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: Alfie on November 20, 2016, 01:43:54 PM
-
I've noticed a willingness on the part of "sceptics" to explore other scenarios such as kidnap by the Mafia, Gerry being spotted in Lagos on the phone saying "please don't hurt her", woke and wandered etc, all scenarios which mean that cherished tropes such as "death in the apartment", "cadaver dog alerts" and Smithman being "you know who" have to be discarded (or put on the backburner anyway).
Is it finally dawning on the doubters?
136
-
I've noticed a willingness on the part of "sceptics" to explore other scenarios such as kidnap by the Mafia, Gerry being spotted in Lagos on the phone saying "please don't hurt her", woke and wandered etc, all scenarios which mean that cherished tropes such as "death in the apartment", "cadaver dog alerts" and Smithman being "you know who" have to be discarded (or put on the backburner anyway).
Is it finally dawning on the doubters?
I don't know why you should think that Alfie, all theories are still open last time I looked. And as for post disappearance events, that is another story and could very well come to the fore after the Supreme Court has made its decision.
-
I don't know why you should think that Alfie, all theories are still open last time I looked. And as for post disappearance events, that is another story and could very well come to the fore after the Supreme Court has made its decision.
Not sure I understand what you mean by your last sentence, sorry.
-
I've noticed a willingness on the part of "sceptics" to explore other scenarios such as kidnap by the Mafia, Gerry being spotted in Lagos on the phone saying "please don't hurt her", woke and wandered etc, all scenarios which mean that cherished tropes such as "death in the apartment", "cadaver dog alerts" and Smithman being "you know who" have to be discarded (or put on the backburner anyway).
Is it finally dawning on the doubters?
All options are open and worthy of discussion Alfie; except for those who have nailed their colours to the mast of abduction, of course. Those poor souls have all their eggs in one basket which they have to defend at all costs.
-
All options are open and worthy of discussion Alfie; except for those who have nailed their colours to the mast of abduction, of course. Those poor souls have all their eggs in one basket which they have to defend at all costs.
"Poor souls" sounds a bit patronizing to me, if you don't mind me saying. The thing is, we've had years of debate with doubters strenuously defending the veracity of the dog alerts and the notion that Gerry had time to be in two places at once so for them (the doubters) to consider any other option apart from parental involvement in body occultation leads me to wonder just how convinced they are by their own arguments.
-
None of this debate means anything or leads anywhere, so us doubters just like to humour the believers now and again. ?{)(**
-
None of this debate means anything or leads anywhere, so us doubters just like to humour the believers now and again. ?{)(**
Ah, I see. OK, fair enough. I didn't realize you spoke for all doubters but it's good to know that you are their representative. 8((()*/
-
"Poor souls" sounds a bit patronizing to me, if you don't mind me saying. The thing is, we've had years of debate with doubters strenuously defending the veracity of the dog alerts and the notion that Gerry had time to be in two places at once so for them (the doubters) to consider any other option apart from parental involvement in body occultation leads me to wonder just how convinced they are by their own arguments.
Before Stephen mentions it I will. There isn't the slightest evidence that Maddie was abducted, in fact its more likely she wasn't which makes it so interesting. One thing which has never sat too comfy with me however is the parents of a missing kid attacking those who have tried their best to find her. Effing tossers and tweedle dums et all.
Remember the letter Sofia sent to Kate McCann?
On 17 September 2008, Gonçalo Amaral's wife and the mother of his daughters wrote an open letter to Kate McCann pouring scorn on the criticism she had afforded her husband.
Sofia Leal did not pull any punches in her letter and made several specific references to the 'disgrace' comment attributed to Kate (Healey) McCann.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2362.msg77530#msg77530
-
I've noticed a willingness on the part of "sceptics" to explore other scenarios such as kidnap by the Mafia, Gerry being spotted in Lagos on the phone saying "please don't hurt her", woke and wandered etc, all scenarios which mean that cherished tropes such as "death in the apartment", "cadaver dog alerts" and Smithman being "you know who" have to be discarded (or put on the backburner anyway).
Is it finally dawning on the doubters?
Is what finally dawning on the doubters?
-
None of this debate means anything or leads anywhere, so us doubters just like to humour the believers now and again. ?{)(**
Oh, thank you jassi, you are so kind.
-
"Poor souls" sounds a bit patronizing to me, if you don't mind me saying. The thing is, we've had years of debate with doubters strenuously defending the veracity of the dog alerts and the notion that Gerry had time to be in two places at once so for them (the doubters) to consider any other option apart from parental involvement in body occultation leads me to wonder just how convinced they are by their own arguments.
"cherished tropes'' was music to my ears; not.
-
"cherished tropes'' was music to my ears; not.
Another non answer.
-
All options are open and worthy of discussion Alfie; except for those who have nailed their colours to the mast of abduction, of course. Those poor souls have all their eggs in one basket which they have to defend at all costs.
you obviously dont read the posts properly. AFAIAC stranger abduction is by far and a way the most probable solution based on the available evidence....thats what the available evidence supports but some are too blind to see
-
you obviously dont read the posts properly. AFAIAC stranger abduction is by far and a way the most probable solution based on the available evidence....thats what the available evidence supports but some are too blind to see
Can you define "stranger"?
-
Swarthy foreign type, I expect.
-
Can you define "stranger"?
someone not known to the family
-
someone not known to the family
Well I haven't seen enough evidence to make it so distant from the family. Would that then exclude all the other OC clients there that week? They might have known the McCanns a little, so are they still strangers?
-
Well I haven't seen enough evidence to make it so distant from the family. Would that then exclude all the other OC clients there that week? They might have known the McCanns a little, so are they still strangers?
i think most understand what is meant by stranger abduction
-
you obviously dont read the posts properly. AFAIAC stranger abduction is by far and a way the most probable solution based on the available evidence....thats what the available evidence supports but some are too blind to see
Some were unable to support their beliefs when we had a thread to examine the 'evidence' of abduction. Probably because there isn't any.
-
i think most understand what is meant by stranger abduction
Stranger abduction is easily defined when the two groups do not know each other. The opposite extreme is the family and the immediate T7 group. But it is that group that is partially associated e.g. the OC residents and staff there that week that could have seen Madeleine while swimming or yachting or playing tennis or at meal times. Are these strictly strangers? If you include all people other than the T9 as strangers so beit.
-
the term stranger abduction is understood by anyone with average intelligence.......do you not understand it
I want you define what group the OC clients are in?
-
I want you define what group the OC clients are in?
I find a lot of your posts more than a bit silly
No offence of course
This is one of them
-
I find a lot of your posts more than a bit silly
No offence of course
This is one of them
No offence taken.
I'll point out one family the Carpenters, are they "strangers" or not? That should be an easy question for you.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
-
I've noticed a willingness on the part of "sceptics" to explore other scenarios such as kidnap by the Mafia, Gerry being spotted in Lagos on the phone saying "please don't hurt her", woke and wandered etc, all scenarios which mean that cherished tropes such as "death in the apartment", "cadaver dog alerts" and Smithman being "you know who" have to be discarded (or put on the backburner anyway).
Is it finally dawning on the doubters?
No, I think supporters have finally started reading what the sceptics post rather than arguing against a strawman of their own devising.
-
No, I think supporters have finally started reading what the sceptics post rather than arguing against a strawman of their own devising.
I think that's just a meaningless insult. It's not supporters who push forward alternative theories on this forum such as woke and wandered or kidnapped by the mafia, yet these are both theories treated as credible by "sceptics" who have vigorously supported the dog alerts and Smithman being "you know who". We have recently discussed the possibility that Gerry was seen in Lagos on the phone saying "please don't hurt her" and there appeared to be a willingness on the part of some sceptics to believe it actually was him. Bizarre, as these are the same people who are also staunch defenders of the dog alerts.
-
8)><( sorry someone has no sense of humor off topic but i cant see the like button anymore?
-
I think that's just a meaningless insult. It's not supporters who push forward alternative theories on this forum such as woke and wandered or kidnapped by the mafia, yet these are both theories treated as credible by "sceptics" who have vigorously supported the dog alerts and Smithman being "you know who". We have recently discussed the possibility that Gerry was seen in Lagos on the phone saying "please don't hurt her" and there appeared to be a willingness on the part of some sceptics to believe it actually was him. Bizarre, as these are the same people who are also staunch defenders of the dog alerts.
What I see happening on here is supporters going to extraordinary lengths to reject anything except abduction by a stranger. As a result others spend time pointing out that there are other possibilities. That doesn't mean they are committed to any of those possibilities, it just means they are open minded.
-
8)><( sorry someone has no sense of humor off topic but i cant see the like button anymore?
I can.
-
i can now my internet was playing up we have been having storms 8((()*/
-
What I see happening on here is supporters going to extraordinary lengths to reject anything except abduction by a stranger. As a result others spend time pointing out that there are other possibilities. That doesn't mean they are committed to any of those possibilities, it just means they are open minded.
Well I happen to believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger which should in theory make me a supporter of the idea that Gerry was seen in Lagos begging someone not to hurt Madeleine. You seem to think that idea is credible but I don't - because I am able to process the information and reject it on the basis that it simply doesn't fit with all the known facts. You however try to make it fit with the known facts. Rejecting it doesn't make me close minded, it means I can process the information logically. There is no merit in entertaining every single cockamamie theory just because there is an inkling of a suggestion of evidence to support it. IMO.
-
Well I happen to believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger which should in theory make me a supporter of the idea that Gerry was seen in Lagos begging someone not to hurt Madeleine. You seem to think that idea is credible but I don't - because I am able to process the information and reject it on the basis that it simply doesn't fit with all the known facts. You however try to make it fit with the known facts. Rejecting it doesn't make me close minded, it means I can process the information logically. There is no merit in entertaining every single cockamamie theory just because there is an inkling of a suggestion of evidence to support it. IMO.
How does it not fit?
-
How does it not fit?
How does what not fit? Gerry being in Lagos on the phone moments after appearing in front of the world's media in PdL do you mean? The same Gerry who didn't hire a car until weeks later? We've discussed this already. If you want to discuss it again let's do so on the relevant thread. In the meantime it's heartening to see that abduction does fit in with some of the evidence as far as you're concerned.
-
How does what not fit? Gerry being in Lagos on the phone moments after appearing in front of the world's media in PdL do you mean? The same Gerry who didn't hire a car until weeks later? We've discussed this already. If you want to discuss it again let's do so on the relevant thread. In the meantime it's heartening to see that abduction does fit in with some of the evidence as far as you're concerned.
You brought it up and you made a statement of 'fact' about it not fitting. As per usual it's not a fact though, which I have explained on the relevant thread.
Were you under the impression that I had rejected abduction completely? How you misunderstand my position!
My position is I don't know what happened, because there's so little evidence. There's definitely not enough evidence to suggest that abduction is the only possibilty.
-
You brought it up and you made a statement of 'fact' about it not fitting. As per usual it's not a fact though, which I have explained on the relevant thread.
Were you under the impression that I had rejected abduction completely? How you misunderstand my position!
My position is I don't know what happened, because there's so little evidence. There's definitely not enough evidence to suggest that abduction is the only possibilty.
Why is it then that most of your posts seem an attempt to throw doubt on or undermine the McCanns' version of events? I've never seen you post in support of the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, apart from your attempt to shoe-horn in Gerry being in Lagos making a desperate phone call to a kidnapper.
-
What I see happening on here is supporters going to extraordinary lengths to reject anything except abduction by a stranger. As a result others spend time pointing out that there are other possibilities. That doesn't mean they are committed to any of those possibilities, it just means they are open minded.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'going to extraordinary lengths.....' G. Can you elaborate please. IMO both sides give their opinions and in the main both try to back them up with evidence - if it is available. I don't see any difference between the two sides in that respect.
One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to 'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by 'going to extraordinary lengths.....' G. Can you elaborate please. IMO both sides give their opinions and in the main both try to back them up with evidence - if it is available. I don't see any difference between the two sides in that respect.
One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to 'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs.
'One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to 'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs.'
Really.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Perhaps you should read the Mccann supporting sites.
Meanwhile, what evidence that 'supports' abduction, can't be explained by other means/scenarios ?
&%+((£
-
'One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to 'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs.'
Really.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Perhaps you should read the Mccann supporting sites.
Meanwhile, what evidence that 'supports' abduction, can't be explained by other means/scenarios ?
&%+((£
So once again you admit that there is evidence to support abduction
Seems like Alf is correct
-
Why is it then that most of your posts seem an attempt to throw doubt on or undermine the McCanns' version of events? I've never seen you post in support of the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, apart from your attempt to shoe-horn in Gerry being in Lagos making a desperate phone call to a kidnapper, however once again your purpose for doing seems to be to suggest that Gerry is withholding information and being deceitful.
Your key word there is 'seem'. That's your perception of my posts, that's all. Supporters of the McCanns ignore, excuse or deny anything which casts doubt on their version of events. A lot of ny posts highlight those inconvenient facts.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by 'going to extraordinary lengths.....' G. Can you elaborate please. IMO both sides give their opinions and in the main both try to back them up with evidence - if it is available. I don't see any difference between the two sides in that respect.
One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to 'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs.
Not even in respect of Martin Grime and Amaral? Please!
-
It is quite remarkable that some posters seem unable to grasp the content of other posts, and twist it to their own ends.
Consequently reaffirming why they are on here in the first place.
-
Your key word there is 'seem'. That's your perception of my posts, that's all. Supporters of the McCanns ignore, excuse or deny anything which casts doubt on their version of events. A lot of ny posts highlight those inconvenient facts.
There are literally no facts that you have highlighted that cast doubt on the stranger abduction theory - nothing which rules it out, nothing which makes it improbable or unlikely to have happened, so all we have is YOUR perception of the evidence, your perception versus mine. You even admit that abduction is a possibility, you even believe it's possible that the McCanns were in contact with an abductor. I don't go THAT far!
-
Not even in respect of Martin Grime and Amaral? Please!
It is claimed by sceptics that the Tapas 7 deliberately conspired with the McCanns to cover up the death of their daughter - and still maintain that conspiracy is still operating 10 years later.
Some sceptics explained away the SY statement that the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest by suggesting that this was part of a conspiracy between SY and the Oporto team to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security.
I do not believe there is a conspiracy between newspaper editors and the McCanns to publish articles to coincide with other news items.
I do not believe the McCann are so important they have to be protected by 'people in high places'.
I do not believe that Madeleine died before 3rd May and that photographs proving otherwise have been photoshopped
There are a myriad of conspiracy theories amongst sceptics - thankfully most of the really barmy ones (like the substitute child) are not on this forum.
My point is that in my experience supporters are not conspiracy theorists by nature - but many sceptics are.
AIMHO
-
It is claimed by sceptics that the Tapas 7 deliberately conspired with the McCanns to cover up the death of their daughter - and still maintain that conspiracy is still operating 10 years later.
Some sceptics explained away the SY statement that the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest by suggesting that this was part of a conspiracy between SY and the Oporto team to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security.
I do not believe there is a conspiracy between newspaper editors and the McCanns to publish articles to coincide with other news items.
I do not believe the McCann are so important they have to be protected by 'people in high places'.
I do not believe that Madeleine died before 3rd May and that photographs proving otherwise have been photoshopped
There are a myriad of conspiracy theories amongst sceptics - thankfully most of the really barmy ones (like the substitute child) are not on this forum.
My point is that in my experience supporters are not conspiracy theorists by nature - but many sceptics are.
AIMHO
I assume you will provide cites from this forum for all that? Otherwise it's just another strawman.
-
I assume you will provide cites from this forum for all that? Otherwise it's just another strawman.
Pretty much everything on Benice's list has been mooted or implied by numerous sceptic posters over the years - to claim otherwise is the height of disingenuousness IMO. We could start by examining in depth the posts of Pathfinder and Faithlilly for starters if you like...shall we start a new thread?
-
Pretty much everything on Benice's list has been mooted or implied by numerous sceptic posters over the years - to claim otherwise is the height of disingenuousness IMO. We could start by examining in depth the posts of Pathfinder and Faithlilly for starters if you like...shall we start a new thread?
So we can say that supporters think Madeleine was the second coming?
-
So we can say that supporters think Madeleine was the second coming?
If it pleases you to, we both know however that that is not an equivalent comparison.
-
So we can say that supporters think Madeleine was the second coming?
It'll certainly be a miracle if she returns.
-
I assume you will provide cites from this forum for all that? Otherwise it's just another strawman.
BTW, read this thread, it might prove enlightening.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6981.0
-
It is claimed by sceptics that the Tapas 7 deliberately conspired with the McCanns to cover up the death of their daughter - and still maintain that conspiracy is still operating 10 years later.
Some sceptics explained away the SY statement that the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest by suggesting that this was part of a conspiracy between SY and the Oporto team to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security.
I do not believe there is a conspiracy between newspaper editors and the McCanns to publish articles to coincide with other news items.
I do not believe the McCann are so important they have to be protected by 'people in high places'.
I do not believe that Madeleine died before 3rd May and that photographs proving otherwise have been photoshopped
There are a myriad of conspiracy theories amongst sceptics - thankfully most of the really barmy ones (like the substitute child) are not on this forum.
My point is that in my experience supporters are not conspiracy theorists by nature - but many sceptics are.
AIMHO
If 'sceptics' can be treated as a homogeneous group so can supporters. There do appear to be some who view G..... as a complete fraud and Amaral and his officers as plotting to entrap the McCanns from day one.
Then we have the 'elites' being protected, the belief some have that sceptics are trying to divert attention from the 'guilty', and the desperate attempts to pretend that leaving toddlers alone every night in an unlocked holiday apartment is something thousands of UK parents approve of and do themselves.
-
Joao Carlos contradicts himself. In one part of his report he gives Gerry McCann an alibi using the group timeline and in another part he refers to the need of a reconstitution. So the timeline is right/not right as convenient.
Martin Smith's last statement said he was 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann. The only other comment I can find is made after the Crimewatch programme in 2013;
"from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328
-
In reply to the thread question...No there is no acceptance they did or did not do it. Many still hold firm that they do not know what happened to little Maddie and don't guess or invent lies.
I think you are getting confused with the reason for this part of the forum which is to discuss the case and those involved, to challenge the story as told by the Tapas, and look at different scenarios without committing to it as being what actually happened. The only way to get to the truth is to ask questions and hope truthful answers are forthcoming. Then it is down to what people believe. Discussing an abduction like other scenarios is not an acceptance of anything.
-
Here we go again, trying to make the evidence fit with beliefs. The range of crimes remain untouched, as the prosecutors noted;
the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
They were;
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
[The prosecutors had no idea of what happened to Madeleine and still don't.
-
Forgotten?
Looks like a spoof article to me.
Don't be foolish.
We have been through all this before.
-
They have adduced enough evidence to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that Madeleine was abducted.
The tricky bit is nailing the perpetrator(s).
-
They have adduced enough evidence to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that Madeleine was abducted.
The tricky bit is nailing the perpetrator(s).
Dear oh dear. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
They have adduced enough evidence to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that Madeleine was abducted.
The tricky bit is nailing the perpetrator(s).
Really, what evidence? SY no more know what happened to Madeleine than you or I do, that is why they are winding down the investigation.
-
Dear oh dear. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
You know differently do you?
They say they don't know where Madeleine is, that is what they mean when they say they don't know what happened to her, that they don't know where she was taken.
-
Really, what evidence? SY no more know what happened to Madeleine than you or I do, that is why they are winding down the investigation.
"No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances (of Madeleine's disappearance).
Portuguese Prosecutors.
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
-
Portuguese Prosecutors.
i.e. They don't have evidence of abduction, never did.
Remember what Mitchell said ?
-
i.e. They don't have evidence of abduction, never did.
Remember what Mitchell said ?
They had a name for Smith man -
Last night Scotland Yard detectives were trying to track him down while also preparing to make appeals in Holland, Germany and Ireland. Their number one suspect was named amid a "truly unprecedented response" to Monday night's Crimewatch on BBC1 which attracted 7.3 million viewers.
I wonder how many thousands phoned in about Smith man? Who said the public weren't on the McCann's side?
-
They had a name for Smith man -
Last night Scotland Yard detectives were trying to track him down while also preparing to make appeals in Holland, Germany and Ireland. Their number one suspect was named amid a "truly unprecedented response" to Monday night's Crimewatch on BBC1 which attracted 7.3 million viewers.
I wonder how many thousands phoned in about Smith man? Who said the public weren't on the McCann's side?
I seem to remember that a lot rang in to say Smithman e-fit looked just like McCann.
-
I seem to remember that a lot rang in to say Smithman e-fit looked just like McCann.
Yes, I read on line some giggling about ringing in to say Gerry looked like Smith man, why they thought it funny to clog up phones with their nonsense I don't know.
They need their eyes tested anyway, the hairline is wrong, the nose is wrong, the lips are wrong.
-
Really, what evidence? SY no more know what happened to Madeleine than you or I do, that is why they are winding down the investigation.
"No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances (of Madeleine's disappearance).
Portuguese Prosecutors.
What has that to do with your claim that the evidence points to abduction?
There is a thread on this very topic and if I recall correctly nobody produced anything to support abduction aside from the claim that the bedroom shutter was up and the window was open. The reality is that abduction has never been established despite two investigations running over nine years. Now that is in itself noteworthy.
-
Portuguese Prosecutors.
What has that to do with your claim that the evidence points to abduction?
There is a thread on this very topic and if I recall correctly nobody produced anything to support abduction aside from the claim that the bedroom shutter was up and the window was open. The reality is that abduction has never been established despite two investigations running over nine years. Now that is in itself noteworthy.
Claims?
I haven't made any claims.
I have just have stated irrefutable facts.
-
whether there is acceptance or not...it is patently obvious the McCanns never did it
-
Claims?
I haven't made any claims.
I have just have stated irrefutable facts.
Such as?
Please be kind enough to post these 'irrefutable facts' which prove abduction so we can amend the relevant thread.
-
whether there is acceptance or not...it is patently obvious the McCanns never did it
Yes I agree, they never did it.
-
Such as?
The prosecutors are satisfied that Madeleine and Kate and Gerry McCann are victims of a crime (or possibly more than one crime!) by perpetrator(s) unknown, at least so far as we, the general public, are concerned, although, of course, Operation Grange may well have information not released into the public domain (I fervently hope they do).
That's it, really.
-
It's obvious that not every one grudgingly accepts that the McCanns didn't do it, indeed there are still some people (some on this forum even) tenaciously holding on to the notion that it's only a matter of time (tick tock) before the Met carry out dawn raids on Rothley. I wonder what if anything (even including the apprehension and complete confession of an abductor) would convince the die-hard doubters that the McCanns didn't do it? What evidence would need to be revealed that would convince these people? Will it be enough when the Met reiterate that they have been investigating stranger abduction, or not?
-
The prosecutors are satisfied that Madeleine and Kate and Gerry McCann are victims of a crime (or possibly more than one crime!) by perpetrator(s) unknown, at least so far as we, the general public, are concerned, although, of course, Operation Grange may well have information not released into the public domain (I fervently hope they do).
That's it, really.
Is that it? Do I have to remind that the Attorney General stated in his Archiving Report that the parents lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence because of the refusal by tapas group members to participate in a reconstruction.
-
Yes I agree, they never did it.
There it is.
And to add:
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
The Portuguese Prosecutors.
You know, perhaps we could start a separate thread inviting discussion on which part of what I quote above might tend to indicate that theMcCannsdunit?
-
It's obvious that not every one grudgingly accepts that the McCanns didn't do it, indeed there are still some people (some on this forum even) tenaciously holding on to the notion that it's only a matter of time (tick tock) before the Met carry out dawn raids on Rothley. I wonder what if anything (even including the apprehension and complete confession of an abductor) would convince the die-hard doubters that the McCanns didn't do it? What evidence would need to be revealed that would convince these people? Will it be enough when the Met reiterate that they have been investigating stranger abduction, or not?
They were investigating all possibilities last time I looked and came up empty on all counts.
-
There it is.
There is what?
-
Is that it? Do I have to remind that the Attorney General stated in his Archiving Report that the parents lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence because of the refusal by tapas group members to participate in a reconstruction.
Demonstrate distinct from prove!
In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to prove their innocence.
-
They were investigating all possibilities last time I looked and came up empty on all counts.
Last time you looked they were investigating the parents? Please provide a cite for this thanks.
-
Last time you looked they were investigating the parents? Please provide a cite for this thanks.
You might not know this but it is the job of a police officer to look beyond the obvious.
-
Demonstrate distinct from prove!
In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to demonstrate their innocence.
The investigation is governed by the laws of Portugal. The AG was very clear, the crime if any was undetermined.
-
The investigation is governed by the laws of Portugal. The AG was very clear, the crime if any was undetermined.
The prosecutors were very clear that the McCanns committed no crime, including that their child-care arrangements passed muster legally.
-
You might not know this but it is the job of a police officer to look beyond the obvious.
I'm sorry that won't do. Last time you looked you say the police were investigating ALL possibilities. Where did you look, and kindly show us what you saw!
ETA: What is the obvious in this case, btw?
-
Demonstrate distinct from prove!
In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to demonstrate their innocence.
Are you unaware of the concept of an alibi? Providing a solid alibi is one commonly used method of proving/demonstrating innocence.
-
The prosecutors were very clear that the McCanns committed no crime, including that their child-care arrangements passed muster legally.
I think you have conveniently misinterpreted what they stated. What they actually recorded was that there was no evidence that the parents or anyone else for that matter engaged in any crime. A somewhat subtle difference.
-
Are you unaware of the concept of an alibi? Providing a solid alibi is one commonly used method of proving/demonstrating innocence.
Yes, one reason why the police were able to categorically dismiss Gerry as Smithman.
-
The investigation is governed by the laws of Portugal. The AG was very clear, the crime if any was undetermined.
The original:
Demonstrate distinct from prove!
In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to prove their innocence.
I note that my (original) post was edited by John, from prove to demonstrate.
-
I'm sorry that won't do. Last time you looked you say the police were investigating ALL possibilities. Where did you look, and kindly show us what you saw!
ETA: What is the obvious in this case, btw?
I saw the same as you, two investigations and nothing found. Police don't simply investigate a case based on what might appear to be obvious, they start at the beginning and pursue all possible scenarios.
-
I think you have conveniently misinterpreted what they stated. What they actually recorded was that there was no evidence that the parents or anyone else for that matter engaged in any crime. A somewhat subtle difference.
I suppose, in a just about, still, free country, you are entitled to your erroneous thoughts.
If there is no evidence of a crime, there is legally no crime.
Entertaining the hypothetical notion of something could come to light to alter that is one thing.
Tending to a view that something will come to light to alter that is another.
-
The original:
Demonstrate distinct from prove!
In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to prove their innocence.
I note that my (original) post was edited by John, from prove to demonstrate.
You are mistaken, your post was not edited. The actual word used by the AG was confirmar which translates literally as demonstrate.
-
I saw the same as you, two investigations and nothing found. Police don't simply investigate a case based on what might appear to be obvious, they start at the beginning and pursue all possible scenarios.
They certainly do when conducting an honest investigation.
-
The original:
Demonstrate distinct from prove!
In all except Fascist states there is no need for those accused (of anything) to prove their innocence.
I note that my (original) post was edited by John, from prove to demonstrate.
To be honest, I am getting offended by repeated trotting out of the idea that Portugal is a Fascist state.
Prove it. Demonstrate it. Whatever.
You are entitled to your opinion, as long as you make clear it is simply that - your opinion. Otherwise provide some support for your claim.
-
I suppose, in a just about, still, free country, you are entitled to your erroneous thoughts.
If there is no evidence of a crime, there is legally no crime.
Entertaining the hypothetical notion of something could come to light to alter that is one thing.
Tending to a view that something will come to light to alter that is another.
But I agree, as has been point out ad nauseum, nobody except possibly those involved (if there was anyone) know what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. The best we can do is theorise based on known established facts.
-
I saw the same as you, two investigations and nothing found. Police don't simply investigate a case based on what might appear to be obvious, they start at the beginning and pursue all possible scenarios.
I ask again - what appears to be obvious and why? To some here it's OBVIOUS the parents dunnit. There is no evidence (only your belief) that the police are investigating parental involvement.
-
I ask again - what appears to be obvious and why? To some here it's OBVIOUS the parents dunnit. There is no evidence (only your belief) that the police are investigating parental involvement.
Police investigate all scenarios, even those which seemingly make you uncomfortable. If they didn't and it later transpired that what they chose to ignore was in fact what occurred they would face considerable ridicule. That is why SY have pursued a policy of no commentary all along in this case except for the very rare offering by former DCI Redwood. You will have observed that Redwood's replacement, DCI Nicola Wall has made virtually no comment at all, basically a least said easiest mended approach.
-
To be honest, I am getting offended by repeated trotting out of the idea that Portugal is a Fascist state.
Prove it. Demonstrate it. Whatever.
You are entitled to your opinion, as long as you make clear it is simply that - your opinion. Otherwise provide some support for your claim.
Get as 'offended' as you like by (imagined!) 'slights' that don't exist.
What I have said, underline, emphasise and repeat is that the appeal-court ruling was, and is, fascist!
I think you might find that I have also said that the ruling of the first-instance court was exemplary, that is, the antithesis of fascist.
You know, fascists exist everywhere. They exist in England. They exist in Portugal.
That is a long way from declaring an entire state, or an entire judicial system (of whatever country) fascist.
-
I suppose, in a just about, still, free country, you are entitled to your erroneous thoughts.
If there is no evidence of a crime, there is legally no crime.
Entertaining the hypothetical notion of something could come to light to alter that is one thing.
Tending to a view that something will come to light to alter that is another.
In this case a child disappeared. Unless she ran away someone removed her from 5A. Whoever did that committed a crime against the child.
-
In this case a child disappeared. Unless she ran away someone removed her from 5A. Whoever did that committed a crime against the child.
Against Madeleine, yes.
-
In this case a child disappeared. Unless she ran away someone removed her from 5A. Whoever did that committed a crime against the child.
Reply to the wrong post
-
Police investigate all scenarios, even those which seemingly make you uncomfortable. If they didn't and it later transpired that what they chose to ignore was in fact what occurred they would face considerable ridicule. That is why SY have pursued a policy of no commentary all along in this case except for the very rare offering by former DCI Redwood. You will have observed that Redwood's replacement, DCI Nicola Wall has made virtually no comment at all, basically a least said easiest mended approach.
So are you saying that after 3 or 4 years, and publicly declaring that they are treating this case as one of stranger abduction that you know FOR A FACT that the Met have not ruled out any particular theory WHATSOEVER?
-
So are you saying that after 3 or 4 years, and publicly declaring that they are treating this case as one of stranger abduction that you know FOR A FACT that the Met have not ruled out any particular theory WHATSOEVER?
Never believe what a cop reveals publicly. They always have an ulterior motive for doing so.
-
Never believe what a cop reveals publicly.
Can you answer my question with a straight forward yes or no please.
-
Yes, one reason why the police were able to categorically dismiss Gerry as Smithman.
I said solid.
-
I'm sorry that won't do. Last time you looked you say the police were investigating ALL possibilities. Where did you look, and kindly show us what you saw!
ETA: What is the obvious in this case, btw?
Not so much obvious but assumed. The parents assumed that Madeleine had been abducted but the investigation found very little to support it. That is why it was imperative that SY went back to basics and looked at all possible scenarios.
-
So are you saying that after 3 or 4 years, and publicly declaring that they are treating this case as one of stranger abduction that you know FOR A FACT that the Met have not ruled out any particular theory WHATSOEVER?
SY have never publicly identified the crime as stranger abduction, that's a myth.
-
SY have never publicly identified the crime as stranger abduction, that's a myth.
Scotland Yard detectives released a picture of what Madeleine McCann may look like today as they said they had uncovered new information to suggest she could be alive and living with her abductor.
The senior officer leading an investigative review into the disappearance of Madeleine five years ago is calling on Portuguese police to reopen their inquiry into the case.
Releasing an age-enhanced image of Madeleine – as she nears her ninth birthday on 12 May – Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, of Scotland Yard's homicide and serious crime command, said: "We genuinely believe there's a possibility that she is alive. I want to make a direct appeal. If you know where Madeleine McCann is or if you have any direct information or evidence about what happened to her, then please make contact."
Redwood and his 37-strong team have identified 195 missed investigative opportunities in the 40,000 pieces of evidence they have examined from the Portuguese inquiry, the family's home force in Leicestershire, and the information gleaned by a team of private detectives hired by the McCann family since Madeleine went missing, aged three, from the resort of Praia de Luz on 3 May 2007.
"We are in a unique position seeking to draw together the three key strands of information about her disappearance," said Redwood.
He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory – promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral – that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.
He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger".
Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, worked closely with the Met to produce the new image of their daughter.
"Kate says she can see Madeleine's brother and sister Sean and Amelie in it as well as something of herself," said the family's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell. She and Gerry feel very positive and they hope it leads to the breakthrough they have been waiting for."
Redwood's team is sifting page by page through 100,000 documents within the 40,000 pieces of evidence, and are a quarter of the way through the exercise. They are working closely with a team of Portuguese detectives and liaising with law enforcement agencies across Europe and the world when necessary.
They are developing what they believe is "genuinely new information" in the hunt for the child. It is understood, though, that this is not based on any new possible sightings. The team is also pursuing the line of inquiry that after five years Madeleine might be dead.
It is understood that key areas being investigated by Scotland Yard – which the Portuguese police failed to pursue – include analysis of a huge amount of mobile phone cell site evidence that was gathered but never analysed. That evidence could help to trace any suspects who were around the resort.
They are also attempting for the first time to contact all the holidaymakers who were staying around the area of the Mark Warner Ocean club complex between 28 April and 3 May 2007, when Madeleine disappeared from her room while her parents were eating dinner with friends at a nearby tapas bar.
Officers are also focusing on any men in the area with criminal convictions that might indicate they are a danger to children, and investigating the backgrounds of resort staff, including examining whether any had suffered the loss of a child.
Commander Simon Foy, Scotland Yard's head of homicide command, said they would not stop until they discovered what had happened to Madeleine. The review inquiry – which has cost £2m to date – began after the McCanns appealed last year to David Cameron for Scotland Yard to investigate the case.
There are examples of children who have been abducted only to be found alive years later: Jaycee Lee Dugard was found alive 18 years after being snatched at the age of 11 from a bus stop in California; the Austrian schoolgirl Natascha Kampusch was found in 2006, eight years after being abducted aged 10; and Shawn Hornbeck, who disappeared aged 12 in 2002, was found four years later.
The decision on whether to reopen the inquiry in Portugal is in the hands of the country's attorney general. He has said he will only reopen the investigation if "new, serious and relevant evidence emerges". He was not available for comment.
Redwood said the police review team in Portugal were keen for this to happen. "[They] want to reopen the case … They are a new group of investigators and they are completely engaged and totally committed."
Jim Gamble, former head of the UK's Child Exploitation and Online Protection unit, said the hunt for Madeleine had now been reignited. "The person who's done it knows they have done it," said Gamble. "They will be paranoid, and it is likely that someone close to them will see that paranoia, or that as the pressure builds someone close to them who knows they have done it, and who is no longer a friend, might come forward.
"One thing is sure: the person who did this will be watching and listening."
Potential witnesses are urged to call 0800 096 1011 within the UK or +44 207 1580 126 from outside. Crimestoppers can be contacted anonymously on 0800 555 111.
Of course, at the point of that article, the decision to re-open the investigation had not been taken.
And by Portuguese law, new evidence is required to re-open an investigation.
-
Of course, at the point of that article, the decision to re-open the investigation had not been taken.
And by Portuguese law, new evidence is required to re-open an investigation.
"Scotland Yard detectives released a picture of what Madeleine McCann may look like today as they said they had uncovered new information to suggest she could be alive and living with her abductor".
One wonders what they did with that information?
Three years on and they remain empty handed.
Anyone wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge ?
-
SY have never publicly identified the crime as stranger abduction, that's a myth.
That is patently false.
-
That is patently false.
Cite please?
-
Cite please?
A cite for what?
-
Cite please?
Redwood and his 37-strong team have identified 195 missed investigative opportunities in the 40,000 pieces of evidence they have examined from the Portuguese inquiry, the family's home force in Leicestershire, and the information gleaned by a team of private detectives hired by the McCann family since Madeleine went missing, aged three, from the resort of Praia de Luz on 3 May 2007.
"We are in a unique position seeking to draw together the three key strands of information about her disappearance," said Redwood.
He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory – promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral – that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.
He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
-
DCI Andy Redwood:
".................and it is our belief as experienced investigators, (emphasised) ON THE EVIDENCE that erm, that y'know. that, that, is a criminal act that has been y'know undertaken by, by a stranger.........."
-
Let us also not forget that the word abduction appears in Operation Grange's remit. Not disappearance. Not accidental death. Not runaway. ABDUCTION. Now let's have some evidence that the Met are currently investigating parental involvement. Anything will do.
-
DCI Andy Redwood:
".................and it is our belief as experienced investigators, (emphasised) ON THE EVIDENCE that erm, that y'know. that, that, is a criminal act that has been y'know undertaken by, by a stranger.........."
Here is the whole quote :
"We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to be removed from that apartment alive and it is our belief as experienced investigators on the evidence that um that, you know, that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger".
And G-Unit's explanation given some time ago :
'Perhaps Redwood's English isn't perfect. Let me explain again what he actually said.
1. They have forensically examined the timeline.
2. They identified an opportunity for the child to be taken alive from the apartment.
3. If someone took that opportunity that would be a criminal act by a stranger.
Nowhere does he say that he believes anyone took that opportunity, but if they did, he believes that would be a criminal act by a stranger.'
I believe Redwood was very clever when answering a very tricky question.
-
Here is the whole quote :
"We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to be removed from that apartment alive and it is our belief as experienced investigators on the evidence that um that, you know, that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger".
And G-Unit's explanation given some time ago :
'Perhaps Redwood's English isn't perfect. Let me explain again what he actually said.
1. They have forensically examined the timeline.
2. They identified an opportunity for the child to be taken alive from the apartment.
3. If someone took that opportunity that would be a criminal act by a stranger.
Nowhere does he say that he believes anyone took that opportunity, but if they did, he believes that would be a criminal act by a stranger.'
I believe Redwood was very clever when answering a very tricky question.
Believe what you want. It's taken literally years for some sceptic to come up with that nonsense theory. At the time everyone who saw it and heard it from the horses mouth was very clear what he meant, on both sides of the debate. ALL the media worldwide reported it as such. And when you look at the spin G-Unit has put on Redwood's words it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Every scrap of evidence, every action they have taken since those words were spoken points to the fact that the Met are investigating an abduction and not parental involvement.
-
Redwood and his 37-strong team have identified 195 missed investigative opportunities in the 40,000 pieces of evidence they have examined from the Portuguese inquiry, the family's home force in Leicestershire, and the information gleaned by a team of private detectives hired by the McCann family since Madeleine went missing, aged three, from the resort of Praia de Luz on 3 May 2007.
"We are in a unique position seeking to draw together the three key strands of information about her disappearance," said Redwood.
He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory – promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral – that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.
He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-yard-case
That was disbanded and is now The Nicola Wall Quartet.
No result in the offing but I guess as is the currency on both sides when it suits: "tic toc tic toc"
-
The remit written before even a witness statement was read. You're not suggesting a cover-up are you Alfie ?
No, you are though.
-
Believe what you want. It's taken literally years for some sceptic to come up with that nonsense theory. At the time everyone who saw it and heard it from the horses mouth was very clear what he meant, on both sides of the debate. ALL the media worldwide reported it as such. And when you look at the spin G-Unit has put on Redwood's words it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Every scrap of evidence, every action they have taken since those words were spoken points to the fact that the Met are investigating an abduction and not parental involvement.
I transcribed the quote and it is verbatim. The media paraphrased Redwood ( if you can find the whole quote in any of the print media I'll be happy to withdraw my claim) losing the context of the sentence completely.
-
I transcribed the quote and it is verbatim. The media paraphrased Redwood ( if you can find the whole quote in any of the print media I'll be happy to withdraw my claim) losing the context of the sentence completely.
I've watched the video, I remember the indignation and the fury amongst the sceptics at the time. Twisting the meaning years after the event might help you deal with it but I'm afraid you're just deluding yourselves.
-
No, you are though.
So if not a cover-up how could OG know it was an abduction before reading one single witness statement?
-
I've watched the video, I remember the indignation and the fury amongst the sceptics at the time. Twisting the meaning years after the event might help you deal with it but I'm afraid you're just deluding yourselves.
I guess you couldn't find a verbatim quote from the print media then?
-
So if not a cover-up how could OG know it was an abduction before reading one single witness statement?
Who told you that Operation Grange came to the case completely oblivious to any of the facts?
-
I guess you couldn't find a verbatim quote from the print media then?
Why would I need to do that? His words are there for all to see in the video clip. I don't dispute what he said. It's as clear as day. His words had "sceptics" frothing with indignation at the time, surely you remember? His TV pronouncement formed the basis of worldwide headlines that the Met were treating the case as one of stranger abduction - now surely you're not claiming that everyone who watched him being interviewed, including all you sceptics at the time plus the worldwide press, got it completely wrong?
-
Who told you that Operation Grange came to the case completely oblivious to any of the facts?
So are you saying OG had already decided it was an abduction?
-
Here is the whole quote :
"We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine McCann to be removed from that apartment alive and it is our belief as experienced investigators on the evidence that um that, you know, that is a criminal act that has been undertaken by a stranger".
And G-Unit's explanation given some time ago :
'Perhaps Redwood's English isn't perfect. Let me explain again what he actually said.
1. They have forensically examined the timeline.
2. They identified an opportunity for the child to be taken alive from the apartment.
3. If someone took that opportunity that would be a criminal act by a stranger.
Nowhere does he say that he believes anyone took that opportunity, but if they did, he believes that would be a criminal act by a stranger.'
I believe Redwood was very clever when answering a very tricky question.
The above was said in the Daybreak interview when they were a quarter of the way through the files (Portuguese, English and PI). Redwood, asked directly, said he believed Madeleine was still alive. He was asked why he believed that and his answer is pathetic imo.
I believe she's still alive because, at the beginning of this case ...we came with a completely open mind. We were untouched by anything that's gone before, and, as part of that, two key elements of it is to go: 1 Madeleine is alive and the other is, sadly she's not ... and in relation to her being alive, yes, there is a real possibility that she's alive.
So what are the things that make you think that?
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.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/60april12/ITV1_27_04_2012.htm
So the only reason Redwood could give was that they had found an 'opportunity' in the timeline?
I can just imagine the jubilation of his team as they gave each other high fives after their forensic analysis of the timeline, crying 'Yes! There's a five minute gap! An opportunity for Madeleine to have been removed from that apartment alive!'
My question is; does finding an opportunity for something to have happened mean it did happen?
-
The above was said in the Daybreak interview when they were a quarter of the way through the files (Portuguese, English and PI). Redwood, asked directly, said he believed Madeleine was still alive. He was asked why he believed that and his answer is pathetic imo.
I believe she's still alive because, at the beginning of this case ...we came with a completely open mind. We were untouched by anything that's gone before, and, as part of that, two key elements of it is to go: 1 Madeleine is alive and the other is, sadly she's not ... and in relation to her being alive, yes, there is a real possibility that she's alive.
So what are the things that make you think that?
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.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/60april12/ITV1_27_04_2012.htm
So the only reason Redwood could give was that they had found an 'opportunity' in the timeline?
I can just imagine the jubilation of his team as they gave each other high fives after their forensic analysis of the timeline, crying 'Yes! There's a five minute gap! An opportunity for Madeleine to have been removed from that apartment alive!'
My question is; does finding an opportunity for something to have happened mean it did happen?
'I believe she's still alive because, at the beginning of this case ...we came with a completely open mind. We were untouched by anything that's gone before'
Kinda blows holes in Alfie's assumption that some 'facts' were accepted at the beginning of OG.
-
So are you saying OG had already decided it was an abduction?
I am saying that the remit has the word "abduction" in it. That's a fact. More than that is simply conjecture.
-
Going back to the theme of the thread, there appears to be much faith in the information which Met officers saw fit to publicly announce to the press and media. Are people so gullible that they swallow these carefully selected titbits?
When have police officers undertaking a live investigation ever disclosed the actual line of enquiry they are following?
-
Going back to the theme of the thread, there appears to be much faith in the information which Met officers saw fit to publicly announce to the press and media. Are people so gullible that they swallow these carefully selected titbits?
When have police officers undertaking a live investigation ever disclosed the actual line of enquiry they are following?
Indeed.
-
Going back to the theme of the thread, there appears to be much faith in the information which Met officers saw fit to publicly announce to the press and media. Are people so gullible that they swallow these carefully selected titbits?
When have police officers undertaking a live investigation ever disclosed the actual line of enquiry they are following?
In this case all of the time if some posts interpretations are to be believed.
-
Going back to the theme of the thread, there appears to be much faith in the information which Met officers saw fit to publicly announce to the press and media. Are people so gullible that they swallow these carefully selected titbits?
When have police officers undertaking a live investigation ever disclosed the actual line of enquiry they are following?
Gullible...... what do you think of those who swallow every word of R D Hall.... Hi de Hi....Bennett... a lot of rubbish yet accepted as fact
-
In this case all of the time if some posts interpretations are to be believed.
Absolutely.
In this case we are being told absolutely nothing at all about how the case is progressing ~ apart from a request made by the investigation for extra funding to continue ongoing inquiries. Which was granted.
The fact that the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard have seen fit to reopen Madeleine's case based on new evidence and evidence which was not properly investigated at the time has gone a long way to convincing some that their conviction that Madeleine's parents had a hand in her disappearance might be misguided.
Particularly as without Madeleine's parents' efforts to have her case reopened we would still be at square one ... with no-one trying to find her (but for her parents).
I think most have accepted that if not unheard of it must be singularly unusual for guilty parties to agitate to have the police forces of two nations re-open the case in which they were accused.
-
Going back to the theme of the thread, there appears to be much faith in the information which Met officers saw fit to publicly announce to the press and media. Are people so gullible that they swallow these carefully selected titbits?
When have police officers undertaking a live investigation ever disclosed the actual line of enquiry they are following?
When Redwood says the parents are not suspects I don't think it's gullible to believe the parents are not suspects
I do think it's incredibly stupid to believe that Redwood was playing some sort of game to lull the parents into a false sense of security
-
Going back to the theme of the thread, there appears to be much faith in the information which Met officers saw fit to publicly announce to the press and media. Are people so gullible that they swallow these carefully selected titbits?
When have police officers undertaking a live investigation ever disclosed the actual line of enquiry they are following?
Very often actually. They are pursuing the theory that Claudia Lawrence was abducted on her way to work and murdered by a man she may have known, is just one example. Remember it is not only what the Met have said, it's also what they've done during Op Grange that reinforces the fact that they are treating the case as one of stranger abduction. Everything they have said and done points to this, nothing whatsoever points to any other theory.
-
Absolutely.
In this case we are being told absolutely nothing at all about how the case is progressing ~ apart from a request made by the investigation for extra funding to continue ongoing inquiries. Which was granted.
The fact that the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard have seen fit to reopen Madeleine's case based on new evidence and evidence which was not properly investigated at the time has gone a long way to convincing some that their conviction that Madeleine's parents had a hand in her disappearance might be misguided.
Particularly as without Madeleine's parents' efforts to have her case reopened we would still be at square one ... with no-one trying to find her (but for her parents).
I think most have accepted that if not unheard of it must be singularly unusual for guilty parties to agitate to have the police forces of two nations re-open the case in which they were accused.
Do you seriously believe that two police forces have resources in the field looking for a missing child rather than winding down a case ?
-
'I believe she's still alive because, at the beginning of this case ...we came with a completely open mind. We were untouched by anything that's gone before'
Kinda blows holes in Alfie's assumption that some 'facts' were accepted at the beginning of OG.
"I believe she's still alive" kinda blows holes in YOUR assumptions?
-
First you need to define what 'it' is. Then you need to pinpoint when 'it' happened. Until those questions are addressed you can't rule anyone out. Some think those questions have been answered, but I don't.
-
First you need to define what 'it' is. Then you need to pinpoint when 'it' happened. Until those questions are addressed you can't rule anyone out. Some think those questions have been answered, but I don't.
The McCanns played no part in anything untoward that occurred to Madeleine on May 3rd.
And made checks that passed muster legally but (narrowly) failed to thwart an abduction.
-
The McCanns played no part in anything untoward that occurred to Madeleine on May 3rd.
And made checks that passed muster legally but (narrowly) failed to thwart an abduction.
In actuality you have no idea what happened that night, you weren't there.
As to abduction, well what can I say. 8(0(*
-
The McCanns played no part in anything untoward that occurred to Madeleine on May 3rd.
And made checks that passed muster legally but (narrowly) failed to thwart an abduction.
They left her alone in a strange country, in an unlocked apartment, in this country that would be jail time for them.
They were let off lightly.
-
They left her alone in a strange country, in an unlocked apartment, in this country that would be jail time for them.
They were let off lightly.
Has there been a similar case?
-
They left her alone in a strange country, in an unlocked apartment, in this country that would be jail time for them.
They were let off lightly.
No, it wouldn't.
An (English) barrister said that their child-care arrangements was (sic) within bounds of normal parenting.
Ie: perfectly lawful.
Tragically (where that applies!) even that which is perfectly lawful may, nevertheless, fail to prevent the occurrence of something awful, such as the abduction of a child.
-
No, it wouldn't.
An (English) barrister said that their child-care arrangements was (sic) within bounds of normal parenting.
Ie: perfectly lawful.
Tragically (where that applies!) even that which is perfectly lawful may, nevertheless, fail to prevent the occurrence of something awful, such as the abduction of a child.
Only an opinion, of course, not tested in a court
-
No, it wouldn't.
An (English) barrister said that their child-care arrangements was (sic) within bounds of normal parenting.
Ie: perfectly lawful.
Tragically (where that applies!) even that which is perfectly lawful may, nevertheless, fail to prevent the occurrence of something awful, such as the abduction of a child.
Who paid for the barrister?