UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on August 03, 2016, 09:56:01 PM
-
Usually threads must be based on known established facts and not suspicious or theory.
But what happens if you look at the same facts without the usual interpretation of those facts, and the final summation of the alternatives giving us a totally different paradigm.
Let us look at each "fact" and what other situations could result in exactly the same fact. Can those alternatives finally be pieced together to get another reality as to what happened to Madeleine McCann?
113
-
I thought you were going to solve this case by psychic means using your substitute cuddle cat as a conduit?
-
Usually threads must be based on known established facts and not suspicious or theory.
But what happens if you look at the same facts without the usual interpretation of those facts, and the final summation of the alternatives giving us a totally different paradigm.
Let us look at each "fact" and what other situations could result in exactly the same fact. Can those alternatives finally be pieced together to get another reality as to what happened to Madeleine McCann.
of course...she was abducted
-
I thought you were going to solve this case by psychic means using your substitute cuddle cat as a conduit?
Once I asked the question "who owned the Cuddle Cat before they did" I have not heard from them, so I have not been able to finalise the purchase. They may just be away on holiday so I'll wait for a response.
-
of course...she was abducted
Abducted is an outcome, a deduction, and not a fact as such. I'm trying to think how this thread will work. She is missing that is a fact and being abducted is a reason for being missing. But if the parents were involved we wouldn't used the word abducted but rather hidden. So what other choices do we have? Wandered away, and abducted by aliens (just to keep everyone happy) .
Missing >> abducted or hidden or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted) or abducted by aliens.
Fact Madeleine is missing:
1. abducted
2. or hidden
3. or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted)
4. or abducted by aliens.
No 1 was further broken down to:
1.1. Stranger abduction
1.2. or Acquaintance abduction
What is the next fact?
-
Usually threads must be based on known established facts and not suspicious or theory.
But what happens if you look at the same facts without the usual interpretation of those facts, and the final summation of the alternatives giving us a totally different paradigm.
Let us look at each "fact" and what other situations could result in exactly the same fact. Can those alternatives finally be pieced together to get another reality as to what happened to Madeleine McCann.
Good luck
Those that believe and vehemently promote an abduction are hardened, will not be swayed, will say black is white, those of us who are sceptics are more open minded, but we draw a line somewhere, ie at two cuddlecats and two missing children on the night and other such fanciful ideas for whch there really is no evidence
-
Good luck
Those that believe and vehemently promote an abduction are hardened, will not be swayed, will say black is white, those of us who are sceptics are more open minded, but we draw a line somewhere, ie at two cuddlecats and two missing children on the night and other such fanciful ideas for which there really is no evidence
So what was your preferred option to explain "Missing"? Being sceptical is fine as long as you are sceptical of the abduction but what do you fill that space with?
-
So what was your preferred option to explain "Missing"? Being sceptical is fine as long as you are sceptical of the abduction but what do you fill that space with?
As to reality, there are other possible scenarios which have been looked at in detail in other threads, is this going somewhere or is this thread doomed to the inevitable?
-
So what was your preferred option to explain "Missing"? Being sceptical is fine as long as you are sceptical of the abduction but what do you fill that space with?
I dont have a "preferred option"
What happened is unclear, and there have been many confusng factors, ergo this case is an open case and open to question and scrutiny
The parents actions and behaviours have been a major point of contention, but even without that there is no evidence of abduction much and one cannot entirely ignore the cadaver dog alerts either, onbalance, imo there was no stranger abduction, there mght have been, bug in my informed personal opinion there wasnt
-
I dont have a "preferred option"
What happened is unclear, and there have been many confusng factors, ergo this case is an open case and open to question and scrutiny
The parents actions and behaviours have been a major point of contention, but even without that there is no evidence of abduction much and one cannot entirely ignore the cadaver dog alerts either, onbalance, imo there was no stranger abduction, there might have been, but in my informed personal opinion there wasn't
So did I get that right you split abduction into stranger abduction and acquaintance abduction, and acquaintance abductor is your option over stranger abduction.
What period of time could an acquaintance spend on an abduction. For a lot of suspicion and pressure must have fallen on Matt since he did the last check and on the next check by Kate MM is missing. So have you got a timing of that check done by Matt? And then do you think the acquaintance abduction would have been before or after that check?
-
As to reality, there are other possible scenarios which have been looked at in detail in other threads, is this going somewhere or is this thread doomed to the inevitable?
Well I'm going to do my best John not to use the word "theory" in the entire thread, so maybe that will be progress. I just want to know all the options at each known factual step and see if one option keeps reoccurring.
If you know of the other scenarios please just mention them for I have not been here that long and it is a huge forum. I want to consider all the scenarios one fact at a time.
-
..snip ..
The parents actions and behaviours have been a major point of contention, ...snip ...
Has there been a discussion on this aspect on the forum? What did you notice about the parents actions and behaviour (facts) that might sway your opinion as to outcome?
-
.... the cadaver dog alerts either ....
My view on these cadaver dog alerts in the apartment G5A are indicative that a cadaver had been in the wardrobe.
And the blood behind the sofa stayed moist enough to decompose and raise an alert. But the alert does not point to a person. It could have been MM or someone else, but a prior cadaver presence has to be accounted for.
Since there are sightings of Smithman carrying a MM look alike I'd discount MM as the source of the cadaver odour.
If you say the cadaver odour came from MM and Smithman was just taking her for a burial down at the beach she would have needed to have died much earlier in the evening. (Why would a stranger or an acquaintance ever do this???)
-
Since there was no other items taken it makes burglary gone wrong seem less likely.
Burglary:
1. Intending to steal valuable items (Nothing reported taken)
2. Intending to steal a child. (Madeleine missing. This actually falls under the heading of abduction but the abduction is purposed for monetary reasons e.g. the sale of a child. (Is there such a thing?)
Questions:
Why would they take Madeleine and not one of the younger smaller lighter twins? Would a younger child fit into a new family easier? A four year old is going to memorise who she is. Is she going to be harder to assimilate (4 year old) into a new family?
Later on when the fund and the reward for finding Madeleine grew to 2.8 million pounds then she did have real value (Kate mentions the risk of this happening in her book.)
-
So did I get that right you split abduction into stranger abduction and acquaintance abduction, and acquaintance abductor is your option over stranger abduction.
What period of time could an acquaintance spend on an abduction. For a lot of suspicion and pressure must have fallen on Matt since he did the last check and on the next check by Kate MM is missing. So have you got a timing of that check done by Matt? And then do you think the acquaintance abduction would have been before or after that check?
According to Kate's book Madeleine, Gerry heard Matt screaming in the interview room after being accused by the PJ of removing Madeleine from the apartment. The interesting fact here is in that interview he revealed Kate left at 9:50 to check not 10. Amazing what crucial information pressure can bring out 8(0(*
-
According to Kate's book Madeleine, Gerry heard Matt screaming in the interview room after being accused by the PJ of removing Madeleine from the apartment. The interesting fact here is in that interview he revealed Kate left at 9:50 to check not 10. Amazing what crucial information pressure can bring out 8(0(*
So where was Matt when he noticed Kate getting up from the table at 9:50? It takes a special reason to be so specific about a timing like that.
It is amazing the amount of information that can be exchanged instantly via text messaging. So that could a text message or a visual observation. He doesn't actually have to be at the table to know this.
I have heard the friends deleted a lot of text messages that night. Were these messages between each other?
-
According to Kate's book Madeleine, Gerry heard Matt screaming in the interview room after being accused by the PJ of removing Madeleine from the apartment. The interesting fact here is in that interview he revealed Kate left at 9:50 to check not 10. Amazing what crucial information pressure can bring out 8(0(*
Was that interview recorded as a statement?
-
Abducted is an outcome, a deduction, and not a fact as such. I'm trying to think how this thread will work. She is missing that is a fact and being abducted is a reason for being missing. But if the parents were involved we wouldn't used the word abducted but rather hidden. So what other choices do we have? Wandered away, and abducted by aliens (just to keep everyone happy) .
Missing >> abducted or hidden or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted) or abducted by aliens.
Fact Madeleine is missing:
1. abducted
2. or hidden
3. or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted)
4. or abducted by aliens.
No 1 was further broken down to:
1.1. Stranger abduction
1.2. or Acquaintance abduction
What is the next fact?
i have never stated abduction as a fact ...abduction is just the most probable reason for the disappearance if everything is taken into account
-
My view on these cadaver dog alerts in the apartment G5A are indicative that a cadaver had been in the wardrobe.
And the blood behind the sofa stayed moist enough to decompose and raise an alert. But the alert does not point to a person. It could have been MM or someone else, but a prior cadaver presence has to be accounted for.
Since there are sightings of Smithman carrying a MM look alike I'd discount MM as the source of the cadaver odour.
If you say the cadaver odour came from MM and Smithman was just taking her for a burial down at the beach she would have needed to have died much earlier in the evening. (Why would a stranger or an acquaintance ever do this???)
The alerts do not indicate there was ever a cadaver in 5a...that is a fact
-
The alerts do not indicate there was ever a cadaver in 5a...that is a fact
Well prove it is a fact then? I think the fact is there had been a cadaver in G5A. and the EVRD alert is proof of that.
The alert to the decomposed blood is not indicative of a cadaver ever being behind the sofa.
So how would you prove there was never a cadaver in the wardrobe?
-
i have never stated abduction as a fact ...abduction is just the most probable reason for the disappearance if everything is taken into account
What type of abduction?
1.1. Stranger abduction
1.2. or Acquaintance abduction
I was trying to keep the full range of possibilities and see if one type of event is present in all the facts. So we won't be applying probabilities other than saying something is improbable. Like we can rule out alien abductions.
-
What type of abduction?
1.1. Stranger abduction
1.2. or Acquaintance abduction
I was trying to keep the full range of possibilities and see if one type of event is present in all the facts. So we won't be applying probabilities other than saying something is improbable. Like we can rule out alien abductions.
stranger abduction....i dont see an acquaintance abduction as likely
-
stranger abduction....i dont see an acquaintance abduction as likely
I suppose we can disagree on that. There were so much random checking of the apartments there was no opportunity available for outsider "stranger abduction", yet within the group they knew the routines and there was potential for misunderstanding due to what was happening. So there is a high chance of an over reaction to cover a prior accidental mistake.
So at least you are not pointing the finger at the McCanns for a change. Like could you allow for the potential of a misunderstanding, leading to an error of judgement under the influence of excessive alcohol and prior reputational pressure? Sorry for being rather vague, but that is a scenario that could be included under the heading of "acquaintance abduction".
-
I suppose we can disagree on that. There were so much random checking of the apartments there was no opportunity available for outsider "stranger abduction", yet within the group they knew the routines and there was potential for misunderstanding due to what was happening. So there is a high chance of an over reaction to cover a prior accidental mistake.
So at least you are not pointing the finger at the McCanns for a change, which is common on this forum. Like could you allow for the potential of a misunderstanding, leading to an error of judgement under the influence of excessive alcohol and prior reputational pressure? Sorry for being rather vague, but that is a scenario that could be included under the heading of "acquaintance abduction".
there was the opportunity for a stranger abduction as confirmed by SY......acquaintance abduction about as likely as aliens
-
there was the opportunity for a stranger abduction as confirmed by SY......acquaintance abduction about as likely as aliens
Was it a 5 minute window of opportunity?
Fact Madeleine is missing:
1. abducted
2. or hidden
3. or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted)
4. or abducted by aliens.
No 1 was further broken down to:
1.1. Stranger abduction (SY 5 minute window of opportunity)
1.2. or Acquaintance abduction -allow for:
* the potential of a misunderstanding,
* leading to an error of judgement
* under the influence of excessive alcohol
* and prior reputational pressure
[1.2 is highly likely for within the group there is advance knowledge when the checks are happening.]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone intentionally killed MM. I'm just saying it is possible for her to be still alive. But someone within the Tapas group could have had a misunderstanding and made an error of judgement leading them to take MM from her bed and put her outside somewhere.
They can only take a few moments to do this and to set the scene to look like a stranger abduction, for their absence from the group for any extended period of time would be paramount to admitting having done it.
-
Well prove it is a fact then? I think the fact is there had been a cadaver in G5A. and the EVRD alert is proof of that.
The alert to the decomposed blood is not indicative of a cadaver ever being behind the sofa.
So how would you prove there was never a cadaver in the wardrobe?
Robitty, Eddie alerts to:
dried blood,
other dessicated body fluids
pig cadavar, etc
as well as to cadavar odour.
So he could have been alerting to any one of these.
Now on probability terms which is more likely in a home or apartment, a blood spot, or a cadavar?
It is only because Amaral was so suspicious that Cadavar was even checked for ... and because he was so suspicious that an alert was aligned to Cadavar odour rather than blood. Keela alerts only to blood. Had keela gone in and checked, most likely the results would have been proven as blood. The whole scenario has been blown completely out of proportion because of Amarals misunderstanding of what the alerts actually did and did not mean.
Forensic tests were necessary to prove anything ... and they were totally unable to do that.
So there is absolutely NOTHING against the Mccanns except for Amarals unfounded conviction ... and he has proved very effective at spreading that.
Forget the alert business. It is just a nonsense. We have all been "sold a pup"
-
Robitty, Eddie alerts to:
dried blood,
other dessicated body fluids
pig cadavar, etc
as well as to cadavar odour.
So he could have been alerting to any one of these.
Now on probability terms which is more likely in a home or apartment, a blood spot, or a cadavar?
It is only because Amaral was so suspicious that Cadavar was even checked for ... and because he was so suspicious that an alert was aligned to Cadavar odour rather than blood. Keela alerts only to blood. Had keela gone in and checked, most likely the results would have been proven as blood. The whole scenario has been blown completely out of proportion because of Amarals misunderstanding of what the alerts actually did and did not mean.
Forensic tests were necessary to prove anything ... and they were totally unable to do that.
So there is absolutely NOTHING against the Mccanns except for Amarals unfounded conviction ... and he has proved very effective at spreading that.
Forget the alert business. It is just a nonsense. We have all been "sold a pup"
In the apartment south bedrooom Eddie did alert but Keela didn't alert, what is your theory about that Sadie?
-
In the apartment south bedrooom Eddie did alert but Keela didn't alert, what is your theory about that Sadie?
Are we talking 5A ?
Was Keela shown everything in there in the same way as Eddie was ? In other words in a persistent pointed way?
Video link please .
-
Since there was no other items taken it makes burglary gone wrong seem less likely.
Burglary:
1. Intending to steal valuable items (Nothing reported taken)
2. Intending to steal a child. (Madeleine missing. This actually falls under the heading of abduction but the abduction is purposed for monetary reasons e.g. the sale of a child. (Is there such a thing?)
Questions:
Why would they take Madeleine and not one of the younger smaller lighter twins? Would a younger child fit into a new family easier? A four year old is going to memorise who she is. Is she going to be harder to assimilate (4 year old) into a new family?
Later on when the fund and the reward for finding Madeleine grew to 2.8 million pounds then she did have real value (Kate mentions the risk of this happening in her book.)
This has all been examined previously.
-
My view on these cadaver dog alerts in the apartment G5A are indicative that a cadaver had been in the wardrobe.
And the blood behind the sofa stayed moist enough to decompose and raise an alert. But the alert does not point to a person. It could have been MM or someone else, but a prior cadaver presence has to be accounted for.
Since there are sightings of Smithman carrying a MM look alike I'd discount MM as the source of the cadaver odour.
If you say the cadaver odour came from MM and Smithman was just taking her for a burial down at the beach she would have needed to have died much earlier in the evening. (Why would a stranger or an acquaintance ever do this???)
You cannot associate the dog alerts with a cadaver without corroborative evidence. Did you know someone died in the apartment next door, could there have been cross contamination with 5a? Was the apartment next door even checked by the dogs?
-
i have never stated abduction as a fact ...abduction is just the most probable reason for the disappearance if everything is taken into account
The evidence however says different.
-
Was it a 5 minute window of opportunity?
Fact Madeleine is missing:
1. abducted
2. or hidden
3. or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted)
4. or abducted by aliens.
No 1 was further broken down to:
1.1. Stranger abduction (SY 5 minute window of opportunity)
1.2. or Acquaintance abduction -allow for:
* the potential of a misunderstanding,
* leading to an error of judgement
* under the influence of excessive alcohol
* and prior reputational pressure
[1.2 is highly likely for within the group there is advance knowledge when the checks are happening.]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone intentionally killed MM. I'm just saying it is possible for her to be still alive. But someone within the Tapas group could have had a misunderstanding and made an error of judgement leading them to take MM from her bed a put her outside somewhere.
They can only take a few moments to do this and to set the scene to look like a stranger abduction, for their absence from the group for any extended period of time would be paramount to admitting having done it.
I think you are on borderline deletion territory now. Acquaintance abduction is a possibility but not involving the tapas group.
-
So where was Matt when he noticed Kate getting up from the table at 9:50? It takes a special reason to be so specific about a timing like that.
It is amazing the amount of information that can be exchanged instantly via text messaging. So that could a text message or a visual observation. He doesn't actually have to be at the table to know this.
I have heard the friends deleted a lot of text messages that night. Were these messages between each other?
Lots of interesting facts in Matt's 10 May statement. David Payne who organised the trips away again is featured in unusual statements.
"As far as he [Matt Oldfield] is concerned, he wishes at this time to add that, in conversation with David Payne on a date he does not recall with certainty but likely to have been on 7 or 8 May, he [DP] confided in him that that, at that time, Kate Healy had been particularly reluctant about coming to Portugal because she had had a bad feeling [presentiment] about the children of the group and the non-existence of the 'baby sitting' service."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
So then they leave a door unlocked. Fascinating.......
-
Are we talking 5A ?
Was Keela shown everything in there in the same way as Eddie was ? In other words in a persistent pointed way?
Video link please .
Try and bring the conversation back to options again please, later we will try and use the options available for the analysis.
Sadie would you be happy if one of the options was a rotting leg of ham in the bedroom wardrobe? Or what sort of option would give the situation you imagine?
-
This has all been examined previously.
So we can refer to that study then. Was there a consensus reached? (Study related to why kidnappers chose MM rather than one of the twins)
-
You cannot associate the dog alerts with a cadaver without corroborative evidence. Did you know someone died in the apartment next door, could there have been cross contamination with 5a? Was the apartment next door even checked by the dogs?
Yes you are beginning to see it using options, so for you one of the options to consider was whether there was a cadaver on the apartment next door. So on the extended video was apartment G5B checked by Eddie? We could check that.
But that too would be pointing at just one person for there is only one family living next door the McCanns.
And then how would you get this family having a cadaver in their apartment? I think we should just see that the next door apartment is checked and leave it there.
-
The evidence however says different.
I would say the evidence points to abduction...and SY its seems agrees
-
I would say the evidence points to abduction...and SY its seems agrees
How do you work that one out?
-
How do you work that one out?
if we look at the parents I don't see any reason for them to be involved.......I don't see how a fatal accident could have occurred within the time frame... don't see why they should cover up an accident. An accident would not affect their careers but perverting the course of justice and afraudulent fund would end it and put them both in jail. I don't see why any guilty party would repeatedly keep the case in the public eye and push for investigation.
So in my mind we can rule out the parents which leaves abduction or w&w...
the open window indicates a third party hence abduction
-
I think you are on borderline deletion territory now. Acquaintance abduction is a possibility but not involving the tapas group.
So do you think we need to widen the acquaintance option to include other occupants of the G5 block and even the G4 block and the tennis buddies?
An acquaintance would have to be someone, that the McCanns had some previous conversation with at least and that interaction would have to have been prior to the abduction. (So you can't include everyone into the acquaintance group.)
In the investigation there was another group isolated that we haven't considered and that is the staff (they are somewhere in between strangers and acquaintances.
-
if we look at the parents I don't see any reason for them to be involved.......I don't see how a fatal accident could have occurred within the time frame... don't see why they should cover up an accident. An accident would not affect their careers but perverting the course of justice and afraudulent fund would end it and put them both in jail. I don't see why any guilty party would repeatedly keep the case in the public eye and push for investigation.
So in my mind we can rule out the parents which leaves abduction or w&w...
the open window indicates a third party hence abduction
I think that is a strong argument against the parents being involved. Unfortunately it is a picture drawn up after the event. So it was right that they were investigated but now we should eliminate them.
Now for the embarrassing bit what does w&w mean?
-
In the apartment south bedroom Eddie did alert but Keela didn't alert, what is your theory about that Sadie?
For clarity this "south bedroom" is what I call "the wardrobe".
-
I think that is a strong argument against the parents being involved. Unfortunately it is a picture drawn up after the event. So it was right that they were investigated but now we should eliminate them.
Now for the embarrassing bit what does w&w mean?
it was right they were investigated...woke and wandered
-
it was right they were investigated...woke and wandered
Do you ever think the whole thing is a matter of small contributions but no one is guilty of a crime?
Starting with the parents leaving the door unlocked .... onward ... having multiple people checking the kids ...creating disturbing imaginations in others as to what is going on .... interference by concerned neighbours .... misunderstandings ... small lies .... covering up ..... etc.... but no actual kidnapping or murder.
-
Do you ever think the whole thing is a matter of small contributions but no one is guilty of a crime?
Starting with the parents leaving the door unlocked .... onward ... having multiple people checking the kids ...creating disturbing imaginations in others as to what is going on .... interference by concerned neighbours .... misunderstandings ... small lies .... covering up ..... etc.... but no actual kidnapping or murder.
Certainly if it turns out that Madeleine woke and wandered then no crime was committed. If she woke and wandered and was picked up outside the apartment then abduction is the crime.
-
Certainly if it turns out that Madeleine woke and wandered then no crime was committed. If she woke and wandered and was picked up outside the apartment then abduction is the crime.
What happens if that the person who finds her thinks she needs urgent medical care and takes her to a place where help is given. On and on from there too. She gets left there and the contact address doesn't compute so they send her to an orphanage ....On and on from there too... someone takes her from the orphanage but doesn't register that she is MM.
-
What happens if that the person who finds her thinks she needs urgent medical care and takes her to a place where help is given. On and on from there too. She gets left there and the contact address doesn't compute so they send her to an orphanage ....On and on from there too... someone takes her from the orphanage but doesn't register that she is MM.
That's just nonsense. However more likely she could have been run over and taken from the scene by the driver fearful of the consequences. Children hit by cars sustain head and neck injuries...there doesn't have to be blood loss initially.
As for the open window that could have been opened by a burglar who scared Madeleine forcing her to exit the apartment. Then again people do and say things while in shock, for all we know Kate opened the window and lifted the shutter in the chaos and has a mental block about it.
-
That's just nonsense. However more likely she could have been run over and taken from the scene by the driver fearful of the consequences. Children hit by cars sustain head and neck injuries...there doesn't have to be blood loss initially.
As for the open window that could have been opened by a burglar who scared Madeleine forcing her to exit the apartment. Then again people do and say things while in shock, for all we know Kate opened the window and lifted the shutter in the chaos and has a mental block about it.
I'm not saying that the extreme no crime situation actually happened but when I looked at possibilities it could still be included. You can't logically exclude it.
-
I think you will find several instances quite easily if you Google it.
I have checked the first three pages of Google with the phrase "child falls in hole and earth covers them up", nothing has come up that would be remotely relevant to a child falling into a man-made hole such as roadworks and then being covered by the earth. Perhaps you can help?
-
stranger abduction is very plausible and has happened many times
I think many is the correct adjective.
If you take stranger-abductions as a proportion of all abductions, the number is doubtless quite small.
But if you look at each instance in its own right, then there are quite a lot.
You only need to know that it has happened to know, also, that it could ...
-
I think many is the correct adjective.
If you take stranger-abductions as a proportion of all abductions, the number is doubtless quite small.
But if you look at each instance in its own right, then there are quite a lot.
You only need to know that it has happened to know, also, that it could ...
There is no record of a child being abducted from Luz before or since Madeleine McCann's disappearance. That does not rule out that Madeleine may have been abducted.
-
There is no record of a child being abducted from Luz before or since Madeleine McCann's disappearance. That does not rule out that Madeleine may have been abducted.
What they don't have domestics over there?
-
stranger abduction is very plausible and has happened many times
But did the stranger go into apartment G5A? There is virtually no suitable window of opportunity. Yet there are people doing "checks" on the kids and that is legit.
Would abductions by friends and family have an even higher incidence than stranger abduction? An abduction can be done in stages and with stages this allows for another party to find the abductee or to see the abductor acting suspiciously. With Jes in the area (with his child not sleeping) he is the perfect observer of such events. Can a rear view of a man walking a dark alley way be enough to identify a person (the abductor)? I don't think it is good enough, he could possibly be mistaken.
-
Earthquakes are common here, because we are on the Europe/Africa tectonic boundary. By sheer coincidence, we had another quake in the last week. It was large enough to bring down plaster from our living room wall.
But it would be pushing the odds in Maddie's case.
-
But did the stranger go into apartment G5A? There is virtually no suitable window of opportunity. Yet there are people doing "checks" on the kids and that is legit.
Would abductions by friends and family have an even higher incidence than stranger abduction? An abduction can be done in stages and with stages this allows for another party to find the abductee or to see the abductor acting suspiciously. With Jes in the area (with his child not sleeping) he is the perfect observer of such events. Can a rear view of a man walking a dark alley way be enough to identify a person (the abductor)? I don't think it is good enough, he could possibly be mistaken.
statement from SY.....
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard
Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects
-
Earthquakes are common here, because we are on the Europe/Africa tectonic boundary. By sheer coincidence, we had another quake in the last week. It was large enough to bring down plaster from our living room wall.
But it would be pushing the odds in Maddie's case.
It is still an option but if it is ruled out, it is out. So there was no report of an earthquake - Earthquake is not one of the final options.
-
statement from SY.....
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard
Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects
Is that their answer today? That statement was made back some time ago and since then I have sent in at least 9 reasons why they were wrong. Did they listen, I think they have. Therefore they will come out with a new statement soon.
-
Someone mentioned another possible option :"someone had the key of the apartment or a copy of the key".
Yes could be very handy for a burglar to have keys copied but you need more than that to have the intention to abduct a kid .... what do you do next, you've got to feed it and cloth it and stop it crying etc.
This guy has been mentioned as suspect doing burglaries in the area http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_SILVA.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/madeleine-mccann-abducted-during-botched-burglary/
-
I'm willing to place a small wager with Angelo and John that more children are abducted by strangers every year, than accidentally fall into holes with earth falling on top of them.
And even more are abducted by someone they know and trust.
-
And even more are abducted by someone they know and trust.
we understand that...the mccann case does not fit that scenario
-
Someone mentioned another possible option :"someone had the key of the apartment or a copy of the key".
Yes could be very handy for a burglar to have keys copied but you need more than that to have the intention to abduct a kid .... what do you do next, you've got to feed it and cloth it and stop it crying etc.
This guy has been mentioned as suspect doing burglaries in the area http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_SILVA.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/madeleine-mccann-abducted-during-botched-burglary/
The keys were very accessible by all accounts which isn't unusual by any means in a holiday complex.
Holidaymakers are as an absolute minimum expected to take care of their belongings and not leave them lying around in unlocked apartments!
-
we understand that...the mccann case does not fit that scenario
Is it just because SY says so? An option could be different stages done by unrelated people but the first stage was done by an acquaintance.
-
Ironically, in the Crimewatch Special Mr Redwood directly discusses the the Morgan statements (30m55s) "certainly at one of those events, at 4pm .....". And the e-fit he shows at 30m59s is by I Morgan.
The irony is that in the focussing on charity collectors he totally fails to notice or mention the potentially far more important open manhole sighting at the end of R Morgan statement.
http://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=30m43s
-
Ironically, in the Crimewatch Special Mr Redwood directly discusses the the Morgan statements (30m55s) "certainly at one of those events, at 4pm .....". And the e-fit he shows at 30m59s is by I Morgan.
The irony is that in the focussing on charity collectors he totally fails to notice or mention the potentially far more important open manhole sighting at the end of R Morgan statement.
http://youtu.be/OZ8jmdWlB8Y?t=30m43s
I guess that if you are focused on abductors, you wouldn't notice a manhole unless you fell into it.
-
So, to get this straight - on the nght of 3rd May 2007 there was an uncovered manhole simply left unprotected on the pavement for anyone to fall into (H & S not an issue in Portugal then?) and, after hours of searching for a missing child, someone puts the lid back on the hole but no one thinks to check if the child fell down it? Is that what is being mooted here?
-
So, to get this straight - on the nght of 3rd May 2007 there was an uncovered manhole simply left unprotected on the pavement for anyone to fall into (H & S not an issue in Portugal then?) and, after hours of searching for a missing child, someone puts the lid back on the hole but no one thinks to check if the child fell down it? Is that what is being mooted here?
You would have to allow for that possibility. If the drains were properly checked this mooted point would be eliminated.
-
You've come up with one interesting and remarkable paradigm Robbity - your early one where you suggested (excuse the paraphrasing) that a genuinely complete search of the property post 11 or even later might have been a productive action.
-
You've come up with one interesting and remarkable paradigm Robbity - your early one where you suggested (excuse the paraphrasing) that a genuinely complete search of the property post 11 or even later might have been a productive action.
Prior to Emma Knight's visit at least. Did we have an exact timing of that visit.
-
Speaking english she asked something like "is she asleep?" Robbity (source is a news article).
The fact that the man did not reply is an almost certain indication that he did not understand english.
It's not rocket science.
That's certainly one possibility, the other being he didn't want to be recognised by a distinctive accent if he was an English speaker.
-
Prior to Emma Knight's visit at least. Did we have an exact timing of that visit.
In your remarkable paradigm Robbity you were discussing a time much later than EK arrival at apartment.
-
In your remarkable paradigm Robbity you were discussing a time much later than EK arrival at apartment.
But I don't need it as late as previously proposed (under a fluid new theory). But looking at the differences between Emma and Kate's descriptions of the same event, I'm focusing on this discrepancy primarily as an opportunity.
-
But I don't need it as late as previously proposed (under a fluid new theory). But looking at the differences between Emma and Kate's descriptions of the same event, I'm focusing on this discrepancy primarily as an opportunity.
You are however constrained by the known facts of the case. Any 'discrepancy' between statements detailing the same event cannot automatically be considered conflicting but merely an interpretation of fact as remembered and seen through different eyes.
It is possible to elicit more information using probing but sympathetic questioning ~ I'm not sure there is evidence to support that in the initial stages after Madeleine's disappearance the investigating team had the experience and empathy to employ such a technique.
-
Abducted is an outcome, a deduction, and not a fact as such. I'm trying to think how this thread will work. She is missing that is a fact and being abducted is a reason for being missing. But if the parents were involved we wouldn't used the word abducted but rather hidden. So what other choices do we have? Wandered away, and abducted by aliens (just to keep everyone happy) .
Missing >> abducted or hidden or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted) or abducted by aliens.
Fact Madeleine is missing:
1. abducted
2. or hidden
3. or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted)
4. or abducted by aliens.
No 1 was further broken down to:
1.1. Stranger abduction
1.2. or Acquaintance abduction
What is the next fact?
SLeep walking into danger?
https://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-disorders-problems/abnormal-sleep-behaviors/sleepwalking
-
SLeep walking into danger?
https://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-disorders-problems/abnormal-sleep-behaviors/sleepwalking
We know Madeleine, like most children, sometimes woke during the night and came into her parents bed.
I know of no evidence that she urinated in closets, screamed or became violent at these times.(symptoms of walking in sleep from the link you provided)
Can you detail any suggestion or evidence that Madeleine was a sleep walker?
-
We know Madeleine, like most children, sometimes woke during the night and came into her parents bed.
I know of no evidence that she urinated in closets, screamed or became violent at these times.(symptoms of walking in sleep from the link you provided)
Can you detail any suggestion or evidence that Madeleine was a sleep walker?
I know of no evidence that she urinated in closets, screamed or became violent at these times
The symptoms are desdcribed are offered as some, not all, and not directed at anyone specifically, but then you knew that didn't you? did you deliberatly miss the other symptoms? like driving a car, or taking part in behaviour not normally accosicated with a wakened person? many ,many symptoms. It would certainly be bad for the parents if this was the case, leaving a door unlocked for her to get out of the apartment- barefooted-leaving cuddle cat... So ofcourse you are going to protect the parents by suggesting I give evidence of Maddies Behaviour when I have none, just like I, and millions of others, have none for an abduction via a jemmied window. bummer eh?
Can you detail any suggestion or evidence that Madeleine was a sleep walker?
No, can you detail, or suggest or show evidence this didn't happen to Maddie on this occasion?
-
I know of no evidence that she urinated in closets, screamed or became violent at these times
The symptoms are desdcribed are offered as some, not all, and not directed at anyone specifically, but then you knew that didn't you? did you deliberatly miss the other symptoms? like driving a car, or taking part in behaviour not normally accosicated with a wakened person? many ,many symptoms. It would certainly be bad for the parents if this was the case, leaving a door unlocked for her to get out of the apartment- barefooted-leaving cuddle cat... So ofcourse you are going to protect the parents by suggesting I give evidence of Maddies Behaviour when I have none, just like I, and millions of others, have none for an abduction via a jemmied window. bummer eh?
Can you detail any suggestion or evidence that Madeleine was a sleep walker?
No, can you detail, or suggest or show evidence this didn't happen to Maddie on this occasion?
It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine had a history of sleepwalking.
Bearing in mind that internet detectives only have a smidgen of the evidence available to the Polícia Judiciária and Scotland Yard ... I'm going along with the fact that in Madeleine's case, both professional bodies are investigating abduction.
-
It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine had a history of sleepwalking.
Bearing in mind that internet detectives only have a smidgen of the evidence available to the Polícia Judiciária and Scotland Yard ... I'm going along with the fact that in Madeleine's case, both professional bodies are investigating abduction.
It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine was abducted.
both professional bodies are investigating abduction not because they believe it, but because SY were given a remit to go and find an abductor...have they found one? is there any evidence of stranger abduction or are they looking for a known person to Madeleine removing her from the apartment- or have they not clarified that yet.
-
It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine was abducted.
both professional bodies are investigating abduction not because they believe it, but because SY were given a remit to go and find an abductor...have they found one? is there any evidence of stranger abduction or are they looking for a known person to Madeleine removing her from the apartment- or have they not clarified that yet.
The absence of any other credible, sensible or viable explanation (of Madeleine's disappearance), in its own right, is evidence of abduction!
Ally that to the fact that Amaral's "explosive witness" (Martin Smith) has, long since, recanted of the view that he (and his family) might have seen Gerry (all Mr Smith's children insisted, from the outset, that they had not seen Gerry; and Mr Smith's wife, Mary, is on record, since release of the files, as saying that the Smiths stand ready to support Kate and Gerry in any way they can to find Madeleine) and you have potent evidence (in support of abduction).
-
The absence of any other credible, sensible or viable explanation (of Madeleine's disappearance), in its own right, is evidence of abduction!
Ally that to the fact that Amaral's "explosive witness" (Martin Smith) has, long since, recanted of the view that he (and his family) might have seen Gerry (all Mr Smith's children insisted, from the outset, that they had not seen Gerry; and Mr Smith's wife, Mary, is on record, since release of the files, as saying that the Smiths stand ready to support Kate and Gerry in any way they can to find Madeleine) and you have potent evidence (in support of abduction).
Utter rubbish all the way through
-
It is spurious to make a suggestion without evidence and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine was abducted.
both professional bodies are investigating abduction not because they believe it, but because SY were given a remit to go and find an abductor...have they found one? is there any evidence of stranger abduction or are they looking for a known person to Madeleine removing her from the apartment- or have they not clarified that yet.
I hope you will forgive me if I take the opinion of the professional investigators of the Polícia Judiciária and Scotland Yard and anyone else with a modicum of knowledge about child abduction, in preference to yours.
-
I hope you will forgive me if I take the opinion of the professional investigators of the Polícia Judiciária and Scotland Yard and anyone else with a modicum of knowledge about child abduction, in preference to yours.
Neither have said they thnk t was an abudction
-
Neither have said they thnk t was an abudction
What would you call it?
-
The absence of any other credible, sensible or viable explanation (of Madeleine's disappearance), in its own right, is evidence of abduction!
Ally that to the fact that Amaral's "explosive witness" (Martin Smith) has, long since, recanted of the view that he (and his family) might have seen Gerry (all Mr Smith's children insisted, from the outset, that they had not seen Gerry; and Mr Smith's wife, Mary, is on record, since release of the files, as saying that the Smiths stand ready to support Kate and Gerry in any way they can to find Madeleine) and you have potent evidence (in support of abduction).
The dreaded recanted argument. Please cite.
-
The dreaded recanted argument. Please cite.
The sole, and blindingly obvious, inference to be drawn from the fact that Mr Smith produced an efit (of a man he thought was Gerry? Come on!)
-
The sole, and blindingly obvious, inference to be drawn from the fact that Mr Smith produced an efit (of a man he thought was Gerry? Come on!)
So do we have a fact That mr Smith produced an E-fit that was more like Jez rather than Gerry. Was this prompted in any way? Did they show My Smith photos of the OC guests prior to doing the e-fit?
-
The sole, and blindingly obvious, inference to be drawn from the fact that Mr Smith produced an efit (of a man he thought was Gerry? Come on!)
So no cite then. 2+2=5
-
So do we have a fact That mr Smith produced an E-fit that was more like Jez rather than Gerry. Was this prompted in any way? Did they show My Smith photos of the OC guests prior to doing the e-fit?
We do, from an FOI answer given to Tony Bennett and posted on this board a while back.
-
So no cite then. 2+2=5
Flawless logic represents 2+2=4
-
Thank you. I have seen this before but it is always good to refresh one's memory.
As to K & G, this looks to me like a 100% normal way of getting off an aircraft with a small child. Perhaps Mr Smith thought Smithman should have lobbed the child over one shoulder - fireman style?
But have a look at what Kate is wearing - lower half. Shouldn't those be evidence?
All I can think of is that despite the cadaver dog alerting, since the blood dog did not, they werent considered as evidence any more, same with the soft toy...
-
Thank you. I have seen this before but it is always good to refresh one's memory.
As to K & G, this looks to me like a 100% normal way of getting off an aircraft with a small child. Perhaps Mr Smith thought Smithman should have lobbed the child over one shoulder - fireman style?
But have a look at what Kate is wearing - lower half. Shouldn't those be evidence?
Could you explain to me what "look at what Kate is wearing - lower half. Shouldn't those be evidence?" means ? I am not certain what that means.
-
Could you explain to me what "look at what Kate is wearing - lower half. Shouldn't those be evidence?" means ? I am not certain what that means.
Black and white checked trousers alerted to by cadaver dog, or not, according to some, same trousers worn on plane on trip back to uk
-
Black and white checked trousers alerted to by cadaver dog, or not, according to some, same trousers worn on plane on trip back to uk
I thought we had all agreed that the alerts on the clothing, and on Cuddle Cat was all a ruse being played on Kate by GA to force a confession but it didn't work. In my theory there is a reason they had a cadaver in the Scenic but it wasn't MM's cadaver. So their clothing could easily have had cadaver odour on it too but it doesn't mean Kate knew that MM died of an accident in apartment G5A and Kate and Gerry got rid of MM's body as G. Amaral was offering Kate in that confession related deal.
-
You asked a question , I answered it, Im not going to get dragged into wild theories
-
You asked a question , I answered it, Im not going to get dragged into wild theories
Fair enough, but if they were genuine alerts to Madeleine's cadaver the PJ would have kept the clothing items and Cuddle Cat as evidence but they didn't, so that tells us those items weren't actual evidence.
-
Fair enough, but if they were genuine alerts to Madeleine's cadaver the PJ would have kept the clothing items and Cuddle Cat as evidence but they didn't, so that tells us those items weren't actual evidence.
As I explained in post 128, cadaver scent detected by a dog is ethereal, on its own it doesnt count as evidence
-
As I explained in post 128, cadaver scent detected by a dog is ethereal, on its own it doesnt count as evidence
True and I agree, but if they examined the clothing they may have found DNA from the cadaver on it or tissue on it.
So going beyond the ethereal and back into the evidential.
I hereby theorise that someone from OC must have informed GA that the Mccanns had picked up the cadaver and had it in the Scenic. So any further testing was only going to expose the real culprits so it was conveniently not done.
-
I dont know what dna from a cadaver means
If they found MMs dna on the trousers it wouldnt be suspicious per se
None of that has anythng to do with the car, and I dont understand your comments about it and GA either
Need to go for an hour or so
-
I dont know what dna from a cadaver means
If they found MMs dna on the trousers it wouldnt be suspicious per se
None of that has anythng to do with the car, and I dont understand your comments about it and GA either
Need to go for an hour or so
A person in NZ was convicted of murder when they found brain tissue on his clothing. If they found tissue on Kate's trousers she would have some explaining to do and if the DNA was extracted from the center of that tissue and it was MM then she would have had real difficulty explaining that. Were the items held and checked?
-
I dont know what dna from a cadaver means
If they found MMs dna on the trousers it wouldnt be suspicious per se
None of that has anythng to do with the car, and I dont understand your comments about it and GA either
Need to go for an hour or so
Note : I'm only using the following example of a murderer sawing up his victim as an example.
If you sawed a cadaver into pieces you would get DNA from a cadaver (each piece of sawdust would be alerted to with an EVRD and also each piece would yield a DNA profile from the originator).
It would be suspicious if the DNA was attached to a piece of sawdust embedded in the trousers.
A single hair could be explained by contact prior to death, but not pieces of the victims tissue.
How would quantities of Madeleine's DNA get into the car hire 3 weeks after the event of her going missing?
-
Right
I dont think anyone anywhere has ever thought madeleine was sawed to death by her parents or in front of her parents to splatter brains in their pants, but carry on searchng
-
Right
I dont think anyone anywhere has ever thought madeleine was sawed to death by her parents or in front of her parents to splatter brains in their pants, but carry on searchng
I can see what Robitty is alluding to in this instance, Had Madeleine suffered a head injury & cerebral fluid leaked out onto clothing, Eddie would have indicated but Keela would not have as she only alerts to blood.
Robitty is quite correct that the clothing marked by Eddie should have been retained as evidence & subjected to further forensic testing.
-
Right
I dont think anyone anywhere has ever thought madeleine was sawed to death by her parents or in front of her parents to splatter brains in their pants, but carry on searching
Did you notice I said "Note: I'm only using the following example of a murderer sawing up his victim as an example." I wasn't implying anything like that happened to the cadaver in this case. But we are told by Goncalo Amaral she was thawed and hence it is possible that the fluid that would leak from a body during the thawing process could have got onto Kate's clothing. Had the clothing been examined and fluid of this type found, Kate would have to explain how thawed human cadaver fluid got onto her clothing, and the truth may have got out.
Therefore they weren't kept so the truth remained hidden.
-
Emma Knight in the kid's bedroom and Kate didn't want her there. What was she doing invading Kate's privacy? Then said to be away. No statement given till a year later.
That does not add up to being a transparent investigation imo.
-
Did the first two GNR officers attending the callout at PDL get a call from the British Consulate?
1. Yes this was confirmed
2. Yes but it was never confirmed.
3. No, this was confirmed. It was a hoax call.
4. No, this was not confirmed though. GA thought this was standard practice.
I would guess it was a hoax call originating in the OC confines to stand down the GNR officers because they had turned up unexpectedly quick.
Situation described below.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm
He also refers to a situation when he was searching outside, near the pool, that someone from the OC whom he cannot identify, passed him a mobile phone, as a British Consulate employee who spoke in Portuguese, wanted to talk to the authorities. Upon speaking to him, he told him that the investigation and subsequent actions were under the responsibility of the PJ.
-
(snip) ,,,Did the first two GNR officers attending the callout at PDL get a call from the British Consulate?
... I would guess it was a hoax call originating in the OC confines to stand down the GNR officers because they had turned up unexpectedly quick ... (snip)
They were certainly phoning mobs in PDL at that time so why invent that someone was impersonating them?
-
I see in the file they used a type options approach too.
Considering the participated facts, conjugated with the information that was offered. namely by the witnesses, and with the information that was made available through the development of the inquiry, the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification.
I can't see anything that comes close to the New Theory. Maybe this comes the closest "or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction)"
How does one eliminate that?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
They were certainly phoning mobs in PDL at that time so why invent that someone was impersonating them?
Could you explain yourself please? I don't know what you mean by: "They were certainly phoning mobs in PDL at that time "
They - are you talking about the British Consulate? Mobs is that mobile phones?
"Why invent that someone was impersonating them?" Why? For that is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
It didn't seem to work in some ways for they seemed to keep on searching. But maybe it was enough to keep them out of the apartment till more senior staff arrived. If that was achieved maybe the con worked.
Can you see any evidence from the cell phone records that there was a call from the British Consulate?
-
Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.
1. dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2. cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option)
-
Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.
1. dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2. cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option)
Read the files.
Mark Harrison says no incriminating inference can be drawn from the reactions of the dogs.
Why do you disbelieve him?
-
Read the files.
Mark Harrison says no incriminating inference can be drawn from the reactions of the dogs.
Why do you disbelieve him?
by saying there was an option for a cadaver there is not incriminating, there could be quite legal reasons for that to be the case.
Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.
1. dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2. cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine (what would be the reason for this?)
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option) (There are plenty of non incriminating reasons for this)
-
Did the first two GNR officers attending the callout at PDL get a call from the British Consulate?
1. Yes this was confirmed
2. Yes but it was never confirmed.
3. No, this was confirmed. It was a hoax call.
4. No, this was not confirmed though. GA thought this was standard practice.
I would guess it was a hoax call originating in the OC confines to stand down the GNR officers because they had turned up unexpectedly quick.
Situation described below.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm
He also refers to a situation when he was searching outside, near the pool, that someone from the OC whom he cannot identify, passed him a mobile phone, as a British Consulate employee who spoke in Portuguese, wanted to talk to the authorities. Upon speaking to him, he told him that the investigation and subsequent actions were under the responsibility of the PJ.
I know you feel there was something untoward with what happened and had hoped to start a new thread on the subject but I don't think there is any mileage in it.
Undoubtedly the Consulate had been alerted by someone connected to the parents or the extended group and this was the only way they could get first hand information. I don't see anything sinister in it?
-
Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.
1. dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2. cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option)
This has not been established, as previously pointed out Eddie alerts to many substances as well as cadaverine.
-
This has not been established, as previously pointed out Eddie alerts to many substances as well as cadaverine.
Add in more options
Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.
1. dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2. cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option)
3. Dogs detecting odd chemical substances as well as cadaverine ( No known reason why these substances were used in those buildings).
-
I know you feel there was something untoward with what happened and had hoped to start a new thread on the subject but I don't think there is any mileage in it.
Undoubtedly the Consulate had been alerted by someone connected to the parents or the extended group and this was the only way they could get first hand information. I don't see anything sinister in it?
It is one of the oddest things to happen in this investigation that the very first GNR officers would be told "that the investigation and subsequent actions were under the responsibility of the PJ." Since they were GNR officers and not PJ officers were they allowed to continue their job (whatever they were doing) at the time? Basically their statements are devoid of useful information. So did this action allow people to move things out of the apartment at a time when the men of the Tapas group were either searching or with John Hill sorting out the issue of the jurisdiction. As a former "Inspector" if my authority was challenged in that way it definitely would have slowed me down until I had it confirmed whether the "British Consulate" had any say over my duties for it has the ring of higher authority to it. Would these two guys risk having a diplomatic embarrassment on their hands?
It definitely needs confirming who did this. Goncalo Amaral might have accepted it as a fact but to me knowing the sort of tricks that can be played it seems like a diversion.
Can someone in England get this confirmed?