changed since Redwood's pronouncements. In the absence of evidence, would, should, probably and might are fillers that get us nowhere.
The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not investigated, whether by DCI Andy Redwood or DCI Nicola Wall.
Frankly, I have limited interest in how the archiving report went on certain topics, and I am not cherry picking here. One forum member has now been kind enough to initiate action relating to the woke and wandered theory. Now we have multiple ifs. If the information can be obtained. If the information is relevant. If the information confirms one possibility. THEN it will increase the possibility of W&W from a very small percentage, to something quite bigger. Just an awful lot of conditionals in there. It probably will not come to pass, but I am grateful to the forum member for trying to uncover fresh information.
I wish to split 'abduction' into unplanned abduction (i.e. burglary gone wrong) and planned abduction.
Unplanned abduction is something I currently rate as low probability. Roughly speaking, person tries the shutter, finds out to his delight the window is also open, then for some reason a burglary turns to unplanned abduction, complete with no evidence of such an act.
Planned abduction happens to be the one most likely. This is not based on an evaluation that the McCanns did not 'dun it' i.e. ruling them out. It is based on an evaluation of the evidence in the files, ruling in the possibility of a planned abduction.
Now here's the tricky bit folks, so please get your head wrapped around this.
The level of evidence I have would not pass muster in a criminal court of law. It would not pass muster in a civil court. Like I said, my model covers 40%, and that passes neither test.
So I can lay my assessment of all the options out for all to see. When I get to planned abduction, I run the risk of libel, not just on this forum, but in real life. Even if I turn out to be correct, I am running the risk of seriously damaging a live, on-going investigation. That investigation happens to be the best current chance for Madeleine. So I have no intent of bringing the forum into disrepute, of opening myself up to the possibility of libel, or of potentially derailing Madeleine's best chance.
What is so difficult about understanding that I said my model adds up to about 40%, which tells me my model is far from perfection?
The lie detector test is something I have clearly stated would have no standing in law. Curiously, one of the PI reports mentions lie detector information, but I am not going to spend my life trying to find out further information about this.
Kate taking a lie detector test has 2 benefits.
1) Any further PI team taking on the case would then start from a position of being reasonably confident that Kate described the incident scene correctly. Note I used the word 'reasonably', as I am aware that lie detector tests do not pass legal requirements. Before this is tucked into, I am aware that the McCanns would set a remit for the PIs, in much the same way that a remit was set for OG.
2) Amelie and Sean are about 11 now. I would guess they are still at primary school at this time. They are about to go to secondary school. I remember secondary school as a not particularly nice place to be, as my fellow schoolchildren established leaders, followers, camps, territory and much more c**p. And I went to one of the best secondary schools for many a mile.
Those twins are easy targets in a culture where kids can be cruel. They definitely will be associated with Madeleine, Kate and Gerry. What will that association be?
Please feel free to give me your take on the following. I'm interested, genuinely interested.
There will be a camp that states that Kate did not answer the 48 questions. That Kate and Gerry left the children in the crèche at every opportunity. That Kate and Gerry went out and left the 3 kids at risk while they wined, dined and socialised. That Kate and Gerry left the patio doors open. That Kate and Gerry lied about the checking arrangements. About the checking routine ... About, about, about.
Here's the one that crucifies me. They twins will have to explain, to their tormentors, why Kate concluded abduction, then left them in an open, unguarded, unsafe apartment while she put Madeleine top of the agenda.
So where does a lie detector test fit? Not into court evidence, certainly.
But the primary battle surely is for Madeleine?
Take your pick as to where the secondary battle lies. In my instance, it does not lie with the McCann parents. It lies with Amelie and Sean, totally innocent casualties of something over which they had zero control.
Don't they deserve to be able to say that Kate passed a lie detector test? Or should they simply be made to suffer outrageous allegations?
-
How can you exclude them until they've been identified?
Excluded from what exactly ?
This is even just clutching at straws.
How many people have been in that apartment since it was built ?
Any idea ?
and would you care to remind me of what Clarence Mitchell admitted as regards a break-in in the apartment ?
-
you need to read the post properly before replying... I never mentioned probability in the post you are responding to
You should have been a groundsman, always changing the goalposts.
-
Excluded from what exactly ?
This is even just clutching at straws.
How many people have been in that apartment since it was built ?
Any idea ?
and would you care to remind me of what Clarence Mitchell admitted as regards a break-in in the apartment ?
We're talking about hairs found in that apartment when the forensic people checked for them the following day. Only one was postively identified.
-
We're talking about hairs found in that apartment when the forensic people checked for them the following day. Only one was postively identified.
and how long had they been there for ?
There are no indications of any other person in that apartment on the night in question.
Now again, what did Mitchell say Carana ?
-
Still throwing in character evaluation? I thought this had been discussed elsewhere on the forum recently. And that is was generally regarded as a poor debating technique. Perhaps I am wrong.
What you say about your opinion of what SY would have done wrt to the McCanns remains just that i.e. what your opinion is on this point. If you have any evidence to support your opinion, this would be a very good time to bring such evidence to the forum.
The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not to be investigated. DCI Redwood has made statements that are in support of this remit, and I have no intention of debating this, or whether such apposition may have changed since Redwood's pronouncements. In the absence of evidence, would, should, probably and might are fillers that get us nowhere.
The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not investigated, whether by DCI Andy Redwood or DCI Nicola Wall.
Frankly, I have limited interest in how the archiving report went on certain topics, and I am not cherry picking here. One forum member has now been kind enough to initiate action relating to the woke and wandered theory. Now we have multiple ifs. If the information can be obtained. If the information is relevant. If the information confirms one possibility. THEN it will increase the possibility of W&W from a very small percentage, to something quite bigger. Just an awful lot of conditionals in there. It probably will not come to pass, but I am grateful to the forum member for trying to uncover fresh information.
I wish to split 'abduction' into unplanned abduction (i.e. burglary gone wrong) and planned abduction.
Unplanned abduction is something I currently rate as low probability. Roughly speaking, person tries the shutter, finds out to his delight the window is also open, then for some reason a burglary turns to unplanned abduction, complete with no evidence of such an act.
Planned abduction happens to be the one most likely. This is not based on an evaluation that the McCanns did not 'dun it' i.e. ruling them out. It is based on an evaluation of the evidence in the files, ruling in the possibility of a planned abduction.
Now here's the tricky bit folks, so please get your head wrapped around this.
The level of evidence I have would not pass muster in a criminal court of law. It would not pass muster in a civil court. Like I said, my model covers 40%, and that passes neither test.
So I can lay my assessment of all the options out for all to see. When I get to planned abduction, I run the risk of libel, not just on this forum, but in real life. Even if I turn out to be correct, I am running the risk of seriously damaging a live, on-going investigation. That investigation happens to be the best current chance for Madeleine. So I have no intent of bringing the forum into disrepute, of opening myself up to the possibility of libel, or of potentially derailing Madeleine's best chance.
What is so difficult about understanding that I said my model adds up to about 40%, which tells me my model is far from perfection?
The lie detector test is something I have clearly stated would have no standing in law. Curiously, one of the PI reports mentions lie detector information, but I am not going to spend my life trying to find out further information about this.
Kate taking a lie detector test has 2 benefits.
1) Any further PI team taking on the case would then start from a position of being reasonably confident that Kate described the incident scene correctly. Note I used the word 'reasonably', as I am aware that lie detector tests do not pass legal requirements. Before this is tucked into, I am aware that the McCanns would set a remit for the PIs, in much the same way that a remit was set for OG.
2) Amelie and Sean are about 11 now. I would guess they are still at primary school at this time. They are about to go to secondary school. I remember secondary school as a not particularly nice place to be, as my fellow schoolchildren established leaders, followers, camps, territory and much more c**p. And I went to one of the best secondary schools for many a mile.
Those twins are easy targets in a culture where kids can be cruel. They definitely will be associated with Madeleine, Kate and Gerry. What will that association be?
Please feel free to give me your take on the following. I'm interested, genuinely interested.
There will be a camp that states that Kate did not answer the 48 questions. That Kate and Gerry left the children in the crèche at every opportunity. That Kate and Gerry went out and left the 3 kids at risk while they wined, dined and socialised. That Kate and Gerry left the patio doors open. That Kate and Gerry lied about the checking arrangements. About the checking routine ... About, about, about.
Here's the one that crucifies me. They twins will have to explain, to their tormentors, why Kate concluded abduction, then left them in an open, unguarded, unsafe apartment while she put Madeleine top of the agenda.
So where does a lie detector test fit? Not into court evidence, certainly.
But the primary battle surely is for Madeleine?
Take your pick as to where the secondary battle lies. In my instance, it does not lie with the McCann parents. It lies with Amelie and Sean, totally innocent casualties of something over which they had zero control.
Don't they deserve to be able to say that Kate passed a lie detector test? Or should they simply be made to suffer outrageous allegations?
Very interesting post. Not sure I agree with your conclusion about the lie-detector test, because I think the twins (justly) which have much more solid grounds than the arbiter of a piece of electronic equipment for believing the truth of what their parents say (and may, well, have told them).
But I wanted to pick up on a different point.
You say:
So I can lay my assessment of all the options out for all to see. When I get to planned abduction, I run the risk of libel, not just on this forum, but in real life. Even if I turn out to be correct, I am running the risk of seriously damaging a live, on-going investigation. That investigation happens to be the best current chance for Madeleine. So I have no intent of bringing the forum into disrepute, of opening myself up to the possibility of libel, or of potentially derailing Madeleine's best chance.
On the point of libel, that would only be true (Portuguese or English law) if you named anyone specific or who could be identified by others in what you say.
But your point about (potentially) damaging a live investigation is certainly true, and (itself) an excellent reason not to go down that road.
-
and how long had they been there for ?
There are no indications of any other person in that apartment on the night in question.
Now again, what did Mitchell say Carana ?
Are you suggesting that all those hairs were there since the apartment block was built?
-
Who knows how long they may have been there. Is it known exactly where they were lifted from?
As a side issue, did all the Tapas group give their DNA for elimination purposes?
-
Are you suggesting that all those hairs were there since the apartment block was built?
8)-)))
Well, the expression clutching at straws now has an obvious replacement.
-
If you read my post you will see that is exactly what I have said.....
But the probability must add up to one
I'm not into probabilities really. The innocence of the McCanns is being presented by you as a fact. Just because you believe it's true doesn't mean it is.
-
Who knows how long they may have been there. Is it known exactly where they were lifted from?
As a side issue, did all the Tapas group give their DNA for elimination purposes?
Yes... as did the other people known to have been there that night.
-
I'm not into probabilities really. The innocence of the McCanns is being presented by you as a fact. Just because you believe it's true doesn't mean it is.
Let's see:
1. People who actually know how to read body-language insist the body language of the McCanns screamed innocent!
2. The Portuguese prosecutors noted that even if, hypothetically, we entertain the notion of the McCanns' guilt, quite how they are supposed to have dunit (or motve they might have had) remains to be explained.
3. The phenomenon (of child-abuction), though thankfully rare, is certainly precedented and documented.
4. (Noted by the prosecutors), before 10.000pm on May 3rd, the McCanns were noted by countless independent witnesses to be relaxed and carefree, suggesting they were not carrying a heavy burden.
All evidence of abduction.
-
Let's see:
1. People who actually know how to read body-language insist the body language of the McCanns screamed innocent!
2. The Portuguese prosecutors noted that even if, hypothetically, we entertain the notion of the McCanns' guilt, quite how they are supposed to have dunit (or motve they might have had) remains to be explained.
3. The phenomenon (of child-abuction), though thankfully rare, is certainly precedented and documented.
4. (Noted by the prosecutors), before 10.000pm on May 3rd, the McCanns were noted by countless independent witnesses to be relaxed and carefree, suggesting they were not carrying a heavy burden.
All evidence of abduction.
1. Other experts say they show signs of guilt, so take your pick.
2. Something being unexplained isn't evidence that it didn't happen.
3. Some children are abducted, but that's not evidence that Madeleine was. Some parents harm their children but that's not evidence that the McCanns did so.
4. That's not evidence of anything. Some people are good at hiding things, some aren't.
-
1. Other experts say they show signs of guilt, so take your pick.
2. Something being unexplained isn't evidence that it didn't happen.
3. Some children are abducted, but that's not evidence that Madeleine was. Some parents harm their children but that's not evidence that the McCanns did so.
4. That's not evidence of anything. Some people are good at hiding things, some aren't.
Would the inference be fair from your second point that you tacitly acknowledge the possibility of abduction?
-
I'm not into probabilities really. The innocence of the McCanns is being presented by you as a fact. Just because you believe it's true doesn't mean it is.
The innocence of the McCanns is presented in law as fact, because there is no evidence to contradict it.
-
Very interesting post. Not sure I agree with your conclusion about the lie-detector test, because I think the twins (justly) which have much more solid grounds than the arbiter of a piece of electronic equipment for believing the truth of what their parents say (and may, well, have told them).
But I wanted to pick up on a different point.
You say:
On the point of libel, that would only be true (Portuguese or English law) if you named anyone specific or who could be identified by others in what you say.
But your point about (potentially) damaging a live investigation is certainly true, and (itself) an excellent reason not to go down that road.
Yup.
I've got, maybe, a 40% chance of being right. So should I stick my head above the parapet on a public forum? Risk a multi-year trial in Portugal? Risk scuppering a chance for Madeleine? Or should I keep my gob shut?
I have a specific, named individual in the frame. I can come nowhere close to proving this. Therefore, my gob is definitely firmly shut.
-
Would the inference be fair from your second point that you tacitly acknowledge the possibility of abduction?
No. I was answering your points. Point 2 isn't about abduction. Point 3 is.
-
The innocence of the McCanns is presented in law as fact, because there is no evidence to contradict it.
Doesn't mean it's true.
-
You should have been a groundsman, always changing the goalposts.
not really..you were on the wrong pitch....I was discussing probability with sil and evidence with stephen....you then criticised one of my answers for possibility of evidence...confused U R
-
I'm not into probabilities really. The innocence of the McCanns is being presented by you as a fact. Just because you believe it's true doesn't mean it is.
I have never said it was fact..it's quite frustrating how posters don't read the posts properly
-
Yup.
I've got, maybe, a 40% chance of being right. So should I stick my head above the parapet on a public forum? Risk a multi-year trial in Portugal? Risk scuppering a chance for Madeleine? Or should I keep my gob shut?
I have a specific, named individual in the frame. I can come nowhere close to proving this. Therefore, my gob is definitely firmly shut.
Anything that might harm an active investigation is most definitely not to be countenanced. Shame really, it would have been interesting to see how much we could have raised in a gofundme defence appeal for you.
Congratulations on well considered,well argued posts.
-
Still throwing in character evaluation? I thought this had been discussed elsewhere on the forum recently. And that is was generally regarded as a poor debating technique. Perhaps I am wrong.
What you say about your opinion of what SY would have done wrt to the McCanns remains just that i.e. what your opinion is on this point. If you have any evidence to support your opinion, this would be a very good time to bring such evidence to the forum.
The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not to be investigated. DCI Redwood has made statements that are in support of this remit, and I have no intention of debating this, or whether such apposition may have changed since Redwood's pronouncements. In the absence of evidence, would, should, probably and might are fillers that get us nowhere.
The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not investigated, whether by DCI Andy Redwood or DCI Nicola Wall.
Frankly, I have limited interest in how the archiving report went on certain topics, and I am not cherry picking here. One forum member has now been kind enough to initiate action relating to the woke and wandered theory. Now we have multiple ifs. If the information can be obtained. If the information is relevant. If the information confirms one possibility. THEN it will increase the possibility of W&W from a very small percentage, to something quite bigger. Just an awful lot of conditionals in there. It probably will not come to pass, but I am grateful to the forum member for trying to uncover fresh information.
I wish to split 'abduction' into unplanned abduction (i.e. burglary gone wrong) and planned abduction.
Unplanned abduction is something I currently rate as low probability. Roughly speaking, person tries the shutter, finds out to his delight the window is also open, then for some reason a burglary turns to unplanned abduction, complete with no evidence of such an act.
Planned abduction happens to be the one most likely. This is not based on an evaluation that the McCanns did not 'dun it' i.e. ruling them out. It is based on an evaluation of the evidence in the files, ruling in the possibility of a planned abduction.
Now here's the tricky bit folks, so please get your head wrapped around this.
The level of evidence I have would not pass muster in a criminal court of law. It would not pass muster in a civil court. Like I said, my model covers 40%, and that passes neither test.
So I can lay my assessment of all the options out for all to see. When I get to planned abduction, I run the risk of libel, not just on this forum, but in real life. Even if I turn out to be correct, I am running the risk of seriously damaging a live, on-going investigation. That investigation happens to be the best current chance for Madeleine. So I have no intent of bringing the forum into disrepute, of opening myself up to the possibility of libel, or of potentially derailing Madeleine's best chance.
What is so difficult about understanding that I said my model adds up to about 40%, which tells me my model is far from perfection?
The lie detector test is something I have clearly stated would have no standing in law. Curiously, one of the PI reports mentions lie detector information, but I am not going to spend my life trying to find out further information about this.
Kate taking a lie detector test has 2 benefits.
1) Any further PI team taking on the case would then start from a position of being reasonably confident that Kate described the incident scene correctly. Note I used the word 'reasonably', as I am aware that lie detector tests do not pass legal requirements. Before this is tucked into, I am aware that the McCanns would set a remit for the PIs, in much the same way that a remit was set for OG.
2) Amelie and Sean are about 11 now. I would guess they are still at primary school at this time. They are about to go to secondary school. I remember secondary school as a not particularly nice place to be, as my fellow schoolchildren established leaders, followers, camps, territory and much more c**p. And I went to one of the best secondary schools for many a mile.
Those twins are easy targets in a culture where kids can be cruel. They definitely will be associated with Madeleine, Kate and Gerry. What will that association be?
Please feel free to give me your take on the following. I'm interested, genuinely interested.
There will be a camp that states that Kate did not answer the 48 questions. That Kate and Gerry left the children in the crèche at every opportunity. That Kate and Gerry went out and left the 3 kids at risk while they wined, dined and socialised. That Kate and Gerry left the patio doors open. That Kate and Gerry lied about the checking arrangements. About the checking routine ... About, about, about.
Here's the one that crucifies me. They twins will have to explain, to their tormentors, why Kate concluded abduction, then left them in an open, unguarded, unsafe apartment while she put Madeleine top of the agenda.
So where does a lie detector test fit? Not into court evidence, certainly.
But the primary battle surely is for Madeleine?
Take your pick as to where the secondary battle lies. In my instance, it does not lie with the McCann parents. It lies with Amelie and Sean, totally innocent casualties of something over which they had zero control.
Don't they deserve to be able to say that Kate passed a lie detector test? Or should they simply be made to suffer outrageous allegations?
Could you show where in the remit it says the McCanns should not be investigated...you are making things up and losing more credibility.....The remit is to investigate abduction...the result could be abduction is impossible...
it may well be that the McCanns were ruled out before the remit was drawn up... I would say that is perfectly possible...
your preoccupation with lie detectors is laughable...and is more in place with Jeremy Kyle...no wonder you had no response from team Mccann
-
Doesn't mean it's true.
Unless credible evidence comes to light to contradict the assumption, it is legally true.
Have zero interest in getting sucked into a philosophical discussion about the status of legal truth ....
-
Still throwing in character evaluation? I thought this had been discussed elsewhere on the forum recently. And that is was generally regarded as a poor debating technique. Perhaps I am wrong.
What you say about your opinion of what SY would have done wrt to the McCanns remains just that i.e. what your opinion is on this point. If you have any evidence to support your opinion, this would be a very good time to bring such evidence to the forum.
The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not to be investigated. DCI Redwood has made statements that are in support of this remit, and I have no intention of debating this, or whether such apposition may have changed since Redwood's pronouncements. In the absence of evidence, would, should, probably and might are fillers that get us nowhere.
The remit of OG requires that the McCanns are not investigated, whether by DCI Andy Redwood or DCI Nicola Wall.
Frankly, I have limited interest in how the archiving report went on certain topics, and I am not cherry picking here. One forum member has now been kind enough to initiate action relating to the woke and wandered theory. Now we have multiple ifs. If the information can be obtained. If the information is relevant. If the information confirms one possibility. THEN it will increase the possibility of W&W from a very small percentage, to something quite bigger. Just an awful lot of conditionals in there. It probably will not come to pass, but I am grateful to the forum member for trying to uncover fresh information.
I wish to split 'abduction' into unplanned abduction (i.e. burglary gone wrong) and planned abduction.
Unplanned abduction is something I currently rate as low probability. Roughly speaking, person tries the shutter, finds out to his delight the window is also open, then for some reason a burglary turns to unplanned abduction, complete with no evidence of such an act.
Planned abduction happens to be the one most likely. This is not based on an evaluation that the McCanns did not 'dun it' i.e. ruling them out. It is based on an evaluation of the evidence in the files, ruling in the possibility of a planned abduction.
Now here's the tricky bit folks, so please get your head wrapped around this.
The level of evidence I have would not pass muster in a criminal court of law. It would not pass muster in a civil court. Like I said, my model covers 40%, and that passes neither test.
So I can lay my assessment of all the options out for all to see. When I get to planned abduction, I run the risk of libel, not just on this forum, but in real life. Even if I turn out to be correct, I am running the risk of seriously damaging a live, on-going investigation. That investigation happens to be the best current chance for Madeleine. So I have no intent of bringing the forum into disrepute, of opening myself up to the possibility of libel, or of potentially derailing Madeleine's best chance.
What is so difficult about understanding that I said my model adds up to about 40%, which tells me my model is far from perfection?
The lie detector test is something I have clearly stated would have no standing in law. Curiously, one of the PI reports mentions lie detector information, but I am not going to spend my life trying to find out further information about this.
Kate taking a lie detector test has 2 benefits.
1) Any further PI team taking on the case would then start from a position of being reasonably confident that Kate described the incident scene correctly. Note I used the word 'reasonably', as I am aware that lie detector tests do not pass legal requirements. Before this is tucked into, I am aware that the McCanns would set a remit for the PIs, in much the same way that a remit was set for OG.
2) Amelie and Sean are about 11 now. I would guess they are still at primary school at this time. They are about to go to secondary school. I remember secondary school as a not particularly nice place to be, as my fellow schoolchildren established leaders, followers, camps, territory and much more c**p. And I went to one of the best secondary schools for many a mile.
Those twins are easy targets in a culture where kids can be cruel. They definitely will be associated with Madeleine, Kate and Gerry. What will that association be?
Please feel free to give me your take on the following. I'm interested, genuinely interested.
There will be a camp that states that Kate did not answer the 48 questions. That Kate and Gerry left the children in the crèche at every opportunity. That Kate and Gerry went out and left the 3 kids at risk while they wined, dined and socialised. That Kate and Gerry left the patio doors open. That Kate and Gerry lied about the checking arrangements. About the checking routine ... About, about, about.
Here's the one that crucifies me. They twins will have to explain, to their tormentors, why Kate concluded abduction, then left them in an open, unguarded, unsafe apartment while she put Madeleine top of the agenda.
So where does a lie detector test fit? Not into court evidence, certainly.
But the primary battle surely is for Madeleine?
Take your pick as to where the secondary battle lies. In my instance, it does not lie with the McCann parents. It lies with Amelie and Sean, totally innocent casualties of something over which they had zero control.
Don't they deserve to be able to say that Kate passed a lie detector test? Or should they simply be made to suffer outrageous allegations?
again I think your remark is ridiculous...you assume that people will torment the twins....I don't believe they will
-
I have never said it was fact..it's quite frustrating how posters don't read the posts properly
What's the point of building an argument using a starting point which you can't verify?
I could say that if the McCanns are guilty there is x probability that she had an accident, y possibility that they harmed her deliberately and z possibility that they harmed her accidentally. You would immediately respond saying I have no evidence of their guilt. You have no evidence of their innocence.
-
What's the point of building an argument using a starting point which you can't verify?
I could say that if the McCanns are guilty there is x probability that she had an accident, y possibility that they harmed her deliberately and z possibility that they harmed her accidentally. You would immediately respond saying I have no evidence of their guilt. You have no evidence of their innocence.
Evidence of Innocence isn't required.
-
Yup.
I've got, maybe, a 40% chance of being right. So should I stick my head above the parapet on a public forum? Risk a multi-year trial in Portugal? Risk scuppering a chance for Madeleine? Or should I keep my gob shut?
I have a specific, named individual in the frame. I can come nowhere close to proving this. Therefore, my gob is definitely firmly shut.
if you cannot come close to proving it you have no proper evidence and your claim is worthless...why should you worry about harming the investigation...amaral has written a book on it and he is supposed to be a legal expert...the McCanns are libelled regularly on here so you should have no worries there either
I find it funny that posters here think they can solve the case
-
I have someone in particular in mind, but I'm not saying anything either.
-
What's the point of building an argument using a starting point which you can't verify?
I could say that if the McCanns are guilty there is x probability that she had an accident, y possibility that they harmed her deliberately and z possibility that they harmed her accidentally. You would immediately respond saying I have no evidence of their guilt. You have no evidence of their innocence.
we cannot verify anything so therefore by your definition all debate is pointless... SY have said the parents are not supects...it is therefore reasonable to believe they are not
-
Evidence of Innocence isn't required.
And x,y and z (as per G-Unit's post) are simply non-starters ...
-
What's the point of building an argument using a starting point which you can't verify?
I could say that if the McCanns are guilty there is x probability that she had an accident, y possibility that they harmed her deliberately and z possibility that they harmed her accidentally. You would immediately respond saying I have no evidence of their guilt. You have no evidence of their innocence.
the whole point of probability which was the context in which my post was made is that the outcome is unknown
-
This case is to a certain extent quite simple,,,,if Kate is telling the truth Maddie was probably abducted....so I would think that SY have interviewed Kate and Gerry and made their minds up...it really is that simple
-
Evidence of Innocence isn't required.
Maybe not, but not everyone who is presumed innocent under the law is actually innocent. Some of them just haven't been found out yet.
-
Maybe not, but not everyone who is presumed innocent under the law is actually innocent. Some of them just haven't been found out yet.
So you think that you have the right to decide?
-
This case is to a certain extent quite simple,,,,if Kate is telling the truth Maddie was probably abducted....so I would think that SY have interviewed Kate and Gerry and made their minds up...it really is that simple
It's the 'if' that's the problem of course. Some believe, some don't.
-
So you think that you have the right to decide?
Not to decide, no. I can express my doubts, however.
-
Based on what I have read about the case... Same as everyone else
The point is that the major possibilities need to add up to near 1..
If sil only gets to 0.4 ... Then she has assigned the wrong values to the major possibilities
correct!
-
correct!
I suggest you and the other mccann supporters 'trying' to suggest values of probability show your working or cite statistics to support your numbers, rather than say the first value which springs to your head, or is a result of your bias.
-
I suggest you and the other mccann supporters 'trying' to suggest values of probability show your working or cite statistics to support your numbers, rather than say the first value which springs to your head, or is a result of your bias.
I have explained my calculations and how I have arrived at them...if you cannot understand it that is your problem.....the starting point is that all the major possibilities need to add up to 100%...the best the sceptics can do is 40%...which highlights a major flaw in their model
-
I have explained my calculations and how I have arrived at them...if you cannot understand it that is your problem.....the starting point is that all the major possibilities need to add up to 100%...the best the sceptics can do is 40%...which highlights a major flaw in their model
No all possibilities.
-
No all possibilities.
just popping out for breakfast...will correct you later
-
As it stands in real terms, 'abduction' is no better or worse than any other scenario in terms of evidence, or the lack of it.
There is clearly no forensic evidence of abduction. Mitchell stated, no evidence of a break in, and there has been no trace of Madeleine since her disappearance.
The results of the forensic examinations undertaken from the samples taken were inconclusive.
mccann claims of an open window has not been verified before 10 pm.
The only verified fingerprints on the window were mrs mccann.
Paedophile rings have been checked out with no result.
Claims of a burglary don't add up either.
'nothing of value was taken from the apartment'.
-
No all possibilities.
Indeed Slarti.
Anyone making a reasonable prediction, other than supposition or bias,needs a statistical model on which to base a prediction.
-
As it stands in real terms, 'abduction' is no better or worse than any other scenario in terms of evidence, or the lack of it.
There is clearly no forensic evidence of abduction. Mitchell stated, no evidence of a break in, and there has been no trace of Madeleine since her disappearance.
The results of the forensic examinations undertaken from the samples taken were inconclusive.
mccann claims of an open window has not been verified before 10 pm.
The only verified fingerprints on the window were mrs mccann.
Paedophile rings have been checked out with no result.
Claims of a burglary don't add up either.
'nothing of value was takedn from the apartment'.
Risible that you imply there is something untoward in the occupant of the apartment leaving fingerprints commensurate with leaning out of the window ... as she said she did.
We know that at least two people interfered with the shutter but their fingerprints do not feature.
-
Risible that you imply there is something untoward in the occupant of the apartment leaving fingerprints commensurate with leaning out of the window ... as she said she did.
We know that at least two people interfered with the shutter but their fingerprints do not feature.
I find it risible that you believe in abduction, with not one piece of verifiable evidence to back it up.
Tell me Brietta, what is expertise do you have in Statistics exactly ?
-
I find it risible that you believe in abduction, with not one piece of verifiable evidence to back it up.
Tell me Brietta, what is expertise do you have in Statistics exactly ?
it is your opinion there is no evidence....Redwood said..
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard
as you can see he was not only speaking for himself
-
No all possibilities.
if we consider all possibilities then some will be so unlikely as to be insignificant.......therefore if you want to be pedantic then all the major possibilities need to add up to close to 100%....no significant difference
-
As it stands in real terms, 'abduction' is no better or worse than any other scenario in terms of evidence, or the lack of it.
There is clearly no forensic evidence of abduction. Mitchell stated, no evidence of a break in, and there has been no trace of Madeleine since her disappearance.
The results of the forensic examinations undertaken from the samples taken were inconclusive.
mccann claims of an open window has not been verified before 10 pm.
The only verified fingerprints on the window were mrs mccann.
Paedophile rings have been checked out with no result.
Claims of a burglary don't add up either.
'nothing of value was taken from the apartment'.
There is plenty of evidence if you understand what evidence means.....based on this evidence we can rule out some scenarios which increases the probablity of the others
-
I see mccann supporters still rely on Redwood, despite the fact he achieved nothing at all.
Again, a question asked before.
What was Redwood's expertise in missing child cases ?
and there is no sufficient evidence that has been found to charge anyone with abduction.
If there was, it would have happened. Claiming otherwise to say the least is rather foolish, if not ridiculous.
I also suggest, that some mccann supporters should actually read up on probability and statistical models. It would help.
-
I see mccann supporters still rely on Redwood, despite the fact he achieved nothing at all.
Again, a question asked before.
What was Redwood's expertise in missing childminder cases ?
and there is no sufficient evidence that has been found to charge anyone with abduction.
If there was, it would have happened. Claiming otherwise to say the least is rather foolish, if not ridiculous.
I am not claiming anything which you would realise if you read my posts accurately...I am stating facts..it is a fact Redwood made this statement...he talks of evidence...that would more than suggest there is evidence
-
Could you show where in the remit it says the McCanns should not be investigated...you are making things up and losing more credibility.....The remit is to investigate abduction...the result could be abduction is impossible...
it may well be that the McCanns were ruled out before the remit was drawn up... I would say that is perfectly possible...
your preoccupation with lie detectors is laughable...and is more in place with Jeremy Kyle...no wonder you had no response from team Mccann
Still the lack of logic and the dollop of personal emotive evaluation.
Quote "The remit is to instigate abduction." This cannot possibly be twisted, by any stretch of the imagination, into abduction could be proved to be impossible. Let me, in one short post, point out you have 'could be' (no evidence), 'may well be' (no evidence), 'possible' (no evidence).
So, you quote the line that the remit does not include investigating the McCanns. You stick in 3 conditionals. You stick in 2 emotional slurs. And you elevate Team McCann.
That was a total disaster, IMO. Madeleine deserves better, IMO.
PS I cannot stand the Jeremy Kyle show. I will leave it to other members of the forum to make up their own minds on this.
-
Still the lack of logic and the dollop of personal emotive evaluation.
Quote "The remit is to instigate abduction." This cannot possibly be twisted, by any stretch of the imagination, into abduction could be proved to be impossible. Let me, in one short post, point out you have 'could be' (no evidence), 'may well be' (no evidence), 'possible' (no evidence).
So, you quote the line that the remit does not include investigating the McCanns. You stick in 3 conditionals. You stick in 2 emotional slurs. And you elevate Team McCann.
That was a total disaster, IMO. Madeleine deserves better, IMO.
PS I cannot stand the Jeremy Kyle show. I will leave it to other members of the forum to make up their own minds on this.
I would say the remit was decided upon once SY had ruled out the parents. My opinion ..you have yours. It makes perfect sense as I have pointed out that once the parents are ruled out abduction is odds on. You might want to think 11 million has been spent without following proper procedure....I don't
-
Still the lack of logic and the dollop of personal emotive evaluation.
Quote "The remit is to instigate abduction." This cannot possibly be twisted, by any stretch of the imagination, into abduction could be proved to be impossible. Let me, in one short post, point out you have 'could be' (no evidence), 'may well be' (no evidence), 'possible' (no evidence).
So, you quote the line that the remit does not include investigating the McCanns. You stick in 3 conditionals. You stick in 2 emotional slurs. And you elevate Team McCann.
That was a total disaster, IMO. Madeleine deserves better, IMO.
PS I cannot stand the Jeremy Kyle show. I will leave it to other members of the forum to make up their own minds on this.
Madeleine deserves better than having her family continually attacked on the net...Maddie deserves a proper investigation into her disappearance and if that costs 12 million that's ok with me
-
again I think your remark is ridiculous...you assume that people will torment the twins....I don't believe they will
Frankly, I have no interests in your beliefs.
The reason we ended up in this bit of the Algarve was to get two grandchildren out of the UK school system, where they were both being bullied big time and the school was not interested in fulfilling it's legal responsibilities.
So, feel free to trust in your belief, as long as it is your family involved.
Speaking personally, as a practical person, I would be into that school in advance of any bullying of the twins, to get an assurance that anything on this front would be approached with foresight, not hindsight, and appropriate checks put into place.
If you, or the McCanns, wish to leave it to hope, then so be it. The story will continue as it started.
-
Frankly, I have no interests in your beliefs.
The reason we ended up in this bit of the Algarve was to get two grandchildren out of the UK school system, where they were both being bullied big time and the school was not interested in fulfilling it's legal responsibilities.
So, feel free to trust in your belief, as long as it is your family involved.
Speaking personally, as a practical person, I would be into that school in advance of any bullying of the twins, to get an assurance that anything on this front would be approached with foresight, not hindsight, and appropriate checks put into place.
If you, or the McCanns, wish to leave it to hope, then so be it. The story will continue as it started.
the overwhelmingly vast majority of children do not get bullied at school although I accept this is a problem for some. As a father of 7 I do have some experience of children and schools.
I doubt many children will know about the 48 questions and other internet rubbish
-
I have explained my calculations and how I have arrived at them...if you cannot understand it that is your problem.....the starting point is that all the major possibilities need to add up to 100%...the best the sceptics can do is 40%...which highlights a major flaw in their model
I think if I retorted with an accurate word for this post I might actually get my first warning/points from the mods.
I am not now, nor ever have been, a sceptic. (Yet another emotive connotation. Is it actually possible for you to do a post without the emotive connotation? Just curious.)
Therefore my 40% model is NOT a sceptic model. Do not hand my model over to some bunch of 'sceptics'. It is my model, not theirs, whoever 'they' are.
I highlighted the problem with my model right at the start. You were actually quite tardy in getting round to understanding the issue.
Your model is based on assigning a 1% probability to the McCanns, erroneously deciding you can invent the rest, and filling the vacuum with 99% abduction. If you were sitting a GCSE on the topic, that approach defines a fail.
-
Madeleine deserves better than having her family continually attacked on the net...Maddie deserves a proper investigation into her disappearance and if that costs 12 million that's ok with me
It's lucky SY released those efits 5 years later or they may never have been released to the world. And you will be happy to know they are at the same place Amaral was in 2007 when removed - the Smiths sighting. That's the only real credible lead in this whole case. Blonk's suggestion that a whole family of 9 would cover for their great friend RM has no credibility at all. Actually it's embarrassing. We know who was trying to connect those two separate sighting from the start and that would rule somebody out of the later one. That is crystal clear to anyone with an open mind!
-
I think if I retorted with an accurate word for this post I might actually get my first warning/points from the mods.
I am not now, nor ever have been, a sceptic. (Yet another emotive connotation. Is it actually possible for you to do a post without the emotive connotation? Just curious.)
Therefore my 40% model is NOT a sceptic model. Do not hand my model over to some bunch of 'sceptics'. It is my model, not theirs, whoever 'they' are.
I highlighted the problem with my model right at the start. You were actually quite tardy in getting round to understanding the issue.
Your model is based on assigning a 1% probability to the McCanns, erroneously deciding you can invent the rest, and filling the vacuum with 99% abduction. If you were sitting a GCSE on the topic, that approach defines a fail.
first...the fact that you would like Kate to take a lie detector test means you are sceptical...ie a sceptic
I have said...IF the McCanns are ruled out then abduction is odds on. I have explained all this in the last 24 hrs...you cannot seem to grasp probability.....think simply...if the Mccanns are ruled out there are only two real major possibilities..abduction and woke and wandered...you can't just asign these a 10% value ........all possibilities have to add up to 100%...
-
As I said earlier, some mccann supporters need to read up on probability, and not make wild unsubstantiated estimations of probability based on bias.
They should also look up the stats on the percentages of missing children who are taken by family members or people who know the families.
-
it is your opinion there is no evidence....Redwood said..
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard
as you can see he was not only speaking for himself
If you have a direct quote for your statement above it would be interesting to see it.
This is what Redwood said on GMTV;
He said they were working on two key elements; that Madeleine left the apartment alive or that she left it dead. He then says there's an opportunity in the timeline (identified by 'forensically examining it) for a live removal, which is a criminal act by a stranger.
So the criminal act by a stranger is the most likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance only if she was alive when she left the apartment.
He didn't offer any opinion of what may have happened if she was not alive when she left the apartment.
-
seems Metodo three or five is in the news again
For reasons not immediately clear, social media has started buzzing again over the allegedly corrupt practices of one of the private detective agencies hired by the parents of Madeleine McCann, shortly after the little girl vanished from a tourist complex in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
Much has already been written - both in the UK and abroad - of the money billed to the Madeleine Fund by Barcelona agency Metodo 3.
Quoting Spanish newspaper ABC, Diário de Notícias confirmed two years ago that Metodo 3 detectives “affirmed that they had clues pointing to a pedophile ring which had kidnapped the child, and for the journeys made to Portugal, Morocco and the United Kingdom, the agency charged 70,000 euros, without presenting any results - because in reality there never was any investigation”.
A source from ABC told the paper that Metodo 3 “guaranteed and charged for five investigators” on the case, “when in reality there weren’t even three”.
For the journeys to Portugal, “the agency charged as if four people were travelling”, when only one had, and this person “did not even speak Portuguese”.
As DN affirmed in 2013, Metodo 3’s practices eventually came under police scrutiny - not over the agency’s handling of the Madeleine case, but over allegedly illegal wire taps on political parties “and other irregularities”.
What seems to have stirred up new controversy is the online publishing of a previously banned book in Spanish by former Metodo 3 private eyes Julián Peribañez and Antonio Tamarjit.
- See more at: http://portugalresident.com/smokescreen-book-by-former-maddie-private-eyes-sparks-social-media-furore?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.sbfVFB9Y.dpuf
http://portugalresident.com/smokescreen-book-by-former-maddie-private-eyes-sparks-social-media-furore?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
-
As I said earlier, some mccann supporters need to read up on probability, and not make wild unsubstantiated estimations of probability based on bias.
They should also look up the stats on the percentages of missing children who are taken by family members or people who know the families.
You need to have another look at the statistics you THINK you are quoting.....provide a link......children TAKEN by family members are those involved in custody battles and taken by one parent...not the case here...you are probably confused with children HARMED by family memebers
-
If you have a direct quote for your statement above it would be interesting to see it.
This is what Redwood said on GMTV;
He said they were working on two key elements; that Madeleine left the apartment alive or that she left it dead. He then says there's an opportunity in the timeline (identified by 'forensically examining it) for a live removal, which is a criminal act by a stranger.
So the criminal act by a stranger is the most likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance only if she was alive when she left the apartment.
He didn't offer any opinion of what may have happened if she was not alive when she left the apartment.
mine is far closer to an exact quote...he never mentioned maddie leaving the apartment dead..you are making things up...please provide a link to the video to prove me wrong
-
Interestingly Redwood said they approached the case with a completely open mind which would indicate taht the remit was not written up at the start of the review
-
first...the fact that you would like Kate to take a lie detector test means you are sceptical...ie a sceptic
I have said...IF the McCanns are ruled out then abduction is odds on. I have explained all this in the last 24 hrs...you cannot seem to grasp probability.....think simply...if the Mccanns are ruled out there are only two real major possibilities..abduction and woke and wandered...you can't just asign these a 10% value ........all possibilities have to add up to 100%...
The fact that I would like Kate to take a lie detector test does not make me sceptical or a sceptic. It means I believe the situation would be improved, therefore I would like Kate to take a (properly conducted) lie detector test.
Who would benefit from such a test, given that I have already said such a test has no standing in a court of law? Well, Madeleine would, given that the state of the incident scene has been called into question. Kate would, given that the state of the incident scene has been called into question. The twins would, given that they are in the firing line of something that cannot possibly be attributed to them.
The PIs would. Their option is simple. Work for the McCanns blindly accepting the McCann explanation of events. Precisely the rancour heaped upon Operation Grange. Or to be able to say, we have conducted additional checks, and on the basis on these checks, we have concluded that the McCanns are not persons of interest.
OG has not clarified why the remit does not include investigating the McCanns. It is simply that the remit is restricted to abduction.
I made this same error on another forum, and Blonk corrected me, namely that the McCanns are off limits for OG. We then disagreed about whether Nicola Wall should accept a 'poisoned chalice' or not.
What I learned from the exchange is that starting off with the assumption that the incident scene is as per Kate's description, without verifying this, and in the face of so much speculation, is indeed a poisoned chalice.
Please, I don't need to think simply. I have a brain capable of advanced and deep thought. As it happens, I have an Honours degree in Science and as post graduate degree on top. I have no interest whatsoever in discussing my intellectual capabilities with you. THE FORUM READERS CAN ASSESS MY POINTS FOR THEMSELVES (apologies for caps, still not getting a better method of emphasis to work).
If you think that one can take a model, which when evaluated does not give a good explanation, and then simply bash it into shape, you are wrong, but go for it. I would, if I followed your advice, increase the probability of the McCanns dun it from my opinion of highly unlikely. Please remember, I think it is highly unlikely the McCanns dun it, whilst you are classifying me as a sceptic.
So where does your recommendation lead me. I would have to upgrade the possibility that the McCanns dun it from 'highly unlikely' to at the minimum 'unlikely' or more likely to 'quite possible'.
I think I prefer reality, which is that I know for certain that there is a lot I do not know. Feel free to run with your version of certainty. I am not learning a lot from it.
-
if we consider all possibilities then some will be so unlikely as to be insignificant.......therefore if you want to be pedantic then all the major possibilities need to add up to close to 100%....no significant difference
I think that post is the definition of pedantic.
-
(snip)
OG has not clarified why the remit does not include investigating the McCanns. It is simply that the remit is restricted to abduction.
I made this same error on another forum, and Blonk corrected me, namely that the McCanns are off limits for OG. We then disagreed about whether Nicola Wall should accept a 'poisoned chalice' or not.
What I learned from the exchange is that starting off with the assumption that the incident scene is as per Kate's description, without verifying this, and in the face of so much speculation, is indeed a poisoned chalice.
Blonk has yet to explain why a) the McCanns would have continued to push for the case to be re-examined when it had already been shelved and b) why the scoping exercise (which preceded the Op Grange review) would not even so have examined the possibility of the McCanns' involvement.
-
I think that post is the definition of pedantic.
probably because you don't understand it
-
You need to have another look at the statistics you THINK you are quoting.....provide a link......children TAKEN by family members are those involved in custody battles and taken by one parent...not the case here...you are probably confused with children HARMED by family memebers
To get a full picture you would have to include children killed by family members and hidden.
-
To get a full picture you would have to include children killed by family members and hidden.
the evidence suggests that stephen meant to say children harmed...rather than children taken
-
The fact that I would like Kate to take a lie detector test does not make me sceptical or a sceptic. It means I believe the situation would be improved, therefore I would like Kate to take a (properly conducted) lie detector test.
Who would benefit from such a test, given that I have already said such a test has no standing in a court of law? Well, Madeleine would, given that the state of the incident scene has been called into question. Kate would, given that the state of the incident scene has been called into question. The twins would, given that they are in the firing line of something that cannot possibly be attributed to them.
The PIs would. Their option is simple. Work for the McCanns blindly accepting the McCann explanation of events. Precisely the rancour heaped upon Operation Grange. Or to be able to say, we have conducted additional checks, and on the basis on these checks, we have concluded that the McCanns are not persons of interest.
OG has not clarified why the remit does not include investigating the McCanns. It is simply that the remit is restricted to abduction.
I made this same error on another forum, and Blonk corrected me, namely that the McCanns are off limits for OG. We then disagreed about whether Nicola Wall should accept a 'poisoned chalice' or not.
What I learned from the exchange is that starting off with the assumption that the incident scene is as per Kate's description, without verifying this, and in the face of so much speculation, is indeed a poisoned chalice.
Please, I don't need to think simply. I have a brain capable of advanced and deep thought. As it happens, I have an Honours degree in Science and as post graduate degree on top. I have no interest whatsoever in discussing my intellectual capabilities with you. THE FORUM READERS CAN ASSESS MY POINTS FOR THEMSELVES (apologies for caps, still not getting a better method of emphasis to work).
If you think that one can take a model, which when evaluated does not give a good explanation, and then simply bash it into shape, you are wrong, but go for it. I would, if I followed your advice, increase the probability of the McCanns dun it from my opinion of highly unlikely. Please remember, I think it is highly unlikely the McCanns dun it, whilst you are classifying me as a sceptic.
So where does your recommendation lead me. I would have to upgrade the possibility that the McCanns dun it from 'highly unlikely' to at the minimum 'unlikely' or more likely to 'quite possible'.
I think I prefer reality, which is that I know for certain that there is a lot I do not know. Feel free to run with your version of certainty. I am not learning a lot from it.
As lie detector tests have been deemed to be not much more accurate than the flip of a coin perhaps you can explain why you think Kate taking one would change anything?
-
I think that post is the definition of pedantic.
It was done by someone who clearly doesn't understand stats.
They also need to refer to the stats they are using and/or the statistical model employed.
Stats is one branch of Maths, which for today's students post G.C.S.E. comes under 4 categories :
Core; Decision; Mechanics and Stats.
-
It was done by someone who clearly doesn't understand stats.
no it wasn't...it was done by an someone educated to a high level in maths...s level to be precise...the maths involved here is however extremely simple
-
As lie detector tests have been deemed to be not much more accurate than the flip of a coin perhaps you can explain why you think Kate taking one would change anything?
That was going to be my next point.
-
That was going to be my next point.
a point I have made several times...which sil seems to have taken offence at
-
the overwhelmingly vast majority of children do not get bullied at school although I accept this is a problem for some. As a father of 7 I do have some experience of children and schools.
I doubt many children will know about the 48 questions and other internet rubbish
I do hope that your 7 children have no experience of bullying at school.
I'm trying hard to come up with an example of someone I know who has had a similar experience to yours.
Let me see. I personally, was the subject of attempted bullying at secondary school. My partner was subjected to bullying in senior school. The grandchildren we relocated to Portugal were subjected to bullying. Their mother was the subject of attempted bullying. (She's a tough nut.)
We have new neighbours. One of the reasons they have come out here, not the only one, is that their kids were subject to bullying at school.
English law has a specific law related to bullying, and what schools are legally obliged to do about it. I got into that one when my grandson was about to be expelled from school, in an incident where there was little evidence, apart from a computer record that the school bully had issued a death threat to my grandson.
So it heartens me no end that your children have no experience of bullying.
However, the idea that the McCann twins will have a free ride through secondary school requires rose-tinted glasses.
They deserve better.
-
I do hope that your 7 children have no experience of bullying at school.
I'm trying hard to come up with an example of someone I know who has had a similar experience to yours.
Let me see. I personally, was the subject of attempted bullying at secondary school. My partner was subjected to bullying in senior school. The grandchildren we relocated to Portugal were subjected to bullying. Their mother was the subject of attempted bullying. (She's a tough nut.)
We have new neighbours. One of the reasons they have come out here, not the only one, is that their kids were subject to bullying at school.
English law has a specific law related to bullying, and what schools are legally obliged to do about it. I got into that one when my grandson was about to be expelled from school, in an incident where there was little evidence, apart from a computer record that the school bully had issued a death threat to my grandson.
So it heartens me no end that your children have no experience of bullying.
However, the idea that the McCann twins will have a free ride through secondary school requires rose-tinted glasses.
They deserve better.
If the twins are bullied it will be because their classmates have read some of the complete crap that has been posted about their parents on the internet not because their parents didn't take a lie detector test. if they took such a test it would not make the slightest bit of difference to the sceptics and their agenda to denigrate these parents at every opportunity, and that is a fact.
-
I do hope that your 7 children have no experience of bullying at school.
I'm trying hard to come up with an example of someone I know who has had a similar experience to yours.
Let me see. I personally, was the subject of attempted bullying at secondary school. My partner was subjected to bullying in senior school. The grandchildren we relocated to Portugal were subjected to bullying. Their mother was the subject of attempted bullying. (She's a tough nut.)
We have new neighbours. One of the reasons they have come out here, not the only one, is that their kids were subject to bullying at school.
English law has a specific law related to bullying, and what schools are legally obliged to do about it. I got into that one when my grandson was about to be expelled from school, in an incident where there was little evidence, apart from a computer record that the school bully had issued a death threat to my grandson.
So it heartens me no end that your children have no experience of bullying.
However, the idea that the McCann twins will have a free ride through secondary school requires rose-tinted glasses.
They deserve better.
didn't say my children had no experience of bullying...they have to a minor extent. Fortunately they are all at or were at very nice independent schools so they have been lucky...the eldest of my younger children is now at a Rudolph Steiner School and the others will follow... Schools hands are tied to a certain extent by their inability to discipline children.
What I see on these forums is adults behaving as bullies towards the McCanns....Brenda Leyland being a prime example......they are not setting a very good example to their children
-
If the twins are bullied it will be because their classmates have read some of the complete crap that has been posted about their parents on the internet not because their parents didn't take a lie detector test. if they took such a test it would not make the slightest bit of difference to the sceptics and their agenda to denigrate these parents at every opportunity, and that is a fact.
very well put Alfred...the lie detector is an absolutely ridiculous idea....false results abound...what if kate gave a false positive...what would the online bullies do then
-
mine is far closer to an exact quote...he never mentioned maddie leaving the apartment dead..you are making things up...please provide a link to the video to prove me wrong
Please provide the source of your quote so we can all decide for ourselves how exact it is. (I notice it's now 'closer' to exact, not actually exact).
You're right in that he didn't mention her 'leaving the apartment dead', just that she may be dead. I was trying to simplify it. He didn't speculate at all where when or how she could have died if she's dead. If they have theories on that they're not telling.
He is clearly saying that taking a live child from the apartment would have been a criminal act by a stranger. I think that's a reasonable assumption but as to what evidence he has that she was alive when taken.........he doesn't say.
two key elements of it is to go: 1 Madeleine is alive and the other is, sadly she's not
we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there - for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive - and it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/60april12/ITV1_27_04_2012.htm
-
I have seen that someone is claiming the probability of non-abduction is 1%.
Can we see the statistical proof of this ?
Or is it just more hot air with no basis ?
-
To get a full picture you would have to include children killed by family members and hidden.
On holiday in a foreign country.
-
I have seen that someone is claiming the probability of non-abduction is 1%.
Can we see the statistical proof of this ?
Or is it just more hot air with no basis ?
no it is not hot air but you need to read the whole statement....IF..and IF...remember IF the parents are not involved... abduction is ...odds on favourite
-
I find it risible that you believe in abduction, with not one piece of verifiable evidence to back it up.
Tell me Brietta, what is expertise do you have in Statistics exactly ?
By the looks of it ... slightly more than you have.
-
On holiday in a foreign country.
Precisely the point.
Leaving children in unlocked accommodation for extended periods.
Not the hallmark of intelligent behaviour.
-
To get a full picture you would have to include children killed by family members and hidden.
to get aproper picture you would need to look at the social background...mental health...drug habits etc ..etc...of teh "parents" involved
-
I believe posters are required to show a logical basis for any figures quoted.
So where is this for 1% 8)-)))
-
Please provide the source of your quote so we can all decide for ourselves how exact it is. (I notice it's now 'closer' to exact, not actually exact).
You're right in that he didn't mention her 'leaving the apartment dead', just that she may be dead. I was trying to simplify it. He didn't speculate at all where when or how she could have died if she's dead. If they have theories on that they're not telling.
He is clearly saying that taking a live child from the apartment would have been a criminal act by a stranger. I think that's a reasonable assumption but as to what evidence he has that she was alive when taken.........he doesn't say.
two key elements of it is to go: 1 Madeleine is alive and the other is, sadly she's not
we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there - for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive - and it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/60april12/ITV1_27_04_2012.htm
I think what he said is clear but you are unwilling to accept the truth
-
If the twins are bullied it will be because their classmates have read some of the complete crap that has been posted about their parents on the internet not because their parents didn't take a lie detector test. if they took such a test it would not make the slightest bit of difference to the sceptics and their agenda to denigrate these parents at every opportunity, and that is a fact.
Agreed.
-
Agreed.
Predictable.
-
I believe posters are required to show a logical basis for any figures quoted.
So where is this for 1% 8)-)))
I have posted it several times...it seems to be beyond your understanding..
perhaps to show how much you understand statistics you would like to show your assessments and then we can all decide how accomplished you are..or not
-
didn't say my children had no experience of bullying...they have to a minor extent. Fortunately they are all at or were at very nice independent schools so they have been lucky...the eldest of my younger children is now at a Rudolph Steiner School and the others will follow... Schools hands are tied to a certain extent by their inability to discipline children.
What I see on these forums is adults behaving as bullies towards the McCanns....Brenda Leyland being a prime example......they are not setting a very good example to their children
Do you follow Steiner's teachings then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28646118
http://www.dcscience.net/2010/12/16/steiner-waldorf-schools-part-3-the-problem-of-racism/
-
Do you follow Steiner's teachings then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28646118
http://www.dcscience.net/2010/12/16/steiner-waldorf-schools-part-3-the-problem-of-racism/
The Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship (SWSF), the umbrella body for Steiner schools, responded by saying "Our schools do not tolerate racism" and "bullying is not tolerated by our schools and all our schools have strong anti-bullying policies"
As my three younger children are mixed race I am quite happy with the schools attitude to race
you must have thought I was a white elitist.. Steiner started the schools but they have moved on....I took my GCE'S a year early...Steiner schools take them a year late.....I like their relaxed approach to learning
-
No proof or evidence has been posted to give a 1% prediction.
An unsubstantiated opinion has no worth whatsoever.
-
No proof or evidence has been posted to give a 1% prediction.
An unsubstantiated opinion has no worth whatsoever.
in your very limited opinion...you are unable to come up with any figures yourself...my figure is substantiated...you just don't understand
-
It's lucky SY released those efits 5 years later or they may never have been released to the world. And you will be happy to know they are at the same place Amaral was in 2007 when removed - the Smiths sighting. That's the only real credible lead in this whole case. Blonk's suggestion that a whole family of 9 would cover for their great friend RM has no credibility at all. Actually it's embarrassing. We know who was trying to connect those two separate sighting from the start and that would rule somebody out of the later one. That is crystal clear to anyone with an open mind!
They are way beyond the place where Mr Amaral was in 2007.
Every investigation has a beginning ... a middle ... and an end. The beginning of the present expensive exercise came with a review of the evidence coordinated during and after Mr Amaral's tenure (probably a duplication of what the Rebelo investigation had to do).
Rebelo found nothing to implicate the Drs McCann and neither did Jim Gamble. I think it would be safe to say that neither did the new Portuguese investigators.
All these investigators are aware of the Smith testimony.
While internet detectives continue to spend their lives poring over and commenting on what they think is 'evidence' to the detriment of two people they really know nothing about ... the real detectives have analysed the real evidence and have broadened the scope of the investigation.
They are really not interested in Madeleine's parents ... they have been excluded as suspects ... there is no evidence to sustain any guilt on their part.
The PJ and SY are actively pursuing the abduction theory having looked at and discarded any other.
That really should lead the 'doubters' to realise they may have a problem. They doubt while the experience and expertise of the professionals has led them to dismiss the core beliefs which have been insidiously feeding the flame for years.
Portugese cops slammed for gaping holes in investigation. [Now edited to] Brits launch Maddie probe
Original Source: NOTW: SUNDAY 11 APRIL 2010
By Lucy Panton , 11/04/2010
**Snip
Failures in the original investigation are said to be "so gaping" that British authorities feel it is their duty to look at it again.
This time police will review all the leads using technology and standards expected in a homicide or kidnap case in the UK.
Mr Gamble, head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, found a basic failure to collate information and join up links that should have been made.
Telephone records were not properly analysed, missing early opportunities for leads.
And Kate and Gerry McCann were named as Arguidos, or formal suspects, by Portuguese police - something that the review says would not have happened if the probe had been carried out in the UK.
Mr Gamble found no evidence sufficient to make them suspects. His findings have now been formally submitted to the Home Office with recommendations to re-investigate.
The damning review has now set the Association of Chief Police Officers the difficult task of trying to decide who takes on the mammoth task. It is already predicted to be "an extremely costly" investigation that, even if done properly, will probably never be solved.
A source said: "It is something that has to be reviewed. It is only right that the McCanns are given the satisfaction that everything that could be done has been done. It now comes down to who is up to the job."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/36april10/NOTW_11_04_10.htm
-
As lie detector tests have been deemed to be not much more accurate than the flip of a coin perhaps you can explain why you think Kate taking one would change anything?
If you have any evidence of them being around 50:50, please post it. It would be the type of eye opener I thoroughly enjoy.
I go down the road of trying hard, with aforethought, to make sure my kids and grandkids get the best I can provide for them.
The twins deserve the same.
-
Still waiting for substantiation.
The figures for child disappearances as regards parental, family etc., are well known.
-
I think what he said is clear but you are unwilling to accept the truth
I know exactly what he said, but i'm not sure you do.
He said there was an opportunity in the timeline for Madeleine to be taken alive.
He didn't say someone took advantage of that opportunity.
Where's your cite showing what he said? I'm beginning to think you haven't got one.
-
They are way beyond the place where Mr Amaral was in 2007.
Every investigation has a beginning ... a middle ... and an end. The beginning of the present expensive exercise came with a review of the evidence coordinated during and after Mr Amaral's tenure (probably a duplication of what the Rebelo investigation had to do).
Rebelo found nothing to implicate the Drs McCann and neither did Jim Gamble. I think it would be safe to say that neither did the new Portuguese investigators.
All these investigators are aware of the Smith testimony.
While internet detectives continue to spend their lives poring over and commenting on what they think is 'evidence' to the detriment of two people they really know nothing about ... the real detectives have analysed the real evidence and have broadened the scope of the investigation.
They are really not interested in Madeleine's parents ... they have been excluded as suspects ... there is no evidence to sustain any guilt on their part.
The PJ and SY are actively pursuing the abduction theory having looked at and discarded any other.
That really should lead the 'doubters' to realise they may have a problem. They doubt while the experience and expertise of the professionals has led them to dismiss the core beliefs which have been insidiously feeding the flame for years.
Portugese cops slammed for gaping holes in investigation. [Now edited to] Brits launch Maddie probe
Original Source: NOTW: SUNDAY 11 APRIL 2010
By Lucy Panton , 11/04/2010
**Snip
Failures in the original investigation are said to be "so gaping" that British authorities feel it is their duty to look at it again.
This time police will review all the leads using technology and standards expected in a homicide or kidnap case in the UK.
Mr Gamble, head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, found a basic failure to collate information and join up links that should have been made.
Telephone records were not properly analysed, missing early opportunities for leads.
And Kate and Gerry McCann were named as Arguidos, or formal suspects, by Portuguese police - something that the review says would not have happened if the probe had been carried out in the UK.
Mr Gamble found no evidence sufficient to make them suspects. His findings have now been formally submitted to the Home Office with recommendations to re-investigate.
The damning review has now set the Association of Chief Police Officers the difficult task of trying to decide who takes on the mammoth task. It is already predicted to be "an extremely costly" investigation that, even if done properly, will probably never be solved.
A source said: "It is something that has to be reviewed. It is only right that the McCanns are given the satisfaction that everything that could be done has been done. It now comes down to who is up to the job."
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/36april10/NOTW_11_04_10.htm
Gamble is irrelevant.
He is a mccann backer, therefore anything he says is tainted.
-
a point I have made several times...which sil seems to have taken offence at
I have not taken offence at your misunderstanding of probability theory.
I have taken offence at repeated digs on an emotive level about my stance.
I cannot complain about such a posture in this post, so perhaps things are getting better.
You still don't understand probability theory.
@Stephen re post-GCSEs. Many thanks. I now feel like I truly belong in the dinosaur era. ROFL (can't get Smilies to work).
-
I have not taken offence at your misunderstanding of probability theory.
I have taken offence at repeated digs on an emotive level about my stance.
I cannot complain about such a posture in this post, so perhaps things are getting better.
You still don't understand probability theory.
@Stephen re post-GCSEs. Many thanks. I now feel like I truly belong in the dinosaur era. ROFL (can't get Smilies to work).
My pleasure SIL. 8((()*/
-
The Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship (SWSF), the umbrella body for Steiner schools, responded by saying "Our schools do not tolerate racism" and "bullying is not tolerated by our schools and all our schools have strong anti-bullying policies"
As my three younger children are mixed race I am quite happy with the schools attitude to race
you must have thought I was a white elitist.. Steiner started the schools but they have moved on....I took my GCE'S a year early...Steiner schools take them a year late.....I like their relaxed approach to learning
Every school in the UK would say exactly the same as the SWSF. Racism and bullying don't always come to the notice of those in authority, however. I expect those schools face the same problems as other schools. You pays your money and takes your choice. If your child is happy there that's the main thing.
-
Still waiting for substantiation.
The figures for child disappearances as regards parental, family etc., are well known.
Then quote them as you introduced
-
I know exactly what he said, but i'm not sure you do.
He said there was an opportunity in the timeline for Madeleine to be taken alive.
He didn't say someone took advantage of that opportunity.
Where's your cite showing what he said? I'm beginning to think you haven't got one.
I'm still waiting for your cite, davel?????????????????????
-
Gamble is irrelevant.
He is a mccann backer, therefore anything he says is tainted.
That is a very limited view of professional conduct ... at the time of the scoping review he conducted for the then home secretary Jim Gamble certainly knew of Madeleine's case. Is it your suggestion that had he found evidence to implicate Madeleine's parents he would have ignored that; recommend a very expensive review gets under way; only to have that review uncover the evidence he had 'missed'?
How dare you impugn his - or anyone's - professionalism because of your personal bias.
Former senior Scotland Yard investigator, Jim Gamble, has led the British National Crime Intelligence Service fight against child sex abuse, and he was the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the UK police, which did some analysis for the Portuguese police early in the investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance. He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government. Jim Gamble had since got to know the McCann’s personally, and he joins me now from London.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm
-
I have not taken offence at your misunderstanding of probability theory.
I have taken offence at repeated digs on an emotive level about my stance.
I cannot complain about such a posture in this post, so perhaps things are getting better.
You still don't understand probability theory.
@Stephen re post-GCSEs. Many thanks. I now feel like I truly belong in the dinosaur era. ROFL (can't get Smilies to work).
I would say you do not understand probability...it really is simple...50/50 approx for the toss of acoin...it is no more complex than that
-
I'm still waiting for your cite, davel?????????????????????
do you not realise you have already posted it yourself
-
I know exactly what he said, but i'm not sure you do.
He said there was an opportunity in the timeline for Madeleine to be taken alive.
He didn't say someone took advantage of that opportunity.
Where's your cite showing what he said? I'm beginning to think you haven't got one.
Wouldn't we just love to know the bit he missed out? Like where in the timeline he thought that opportunity was.
-
If you have any evidence of them being around 50:50, please post it. It would be the type of eye opener I thoroughly enjoy.
I go down the road of trying hard, with aforethought, to make sure my kids and grandkids get the best I can provide for them.
The twins deserve the same.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work
-
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work
Thank you for this, and I genuinely mean thank you.
I hope you will not be offended if on this occasion I chose not to accept the link.
The article may, or may not, be well informed. My life is too short to run with the views of the Human Beast, aka Nigel Barber.
I trust you will take that I mean no offence in this.
-
Thank you for this, and I genuinely mean thank you.
I hope you will not be offended if on this occasion I chose not to accept the link.
The article may, or may not, be well informed. My life is too short to run with the views of the Human Beast, aka Nigel Barber.
I trust you will take that I mean no offence in this.
How about you let me know what sources you do find acceptable and we"'ll proceed from there.
-
How about you let me know what sources you do find acceptable and we"'ll proceed from there.
Now that is an interesting test, is it not? One genuinely worthy of consideration?
I tend to think of Wikipedia as a starter on 1 out of 10. Good intro to a the general subject. Not one I would like to rely on in a crunch.
It is difficult to define what is out, simply because there is so much that is out. Tabloids. Conspiracy forums.
Hmm, does my blog pass this acid test? I'm not sure that it does.
Could we try a simpler test? Is there anything more convincing than the Human Beast on this topic? Or are we reliant on the Human Beast?
-
Now that is an interesting test, is it not? One genuinely worthy of consideration?
I tend to think of Wikipedia as a starter on 1 out of 10. Good intro to a the general subject. Not one I would like to rely on in a crunch.
It is difficult to define what is out, simply because there is so much that is out. Tabloids. Conspiracy forums.
Hmm, does my blog pass this acid test? I'm not sure that it does.
Could we try a simpler test? Is there anything more convincing than the Human Beast on this topic? Or are we reliant on the Human Beast?
Can I ask what is your primary objection to Nigel Barber Phd as a source on the subject? Is it simply the name he goes by that undermines his credibility in your eyes? I fear anyone I cite on this matter will fail to live up to your high standards unless it is someone extolling the virtues of the polygraph...
-
That is a very limited view of professional conduct ... at the time of the scoping review he conducted for the then home secretary Jim Gamble certainly knew of Madeleine's case. Is it your suggestion that had he found evidence to implicate Madeleine's parents he would have ignored that; recommend a very expensive review gets under way; only to have that review uncover the evidence he had 'missed'?
How dare you impugn his - or anyone's - professionalism because of your personal bias.
Former senior Scotland Yard investigator, Jim Gamble, has led the British National Crime Intelligence Service fight against child sex abuse, and he was the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the UK police, which did some analysis for the Portuguese police early in the investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance. He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government. Jim Gamble had since got to know the McCann’s personally, and he joins me now from London.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm
At the time Gamble did the scoping study he was very involved in the case, and had been from very early on. However, the scoping study didn't look at any evidence' just at the feasibility of the Met. conducting a review of a case which was so far outside their jurisdiction.
-
Can I ask what is your primary objection to Nigel Barber Phd as a source on the subject? Is it simply the name he goes by that undermines his credibility in your eyes? I fear anyone I cite on this matter will fail to live up to your high standards unless it is someone extolling the virtues of the polygraph...
No, as I have made clear, you have raised a question that I consider to be valid and worthy of consideration.
I do not have a valid or considered response to give you at this moment in time.
I could give you an unconsidered response, which would do no one any favours.
So I need to go off and consider your interesting point until such time as I can formulate a considered reply.
Considering over here boss (misquote from Cool Hand Luke?)
-
No, as I have made clear, you have raised a question that I consider to be valid and worthy of consideration.
I do not have a valid or considered response to give you at this moment in time.
I could give you an unconsidered response, which would do no one any favours.
So I need to go off and consider your interesting point until such time as I can formulate a considered reply.
Considering over here boss (misquote from Cool Hand Luke?)
ok, here is a more up to date article that you might want to read prior to formulating your next considered reply. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/04/british-dutch-researchers-new-form-lie-detector-test-polygraph. Admittedly it's only in the Guardian so may not cut the mustard in terms of credibility...
-
do you not realise you have already posted it yourself
Your quote didn't appear in that video, if that's what you're referring to. You had some of the words but not in the right order. You appear to have no quote you can cite to support what you posted as a fact. Isn't that against the rules?
This is what you posted in post 326 this morning;
Redwood said..
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard
Here's what he actually said. Can you spot the difference?
it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence, that, um that you know, that that, that is as a criminal act - and that has been, you know, undertaken by by a stranger,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/60april12/ITV1_27_04_2012.htm
-
ok, here is a more up to date article that you might want to read prior to formulating your next considered reply. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/04/british-dutch-researchers-new-form-lie-detector-test-polygraph. Admittedly it's only in the Guardian so may not cut the mustard in terms of credibility...
I have stated in plain and simple English that you have raised a point I consider to be both valid and interesting.
I am not interested in participating in a game of pong on this point. I judge it to be too important.
I happen to be an introvert. This simply means that when something challenging occurs, I prefer to go inside, and run it through my checks and balances until I can work out the sense in it.
Perhaps you are an extrovert. This simply means someone whose preferred method of dealing with an important occasion is to ping it back and forth across other humans.
If this is the case, I wish you well. I do not and cannot work in such a manner.
Your point is valid. Your point is interesting, at least IMO. I happen to think your point is very, very important. I really, really need to think things through.
It's not the lie detector bit, though I shall definitely investigate that angle.
What you have raised is much more important. How does someone evaluate a source as being reliable?
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92847&page=1
"Proponents will say the test is about 90 percent accurate. Critics will say it's about 70 percent accurate," said Frank Horvath of the American Polygraph Association. "Many people refer to polygraph tests as lie detector tests, and that's a bit of a misnomer.
"Legal Controversy
Because of ongoing debate on the accuracy of polygraphs, they are banned from being admitted as evidence into some courts and even the mention of a polygraph exam in testimony can cause a mistrial. However, according to the American Polygraph Association, polygraph exams are allowed in 26 states and some federal courts.
However, since the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of polygraph admissibility, rules in federal circuits vary. In some courts, a polygraph test can only be admitted if both parties agree. In some court jurisdictions, a judge determines admissibility and whether polygraph test results will help a jury with its decision".
Well it's more entertaining than waiting for a convincing framework for an abduction I suppose 8(>((
-
That is a very limited view of professional conduct ... at the time of the scoping review he conducted for the then home secretary Jim Gamble certainly knew of Madeleine's case. Is it your suggestion that had he found evidence to implicate Madeleine's parents he would have ignored that; recommend a very expensive review gets under way; only to have that review uncover the evidence he had 'missed'?
How dare you impugn his - or anyone's - professionalism because of your personal bias.
Former senior Scotland Yard investigator, Jim Gamble, has led the British National Crime Intelligence Service fight against child sex abuse, and he was the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the UK police, which did some analysis for the Portuguese police early in the investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance. He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government. Jim Gamble had since got to know the McCann’s personally, and he joins me now from London.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm
How dare I impugn Gamble ?
You gave your opinion, I gave mine.
So get over it.
Gamble has virtually rolled over on his back in his support of the mccanns since that time and anyone can see his views on the case.
He has done nothing but try to whitewash the mccanns.
Would you care to remind us what gamble said about Robert Murat ?
-
Have people forgotten this article?
www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece
*snipped*
Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund. A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.
Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.
-
I have stated in plain and simple English that you have raised a point I consider to be both valid and interesting.
I am not interested in participating in a game of pong on this point. I judge it to be too important.
I happen to be an introvert. This simply means that when something challenging occurs, I prefer to go inside, and run it through my checks and balances until I can work out the sense in it.
Perhaps you are an extrovert. This simply means someone whose preferred method of dealing with an important occasion is to ping it back and forth across other humans.
If this is the case, I wish you well. I do not and cannot work in such a manner.
Your point is valid. Your point is interesting, at least IMO. I happen to think your point is very, very important. I really, really need to think things through.
It's not the lie detector bit, though I shall definitely investigate that angle.
What you have raised is much more important. How does someone evaluate a source as being reliable?
How does someone evaluate a source as being reliable
An important question
How does someone assess the reliability of evidence
Similar question
It is a skill.... Some of us have learnt this skill through our professional careers
I would count myself as one of them
-
How dare I impugn Gamble ?
You gave your opinion, I gave mine.
So get over it.
Gamble has virtually rolled over on his back in his support of the mccanns since that time and anyone can see his views on the case.
He has done nothing but try to whitewash the mccanns.
Would you care to remind us what gamble said about Robert Murat ?
I care to remind you that the Drs McCann enjoy the right to the presumption of innocence. If you wish to remind members of something which has caught your attention ... feel free to share, that is what constitutes all that is best about a discussion forum.
**Snip
Jim Gamble, let’s get one obvious question out of the way, first-up: from everything you know personally about the McCanns and the case, do you believe they had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?
JIM GAMBLE, FMR HEAD, CHILD PROTECTION CENTRE (CEOP): If it ever came out that either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Why do you say that?
JIM GAMBLE: Well, from everything I know about it, it’s not that as a professional police officer they wouldn’t have been first on my list of suspects, because actually, of course they would – they’re the parents, they were there, they had last access.
But having been involved in the periphery to a greater or lesser degree on different occasions with this case, having met the McCanns, (** which Mr Amaral neglected to do **) having seen their children Sean and Amelie around them, I just would be shocked. There’s nothing which gives me that feeling; there’s no evidence which makes me feel that they are in any way complicit in the disappearance. But I’m a human being, you know, and we can err. I’m simply saying that I would be shocked if either one of them were proven to be involved in any way in this.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm
** words in blue are mine
-
I care to remind you that the Drs McCann enjoy the right to the presumption of innocence. If you wish to remind members of something which has caught your attention ... feel free to share, that is what constitutes all that is best about a discussion forum.
**Snip
Jim Gamble, let’s get one obvious question out of the way, first-up: from everything you know personally about the McCanns and the case, do you believe they had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?
JIM GAMBLE, FMR HEAD, CHILD PROTECTION CENTRE (CEOP): If it ever came out that either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Why do you say that?
JIM GAMBLE: Well, from everything I know about it, it’s not that as a professional police officer they wouldn’t have been first on my list of suspects, because actually, of course they would – they’re the parents, they were there, they had last access.
But having been involved in the periphery to a greater or lesser degree on different occasions with this case, having met the McCanns, (** which Mr Amaral neglected to do **) having seen their children Sean and Amelie around them, I just would be shocked. There’s nothing which gives me that feeling; there’s no evidence which makes me feel that they are in any way complicit in the disappearance. But I’m a human being, you know, and we can err. I’m simply saying that I would be shocked if either one of them were proven to be involved in any way in this.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm
** words in blue are mine
Gamble wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared.
People lie.
Now what did Gamble say about Murat ?
Have you forgotten ?
-
Gamble wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared.
People lie.
Now what did Gamble say about Murat ?
Have you forgotten ?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_qIgGzglS7I/VYvzNyXdQ-I/AAAAAAAArfg/JtutokegGbY/s640/Jim%2BGamble%2Bpeople%2Blie.PNG)
-
Oh by the way Brietta, what did Gamble say about the behaviour of Brunt as regards his pursuit of Brenda Leyland ?
-
Gamble wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared.
People lie.
Now what did Gamble say about Murat ?
Have you forgotten ?
Whatever happened to all the holiday photos Gamble appealed for? Did anything useful come of that? Nobody knows. Note the phrase about jigsaw pieces; now where have I heard that before? &%+((£
Mr Gamble asked for families who had been on holiday in the area to examine their snaps again. "We can utilise the latest technology to build a larger intelligence picture," he said. "By taking in pictures from the public we can move the investigation forward - looking for people who might seem out of place or behaving strangely. No matter how small or insignificant the information may seem to you, it could be the missing part of the jigsaw, so let us decide if it is important."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/22/ukcrime.sandralaville
-
to get aproper picture you would need to look at the social background...mental health...drug habits etc ..etc...of teh "parents" involved
Very true. Unlikely to be able to make comparisons.
-
Gamble wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared.
People lie.
Now what did Gamble say about Murat ?
Have you forgotten ?
You appear to be under the misapprehension that a person of Jim Gamble's expertise could somehow be mesmerised to ignore professional practice that Madeleine's parents would as a matter of course be the first people to be investigated to be ruled in or ruled out of the investigation.
That would be a priority for him in the conduct of a scoping exercise the results of which were to be presented to the then Home Secretary.
Very heavy stuff in my opinion.
This man was not going to be left with egg on his face ~ he was working on behalf of the Home Office and as such would scrutinise the evidence very closely indeed.
He found nothing to implicate Madeleine's parents in her disappearance.
That in conjunction with the Drs McCann right to the presumption of innocence appears to me to be a bit of a clincher.
**Snip
KERRY O’BRIEN: Now, if I understand your position correctly, if you had been conducting an investigation like this, you’d have started with the parents and taken a very quick look and either established there was something suspicious, or you’d have ruled them out and moved on.
Now, if I understand it correctly, the Portuguese were kind of the other way around.
It took them some time to suddenly develop the view that the McCanns might have been suspicious.
JIM GAMBLE: Well, I think that’s a fair assessment.
When we carried out the scoping review, in order to be fair, what we did was, we said, “Let’s take a sleepy seaside town somewhere in the UK, and imagine that, you know, late in the evening, a couple had come to us who didn’t speak English as their first language, and who were Portuguese and said, ‘Look, our child has gone missing'”.
I think what we accepted immediately is we would have faced a complicated scenario similar to that which the Portuguese did.
You’re not sure whether the child has simply walked away or been taken away, and it does take a period of time to get that information together, so there were clearly difficulties, and we would all face those.
In the immediate aftermath, the systematic approach is what is key, and certainly as professional detectives, we use the phrase “clear the ground beneath your feet”.
Look at that which is immediately in front of you first of all. And the only difference between the Portuguese and myself would have been that the first suspects that I would have looked at would have been the parents.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm
-
You appear to be under the misapprehension that a person of Jim Gamble's expertise could somehow be mesmerised to ignore professional practice that Madeleine's parents would as a matter of course be the first people to be investigated to be ruled in or ruled out of the investigation.
That would be a priority for him in the conduct of a scoping exercise the results of which were to be presented to the then Home Secretary.
Very heavy stuff in my opinion.
This man was not going to be left with egg on his face ~ he was working on behalf of the Home Office and as such would scrutinise the evidence very closely indeed.
He found nothing to implicate Madeleine's parents in her disappearance.
That in conjunction with the Drs McCann right to the presumption of innocence appears to me to be a bit of a clincher.
**Snip
KERRY O’BRIEN: Now, if I understand your position correctly, if you had been conducting an investigation like this, you’d have started with the parents and taken a very quick look and either established there was something suspicious, or you’d have ruled them out and moved on.
Now, if I understand it correctly, the Portuguese were kind of the other way around.
It took them some time to suddenly develop the view that the McCanns might have been suspicious.
JIM GAMBLE: Well, I think that’s a fair assessment.
When we carried out the scoping review, in order to be fair, what we did was, we said, “Let’s take a sleepy seaside town somewhere in the UK, and imagine that, you know, late in the evening, a couple had come to us who didn’t speak English as their first language, and who were Portuguese and said, ‘Look, our child has gone missing'”.
I think what we accepted immediately is we would have faced a complicated scenario similar to that which the Portuguese did.
You’re not sure whether the child has simply walked away or been taken away, and it does take a period of time to get that information together, so there were clearly difficulties, and we would all face those.
In the immediate aftermath, the systematic approach is what is key, and certainly as professional detectives, we use the phrase “clear the ground beneath your feet”.
Look at that which is immediately in front of you first of all. And the only difference between the Portuguese and myself would have been that the first suspects that I would have looked at would have been the parents.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm
You can snip to your hearts content.
I don't trust his judgement one iota.
Likewise, anyone can research Gamble on the Internet and his 'views' on the case.
-
How does someone evaluate a source as being reliable
An important question
How does someone assess the reliability of evidence
Similar question
It is a skill.... Some of us have learnt this skill through our professional careers
I would count myself as one of them
Please feel free to count yourself as one of whatever you wish to be counted of. I considerate your right to be counted as you consider appropriate is your right.
As to 'some of us' feel free to explain the selection criteria. Currently as clear as mud.
As to 'professional careers', feel free to explain the selection criteria. Currently as clear as mud.
-
Now that is an interesting test, is it not? One genuinely worthy of consideration?
I tend to think of Wikipedia as a starter on 1 out of 10. Good intro to a the general subject. Not one I would like to rely on in a crunch.
It is difficult to define what is out, simply because there is so much that is out. Tabloids. Conspiracy forums.
Hmm, does my blog pass this acid test? I'm not sure that it does.
Could we try a simpler test? Is there anything more convincing than the Human Beast on this topic? Or are we reliant on the Human Beast?
http://www.1itl.com/news/317/
The UK regulation of the use of polygraphs varies depending on the context. In the criminal justice system, polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence. However, such tests have been piloted and continued to be used in the UK for the management of sex offenders. Their use for such purposes is regulated by the Polygraph Rules 2009. Under these rules, the Secretary of State can require certain offenders released on licence to undergo polygraph testing to monitor compliance with the terms of a licence and to improve offender management.
-
Oh by the way Brietta, what did Gamble say about the behaviour of Brunt as regards his pursuit of Brenda Leyland ?
He was after RM for sure and I very rarely post on twitter but I sent him a reply to a tweet he did about the case ages ago. Remember this time 2203 when this case is over.
And he blocked me @)(++(* That revealed everything cheers Jim 8((()*/
-
http://www.1itl.com/news/317/
The UK regulation of the use of polygraphs varies depending on the context. In the criminal justice system, polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence. However, such tests have been piloted and continued to be used in the UK for the management of sex offenders. Their use for such purposes is regulated by the Polygraph Rules 2009. Under these rules, the Secretary of State can require certain offenders released on licence to undergo polygraph testing to monitor compliance with the terms of a licence and to improve offender management.
Thank you. Very informative.
-
He was after RM for sure and I very rarely post on twitter but I sent him a reply to a tweet he did about the case ages ago. Remember this time 2203 when this case is over.
And he blocked me @)(++(* That revealed everything cheers Jim 8((()*/
Thanks for that Pathfinder. 8((()*/
He was definitely after Murat, no doubt on that.
-
Thanks for that Pathfinder. 8((()*/
He was definitely after Gamble, no doubt on that.
Who was?
-
Please feel free to count yourself as one of whatever you wish to be counted of. I considerate your right to be counted as you consider appropriate is your right.
As to 'some of us' feel free to explain the selection criteria. Currently as clear as mud.
As to 'professional careers', feel free to explain the selection criteria. Currently as clear as mud.
some of us...selection criteria...have you ever been taught how to evaluate evidence...
some will say yes...some will say no...that's where we start...try googling..."how to evaluate evidence"
as for professional career...some evaluate evidence routinely in their profession
-
some of us...selection criteria...have you ever been taught how to evaluate evidence...
some will say yes...some will say no...that's where we start...try googling..."how to evaluate evidence"
as for professional career...some evaluate evidence routinely in their profession
I evaluated your evidence earlier as to what Redwood said. You had none.
-
I evaluated your evidence earlier as to what Redwood said. You had none.
then you are not very good at evaluating evidence..... I put that statement...together with the remit of SY...together with the not suspects quote...together with everything I have seen and read to come to the conclusion the McCanns are not involved
-
some of us...selection criteria...have you ever been taught how to evaluate evidence...
some will say yes...some will say no...that's where we start...try googling..."how to evaluate evidence"
as for professional career...some evaluate evidence routinely in their profession
Where do I start?
I've got a honours degree in science. It happens to be from one of the top universities in the UK, but let me put this to one side. I've got an honours degree in science, and you ask me if I have ever been taught to evaluate evidence? What do you expect me to say to this? I spent all that time at the university and it taught me diddly?
Feel free to Google 'how to evaluate evidence'. That is your right, if it is the best you can do.
You were asked simple questions, such as what professional career was. Or 'selection criteria'. You have clarified neither. That is also your right and your choice.
Your response is difficult for me to try to interpret, whilst staying within the rules of the forum.
It definitely defies logic.
-
Where do I start?
I've got a honours degree in science. It happens to be from one of the top universities in the UK, but let me put this to one side. I've got an honours degree in science, and you ask me if I have ever been taught to evaluate evidence? What do you expect me to say to this? I spent all that time at the university and it taught me diddly?
Feel free to Google 'how to evaluate evidence'. That is your right, if it is the best you can do.
You were asked simple questions, such as what professional career was. Or 'selection criteria'. You have clarified neither. That is also your right and your choice.
Your response is difficult for me to try to interpret, whilst staying within the rules of the forum.
It definitely defies logic.
Honours degree in science doesn't mean a lot unfortunately..... you were spoonfed information information...told what books and papers to read. It isn't until you move on from undergraduate level that you start to educate yourself...deciding which scientific papers are valid as evidence and which are not... I have no intention of revealing my professional background...too many clues and my identity may be easy to find...
you certainly have a poor understanding of lie detectors for someone with such a background
-
then you are not very good at evaluating evidence..... I put that statement...together with the remit of SY...together with the not suspects quote...together with everything I have seen and read to come to the conclusion the McCanns are not involved
Arrant nonsense. You posted a statement which you attributed to DCI Redwood but he didn't say it. That's why providing citations is very important because people can then read the original and evaluate it for themselves.
-
Where do I start?
I've got a honours degree in science. It happens to be from one of the top universities in the UK, but let me put this to one side. I've got an honours degree in science, and you ask me if I have ever been taught to evaluate evidence? What do you expect me to say to this? I spent all that time at the university and it taught me diddly?
Feel free to Google 'how to evaluate evidence'. That is your right, if it is the best you can do.
You were asked simple questions, such as what professional career was. Or 'selection criteria'. You have clarified neither. That is also your right and your choice.
Your response is difficult for me to try to interpret, whilst staying within the rules of the forum.
It definitely defies logic.
so based on your scientific background...how reliable would a lie detector taken by Kate be ....
-
Arrant nonsense. You posted a statement which you attributed to DCI Redwood but he didn't say it. That's why providing citations is very important because people can then read the original and evaluate it for themselves.
That's what you get from 1% solutions. 8)-)))
-
Arrant nonsense. You posted a statement which you attributed to DCI Redwood but he didn't say it. That's why providing citations is very important because people can then read the original and evaluate it for themselves.
you have posted statements attributed to the McCanns that they didn't say........
-
That's what you get from 1% solutions. 8)-)))
and what has the person who criticises everyone elses knowledge of statistics come up with...absolutely zero...you really should shut up or put up
-
and what has the person who criticises everyone elses knowledge of statistics come up with...absolutely zero...you really should shut up or put up
[Mod] Please tone down the language.
-
[Mod] Please tone down the language.
That poster needs to take his own advice.
Claiming 1% as the 'probability' of non-abduction, yet unable to produce any supporting evidence for that value, other than personal opinion.
-
[Mod] Please tone down the language.
i would say "put up or shut up" is a reasonable term...far less insulting than your own use of the word "liar"
-
That poster needs to take his own advice.
Claiming 1% as the 'probability' of non-abduction, yet unable to produce any supporting evidence for that value, other than personal opinion.
you still have not grasped the basic tenet of that claim...it applies only if the parents are ruled out... I have explained it to you several times...if the parents are ruled out what would you put the odds of abduction as ...perhaps you should answer the question or stop criticising it
-
you have posted statements attributed to the McCanns that they didn't say........
I have no doubt you drew my attention to it, just as I have drawn your attention to your mistake.
-
Thank you. Very informative.
No worries.
-
I have no doubt you drew my attention to it, just as I have drawn your attention to your mistake.
as I said...considering you continually accusing the mccanns on the basis of things you think they said...but have no proof that they said ...your criticism is more than a little weak
-
i would say "put up or shut up" is a reasonable term...far less insulting than your own use of the word "liar"
Shut up or of put up has a different connotation.
-
Shut up or of put up has a different connotation.
not at all it is a well used phrase in the business world...i'm happy not to use it if it offends but would hope the same courtesy would be extended to me
-
as I said...considering you continually accusing the mccanns on the basis of things you think they said...but have no proof that they said ...your criticism is more than a little weak
I can prove what Redwood said, read my signature line if you ever need reminding in the future. You may like to correct yours btw.
-
I can prove what Redwood said, read my signature line if you ever need reminding in the future. You may like to correct yours btw.
you cannot prove what he means and have put your own inference on it...if we are now going to only use quotes we can prove then i will alter my signature line and you can alter several hundred of your posts
-
The person making the 1% claim is still giving an opinion.
That is not using statistics, as they are several possibilities on the table.
There is no more evidence for abduction than for any other scenario, and certainly no forensic indications to support abduction.
It is abundantly clear SY have failed to find Madeleine, and have had more time than any of those so called detective agencies employed by team mccann to investigate the case.
-
The person making the 1% claim is still giving an opinion.
That is not using statistics, as they are several possibilities on the table.
There is no more evidence for abduction than for any other scenario, and certainly no forensic indications to support abduction.
It is abundantly clear SY have failed to find Madeleine, and have had more time than any of those so called detective agencies employed by team mccann to investigate the case.
If the parents are ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in taht logic...there isn't any
-
When has accidental death been disproved ?
Answer, it hasn't.
It remains a possibility.
No one on here has said the parents killed Madeleine.
-
If the parents are ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in taht logic...there isn't any
If the abduction is ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in that logic...there isn't any
-
There is no other option than abduction ....
-
you cannot prove what he means and have put your own inference on it...if we are now going to only use quotes we can prove then i will alter my signature line and you can alter several hundred of your posts
You read something and decided what it meant. I read it and decided it meant something different. Nothing wrong with that.
The problem is you altered what he said and put his name to your altered quote. I have quoted him correctly.
-
If the abduction is ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in that logic...there isn't any
Isn't that the text book example of "How to shaft a logical fallacy" ?
-
That is a very limited view of professional conduct ... at the time of the scoping review he conducted for the then home secretary Jim Gamble certainly knew of Madeleine's case. Is it your suggestion that had he found evidence to implicate Madeleine's parents he would have ignored that; recommend a very expensive review gets under way; only to have that review uncover the evidence he had 'missed'?
How dare you impugn his - or anyone's - professionalism because of your personal bias.
Former senior Scotland Yard investigator, Jim Gamble, has led the British National Crime Intelligence Service fight against child sex abuse, and he was the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the UK police, which did some analysis for the Portuguese police early in the investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance. He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government. Jim Gamble had since got to know the McCann’s personally, and he joins me now from London.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/05/17/3504848.htm
Yet you seem to easily believe that Amaral ignored evidence that would have proved that the McCanns were innocent.
-
Yet you seem to easily believe that Amaral ignored evidence that would have proved that the McCanns were innocent.
What do you make of this?
Moita Flores interviews Gonçalo Amaral TV Guia (no online link, appears in paper edition only)
Interview: 02 October 2008, Published: Satruday 18 October 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
MF - What about other countries?
GA - It will be published in Italy, in the Netherlands and in Denmark. I'm going over there soon, because the Danish editor has mentioned the possibility of distributing it into Norway and Sweden. We'll see…
MF - Your determination is to get even with those who worked for the McCanns. They've mistreated you.
GA - Believe me, I feel no rage, I'm not even angry. I have understood their game and you also know how this game works. The lies about me, the manipulation is not exactly against the citizen Gonçalo Amaral. They were against the investigator who knew their weaknesses and was going to catch them sooner or later. It was all a matter of time. The McCanns knew that I was going to get them. As you could see, all it took was for the process to be archived in order for everything to be finished. At this moment in time, I'm convinced that they don't even remember my name anymore. So the game is always the same. We want to catch them, they want to escape, and that's it. Sometimes the bandits win, sometimes the policemen do. This time around, and concerning this case, it was how it was. They stopped insulting me, they stopped the campaigns to find their daughter, it's over. They got what they wanted and therefore, peace is back.
MF – And you launch a "grenade" that is called The Truth of the Lie into the midst of that peace. Whoever reads your testimony is left with few doubts about the little girl's destiny. She died in the apartment.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html
-
Honours degree in science doesn't mean a lot unfortunately..... you were spoonfed information information...told what books and papers to read. It isn't until you move on from undergraduate level that you start to educate yourself...deciding which scientific papers are valid as evidence and which are not... I have no intention of revealing my professional background...too many clues and my identity may be easy to find...
you certainly have a poor understanding of lie detectors for someone with such a background
Is it only when you move on from undergraduate level that you cease to be spoonfed information? What a pile of senseless, arrogant nonsense.
I happen to have a post graduate degree, also from a top university. By your standards, I am now in the perfect position to pronounce ....
I don't think I can now pronounce what it is I can now pronounce and stick within the posting rules.
So let me try a milder version.
You haven't got a clue how probability theory works.
I happen to have an honours degree, and a post-graduate degree. Neither of these makes me in any way or shape or form superior to any other member of this forum, just IMPO. You seem to think differently. If you think my degree and my post-graduate degree actually elevates my status on this forum, make your case. Otherwise, kindly stop rattling empty cans, as the noise is very loud.
If your reason for not identifying your professional background is aka The Divinci Code, then fine. OK by me. Not a problem. BUT STOP BANGING ON ABOUT YOUR PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND.
-
What do you make of this?
Moita Flores interviews Gonçalo Amaral TV Guia (no online link, appears in paper edition only)
Interview: 02 October 2008, Published: Satruday 18 October 2008
Thanks to 'astro' for translation
MF - What about other countries?
GA - It will be published in Italy, in the Netherlands and in Denmark. I'm going over there soon, because the Danish editor has mentioned the possibility of distributing it into Norway and Sweden. We'll see…
MF - Your determination is to get even with those who worked for the McCanns. They've mistreated you.
GA - Believe me, I feel no rage, I'm not even angry. I have understood their game and you also know how this game works. The lies about me, the manipulation is not exactly against the citizen Gonçalo Amaral. They were against the investigator who knew their weaknesses and was going to catch them sooner or later. It was all a matter of time. The McCanns knew that I was going to get them. As you could see, all it took was for the process to be archived in order for everything to be finished. At this moment in time, I'm convinced that they don't even remember my name anymore. So the game is always the same. We want to catch them, they want to escape, and that's it. Sometimes the bandits win, sometimes the policemen do. This time around, and concerning this case, it was how it was. They stopped insulting me, they stopped the campaigns to find their daughter, it's over. They got what they wanted and therefore, peace is back.
MF – And you launch a "grenade" that is called The Truth of the Lie into the midst of that peace. Whoever reads your testimony is left with few doubts about the little girl's destiny. She died in the apartment.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html
Not sure of the relevance of your quotes Carana.
-
http://www.1itl.com/news/317/
The UK regulation of the use of polygraphs varies depending on the context. In the criminal justice system, polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence. However, such tests have been piloted and continued to be used in the UK for the management of sex offenders. Their use for such purposes is regulated by the Polygraph Rules 2009. Under these rules, the Secretary of State can require certain offenders released on licence to undergo polygraph testing to monitor compliance with the terms of a licence and to improve offender management.
a completely different kettle of poissons but thanks for sharing.
-
Honours degree in science doesn't mean a lot unfortunately..... you were spoonfed information information...told what books and papers to read. It isn't until you move on from undergraduate level that you start to educate yourself...deciding which scientific papers are valid as evidence and which are not... I have no intention of revealing my professional background...too many clues and my identity may be easy to find...
you certainly have a poor understanding of lie detectors for someone with such a background
Tony Bennett got a first in Geography from a highly respected university, what does that tell us about his mental capacity to evaluate?
-
If the abduction is ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in that logic...there isn't any
The one flaw in that argument is that abduction hasn't been ruled out, unlike the parents who have.
-
The one flaw in that argument is that abduction hasn't been ruled out, unlike the parents who have.
Only one (flaw in the non-'argument'!) but I shan't chide your understatement, Alfred ....
-
If the abduction is ruled out there are only two major possibilities...they must add up to close to a hundred...where is the fault in that logic...there isn't any
there isn't any...but abduction has not been ruled out...the parents have been told they are not suspects...again..if the parents are ruled out then abduction is odds on
-
There is no other option than abduction ....
Only in dream land ferryman. 8(*(
-
The one flaw in that argument is that abduction hasn't been ruled out, unlike the parents who have.
Yet the actual crime, if any, is unknown.
and of course the parents kept changing their story, right from the start.
LOCKED then UNLOCKED.
Now which one is a LIE ?
Jemmied or not-jemmied.
Now we know the truth on that.
-
Is it only when you move on from undergraduate level that you cease to be spoonfed information? What a pile of senseless, arrogant nonsense.
I happen to have a post graduate degree, also from a top university. By your standards, I am now in the perfect position to pronounce ....
I don't think I can now pronounce what it is I can now pronounce and stick within the posting rules.
So let me try a milder version.
You haven't got a clue how probability theory works.
I happen to have an honours degree, and a post-graduate degree. Neither of these makes me in any way or shape or form superior to any other member of this forum, just IMPO. You seem to think differently. If you think my degree and my post-graduate degree actually elevates my status on this forum, make your case. Otherwise, kindly stop rattling empty cans, as the noise is very loud.
If your reason for not identifying your professional background is aka The Divinci Code, then fine. OK by me. Not a problem. BUT STOP BANGING ON ABOUT YOUR PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND.
I'm surprised that someone with your background does not understand how unreliable lie detectors are....you should look at the evidence...but you seem to want to ignore it...very scientific.
We have discussed them at length on this forum and some interesting points came up. A cool calm calculating person can train to beat a lie detector making them close to 100% unreliable in that case...a nervous distressed person can give a false positive in many cases...I don't have figures but 60% unreliable would be reasonable...
so as others have asked....what value is their in Kate taking such a test
-
Yet the actual crime, if any, is unknown.
and of course the parents kept changing their story, right from the start.
LOCKED then UNLOCKED.
Now which one is a LIE ?
the parents have been told they are not suspects and are therefore ruled out...fact
-
As to the locked or unlocked, which is the truth ?
Now they 'locked' the apartment during the day.
gerry mccann claims 'nothing of value was taken', which takes out burglary.
So what is the truth ???
Now there's a question....................
-
As to the locked or unlocked, which is the truth ?
Now they 'locked' the apartment during the day.
gerry mccann claims 'nothing of value was taken', which takes out burglary.
So what is the truth ???
Now there's a question....................
obviously it has been answered to the satisfaction of SY....is taht the best you have to infer they are implicated...quite pathetic
-
I'm surprised that someone with your background does not understand how unreliable lie detectors are....you should look at the evidence...but you seem to want to ignore it...very scientific.
We have discussed them at length on this forum and some interesting points came up. A cool calm calculating person can train to beat a lie detector making them close to 100% unreliable in that case...a nervous distressed person can give a false positive in many cases...I don't have figures but 60% unreliable would be reasonable...
so as others have asked....what value is their in Kate taking such a test
Again, not worth the effort of typing or reading.
Do you link to said discussion - no.
Do you assert something without supporting evidence - yes.
Is your post worthy of a considered reply - no.
-
Tony Bennett got a first in Geography from a highly respected university, what does that tell us about his mental capacity to evaluate?
I don't agree with everything TB says and does, but his knowledge of this case is impressive. You may not agree with his conclusions, but he has done the research.
-
Again, not worth the effort of typing or reading.
Do you link to said discussion - no.
Do you assert something without supporting evidence - yes.
Is your post worthy of a considered reply - no.
So still avoiding the lie detector test question
Your idea is totally ridiculous as several posters have confirmed
-
So still avoiding the lie detector test question
Your idea is totally ridiculous as several posters have confirmed
Do I remember a discussion where the McCanns said they would take one and then didn't? Did Gerry decide they were incredibly unreliable, I wonder?
McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "Of course they are not going to take the test. It's inadmissible in Portugal and there are doubts about the accuracy.
"Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494765/Now-Kate-McCann-refuses-lie-detector-test-clear-name.html#ixzz40EFYQH47
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
As to the locked or unlocked, which is the truth ?
Now they 'locked' the apartment during the day.
gerry mccann claims 'nothing of value was taken', which takes out burglary.
So what is the truth ???
Now there's a question....................
It doesn't take out an initial intention of burglary, though.
-
It doesn't take out an initial intention of burglary, though.
You mean from the person or persons, of whose existence there is no evidence ?
-
You mean from the person or persons, of whose existence there is no evidence ?
Unidentified hairs? Unidentified partial fingerprints? Both are evidence collected from the scene which at present belong to persons unknown.
-
So still avoiding the lie detector test question
Your idea is totally ridiculous as several posters have confirmed
Bump the lie detector thread and I will be happy to read the lot, then comment on it.
Otherwise, you might as well be a member of the Flat Earth Society claiming this point has been debated in the past and the conclusion reached was the Earth was flat therefore ...
We are back into the realms of broken logic.
Bump the thread, or feel free to claim this battle has already been fought and won. Easy claim to make. Easy to provide the evidence thereof.
I'm sure the mods would prefer that consideration of the accuracy of lie detector tests takes place within a thread devoted to the accuracy of lie detector tests, so are you going to bump it or not?
-
Unidentified hairs? Unidentified partial fingerprints? Both are evidence collected from the scene which at present belong to persons unknown.
So there is evidence of unidentified individuals at the crime scene
-
Unidentified hairs? Unidentified partial fingerprints? Both are evidence collected from the scene which at present belong to persons unknown.
Wow, hairs and partial fingerprints.
I wonder how MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN THERE OVER THE YEARS ?
-
Wow, hairs and partial fingerprints.
I wonder how MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN THERE OVER THE YEARS ?
Same goes for every crime scene
-
Wow, hairs and partial fingerprints.
I wonder how MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN THERE OVER THE YEARS ?
So you think any fingerprint evidence or hairs collected at the scene immediately after the event which have not been able to be identified - should be discounted by the police because lots of people have been in 5a over the years. How does that prove that those particular hairs/fingerprints could not possibly belong to an intruder who may have entered 5a on the 3rd May. Please explain.
-
So you think any fingerprint evidence or hairs collected at the scene immediately after the event which have not been able to be identified - should be discounted by the police because lots of people have been in 5a over the years. How does that prove that those particular hairs/fingerprints could not possibly belong to an intruder who may have entered 5a on the 3rd May. Please explain.
It does not mean there was an abductor/burglar.
and the reason you cling onto this is simple..
Of there was no abduction all roads lead to the mccanns. Either through negligence, if she walked out by herself or worse.
-
It does not mean there was an abductor/burglar.
and the reason you cling onto this is simple..
Of there was no abduction all roads lead to the mccanns. Either through negligence, if she walked out by herself or worse.
Stephen, you keep saying that there's no evidence, yet whenever someone points out that there IS potentially relevant evidence, you dismiss it.
If newer technologies can now extract the DNA, it would be worth doing, don't you think?
-
why is that story trending right now and all over the worlds media?? it is trending on facebook is it to do with the new book about how corrupt the metro police are??
-
Stephen, you keep saying that there's no evidence, yet whenever someone points out that there IS potentially relevant evidence, you dismiss it.
If newer technologies can now extract the DNA, it would be worth doing, don't you think?
Evidence of what Carana ?
Evidence of other people being in the apartment does not mean evidence of abductor or a burglar.
Likewise, how do you know whether or not the hairs have been brought in by secondary transfer ?
-
Evidence of what Carana ?
Evidence of other people being in the apartment does not mean evidence of abductor or a burglar.
Likewise, how do you know whether or not the hairs have been brought in by secondary transfer ?
On it's own, it certainly wouldn't be proof. On the other hand, it could be a red flag that might lead to proof.
-
It doesn't take out an initial intention of burglary, though.
By whom? No burglar has been identified.
-
By whom? No burglar has been identified.
I'm aware of that. However, my point was that just because nothing of value (aside from Madeleine) was missing doesn't exclude entry by a burglar who took off with the child instead.
-
Evidence of what Carana ?
Evidence of other people being in the apartment does not mean evidence of abductor or a burglar.
Likewise, how do you know whether or not the hairs have been brought in by secondary transfer ?
To me the happenings below are potential evidence. ... as Carana puts it, a RED FLAG
Why were the sightings up to and including the Porto area not looked at? Just ignored it seems, yet 4 abductions up there in the previous 14 years + several sightings of a little girl thought to be Madeleine in the region. Why weren't they looked at?
Why was processos 807-808 about a sighting in Porto and VN de Gaia unecessarily produced by Portimao PJ ?
This mysteriously produceed new Processos negates the earlier proper processos 809 which was written at the time and en situ up in Porto with full PJ source trail. It negates/changes the original Processos 809 in five ways IIRC.
Why did Portimao PJ decide to alter the original bonafide Processos 809 with stuff that appears unsound ? At least one item on the new processos appears totally untrue and I went up there to check it out. Walked that road of drop off on a boiling hot day just to check it out. It was incorrect ... no three storey house of anything like that number shown in the processos.
In fact the number quoted was almost certainly of a house knocked down up a bling alleyway. The land plus extra added to it made a large plot. A new Catholic church was in the process of being built there ...... and on the same plot of land there is a church attached Nursery and a School.
The new Portimao Processos almost seemed to be written to put the searcher off the scent. Five things ?wrong and over-ruling the processos written en situ by Porto Officers.
The drop off was just 2 miles crow flies to the first Porto area abduction of Jorge Sepulveda .... and my suspect spent time between the two.
SY found that interesting. Official paperwork which ties abductions, sightings and my suspect between the two, together in a distance of only two miles. Not in PdL but 300 miles North in the Porto area
809 is the processos that is totally bonafide. The other one seems to be pointing in the wrong direction on IIRC five counts.
To me, the sightings up to, and including the Porto area are potential evidence, yet it was all ignored ... and even strangely amended. I wonder why ?
-
To me the happenings below are potential evidence. ... as Carana puts it, a RED FLAG
Why were the sightings up to and including the Porto area not looked at? Just ignored it seems, yet 4 abductions up there in the previous 14 years + several sightings of a little girl thought to be Madeleine in the region. Why weren't they looked at?
Why was processos 807-808 about a sighting in Porto and VN de Gaia unecessarily produced by Portimao PJ ?
This mysteriously produceed new Processos negates the earlier proper processos 809 which was written at the time and en situ up in Porto with full PJ source trail. It negates/changes the original Processos 809 in five ways IIRC.
Why did Portimao PJ decide to alter the original bonafide Processos 809 with stuff that appears unsound ? At least one item on the new processos appears totally untrue and I went up there to check it out. Walked that road of drop off on a boiling hot day just to check it out. It was incorrect ... no three storey house of anything like that number shown in the processos.
In fact the number quoted was almost certainly of a house knocked down up a bling alleyway. The land plus extra added to it made a large plot. A new Catholic church was in the process of being built there ...... and on the same plot of land there is a church attached Nursery and a School.
The new Portimao Processos almost seemed to be written to put the searcher off the scent. Five things ?wrong and over-ruling the processos written en situ by Porto Officers.
The drop off was just 2 miles crow flies to the first Porto area abduction of Jorge Sepulveda .... and my suspect spent time between the two.
SY found that interesting. Official paperwork which ties abductions, sightings and my suspect between the two, together in a distance of only two miles. Not in PdL but 300 miles North in the Porto area
809 is the processos that is totally bonafide. The other one seems to be pointing in the wrong direction on IIRC five counts.
To me, the sightings up to, and including the Porto area are potential evidence, yet it was all ignored ... and even strangely amended. I wonder why ?
Now just tell me, what solid undeniable evidence links those cases to the McCann one ?
-
Now just tell me, what solid undeniable evidence links those cases to the McCann one ?
One could say that about any potential link in any case. I would have thought that checking out potentially credible and relevant leads is the point of any investigation.
-
One could say that about any potential link in any case. I would have thought that checking out potentially credible and relevant leads is the point of any investigation.
Well, I know full well which site the 'exposed myths' people inhabit.
The site who Blacksmith so aptly said, is where they hate everyone else.
-
I don't agree with everything TB says and does, but his knowledge of this case is impressive. You may not agree with his conclusions, but he has done the research.
He has released some absolute howlers in the past, such as his highly defamatory "conclusions" about Murat's son, just one example. He also has a highly impressive knowledge of the bible and Darwinism, and yet has come to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old.
-
He has released some absolute howlers in the past, such as his highly defamatory "conclusions" about Murat's son, just one example. He also has a highly impressive knowledge of the bible and Darwinism, and yet has come to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old.
Well there are people out there, who believe the Earth is flat and the mccanns did nothing wrong.
-
To me the happenings below are potential evidence. ... as Carana puts it, a RED FLAG
Why were the sightings up to and including the Porto area not looked at? Just ignored it seems, yet 4 abductions up there in the previous 14 years + several sightings of a little girl thought to be Madeleine in the region. Why weren't they looked at?
Why was processos 807-808 about a sighting in Porto and VN de Gaia unecessarily produced by Portimao PJ ?
This mysteriously produceed new Processos negates the earlier proper processos 809 which was written at the time and en situ up in Porto with full PJ source trail. It negates/changes the original Processos 809 in five ways IIRC.
Why did Portimao PJ decide to alter the original bonafide Processos 809 with stuff that appears unsound ? At least one item on the new processos appears totally untrue and I went up there to check it out. Walked that road of drop off on a boiling hot day just to check it out. It was incorrect ... no three storey house of anything like that number shown in the processos.
In fact the number quoted was almost certainly of a house knocked down up a bling alleyway. The land plus extra added to it made a large plot. A new Catholic church was in the process of being built there ...... and on the same plot of land there is a church attached Nursery and a School.
The new Portimao Processos almost seemed to be written to put the searcher off the scent. Five things ?wrong and over-ruling the processos written en situ by Porto Officers.
The drop off was just 2 miles crow flies to the first Porto area abduction of Jorge Sepulveda .... and my suspect spent time between the two.
SY found that interesting. Official paperwork which ties abductions, sightings and my suspect between the two, together in a distance of only two miles. Not in PdL but 300 miles North in the Porto area
809 is the processos that is totally bonafide. The other one seems to be pointing in the wrong direction on IIRC five counts.
To me, the sightings up to, and including the Porto area are potential evidence, yet it was all ignored ... and even strangely amended. I wonder why ?
Further more on the basis of Processos 742-744, I went to look at Miramar beach, where there was a sighting of a man with a little girl. The sighter was convinced that it was Madeleine, cos he had been watching TV all day and Madeleines image was clear in his mind. At 5 pm. the man and girl left. Mmm, I thought, that could be shift change over time ... someone special could be being met.
I decided to look at an SOS childrens Orphanage and we drove the mile there. It was situated in a truncated street that was wide cos it had been the main trunk road south prior to the new motorway. No houses, no way thru, just this beautiful looking home, a hidden factory next door and a smallish business at the end of the road so virtually no traffick and well treed.
We sat in our little hire car, two OAP's, looking at the delighful sight of children playing outside in this very pleasant home, but behind high railings, on a high bank so much couldn't be seen. The gate was open with *guards* there. &%+((£
We were parked well away, no threat, but in less than 2 minutes we were off.
The children had been called in, the gates clanged shut, and a huge viscious Alsation type guard dog had appeared 8)--)). He was racing along the railings keen to rip our throats out
2 -3 Guards and a visciuos Alsation type guard dog at a Childrens orphanage £5%4%.. Playing children called in immediately when a couple of 75 y. olds park outside in a rubbishy tiny hire car ... and at a very safe distance &%+((£
Anyway, i found connections between this orphanage and my suspect.
That's all
-
We seem to have wandered away from the thread title. Instead of discussing why people don't believe the abduction story we seem to be discussing who what when and where the abductor is.
There is a very slight chance that some idiot decided to go into an apartment with three small children in it and with checkers passing by or going in every few minutes. I would be very surprised if it happened, however. If it did, the checking was not as frequent as we have been led to believe in my opinion.
-
We seem to have wandered away from the thread title. Instead of discussing why people don't believe the abduction story we seem to be discussing who what when and where the abductor is.
There is a very slight chance that some idiot decided to go into an apartment with three small children in it and with checkers passing by or going in every few minutes. I would be very surprised if it happened, however. If it did, the checking was not as frequent as we have been led to believe in my opinion.
Well that is an intended distraction carried out by some mccann supporters.
I have yet to see a reasoned answer as to why people don't believe the mccanns story.
I noticed on the sun's Facebook pages some far stronger language against the mccanns, in regards the latest 'story' that kate mccann thinks Madeleine is alive and well in Portugal.
Presumably in Edgar's lawless village 10 miles from PDL.
-
We seem to have wandered away from the thread title. Instead of discussing why people don't believe the abduction story we seem to be discussing who what when and where the abductor is.
There is a very slight chance that some idiot decided to go into an apartment with three small children in it and with checkers passing by or going in every few minutes. I would be very surprised if it happened, however. If it did, the checking was not as frequent as we have been led to believe in my opinion.
The archiving report says something not too dissimilar ?{)(**
-
Well that is an I tended distraction carried out by some mccann supporters.
I have yet to see a reasoned answer as to why people don't believe the mccanns story.
I noticed on the sun's Facebook pages some far stronger language against the mccanns, in regards the latest 'story' that kate mccann thinks Madeleine is alive and well in Portugal.
Presumably in Edgar's lawless village 10 miles from PDL.
I have given a reasoned answer as to why some people don't believe the McCanns...that is they have believed lies told by amaral and don't understand the evidence...and there is lots of evidence to support my statement
-
and what did they think of your detective work Sadie ?
Did you tell them about the involvement of the Illuminati and the pirates you have referred to ?
They know everything .... and I realise that it is bizarre until you find that everything links up .... scores, probably hundreds of things link up. My research was very very thorough. It became like a jigsaw with hardly a piece missing.
When things linked so completely, they became interested. I cant tell you 90% of what i found
They were not so daft/narrow minded to refuse stuff because it historically linked back to the Templars, the ancient Secret Societies and the Phoenicians/ Ancient Greeks, early pirates and slave gatherers . Blood Brothers etc.
Are you a Blood Brother stephen? Do you have Templar / Phoenician/Jewish links? Just wondering, no need to answer if you prefer not to.
Try and be open minded if that rather narrow scientific mind will allow it.
SY took notice, however, they know the lot. If they were prepared to be open minded, maybe you should be too?
-
The archiving report says something not too dissimilar ?{)(**
Having looked at the alleged timeline myself, I agree with the passage below. Not to mention that any watcher saw two men go to the apartments at 9.30pm and only one left. The other could have reappeared at any moment.
3 - The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
and what did they think of your detective work Sadie ?
Did you tell them about the involvement of the Illuminati and the pirates you have referred to ?
Well they promoted me from the odd phone call to talking to me at Belgravia P.S. at sargeant level .... and they carried my folder in the Crimewatch programs. In both programs IIRC. The words were interesting too .... something about "this detailed analysis having changed the direction of the enquiry" ... seemed to be talking about my folder, or me, but maybe not.
You are able to keep certain programs for a little while, time limited I think, and my hubby did. He played it back on the really big TV screen and you could see the unusual black punch pockets I used ... and my scrawly writing on the cover. As I get older my writing deteriorates and that isn't helped by the fact that my desk is always covered by sliding sets of papers, which i bakance my writing paper/ folder on. £4%4%.
They managed to read it anyhow!
I think that they removed the writing on the folder when it went on Youtube, but on a big screen I bet that you can still see the black edged punch pockets.
-
An open question.
People don't believe/quibble about the truth of Madeleine's abduction because
1 They are stupid
2. They understand the truth but are deceivers
3. They haven't read the files carefully.
Can't think of any other reasons why people would quibble about the truth ....
-
People don't believe/quibble about the truth of Madeleine's abduction because
1 They are stupid
2. They understand the truth but are deceivers
3. They haven't read the files carefully.
Can't think of any other reasons why people would quibble about the truth ....
1. They are not stupid.
2. They do understand the truth and can read through the tale spun by the mccanns and those who aid them.
3. They have read the files and have seen the inconsistent accounts of the mccanns and the PR behind it.
4. They see through people like you.
-
I think you'll find the only reference to 'detailed analysis' was in relation to the timeline.
Bwhahaha
Watch the Crimewatch program again.
The 'detailed analysis' when carrying the lavender coloured folder [I sent several Lavender coloured folders in] was about information sent in by the public and it seemed to refer to the folder [mine] being carried... but I may be wrong on that score.
Watch it and see
Am not sure now, but I think it was the second Crimewatch where that happened
But my Lavender coloured folders appeared to be being carried/ in evidence in both.
Posters/ readers who were in pfa2 will remember that i was always going on about Lavenders.
The big lavender coloured folder inn the middle of the top shelf also looks like mine, but I cannot be sure
Blonk, do you think that the black and white folder could be Bennetts?
-
1. They are not stupid.
2. They do understand the truth and can read through the tale spun by the mccanns and those who aid them.
3. They have read the files and have seen the inconsistent accounts of the mccanns and the PR behind it.
4. They see through people like you.
And the Portuguese prosecutors (who said Madeleine was abducted).
And PJ Inspector Jaoa Carlos (who wrote the final PJ report and said Madeleine was abducted.
And Mark Harrison (who had no clue what happened to Madeleine but reached a tentative conclusion at variance with the conclusion of Amaral's book).
The only person who knows is Goncalo Amaral
Strange, that ...
-
Amaral's wild guesswork remains just that.
Sometimes guesses get lucky.
I doubt it, here, though
The McCanns were unperturbed until all hell broke around 10.00pm on May 3rd, itself evidence of abduction, noted by the prosecutors in the archiving dispatch ....
-
Amaral's wild guesswork remains just that.
Sometimes guesses get lucky.
I doubt it, here, though
The McCanns were unperturbed until all hell broke around 10.00pm on May 3rd, itself evidence of abduction, noted by the prosecutors in the archiving dispatch ....
The mccanns were unperturbed ferryman ?
Yes we know.
They were drinking and eating.
After yet again they left 3 young children unprotected in a foreign country.
Yet not a jot of real evidence to show abduction.
-
Bwhahaha
Watch the Crimewatch program again.
The 'detailed analysis' when carrying the lavender coloured folder [I sent several Lavender coloured folders in] was about information sent in by the public and it seemed to refer to the folder [mine] being carried... but I may be wrong on that score.
Watch it and see
Am not sure now, but I think it was the second Crimewatch where that happened
But my Lavender coloured folders appeared to be being carried/ in evidence in both.
Posters/ readers who were in pfa2 will remember that i was always going on about Lavenders.
The big lavender coloured folder inn the middle of the top shelf also looks like mine, but I cannot be sure
Blonk, do you think that the black and white folder could be Bennetts?
If second Crimewatch means the one from Oct 13, then there is a full transcript, in English and Portuguese, at shininginluz.wordpress.com. This is linked to the programme on YouTube, and as of about 1 minute ago, the link works. The transcript is cross-referenced to the time of the words appearing on the video.
To KISS, there is a searchable source making it easy for you to look up anything in that Crimewatch.
One cautionary note. My aim was not to produce a 100% literal transcript. The transcript underwent a degree of simplification designed to ensure that auto translation would work well.
-
And the Portuguese prosecutors (who said Madeleine was abducted).
And PJ Inspector Jaoa Carlos (who wrote the final PJ report and said Madeleine was abducted.
And Mark Harrison (who had no clue what happened to Madeleine but reached a tentative conclusion at variance with the conclusion of Amaral's book).
The only person who knows is Goncalo Amaral
Strange, that ...
I have quotes which do not say Madeleine was abducted. Please provide your quotes which say she was.
Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Within the factual context we could be facing an abduction situation, although all possibilities have always been open, as they continue to be.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Type of Crime – Unknown
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
-
Any further insulting posts and those attacking other posters will be removed in full from now on.
Oh, and Off Topic Posts as well.
-
I have quotes which do not say Madeleine was abducted. Please provide your quotes which say she was.
Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Within the factual context we could be facing an abduction situation, although all possibilities have always been open, as they continue to be.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Type of Crime – Unknown
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
From the archiving dispatch:
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
From Joao Carlos' final report:
Assuming that the minor's disappearance was due to the acts of third parties, the PJ explored various lines of investigation, not excluding any hypothesis considered plausible or hypothetically acceptable.
From the documentation, you will observe that during the investigation various possibilities were contemplated.
As such, consider:
1. abduction, for sexual exploration or other (e.g, later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide;
2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse;
3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse;
pages 7 and 8
The Hypothesis 1 and 2 were considered in the double notion of the illicit of abduction (if that happened) that could have had occurred due to feelings of revenge by the
Kidnapper(s) towards the parents (intended abduction) or by taking merely the opportunity of the child being at a vulnerable situation (opportunity abduction).
As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely physically – and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared.
-
From the archiving dispatch:
From Joao Carlos' final report:
Again ferryman, the case was shelved because of the lack of evidence .
You can selectively copy and paste to your hearts content, but that won't change what happened.
None of the prevalent theories have been proved or disproved.
Remember that.
-
There was not enough evidence to convict the abductor
-
There was not enough evidence to convict the abductor
There was no evidence to charge anyone with any crime.
Why do you omit, a crime may not have occurred in the apartment.
-
From the archiving dispatch:
From Joao Carlos' final report:
The conclusions are clear, and no-one concluded that abduction was the answer.
Legal summary;
Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
-
There was no evidence to charge anyone with any crime.
Why do you omit, a crime may not have occurred in the apartment.
Woke and wandered, you mean?
Joao Carlos excludes that one ....
-
The conclusions are clear, and no-one concluded that abduction was the answer.
Legal summary;
Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
Key words underlined: targeted abduction or opportunistic abduction.
But definitely abduction.
-
Key words underlined: targeted abduction or opportunistic abduction.
But definitely abduction.
The man you partially quoted gave his view.
There is no evidence of abduction.
Saying abduction is not proof.
and the only reason you keep repeating it, is rather blatant.
However, it won't change the truth.
Now ferryman, the mccanns went from a LOCKED apartment to UNLOCKED.
Which one was the lie ?
-
If a targeted abduction, then opportunistic abduction would be the lie; or vice versa ...
-
If a targeted abduction, then opportunistic abduction would be the lie; or vice versa ...
Keep dreaming ferryman.
That's all you have.
-
If a targeted abduction, then opportunistic abduction would be the lie; or vice versa ...
So who was this abductor ferryman ?
The invisible man perhaps ? 8**8:/:
-
So who was this abductor ferryman ?
The invisible man perhaps ? 8**8:/:
99.99% (plus) certain, a different abductor from the one that took Ben Needham.
-
99.99% (plus) certain, a different abductor from the one that took Ben Needham.
Proof of abduction ferryman ?
and not an opinion.
-
Key words underlined: targeted abduction or opportunistic abduction.
But definitely abduction.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it wasn't the opinion of any of the Portuguese authorities.
-
99.99% (plus) certain, a different abductor from the one that took Ben Needham.
Nope.
1%. 8(0(*
-
So who was this abductor ferryman ?
The invisible man perhaps ? 8**8:/:
... when I entered to PJ, young, in 1981, with 22 years old, we wanted what today I don´t know if it will be much, to investigate homicides, to investigate drug trafficking, investigate organized crime, and we were with, shall we say, adrenaline, the areas of children, of the missing children or adults, was always mistreated areas, and I remember the father of a missing youngster from Porto, here, Jorge Sepúlveda, which told that in 1991, when he presented, when he told about his son´s disappearance, that there was only one inspector to investigate the disappearances and ten for car theft, the car is much more important than a child, this continues, and that case made me awake for that reality, the reality of the families, those families whose sons disappears, what is the state, the organizations, the police itself, how can help them, what they can expect from police forces, what the police forces can expect of an absence long term, this is nothing, this means nothing, there isn't a planning in terms of investigation, and people are adrift.
Host: This case did not change a thing in Portugal?
GA: Did not, did not, but I hope that it will, because, this is the problem of PJ, and as a superior organ of criminal police, it should have that attention.
The PJ has a legal obligation, because it is at PJ´s organic law, to detect criminal phenomenon, and that doesn´t happen, the PJ continues to react (like any other police) to a real event, then no studies about the phenomenon, and PJ don´t prepare in this situation, the disappearances of children, or an adult disappearance, people who, people don´t even know where to complain, there is an informative note that PJ at 2007 which says something like this: by the way of the missing children´s day, well, don´t forget to give useful advices to parents of missing, half a dozen, but don´t forget that this not crime, and that it is at that informative note, it´s no crime, it´s not investigated as a crime, there is no urgency (for people to understand) but it has to be investigated as a crime, because a child who disappears, everything may happened, a crime, and if not investigated.many things will be lost (12:19).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwAsA3bgY4&feature=player_embedded#
Mr Amaral seems to have been aware that all the stops have to be pulled out when a child goes missing. The result of any failure in the investigation means ... "many things will be lost".
He appears to be of the opinion that all avenues of investigation have to remain open ... in particular that the disappearance of a child has to be treated as a crime.
To reiterate that 'the nature of the crime is unknown' is semantics ... when you are aware that the current Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard investigations are concentrating on abduction.
Not because they have been told to ... but because they have been following the evidence from scoping exercise to review to reopening of the case.
-
... when I entered to PJ, young, in 1981, with 22 years old, we wanted what today I don´t know if it will be much, to investigate homicides, to investigate drug trafficking, investigate organized crime, and we were with, shall we say, adrenaline, the areas of children, of the missing children or adults, was always mistreated areas, and I remember the father of a missing youngster from Porto, here, Jorge Sepúlveda, which told that in 1991, when he presented, when he told about his son´s disappearance, that there was only one inspector to investigate the disappearances and ten for car theft, the car is much more important than a child, this continues, and that case made me awake for that reality, the reality of the families, those families whose sons disappears, what is the state, the organizations, the police itself, how can help them, what they can expect from police forces, what the police forces can expect of an absence long term, this is nothing, this means nothing, there isn't a planning in terms of investigation, and people are adrift.
Host: This case did not change a thing in Portugal?
GA: Did not, did not, but I hope that it will, because, this is the problem of PJ, and as a superior organ of criminal police, it should have that attention.
The PJ has a legal obligation, because it is at PJ´s organic law, to detect criminal phenomenon, and that doesn´t happen, the PJ continues to react (like any other police) to a real event, then no studies about the phenomenon, and PJ don´t prepare in this situation, the disappearances of children, or an adult disappearance, people who, people don´t even know where to complain, there is an informative note that PJ at 2007 which says something like this: by the way of the missing children´s day, well, don´t forget to give useful advices to parents of missing, half a dozen, but don´t forget that this not crime, and that it is at that informative note, it´s no crime, it´s not investigated as a crime, there is no urgency (for people to understand) but it has to be investigated as a crime, because a child who disappears, everything may happened, a crime, and if not investigated.many things will be lost (12:19).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwAsA3bgY4&feature=player_embedded#
Mr Amaral seems to have been aware that all the stops have to be pulled out when a child goes missing. The result of any failure in the investigation means ... "many things will be lost".
He appears to be of the opinion that all avenues of investigation have to remain open ... in particular that the disappearance of a child has to be treated as a crime.
To reiterate that 'the nature of the crime is unknown' is semantics ... when you are aware that the current Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard investigations are concentrating on abduction.
Not because they have been told to ... but because they have been following the evidence from scoping exercise to review to reopening of the case.
It sounds impressive but to quote the late Jack Fingleton "Wadda yer mean by it".
-
It sounds impressive but to quote the late Jack Fingleton "Wadda yer mean by it".
Attempting to give an explanation to one who is determined not to understand is a fruitless exercise.
-
99.99% (plus) certain, a different abductor from the one that took Ben Needham.
£5%4%, i wonder?
My suspect has very definite connections to the Phonecian islands around Kos where Ben went missing.
He has also has connections to the Knights of St John whose Neratzia Castle is only about three miles from Iraklis where Ben went missing.
But that alone is not proof of anything.
I do wonder tho' if Bens abduction is connected in any way with the loss of Madeleine.
Does anyone know, does Ben [BENJAMIN] have Jewish Canannite roots, as Madeleine does, I think?
Many of the Cannanite Jews are descended from the Greeks and the Phonecians. They were VERY clever people.
-
... when I entered to PJ, young, in 1981, with 22 years old, we wanted what today I don´t know if it will be much, to investigate homicides, to investigate drug trafficking, investigate organized crime, and we were with, shall we say, adrenaline, the areas of children, of the missing children or adults, was always mistreated areas, and I remember the father of a missing youngster from Porto, here, Jorge Sepúlveda, which told that in 1991, when he presented, when he told about his son´s disappearance, that there was only one inspector to investigate the disappearances and ten for car theft, the car is much more important than a child, this continues, and that case made me awake for that reality, the reality of the families, those families whose sons disappears, what is the state, the organizations, the police itself, how can help them, what they can expect from police forces, what the police forces can expect of an absence long term, this is nothing, this means nothing, there isn't a planning in terms of investigation, and people are adrift.
Host: This case did not change a thing in Portugal?
GA: Did not, did not, but I hope that it will, because, this is the problem of PJ, and as a superior organ of criminal police, it should have that attention.
The PJ has a legal obligation, because it is at PJ´s organic law, to detect criminal phenomenon, and that doesn´t happen, the PJ continues to react (like any other police) to a real event, then no studies about the phenomenon, and PJ don´t prepare in this situation, the disappearances of children, or an adult disappearance, people who, people don´t even know where to complain, there is an informative note that PJ at 2007 which says something like this: by the way of the missing children´s day, well, don´t forget to give useful advices to parents of missing, half a dozen, but don´t forget that this not crime, and that it is at that informative note, it´s no crime, it´s not investigated as a crime, there is no urgency (for people to understand) but it has to be investigated as a crime, because a child who disappears, everything may happened, a crime, and if not investigated.many things will be lost (12:19).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwAsA3bgY4&feature=player_embedded#
Mr Amaral seems to have been aware that all the stops have to be pulled out when a child goes missing. The result of any failure in the investigation means ... "many things will be lost".
He appears to be of the opinion that all avenues of investigation have to remain open ... in particular that the disappearance of a child has to be treated as a crime.
To reiterate that 'the nature of the crime is unknown' is semantics ... when you are aware that the current Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard investigations are concentrating on abduction.
Not because they have been told to ... but because they have been following the evidence from scoping exercise to review to reopening of the case.
When were the McCann's and co interviewed by SY ?
-
£5%4%, i wonder?
My suspect has very definite connections to the Phonecian islands around Kos where Ben went missing.
He has also has connections to the Knights of St John whose Neratzia Castle is only about three miles from Iraklis where Ben went missing.
But that alone is not proof of anything.
I do wonder tho' if Bens abduction is connected in any way with the loss of Madeleine.
Does anyone know, does Ben [BENJAMIN] have Jewish Canannite roots, as Madeleine does, I think?
Many of the Cannanite Jews are descended from the Greeks and the Phonecians. They were VERY clever people.
OFF TOPIC.
-
£5%4%, i wonder?
My suspect has very definite connections to the Phonecian islands around Kos where Ben went missing.
He has also has connections to the Knights of St John whose Neratzia Castle is only about three miles from Iraklis where Ben went missing.
But that alone is not proof of anything.
I do wonder tho' if Bens abduction is connected in any way with the loss of Madeleine.
Does anyone know, does Ben [BENJAMIN] have Jewish Canannite roots, as Madeleine does, I think?
Many of the Cannanite Jews are descended from the Greeks and the Phonecians. They were VERY clever people.
You've omitted the Klingons and Romulans from your list. 8(>((
-
When were the McCann's and co interviewed by SY ?
I'm very surprised ... nay amazed ... that no-one seems to have included just that question among the plethora of FOI requests as a result of the news that there was a chance Madeleine's case would be reopened.
Maybe too upset that 'Justice for Madeleine' was about to be enacted for real by real detectives???
-
I'm very surprised ... nay amazed ... that no-one seems to have included just that question among the plethora of FOI requests as a result of the news that there was a chance Madeleine's case would be reopened.
Maybe too upset that 'Justice for Madeleine' was about to be enacted for real by real detectives???
A killer repost (to Stephen25000's question)
-
It is hardly surprising there are still people who don't believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted. There was a lot of time and effort put into a private propaganda war against her parents which escalated as the investigators found themselves more and more out of their depth; and desperate for a solution to their problem of failure to solve Madeleine's case by winding it all up and packaging it to implicate her parents.
They didn't allow the fact there was no evidence to support this to stand in their way.
Making the Drs McCann arguidos in their daughter's disappearance was in my opinion a cynical, calculated action performed by an investigation which was totally out of its depth.
One can only imagine how soul destroying this must have been for innocent parents who now knew for certain there was no interest or intention in looking for their missing child and we know how the event was portrayed in the media.
**Snip
E seguiu-se aquilo em que a PJ é especialista, sempre que não consegue deslindar um caso mediático: começar a soprar informações e opiniões para a imprensa, sugerindo que sabe muito bem o que se passou, mas que fortes obstáculos (neste caso, diplomáticos), a impedem ainda de o poder dizer. Os homens de mão da PJ na imprensa - jornalistas, ex-polícias e outros 'especialistas' - começaram então a alimentar a campanha suja contra os McCann: que era muito estranho que ela não chorasse, que o casal tinha hábitos sexuais devassos, que os amigos eram todos de desconfiar, que ela se teria queixado de que Maddie era uma criança difícil, etc. e tal. Preparado o terreno, chegou-se então ao golpe final: a constituição dos McCann como arguidos - o que, para o grosso da opinião pública, nacional e internacional, significou apenas que a Polícia portuguesa os tinha como suspeitos da morte e da ocultação do cadáver da filha.
And followed that in which PJ is an expert , whenever unable to unravel a media event:
start blowing information and opinions to the press , suggesting that knows very well what happened , but significant obstacles (in this case , diplomatic ) , to further hinder the power to speak.
The PJ 's henchmen in the media - journalists , former policemen and other 'experts' - then began to feed the dirty campaign against the McCann:
it was very strange that she would not cry , the couple had sexually immoral sexual practices which the friends were all suspicious , she would have complained that Maddie was a difficult child , etc. and such.
Paved the way , there came then the final blow: the constitution of the McCanns as suspects - which, for the bulk of public , national and international opinion, meant only that the Portuguese police had them as suspects of death and concealment of corpse daughter.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/opiniao/opiniao_miguel_sousa_tavares/maddie-nao-repousa-em-paz=f372432
-
... when I entered to PJ, young, in 1981, with 22 years old, we wanted what today I don´t know if it will be much, to investigate homicides, to investigate drug trafficking, investigate organized crime, and we were with, shall we say, adrenaline, the areas of children, of the missing children or adults, was always mistreated areas, and I remember the father of a missing youngster from Porto, here, Jorge Sepúlveda, which told that in 1991, when he presented, when he told about his son´s disappearance, that there was only one inspector to investigate the disappearances and ten for car theft, the car is much more important than a child, this continues, and that case made me awake for that reality, the reality of the families, those families whose sons disappears, what is the state, the organizations, the police itself, how can help them, what they can expect from police forces, what the police forces can expect of an absence long term, this is nothing, this means nothing, there isn't a planning in terms of investigation, and people are adrift.
Host: This case did not change a thing in Portugal?
GA: Did not, did not, but I hope that it will, because, this is the problem of PJ, and as a superior organ of criminal police, it should have that attention.
The PJ has a legal obligation, because it is at PJ´s organic law, to detect criminal phenomenon, and that doesn´t happen, the PJ continues to react (like any other police) to a real event, then no studies about the phenomenon, and PJ don´t prepare in this situation, the disappearances of children, or an adult disappearance, people who, people don´t even know where to complain, there is an informative note that PJ at 2007 which says something like this: by the way of the missing children´s day, well, don´t forget to give useful advices to parents of missing, half a dozen, but don´t forget that this not crime, and that it is at that informative note, it´s no crime, it´s not investigated as a crime, there is no urgency (for people to understand) but it has to be investigated as a crime, because a child who disappears, everything may happened, a crime, and if not investigated.many things will be lost (12:19).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwAsA3bgY4&feature=player_embedded#
Mr Amaral seems to have been aware that all the stops have to be pulled out when a child goes missing. The result of any failure in the investigation means ... "many things will be lost".
He appears to be of the opinion that all avenues of investigation have to remain open ... in particular that the disappearance of a child has to be treated as a crime.
To reiterate that 'the nature of the crime is unknown' is semantics ... when you are aware that the current Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard investigations are concentrating on abduction.
Not because they have been told to ... but because they have been following the evidence from scoping exercise to review to reopening of the case.
It is abundantly clear that SY have only been investigating abduction.
As the saying going, a one horse race, and in this case blind folded and going nowhere.
There is no more evidence for abduction than for anything else, and certainly no forensics to indicate that
-
I'm very surprised ... nay amazed ... that no-one seems to have included just that question among the plethora of FOI requests as a result of the news that there was a chance Madeleine's case would be reopened.
Maybe too upset that 'Justice for Madeleine' was about to be enacted for real by real detectives???
'real detectives' ?
Who would they be ?
Even with FOI's, not all information is released.
-
It is hardly surprising there are still people who don't believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted. There was a lot of time and effort put into a private propaganda war against her parents which escalated as the investigators found themselves more and more out of their depth; and desperate for a solution to their problem of failure to solve Madeleine's case by winding it all up and packaging it to implicate her parents.
They didn't allow the fact there was no evidence to support this to stand in their way.
Making the Drs McCann arguidos in their daughter's disappearance was in my opinion a cynical, calculated action performed by an investigation which was totally out of its depth.
One can only imagine how soul destroying this must have been for innocent parents who now knew for certain there was no interest or intention in looking for their missing child and we know how the event was portrayed in the media.
**Snip
E seguiu-se aquilo em que a PJ é especialista, sempre que não consegue deslindar um caso mediático: começar a soprar informações e opiniões para a imprensa, sugerindo que sabe muito bem o que se passou, mas que fortes obstáculos (neste caso, diplomáticos), a impedem ainda de o poder dizer. Os homens de mão da PJ na imprensa - jornalistas, ex-polícias e outros 'especialistas' - começaram então a alimentar a campanha suja contra os McCann: que era muito estranho que ela não chorasse, que o casal tinha hábitos sexuais devassos, que os amigos eram todos de desconfiar, que ela se teria queixado de que Maddie era uma criança difícil, etc. e tal. Preparado o terreno, chegou-se então ao golpe final: a constituição dos McCann como arguidos - o que, para o grosso da opinião pública, nacional e internacional, significou apenas que a Polícia portuguesa os tinha como suspeitos da morte e da ocultação do cadáver da filha.
And followed that in which PJ is an expert , whenever unable to unravel a media event:
start blowing information and opinions to the press , suggesting that knows very well what happened , but significant obstacles (in this case , diplomatic ) , to further hinder the power to speak.
The PJ 's henchmen in the media - journalists , former policemen and other 'experts' - then began to feed the dirty campaign against the McCann:
it was very strange that she would not cry , the couple had sexually immoral sexual practices which the friends were all suspicious , she would have complained that Maddie was a difficult child , etc. and such.
Paved the way , there came then the final blow: the constitution of the McCanns as suspects - which, for the bulk of public , national and international opinion, meant only that the Portuguese police had them as suspects of death and concealment of corpse daughter.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/opiniao/opiniao_miguel_sousa_tavares/maddie-nao-repousa-em-paz=f372432
However, it doesn't solve what happened to Madeleine, and people can decide for themselves what to believe Brietta.
..........and yet again, investigation of parents in any case such as this is standard.
-
There is no way of knowing for sure but I would say far more people believe maddie was abducted than not
-
A killer repost (to Stephen25000's question)
Nah ferryman.
FOI's don't solve crimes. 8)-)))
-
Nah ferryman.
FOI's don't solve crimes. 8)-)))
Also no point in an FOI which would obviously be rejected.
-
The facebook response on the sun's pages will hardly be good reading for the mccanns or their supporters.
and kate mccann believes Madeleine is alive and well in Portugal.
Mmm.
-
It is abundantly clear that SY have only been investigating abduction.
As the saying going, a one horse race, and in this case blind folded and going nowhere.
There is no more evidence for abduction than for anything else, and certainly no forensics to indicate that
[/b]
Have you forgotten the unidentified partial fingerprints and hairs so quickly?
Obviously for there to be NO evidence of the presence of an abductor- as you keep claiming - then the owners of ALL the fingerprints and hairs collected at the scene would need to have been identified and ruled out. That hasn't happened.
Therefore as long as those fingerprints and hairs collected by forensics officers remain unidentified - they also remain as evidence that an intruder (presently unknown) may have entered 5a on 3rd May and abducted Madeleine.
Unless of course you can show evidence re those fingerprints/hairs to prove that cannot possibly be true?
-
[/b]
Have you forgotten the unidentified partial fingerprints and hairs so quickly?
Obviously for there to be NO evidence of the presence of an abductor- as you keep claiming - then the owners of ALL the fingerprints and hairs collected at the scene would need to have been identified and ruled out. That hasn't happened.
Therefore as long as those fingerprints and hairs collected by forensics officers remain unidentified - they also remain as evidence that an intruder (presently unknown) may have entered 5a on 3rd May and abducted Madeleine.
Unless of course you can show evidence re those fingerprints/hairs to prove that cannot possibly be true?
I haven't forgotten benice.
So who is examining these materials then, which of course could have been there for years, or laid there by secondary transfer ?
So benice, why do you think people don't believe the mccanns story of abduction ?
-
i dont know if you have read about willams case but here in australia willam was 3 years old was being loooked after by his grandparents and outside playing and he vanished alot like ben needem he was with his grandparents too
There is a Thread for William Tyrrell. Please take your comments there. I will be deleting shortly.
-
I haven't forgotten benice.
So who is examining these materials then, which of course could have been there for years, or laid there by secondary transfer ?
So benice, why do you think people don't believe the mccanns story of abduction ?
This could be true. However it is also just as true that those partial fingerprints/hairs could have belonged to an abductor - and until/unless they are identified that possibility cannot be ruled out. Surely you would agree with that?
-
This could be true. However it is also just as true that those partial fingerprints/hairs could have belonged to an abductor - and until/unless they are identified that possibility cannot be ruled out. Surely you would agree with that?
So benice, what am I supposed to do about that ?
and benice how would the respective police forces check everyone who had been in that apartment ?
-
So benice, what am I supposed to do about that ?
and benice how would the respective police forces check everyone who had been in that apartment ?
IOW - you don't have any evidence at all which rules out the possibility that those unidentified fingerprints/hairs may belong to an abductor.
That's not surprising - as while they remain unidentified - there isn't any.
-
I haven't forgotten benice.
So who is examining these materials then, which of course could have been there for years, or laid there by secondary transfer ?
So benice, why do you think people don't believe the mccanns story of abduction ?
On the whole
They do
-
The facebook response on the sun's pages will hardly be good reading for the mccanns or their supporters.
and kate mccann believes Madeleine is alive and well in Portugal.
Mmm.
If you think the McCanns will be bothers by comments on the sun you are living in cloud cuckoo land
After all these years comments like those are like water off a ducks back
-
IOW - you don't have any evidence at all which rules out the possibility that those unidentified fingerprints/hairs may belong to an abductor.
That's not surprising - as while they remain unidentified - there isn't any.
and there is no evidence that any of the hair or partial fingerprints are of any relevance whatsoever.
You are clutching at straws.
and pray tell, what is the good of telling me all this ?
Meanwhile, as I have asked you this earlier, why do you think people don't believe the mccanns story ?
-
There is no way of knowing for sure but I would say far more people believe maddie was abducted than not
As you say, you have no way of knowing, so your observation adds nothing to the thread.
What we do know is that the Fund has paid PR people to spread the word that the McCanns are innocent. They have threatened and carried out legal action against those who have not accepted their story. Their (paid or unpaid) supporters have amassed dossiers on people who have expressed their doubts on the internet and tried to have them prosecuted. (New law? No disbelieving the McCanns?)
In other words, there has been a massive effort to portray the McCanns as poor misunderstood victims of the Portuguese Police, the media and 'gangs' of thoroughly nasty people on the internet. All that effort and expense and still they aren't believed. Their latest media story attracted hardly any positive comments. It must be very frustrating for them and for their supporters.
-
I wonder, bearing in mind a posters comments are the mccanns polar or non-polar birds ? %£5&% %£5&%
-
However, it doesn't solve what happened to Madeleine, and people can decide for themselves what to believe Brietta.
..........and yet again, investigation of parents in any case such as this is standard.
I think I'm beginning to get through to you.
It is precisely my point that all the shenanigans surrounding the apparent desire to have convictions under the belt for a theory for which there was not a shred of evidence ... only prejudice and propaganda ... were the fatal impediment to finding out what happened to Madeleine.
Or to at least making some progress towards that goal.
One of the major flaws in the conduct of the case was in not either ruling the parents in or out as a first move in the investigation. As we have subsequently heard from Goncalo Amaral and his second in command, Paiva ... as far as they were concerned ... the parents were in the frame right from the start with their 'badly told story' and their request for a priest.
Madeleine ??? how did that help her?
-
I think I'm beginning to get through to you.
It is precisely my point that all the shenanigans surrounding the apparent desire to have convictions under the belt for a theory for which there was not a shred of evidence ... only prejudice and propaganda ... were the fatal impediment to finding out what happened to Madeleine.
Or to at least making some progress towards that goal.
One of the major flaws in the conduct of the case was in not either ruling the parents in or out as a first move in the investigation. As we have subsequently heard from Goncalo Amaral and his second in command, Paiva ... as far as they were concerned ... the parents were in the frame right from the start with their 'badly told story' and their request for a priest.
Madeleine ??? how did that help her?
You still don't get the point.
What evidence is there of abduction which carries any more weight than anything else ?
Again, the mccanns and other members of the group kept changing their accounts of events, and there is no getting over that.
As to helping Madeleine, it seems a bit too late for that now, doesn't it.
and for that I place the blame squarely at the feet of her parents.
-
You've omitted the Klingons and Romulans from your list. 8(>((
How can I break this to you gently, Stephen, they are not real, they are fantasy sorry now you are heart broken 8(0(*
-
You still don't get the point.
What evidence is there of abduction which carries any more weight than anything else ?
Again, the mccanns and other members of the group kept changing their accounts of events, and there is no getting over that.
As to helping Madeleine, it seems a bit too late for that now, doesn't it.
and for that I place the blame squarely at the feet of her parents.
SY have weighed up all the evidence, there were people scrutinising the McCann's and their routine, before you say they were just members of the public staring at buildings as a hobby, where are they? Why haven't they come forward?
There were people going around collecting for a charity which was a scam, where are they?
SY determined that a group of men on the day Madeleine went missing, sent phone calls to each other which lasted minutes, but corresponded with Madeleine leaving crèche etc.
A set of keys went missing.
There were break ins reported, in some cases the apartments were locked.
One holiday maker said that even though he locked his apartment and left the key in the lock the maid was still able to get in.
A window was open [you say Kate is lying but why would she lie?]
Madeleine is missing, an imprint of her body was on the bed.
SY have ruled out woke and wandered.
They have said the McCann's and their friends are not suspects or persons of interest.
What is left is abduction.
-
How can I break this to you gently, Stephen, they are not real, they are fantasy sorry now you are heart broken 8(0(*
Well I never.
So that is just like Sadie's stories then.
and of course she cannot cite any of her claims. %£&)**#
-
[/b]
Have you forgotten the unidentified partial fingerprints and hairs so quickly?
Obviously for there to be NO evidence of the presence of an abductor- as you keep claiming - then the owners of ALL the fingerprints and hairs collected at the scene would need to have been identified and ruled out. That hasn't happened.
Therefore as long as those fingerprints and hairs collected by forensics officers remain unidentified - they also remain as evidence that an intruder (presently unknown) may have entered 5a on 3rd May and abducted Madeleine.
Unless of course you can show evidence re those fingerprints/hairs to prove that cannot possibly be true?
The hairs were tested using mitochondrial DNA. They were then attributed to different people, Kate, for example;
Mitochondrial DNA profiles of the vestiges;
13 lounge
15 entrance hall
C 53 13 entrance to bedroom Kate Healy (Mother)
4 floor; bed next to window
1 bed of the child
7 floor; next to child's bed
However, when hair was found in the apartment in Burgau which matched Jane Tanner's mitochondrial DNA profile, it wasn't seen as proof that she was there;
In response to your letter I advise that a mitochondrial DNA profile is not an exclusive or objective identification of a single [determined] person. Because of this result the inquiry could not say with absolute certainty that the hair found in Burgau actually came from JT because it could have come from any person born of a mother belonging to any of the eight profiles in the database - one profile, of course, had to be of JT's maternal line, so it could have been some distant (or close) relative.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
So we can conclude that any unidentified mitochondrial DNA profiles found couldn't be said, beyond reasonable doubt, to have been left by one particular person, even if a match was found. In other words, if SY said 'we've got the abductor' and his hair had the same mitochondrial DNA profile as one of more of the unidentified hairs, it wouldn't prove he was in G5A.
-
You still don't get the point.
What evidence is there of abduction which carries any more weight than anything else ?
Again, the mccanns and other members of the group kept changing their accounts of events, and there is no getting over that.
As to helping Madeleine, it seems a bit too late for that now, doesn't it.
and for that I place the blame squarely at the feet of her parents.
When you can come up with a match for the unidentified hair samples and the fingerprints Benice reminded you about your mantra might have some justification.
It is never too late to right a wrong. The misconduct of the initial investigation can never be underestimated, particularly the sightings of children in distress at the requisite time in possible places.
As we know from the horse's mouth ... interest in a dead child superseded that of a live one.
Fine ... have your opinion of Madeleine's parents if you feel you must. But do not forget the role played by the incompetence and intransigence of those whose job and duty it was to conduct the investigation into a missing child.
"Botched" is the term most frequently used in reference by other professionals.
Just as you have written Madeleine off ... so did they ... and that mattered far more than anything you can add to it today. The effect of the elementary investigative mistakes cannot be underestimated ... and in my opinion breached Madeleine McCann's right to be looked for just as there are some who would deny her that right even today.
-
When you can come up with a match for the unidentified hair samples and the fingerprints Benice reminded you about your mantra might have some justification.
It is never too late to right a wrong. The misconduct of the initial investigation can never be underestimated, particularly the sightings of children in distress at the requisite time in possible places.
As we know from the horse's mouth ... interest in a dead child superseded that of a live one.
Fine ... have your opinion of Madeleine's parents if you feel you must. But do not forget the role played by the incompetence and intransigence of those whose job and duty it was to conduct the investigation into a missing child.
"Botched" is the term most frequently used in reference by other professionals.
Just as you have written Madeleine off ... so did they ... and that mattered far more than anything you can add to it today. The effect of the elementary investigative mistakes cannot be underestimated ... and in my opinion breached Madeleine McCann's right to be looked for just as there are some who would deny her that right even today.
The word 'botched' could apply to SY.
Now what did gamble say about the UK Police forces competing against each other.
Madeleine was searched for extensively over a period of time by the Police and volunteers.
If you say anything to the contrary, that's your problem then, dealing with reality.
As to misconduct, then look no further than the mccanns and what they failed to do, i.e. keep their children safe.
-
Well I never.
So that is just like Sadie's stories then.
and of course she cannot cite any of her claims. %£&)**#
Sadie has given her account to the people who matter ... it is for them to decide if they are a piece of the jigsaw.
Since you doubt Dr Kate McCann's words what chance has Sadie got with you? But I don't think your opinion will weigh too much; as I have said the people who matter have been given all the information she possesses ... so why don't you leave them to it.
-
The word 'botched' could apply to SY.
Now what did gamble say about the UK Police forces competing against each other.
Madeleine was searched for extensively over a period of time by the Police and volunteers.
If you say anything to the contrary, that's your problem then, dealing with reality.
As to misconduct, then look no further than the mccanns and what they failed to do, i.e. keep their children safe.
That is absurd reasoning which yet again excuses the role played by the perpetrators of crime by heaping the blame en masse onto the parents of every child who ... to paraphrase you ... 'failed to keep their children safe'.
-
Just like Operation Grange, the original investigation worked on more than one possibility. Just like Operation Grange one was that the child was alive, another that she was dead. They conducted a huge search of the surrounding area, did hundreds of interviews and followed up hundreds of sightings. The evidence that they did all that is in the files.
They didn't properly examine those closest to the child thoroughly enough and we have no evidence that Operation Grange have done that either.
-
The hairs were tested using mitochondrial DNA. They were then attributed to different people, Kate, for example;
Mitochondrial DNA profiles of the vestiges;
13 lounge
15 entrance hall
C 53 13 entrance to bedroom Kate Healy (Mother)
4 floor; bed next to window
1 bed of the child
7 floor; next to child's bed
However, when hair was found in the apartment in Burgau which matched Jane Tanner's mitochondrial DNA profile, it wasn't seen as proof that she was there;
In response to your letter I advise that a mitochondrial DNA profile is not an exclusive or objective identification of a single [determined] person. Because of this result the inquiry could not say with absolute certainty that the hair found in Burgau actually came from JT because it could have come from any person born of a mother belonging to any of the eight profiles in the database - one profile, of course, had to be of JT's maternal line, so it could have been some distant (or close) relative.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
So we can conclude that any unidentified mitochondrial DNA profiles found couldn't be said, beyond reasonable doubt, to have been left by one particular person, even if a match was found. In other words, if SY said 'we've got the abductor' and his hair had the same mitochondrial DNA profile as one of more of the unidentified hairs, it wouldn't prove he was in G5A.
Correct. However, a fuller mtDNA test could presumably be done than the standard forensic one at the time. It may now be possible to extract nuclear DNA from some of them (there are contradictory papers about this).
-
The facebook response on the sun's pages will hardly be good reading for the mccanns or their supporters.
and kate mccann believes Madeleine is alive and well in Portugal.
Mmm.
what the facebook page shows me is the mentality of the people posting there...lots of mentioning of the dog alerts and lie detectors from poeple who clearly do not understand the evidence
-
Just like Operation Grange, the original investigation worked on more than one possibility. Just like Operation Grange one was that the child was alive, another that she was dead. They conducted a huge search of the surrounding area, did hundreds of interviews and followed up hundreds of sightings. The evidence that they did all that is in the files.
They didn't properly examine those closest to the child thoroughly enough and we have no evidence that Operation Grange have done that either.
If there was evidence in existence which implicates the parents- then SY would have found it during their investigations - which involved meticulous examination of all of the files - and all the other info which we don't have.
So there are two possible scenarios IMO
1. SY have found no evidence to implicate the parents - because none exists.
or
2. SY have found evidence to implicate the parents - but on instruction - have ignored/hidden/destroyed it.
Anyone who believes No. 2 needs to come up with credible reasons why an ordinary normal family from Leicester living an ordinary normal life could possibly merit a cover-up of such gigantic proportions - which if exposed would result in the ignominious ruination of the careers and lives of those who sanctioned it.
Too daft for words IMO.
-
Just like Operation Grange, the original investigation worked on more than one possibility. Just like Operation Grange one was that the child was alive, another that she was dead. They conducted a huge search of the surrounding area, did hundreds of interviews and followed up hundreds of sightings. The evidence that they did all that is in the files.
They didn't properly examine those closest to the child thoroughly enough and we have no evidence that Operation Grange have done that either.
you have no evidence that either the PJ nor SY have not investigated the mccanns
-
This is silly. Short of a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of complete strangers, of course The McCanns have been investigated and ruled out.
-
what the facebook page shows me is the mentality of the people posting there...lots of mentioning of the dog alerts and lie detectors from poeple who clearly do not understand the evidence
Maybe it's not necessary to have a towering intellect to understand when people are trying to fool you? Many supposedly intelligent people have been fooled before and will be again.
-
If there was evidence in existence which implicates the parents- then SY would have found it during their investigations - which involved meticulous examination of all of the files - and all the other info which we don't have.
So there are two possible scenarios IMO
1. SY have found no evidence to implicate the parents - because none exists.
or
2. SY have found evidence to implicate the parents - but on instruction - have ignored/hidden/destroyed it.
Anyone who believes No. 2 needs to come up with credible reasons why an ordinary normal family from Leicester living an ordinary normal life could possibly merit a cover-up of such gigantic proportions - which if exposed would result in the ignominious ruination of the careers and lives of those who sanctioned it.
Too daft for words IMO.
Exemplary post.
Apart from the last 3 letters.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggh!
-
If there was evidence in existence which implicates the parents- then SY would have found it during their investigations - which involved meticulous examination of all of the files - and all the other info which we don't have.
So there are two possible scenarios IMO
1. SY have found no evidence to implicate the parents - because none exists.
or
2. SY have found evidence to implicate the parents - but on instruction - have ignored/hidden/destroyed it.
Anyone who believes No. 2 needs to come up with credible reasons why an ordinary normal family from Leicester living an ordinary normal life could possibly merit a cover-up of such gigantic proportions - which if exposed would result in the ignominious ruination of the careers and lives of those who sanctioned it.
Too daft for words IMO.
Number 2 is as you say too daft for words but you have omitted a third possibility. There may well be other possiblities of course.
The third being being there is evidence pointing in a particular direction but lacking the sufficiency required to bring a successful prosecution against anyone.
-
Number 2 is as you say too daft for words but you have omitted a third possibility. There may well be other possiblities of course.
The third being being there is evidence pointing in a particular direction but lacking the sufficiency required to bring a successful prosecution against anyone.
No there isn't.
-
Maybe it's not necessary to have a towering intellect to understand when people are trying to fool you? Many supposedly intelligent people have been fooled before and will be again.
These people believe the dogs alerted to cadaver...false
and a lie detector would prove something...false again
that's the point I am making...the majority of people who do not believe teh mccanns do not understand the evidence and taht is easily proved by reading their posts
-
If you think the McCanns will be bothers by comments on the sun you are living in cloud cuckoo land
After all these years comments like those are like water off a ducks back
Amazing how the McCanns allow this to happen - what with them being in control of the UK press with editors unable to print a word without their permission. (apparently).
-
Sadie has given her account to the people who matter ... it is for them to decide if they are a piece of the jigsaw.
Since you doubt Dr Kate McCann's words what chance has Sadie got with you? But I don't think your opinion will weigh too much; as I have said the people who matter have been given all the information she possesses ... so why don't you leave them to it.
Well I know you believe Sadie's 'stories', and I can't help you on that.
As to the people who matter, they have found...............................................
As to ms. mccann and mr. mccann , why should anyone believe them, especially their shortcomings. 8)-)))
The 'locked' apartment, became 'unlocked'.
-
That is absurd reasoning which yet again excuses the role played by the perpetrators of crime by heaping the blame en masse onto the parents of every child who ... to paraphrase you ... 'failed to keep their children safe'.
Here it is in capitals.............
'FAILED TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN SAFE'.
5 nights in a row, whilst they wined and dined.
Excellent parenting. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
you have no evidence that either the PJ nor SY have not investigated the mccanns
The original investigation decided to do it but it was way too late, the birds had flown and they weren't coming back. OP and the PJ may have re-interviewed all those who were present on 3rd May and verified the timeline, which is the most important piece of the puzzle. If they have done so the media, who have been so interested in every move made by the investigators, have missed it.
-
No there isn't.
You don't have a clue ferryman.
-
This is silly. Short of a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of complete strangers, of course The McCanns have been investigated and ruled out.
Conspiracies do occur.
-
Conspiracies do occur.
Not on this scale for a couple of middle class Doctors. Why would it?
-
Not on this scale for a couple of middle class Doctors. Why would it?
How would Blair, Brown and Cameron look if the abduction was made up ?
-
These people believe the dogs alerted to cadaver...false
and a lie detector would prove something...false again
that's the point I am making...the majority of people who do not believe teh mccanns do not understand the evidence and taht is easily proved by reading their posts
The majority of people who believe the McCanns can offer no evidence to support their belief. They think there's evidence to support their position, but there isn't.
-
The majority of people who believe the McCanns can offer no evidence to support their belief. They think there's evidence to support their position, but there isn't.
Precisely.
That's why they have to attack the 'sceptics'.
-
The majority of people who believe the McCanns can offer no evidence to support their belief. They think there's evidence to support their position, but there isn't.
a ridiculous statement showing your skewed view of justice..........it is evidence to show their guilt which is important....
-
Precisely.
That's why they have to attack the 'sceptics'.
At least they are no longer allowed to do so with impunity. A particularly nasty post made yesterday accusing sceptics of all sorts of disgraceful motives seems to have been removed.
I have no objection to my opinions being questioned, that's what the forum is for. The effective way to do that is to offer evidence which contradicts the evidence I base my opinions on. Personal attacks say much more about the attacker than the recipient, Usually it means they can't answer the arguments being put forward.
I don't believe the McCann's story of abduction for what I think are good reasons. No-one has been able to produce any convincing evidence of abduction as yet.
-
At least they are no longer allowed to do so with impunity. A particularly nasty post made yesterday accusing sceptics of all sorts of disgraceful motives seems to have been removed.
I have no objection to my opinions being questioned, that's what the forum is for. The effective way to do that is to offer evidence which contradicts the evidence I base my opinions on. Personal attacks say much more about the attacker than the recipient, Usually it means they can't answer the arguments being put forward.
I don't believe the McCann's story of abduction for what I think are good reasons. No-one has been able to produce any convincing evidence of abduction as yet.
what sort of evidence of abduction would you accept, save a sworn affadavit from the abductor saying he dunnit (and even then would you accept that I wonder,,,?)
-
At least they are no longer allowed to do so with impunity. A particularly nasty post made yesterday accusing sceptics of all sorts of disgraceful motives seems to have been removed.
I have no objection to my opinions being questioned, that's what the forum is for. The effective way to do that is to offer evidence which contradicts the evidence I base my opinions on. Personal attacks say much more about the attacker than the recipient, Usually it means they can't answer the arguments being put forward.
I don't believe the McCann's story of abduction for what I think are good reasons. No-one has been able to produce any convincing evidence of abduction as yet.
if the parents are ruled out which they have been out then abduction is odds on.....
-
Here it is in capitals.............
'FAILED TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN SAFE'.
5 nights in a row, whilst they wined and dined.
Excellent parenting. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
When Scotland yard set up a review into Madeleine's disappearance I am certain they would have looked into the question of whether or not the Drs McCann failed to keep their children safe.
They probably noted the failure of the attempt to pursue them through the British courts with a private prosecution but the clincher would be the reasoning of the Portuguese prosecutors.
However they had more important things on their minds ... like the actual evidence which may have been unsurprisingly overlooked in what must have been one of the most intensive investigations into a missing child ever carried out in Portugal.
Evidence or avenues not developed which might possibly lead to the answer to the question of what exactly happened to Madeleine McCann.
I find it risible that the assumption has been made that at this stage of proceedings everything and everyone connected with Madeleine's case was not subject to the closest scrutiny by a very experienced team.
The fact that the review led to the reopening of Madeleine's case ... the fact that neither her parents nor their friends were declared persons of interest or suspects as a result of that review, quite the contrary in fact, should tell you something.
Then again perhaps it did ... but with the information not quite to your liking.
-
Excellent post G-Unit. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Excellent post G-Unit. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
the post was by Alfred
-
When Scotland yard set up a review into Madeleine's disappearance I am certain they would have looked into the question of whether or not the Drs McCann failed to keep their children safe.
They probably noted the failure of the attempt to pursue them through the British courts with a private prosecution but the clincher would be the reasoning of the Portuguese prosecutors.
However they had more important things on their minds ... like the actual evidence which may have been unsurprisingly overlooked in what must have been one of the most intensive investigations into a missing child ever carried out in Portugal.
Evidence or avenues not developed which might possibly lead to the answer to the question of what exactly happened to Madeleine McCann.
I find it risible that the assumption has been made that at this stage of proceedings everything and everyone connected with Madeleine's case was not subject to the closest scrutiny by a very experienced team.
The fact that the review led to the reopening of Madeleine's case ... the fact that neither her parents nor their friends were declared persons of interest or suspects as a result of that review, quite the contrary in fact, should tell you something.
Then again perhaps it did ... but with the information not quite to your liking.
The peoples mccann did not keep their children safe.
That's is why Madeleine disappeared.
Do keep up.
By the way, what are the SY team experienced in ?
Ms. Hall is experienced in murder cases.
-
At least they are no longer allowed to do so with impunity. A particularly nasty post made yesterday accusing sceptics of all sorts of disgraceful motives seems to have been removed.
I have no objection to my opinions being questioned, that's what the forum is for. The effective way to do that is to offer evidence which contradicts the evidence I base my opinions on. Personal attacks say much more about the attacker than the recipient, Usually it means they can't answer the arguments being put forward.
I don't believe the McCann's story of abduction for what I think are good reasons. No-one has been able to produce any convincing evidence of abduction as yet.
There might have been an excuse for questioning the McCanns once.
There isn't now ....
-
There might have been an excuse for questioning the McCanns once.
There isn't now ....
Yes, there is.
So when did SY question them ?
-
what sort of evidence of abduction would you accept, save a sworn affadavit from the abductor saying he dunnit (and even then would you accept that I wonder,,,?)
They would probably claim the confession was extorted by torture ....
-
The peoples mccann did not keep their children safe.
That's is why Madeleine disappeared.
Do keep up.
By the way, what are the SY team experienced in ?
Ms. Hall is experienced in murder cases.
Hardly surprising since these are the people able to command the facilities and resources necessary to work on a case such as Madeleine's.
The initial review team consisted of personnel from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command ~ Ms Hall is merely a continuation of that structure and command.
Whatever ... there are still arguidos and persons of interest in what is a cold case with live avenues of investigation being pursued. Not one of which is either of Madeleine's parents.
-
a ridiculous statement showing your skewed view of justice..........it is evidence to show their guilt which is important....
Those who believe the McCann's story of abduction are unable to provide any evidence that it occurred. At the same time they are unable to explain the many peculiarities present in the case. Their attempts at explanation seem always to rely on their own opinions. To take just one example;
Why did Gerry say he entered through the locked front door on his checks and then change it to unlocked patio doors?
Answers I have seen;
He was too stressed due to devastation and lack of sleep to remember
He mixed up the doors
The translator mixed up the doors
The translator did a bad job of translating
I class all of the above as excuses, not reasons, so the question remains unanswered.
-
They would probably claim the confession was extorted by torture ....
Nah! that's been tried elsewhere without much success 8(0(*
-
Hardly surprising since these are the people able to command the facilities and resources necessary to work on a case such as Madeleine's.
The initial review team consisted of personnel from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command ~ Ms Hall is merely a continuation of that structure and command.
Whatever ... there are still arguidos and persons of interest in what is a cold case with live avenues of investigation being pursued. Not one of which is either of Madeleine's parents.
Yet these people are no way nearer solving the crime than the PJ were.
As to the mccanns , their status as arguido can be re initiated for up to 20 years.
Remember that merely because you and others keep typing to your mantra of abduction, does not make it real
-
what sort of evidence of abduction would you accept, save a sworn affadavit from the abductor saying he dunnit (and even then would you accept that I wonder,,,?)
well?
-
When Scotland yard set up a review into Madeleine's disappearance I am certain they would have looked into the question of whether or not the Drs McCann failed to keep their children safe.
OPINION ONLY
They probably noted the failure of the attempt to pursue them through the British courts with a private prosecution but the clincher would be the reasoning of the Portuguese prosecutors.
UNCERTAINTY AND OPINION
However they had more important things on their minds ... like the actual evidence which may have been unsurprisingly overlooked in what must have been one of the most intensive investigations into a missing child ever carried out in Portugal.
Evidence or avenues not developed which might possibly lead to the answer to the question of what exactly happened to Madeleine McCann.
OPINION
I find it risible that the assumption has been made that at this stage of proceedings everything and everyone connected with Madeleine's case was not subject to the closest scrutiny by a very experienced team.
The fact that the review led to the reopening of Madeleine's case ... the fact that neither her parents nor their friends were declared persons of interest or suspects as a result of that review, quite the contrary in fact, should tell you something.
OPINION AND ACCUSATION OF ASSUMPTION WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. ASSUMPTION AS TO WHY THEY WERE DECLARED NOT SUSPECTS - COULD BE THE REMIT.
Then again perhaps it did ... but with the information not quite to your liking.
Mostly opinion and belief, nothing of substance here.
-
well?
We had a full thread on evidence of abduction. None was produced.
-
if the parents are ruled out which they have been out then abduction is odds on.....
Opinion only.
-
Opinion only.
Is there anything on this forum that isn't "opinion only"?
-
Those who believe the McCann's story of abduction are unable to provide any evidence that it occurred. At the same time they are unable to explain the many peculiarities present in the case. Their attempts at explanation seem always to rely on their own opinions. To take just one example;
Why did Gerry say he entered through the locked front door on his checks and then change it to unlocked patio doors?
Answers I have seen;
He was too stressed due to devastation and lack of sleep to remember
He mixed up the doors
The translator mixed up the doors
The translator did a bad job of translating
I class all of the above as excuses, not reasons, so the question remains unanswered.
There is plenty of evidence to support abduction...as SY have said...based on the evidence....but you don't accept it...doesn't matter
-
Is there anything on this forum that isn't "opinion only"?
Debates would be improved in my opinion if cites were used to underpin opinions. For example; I post that Operation Grange did not investigate the McCanns. Someone else posts 'Yes they did'. What have we achieved? Nothing unless we provide the reasons why we hold our opinions. The reasons lead to further discussion and allow others to judge which post they agree with.
-
Is there anything on this forum that isn't "opinion only"?
"Opinion" ... the latest addition to the list for "last refuge of a scoundrel"?? Certainly ... in my opinion ... quite a reasonable deflection method to stifle debate not going your way and which you are bereft of answers to take the thread entirely off topic.
In my opinion a clear illustration that the people who are prepared to see further than their dislike of the Drs McCann are coming out on top of the 'argument'.
-
There is plenty of evidence to support abduction...as SY have said...based on the evidence....but you don't accept it...doesn't matter
You mean Redwood's statement which you..............massaged? @)(++(*
-
Is there anything on this forum that isn't "opinion only"?
Opinion and in particular qualified opinion is only valid when it is based on facts and evidence. Former DCI Andy Redwood offered his opinion on the BBC Crimewatch in relation to the Madeleine McCann investigation and called it his revelation moment.
-
How would Blair, Brown and Cameron look if the abduction was made up ?
As daft as the rest of us, I imagine. But at least I haven't spent the last nine years slagging off two grieving parents.
But I promise you that I will be the first to stand up and admit that I was taken in.
-
Debates would be improved in my opinion if cites were used to underpin opinions. For example; I post that Operation Grange did not investigate the McCanns. Someone else posts 'Yes they did'. What have we achieved? Nothing unless we provide the reasons why we hold our opinions. The reasons lead to further discussion and allow others to judge which post they agree with.
I agree all claims should be backed by cites
Your claim that SY have not interviews the McCanns is just opinion
-
Yes, there is.
So when did SY question them ?
I can't believe that you are still asking this. What right do you have to know?
-
Hardly surprising since these are the people able to command the facilities and resources necessary to work on a case such as Madeleine's.
The initial review team consisted of personnel from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command ~ Ms Hall is merely a continuation of that structure and command.
Whatever ... there are still arguidos and persons of interest in what is a cold case with live avenues of investigation being pursued. Not one of which is either of Madeleine's parents.
What did happen to them, by the way? Are they still Arguidos after all this time?
-
Is there anything on this forum that isn't "opinion only"?
Of course there isn't.
-
Debates would be improved in my opinion if cites were used to underpin opinions. For example; I post that Operation Grange did not investigate the McCanns. Someone else posts 'Yes they did'. What have we achieved? Nothing unless we provide the reasons why we hold our opinions. The reasons lead to further discussion and allow others to judge which post they agree with.
An intelligent point of view, G-Unit. And if adhered to it would certainly improve the quality of debate. The truth is that nobody actually knows what happened that night. And there is scant proof of anything.
-
I agree all claims should be backed by cites
Your claim that SY have not interviews the McCanns is just opinion
It is opinion based on the fact of the published remit. If, as their remit states, they were tasked with investigating 'the abduction as if it occurred in the UK', they would not interview the McCanns because they are unlikely to have abducted their child themselves.
-
An intelligent point of view, G-Unit. And if adhered to it would certainly improve the quality of debate. The truth is that nobody actually knows what happened that night. And there is scant proof of anything.
Jeez J-P ! watch out for incoming friendly fire; you can jump in my foxhole if you like ?{)(**
-
"Opinion" ... the latest addition to the list for "last refuge of a scoundrel"?? Certainly ... in my opinion ... quite a reasonable deflection method to stifle debate not going your way and which you are bereft of answers to take the thread entirely off topic.
In my opinion a clear illustration that the people who are prepared to see further than their dislike of the Drs McCann are coming out on top of the 'argument'.
&%+((£
-
It is opinion based on the fact of the published remit. If, as their remit states, they were tasked with investigating 'the abduction as if it occurred in the UK', they would not interview the McCanns because they are unlikely to have abducted their child themselves.
In your opinion
The remit may well have been arrived at after the McCanns had been interviewed and ruled out
The McCanns would surely be interviewed in any case as they are important witnessed
-
In your opinion
The remit may well have been arrived at after the McCanns had been interviewed and ruled out
The McCanns would surely be interviewed in any case as they are important witnessed
Of course The McCanns will have been interviewed. Anyone who thinks they weren't is daft.
-
Of course The McCanns will have been interviewed. Anyone who thinks they weren't is daft.
Agreed.
-
Jeez J-P ! watch out for incoming friendly fire; you can jump in my foxhole if you like ?{)(**
How kind! ?{)(**
-
It is opinion based on the fact of the published remit. If, as their remit states, they were tasked with investigating 'the abduction as if it occurred in the UK', they would not interview the McCanns because they are unlikely to have abducted their child themselves.
That needn't mean that they don't have information to furnish the investigation, though, perhaps relevant, perhaps not; but to be ascertained from the information they supply.
-
Of course The McCanns will have been interviewed. Anyone who thinks they weren't is daft.
SY have declared the other interviews, but never the McCann's or associates.
Clearly the McCann's have changed their stories since the start.
Now any good policing.....
-
SY have declared the other interviews, but never the McCann's or associates.
Clearly the McCann's have changed their stories since the start.
Now any good policing.....
Have the McCanns actually "changed their stories" in any significant way? In which case, how (in brief) do you think they have changed?
Or is this a case of media reports?
-
This is silly. Short of a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of complete strangers, of course The McCanns have been investigated and ruled out.
I beg to differ, ma'am.
All it takes is someone saying 'funding will be provided, as long as the remit is restricted to abduction.' I have no evidence to support that, hence I am not claiming it went that way.
For those purport the view that the McCanns have been investigated and ruled out, can we have some evidence thereof? By that I mean 'investigated', which is the contentious part.
-
Have the McCanns actually "changed their stories" in any significant way? In which case, how (in brief) do you think they have changed?
Or is this a case of media reports?
Again, just on example. It is clear in the statements that Kate and Gerry both said the window, shutters and curtains were found open. In subsequent interviews Kate describes how the closed curtains blew into the room and that is how she noticed the open window. I suspect that's a significant change with a reason, not just a case of forgetting.
-
In your opinion
The remit may well have been arrived at after the McCanns had been interviewed and ruled out
The McCanns would surely be interviewed in any case as they are important witnessed
My post was based on a fact; the remit. Which facts is your post based on? ('being interviewed' is not the same as 'being ruled out', by the way)
-
I beg to differ, ma'am.
All it takes is someone saying 'funding will be provided, as long as the remit is restricted to abduction.' I have no evidence to support that, hence I am not claiming it went that way.
For those purport the view that the McCanns have been investigated and ruled out, can we have some evidence thereof? By that I mean 'investigated', which is the contentious part.
If I may...?
There are three main possibilities
Woke and wandered
Parents dun it (whatever "it" is)
Abducted.
The initial investigation, conducted by Amaral, and then Rebelo and lasting the best part of 15 months, to a significant extent focussed on the McCanns.
This was while the case was still in the relatively early stages. And came up with absolutely nothing that implicated the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter.
So yes, I would suggest that there is evidence that the theory that the "McCanns dun it" has been investigated and found wanting.
And I also suggest that SY et al, having has the opportunity to review that evidence might want to adopt a different starting point - i.e. abduction.
-
I beg to differ, ma'am.
All it takes is someone saying 'funding will be provided, as long as the remit is restricted to abduction.' I have no evidence to support that, hence I am not claiming it went that way.
For those purport the view that the McCanns have been investigated and ruled out, can we have some evidence thereof? By that I mean 'investigated', which is the contentious part.
You have no evidence? But some of us do have a bit of common sense.
PS. No need to call me Ma'am. But I do appreciate the thought.
-
Of course there isn't.
Luckily, there is a lot of stuff on here that isn't opinion.
It is not my opinion about when the GNR was first called. The Telegraph makes is 10.14. The records show otherwise.
It is not my opinion where Smithman was heading. The Telegraph makes it to the beach or to the sea. The statements have been referred to which show this does not correspond to what is on file.
It is on file that 74,104 calls/texts came into/out of the 3 transmitters in Luz in the period 2 May - 4 May 2007. Media seems to have been of the opinion that a) every phone call in the entire region had been captured over a much longer period, and b) that with triangulation, the perpetrator was surely about to be nabbed. Mind you, that was about 8 years ago.
We have facts. With a large dollop of opinion. Sometimes the opinion is sitting on top of the facts. Sometimes the opinion is presented without or even despite the facts.
-
Again, just on example. It is clear in the statements that Kate and Gerry both said the window, shutters and curtains were found open. In subsequent interviews Kate describes how the closed curtains blew into the room and that is how she noticed the open window. I suspect that's a significant change with a reason, not just a case of forgetting.
Again. What is "whoosh" in Portuguese?
Curtains can be "open" because they were drawn aside, or because they were blown forwards into the room, or both.
-
If I may...?
There are three main possibilities
Woke and wandered
Parents dun it (whatever "it" is)
Abducted.
The initial investigation, conducted by Amaral, and then Rebelo and lasting the best part of 15 months, to a significant extent focussed on the McCanns.
This was while the case was still in the relatively early stages. And came up with absolutely nothing that implicated the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter.
So yes, I would suggest that there is evidence that the theory that the "McCanns dun it" has been investigated and found wanting.
And I also suggest that SY et al, having has the opportunity to review that evidence might want to adopt a different starting point - i.e. abduction.
You mean not start from the primary event?
-
Luckily, there is a lot of stuff on here that isn't opinion.
It is not my opinion about when the GNR was first called. The Telegraph makes is 10.14. The records show otherwise.
It is not my opinion where Smithman was heading. The Telegraph makes it to the beach or to the sea. The statements have been referred to which show this does not correspond to what is on file.
It is on file that 74,104 calls/texts came into/out of the 3 transmitters in Luz in the period 2 May - 4 May 2007. Media seems to have been of the opinion that a) every phone call in the entire region had been captured over a much longer period, and b) that with triangulation, the perpetrator was surely about to be nabbed. Mind you, that was about 8 years ago.
We have facts. With a large dollop of opinion. Sometimes the opinion is sitting on top of the facts. Sometimes the opinion is presented without or even despite the facts.
Well that doesn't make much sense, does it.
-
Again. What is "whoosh" in Portuguese?
Curtains can be "open" because they were drawn aside, or because they were blown forwards into the room, or both.
You are asking me to provide you with a translation? May I suggest you look it up yourself? In my house curtains are opened in the morning and closed at night. I do it every day and it means what it says. Either can blow into the room, but it doesn't change their status, they are still either open or closed.
Kate said;
She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
Gerry said;
the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open.
-
You are asking me to provide you with a translation? May I suggest you look it up yourself? In my house curtains are opened in the morning and closed at night. I do it every day and it means what it says. Either can blow into the room, but it doesn't change their status, they are still either open or closed.
Kate said;
She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
Gerry said;
the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open.
There were two sets of curtains. Which ones are you referring to?
-
We had a full thread on evidence of abduction. None was produced.
you seem to have misunderstood my question. Here it is again:
what sort of evidence of abduction would you accept, save a sworn affadavit from the abductor saying he dunnit (and even then would you accept that I wonder,,,?)
-
If I may...?
There are three main possibilities
Woke and wandered
Parents dun it (whatever "it" is)
Abducted.
The initial investigation, conducted by Amaral, and then Rebelo and lasting the best part of 15 months, to a significant extent focussed on the McCanns.
This was while the case was still in the relatively early stages. And came up with absolutely nothing that implicated the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter.
So yes, I would suggest that there is evidence that the theory that the "McCanns dun it" has been investigated and found wanting.
And I also suggest that SY et al, having has the opportunity to review that evidence might want to adopt a different starting point - i.e. abduction.
It is often said that the original investigation was useless. The investigators themselves admitted they were less than perfect. Are you suggesting that Operation Grange found nothing wrong, nothing missed, no mistakes whatsoever in the PJ's investigation of the parents? The PJ got that right, did they? Well, that's nice to know.
One of the things the PJ should have done was nail the timeline. They didn't. SY have said they have 'forensically examined' the timeline. Perhaps someone could explain how they could do that without checking that it was correctly reported? There are statements in the files which place the alarm much earlier than 10pm. There is no evidence showing any further investigation to explain these differences.
-
It is often said that the original investigation was useless. The investigators themselves admitted they were less than perfect. Are you suggesting that Operation Grange found nothing wrong, nothing missed, no mistakes whatsoever in the PJ's investigation of the parents? The PJ got that right, did they? Well, that's nice to know.
One of the things the PJ should have done was nail the timeline. They didn't. SY have said they have 'forensically examined' the timeline. Perhaps someone could explain how they could do that without checking that it was correctly reported? There are statements in the files which place the alarm much earlier than 10pm. There is no evidence showing any further investigation to explain these differences.
As many "sceptics" believe a physical reconstruction would have revealed the true timeline, then why not a timeline arrived at via forensic examination using software designed for this purpose?
-
As many "sceptics" believe a physical reconstruction would have revealed the true timeline, then why not a timeline arrived at via forensic examination using software designed for this purpose?
Does such software exist ?
and what good would the software be if false information if such a program was run ?
-
There were two sets of curtains. Which ones are you referring to?
The crime scene photographs show open curtains. I don't know how you refer to window treatments but I say 'Curtains' and 'Net's' or 'Net curtains'. Kate refers to 'curtains' throughout, no mention of net curtains at all. I assume, therefore, when she describes curtains 'whooshing' she is referring to the main curtains. If it were the net curtains she was speaking of I assume she would have said so.
-
The crime scene photographs show open curtains. I don't know how you refer to window treatments but I say 'Curtains' and 'Net's' or 'Net curtains'. Kate refers to 'curtains' throughout, no mention of net curtains at all. I assume, therefore, when she describes curtains 'whooshing' she is referring to the main curtains. If it were the net curtains she was speaking of I assume she would have said so.
why would you assume that? I thought you had trained yourself not to assume anything.
-
Does such software exist ?
and what good would the software be if false information if such a program was run ?
There is this school of thought, which sadly has existed for about 30 years and shows no sign of abating, that believes if you have a battery of people inputting data into a battery of computers then as if by magic a complete multi million pound building will appear just down the road.
-
As many "sceptics" believe a physical reconstruction would have revealed the true timeline, then why not a timeline arrived at via forensic examination using software designed for this purpose?
You would need to factor in 6 statements from outside the group which suggest the alarm was raised before 10pm as well as the 6 from the group which said (on 4th) that it was 10pm.
In the next set of interviews 5 people gave a time for the alarm; 2 said 10pm, two said between 9.50 and 10pm and one said 10.03.
In the rogs 1 person said 10pm and 3 said between 9.45 and 10pm.
In the first interviews everyone agreed on the time. Later the time given became earlier.
If we look at the written timeline everyone was at the Tapas restaurant at 8.45pm. Then the Payne's arrival was changed to almost 9pm in the statements. This was not supported by the waiter or by Steve Carpenter, the only independent witnesses.
Some see the differences as normal. I see times being moved to later than they happened, including the time of the alarm..
-
There is this school of thought, which sadly has existed for about 30 years and shows no sign of abating, that believes if you have a battery of people inputting data into a battery of computers then as if by magic a complete multi million pound building will appear just down the road.
and as likely as the plans to build a 4 Km building in Japan, has of getting off the ground, metaphorically or otherwise.
-
There were two sets of curtains. Which ones are you referring to?
The only curtains seen.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddiebedroom3.jpg)
-
The only curtains seen.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddiebedroom3.jpg)
these curtains are open but could whoosh with a gust
-
You would need to factor in 6 statements from outside the group which suggest the alarm was raised before 10pm as well as the 6 from the group which said (on 4th) that it was 10pm.
In the next set of interviews 5 people gave a time for the alarm; 2 said 10pm, two said between 9.50 and 10pm and one said 10.03.
In the rogs 1 person said 10pm and 3 said between 9.45 and 10pm.
In the first interviews everyone agreed on the time. Later the time given became earlier.
If we look at the written timeline everyone was at the Tapas restaurant at 8.45pm. Then the Payne's arrival was changed to almost 9pm in the statements. This was not supported by the waiter or by Steve Carpenter, the only independent witnesses.
Some see the differences as normal. I see times being moved to later than they happened, including the time of the alarm..
SY had no problem with the discrepancies as they stated the mccanns and Friends were not suspects
-
these curtains are open but could whoosh with a gust
But they whooshed when they were closed. The open ones didn't whoosh.
-
But they whooshed when they were closed. The open ones didn't whoosh.
could you give me a link so I can look at the statement myself
...thanks
-
But they whooshed when they were closed. The open ones didn't whoosh.
That's because the window shown in the photo was closed.
-
lets see if we can debunk the whooshing curtains once and for all...in a very civilised manner of course
-
That's because the window shown in the photo was closed.
The crime scene photos shows that all the windows in apartment 5A had a net curtain behind a heavier fabric curtain.
The same arrangement can be seen in the bedroom where the children slept.
The nets are shorter, reaching only to the cill and have been pulled back almost out of sight behind the opaque curtain.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2312.jpg)
-
That's because the window shown in the photo was closed.
Sorry. What I meant was Kate didn't mention whooshing, slamming doors or wind in her first statement when the curtains were open. Only later, in media interviews and videos, did the curtains become closed, the door slammed and the wind whooshed.
-
Sorry. What I meant was Kate didn't mention whooshing, slamming doors or wind in her first statement when the curtains were open. Only later, in media interviews and videos, did the curtains become closed, the door slammed and the wind whooshed.
The first statements only contained answers to questions asked by the PJ
Kate may well have mentioned the curtains and as the statement was not verbatim or recorded we don't know what she actually said
-
The only curtains seen. ..(snip)
There are two pairs of curtains in that photo Pathfinder - the pair you can see, and the pair of net curtains which you can't see, but they are there, hidden behind the pair you can see.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/maddiebedroom3.jpg)
-
(snip)...The nets are shorter, reaching only to the cill and have been pulled back almost out of sight behind the opaque curtain...(snip)
Agreed, Brietta is right, in the child's bedroom the net curtains reach to a few mm above the cill.
-
You would need to factor in 6 statements from outside the group which suggest the alarm was raised before 10pm as well as the 6 from the group which said (on 4th) that it was 10pm.
In the next set of interviews 5 people gave a time for the alarm; 2 said 10pm, two said between 9.50 and 10pm and one said 10.03.
In the rogs 1 person said 10pm and 3 said between 9.45 and 10pm.
In the first interviews everyone agreed on the time. Later the time given became earlier.
If we look at the written timeline everyone was at the Tapas restaurant at 8.45pm. Then the Payne's arrival was changed to almost 9pm in the statements. This was not supported by the waiter or by Steve Carpenter, the only independent witnesses.
Some see the differences as normal. I see times being moved to later than they happened, including the time of the alarm..
Yes, you would need to factor in how all these statements would marry up, allowing for humans' imperfect recollection and that is where HOLMES has come in useful, to enable the police to come up with a workable timeline,
"Research and Analysis combines the powerful facilities of the i2 Analysts Notebook and the Dynamic Reasoning Engine from Autonomy Ltd to produce sequence of events charts and association (link) charts" http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/whatish2/investigations/#features
PS: I have noted that twice now you have refused to answer my question regarding exactly what sort of evidence of abduction you would accept.
-
Yes, you would need to factor in how all these statements would marry up, allowing for humans' imperfect recollection and that is where HOLMES has come in useful, to enable the police to come up with a workable timeline,
"Research and Analysis combines the powerful facilities of the i2 Analysts Notebook and the Dynamic Reasoning Engine from Autonomy Ltd to produce sequence of events charts and association (link) charts" http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/whatish2/investigations/#features
PS: I have noted that twice now you have refused to answer my question regarding exactly what sort of evidence of abduction you would accept.
Interesting link. Thank you for that.
Hmmm, now the issues begin. Development kicked off in 1994, doesn't say when it was rolled out. Using Analysts Notebook, which appears to be one of the tools the JP used in 2007, and which corpsed on the volume of data.
This bit on the link worried me. "©2001-2005 by Unisys ..." followed by "Last Updated: September 2002". Hopefully, it means the underlying document dates from Sep 2002, while the copyright notice was last updated in 2005".
The spec makes it look like a project management tool, and quite an old one at that. Allocation of tasks to officers. Tracking of exhibits. Preparation of court records. Fairly old in 2007, very old in 2016. Why isn't there a Holmes 3?
Layer on a bit of Dynamic Reasoning Engine and you have marketing gobbledegook. I wonder if they use DRE? Or do they just draw up the timeline on a scrap of paper?
Holmes 2 is a step up on the JP filing system, the indexing system, and the search capability of the JP documentation. And that's where the good news stops.
It won't sort out the timeline.
-
Interesting link. Thank you for that.
Hmmm, now the issues begin. Development kicked off in 1994, doesn't say when it was rolled out. Using Analysts Notebook, which appears to be one of the tools the JP used in 2007, and which corpsed on the volume of data.
This bit on the link worried me. "©2001-2005 by Unisys ..." followed by "Last Updated: September 2002". Hopefully, it means the underlying document dates from Sep 2002, while the copyright notice was last updated in 2005".
The spec makes it look like a project management tool, and quite an old one at that. Allocation of tasks to officers. Tracking of exhibits. Preparation of court records. Fairly old in 2007, very old in 2016. Why isn't there a Holmes 3?
Layer on a bit of Dynamic Reasoning Engine and you have marketing gobbledegook. I wonder if they use DRE? Or do they just draw up the timeline on a scrap of paper?
Holmes 2 is a step up on the JP filing system, the indexing system, and the search capability of the JP documentation. And that's where the good news stops.
It won't sort out the timeline.
Probably produces nice Gannt charts.
-
Interesting link. Thank you for that.
Hmmm, now the issues begin. Development kicked off in 1994, doesn't say when it was rolled out. Using Analysts Notebook, which appears to be one of the tools the JP used in 2007, and which corpsed on the volume of data.
This bit on the link worried me. "©2001-2005 by Unisys ..." followed by "Last Updated: September 2002". Hopefully, it means the underlying document dates from Sep 2002, while the copyright notice was last updated in 2005".
The spec makes it look like a project management tool, and quite an old one at that. Allocation of tasks to officers. Tracking of exhibits. Preparation of court records. Fairly old in 2007, very old in 2016. Why isn't there a Holmes 3?
Layer on a bit of Dynamic Reasoning Engine and you have marketing gobbledegook. I wonder if they use DRE? Or do they just draw up the timeline on a scrap of paper?
Holmes 2 is a step up on the JP filing system, the indexing system, and the search capability of the JP documentation. And that's where the good news stops.
It won't sort out the timeline.
NO? I'm so glad we have you to put us straight on these matters. So, how was the timeline sorted out then, in your view, or were the Met simply feeding us a line?
-
Yes, you would need to factor in how all these statements would marry up, allowing for humans' imperfect recollection and that is where HOLMES has come in useful, to enable the police to come up with a workable timeline,
"Research and Analysis combines the powerful facilities of the i2 Analysts Notebook and the Dynamic Reasoning Engine from Autonomy Ltd to produce sequence of events charts and association (link) charts" http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/whatish2/investigations/#features
PS: I have noted that twice now you have refused to answer my question regarding exactly what sort of evidence of abduction you would accept.
A computer system is only as good as the information you put into it. Rubbish in, rubbish out. It can take all the statements and spit out an average, but it can't choose who's telling the truth and who isn't.
Six people unconnected with the case said the alarm was raised before 10pm. Six people connected with the case (who had also collaborated) said it was raised at 10pm.
Unless you check back with all concerned you are choosing to believe one group over the other group. The group you have chosen to believe didn't even stick with the time they gave initially. In later statements the time crept back as far as 9.45pm.
PS There is no proof of an abduction taking place and I see no point in speculation, so please stop repeating your speculative question. Unless, of course, you can produce a signed, witnessed statement from the 'abductor'? LOL
-
NO? I'm so glad we have you to put us straight on these matters. So, how was the timeline sorted out then, in your view, or were the Met simply feeding us a line?
I'm glad your glad. Surely gladness all round is good.
How was the timeline... becomes 'Has the timeline been sorted out then?' Simple answer = No.
For a more detailed rationale, please read my blog. Bottom line is no, neither Holmes nor DRE clarified the timeline. The human beings did. Andy and co. As to whether they clarified ...
Were the Met (simply) feeding us a line? Type of speculative territory bordering on libellous without proof, is it not?
-
A computer system is only as good as the information you put into it. Rubbish in, rubbish out. It can take all the statements and spit out an average, but it can't choose who's telling the truth and who isn't.
Six people unconnected with the case said the alarm was raised before 10pm. Six people connected with the case (who had also collaborated) said it was raised at 10pm.
Unless you check back with all concerned you are choosing to believe one group over the other group. The group you have chosen to believe didn't even stick with the time they gave initially. In later statements the time crept back as far as 9.45pm.
PS There is no proof of an abduction taking place and I see no point in speculation, so please stop repeating your speculative question. Unless, of course, you can produce a signed, witnessed statement from the 'abductor'? LOL
The PJ were only interested in a reconstruction of the T9's movements. If the various external witnesses were so important, why were they not also interested in bringing them back as well?
Whatever software the Met use, it can presumably work out the various permutations.
Some people are bound to give an approximate time unless there is a particular reason to note or be able to verify the precise time. There was no CCTV to check, but once the alarm had been given, there were phone records of the staff calling each other to put the missing child protocl into action.
-
The police have to decide if the McCanns are telling the truth
Everything comes from there
Imo they must have done this otherwise further investigation is a waste of time
-
The PJ were only interested in a reconstruction of the T9's movements. If the various external witnesses were so important, why were they not also interested in bringing them back as well?
Whatever software the Met use, it can presumably work out the various permutations.
Some people are bound to give an approximate time unless there is a particular reason to note or be able to verify the precise time. There was no CCTV to check, but once the alarm had been given, there were phone records of the staff calling each other to put the missing child protocl into action.
Too right they were. A few would have used their watches thank god and others just listened to what the loudest said. There's a big difference.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/timeline040507.jpg)
078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''
MO 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me, but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check and sort of, you know, sort of go back, but, erm, he sort of got up and went back to check on, erm, on his kids."
4078 “What time would this have been around?”
JT “I’d say it was around ten past nine’ish”.
1578 “And at what time”'
ROB “So about twenty five past nine I left the table”.
ROB "I returned to the table about quarter to ten”.
The guest returned, at about 21.45. (Waiter who served ROB's steak -Ricardo Alexandre da Luz Oliveira)
Rusell said he returned at 9:45 (corroborated by the waiter who served his steak) NOT 9:55 as on the timeline named GERALD. Matt has disappeared from that check. There's a 10 minute discrepancy like I said and that is proved from English recorded interviews (No translation excuses!). My timeline is spot on and can reveal who did it, when and how. It suggests why the timeline has changed 10 minutes to rule somebody out of a sighting. SY should have no problems if they have truly done a forensic examination of the timeline that night. You cannot escape the truth.
-
The PJ were only interested in a reconstruction of the T9's movements. If the various external witnesses were so important, why were they not also interested in bringing them back as well?
Whatever software the Met use, it can presumably work out the various permutations.
Some people are bound to give an approximate time unless there is a particular reason to note or be able to verify the precise time. There was no CCTV to check, but once the alarm had been given, there were phone records of the staff calling each other to put the missing child protocl into action.
They may have brought the other witnesses back had the group agreed to return, we don't know.
Software can only work with the information it's given.
When I say 'alarm' I'm speaking of when Kate ran to the Tapas to get the others. MW were not formally informed, it was done informally by a creche mother between 10.05 and 10.15pm as far as I can tell.
The head chef who was in charge of all the kitchens came to the Tapas to check on things. This is what he said;
Later, 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;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
-
Citing those scribbled pages (let alone one) doesn't take context into account.
Russ made those notes late at night to try to reconstruct the sequence of events and approximate times. There is no way of knowing whether he had access to everyone's recollections at that point, or whether these were his own plus those of whomever he was able to speak to who was calm enough to think clearly.
They did get together later to piece it together more calmly.
Processos Volume IV, pgs. 833 to 890
04_VOLUME_IVa_ Page_886
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_887
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_888
MISSING PAGE
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_889
04_VOLUME_IVaPage_890
Page 886
Portimao Criminal Investigation Department
201/07.OGALGS
O INSPECTOR
M.P.
ATTACHED
On this date, I attached to these official papers 3 computer printed pages, relating to the description of the events, that have been collectively prepared by the nine people of the group in question, that was delivered to this Police Officer by the British Liaison Official, before the start of re-questioning of those same people.
Portimao, 10 May 2007
INSPECTOR
M.P.
========================================
[3 page attachment] Pages 887-890
Original written in English.
Sequence of Events: Thursday 3rd May 2007 - 2030 to 2200
As recalled by:
Gerry McCann - 5A
Kate McCann - 5A
David Payne - 5H (First floor)
Fiona Payne - 5H (First floor)
Dianne Webster - 5H (First floor)
Jane Tanner - 5D
Russell O'Brien - 5D
Matthew Oldfield - 5B
Rachael Oldfield - 5B
Times shown are approximate, but accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Prior to 2030, a11 couples and children were in their apartments preparing for bedtime.
-5A (Madeleine, Amelie and Sean McCann).
-5B (G**** Oldfield),
-5D (E*** and E***O'Brien) and
-5H (L*** and S******* Payne)
2030: Standard booking for meal at Tapas restaurant for group - same all week (Sun-Thur)
2035: Gerry McCann (GM) and Kate McCann (KC) arrive at table at Tapas Restaurant.
2040: Jane Tanner (JT) arrives, followed shortly by Matthew Oldfield (MO) and Rachael Mampilly Oldfield (RMO).
2045: Russell O'Brien (RJO) arrives at table.
2055: MO returns to apartments to check on ground floor flats, passing David Payne (DP), Fiona Payne (FP) and her mother Dianne Webster (DW) on their way down to the table.
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table. Starters were ordered.
2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked.
The door is slightly ajar (about 45 degrees) which is unusual. All the 3 children were present and asleep. GM believes the shutter was down. The room in which the children are asleep is completely dark. On leaving the room, GM shuts the door to approximately 5 degrees. He then goes to the toilet to urinate.
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
As JT continued up the hill towards the junction with Rua A. da Silva, she sees a man carrying a child in his arms crossing left to right from the apartment side continuing east along Rua A. da Silva in the direction of the "Millennium Restaurant." He was on the same side of the road as JT 5-10 metres ahead of her.
Description of Man:
- Age 35 to 40.
- 1.7m tal1 approximately with a slim build.
- Good head of dark glossy hair, with possible flick of hair to the right. The hair was longer at the back (i.e not clippered or shaven).
- The central and the left side of the face were not seen.
- Full length trousers, casual, the material hanging without creases. The colour was possibly a browny mustard. They were not jeans.
- Long sleeved jacket, fastened at the front, possibly by a zipper. It had a gathered lower hem and was also possibly brownish in colour.
- Shoes may have been a semi-formal brogue.
- Whether he was wearing gloves or not could not be ascertained.
- He was not wearing a rucksack or any other identifiable objects.
- He was only carrying a child, with the head against the left upper chest away from JT and the feet to the right - i.e. cradling the child like a baby.
- He appeared to be walking in a rush to get somewhere.
- He was not someone JT recognised from the week.
- He was not dressed typically for a "tourist," or at least his clothing did not seem to be of UK origin and may well have been purchased in Portugal.
Description of Child:
- The child appeared to be a Caucasian girl about the ages of 3-4.
- She was seen to lie motionless/limp in the man's arms consistent with her sleeping or possibly drugged.
- She did not seem to be wrapped up well for the time of night wearing only pyjamas; the trousers were lightly coloured with a floral element, possibly with turn-ups. The top was not well seen though there was thought to be
another colour involved possibly pink.
- She was not wearing shoes.
JT checked only 5D entering via the deadlocked door on the car park side of the apartment. Both children inside were asleep. She did not check 5A or 5B.
2120: JT then returns to the restaurant, by which time GM had also returned. The entire party then begins eating their starters which have arrived.
2125: After starters, MO and RJO go back to the apartments via the car park entrance to check all flats. They go first to 5D where RJO's daughter Evie is heard crying. RJO enters flat, whilst MO checks inside 5B, and then returns to 5D.
2130: RJO remains in 5D as daughter has vomited. MO goes to check on 5A via the patio gate entrance. The outside gate is probably shut, but the child gate on the stairs up to the patio is possibly open. The patio door is closed but unlocked.
MO enters flat, hears a sound in the children's bedroom that is probably one of the twins rolling over in their cot. He does not enter the bedroom but can see through a now quite open door (greater than 45 degrees) into the room.
He sees the two twins in their cot, but does not check Madeleine formally as no sounds and twins asleep. He recalls the room did seem lighter than expected, perhaps suggesting the shutter had been raised or the curtains opened?
2135: MO returns to restaurant table, by which time main courses are arriving or being eaten. MO tells JT that Evie unwell.
2140: JT returns to 5D to take over care of Evie from RJO.
2145: RJO returns to table to eat main course leaving JT in 5D.
2155: RMO asked time at table. RJO's main course arrives.
2200: (approx): KM leaves table to check children in 5A. The patio gate is closed and the child gate is also probably closed. She enters through the closed patio entrance, with the curtains closed. She crosses the living area, and there is no noise from the children's bedroom. She is about to leave, when she notices the bedroom door was
open (approximately 60 degrees).
She starts to close it and it slams. Considering the patio doors had caused a draft, she checks these doors but they are closed. KM returns to the bedroom and opens the door to check the children were not disturbed by the noise.
At this point, she notices that Madeleine is missing. She checks the other single bed in the room and also Kate and Gerry's beds. Then she double checks that Madeleine was not in her bedroom again. At this point, she notices the curtains blowing forward with a gust of wind. She runs over, pulls open the curtain and notices the shutter was
completely raised, and the window pushed open to the left as far as possible.
She then completes a check of the bathroom, kitchen and wardrobes.
On failing to find Madeleine, she runs to the entrance of the restaurant, shouting from the path leading to the restaurant area raising the alarm that Madeleine was missing.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
-
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table. Starters were ordered.
2105: GM returns to his flat (5A)
Matt said as soon he returned Gerry left the table not 5 minutes later.
2115: JT leaves table
Jane said 9:10
Rachel Oldfield is not a good witness.
"Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine."
-
Certainly something wrong there if Jane passed Gerry in street.
-
2057: MO listens outside all ground floor flats' windows on the car park side of the apartment (5A, 5B and 5D) to make sure they were asleep. At this time, all the shutters were down on each window.
2100: MO return to the table. Starters were ordered.
2105: GM returns to his flat (5A)
Matt said as soon he returned Gerry left the table not 5 minutes later.
2115: JT leaves table
Jane said 9:10
Rachel Oldfield is not a good witness.
"Gerry went off erm came back a couple of minutes later, erm and then Jane went off at about ten past nine."
Jane said on 4th May;
She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Bridget O'Donnell said;
Jes returned to our apartment just before 9.30pm.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
-
Trying to read something 'sinister' into the fact that two people are 5 mins adrift in their separate recollections of when one of them left the table is ludicrous IMO.
None of them could give definite times - only approximations. Different people have different levels of the power of recall, and different perceptions of time and distance.
Anyone who thinks SY would see anything suspicious in those differing recollections (especially one of a mere 5 mins fgs! ) - is showing what little knowledge they have compared to trained, professional, experienced SY detectives, when it comes to witnesses recalling events.
All the discrepancies prove is what every experienced policeman knows already - i.e. the fallibility and therefore unreliability of memory.
In order to 'make something' out of such discrepancies - you first have to ignore that very large elephant in the room.
Fortunately that's not how proper policemen work.
-
Trying to read something 'sinister' into the fact that two people are 5 mins adrift in their separate recollections of when one of them left the table is ludicrous IMO.
None of them could give definite times - only approximations. Different people have different levels of the power of recall, and different perceptions of time and distance.
Anyone who thinks SY would see anything suspicious in those differing recollections (especially one of a mere 5 mins fgs! ) - is showing what little knowledge they have compared to trained, professional, experienced SY detectives, when it comes to witnesses recalling events.
All the discrepancies prove is what every experienced policeman knows already - i.e. the fallibility and therefore unreliability of memory.
In order to 'make something' out of such discrepancies - you first have to ignore that very large elephant in the room.
Fortunately that's not how proper policemen work.
You are far too charitable, Benice.
These same people who screech about 'inconsistencies' in minor differences (in memory-recall) about a fast-moving sequence of events would shriek (no doubt even louder) 'collusion', if all statements exactly married up in every last detail.
-
Trying to read something 'sinister' into the fact that two people are 5 mins adrift in their separate recollections of when one of them left the table is ludicrous IMO.
None of them could give definite times - only approximations. Different people have different levels of the power of recall, and different perceptions of time and distance.
Anyone who thinks SY would see anything suspicious in those differing recollections (especially one of a mere 5 mins fgs! ) - is showing what little knowledge they have compared to trained, professional, experienced SY detectives, when it comes to witnesses recalling events.
All the discrepancies prove is what every experienced policeman knows already - i.e. the fallibility and therefore unreliability of memory.
In order to 'make something' out of such discrepancies - you first have to ignore that very large elephant in the room.
Fortunately that's not how proper policemen work.
Thank you for your opinion, which, of course is just that. The thread is about why people don't believe the McCann's story of abduction. One of the reasons is the problem of the timeline. As you point out, memory is not infallible; although the T9, thanks to discussing the timeline before their interviews, were able to largely agree on the times.
The important times in my opinion were the time at which they all arrived and the time at which the alarm was raised. There is reason to believe these times were stated to be later than they actually were, in my opinion.
Operation Grange appealed for 'Smithman' to come forward. There are similarities between him and Gerry McCann. One witness said he was 60-80% sure that he was Gerry McCann.
If Gerry McCann was at the Tapas restaurant at 10.13 (10th May statement) then he wasn't 'Smithman'. If, however, the alarm was raised earlier; even at 9.45pm Gerry has no alibi for the Smith's sighting. Six unconnected people gave statements suggesting the alarm was raised before 10pm.
I have no reason to believe that Smithman was connected to the case at all, except for the witness who thought he was Gerry McCann. The PJ rejected this possibility because they accepted the T9's timeline (although they had wanted to check it). Operation Grange also seem to have accepted the timeline. As there's no evidence that either police force double-checked the timeline with other witnesses, it's acceptable to point out that it wasn't confirmed by all the independent witnesses.
-
Jane said on 4th May;
She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Bridget O'Donnell said;
Jes returned to our apartment just before 9.30pm.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Bringing timeline forwards rules them all out of the 10 sighting. You cannot be at the table and be seen by the Smiths. The last waiter to serve them said they left the table before 10. His timeline suggests Matt's time of 9:50 Kate going to check not 10. It also matches the time recently released in the media - 9:51 Kate leaves to check. The press certainly weren't the source of the exact time 9:51.
-
A computer system is only as good as the information you put into it. Rubbish in, rubbish out. It can take all the statements and spit out an average, but it can't choose who's telling the truth and who isn't.
Six people unconnected with the case said the alarm was raised before 10pm. Six people connected with the case (who had also collaborated) said it was raised at 10pm.
Unless you check back with all concerned you are choosing to believe one group over the other group. The group you have chosen to believe didn't even stick with the time they gave initially. In later statements the time crept back as far as 9.45pm.
PS There is no proof of an abduction taking place and I see no point in speculation, so please stop repeating your speculative question. Unless, of course, you can produce a signed, witnessed statement from the 'abductor'? LOL
1) the software in question can cope with variables of information and aid police to come up with a workable timeline. If the police have investigated all nine individuals who "collaborated" on a timeline then they will be able to factor in any other information they have uncovered which may have a bearing on whether or not they had a reason to give false infromation about the timeline, that as I understand it is how Holmes works. to say that it only works on a rubbish in rubbish out basis is an absurd oversimplification and would mean that as a tool it would have been junked years ago. All witness statments have an element of "rubbish" in them, HOLMES helps police to sort out what is relevant and what is not.
2) Your refusal to give an example of what you would accept as relevant evidence of an abduction is very telling IMO. An abduction can take place without there being any evidence left behind so an absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence, so kindly stop banging that particular drum as if it proves anything. In any case there is plenty of evidence of an abduction, your refusal to accept it does not mean it doesn't exist.
-
1) the software in question can cope with variables of information and aid police to come up with a workable timeline. If the police have investigated all nine individuals who "collaborated" on a timeline then they will be able to factor in any other information they have uncovered which may have a bearing on whether or not they had a reason to give false infromation about the timeline, that as I understand it is how Holmes works. to say that it only works on a rubbish in rubbish out basis is an absurd oversimplification and would mean that as a tool it would have been junked years ago. All witness statments have an element of "rubbish" in them, HOLMES helps police to sort out what is relevant and what is not.
2) Your refusal to give an example of what you would accept as relevant evidence of an abduction is very telling IMO. An abduction can take place without there being any evidence left behind so an absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence, so kindly stop banging that particular drum as if it proves anything. In any case there is plenty of evidence of an abduction, your refusal to accept it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Plenty of evidence. Other than the child has not been seen since May 3rd what would that be ?
-
1) the software in question can cope with variables of information and aid police to come up with a workable timeline. If the police have investigated all nine individuals who "collaborated" on a timeline then they will be able to factor in any other information they have uncovered which may have a bearing on whether or not they had a reason to give false infromation about the timeline, that as I understand it is how Holmes works. to say that it only works on a rubbish in rubbish out basis is an absurd oversimplification and would mean that as a tool it would have been junked years ago. All witness statments have an element of "rubbish" in them, HOLMES helps police to sort out what is relevant and what is not.
2) Your refusal to give an example of what you would accept as relevant evidence of an abduction is very telling IMO. An abduction can take place without there being any evidence left behind so an absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence, so kindly stop banging that particular drum as if it proves anything. In any case there is plenty of evidence of an abduction, your refusal to accept it does not mean it doesn't exist.
There is always the possibility that the system does what the users want it to do which is not necessarily the same as what you think it does.
-
There is always the possibility that the system does what the users want it to do which is not necessarily the same as what you think it does.
total speculation and therefore of no value...but of course this is how myths are born
-
total speculation and therefore of no value...but of course this is how myths are born
OK then ace you tell us exactly what HOLMES does.
-
OK then ace you tell us exactly what HOLMES does.
I don't speculate as you do...I agree with alfred...if it was a bad as you suspect it would not be used....but of course on this forum'''SY are rubbish..Redwood is rubbish...the UK is rubbish...the UK govt is corrupt and rubbish...but total respect for amaral
-
OK then ace you tell us exactly what HOLMES does.
In the main, it does the paperwork associated with a large investigation. It files, xrefs, and does donkey work required for a legal case.
I happen to use Open Office for the first two. I don't need to do the donkey work required for a legal case, thankfully.
HOLMES appears to be very dated, circa 2000. My software is circa 2016. I doubt very much that any officer is relying on HOLMES to clarify the timeline of 3 May 2007. If they are, they should try using the supercomputer between their ears.
-
Do you know, I know exactly what Holmes can do, and I really want to help, but I am totally incapable of explaining it.
-
I don't speculate as you do...I agree with alfred...if it was a bad as you suspect it would not be used....but of course on this forum'''SY are rubbish..Redwood is rubbish...the UK is rubbish...the UK govt is corrupt and rubbish...but total respect for amaral
I never said it was bad. I said it probably does what the users require which is not necessarily what Alfred thinks it is. By 'is own admission 'e don't know much more than 'e can cut paste.
The time line it could be hand balled in about a couple of hours without a computer.
Nice rant at the end though.
-
I never said it was bad. I said it probably does what the users require which is not necessarily what Alfred thinks it is. By 'is own admission 'e don't know much more than 'e can cut paste.
The time line it could be hand balled in about a couple of hours without a computer.
Nice rant at the end though.
The case hinges on whether the McCanns are telling the truth and I would have expected SY to have decided on this at the start
-
I don't speculate as you do...I agree with alfred...if it was a bad as you suspect it would not be used....but of course on this forum'''SY are rubbish..Redwood is rubbish...the UK is rubbish...the UK govt is corrupt and rubbish...but total respect for amaral
exactement 8((()*/
-
In the main, it does the paperwork associated with a large investigation. It files, xrefs, and does donkey work required for a legal case.
I happen to use Open Office for the first two. I don't need to do the donkey work required for a legal case, thankfully.
HOLMES appears to be very dated, circa 2000. My software is circa 2016. I doubt very much that any officer is relying on HOLMES to clarify the timeline of 3 May 2007. If they are, they should try using the supercomputer between their ears.
"Officers are using the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System for computer logging of all relevant information and have tailored it to help create what is described as a “computer reconstruction” of the key events of the night of May 3.
It is hoped that eventually there will be an almost minute by minute account, which will assist officers." of course, this was in the Express newspaper so obviously bollcks.
-
More complete bollocks from Journal De Noticias:
Virtual reconstruction tests witnesses' version Jornal de Notícias (page 3 Online paid edition)
The software of the English will be used to supply further clues to the investigation
By Nuno Miguel Maia and Óscar Queirós
10 March 2012
With thanks to Joana Morais/Astro for translation
Scotland Yard possesses software designed to reconstruct, in a virtual way, the facts that have been reported by the various witnesses who have intervened in the process of Maddie's disappearance.
The existence of this tool may be important to find new leads, in order to solve the case. The versions of those involved may be cross referenced, and after the data is processed by the software, one can understand what adds up – and what does not.
In this software, one can insert photos and the description of the apartment, including Maddie's bedroom, drawings or photos of the entries, routes to the restaurant – and a description thereof – where the parents and friends were dining, their table and the localization and position of each person.
The software will also receive the statements that everyone has made and will be making (the English will hear the McCann couple's friends again), as these people may recall facts, as small as they may be, and even add objects that may give their descriptions more veracity.
From there on, the investigators may reach more precise conclusions, which, very often, belies the testimonies that have been described in their statements.
-
Yet more bollocks from Tv Mais
The only known virtual reconstruction was made by the professors Paulo Sargento (Criminal psychology) and by Pedro Gamito (IT department) of the Lusófona University, using as its basis the statements of the McCanns and their friends. By means of specific software, the statements given to the PJ were evaluated and cross-checked. Thus, one can now understand better the possibilities of each one of them being at a certain place and time, as stated by them.
This work by the Portuguese scientists was ignored, but now Scotland Yard has revealed that they will also use a software program to reconstruct those events. In English, that might be more enlightening.
-
HOLMES is a searchable database. The information is entered by police officers who get the information from different sources, including statements. If all the T9 said the alarm was raised at 10pm, the database, when searched, will also say 10pm unless other statements by other witnesses have been entered which say 9pm. Living breathing police officers then have a decision to make about who is right and who is wrong.
You can download an overview here if you're interested enough;
http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/sampleinv/
-
"Officers are using the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System for computer logging of all relevant information and have tailored it to help create what is described as a “computer reconstruction” of the key events of the night of May 3.
It is hoped that eventually there will be an almost minute by minute account, which will assist officers." of course, this was in the Express newspaper so obviously bollcks.
It would help if you gave the links to the articles you are picking from.
Until then it is akin to the newspaper fit to wrap my fish supper tomorrow, but no more.
I presume you are not using HOLMES to store your information, given it is a tool intended for UK police and emergency services. Therefor you must be using something else.
In this instance, I have a limited interest is what the media speculated. I have heard that triangulation would solve the case, in a media report from some 8 years ago. That DNA would crack the case, which it clearly has not. Will HOLMES crack the case?
I think not.
-
It would help if you gave the links to the articles you are picking from.
Until then it is akin to the newspaper fit to wrap my fish supper tomorrow, but no more.
I presume you are not using HOLMES to store your information, given it is a tool intended for UK police and emergency services. Therefor you must be using something else.
In this instance, I have a limited interest is what the media speculated. I have heard that triangulation would solve the case, in a media report from some 8 years ago. That DNA would crack the case, which it clearly has not. Will HOLMES crack the case?
I think not.
I use Google not HOLMES, I'm sure you've heard of it and used it too. I've never claimed that Holmes will crack this case, though it has been credited with helping to solve others. Still, I bow to yours and others superior knowledge of the syystem, as you are all clearly far better informed than myself or the media on this matter. It's such a privilege to be posting alongside such very learned folk as yourself, and for that I am so grateful, many thanks.
-
HOLMES is a searchable database. The information is entered by police officers who get the information from different sources, including statements. If all the T9 said the alarm was raised at 10pm, the database, when searched, will also say 10pm unless other statements by other witnesses have been entered which say 9pm. Living breathing police officers then have a decision to make about who is right and who is wrong.
You can download an overview here if you're interested enough;
http://www.holmes2.com/holmes2/sampleinv/
so when the Met said it had "forensically examined" the timeline you think they basically just held up the scrap of paper written by McCanns' mates and said "this will do" do you?
-
"forensically examined" sounds so much more professional, don't you think?
-
"forensically examined" sounds so much more professional, don't you think?
Perhaps when Enid O'Dowd says it ....
-
so when the Met said it had "forensically examined" the timeline you think they basically just held up the scrap of paper written by McCanns' mates and said "this will do" do you?
To be honest mate a time line is a function of time space and distance. With the simplicity of this time line it could be handballed by any reasonably competent technician in a couple of hours. The timeline exists irrespective of innocence or guilt of any party.
-
I don't see the issue. HOLMES2 is database / project management tool, which may well have 3rd-party add-on features not mentioned in the blurb. It may also be used to extract information for use by other types of specialised software.
3D crime scene / reconstruction software exists, so I don't see the big deal about establishing a forensic timeline.
-
so when the Met said it had "forensically examined" the timeline you think they basically just held up the scrap of paper written by McCanns' mates and said "this will do" do you?
That depends on whether they had more information than the PJ had in the files. There's no evidence that they asked the PJ to find and interview the Resort staff again, but they could have. They could have tracked down and interviewed the other diners. They could have interviewed everyone who was on holiday there. Their memories might be unreliable 4-6 years after the event, but you never know. I am speaking only about what I know, which is the information they had from the first investigation, and the capabilities of a database, which stores and retrieves the information you enter into it, no more.
-
Yet more bollocks from Tv Mais
The only known virtual reconstruction was made by the professors Paulo Sargento (Criminal psychology) and by Pedro Gamito (IT department) of the Lusófona University, using as its basis the statements of the McCanns and their friends. By means of specific software, the statements given to the PJ were evaluated and cross-checked. Thus, one can now understand better the possibilities of each one of them being at a certain place and time, as stated by them.
This work by the Portuguese scientists was ignored, but now Scotland Yard has revealed that they will also use a software program to reconstruct those events. In English, that might be more enlightening.
Well TV Mais really is bollocks. LOL
No paper had the same times for anything.
Times Online
From Times Online October 9, 2007
David Brown
Reconstruction 'casts doubt on Madeleine McCann kidnapping'
Watch the reconstruction
A significant study into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has indicated that kidnapping would be inconsistent with the evidence.
Paulo Sargento, a criminal psychologist at Lusófona University in Libson, has produced a 3D reconstruction of events at the Ocean Club on the evening Madeleine disappeared.
He used minute-by-minute breakdowns of events published in The Times, the respected Portuguese newspapers Público and Sol and the BBC to test all hypotheses put forward by the Portuguese authorities.
Dr Sargento cross-checked times and events from the moment that Kate and Gerry McCann went to pick up their children from the resort’s kindergarten at 4pm, until 10pm, when Mrs McCann reported that Madeleine was missing from their apartment.
He found that from the moment when the McCanns arrived at the tapas restaurant at 8pm, seven people in their party got up a total of 14 times in two hours.
Dr Sargento told SIC television: “There were people passing almost every five minutes. The question is how, in that time, could it be possible with so many people coming and going that no one saw someone coming in through the window without being seen? We have concluded this theory is very inconsistent.”
It is understood that the recreation will be made available to the Polícia Judiciária to assist them in creating a definitive timeline of events on the Ocean Club.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic542.html
-
I don't see the issue. HOLMES2 is database / project management tool, which may well have 3rd-party add-on features not mentioned in the blurb. It may also be used to extract information for use by other types of specialised software.
3D crime scene / reconstruction software exists, so I don't see the big deal about establishing a forensic timeline.
I think the big deal about the establishment of a forensic timeline is that it allows for an abductor to enter the premises and exit with Madeleine without the inconvenience of bumping into one of the checkers.
Had it worked out differently its conclusion would have been held as irrefutable by some.
All conjecture or in my opinion or whatever.
-
I think the big deal about the establishment of a forensic timeline is that it allows for an abductor to enter the premises and exit with Madeleine without the inconvenience of bumping into one of the checkers.
Had it worked out differently its conclusion would have been held as irrefutable by some.
All conjecture or in my opinion or whatever.
Yes, I realise that. What I don't see is why some people are doubting that the police have the capacity to do so.
-
This is interesting... Aside from the fact that the times are wrong, did the papers ever publish the comings-and-goings of the group?
A few more papers fluttering out of windows?
Dr Sargento cross-checked times and events from the moment that Kate and Gerry McCann went to pick up their children from the resort’s kindergarten at 4pm, until 10pm, when Mrs McCann reported that Madeleine was missing from their apartment.
He found that from the moment when the McCanns arrived at the tapas restaurant at 8pm, seven people in their party got up a total of 14 times in two hours.
Dr Sargento told SIC television: “There were people passing almost every five minutes. The question is how, in that time, could it be possible with so many people coming and going that no one saw someone coming in through the window without being seen? We have concluded this theory is very inconsistent.”
-
Another thing I don't understand. The McCanns' initial assumption was that someone must have come in and out through the window.
But the McCanns weren't the experts, the PJ were supposed to be. it's not as if the McCanns had said they'd seen someone climbing out of it, so why did Amaral and pals assume that an abduction couldn't have occurred because it would have been difficult to get out of a window when they knew that the patio door was open? Not to mention the lack of investigation into keys.
-
This is interesting... Aside from the fact that the times are wrong, did the papers ever publish the comings-and-goings of the group?
A few more papers fluttering out of windows?
Dr Sargento cross-checked times and events from the moment that Kate and Gerry McCann went to pick up their children from the resort’s kindergarten at 4pm, until 10pm, when Mrs McCann reported that Madeleine was missing from their apartment.
He found that from the moment when the McCanns arrived at the tapas restaurant at 8pm, seven people in their party got up a total of 14 times in two hours.
Dr Sargento told SIC television: “There were people passing almost every five minutes. The question is how, in that time, could it be possible with so many people coming and going that no one saw someone coming in through the window without being seen? We have concluded this theory is very inconsistent.”
I expect the newspapers published all sorts of information, most of it wrong. Only 5 people left the table 7 times according to the official statements.
Gerry once (9.05ish).
Jane twice (9.15, 9.40).
Matt twice (9, 9.30).
Russell once (9.30).
Kate once (10).
Between 9pm and 9.20 Matt, Jane, Gerry and Jez were around.
At 9.30 to 9.35 Matt was around.
Jane went up to relieve Russell at 9.40 and he returned at 9.45.
Kate went between 9.50 (Matt) and 10.03 (Gerry)
-
This is interesting... Aside from the fact that the times are wrong, did the papers ever publish the comings-and-goings of the group?
A few more papers fluttering out of windows?
Dr Sargento cross-checked times and events from the moment that Kate and Gerry McCann went to pick up their children from the resort’s kindergarten at 4pm, until 10pm, when Mrs McCann reported that Madeleine was missing from their apartment.
He found that from the moment when the McCanns arrived at the tapas restaurant at 8pm, seven people in their party got up a total of 14 times in two hours.
Dr Sargento told SIC television: “There were people passing almost every five minutes. The question is how, in that time, could it be possible with so many people coming and going that no one saw someone coming in through the window without being seen? We have concluded this theory is very inconsistent.”
I cant take too much notice of a man, Doctor or not, who cannot even get the times of events right. Especially when he claims he is cross-checking important facts.
I am doing this from memory but IIRC
1) Gerry Mccann met up with the children from kindergarten at 4.30 or 4.45 not at 4.00
2) That the Mccanns arrived at the tapas restaurant at 8.30ish not 8pm.
3) As for counting the number of times various parties got up to check their chioldren I really cannot be bothered, but I will warrent that it is well less than 14, and probably in reality about 7 or 8 times
4) In a period of 1 and a half hours NOT 2 hours !
NOT BAD FOR A PROFESSIONAL MAN, a doctor at that %&5%£
4 out of 5 wrong. I wonder why he put out this disinformation?
-
I cant take too much notice of a man, Doctor or not, who cannot even get the times of events right. Especially when he claims he is cross-checking important facts.
I am doing this from memory but IIRC
1) Gerry Mccann met up with the children from kindergarten at 4.30 or 4.45 not at 4.00
2) That the Mccanns arrived at the tapas restaurant at 8.30ish not 8pm.
3) As for counting the number of times various parties got up to check their chioldren I really cannot be bothered, but I will warrent that it is well less than 14, and probably in reality about 7 or 8 times
4) In a period of 1 and a half hours NOT 2 hours !
NOT BAD FOR A PROFESSIONAL MAN, a doctor at that %&5%£
4 out of 5 wrong. I wonder why he put out this disinformation?
No idea, Sadie.
This was before he and Amaral started putting out the idea that the pink blanket had 'disappeared' and could have been used as a shroud. Both of them should have known that a GNR dog handler had taken it...
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/maddies-blanket-missing-from-ocean-club.html
-
Another thing I don't understand. The McCanns' initial assumption was that someone must have come in and out through the window.
But the McCanns weren't the experts, the PJ were supposed to be. it's not as if the McCanns had said they'd seen someone climbing out of it, so why did Amaral and pals assume that an abduction couldn't have occurred because it would have been difficult to get out of a window when they knew that the patio door was open? Not to mention the lack of investigation into keys.
The open window was said by the McCanns to show that an 'abductor' had been in the apartment. Their friends and family publicised their theory, which was that the 'abductor' had either entered or exited via the window. The PJ questioned that, due to the fact that there was no forensic evidence of anyone climbing in or out of the window and because of the difficulty of doing so. If you think that was their only reason for disbelieving the abduction story you are mistaken.
-
The open window was said by the McCanns to show that an 'abductor' had been in the apartment. Their friends and family publicised their theory, which was that the 'abductor' had either entered or exited via the window. The PJ questioned that, due to the fact that there was no forensic evidence of anyone climbing in or out of the window and because of the difficulty of doing so. If you think that was their only reason for disbelieving the abduction story you are mistaken.
It was certainly one of the reasons that the initial PJ team (and media pals) kept harping on about...
-
No idea, Sadie.
This was before he and Amaral started putting out the idea that the pink blanket had 'disappeared' and could have been used as a shroud. Both of them should have known that a GNR dog handler had taken it...
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/maddies-blanket-missing-from-ocean-club.html
I had forgotten that.
Again that is a kind of propaganda against the parents and for Amarals "Theory".
Using her pink blanket as a shroud. what evil minded men.
-
McCanns leave apartment
Jane passes apartment
Matt/Rachel passes apartment
Russ passes apartment
Paynes/Webster passes apartment
Matt passes apartment twice
7 from 8:30 to 9
Gerry goes to apartment
Jane passes apartment twice
Russ/Matt passes apartment
Matt goes into apartment
5 from 9 to 9:30
Jane passes apartment
Russ passes apartment
Kate goes to apartment
3 from 9:35 to alarm raised time
It works out on average that every 5 or 6 minutes somebody from the group went inside or passed that apartment.
-
Yes, I realise that. What I don't see is why some people are doubting that the police have the capacity to do so.
No-one is doubting that the police can create a timeline from the times given. I can do that myself. What neither the T9 nor the police can do is prove that those times are correct, unless witnesses unconnected with the group saw them at the times given. Six of the group said on 4th May the alarm was raised at 10pm. Six witnesses suggested it was raised earlier. Who's right?
-
It was certainly one of the reasons that the initial PJ team (and media pals) kept harping on about...
The only person who knows why the window was opened is the person who opened it or who left it unlocked. The only person who knows the reason for the shutter being raised is the person who raised it.
It is easy to work out why a mother would immediately jump to the conclusion her child had been kidnapped on finding the window open and the child missing.
A more professionally conducted investigation would have ascertained the rights and wrongs of the situation taking that natural concern into consideration.
There was little chance of that given the weird interpretation put on the request for a priest.
-
McCanns leave apartment
Jane passes apartment
Matt/Rachel passes apartment
Russ passes apartment
Paynes/Webster passes apartment
Matt passes apartment twice
7 from 8:30 to 9
Gerry goes to apartment
Jane passes apartment twice
Russ/Matt passes apartment
Matt goes into apartment
5 from 9 to 9:30
Jane passes apartment
Russ passes apartment
Kate goes to apartment
3 from 9:35 to alarm raised time
It works out on average that every 5 or 6 minutes somebody from the group went inside or passed that apartment.
Then you have Jez Wilkins who left his apartment at 8.30pm and returned at 9.30pm. He saw a couple from Block 6 at some point going to dinner, they probably passed G5A on their way out. The Moyes returned to Block 5 at around 9.15pm but saw no-one. Crecheman was around at 9.15pm. A couple who worked for MW drove past at some point after the man mended a lock up by the Millenium. The head chef drove from the Millenium to the Tapas at 21.10 and returned at 21.40. Did all those in Block 4 stay indoors that evening? We don't know.
-
The only person who knows why the window was opened is the person who opened it or who left it unlocked. The only person who knows the reason for the shutter being raised is the person who raised it.
CORRECT but could have been the mother or father! No evidence it wasn't... and no evidence it was ever opened before the so called alarm
It is easy to work out why a mother would immediately jump to the conclusion her child had been kidnapped on finding the window open and the child missing.
NOT REALLY in this case
A more professionally conducted investigation would have ascertained the rights and wrongs of the situation taking that natural concern into consideration. RUBBISH
There was little chance of that given the weird interpretation put on the request for a priest.
-
The only person who knows why the window was opened is the person who opened it or who left it unlocked. The only person who knows the reason for the shutter being raised is the person who raised it.
CORRECT but could have been the mother or father! No evidence it wasn't... and no evidence it was ever opened before the so called alarm
It is easy to work out why a mother would immediately jump to the conclusion her child had been kidnapped on finding the window open and the child missing.
NOT REALLY in this case
A more professionally conducted investigation would have ascertained the rights and wrongs of the situation taking that natural concern into consideration. RUBBISH
There was little chance of that given the weird interpretation put on the request for a priest.
Probably one of the main reasons there are those whose antipathy towards the Drs McCann allow them to disbelieve every and any statement which comes out of their mouths, with one or two notable exceptions is revealed in your response.
If you walked into your child's room found her missing from there and not anywhere on the premises with the window you knew had been closed and the shutter raised which you thought was a security shutter and locked ... it would be fine for you or any other parent to suspect the worst.
However "NOT REALLY in this case".
Why "this case" particularly ? ? ? ?
-
Probably one of the main reasons there are those whose antipathy towards the Drs McCann allow them to disbelieve every and any statement which comes out of their mouths, with one or two notable exceptions is revealed in your response.
If you walked into your child's room found her missing from there and not anywhere on the premises with the window you knew had been closed and the shutter raised which you thought was a security shutter and locked ... it would be fine for you or any other parent to suspect the worst.
However "NOT REALLY in this case".
Why "this case" particularly ? ? ? ?
That statement makes sense. In the Madeleine Mccann case it only applies if the window and shutters were actually open. There is no independent evidence that they were. Therefore it cannot be stated as if it was a fact.
-
That statement makes sense. In the Madeleine Mccann case it only applies if the window and shutters were actually open. There is no independent evidence that they were. Therefore it cannot be stated as if it was a fact.
It can be stated as a fact by the people involved. Or do you have proof that Kate was not being truthful?
-
That statement makes sense. In the Madeleine Mccann case it only applies if the window and shutters were actually open. There is no independent evidence that they were. Therefore it cannot be stated as if it was a fact.
Is there any independant evidence that Ben Leadhams Gran and Gramp were at the house when he vanished??
Cos if not are you also prepared to say that "NOT in that case either?" No evidence.
Same with most abduction cases. There is rarely anyone who witnesses anything.
Come on Mercury , admit it.
Admit that you have it in for The Mccanns.
-
No-one is doubting that the police can create a timeline from the times given. I can do that myself. What neither the T9 nor the police can do is prove that those times are correct, unless witnesses unconnected with the group saw them at the times given. Six of the group said on 4th May the alarm was raised at 10pm. Six witnesses suggested it was raised earlier. Who's right?
I thought you told us earlier that all nine of the McCann group "collaborated" to give a time of 10pm for the alarm? Now only 6? So who wasn't playing ball in this collaboration?
-
It can be stated as a fact by the people involved. Or do you have proof that Kate was not being truthful?
There is no proof she has.
Why should anyone believe her account.
After what she and her husband did.
-
There is no proof she has.
Why should anyone believe her account.
After what she and her husband did.
SY believe her and that is what matters
-
There is no proof she has.
Why should anyone believe her account.
After what she and her husband did.
So according to you all the hundreds of thousands (in fact probably millions by now) of parents who - whilst on holiday decided to leave their children asleep in their rooms and went off to dinner, relying on a baby alarm or in the knowledge that they would be checked on regularly - cannot be relied upon to be truthful people?
What sort of logic is that conclusion based on? Please elaborate.
-
I thought you told us earlier that all nine of the McCann group "collaborated" to give a time of 10pm for the alarm? Now only 6? So who wasn't playing ball in this collaboration?
Jane wasn't there. Fiona and Dianne mentioned no time on 4th May. Dianne had caught up in her second interview and gave 10pm. Fiona gave 9.45 to 10pm in her Rog. interview. Of the group, the Paynes/Webster gave very few times in any of their statements.
In the second interviews Gerry's time was now 10.13pm. Russell stayed with 10pm, Matthew and Rachael had moved the time to slightly before 10pm. (9.50 Matt, 9.55-10 Rachael). There's now a difference of around 20 minutes between Matt and Gerry.
-
So according to you all the hundreds of thousands (in fact probably millions by now) of parents who - whilst on holiday decided to leave their children asleep in their rooms and went off to dinner, relying on a baby alarm or in the knowledge that they would be checked on regularly - cannot be relied upon to be truthful people?
What sort of logic is that conclusion based on? Please elaborate.
AND HOW MANY OF THESE PEOPLE LEFT THEIR CHILDREN FOR HOURS ON END IN UNLOCKED ACCOMMODATION, WHILST THEY WINED AND DINED WITH FRIENDS ?
and I'm not angry.
Just making the point you always want to ignore.
-
AND HOW MANY OF THESE PEOPLE LEFT THEIR CHILDREN FOR HOURS ON END IN UNLOCKED ACCOMMODATION, WHILST THEY WINED AND DINED WITH FRIENDS ?
and I'm not angry.
Just making the point you always want to ignore.
No need to shout.
Anyone who thinks that no other parent has ever left their children asleep in their apartment etc and either by accident or design have not locked the door or left a window open or left the key under the mat - is not living in the real world IMO. Neither are those who think that no other parent has ever wined and dined with friends whilst on holiday.
Your constant attempts to isolate the McCanns and present them as the only parents who have ever done what in reality hundreds of thousands of other parents have been doing for decades - and some of which are still doing - makes no sense to me - as it involves pretending that those hundreds of thousands of other parents don't exist. And anyone who believes that is deluding themselves big time IMO.
-
No need to shout.
Anyone who thinks that no other parent has ever left their children asleep in their apartment etc and either by accident or design have not locked the door or left a window open or left the key under the mat - is not living in the real world IMO. Neither are those who think that no other parent has ever wined and dined with friends whilst on holiday.
Your constant attempts to isolate the McCanns and present them as the only parents who have ever done what in reality hundreds of thousands of other parents have been doing for decades - and some of which are still doing - makes no sense to me - as it involves pretending that those hundreds of thousands of other parents don't exist. And anyone who believes that is deluding themselves big time IMO.
I wasn't shouting.
So can you provide cited figures as to how many people have done exactly the same as the mccanns ?
and then perhaps, give figures for how many people have never done what they did.
-
There is no proof she has.
Why should anyone believe her account.
After what she and her husband did.
I don't suppose she cares all that much what you think, Stephen. The difference is that she doesn't have to prove it.
-
I don't suppose she cares all that much what you think, Stephen. The difference is that she doesn't have to prove it.
Well it's their actions which triggered the case and cost the tax payer £12 million plus.
and how much of their own money, and I don't mean donated money, have the used to search for Madeleine ?
-
AND HOW MANY OF THESE PEOPLE LEFT THEIR CHILDREN FOR HOURS ON END IN UNLOCKED ACCOMMODATION, WHILST THEY WINED AND DINED WITH FRIENDS ?
and I'm not angry.
Just making the point you always want to ignore.
Probably most stephen, but after what happened to Madeleine, they aren't going to admit now are they ?
Please do not forget that the tapas group were as close as many peoople are when they are in their back garden. Our back garden was 50 metrees long and it seemede and was OK for us. The Mccanns were extraordinarily unlucky.
Go and visit and LOOK. Assuming the foliage has just been cut back as was the case when then Mccanns were there, you will be able to see nearly all of the patio windows and some of the steps up. The patio area was flooded with light and they had direct visiion.
The Front door needed a key to open it, but almost certainly that was thhe way that the abductor entered because being at a dead end and deeply recessed, no-body passed by and no-body could see it unless that personn deliberately moved over from his route in or out across the car park. It was also in almost complete blackness and there was a high wall to bob down bwhind if by great mischance, anyone should suddenly appear. Also an escape rioute in extreme urgency for the fit over the wall into Rua F G Martins [the road that we see Jane Tanner walking up on video]
A robber/abductors paradise route in and out.
Returning to your question, my bet is that quite a percentage of parents , altho they might not admit it now - used to dine out far farther away than the Mccanns from their children.
And this has gone on historically all over the world. Parents relying on the hotels etc to keep a regular watch.
With the advent of mobile phones, my bet is that it became ever more prevalent.
I think that you are out of touch with the real world, stephen. What the Mccanns did, is minimal in relation to probably millions of other parents who thought the hotel could look after their kids. The tapas group could see their apartments at only 50 metres away, did their own regular checks and were well within eyesight.
Supremely better than most parents who chose to eat out at a distance and relying on others to do the checks. You are far too hard on The Mccanns, stephen
-
Probably most stephen, but after what happened to Madeleine, they aren't going to admit now are they ?
Please do not forget that the tapas group were as close as many peoople are when they are in their back garden. Our back garden was 50 metrees long and it seemede and was OK for us. The Mccanns were extraordinarily unlucky.
Go and visit and LOOK. Assuming the foliage has just been cut back as was the case when then Mccanns were there, you will be able to see nearly all of the patio windows and some of the steps up. The patio area was flooded with light and they had direct visiion.
The Front door needed a key to open it, but almost certainly that was thhe way that the abductor entered because being at a dead end and deeply recessed, no-body passed by and no-body could see it unless that personn deliberately moved over from his route in or out across the car park. It was also in almost complete blackness and there was a high wall to bob down bwhind if by great mischance, anyone should suddenly appear. Also an escape rioute in extreme urgency for the fit over the wall into Rua F G Martins [the road that we see Jane Tanner walking up on video]
A robber/abductors paradise route in and out.
Returning to your question, my bet is that quite a percentage of parents , altho they might not admit it now - used to dine out far farther away than the Mccanns from their children.
And this has gone on historically all over the world. Parents relying on the hotels etc to keep a regular watch.
With the advent of mobile phones, my bet is that it became ever more prevalent.
I think that you are out of touch with the real world, stephen. What the Mccanns did, is minimal in realtion to probably millions of other parents who thought the hotel could look afterr their kids. The tapas group could see their apatrtments, did their own regular checks and were within eyesight.
Supremely better than most parents who chose to eat out at a distance and relying on others to do the checks. You are far too hard on The Mccanns
Right Sadie.
Cite the figures of people who have done exactly the same as the mccanns, and............
Have left their children in unlocked accomodation for several hours in a foreign country and went out to wine and dine.
Personal anecdotes don't count.
-
McCanns leave apartment
Jane passes apartment
Matt/Rachel passes apartment
Russ passes apartment
Paynes/Webster passes apartment
Matt passes apartment twice
7 from 8:30 to 9
Gerry goes to apartment
Jane passes apartment twice
Russ/Matt passes apartment
Matt goes into apartment
5 from 9 to 9:30
Jane passes apartment
Russ passes apartment
Kate goes to apartment
3 from 9:35 to alarm raised time
It works out on average that every 5 or 6 minutes somebody from the group went inside or passed that apartment.
That is a different list to Dr Sargentos. His list as specified came to 7 or 8 times.
Your list talks about passing the apartment. Nobody apart from Matt went anywhere near Madeleines window or the front door, both of which were in near darkness. No big lamps a la Pat Brown then. No trees cut down to let in the light then, a la Pat Brown. The front door particularily was in deep blackness. IIRC the front door lamp had been broken. Please correct me if I am wrong.
With the darkness in that parking area and the area of 5A front door and window, and the path diagonally across the parking lot, making them beyond perferal vision [see Heris scientific report on periferal vision] nobody would notice any quiet goings on there. And, of course there was a wall that anyone could bob down behind if anyone crossed thye parking lot.
It seems very likely that there was a watcher either on the side balcony of block 6 (as in Sadies Theory, now hidden in other stuff so impossible to find.... Strange that Pathfinders very unlikely Theory has its own thread!)) or possibly a moving watcher in the alleyway between blocks 4 and 5, as I think SIL suggested. The watcher could easily signal, using a fine beamed torch or even a cigaret lighter if there was danger of anyone coming.
The actual pick up of Madeleine could have been done, in and out, within a minute. There were plenty of gaps of 10 minutes or more.
I think the most sensible, therefore likely, time was immediately Gerry left.
The sighting of Tannerman co-incides perfectly with this time. Also Matt thought that the childrens bedroom was a bit light, maybe coming in from outside.
This kinda backs up the timing of abduction being after Gerry left.
This is also why I find it difficult to believe that a few people deny an abduction could have happened. Plenty of time for it with the right organisation and set up
-
I wasn't shouting.
So can you provide cited figures as to how many people have done exactly the same as the mccanns ?
and then perhaps, give figures for how many people have never done what they did.
Capital letters is considered to be shouting!
Can you provide proof that no-one has ever gone out leaving a door/window unlocked while their children were left asleep inside? Of course you can't so why ask such silly questions - unless it's just to deflect?
The fact that the Listening Service is offered is proof in itself of the scale of the nos of parents who have used it and want to continue using it. It has obviously been a very popular service because it has lasted for decades. If it wasn't popular with parents - it would have died out long ago.
Common sense please.
-
Right Sadie.
Cite the figures of people who have done exactly the same as the mccanns, and............
Have left their children in unlocked accomodation for several hours in a foreign country and went out to wine and dine.
Personal anecdotes don't count.
Please do not falsify facts stephen.
They did NOT go out. They were in the grounds to their hotel/apartments
Common observation of others + the fact that hotels arranged checks on bedrooms confirm what I am saying.
In other words use your common sense, of which I imagine you have plenty when you are willing tro use it. IMO, your hatred of The Mccanns influences your reasoning, Stephen
-
Please do not falsify facts stephen.
They did NOT go out. They were in the grounds to their hotel/apartments
Common observation of others + the fact that hotels arranged checks on bedrooms confirm what I am saying.
In other words use your common sense, of which I imagine you have plenty when you are willing tro use it. IMO, your hatred of The Mccanns influences your reasoning, Stephen
They were not in the garden.
They were not in the apartment.
The children were left in unlocked accomodation in a foreign country, for 5 successive evenings, whilst they wined and dined.
Mostly unverified checks.
and of course they locked the apartment during the daytime to protect their valuables, though obviously doing the same in the evening was not on their agenda.
Their behaviour was illogical.
As to the mccanns themselves, it isn't hatred, merely contempt.
-
Capital letters is considered to be shouting!
Can you provide proof that no-one has ever gone out leaving a door/window unlocked while their children were left asleep inside? Of course you can't so why ask such silly questions - unless it's just to deflect?
The fact that the Listening Service is offered is proof in itself of the scale of the nos of parents who have used it and want to continue using it. It has obviously been a very popular service because it has lasted for decades. If it wasn't popular with parents - it would have died out long ago.
Common sense please.
8@??)(
And in this case, the front door needed a key to open it and only unliocked door was the patio door, which as you know was overlooked by the Tapas group dining only 50 metres away. Amaral said that NO abductor/intruder would have dared enter by the patio door with it being so close and also illuminated by the street lamp opposite.
-
They were not in the garden.
They were not in the apartment.
The children were left in unlocked accomodation in a foreign country, for 5 successive evenings, whilst they wined and dined.
Mostly unverified checks.
and of course they locked the apartment during the daytime to protect their valuables, though obviously doing the same in the evening was not on their agenda.
Their behaviour was illogical.
As to the mccanns themselves, it isn't hatred, merely contempt.
i have watched the Cd's ...made by Richard hall .....and i can categorically say the time line will be blown right out
of the water with ..it will show there was no abduction ...
sorry stephen ...it some how ended up in your post
-
Jane wasn't there. Fiona and Dianne mentioned no time on 4th May. Dianne had caught up in her second interview and gave 10pm. Fiona gave 9.45 to 10pm in her Rog. interview. Of the group, the Paynes/Webster gave very few times in any of their statements.
In the second interviews Gerry's time was now 10.13pm. Russell stayed with 10pm, Matthew and Rachael had moved the time to slightly before 10pm. (9.50 Matt, 9.55-10 Rachael). There's now a difference of around 20 minutes between Matt and Gerry.
so Gerry, one of the key collaborators decides to shaft the rest of the collaborators by changing the time to 10.13pm, how very mysterious... &%+((£
-
No worries Xtina.
-
so Gerry, one of the key collaborators decides to shaft the rest of the collaborators by changing the time to 10.13pm, how very mysterious... &%+((£
It's a fact, that's all. From a unanimous time of 10pm one person is now moving it later, others are moving it earlier. Various explanations can be assumed, from a deliberate intention to just not remembering. I don't know why it happened, but it did.
-
It can be stated as a fact by the people involved. Or do you have proof that Kate was not being truthful?
proof of not being truthful can only be established when all the evidence is collated and presented.
There is no physical evidence that the window was jemmied.
There is no physical evidence of someone entering via the window.
There is no physical evidence of anyone exiting the window with a child in arms.
There is no independent witness statement of anyone seeing anything afore mentioned take place.
If Kate wants state as a fact, without evidence, then she is open to questioning, and should offer up evidence to back this up... to prove she is not making it up...in the absence of any evidence being present, then it is not unreasonable for accusations that this is a made up story whether it was stated as a fact or not.
It is also strange that she was there with the window story as an entry/ exit story for the press, but then it sneaked out that there was another exit/ entry via an unlocked door!
The window version would place an intruder/abductor in the minds of many as the only way to account for Maddies Disappearance, however the unlocked door was offering up different scenarios. accidental death, abduction via a open door, walked and wandered. You can see quite clearly why the 'window' scenario was pushed.
PR darling, PR.
-
proof of not being truthful can only be established when all the evidence is collated and presented.
There is no physical evidence that the window was jemmied.
There is no physical evidence of someone entering via the window.
There is no physical evidence of anyone exiting the window with a child in arms.
There is no independent witness statement of anyone seeing anything afore mentioned take place.
If Kate wants state as a fact, without evidence, then she is open to questioning, and should offer up evidence to back this up... to prove she is not making it up...in the absence of any evidence being present, then it is not unreasonable for accusations that this is a made up story whether it was stated as a fact or not.
It is also strange that she was there with the window story as an entry/ exit story for the press, but then it sneaked out that there was another exit/ entry via an unlocked door!
The window version would place an intruder/abductor in the minds of many as the only way to account for Maddies Disappearance, however the unlocked door was offering up different scenarios. accidental death, abduction via a open door, walked and wandered. You can see quite clearly why the 'window' scenario was pushed.
PR darling, PR.
Libel, Darling, Libel.
-
Libel, Darling, Libel.
There is nothing libelous about my post. And if it were, then bring it on in court because she would then have to prove that I had commited liable by...providing physical evidence to back up her statement...hmmm
Not going to happen is it...hahaha
-
There is nothing libelous about my post. And if it were, then bring it on in court because she would then have to prove that I had commited liable by...providing physical evidence to back up her statement...hmmm
Not going to happen is it...hahaha
No she wouldn't have to prove it.
-
There is nothing libelous about my post. And if it were, then bring it on in court because she would then have to prove that I had commited liable by...providing physical evidence to back up her statement...hmmm
Not going to happen is it...hahaha
Would that be more or less difficult than proving that Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine, I wonder.
-
Would that be more or less difficult than proving that Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine, I wonder.
In a libel case in the uk the plaintif does not have to prove anything
-
In UK law the plaintiff must prove the defendent made a defamatory or false statement.
-
In UK law the plaintiff must prove the defendent made a defamatory or false statement.
The plaintiff does not have to prove anything... It is self evident if a statement is defamatory
The plaintif does not have to prove it is false
You do not understand libel law
-
In UK law the plaintiff must prove the defendent made a defamatory or false statement.
and there you have it... They do have to prove I was wrong in claiming there was no physical evidence of any window being jemmied by providing evidence that what they claimed was true.
and there aint nun... sooooo
There is also my human right to question where my tax is being used and for what purpose, there is also my freedom to express an opinion... oh tusks what they gonna do now....
-
The plaintiff does not have to prove anything... It is self evident if a statement is defamatory
The plaintif does not have to prove it is false
You do not understand libel law
Thank You, Davel.
-
and there you have it... They do have to prove I was wrong in claiming there was no physical evidence of any window being jemmied by providing evidence that what they claimed was true.
and there aint nun... sooooo
There is also my human right to question where my tax is being used and for what purpose, there is also my freedom to express an opinion... oh tusks what they gonna do now....
No they don't have to prove it. You are wrong. Again.
-
There is no evidence the window was open, other than saying it was.
No forensic Back up and let's remember the words of Mitchell.
No evidence of a break-in , in the apartment.
-
There is no evidence the window was open, other than saying it was.
No forensic Back up and let's remember the words of Mitchell.
No evidence of a break-in , in the apartment.
For the second time:
There was no evidence that Ben Needhams grandparents were nearby in the house, but you have never challenged that.
Any unbiased person is prepared to take some things as read, unless there is proof otherwise .... but not you, stephen when it comes to the Mccanns
-
There is no evidence the window was open, other than saying it was.
No forensic Back up and let's remember the words of Mitchell.
No evidence of a break-in , in the apartment.
So if you came home and found an empty space where your TV was when you went out - and the police couldn't find any forensic evidence of a break in - would you expect them to insist that no burglary ever took place?
Common sense please.
-
There is no evidence the window was open, other than saying it was.
No forensic Back up and let's remember the words of Mitchell.
No evidence of a break-in , in the apartment.
Exactly.
UK law is different. Civil law is different from criminal law.
-
So if you came home and found an empty space where your TV was when you went out - and the police couldn't find any forensic evidence of a break in - would you expect them to insist that no burglary ever took place?
Common sense please.
You do not know the mccanns told the truth.
Now provide independent verification the window was open before 10 pm, and the shutters were altered/jemmied.
As it stands, the only identified fingerprints were kate mccanns.
-
For the second time:
There was no evidence that Ben Needhams grandparents were nearby in the house, but you have never challenged that.
Any unbiased person is prepared to take some things as read, unless there is proof otherwise .... but not you, stephen when it comes to the Mccanns
WSe are not talking about Ben Needhams case.
That would be on a separate thread.
-
So if you came home and found an empty space where your TV was when you went out - and the police couldn't find any forensic evidence of a break in - would you expect them to insist that no burglary ever took place?
Common sense please.
Some people can also pretend there was a break in to claim on Insurance, and don't bother saying it doesn't happen.
-
In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory.
The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]
-
You do not know the mccanns told the truth.
Now provide independent verification the window was open before 10 pm, and the shutters were altered/jemmied.
As it stands, the only identified fingerprints were kate mccanns.
The McCanns do not have to prove anything.
-
Some people can also pretend there was a break in to claim on Insurance, and don't bother saying it doesn't happen.
I was assuming that you would not be that type of dishonest person Stephen? I was asking you whether (having reported the theft of your TV from your home to the police) , you would accept their conclusion that as no evidence of a break in had been found - then no burglary could have taken place.
That is the principle you are applying to the McCanns isn't it?
-
The McCanns do not have to prove anything.
It would have to be proved in court that someone carried out an abduction, and that looks rather unlikely .
Doesn't it.
-
I was assuming that you would not be that type of dishonest person Stephen? I was asking you whether (having reported the theft of your TV from your home to the police) , you would accept their conclusion that as no evidence of a break in had been found - then no burglary could have taken place.
That is the principle you are applying to the McCanns isn't it?
Why would I be dishonest Benice ?
Any break-in needs evidence.
Otherwise no potential offender can be taken to court.
Secondly, as you well know, in cases of abduction the parents are automatically investigated.
Which means of course, the police would not assume automatically people were telling the truth.
-
It would have to be proved in court that someone carried out an abduction, and that looks rather unlikely .
Doesn't it.
Better tell that to Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria ... they believe an abduction occurred ... and have backed that up by looking for an abductor.
So in effect you could add them to the list of those who believe the McCann version of events.
-
Better tell that to Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria ... they believe an abduction occurred ... and have backed that up by looking for an abductor.
So in effect you could add them to the list of those who believe the McCann version of events.
...and they have found ZIP.
Next.
-
It would have to be proved in court that someone carried out an abduction, and that looks rather unlikely .
Doesn't it.
Not necessarily.
-
Why would I be dishonest Benice ?
Any break-in needs evidence.
Otherwise no potential offender can be taken to court.
Secondly, as you well know, in cases of abduction the parents are automatically investigated.
Which means of course, the police would not assume automatically people were telling the truth.
Sigh ... when did anyone say the parents should not be investigated in a child abduction case ??? The problem arises when they have been exhaustively investigated. Have been charged with no offence of any kind. There are still people asking why people like themselves do not believe them?
I would imagine Stephen would have a far superior knowledge of the reasons why than many others would as he chooses to post his 'answers' many times each day. So who needs to start a thread about it?
-
In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory.
The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]
"the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory".
There you have it. Thank you Alice.
So to claim my statement was defamatory i.e no evidence of any entry /exit- with abductor carryng a child- would be great to listen to in court.
-
"the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory".
There you have it. Thank you Alice.
So to claim my statement was defamatory i.e no evidence of any entry /exit- with abductor carryng a child- would be great to listen to in court.
The problem you may have with that is that there is an eye witness statement to that effect.
Whoops! ... forgot you like to cherry pick the witnesses you choose to believe and those you choose not to believe.
-
You do not know the mccanns told the truth.
Now provide independent verification the window was open before 10 pm, and the shutters were altered/jemmied.
As it stands, the only identified fingerprints were kate mccanns.
Don't need to provide anything
As in the Needhams case the police have decided the family are not involved
Please ask for a cite if you need one
-
Sigh ... when did anyone say the parents should not be investigated in a child abduction case ??? The problem arises when they have been exhaustively investigated. Have been charged with no offence of any kind. There are still people asking why people like themselves do not believe them?
I would imagine Stephen would have a far superior knowledge of the reasons why than many others would as he chooses to post his 'answers' many times each day. So who needs to start a thread about it?
Sigh, sigh and sigh again.
No matter how much you want to bleat, no abductor has been found, or by what Madeleine disappeared from the apartment.
-
The problem you may have with that is that there is an eye witness statement to that effect.
Whoops! ... forgot you like to cherry pick the witnesses you choose to believe and those you choose not to believe.
Oh sigh again.
Someone standing outside a building and looking at it does not mean abduction.
-
The problem you may have with that is that there is an eye witness statement to that effect.
Whoops! ... forgot you like to cherry pick the witnesses you choose to believe and those you choose not to believe.
Independant eye witness? really oh... I mean by that someone not related to the tapas group. And what per chance did this eye witness, witness exactly?
Window being jemmied ? intruder entering-then exiting with a child? ANY or ALL of this?
Sorry I missed all of that.Wonder why Amaral left that out of his book, and the investigation. &%+((£
-
So if you came home and found an empty space where your TV was when you went out - and the police couldn't find any forensic evidence of a break in - would you expect them to insist that no burglary ever took place?
Common sense please.
Wouldn't that depend upon the way you left the house? Locked or unlocked? Burglary of a locked house surely requires some evidence of forced entry?
-
Wouldn't that depend upon the way you left the house? Locked or unlocked? Burglary of a locked house surely requires some evidence of forced entry?
Locks can be picked
-
Wouldn't that depend upon the way you left the house? Locked or unlocked? Burglary of a locked house surely requires some evidence of forced entry?
Indeed, but if you planned the 'burglary yourself' to make a fraudulent claim, then you would open a window and claim this as entry /exit?
...But then a really smart insuance detective would wonder why there is no marks on the white wall or foot prints on the ground or scrape marks on the window. See always someone wanting to put their boot in a bloody good well thought out story. Mind you if the insurance guy was a blinded idiot he would buy that story...
...but then again after further questioning, it was mentioned that a door was left unlocked then the claim would be made null and void- own fault kind of thing.
The devil is in the detail.
-
Indeed, but if you planned the 'burglary yourself' to make a fraudulent claim, then you would open a window and claim this as entry /exit?
...But then a really smart insuance detective would wonder why there is no marks on the white wall or foot prints on the ground or scrape marks on the window. See always someone wanting to put their boot in a bloody good well thought out story. Mind you if the insurance guy was a blinded idiot he would buy that story...
...but then again after further questioning, it was mentioned that a door was left unlocked then the claim would be made null and void- own fault kind of thing.
The devil is in the detail.
but as we know the mccanns are not suspects then we know SY believe the parents
-
but as we know the mccanns are not suspects then we know SY believe the parents
But do we know IF they 'believe' the parents version of an abduction . i.e. from a jemmied window? Hmmmm I would guess no. Believing something does not make it true. But you know that anyway.
-
But do we know IF they 'believe' the parents version of an abduction . i.e. from a jemmied window? Hmmmm I would guess no. Believing something does not make it true. But you know that anyway.
I think we can say that with the McCanns eliminated that maddie was abducted but the details are not clear
-
You can say what you like - its a free forum.
-
You can say what you like - its a free forum.
No I cannot
-
It's a fact, that's all. From a unanimous time of 10pm one person is now moving it later, others are moving it earlier. Various explanations can be assumed, from a deliberate intention to just not remembering. I don't know why it happened, but it did.
And yet somehow Op Grange have managed to piece together a workable timeline which reveals that there was a windowof opportunity for a stranger abductor to strike, How very galling for you!
-
Doesn't seem to have led anywhere, though. Perhaps its not quite right.
-
Doesn't seem to have led anywhere, though. Perhaps its not quite right.
I think Andy did say "could have" and not "did".
-
Doesn't seem to have led anywhere, though. Perhaps its not quite right.
What do you care anyway?
-
Oh I'm as eager to see a solution as the next person.
-
And yet somehow Op Grange have managed to piece together a workable timeline which reveals that there was a windowof opportunity for a stranger abductor to strike, How very galling for you!
Why would that be galling for me? It's really quite simple. I can find a window of opportunity in the group's timeline too. That means nothing if it's wrong though.
-
Wouldn't that depend upon the way you left the house? Locked or unlocked? Burglary of a locked house surely requires some evidence of forced entry?
I trust you are not suggesting that in order for a burglary to occur, the premises must be locked?
-
Why would that be galling for me? It's really quite simple. I can find a window of opportunity in the group's timeline too. That means nothing if it's wrong though.
The Met have spent considerable resources on establishing the correct timeline, yet you beleve you know better, that is what sticks in your pipe.
-
The Met have spent considerable resources on establishing the correct timeline, yet you beleve you know better, that is what sticks in your pipe.
Yet with this time line they have achieved.......
-
The Met have spent considerable resources on establishing the correct timeline, yet you beleve you know better, that is what sticks in your pipe.
Now you don't know that for sure do you? They have built a timeline BASED on what information they have been told. If the timeline was accurate and truthfull there would have been no real need for them to change it? make it fit a different scenario from the Tapas? Jane Tanner did not see the abductor. Years we had to listen to that story.
-
Now you don't know that for sure do you? They have built a timeline BASED on what information they have been told. If the timeline was accurate and truthfull there would have been no real need for them to change it? make it fit a different scenario from the Tapas? Jane Tanner did not see the abductor. Years we had to listen to that story.
I would say the judgement made by SY as to whether the McCanns are telling the truth would be more reliable than the lie detectors some posters put so much faith in
-
The Met have spent considerable resources on establishing the correct timeline, yet you beleve you know better, that is what sticks in your pipe.
How do you know that? They may have just lifted it straight from the PJ Files.
-
Now you don't know that for sure do you? They have built a timeline BASED on what information they have been told. If the timeline was accurate and truthfull there would have been no real need for them to change it? make it fit a different scenario from the Tapas? Jane Tanner did not see the abductor. Years we had to listen to that story.
I was just reading Sadie's theory which is built around the Tanner sighting. Of course Tannerman is no more. We now have nice friendly drumroll......................'Crecheman!' carrying his own child.
-
I was just reading Sadie's theory which is built around the Tanner sighting. Of course Tannerman is no more. We now have nice friendly drumroll......................'Crecheman!' carrying his own child.
... on a cold night with no blanket or socks being carried like a dead body to be placed on a grave/alter. Something still not quite right about that situation. I don't believe he is an abductor, but sommething just doesn't add up.
-
Perhaps he never existed at all and its all one giant game of bluff (blind man variety)
-
Perhaps he never existed at all and its all one giant game of bluff (blind man variety)
maybe it was the spotty man from here!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqAksFdiKzo
-
Perhaps he never existed at all and its all one giant game of bluff (blind man variety)
lol whoooosh. I have always been perplexed by his 'sighting'. sneaking into the night carrying a child that way. If it was from a creche then surely they would know it gets cold at night, and would have at least a blanket to wrap around the child. and socks? children in creche are usually requested to wear socks and slippers/trainers was the child taken into the creche like that? Hmmm.
-
Perhaps he never existed at all and its all one giant game of bluff (blind man variety)
Could be. The original story didn't seem very believable and neither did the one to replace him, but at least he's gone now. Allowing the time to move on....tick....tock....etc.
-
I trust you are not suggesting that in order for a burglary to occur, the premises must be locked?
Does for breaking and entering.
-
The power of the press of the time to mould and form the opinions which are still held by some today should never be underestimated.
None more so than the Express Newspapers... who suffered financial penalties and issued a front page apology for printing lies about the Drs McCann.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ExpressMcCannsarelying.gif)
Despite that and revelations by the editor at the time about the circumstances and the sources of many of the stories and headlines there are still those who have never forgotten or relinquished the acknowledged errors of the past.
The title of this thread is witness to that.
Peter Hill: 'I did too much on the Madeleine McCann story'
Roy Greenslade
Monday 21 February 2011 07.00 GMT Last modified on Sunday 10 January 2016 10.59 GMT
**Snip
Peter Hill has pulled off that most difficult of tricks in the media world.
He has managed to maintain a low profile despite being at the centre of several controversies and attracting considerable criticism during his seven years as editor of the Daily Express.
He has also achieved the rare distinction in national newspapers of choosing to retire rather than being axed. Friday evening was his last in the Express chair, and marked the end of a journalistic career stretching back 50 years.
**Snip
... But he is contrite about the sad episode that ended with Express Newspapers being landed with one of the most expensive legal bills in newspaper history – the coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Hill's paper and its three other titles, the Daily Star, Sunday Express and Daily Star Sunday.
He says: "I did too much on the story. I accept that."
Too much wasn't the only problem though.
There were also the stories that suggested Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, might have been complicit in her disappearance, which in its apology Express Newspapers admitted were "seriously defamatory".
Asked whether he regretted libelling the McCanns, he replies: "Of course I do. And I insisted on apologising on the front of the newspaper when it became clear that it was a complete fabrication. We gave them £500,000. It doesn't redound to my credit but it did help them to continue the search."
Leaking stories
So why did it happen?
"It was a huge story, and every adult in the country had an opinion on it.
I admit it helped to sell the paper.
There were many factors involved, such as the way Maddy's parents sought publicity in an unprecedented way.
"All the way through, our principal focus was on 'what's happened to Maddy?'
The Portuguese police and British legal sources were leaking stories that implied the McCanns were guilty in some way.
We were not to know that the Portuguese police were ineffectual and, in some cases, corrupt."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/21/peter-hill-daily-express-madeleine-mccann
-
... on a cold night with no blanket or socks being carried like a dead body to be placed on a grave/alter. Something still not quite right about that situation. I don't believe he is an abductor, but sommething just doesn't add up.
Of course it doesn't add up like everything else in this sordid little case
-
The power of the press of the time to mould and form the opinions which are still held by some today should never be underestimated.
None more so than the Express Newspapers... who suffered financial penalties and issued a front page apology for printing lies about the Drs McCann.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ExpressMcCannsarelying.gif)
Despite that and revelations by the editor at the time about the circumstances and the sources of many of the stories and headlines there are still those who have never forgotten or relinquished the acknowledged errors of the past.
The title of this thread is witness to that.
Peter Hill: 'I did too much on the Madeleine McCann story'
Roy Greenslade
Monday 21 February 2011 07.00 GMT Last modified on Sunday 10 January 2016 10.59 GMT
**Snip
Peter Hill has pulled off that most difficult of tricks in the media world.
He has managed to maintain a low profile despite being at the centre of several controversies and attracting considerable criticism during his seven years as editor of the Daily Express.
He has also achieved the rare distinction in national newspapers of choosing to retire rather than being axed. Friday evening was his last in the Express chair, and marked the end of a journalistic career stretching back 50 years.
**Snip
... But he is contrite about the sad episode that ended with Express Newspapers being landed with one of the most expensive legal bills in newspaper history – the coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Hill's paper and its three other titles, the Daily Star, Sunday Express and Daily Star Sunday.
He says: "I did too much on the story. I accept that."
Too much wasn't the only problem though.
There were also the stories that suggested Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, might have been complicit in her disappearance, which in its apology Express Newspapers admitted were "seriously defamatory".
Asked whether he regretted libelling the McCanns, he replies: "Of course I do. And I insisted on apologising on the front of the newspaper when it became clear that it was a complete fabrication. We gave them £500,000. It doesn't redound to my credit but it did help them to continue the search."
Leaking stories
So why did it happen?
"It was a huge story, and every adult in the country had an opinion on it.
I admit it helped to sell the paper.
There were many factors involved, such as the way Maddy's parents sought publicity in an unprecedented way.
"All the way through, our principal focus was on 'what's happened to Maddy?'
The Portuguese police and British legal sources were leaking stories that implied the McCanns were guilty in some way.
We were not to know that the Portuguese police were ineffectual and, in some cases, corrupt."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/21/peter-hill-daily-express-madeleine-mccann
Hmm.
-
Does for breaking and entering.
Not correct. Breaking and entering simply requires force (no matter how small) to be used. Pushing open a door would suffice.
-
How do you know that? They may have just lifted it straight from the PJ Files.
I know it because they have told us that the timeline has been subjected to "forensic" scrutiny. If you think that means they simply alighted on tne scrawled timeline as put together by members of the McCanns group that night, that is your problem. Perhaps you can let us know why you believe Operation Grange is intent on deceiving us at every opportunity?
-
I know it because they have told us that the timeline has been subjected to "forensic" scrutiny. If you think that means they simply alighted on tne scrawled timeline as put together by members of the McCanns group that night, that is your problem. Perhaps you can let us know why you believe Operation Grange is intent on deceiving us at every opportunity?
You seem to think I'm accusing Operation Grange of deliberately deceiving the public. I haven't said that because I don't think they did any such thing. They looked at the timeline between 8.20pm and 10pm and found gaps where an abduction could have happened. That's not difficult. Did they re-examine the witnesses who said the alarm was raised before 10pm? Did they find other witnesses who confirmed the 10pm alarm raising time? I don't know and neither do you.
The careful and critical analysis of the time line has been absolutely key. Primarily, we’re focussed on the area between 8:30 and 10. We know that at 8 thirty, that was the time that Mr and Mrs McCann went down to the Tapas area for their dinner and we know that around 10pm, that was when Mrs McCann found that Madeleine was missing.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/madeleine-crimewatch-2013-english-transcript-pt-3/
Later, 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;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
When questioned about the disappearance, she says she heard about it on that night at about 22.00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millenium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_ROSA.htm
He 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 Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
-
@ alfred
I know it because they have told us that the timeline has been subjected to "forensic" scrutiny. If you think that means they simply alighted on tne scrawled timeline as put together by members of the McCanns group that night, that is your problem. Perhaps you can let us know why you believe Operation Grange is intent on deceiving us at every opportunity?
....................................................
there is no proof that the timeline is true ....the last real sighting of maddie was six hours before she was reported missing
same as the last photo....the sun was not out that day or the day before or the day before that ...it was a dull day ...so why was g mcc wearing sunglasses....in the sun
-
The critical point is...are the McCanns telling the truth.....the fact that they are not suspects means SY believe them...therefore the window was open and Maddie was abducted
-
The critical point is...are the McCanns telling the truth.....the fact that they are not suspects means SY believe them...therefore the window was open and Maddie was abducted
The fact that they are not suspects may be due to the remit which doesn't require SY to decide whether to believe them or not.
-
The critical point is...are the McCanns telling the truth.....the fact that they are not suspects means SY believe them...therefore the window was open and Maddie was abducted
Scary how much rests on a single comment from so long ago.
-
The fact that they are not suspects may be due to the remit which doesn't require SY to decide whether to believe them or not.
the idea that SY would spend 11 million without looking at the parents is totally ridiculous
-
Scary how much rests on a single comment from so long ago.
It isn't based on a single comment.....do you think the McCanns are being investigated...if so what evidence are you basing this on
-
the idea that SY would spend 11 million without looking at the parents is totally ridiculous
Well it didn't come out of their budget, did it? The government has spent that money, not SY. Cameron's stated intent? To help the parents. The remit? To carry out an investigative review as if the abduction occurred in the UK.
A spokesman for Mr Cameron said he wanted to make sure the Government did “all it can to help them”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8508469/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-urge-David-Cameron-to-launch-independent-review.html
-
The fact that they are not suspects may be due to the remit which doesn't require SY to decide whether to believe them or not.
SY still scrutinised/analysed the same files/evidence'/people etc regardless of what the remit was. The evidence they were examining didn't change no matter what the remit was.
If you not claiming that because of their remit SY ignored, hid or destroyed any evidence which emerged during their investigations which pointed to the McCanns - then what are you claiming? I don't get it.
-
Well it didn't come out of their budget, did it? The government has spent that money, not SY. Cameron's stated intent? To help the parents. The remit? To carry out an investigative review as if the abduction occurred in the UK.
A spokesman for Mr Cameron said he wanted to make sure the Government did “all it can to help them”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/8508469/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-urge-David-Cameron-to-launch-independent-review.html
They think it's murder don't they? They were looking for a body. I doubt they think Madeleine was wandering in that wasteland and dropped dead.
"Our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter." BHH
-
You seem to think I'm accusing Operation Grange of deliberately deceiving the public. I haven't said that because I don't think they did any such thing. They looked at the timeline between 8.20pm and 10pm and found gaps where an abduction could have happened. That's not difficult. Did they re-examine the witnesses who said the alarm was raised before 10pm? Did they find other witnesses who confirmed the 10pm alarm raising time? I don't know and neither do you.
The careful and critical analysis of the time line has been absolutely key. Primarily, we’re focussed on the area between 8:30 and 10. We know that at 8 thirty, that was the time that Mr and Mrs McCann went down to the Tapas area for their dinner and we know that around 10pm, that was when Mrs McCann found that Madeleine was missing.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/madeleine-crimewatch-2013-english-transcript-pt-3/
Later, 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;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
When questioned about the disappearance, she says she heard about it on that night at about 22.00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millenium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_ROSA.htm
He 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 Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
So what do you think this involves "The careful and critical analysis of the time line has been absolutely key"? Not checking, rechecking, interviewing, reinterviewing and using every tool available be it specially created software, or skilled professional resources?
-
So what do you think this involves "The careful and critical analysis of the time line has been absolutely key"? Not checking, rechecking, interviewing, reinterviewing and using every tool available be it specially created software, or skilled professional resources?
First I cross-check and see which statements corroborate. An example: Russell and the waiter who served him. They both said 9:45 returning to the table. Both agreed on the time. Looking at his statement he said they had left the table before 10. He served the steak just before they left the table so he's a good witness. Matt said Kate left to check at 9:50 which corroborates with his time. Matt had a watch and did all the checks on his children. Rachel never checked.
-
You seem to think I'm accusing Operation Grange of deliberately deceiving the public. I haven't said that because I don't think they did any such thing. They looked at the timeline between 8.20pm and 10pm and found gaps where an abduction could have happened. That's not difficult. Did they re-examine the witnesses who said the alarm was raised before 10pm? Did they find other witnesses who confirmed the 10pm alarm raising time? I don't know and neither do you.
The careful and critical analysis of the time line has been absolutely key. Primarily, we’re focussed on the area between 8:30 and 10. We know that at 8 thirty, that was the time that Mr and Mrs McCann went down to the Tapas area for their dinner and we know that around 10pm, that was when Mrs McCann found that Madeleine was missing.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/madeleine-crimewatch-2013-english-transcript-pt-3/
Later, 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;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
When questioned about the disappearance, she says she heard about it on that night at about 22.00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millenium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_ROSA.htm
He 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 Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
There seem to be a few problems with some of these times, though.
When questioned about the disappearance, she says she heard about it on that night at about 22.00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millenium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_ROSA.htm
But
Concerning the events being investigated, when he was working his normal shift from 16.00 to 24.00 an individual, tall and of British nationality, appeared in the restaurant at about 22.30/22.45, who asked him whether he had seen a little girl who had disappeared, describing her as blonde and three years old and that she was probably wearing pyjamas.
The witness and his colleague, Maria de Fatima, replied that they hadn't, upon which the individual ran out.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID_SANTOS.htm
---
He 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 Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
I can't find a statement by Paul Wortelboer (the owner of the Atlantico) in the files to corroborate that.
---
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
But he also says:
When asked he says that the parents and the other members of the group would arrive between 20.00 and 21.00 but that they would only begin to dine when all of them had arrived.
But the table was booked for 20:30. Did any of the group ever arrive that early?
---
He was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
But he also says just further on:
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
But...
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007. About 5 minutes later the deponent presented himself at the resort, because Lindsay had told him that she had initiated the procedure for missing children used by the company and the child had not been found.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_HILL.htm
Is there any record of Helder calling the GNR between 9:30 and 10:00?
-
So what do you think this involves "The careful and critical analysis of the time line has been absolutely key"? Not checking, rechecking, interviewing, reinterviewing and using every tool available be it specially created software, or skilled professional resources?
yes well the timeline they gave was impossible ....same as the abduction
that is why they changed the timeline over and over again ....wouldn't you have thought ...seeing it was the first thing they did .[not out looking for maddie]...to get there stories right ....[and ripping apart maddies sticker book]...they would have least got it right ...the first time ...
-
yes well the timeline they gave was impossible ....same as the abduction
that is why they changed the timeline over and over again ....wouldn't you have thought ...seeing it was the first thing they did .[not out looking for maddie]...to get there stories right ....[and ripping apart maddies sticker book]...they would have least got it right ...the first time ...
You have it in one Xtina.
..and good policing and investigative work would have pulled their stories apart.
-
Processos Vol X
Pages 2533 - 2534
Service Information
Date: 2007/09/03
For : Goncalo Amaral
From Ricardo Paiva, Inspector
Subject: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
During the course of the ongoing investigation, various personal contacts were made by the undersigned with Kate and Gerald McCann, within my task of serving as communication element between the police and the McCann couple.
Within this context, the undersigned was present during various “strange“ behaviours by the couple, who gradually began to react in a very negative manner to the increased investigative activity carried out by this police force, especially during the use of the English sniffer dogs for detecting cadaver odour, when more evidence arose in the investigation for the hypothesis of the death of Madeleine McCann.
Several times, the McCann couple said that the attention of the police should be maintained focussing on the abduction hypothesis, which, in the couple’s opinion, was the only scenario that occurred and that the police should not forget to continue to investigate the suspect Robert Murat.
Strangely, Kate also made several requests, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine, that the police should take blood, hair and nail tests of Madeleine’s twin siblings, because, as she said, she remembered that on the day of Madeleine’s disappearance, in spite of all the commotion and noise made by the authorities and other persons who were looking for Madeleine in apartment 5ª of the OC, the twins never woke up, having been transported to another apartment, they remained asleep, due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible according to what she read in a criminal investigation manual given to her by the British authorities, that would have been the procedure of the abductor in the real case involving abduction, rape and murder of the girl.
Today, when the undersigned went to the McCann’s temporary residence to notify them of the need to present themselves at the police station to make statements, being able to take their lawyer with them, Kate McCann immediately reacted in a negative manner, making comments such as “what are my parents going to think” and “what is the press going to say when they find out” and that “the Portuguese police is under pressure from the government to finish the investigation quickly”.
With regard to Gerald McCann, he constantly insisted in giving the undersigned letters and emails that he was receiving, mostly from psychics and mediums, whom he had selected and which mainly contained information without much credibility about the possible whereabouts of Madeleine and her presumed abductor.
More recently, and even before Kate’s interrogation, during a telephone call between Gerald McCann and the undersigned, he made a reference regarding the investigation, that he was certain that the police did not have any proof that could incriminate them with regard to the death of Madeleine McCann and he said that the police were wasting their time in directing the investigation around the parents.
I bring this to your knowledge.
Inspector
Ricardo Paiva
-
You have it in one Xtina.
..and good policing and investigative work would have pulled their stories apart.
exactly
i do think anyone with any commonsense would tear there stories apart .....like English police did at the beginning.....but it seems they were told what to do
luckily ...we are not.
-
exactly
i do think anyone with any commonsense would tear there stories apart .....like English police did at the beginning.....but it seems they were told what to do
luckily ...we are not.
Exactly.
-
There seem to be a few problems with some of these times, though.
When questioned about the disappearance, she says she heard about it on that night at about 22.00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millenium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_ROSA.htm
But
Concerning the events being investigated, when he was working his normal shift from 16.00 to 24.00 an individual, tall and of British nationality, appeared in the restaurant at about 22.30/22.45, who asked him whether he had seen a little girl who had disappeared, describing her as blonde and three years old and that she was probably wearing pyjamas.
The witness and his colleague, Maria de Fatima, replied that they hadn't, upon which the individual ran out.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID_SANTOS.htm
---
The only Maria de Fatima's in the files are cleaners, none of whom were at the Millenium at night unless they were there as customers, not colleagues. There could have been more than one person going to the Millenium, did they all know Dan Stuck?
Shortly after he heard the news, a Mark Warner tennis instructor arrived at the Millenium and they went to search for the child together by the swimming pool and tennis courts. As they did not find Madeleine he phoned Luis de Barros, the head waiter who was on his day off to inform him. The latter arrived shortly afterwards and together they searched until about 05.00 AM.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON_RODRIGUEZ.htm
He 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 Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
I can't find a statement by Paul Wortelboer (the owner of the Atlantico) in the files to corroborate that.
---
Neither can I, a serious lack imo
Dinner would end at about 21.45, a few minutes later the witness looked at the table and saw that there was nobody there and one of his colleagues told them that all the guests had left the table in a hurry. In any case, he remembers having heard shouts from the direction of Madeleine's parents' apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
But he also says:
When asked he says that the parents and the other members of the group would arrive between 20.00 and 21.00 but that they would only begin to dine when all of them had arrived.
But the table was booked for 20:30. Did any of the group ever arrive that early?
---
We sat down to eat at 7:30 pm. After about forty five (45) minutes Jerry appeared as did one of his friends. I believe it was Russell. They sat at the next table.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
He was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
But he also says just further on:
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
But...
With regard to the facts of the investigation. Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007. About 5 minutes later the deponent presented himself at the resort, because Lindsay had told him that she had initiated the procedure for missing children used by the company and the child had not been found.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_HILL.htm
Is there any record of Helder calling the GNR between 9:30 and 10:00?
No. His statement should have definitely been revisited by the PJ.
Answers in navy.
-
yes well the timeline they gave was impossible ....same as the abduction
that is why they changed the timeline over and over again ....wouldn't you have thought ...seeing it was the first thing they did .[not out looking for maddie]...to get there stories right ....[and ripping apart maddies sticker book]...they would have least got it right ...the first time ...
An "impossible" timeline that Op Grange have forensically examined and deduced that abduction was a definite possibility. How do you come to terms with that?
-
Hmm.
LOL
Can anyone remember what 'British legal sources' were supposed to have leaked?
I can only recall one topic allegedly involving 'British legal sources': a couple of the T7 were supposedly about to change their story (presented in ominous terms).
In view of the origin of that claim, I very much doubt that there was any such leak (beyond - possibly - someone stating that they would be willing to be reinterviewed if requested to do so).
-
An "impossible" timeline that Op Grange have forensically examined and deduced that abduction was a definite possibility. How do you come to terms with that?
How do you comes to terms with the fact there is no forensic evidence to support abduction and after all the money and time spent, the abduction scenario is at a dead end ?
-
I have just read that before Kate Mccann was made Ambassador for the Missing Person's website, that it had advice not to leave your children alone. That advice is no longer there.
Clearly that is logical advice, so if it has been removed from there, why has it ?
This came from a former poster and Moderator on this forum, CPN, who was a social worker.
-
exactly
i do think anyone with any commonsense would tear there stories apart .....like English police did at the beginning.....but it seems they were told what to do
luckily ...we are not.
LOL when all else fails - claim a conspiracy.
-
@G-Unit
Did Dan Stuck go to the Millenium?
Because it was asked of him, he relates that he knew about the disappearance of little MBM that same night, about 22h20, because he was contacted by a resort worker having attended and participated in the searches.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAN-STUK.htm
Matt did (and he's tall).
And so we, erm, I volunteered to go up to the, erm, I went up to the Millennium Restaurant because it was just one of the routes that I thought she might have taken, although I couldn't say why I thought she would because we'd only been there once on that night before and maybe she'd been for the restaurant, so we'd only been at the initial welcoming, that was the only time that we went for that meal in the evening because the food wasn't great there, it wasn't quite up to the MARK WARNER resorts of, but anyway, so we did other things and that's why we liked the Tapas, so there was no reason really why she'd have gone up there, but it was a, just a different route.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-
@G-Unit
Did Dan Stuck go to the Millenium?
Because it was asked of him, he relates that he knew about the disappearance of little MBM that same night, about 22h20, because he was contacted by a resort worker having attended and participated in the searches.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAN-STUK.htm
Matt did (and he's tall).
And so we, erm, I volunteered to go up to the, erm, I went up to the Millennium Restaurant because it was just one of the routes that I thought she might have taken, although I couldn't say why I thought she would because we'd only been there once on that night before and maybe she'd been for the restaurant, so we'd only been at the initial welcoming, that was the only time that we went for that meal in the evening because the food wasn't great there, it wasn't quite up to the MARK WARNER resorts of, but anyway, so we did other things and that's why we liked the Tapas, so there was no reason really why she'd have gone up there, but it was a, just a different route.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Nelson said a tennis coach went up there. and as I knew Dan was around I assumed it could have been him (he's tall and blond). Someone saw him and some others in a car later (Russell?) one of whom could have been Nelson from the Millenium. so there could have been three men at the Millenium; one at 10pm, then Matt at 10.30pm and a tennis coach with no time given.
-
I have just read that before Kate Mccann was made Ambassador for the Missing Person's website, that it had advice not to leave your children alone. That advice is no longer there.
Clearly that is logical advice, so if it has been removed from there, why has it ?
Cite....there is no cite
Nothing more than a forum myth being promoted as fact
-
the idea that SY would spend 11 million without looking at the parents is totally ridiculous
There is no evidence that the parents were looked at.
-
There is no evidence that the parents were looked at.
By whom?
-
I have just read that before Kate Mccann was made Ambassador for the Missing Person's website, that it had advice not to leave your children alone. That advice is no longer there.
Clearly that is logical advice, so if it has been removed from there, why has it ?
This came from a former poster and Moderator on this forum, CPN, who was a social worker.
I think is one where you need to provide a cite, Stephen. And people make all sorts of claims on forums, don't they - some claim to be social workers or teachers, or to have a degree in chemisty - all sorts of unproveable stuff......
-
I think is one where you need to provide a cite, Stephen. And people make all sorts of claims on forums, don't they - some claim to be social workers or teachers, or to have a degree in chemisty - all sorts of unproveable stuff......
You can go on Amazon, and ask CPN yourself.
I would trust her judgement, presumably as much as you do the mccanns.
As to unproveable stuff jp, surely mean the 'abduction'.
-
You can go on Amazon, and ask CPN yourself.
I would trust her judgement, presumably as much as you do the mccanns.
As to unproveable stuff jp, surely mean the 'abduction'.
You made the claim - you provide the cite. Or edit your post.
-
You made the claim - you provide the cite. Or edit your post.
There is no need to edit my post.
-
Oh by the way jp, don't you see the irony of having a missing peoples charity, with an ambassador who left her children by themselves ( as did her husband ) whilst they were socializing.
You really could not make it up in terms of sheer irony.
-
There is no need to edit my post.
You made a claim - that the advice had been removed. And you need to back that up - under the rules of this forum. It really is as simple as that.
-
You can go on Amazon, and ask CPN yourself.
I would trust her judgement, presumably as much as you do the mccanns.
As to unproveable stuff jp, surely mean the 'abduction'.
Con on Amazon has confirmed she cannot provide a cite
-
I have just read that before Kate Mccann was made Ambassador for the Missing Person's website, that it had advice not to leave your children alone. That advice is no longer there.
Clearly that is logical advice, so if it has been removed from there, why has it ?
This came from a former poster and Moderator on this forum, CPN, who was a social worker.
I vaguely remember CPN. Was this person a mod on here?
-
I vaguely remember CPN. Was this person a mod on here?
A poster but not a mod
-
I vaguely remember CPN. Was this person a mod on here?
Yes she was Carana.
That can be checked with Admin.
She told me a while ago, why she finished with this forum.
-
You made a claim - that the advice had been removed. And you need to back that up - under the rules of this forum. It really is as simple as that.
Perhaps you should read what I said again.
It does help.
-
Yes she was Carana.
That can be checked with Admin.
She told me a while ago, why she finished with this forum.
She told the whole Amazon forum
Not just you
And she was not a mod
And she says she cannot prove this claim Stephen has made
-
I really cannot think of anyone more qualified than your goodself.
No - about that claim you made concerning the "Missing" website.
Can you back it up - or was that another of your sneaky little fibs?
You really walk into these, don't you.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_et_jump?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdPage=113&cdThread=TxARRMFMXHO30B#CustomerDiscussionsLPIT
You of course don't have to read the link. 8(0(*
That is your option.
-
'I have just read that before Kate Mccann was made Ambassador for the Missing Person's website, that it had advice not to leave your children alone. That advice is no longer there.
Clearly that is logical advice, so if it has been removed from there, why has it ?
This came from a former poster and Moderator on this forum, CPN, who was a social worker.'
-
Oh by the way jp, don't you see the irony of having a missing peoples charity, with an ambassador who left her children by themselves ( as did her husband ) whilst they were socializing.
You really could not make it up in terms of sheer irony.
As a general rule, the very best advisers on how to beat an alcohol problem are reformed alcoholics.
Not that I suggest any parallel between reformed alcoholics and Kate McCann.
There is none.
But as someone who has suffered the trauma of losing a child (we hope!) not permanently under grievous circumstances, she is well placed to be an ambassador for missing children.
-
You really walk into these, don't you.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_et_jump?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdPage=113&cdThread=TxARRMFMXHO30B#CustomerDiscussionsLPIT
You of course don't have to read the link. 8(0(*
That is your option.
That's all you needed to do Stephen. ?{)(**. Just provide the link upon which you are basing your argument so that others can judge the quality of the evidence. I cannot see why you didn't in the first place. But it seems you like to play childish games. Speaks volumes.
-
As a general rule, the very best advisers on how to beat an alcohol problem are reformed alcoholics.
Not that I suggest any parallel between reformed alcoholics and Kate McCann.
There is none.
But as someone who has suffered the trauma of losing a child (we hope!) not permanently under grievous circumstances, she is well placed to be an ambassador for missing children.
An interesting comparison to say the least.
So you are comparing her to an alcoholic.
and there is an expression about being an alcoholic...........
-
'I have just read that before Kate Mccann was made Ambassador for the Missing Person's website, that it had advice not to leave your children alone. That advice is no longer there.
Clearly that is logical advice, so if it has been removed from there, why has it ?
This came from a former poster and Moderator on this forum, CPN, who was a social worker.'
She was not a mod....cite
And no proof of being a social worker
-
That's all you needed to do Stephen. ?{)(**. Just provide the link upon which you are basing your argument so that others can judge the quality of the evidence. I cannot see why you didn't in the first place. But it seems you like to play childish games. Speaks volumes.
I wasn't playing games and references to that forum have been made before.
Easily accessed.
-
I'm sure Admin can confirm any other point.
-
I wasn't playing games and references to that forum have been made before.
Easily accessed.
The rules of this forum are "make a claim - provide a cite" - and by and large this is followed in an adult fashion by most posters here.
You, however, make a claim and expect others to go and find their own cites. This demonstrates a basic lack of respect for your fellow posters and for the courtesy of debate.
You make think it makes you look big and clever - to everyone else it just suggests a lack of intelligence and maturity. ?{)(**
-
The rules of this forum are "make a claim - provide a cite" - and by and large this is followed in an adult fashion by most posters here.
You, however, make a claim and expect others to go and find their own cites. This demonstrates a basic lack of respect for your fellow posters and for the courtesy of debate.
You make think it makes you look big and clever - to everyone else it just suggests a lack of intelligence and maturity. ?{)(**
Hardly jp.
The site is known. Links have been given before.
Posters on here are on there.
As to intelligence jp, the mccanns as you know displayed a clear lack of that in childcare, yet one is appointed as Ambassador to a missing peoples charity.
Meanwhile if you wish to play childish games, so be it. I can't help you with that aspect of your personality.
-
By the way jp, posters like yourself are a prime example of why people don't believe the mccanns story of abduction.
-
By the way jp, posters like yourself are a prime example of why people don't believe the mccanns story of abduction.
What fantastic rubbish logic...you don't believe the McCanns because of people like JP.....do you realise what an absurd statement that is
-
Hardly jp.
The site is known. Links have been given before.
Posters on here are on there.
As to intelligence jp, the mccanns as you know displayed a clear lack of that in childcare, yet one is appointed as Ambassador to a missing peoples charity.
Meanwhile if you wish to play childish games, so be it. I can't help you with that aspect of your personality.
Makes no difference - its a forum rule for a very good reason.
But I can see why you like that site. I take it you are "watcher" .......
8(0(* 8(0(* *&*%£
-
What fantastic rubbish logic...you don't believe the McCanns because of people like JP.....do you realise what an absurd statement that is
Good topic.
-
Makes no difference - its a forum rule for a very good reason.
But I can see why you like that site. I take it you are "watcher" .......
8(0(* 8(0(* *&*%£
Nope.
keep trying.
-
What fantastic rubbish logic...you don't believe the McCanns because of people like JP.....do you realise what an absurd statement that is
I very much doubt it! ?{)(**
-
Nope.
Pkeep trying.
@)(++(*
-
Makes no difference - its a forum rule for a very good reason.
But I can see why you like that site. I take it you are "watcher" .......
8(0(* 8(0(* *&*%£
I've already told CPN to use Wayback Machine to find what she wants. There are 308 grabs of full site info going back to before KM got involved with Missing Persons. Seems some people are just too lazy to do their own research.
-
Because there is no evidence of it.
Same as there is no evidence of parental involvement.
Or that a purple 2 headed sheep took her.
Or ANYTHING except that the child is now gone. I feel pretty much any theory is as valid as the next, given there is no proof of any scenario actually happening. This is why I find the whole case so..fascinating.
-
Because there is no evidence of it.
Same as there is no evidence of parental involvement.
Or that a purple 2 headed sheep took her.
Or ANYTHING except that the child is now gone. I feel pretty much any theory is as valid as the next, given there is no proof of any scenario actually happening. This is why I find the whole case so..fascinating.
so let's explore the purple 2 headed sheep theory.
-
so let's explore the purple 2 headed sheep theory.
The purple 2 headed sheep theory is more likely than 'the parents dunnit' to me tbh. Mainly as if the parents did anything..I don't see why they would continually bring it up in the press...they could have buried this years ago but they chose to keep themselves/Maddie in the spotlight. As such, it makes no sense for them to be involved. To me anyway.
-
The purple 2 headed sheep theory is more likely than 'the parents dunnit' to me tbh. Mainly as if the parents did anything..I don't see why they would continually bring it up in the press...they could have buried this years ago but they chose to keep themselves/Maddie in the spotlight. As such, it makes no sense for them to be involved. To me anyway.
So you don't think the parents dunnit, which means that iyo they have suffered an enormous loss, but you still feel it necessary to criticise and lambast them. You're the worst sort of McCann basher IMO, at least the McCanns Dunnot brigade have the excuse that they think the parents committed a serious crime.
-
So you don't think the parents dunnit, which means that iyo they have suffered an enormous loss, but you still feel it necessary to criticise and lambast them. You're the worst sort of McCann basher IMO, at least the McCanns Dunnot brigade have the excuse that they think the parents committed a serious crime.
Yes, why on earth not? They were selfish and they put those kids in danger just so they could enjoy themselves. They have never yet admitted they were wrong...the complete opposite infact. As it is unlikely the McCanns personally will ever read my opinion, nor care about it...I don't feel bad for sharing it. Seems to be a lot of their hardcore supporters who think they are beyond criticism though, despite them putting themselves in this position. Confuses me a bit tbh
LOL at McCann basher though 8)--))
-
Yes, why on earth not? They were selfish and they put those kids in danger just so they could enjoy themselves. They have never yet admitted they were wrong...the complete opposite infact. As it is unlikely the McCanns personally will ever read my opinion, nor care about it...I don't feel bad for sharing it. Seems to be a lot of their hardcore supporters who think they are beyond criticism though, despite them putting themselves in this position. Confuses me a bit tbh
It's just so sanctimonious and boring tbh. It's obvious that people get something out of airing their views about the McCanns, some gratuitous frisson of self-importance or something which I totally don't understand at all. These are victims of a crime, who did a stupid thing yes, but thousands of people delight in slagging them off remorselessly year in year out, and will probably continue doing so for many years to come. there must be some fascinating psychological reason for it, but I'm not sure what it is..
-
It's just so sanctimonious and boring tbh. It's obvious that people get something out of airing their views about the McCanns, some gratuitous frisson of self-importance or something which I totally don't understand at all. These are victims of a crime, who did a stupid thing yes, but thousands of people delight in slagging them off remorselessly year in year out, and will probably continue doing so for many years to come. there must be some fascinating psychological reason for it, but I'm not sure what it is..
I certainly don't delight in slagging them off. I will however argue with those who try to make out they were perfect loving parents who were just the victim of a predator. When the fact is, they did it to themselves by being selfish and not thinking of the kids.
I admit though there is a small possibility they are involved in it all. I just can't understand a lot of their actions since if they were. And again, there is no proof for ANY scenario. I just think abduction..is the most likely theory as nothing else makes much sense.
-
It's just so sanctimonious and boring tbh. It's obvious that people get something out of airing their views about the McCanns, some gratuitous frisson of self-importance or something which I totally don't understand at all. These are victims of a crime, who did a stupid thing yes, but thousands of people delight in slagging them off remorselessly year in year out, and will probably continue doing so for many years to come. there must be some fascinating psychological reason for it, but I'm not sure what it is..
Fear, Love. Fear of not always being Perfect Parents themselves. So let's bash someone else who wasn't. And then they can forget that they weren't always perfect.
-
I certainly don't delight in slagging them off. I will however argue with those who try to make out they were perfect loving parents who were just the victim of a predator. When the fact is, they did it to themselves by being selfish and not thinking of the kids.
I admit though there is a small possibility they are involved in it all. I just can't understand a lot of their actions since if they were. And again, there is no proof for ANY scenario. I just think abduction..is the most likely theory as nothing else makes much sense.
Who here has stated they were perfect? It is possible to be loving and IMperfect. I am not a perfect parent but I love my kids more than anything else in the world, now doubt you would tell me I didn't if you heard about all the shockingly careless decisions I have made over the years concerning their upbringing.
-
Who here has stated they were perfect? It is possible to be loving and IMperfect. I am not a perfect parent but I love my kids more than anything else in the world, now doubt you would tell me I didn't if you heard about all the shockingly careless decisions I have made over the years concerning their upbringing.
Maybe, but its still just my opinion at the end of the day so who even cares. For everyone who thinks they were wrong, there is someone who thinks they are right.
-
The purple 2 headed sheep theory is more likely than 'the parents dunnit' to me tbh. Mainly as if the parents did anything..I don't see why they would continually bring it up in the press...they could have buried this years ago but they chose to keep themselves/Maddie in the spotlight. As such, it makes no sense for them to be involved. To me anyway.
Same as the Moors Murderers were kept in the press. They love the publicity darlings. The power they have deluding a gullable public. They belive they have a higher intellegence and can out wit the police, and sometimes they do. Why do you think the killers of little April and others didn't offer up where their victims bodies are? They love the power they have. They enjoy the 'game',they control.
-
Same as the Moors Murderers were kept in the press. They love the publicity darlings. The power they have deluding a gullable public. They belive they have a higher intellegence and can out wit the police, and sometimes they do. Why do you think the killers of little April and others didn't offer up where their victims bodies are? They love the power they have. They enjoy the 'game',they control.
How true.........thankfully they don't control us all
-
Same as the Moors Murderers were kept in the press. They love the publicity darlings. The power they have deluding a gullable public. They belive they have a higher intellegence and can out wit the police, and sometimes they do. Why do you think the killers of little April and others didn't offer up where their victims bodies are? They love the power they have. They enjoy the 'game',they control.
This would seem to indicate you believe the McCanns are psychopathic killers. Is that correct?