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: John on May 10, 2017, 12:35:27 PM
-
The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
Increasingly, some posters have taken to using the 'abductor' term as if it was a foregone conclusion. This is not the case.
The information currently within the public domain is that all options are open in respect of the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Posters should give careful consideration to the comments they post and not use terminology such as 'the abductor' or 'the killer' etc without providing an appropriate caveat.
Terms such as 'if there was an abductor' or 'in my view there was an abductor' are perfectly acceptable.
381
-
We have been told by the forum host, NOT to post opinion as fact.
Abduction is not a fact.
Editorial note:
This thread was started by the Senior Editor
using posts split from another thread.
-
We have been told by the forum host, NOT to post opinion as fact.
Abduction is not a fact.
Eleanor posted her belief - IOW her opinion - and nowhere did she claim it as a proven fact.
-
Eleanor posted her belief - IOW her opinion - and nowhere did she claim it as a proven fact.
Thank you, Benice. This is a fact.
-
'.... The Abductor...'
No, 'an abductor'.
So if '... The Abductor..' is acceptable, then so is '....The Death....'.
-
'.... The Abductor...'
No, 'an abductor'.
So if '... The Abductor..' is acceptable, then so is '....The Death....'.
There is still plenty of mileage in discussion of the abduction as one retired cop after another goes to print with his opinion ... which one of them has cast his hat into the ring along with Amaral's?
-
There is still plenty of mileage in discussion of the abduction as one retired cop after another goes to print with his opinion ... which one of them has cast his hat into the ring along with Amaral's?
Unless any of the theories are proved, which I very much doubt, they are just theories, and no more.
-
Unless any of the theories are proved, which I very much doubt, they are just theories, and no more.
But a theory that covers all of the bases could be worth investigating specifically along those lines.
-
Eleanor posted her belief - IOW her opinion - and nowhere did she claim it as a proven fact.
Not really, Eleanor expressed a belief in where the Abductor was and when, not if he existed.
-
Not really, Eleanor expressed a belief in where the Abductor was and when, not if he existed.
Exactly Slarti.
The use of the word 'the' was indicative of that being stated as a fact.
-
Not really, Eleanor expressed a belief in where the Abductor was and when, not if he existed.
I believe an abductor exists.
-
I believe an abductor exists.
You are more than entitled to do that.
However, it doesn't make it a fact, and the use of 'the', directly implies that.
-
I believe an abductor exists.
You may well do. You didn't make it clear it was your belief, you posted it as fact.
-
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance has not been ascertained.
FACT.
Madeline's ultimate fate has not been determined either.
FACT.
-
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance has not been ascertained.
FACT.
Madeline's ultimate fate has not been determined either.
FACT.
.
absolutely....maddie may still be alive
-
There is still plenty of mileage in discussion of the abduction as one retired cop after another goes to print with his opinion ... which one of them has cast his hat into the ring along with Amaral's?
You could say that about Galilieo Galilei, Nicolaus Copperknickers and the first white geezer who discovered the Duckbilled Platypus.
i.e were general folk too stupid to believe or too afraid to go off piste as you might say ?
-
You may well do. You didn't make it clear it was your belief, you posted it as fact.
Jesus wept.
-
Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to work out that when "the abductor" is being discussed, it is an abstract theoretical abductor and that it shouldn't be necessary to write 'the theoretical abductor' every single bloody time. Grow up moderators!
-
Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to work out that when "the abductor" is being discussed, it is an abstract theoretical abductor and that it shouldn't be necessary to write 'the theoretical abductor' every single bloody time. Grow up moderators!
I have to disagree Alf, when someone refers to Madeleine's 'abductor' they should use the term 'supposed abductor' or 'claimed abductor' or a similar term. Abduction has never been established, it is merely a claim.
By the same token, it is incorrect for someone who believes she was killed to refer to the perpetrator as Madeleine's 'killer'.
-
I have to disagree Alf, when someone refers to Madeleine's 'abductor' they should use the term 'supposed abductor' or 'claimed abductor' or a similar term. Abduction has never been established, it is merely a claim.
By the same token, it is incorrect for someone who believes she was killed to refer to the perpetrator as Madeleine's 'killer'.
It's getting a bit silly John
There are lots and lots of instances where posters are posting opinion as fact
Should we keep pointing them all out
First poster claim the alleged abductor left no forensic trace
That is not a fact
None was found but it may well have been there but missed
-
I have to disagree Alf, when someone refers to Madeleine's 'abductor' they should use the term 'supposed abductor' or 'claimed abductor' or a similar term. Abduction has never been established, it is merely a claim.
By the same token, it is incorrect for someone who believes she was killed to refer to the perpetrator as Madeleine's 'killer'.
Thank you for clarifying the situation John.
-
.
absolutely....maddie may still be alive
Good point too, in which case the term will be Maddie's presumed captor.
-
This is getting really silly now. Are we to receive points if we talk about an abductor and not a theoretical abductor?
-
It's getting a bit silly John
There are lots and lots of instances where posters are posting opinion as fact
Should we keep pointing them all out
First poster claim the alleged abductor left no forensic trace
That is not a fact
None was found but it may well have been there but missed
I don't see anything silly about it, abduction is but one of several VALID theories. As for forensic evidence that a stranger entered the apartment, as you rightly state, none was found. Posters are therefore correct to post this fact. It is up to others to point out as you have done that there may have been forensic evidence of an intruder but it wasn't found.
-
John perhaps you could fix it so that when a person types the word "abductor" what appears on the screen are the words "theoretical abductor" - save us the bother of having to remember every time 8((()*/
-
This is getting really silly now. Are we to receive points if we talk about an abductor and not a theoretical abductor?
No but repeating such a claim despite being warned previously is viewed as disruption.
You forget that the hundreds of people who access this forum every day as guests might not be as well informed about the case as those who register and post. Posting 'abductor' as if it were an established fact is misleading.
-
I firmly believe that whether by entering the apartment or whether by encountering her in the street that Madeleine was abducted.
I have no issue with qualifying anything I have to say with reference to the fact that the abduction theory has not been proved, although 'I would say' or even 'in my opinion', Jane Tanner's sighting comes very close.
I think Stephen's solution will go a long way to 'tidying up' discussion ... this forum is an even handed one and may I say, as a moderator I have allowed posts to remain on the threads which I thought questionable leaving it to John's unbiased editing to sort things out.
That problem for me and subsequent editing will be reduced.
This is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander with the removal of ambiguity ... and probably no bad thing as far as the integrity of the forum is concerned.
-
I firmly believe that whether by entering the apartment or whether by encountering her in the street that Madeleine was abducted.
I have no issue with qualifying anything I have to say with reference to the fact that the abduction theory has not been proved, although 'I would say' or even 'in my opinion', Jane Tanner's sighting comes very close.
I think Stephen's solution will go a long way to 'tidying up' discussion ... this forum is an even handed one and may I say, as a moderator I have allowed posts to remain on the threads which I thought questionable leaving it to John's unbiased editing to sort things out.
That problem for me and subsequent editing will be reduced.
This is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander with the removal of ambiguity ... and probably no bad thing as far as the integrity of the forum is concerned.
Most posts will have been edited to remind the reader that abduction is but one theory. Anything which cuts down on this editing is to be welcomed. Maybe now that the subject has been raised posters will take heed.
The other technical difficulty of course is that a body cannot be abducted.
-
I don't see anything silly about it, abduction is but one of several VALID theories. As for forensic evidence that a stranger entered the apartment, as you rightly state, none was found. Posters are therefore correct to post this fact. It is up to others to point out as you have done that there may have been forensic evidence of an intruder but it wasn't found.
posters are not correct to post that teh alleged abductor left no forensic trace....they should claim no forensic trace was found....there are lots and lots of other examples so i will just highlight them as they arise
-
No but repeating such a claim despite being warned previously is viewed as disruption.
You forget that the hundreds of people who access this forum every day as guests might not be as well informed about the case as those who register and post. Posting 'abductor' as if it were an established fact is misleading.
As it happens I often post about a "theoretical abductor" simply to pre-empt the whingeing retorts of "what abductor?" It is a pain though. Anyone interest enough in this case to click on this forum will know that Madeleine's disappearance in an unsolved mystery and won't stupid enough to think that references to an abductor means an abductor has been established as fact.
-
I guess that could be applied to the dogs as well. There may have been traces of cadaver, but it wasn't found.
-
posters are not correct to post that teh alleged abductor left no forensic trace....they should claim no forensic trace was found....there are lots and lots of other examples so i will just highlight them as they arise
Yup, I'll be on it like a bonnet too... @)(++(*
-
I guess that could be applied to the dogs as well. There may have been traces of cadaver, but it wasn't found.
theoretical cadaver odour.
-
What was it Mark Rowley said about how Madeleine left the apartment?
-
As it happens I often post about a "theoretical abductor" simply to pre-empt the whingeing retorts of "what abductor?" It is a pain though. Anyone interest enough in this case to click on this forum will know that Madeleine's disappearance in an unsolved mystery and won't stupid enough to think that references to an abductor means an abductor has been established as fact.
Much of the British media use the term Madeleine's abductor constantly even though there has never been any proof provided that she was indeed abducted. Maybe it sells newspaper better than the alternatives?
-
Much of the British media use the term Madeleine's abductor constantly even though there has never been any proof provided that she was indeed abducted. Maybe it sells newspaper better than the alternatives?
I think what's happened is that it's quite clear now that in the opinion of those investigating the disappearance believe Maddie was abducted and other ex detectives have also come out in support of abduction .
Some posters dislike this and have become extremely pedantic
Why is it that we have discussed this case for years and the term abductor has always been acceptable
Suddenly it's not
Bizarre
-
I think what's happened is that it's quite clear now that in the opinion of those investigating the disappearance believe Maddie was abducted and other ex detectives have also come out in support of abduction .
Some posters dislike this and have become extremely pedantic
Why is it that we have discussed this case for years and the term abductor has always been acceptable
Suddenly it's not
Bizarre
Could posters stop saying the McCanns have not been interviewed by Grange as it is more likely that they have
Imo
-
Could posters also stop claiming the dogs alerted to what they were trained to alert to as that has not been established
-
The McCanns were not interviewed Under Caution. We simply don't know if they were interviewed. So no more saying that they weren't.
-
Could posters also stop claiming the dogs alerted to what they were trained to alert to as that has not been established
And no more of this either.
-
Could posters stop saying the McCanns have not been interviewed by Grange as it is more likely that they have
Imo
As soon as evidence thereof is posted, I will accept it.
Given it is May 2017 and no one has posted evidence thereof, guess what, it is alleged interview, or IYO.
8((()*/
-
In my opinion I think to be on the safe side every single post should begin with "in my opinion".
-
In my opinion I think to be on the safe side every single post should begin with "in my opinion".
I agree.
-
As soon as evidence thereof is posted, I will accept it.
Given it is May 2017 and no one has posted evidence thereof, guess what, it is alleged interview, or IYO.
8((()*/
If you read my post again it ends in
Imo
-
They have presented nothing to indicate that an abductor is anything other than their opinion.
-
If you read my post again it ends in
Imo
If I read your post again, it strikes me as it did then.
That you were trying to control what posters could and could not say.
And that is IMO. 8((()*/
-
If I read your post again, it strikes me as it did then.
That you were trying to control what posters could and could not say.
And that is IMO. 8((()*/
Now read the thread title
It is trying to control what posters can and cannot say
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-10th-anniversary-a-horrible-marker-for-her-parents
Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Mark Rowley
“However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction.”
About as clear as it gets that we can refer to an abductor.
-
Now read the thread title
It is trying to control what posters can and cannot say
Neither the thread title nor the OP is inaccurate.
Anyone asserting the McCanns dunnit would be subject to the same rules.
Kindly leave moderation to the mods. 8((()*/
-
It is evident that the prosecutor's did not know what crime had occurred, if any.
That remains the situation.
Theories abound, but very few facts are evident.
Then surely there remains nothing that could be discussed or should be discussed ... so why do we continue discussing it?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-10th-anniversary-a-horrible-marker-for-her-parents
Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Mark Rowley
“However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction.”
About as clear as it gets that we can refer to an abductor.
In his opinion.
Would you care to link to the whole speech ?
-
In his opinion.
Would you care to link to the whole speech ?
His force is in possession of the full facts & he has been authorised to make that carefully worded comment. If you cannot accept official confirmation that the police are treating the matter as the abduction of a child then nothing more can be added.
-
His force is in possession of the full facts & he has been authorised to make that carefully worded comment. If you cannot accept official confirmation that the police are treating the matter as the abduction of a child then nothing more can be added.
I presume you read this as well.
Mr Rowley said: “All the different hypotheses have to remain open and we've got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3413042/madeleine-mccann-british-detective-leads/
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-10th-anniversary-a-horrible-marker-for-her-parents
Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Mark Rowley
“However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction.”
About as clear as it gets that we can refer to an abductor.
Mark Rowley would be chastised by them that know better should he ever show his ugly mug around these parts.
-
I presume you read this as well.
Mr Rowley said: “All the different hypotheses have to remain open and we've got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3413042/madeleine-mccann-british-detective-leads/
Different hypotheses to explain who and how and why the (theoretical in my words, actual in his words) abduction occurred of course 8(0(*
-
Different hypotheses to explain who and how and why the (theoretical in my words, actual in his words) abduction occurred of course 8(0(*
...and Alfie, just his opinion expressed in the article. 8(0(*
Likewise, if she walked out and disappeared, that does not mean abduction.
Bottom line, he is speculating, because he doesn't know what happened.
The case remains unsolved.
-
I presume you read this as well.
Mr Rowley said: “All the different hypotheses have to remain open and we've got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3413042/madeleine-mccann-british-detective-leads/
Yes, I did. But I, for one, intend to continue to use the word "abductor" when expressing my beliefs & opinions on what happened to Madeleine. Facts are only ever one person's interpretation of something, as a magician can amply demonstrate.
-
Yes, I did. But I, for one, intend to continue to use the word "abductor" when expressing my beliefs & opinions on what happened to Madeleine. Facts are only ever one person's interpretation of something, as a magician can amply demonstrate.
As long as you say it is a belief/opinion, then no problem. but if you state it as a fact, that is breaking the forum rules.
I still predict the case will be shelved, without anything having been determined.
So what then...........
-
The prosecutors say the McCanns could not have been expected to foresee the abduction of any of their children.
They also make reference to the non-involvement of the parents in any penally relevant crime.
How much clearer could, or should, they have had to make it?
That was theoretically speaking. It was not based on fact or proof of any kind.
-
Yes, I did. But I, for one, intend to continue to use the word "abductor" when expressing my beliefs & opinions on what happened to Madeleine. Facts are only ever one person's interpretation of something, as a magician can amply demonstrate.
Magic ??
In reality, just tricks.
-
Certainly in the instance of cuddle cat, it has been established.
Eddie didn't.
Neither to any item of clothing.
I wondered when the dogs would come into this. %#&%4%
-
I wondered when the dogs would come into this. %#&%4%
That was inevitable John.
-
Magic ??
In reality, just tricks.
Not a trick, just a scenario the audience cannot fathom.
-
Not a trick, just a scenario the audience cannot fathom.
That is a matter of perspective, or should I say, an opinion. 8)-)))
-
There are many ways posters can express their opinions on the abduction claim without falling foul of the forum rules. Similarly, posters are free to offer their views on the other theories including woke and wandered which in itself opens up the possibility of abduction or accidental death by RTA.
-
That is a matter of perspective, or should I say, an opinion. 8)-)))
No, it's a fact something/someone is apparently seen to disappear but the alternative fact is that the something/someone was moved to another place by another means without being seen.
-
There are many ways posters can express their opinions on the abduction claim without falling foul of the forum rules. Similarly, posters are free to offer their views on the other theories including woke and wandered which in itself opens up the possibility of abduction or accidental death by RTA.
I think we all realised that abduction is not a fact but is highly likely....this current thread is just being pedantic...imo
-
No, it's a fact something/someone is apparently seen to disappear but the alternative fact is that the something/someone was moved to another place by another means without being seen.
By beaming presumably.
(http://rs717.pbsrc.com/albums/ww173/preston[Name removed]rtr/Smileys/Star%20Trek/startrek-08.gif~c200)
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-10th-anniversary-a-horrible-marker-for-her-parents
Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Mark Rowley
“However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction.”
About as clear as it gets that we can refer to an abductor.
And 100% inaccurate. The Met are all over the place in this investigation. Redwood says Tannerman was probably and innocent tourist while his bosses now claim the opposite. Just what the hell is going on as if we didn't already know??
-
As long as you say it is a belief/opinion, then no problem. but if you state it as a fact, that is breaking the forum rules.
I still predict the case will be shelved, without anything having been determined.
So what then...........
this rule is beeing breached on numerous occasions and I intend to highlight them all.....I hope the mods will apply the rule fairly
-
And 100% inaccurate. The Met are all over the place in this investigation. Redwood says Tannerman was probably and innocent tourist while his bosses now claim the opposite. Just what the hell is going on as if we didn't already know??
The Met have come to the conclusion that maddie was abducted...
why is it that posters never criticise amaral for making claims...particularly when he twists the meaning of the evidence to support his claims
-
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance has not been ascertained.
FACT.
Madeline's ultimate fate has not been determined either.
FACT.
Then wouldn't we have to say ascertained by whom, for if there was an abductor the abductor knows.
-
And 100% inaccurate. The Met are as much in the dark as everyone else about this case so making claims without evidence is an example of very poor policing.
The Met, like the PJ, know far more than they will ever be able to impart to us. To state that they are clueless heaps disrespect onto both forces & the interviews their representatives have recently given.
-
Then wouldn't we have to say ascertained by whom, for it there was an abductor the abductor knows.
..and if there never was one..................... 8)-)))
-
Then wouldn't we have to say ascertained by whom, for it there was an abductor the abductor knows.
Not necessarily, if it were a case of child trafficking, then she could have passed through numerous hands prior to the ultimate situation she found herself in.
-
The Met have come to the conclusion that maddie was abducted...
why is it that posters never criticise amaral for making claims...particularly when he twists the meaning of the evidence to support his claims
If its anything like the Jill Dando case and their fitting up of Barry George for her murder then I wouldn't pay too much attention to anything that comes out of New Scotland Yard.
-
They didn't know what crime, if any , had been committed.
That remains the case.
Even for Rowley.
IMHO obviously.
Sigh ....
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.
Got that?
Non-involvement of Kate and Gerry in any penally relevant activity.
Whatever else the Prosecutors were uncertain of, they were certain Kate and Gerry had no case to answer.
And said so.
-
By beaming presumably.
(http://rs717.pbsrc.com/albums/ww173/preston[Name removed]rtr/Smileys/Star%20Trek/startrek-08.gif~c200)
It's not too far away, Stephen. Fact.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/659416/Scientists-make-TELEPORTATION-breakthrough-thanks-to-inspiring-Star-Trek
-
If its anything like the Jill Dando case and their fitting up of Barry George for her murder then I wouldn't pay too much attention to anything that comes out of New Scotland Yard.
is Barry George innocent....cite
I dont just listen to what they say....I look at the evidence as well...and the evidence points to abduction
-
Not necessarily, if it were a case of child trafficking, then she could have passed through numerous hands prior to the ultimate situation she found herself in.
Given that Maddie's face is known to just about everyone in the civilised world, any innocent adoptive parent would need to be blind not to realise the situation before them so I would rank the possibity of her being adopted by some unsuspecting person as just about nil.
-
It's not too far away, Stephen. Fact.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/659416/Scientists-make-TELEPORTATION-breakthrough-thanks-to-inspiring-Star-Trek
Quoting the Express, is not always a good idea.
It has a history of poor predictions.
-
is Barry George innocent....cite
I dont just listen to what they say....I look at the evidence as well...and the evidence points to abduction
Has the record stuck? You know damn well there is no evidence of any abduction so is this some strategy you have to push this notion??
-
Has the record stuck? What evidence?
again if you do not understand what evidenve SY used to rule out the mccanns then you dont undestand what evidence is
-
They have presented nothing to indicate that an abductor is anything other than their opinion.
Their considered opinion mind you.
-
Given that Maddie's face is known to just about everyone in the civilised world, any innocent adoptive parent would need to be blind not to realise the situation before them so I would rank the possibity of her being adopted by some unsuspecting person as just about nil.
Is that the true image? Some images appear to have been 'enhanced', shall we say, so several years on, she could be unrecognisable.
This assumes that 1 she is alive and 2 that she is living in a benign environment.
-
Has the record stuck? You know damn well there is no evidence of any abduction so is this some strategy you have to push this notion??
there is evidence by default...there are only 3 options...if you can rule out 2 it makes the third very likely...thats what I have been saying for several years and it seems SY agree with me
-
They didn't know ferryman what happened.
No evidence.
That is why the case was shelved.
Anyone reading the forum can find that out for themselves.
there is evidence in this case....only 3 options...if you can rule out 2 it makes the third very likely
your claim there is no evidence is stating your opion as fact
-
The Met have come to the conclusion that maddie was abducted...
why is it that posters never criticise amaral for making claims...particularly when he twists the meaning of the evidence to support his claims
The Met appear to be investigating abduction. Why they concluded that Madeleine was abducted is open to question. Amaral is criticised all the time, haven't you noticed?
-
They didn't know ferryman what happened.
No evidence.
That is why the case was shelved.
Anyone reading the forum can find that out for themselves.
You need to use the words "No Evidence that they found" or even taking it further "no evidence that they admit to have found". I'm sure the words "no evidence" needs to be followed by a very precise caveat too.
-
The Met appear to be investigating abduction. Why they concluded that Madeleine was abducted is open to question. Amaral is criticised all the time, haven't you noticed?
References by Rowley & Do Carmo to Amaral were noticeable by their absence in the latest interviews.
-
You need to use the words "No Evidence that they found" or even taking it further "no evidence that they admit to have found". I'm sure the words "no evidence" needs to be followed by a very precise caveat too.
Have you actually read the shelving report ?
-
References by Rowley & Do Carmo to Amaral were noticeable by their absence in the latest interviews.
As Gerry said in an interview the least said about Amaral the better.
-
there is evidence in this case....only 3 options...if you can rule out 2 it makes the third very likely
your claim there is no evidence is stating your opion as fact
There is no evidence of abduction and that is why you constantly avoid answering anyone who points this out. Genuine child abduction cases are usually supported by evidence of some sort or other. However, in the case of Maddie, there was no forensic evidence of any illegal entry or disturbance of any sort. Add to that the non cooperation with those charged with investigating the case, a conspiracy to discredit the lead detective and the attempts to influence the investigation by introducing false sightings and we have the makings of something extremely suspicious and concerning.
-
@)(++(*
So us mere mortals may not talk of an abduction without a great big CAVEAT in place.
However a Mod can state as fact that there was a conspiracy to discredit Amaral and attempts to influence the investigation by introducing false sightings without a CAVEAT in place.
Such blatant double standards turns my stomach.
-
OMG, so much opinion stated as fact I think I may have a seizure. Kindly chastise yourself and award yourself some points while you're at it.
Everything I have stated is established fact unless you know different??
-
The Met appear to be investigating abduction. Why they concluded that Madeleine was abducted is open to question. Amaral is criticised all the time, haven't you noticed?
I havent heard amaral criticised by sceptics even though he claims to have evidence to support hhis claims but clearly hasnt
-
Everything I have stated is established fact unless you know different??
Absolute rubbish.
-
@)(++(*
So us mere mortals may not talk of an abduction without a great big CAVEAT in place.
However a Mod can state as fact that there was a conspiracy to discredit Amaral and attempts to influence the investigation by introducing false sightings without a CAVEAT in place.
Such blatant double standards turns my stomach.
Burying you head in the sand doesn't cut much mustard Alfie. The conspiracy by McCann private detectives to bury Amaral using Portuguese lawyer Correia has long been established.
The fake sightings created by those same private investigators is established after one of their own spoke out.
Kate McCanns refusal to answer simple questions during her arguida interview is established.
These are damaging facts despite your attempts to play them down
-
Have you actually read the shelving report ?
Didn't they have a caveat along the lines of "no evidence found as yet but we will not give up looking".
-
Burying you head in the sand doesn't cut much mustard Alfie. The conspiracy by McCann private detectives to bury Amaral using Portuguese lawyer Correia has long been established.
Long established by armchair defectives maybe, but not by any organisation that anyone would take seriously. And what about these deliberate false sightings then? Got proof of that have you?
-
There is no evidence of abduction and that is why you constantly avoid answering anyone who points this out. Genuine child abduction cases are usually supported by evidence of some sort or other. However, in the case of Maddie, there was no forensic evidence of any illegal entry or disturbance of any sort. Add to that the non cooperation with those charged with investigating the case, a conspiracy to discredit the lead detective and the attempts to influence the investigation by introducing false sightings and we have the makings of something extremely suspicious and concerning.
abduction can be proved on the balance of probabliites as I have pointed out in my post above....
your post is full of opinion as fact...your opinions are not facts
There is no direct evidence of abduction in the ben Needham case
the window was a sign of illegal entry
there was no conspiracy to discredit the lead detective
who are you claiming introduced false sightings...more opinion as fact
-
Everything I have stated is established fact unless you know different??
as I have pointed out everything you have posted is far from established fact
-
Burying you head in the sand doesn't cut much mustard Alfie. The conspiracy by McCann private detectives to bury Amaral using Portuguese lawyer Correia has long been established.
The fake sightings created by those same private investigators is established after one of their own spoke out.
Kate McCanns refusal to answer simple questions during her arguida interview is established.
These are damaging facts despite your attempts to play them down
no conspiracy has ever been established...
cite for fake sightings
Kate cooperated with the investigation until she realised she was beeing set up by detectives who it has been proved did not understand the evidence
-
abduction can be proved on the balance of probabliites as I have pointed out in my post above....
your post is full of opinion as fact...your opinions are not facts
There is no direct evidence of abduction in the ben Needham case
the window was a sign of illegal entry
there was no conspiracy to discredit the lead detective
who are you claiming introduced false sightings...more opinion as fact
As Stephen correctly pointed out a few days back the McCanns are in trouble if the abduction is shown to be a sham and Maddie died because of their stupidity.
-
no conspiracy has ever been established...
cite for fake sightings
Kate cooperated with the investigation until she realised she was beeing set up by detectives who it has been proved did not understand the evidence
You are wrong on every point but then you are posting opinion contrary to the established facts.
-
As Stephen correctly pointed out a few days back the McCanns are in trouble if the abduction is shown to be a sham and Maddie died because of their stupidity.
The mccanns are certainly in trouble if the abduction is shown to be a sham but there is NO evidence to support that claim
-
You are wrong on every point but then you are posting opinion contrary to the established facts.
you have failed to show any established facts...lets start with the false sightings ...evidence please
-
Angelo seems to be stating as fact that the McCanns are behind the conspiracy and the false sightings *libel klaxon!!!*
Maybe you should read my post again. I stated McCann private detectives ie Metodo 3.
-
you have failed to show any established facts...lets start with the false sightings ...evidence please
Careful you'll get done for disrespecting a mod before long - mod is God innit.
-
Careful you'll get done for disrespecting a mod before long - mod is God innit.
it reminds me of johns post where he talks of reputaion not being a god given gift but has to be earnt.....so respect is teh same
-
As Stephen correctly pointed out a few days back the McCanns are in trouble if the abduction is shown to be a sham and Maddie died because of their stupidity.
I thought Stephen always says there is no evidence, so where is the evidence going to come from to prove "the abduction is shown to be a sham and Maddie died because of their stupidity".
-
Supporters are very good at distancing themselves from the facts when it suits. There is an entire thread dedicated to "what evidence of abduction exists" and it is noticeably slim to say the least. A parent claiming that a shutter was up, a window was open and some curtains were billowing in the breeze is NOT EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.
-
Supporters are very good at distancing themselves from the facts when it suits. There is an entire thread dedicated to "what evidence of abduction exists" and it is noticeably slim to say the least. A parent claimed.king a shutter was up, a window was open and some curtain s were billowing in the breeze is NOT EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.
It is evidence that would be allowed in court for the jury to decide...your claim is your opinion and plainly wrong
-
Supporters are very good at distancing themselves from the facts when it suits. There is an entire thread dedicated to "what evidence of abduction exists" and it is noticeably slim to say the least. A parent claiming that a shutter was up, a window was open and some curtains were billowing in the breeze is NOT EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION.
It is evidence none the less of something.
-
It is evidence none the less of something.
it is evidence that would be allowed in court...that is fact...not opinion
-
it is evidence that would be allowed in court...that is fact...not opinion
But under cross examination they would have to admit they don't know who raised the shutters etc.
-
But under cross examination they would have to admit they don't know who raised the shutters etc.
the question is are the statements evidence....the answer is yes
so is ther evidence of an abduction....yes
-
No verification before Kate Mccann 'arrived' at the apartment.
That rings a bell. 8**8:/:
So what value does unverified or non-corroborated information have ? 8)--))
-
No verification before Kate Mccann 'arrived' at the apartment.
That rings a bell. 8**8:/:
never said there was..if we had verification we would have near proof of abduction...as it is we only have evidence
-
Casting aside what Jane tanner saw on the 3rd May and the evidence trail currently being followed by the PJ and SY it is possible to accept that there may be no concrete evidence of abduction.
Nevertheless Madeleine is vanished.
The way I see it there must be absolute accuracy as far as everything goes which is posted on the forum.
No more daily innuendo ... for example, we all know whose fingerprints were on the window glass so a caveat as to the innocence of that would be required also.
No more interpretation of what Mrs Fenn may have said ... without caveat.
No more arguing about providing cites ~ which does occasionally happen.
In my opinion the actual forensic evidence as well as lack of it as detailed in the files has blown any argument about the value of the dogs ~ Eddie and Keela ~ way out the water and has killed any argument along the lines we have seen previously.
Nor is there a shred of substantive evidence of any kind against Kate and Gerry McCann of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.
In effect I think there is a lot which for the sake of accuracy cannot be repeated at all and there is much which needs caveat.
All in all I don't think this result about the wording to be used about Madeleine's probable abduction has necessarily been the wrong one ... all things considered.
-
So getting back on topic.....supporters must use the word alleged abductor.....but other posters are free to post whatever they like without sanction
I do not believe that would be equitable or in the spirit of things. All members are surely bound by the same restrictions ... if there is no evidence, it is opinion.
-
I do not believe that would be equitable or in the spirit of things. All members are surely bound by the same restrictions ... if there is no evidence, it is opinion.
yet we have seen a mod here post a whole range of claims and accusations and failed to provide cites to support any of it
-
It is evidence that would be allowed in court for the jury to decide...your claim is your opinion and plainly wrong
Witness evidence is only of value when both independent and corroborated.
-
It is evidence none the less of something.
Possibly evidence of some dodgy goings on.
-
it is evidence that would be allowed in court...that is fact...not opinion
Any lawyer would be laughed out of court. Please Mrs Suspect, can you explain in your own words how you found the crime scene?
Jane Tanner walked past that window at 9.15 and saw nothing untoward. Her partner Matt went into the apartment at 9.30 and saw nothing unusual either, no billowing drapes, no open window or raised shutter.
-
Witness evidence is only of value when both independent and corroborated.
absolute and complete rubbish....once again posting opinion as fact
it would be up to the jury to make that decision
-
Any lawyer would be laughed out of court. Please Mrs Suspect, can you explain in your own words how you found the crime scene?
Jane Tanner walked past that window at 9.15 and saw nothing untoward. Her partner Matt went into the apartment at 9.30 and saw nothing unusual either, no billowing drapes, no open window or raised shutter.
Suspects are questioned in court all the time...once again it is the jury that make the decision as to whether they are truthful...their statement is evidence.... im stating facts...you are stating opinion
-
the question is are the statements evidence....the answer is yes
so is ther evidence of an abduction....yes
I assume you are referring to Kate's statement. Her statement constitutes case evidence but not evidence of an abduction. For that it has to be INDEPENDENT and CORROBORATED.
-
yet we have seen a mod here post a whole range of claims and accusations and failed to provide cites to support any of it
Its all been explored in detail previously. If you need information go search. %£&)**#
Hint: Try googling John Grade, Marcos Aragao Correia and Metodo 3.
-
Suspects are questioned in court all the time...once again it is the jury that make the decision as to whether they are truthful...their statement is evidence.... im stating facts...you are stating opinion
No, what you are doing is grasping at straws in order to make a case for an abduction. I have pointed out that there is NO forensic evidence to support your claim. I have also pointed out that cooperation with the Portuguese police was strained to say the least and not at all what one would expect in a genuine abduction case.
I'm still waiting on your evidence for abduction btw!
-
I assume you are referring to Kate's statement. Her statement constitutes case evidence but not evidence of an abduction. For that it has to be INDEPENDENT and CORROBORATED.
her statement is evidence that the window was opened by a third party...which would be an abductor...evidence but not proof
that seems exactly the line SY have taken
-
Its all been explored in detail previously. If you need information go search. %£&)**#
Hint: Try googling John Grade, Marcos Aragao Correia and Metodo 3.
no it has not
-
her statement is evidence that the window was opened by a third party...which would be an abductor...evidence but not proof
that seems exactly the line SY have taken
No its not. Her statement is merely a claimed observation. Worthless on its own really.
-
no it has not
I suggest you stop bending the facts, I know exactly what has been established in this case.
-
No, what you are doing is grasping at straws in order to make a case for an abduction. I have pointed out that there is NO forensic evidence to support your claim. I have also pointed out that cooperation with the Portuguese police was strained to say the least and not at all what one would expect in a genuine abduction case.
I'm still waiting on your evidence for abduction btw!
you are repeating questions I have aready answerred....as SY are investigating abduction it seems teh case for it is strong rather than weak
-
I suggest you stop bending the facts, I know exactly what has been established in this case.
then provide cites to support your claim...lets start with the false sightings
-
you are repeating questions I have aready answerred....as SY are investigating abduction it seems teh case for it is strong rather than weak
You don't know what SY are investigating...another myth.
-
You don't know what SY are investigating...another myth.
we know exactly what they are investigating its in the remit and the latest stateemnt makes it crystal clear...abduction
-
we know exactly what they are investigating its in the remit and the latest stateemnt makes it crystal clear...abduction
No credible police department ever gives away the details of who they are investigating. If you believe the garbage you heard on LBC I think you need a reality check.
-
No credible police department ever gives away the details of who they are investigating. If you believe the garbage you heard on LBC I think you need a reality check.
I think you need a reality check...it isnt just what SY are saying its putting everything together
so you are now referring tm the statement as garbage...more opinion as fact
-
I think you need a reality check...it isnt just what SY are saying its putting everything together
so you are now referring tm the statement as garbage...more opinion as fact
What...like your imaginary evidence of abduction? @)(++(*
I'd like to play your little game some more but I'm off out to party.
-
What...like your imaginary evidence of abduction? @)(++(*
there are thre options..if you eliminate two then the third is highly likely....abduction
-
there are thre options..if you eliminate two then the third is highly likely....abduction
Abduction is the least likely imo going by the real evidence. Nobody should be fooled by the abduction mantra which has been pushed by the McCanns and their associated for the last ten years in an attempt to have their own involvement in their daughters disappearance mitigated.
-
Abduction is the least likely imo going by the real evidence.
you are totally wrong...the archiving report discounted woke and wandered....SY have excluded the parents...they have not even been interviewed under caution...that makes abduction highly likely
-
you are totally wrong...the archiving report discounted woke and wandered....SY have excluded the parents...they have not even been interviewed under caution...that makes abduction highly likely
The Supreme Court of Portugal went out of their way just weeks ago to advise that the parents were never cleared by the archiving report. Go figure that one!
-
The Supreme Court of Portugal went out of their way to advise that the parents were not cleared.
cleared...how can they be cleared when there is no evidence to charge them
they are not being investigated full stop
-
Sigh ....
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.
Got that?
Non-involvement of Kate and Gerry in any penally relevant activity.
Whatever else the Prosecutors were uncertain of, they were certain Kate and Gerry had no case to answer.
And said so.
I wonder what definition of the word "seems" they rely on?
-
They have presented nothing to indicate that an abductor is anything other than their opinion.
an opinion based on the evidence
-
again if you do not understand what evidenve SY used to rule out the mccanns then you dont undestand what evidence is
So you keep saying.
Please post your definition of the word "evidence" just so's we is in the know.
-
So you keep saying.
Please post your definition of the word "evidence" just so's we is in the know.
I already have done several times...try google ...its fairly straightforward
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
-
There is no evidence of abduction and that is why you constantly avoid answering anyone who points this out. Genuine child abduction cases are usually supported by evidence of some sort or other. However, in the case of Maddie, there was no forensic evidence of any illegal entry or disturbance of any sort. Add to that the non cooperation with those charged with investigating the case, a conspiracy to discredit the lead detective and the attempts to influence the investigation by introducing false sightings and we have the makings of something extremely suspicious and concerning.
Do you mean like some of the strange things in here ?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm
-
Long established by armchair defectives maybe, but not by any organisation that anyone would take seriously. And what about these deliberate false sightings then? Got proof of that have you?
So you are fully cognisant of what The Met unearthed after they removed the files from the offices of Metodo3 ?
Edited grammar
-
the problem is with the mcann supporters abduction= the mcanns innocent in their eyes but we unbiased and not emotionally involved know this is unlikley dont we?? so they cling to it as a fact
-
I already have done several times...try google ...its fairly straightforward
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
Just to be clear: this is the definition upon which you rely?
-
Just to be clear: this is the definition upon which you rely?
just to be very clear...yes
at least I have provided a definition
-
Just to be clear: this is the definition upon which you rely?
i dont really believe anything main stream media anymore most people dont the media is for one thing to make money for journos etc and they do it anyway they can dont they even if it means exploting children etc and gullible people believe every word they say...
-
the problem is with the mcann supporters abduction= the mcanns innocent in their eyes but we unbiased and not emotionally involved know this is unlikley dont we?? so they cling to it as a fact
Supporters being "emotionally involved" is a recurring accusation by you.
Can I ask what you mean by this?
-
just to be very clear...yes
at least I have provided a definition
Good. The legal definition of circumstantial evidence being:
"Indirect or circumstantial evidence implies that the defendant was involved in the crime, and is typically sufficient to convict a defendant if the evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence can be used to establish that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The problem with direct evidence being it relies on someone witnessing the event.
-
Good. The legal definition of circumstantial evidence being:
"Indirect or circumstantial evidence implies that the defendant was involved in the crime, and is typically sufficient to convict a defendant if the evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence can be used to establish that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The problem with direct evidence being it relies on someone witnessing the event.
so you are saying that what you have posted is THE legal definition of circumstantial evidence....the answer you are looking for is
no
it isnt
-
so you are saying that what you have posted is THE legal definition of circumstantial evidence....the answer you are looking for is
no
it isnt
OK so let's have what you think the definition of circumstantial evidence is.
-
OK so let's have what you think the definition of circumstantial evidence is.
Now would that be anything which favours the McCann's ?
-
Good. The legal definition of circumstantial evidence being:
"Indirect or circumstantial evidence implies that the defendant was involved in the crime, and is typically sufficient to convict a defendant if the evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence can be used to establish that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".
The problem with direct evidence being it relies on someone witnessing the event.
that is not a definition of circumstantial evidence...its quite obvious you have simply taken a portion of the definition to post here
-
All these rules, it's why I don't post on here much these days.
Mark Rowley said that however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted, so saying 'abductor' surely can't be misleading.
-
OK so let's have what you think the definition of circumstantial evidence is.
this IS a definition of circumstantail evidence....
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out
-
All these rules, it's why I don't post on here much these days.
Mark Rowley said that however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted, so saying 'abductor' surely can't be misleading.
Is there some reason why we have to believe everything the police tell us? I thought they had occasionally got it wrong in previous cases.
-
Is there some reason why we have to believe everything the police tell us? I thought they had occasionally got it wrong in previous cases.
As I have posted before its not a matter of beleiving what the police tell us. Its a matter of putting everything together and seeing if it fits. There is no evidence against the mccanns...nothing has come to light in ten yeras...therefore its reasonable to accept that the police say they are not suspects
-
As I have posted before its not a matter of beleiving what the police tell us. Its a matter of putting everything together and seeing if it fits. There is no evidence against the mccanns...nothing has come to light in ten yeras...therefore its reasonable to accept that the police say they are not suspects
Just because the police say 'abduction' doesn't make it a fact. It may be their hypothesis but unless and until they present their evidence it's just a theory.
-
As I have posted before its not a matter of beleiving what the police tell us. Its a matter of putting everything together and seeing if it fits. There is no evidence against the mccanns...nothing has come to light in ten yeras...therefore its reasonable to accept that the police say they are not suspects
Not only in the last 10 years, but there is nothing in their history to even hint that they were capable of doing what they have been accused of - but plenty to suggest they could not possibly contemplate doing such a terrible thing to their own beloved little girl - whom they had waited so long for.
It makes no sense at all, and if it doesn't make sense - it didn't happen IMO.
AIMHO
-
Not only in the last 10 years, but there is nothing in their history to even hint that they were capable of doing what they have been accused of - but plenty to suggest they could not possibly contemplate doing such a terrible thing to their own beloved little girl - whom they had waited so long for.
It makes no sense at all, and if it doesn't make sense - it didn't happen IMO.
AIMHO
That makes perfect sense and is exactly what the police have told us
-
All these rules, it's why I don't post on here much these days.
Mark Rowley said that however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted, so saying 'abductor' surely can't be misleading.
Just his opinion.
Not a fact.
The logical extension of your view is that Amaral's view should be taken first.
After all, he was there in Portugal when events took place.
How about Rowley, when did he go to Portugal ?
-
As I have posted before its not a matter of beleiving what the police tell us. Its a matter of putting everything together and seeing if it fits. There is no evidence against the mccanns...nothing has come to light in ten yeras...therefore its reasonable to accept that the police say they are not suspects
Accept whatever you like as is your right but the truth is that many people do not believe the McCanns as they continue to be mired in controversy despite comments made by the likes of Mark Rowley. There is diddly squat evidence of any abductor and I challenge you and Rowley to produce any.
-
Just his opinion.
Not a fact.
The logical extension of your view is that Amaral's view should be taken first.
After all, he was there in Portugal when events took place.
How about Rowley, when did he go to Portugal ?
What do you think of Amaral's hypothesis of Madeleine's body being put in that coffin, allegedly?
-
What do you think of Amaral's hypothesis of Madeleine's body being put in that coffin, allegedly?
I've heard of that Eleanor.
What was the basis of his theory for that ?
-
I've heard of that Eleanor.
What was the basis of his theory for that ?
There was a body in a coffin in the church. That's it really.
-
That makes perfect sense and is exactly what the police have told us
You would think by that comment that Rowley and the Met actually know something but then his comments were made for public consumption. His comments added nothing to what we already know about this sham investigation, comments which any fool could see were contradictory throughout. On the one hand Rowley stated they did not know what became of Maddie but then went on to make wide sweeping claims about an abductor and the parents.
-
You would think by that comment that Rowley and the Met actually know something but then his comments were made for public consumption. His comments added nothing to what we already know about this sham investigation, comments which any fool could see were contradictory throughout. On the one hand Rowley stated they did not know what became of Maddie but then went on to make wide sweeping claims about an abductor and the parents.
A very accurate summation of the situation Angelo.
-
You would think by that comment that Rowley and the Met actually know something but then his comments were made for public consumption. His comments added nothing to what we already know about this sham investigation, comments which any fool could see were contradictory throughout. On the one hand Rowley stated they did not know what became of Maddie but then went on to make wide sweeping claims about an abductor and the parents.
what evidence do you have that it is a sham investigation...they believe maddie was abducted and the parents are not involved. they are investigating an abduction. Nothing contradictory
-
What do you think of Amaral's hypothesis of Madeleine's body being put in that coffin, allegedly?
Its not the first time a victim of murder has been buried in someone else's grave.
-
what evidence do you have that it is a sham investigation...they believe maddie was abducted and the parents are not involved. they are investigating an abduction. Nothing contradictory
Redwood put the kibosh on the abduction claim when he as good as ruled Tannerman out. Now Rowley wants to reinvent him as a means to cover their own failed investigation and the £11 million squandered looking for ghosts.
-
Its not the first time a victim of murder has been buried in someone else's grave.
I hope you aren't suggesting that Madeleine was murdered.
-
You would think by that comment that Rowley and the Met actually know something but then his comments were made for public consumption. His comments added nothing to what we already know about this sham investigation, comments which any fool could see were contradictory throughout. On the one hand Rowley stated they did not know what became of Maddie but then went on to make wide sweeping claims about an abductor and the parents.
Surely your claim that the investigation is a 'sham' is libellous in the extreme?
-
Not only in the last 10 years, but there is nothing in their history to even hint that they were capable of doing what they have been accused of - but plenty to suggest they could not possibly contemplate doing such a terrible thing to their own beloved little girl - whom they had waited so long for.
It makes no sense at all, and if it doesn't make sense - it didn't happen IMO.
AIMHO
You only need to look at what has taken place over the last ten years. If by some miracle Maddie is eventually found alive I'm very sure she will have some very SEARCHING questions.
-
You only need to look at what has taken place over the last ten years.
People (Sutton included) crawling out of the woodwork who haven't read the files, you mean?
-
People (Sutton included) crawling out of the woodwork who haven't read the files, you mean?
Is that because his comments don't fit your agenda?
There is no evidence of any abduction and that's the bottom line unfortunately.
-
Is that because his comments don't fit your agenda?
I don't have an 'agenda', just an objective analysis of what the files say.
-
Tut, tut ferryman.
We have been through all this many times.
They did not know what had happened.
We have indeed, and to your shame, you still don't seem to have got it.
The case was shelved for lack of evidence.
It was undetermined what happened to Madeleine.
-
You only need to look at what has taken place over the last ten years. If by some miracle Maddie is eventually found alive I'm very sure she will have some very SEARCHING questions.
if by some mircle maddie is found alive i dont think she would leap into gerry and kates arms and play happy familys she wouldnt know them imo
-
Surely your claim that the investigation is a 'sham' is libellous in the extreme?
In fairness, Benice, aspects of it were a sham, although at the same time, acknowledging (genuinely) excellent work put in during the course of that investigation, including and especially on the Portuguese side.
-
I don't have an 'agenda', just an objective analysis of what the files say.
Clearly inaccurate then. You conveniently omit the bit in the AG report where he states that the parents lost the opportunity to demonstrate what they claimed by the refusal of their friends to partake in a reconstruction when requested to do so.
-
All my posts are on-topic. The term 'abductor' does not need any qualification, and I have explained, precisely, in my (removed) posts why.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing 'off-topic' is what this thread invites us to discuss.
The whole of the thread should be removed.
-
This Thread is about Awareness. This does not mean that I necessarily agree with the concept. But it is not my place to do so.
Be aware of what is being asked of you all and we might actually get somewhere. It's not difficult. Use your words more carefully. None of you appear to be illiterate.
-
This Thread is about Awareness. This does not mean that I necessarily agree with the concept. But it is not my place to do so.
Be aware of what is being asked of you all and we might actually get somewhere. It's not difficult. Use your words more carefully. None of you appear to be illiterate.
Awareness?
The term 'abduction' should be used without caveat or qualification, unless or until someone both competent (ie having read the files, and formed an informed opinion) and qualified steps forward to do so.
Or unless Operation Grange brings into the public domain previously unknown information (at least publicly) to cast (genuine!) doubt on abduction.
All else (that questions abduction) is ill-informed conjecture.
-
Awareness?
The term 'abduction' should be used without caveat or qualification, unless or until someone both competent (ie having read the files, and formed an informed opinion) and qualified steps forward to do so.
Or unless Operation Grange brings into the public domain previously unknown information (at least publicly) to cast (genuine!) doubt on abduction.
All else (that questions abduction) is ill-informed conjecture.
It is a belief an abduction occurred.
Not a fact.
It is very clear yesterday what John stated.
The case was shelved in Portugal for lack of evidence.
-
It is a belief an abduction occurred.
Not a fact.
It is very clear yesterday what John stated.
The case was shelved in Portugal for lack of evidence.
The case was shelved because no progress in tracking down Madeleine's abductor had been made.
Also, I think, Portuguese law (commendably in one respect) would not allow the unjust aspersion of 'arguido' to be hung around the necks of those accused (including Robert Murat) indefinitely.
The McCanns status of 'arguido' was rushed in just before a change in Portuguese law that would have forced the authorities to justify their reasons for imposing the status.
-
It is a belief an abduction occurred.
Not a fact.
It is very clear yesterday what John stated.
The case was shelved in Portugal for lack of evidence.
Why ferryman is allowed to keep posting this material, against forum rules is the question.
I can't be bothered (yet again!) to quote what the Portuguese prosecutors made very clear did NOT happen.
That Gerry was proved to be at the Tapas Restaurant at the moment of the Smith sighting (and also the moment of Kate's alert) scuppers all notion of parental involvement in anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
-
The case was shelved because no progress in tracking down Madeleine's abductor had been made.
Also, I think, Portuguese law (commendably in one respect) would not allow the unjust aspersion of 'arguido' to be hung around the necks of those accused (including Robert Murat) indefinitely.
The McCanns status of 'arguido' was rushed in just before a change in Portuguese law that would have forced the authorities to justify their reasons for imposing the status.
In my opinion as borne out by subsequent conclusions, the stated reasons for the status would not have stood up to scrutiny had the PJ waited for the new penal code to come into effect.
Unfortunately I believe it can be said that perhaps the investigation may have become beguiled by the alleged theory of parental involvement which the senior investigation officer has outlined in his book, documentary and as a television pundit in the case.
Perhaps it behoved the investigation to be more proactive in eliminating the abduction theory by person or persons unknown rather than wasting precious time in what I believe to have been an unworkable theory unsupported by not one single shred of evidence.
-
What is abundantly clear, is that the Portuguese prosecutors did not have enough evidence to pursue anyone.
that remains the case
-
I can't be bothered (yet again!) to quote what the Portuguese prosecutors made very clear did NOT happen.
That Gerry was proved to be at the Tapas Restaurant at the moment of the Smith sighting (and also the moment of Kate's alert) scuppers all notion of parental involvement in anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
Which in my opinion is the fact of the matter.
-
This thread is about not writing unproven statements as fact. To this end I would like to know why a moderator has been allowed to do so on this very thread - ie: Angelo has stated that Team McCann planted false sightings of Madeleine to discredit the PJ investigation. WTF??
-
I can't be bothered (yet again!) to quote what the Portuguese prosecutors made very clear did NOT happen.
That Gerry was proved to be at the Tapas Restaurant at the moment of the Smith sighting (and also the moment of Kate's alert) scuppers all notion of parental involvement in anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
You can type what you will.
The facts are very straight forward.
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains undetermined.
You can type 'abduction until the end of time. It does not make it true.
The case was originally shelved due to lack of evidence.
The Supreme Court judgement remains as well.
-
All my posts are on-topic. The term 'abductor' does not need any qualification, and I have explained, precisely, in my (removed) posts why.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing 'off-topic' is what this thread invites us to discuss.
The whole of the thread should be removed.
Don't you like the truth?
-
This thread is about not writing unproven statements as fact. To this end I would like to know why a moderator has been allowed to do so on this very thread - ie: Angelo has stated that Team McCann planted false sightings of Madeleine to discredit the PJ investigation. WTF??
Burying you head in the sand doesn't cut much mustard Alfie. The conspiracy by McCann private detectives to bury Amaral using Portuguese lawyer Correia has long been established.
The fake sightings created by those same private investigators is established after one of their own spoke out.
Kate McCanns refusal to answer simple questions during her arguida interview is established.
These are damaging facts despite your attempts to play them down
For Alfie's benefit. Metodo 3 created false sightings, invented false investigators and false invoices all to create financial benefit for themselves and when Everest magnate Brian Kennedy was informed directly about this he refused to meet with the whistleblower. Raises the question as to what really was the relationship between these individuals and why was the involvement of M3 withheld for several months before being made public? I feel another thread coming on.
ps who is team McCann??
-
For Alfie's benefit.
ps who is team McCann??
for your benefit
you claimed fake sightings had been manufactured but have been unable tp provide a cite.
-
Clearly inaccurate then. You conveniently omit the bit in the AG report where he states that the parents lost the opportunity to demonstrate what they claimed by the refusal of their friends to partake in a reconstruction when requested to do so.
(Partial) credit for citing the correct term (used by the prosecutors) demonstrate rather than prove.
It's a pity the prosecutors didn't add that there was no need for the McCanns to demonstrate their innocence.
Also a pity that they didn't record (even if they did think it) that the disgraceful modus operandi of the PJ's questioning of the McCanns during their arguido interviews (including either incompetent or fraudulent misrepresentation of evidence) left the McCanns ample and justified reason to suspect the motive behind this so-called 'reconstitution' which, in any event, could never have shed light on anything, since you can never recreate in retrospect a sequence of events that have already come to pass in real-time.
Human memory (including honest human memory) is too fallible and unreliable for that.
-
for your benefit
you claimed fake sightings had been manufactured but have been unable tp provide a cite...looks like you are posting rubbish#
It is a well known fact that M3 were creating fictional sightings to keep their employers happy and keep the Euros rolling in. What a total waste of time and money.
-
It is a well known fact that M3 were creating fictional sightings to keep their employers happy and keep the Euros rolling in.
then provide a cite...it is NOT a well known fact
-
The case was shelved because no progress in tracking down Madeleine's abductor had been made.
Also, I think, Portuguese law (commendably in one respect) would not allow the unjust aspersion of 'arguido' to be hung around the necks of those accused (including Robert Murat) indefinitely.
The McCanns status of 'arguido' was rushed in just before a change in Portuguese law that would have forced the authorities to justify their reasons for imposing the status.
The McCanns announced their departure date.
The Portuguese chose to interview them before their departure date.
Because of what was to be covered, they were interviewed as arguidos, as per the legal requirements.
If you are implying that the McCanns chose a departure that they knew pre-dated a change in legal requirements, I'm going to ROFL.
If you think the McCanns would not have been made arguidos under the new requirement, we have plenty of evidence now that this is nonsense.
-
For Alfie's benefit. Metodo 3 created false sightings, invented false investigators and false invoices all to create financial benefit for themselves and when Everest magnate Brian Kennedy was informed directly about this he refused to meet with the whistleblower. Raises the question as to what really was the relationship between these individuals and why was the involvement of M3 withheld for several months before being made public? I feel another thread coming on.
ps who is team McCann??
Do you mean Metodo3 'created false sightings'?
Or do you mean that sightings, reported by Metedo3, turned out not to be Madeleine?
-
The McCanns announced their departure date.
The Portuguese chose to interview them before their departure date.
Because of what was to be covered, they were interviewed as arguidos, as per the legal requirements.
If you are implying that the McCanns chose a departure that they knew pre-dated a change in legal requirements, I'm going to ROFL.
If you think the McCanns would not have been made arguidos under the new requirement, we have plenty of evidence now that this is nonsense.
Such as?
-
The McCanns announced their departure date.
The Portuguese chose to interview them before their departure date.
Because of what was to be covered, they were interviewed as arguidos, as per the legal requirements.
If you are implying that the McCanns chose a departure that they knew pre-dated a change in legal requirements, I'm going to ROFL.
If you think the McCanns would not have been made arguidos under the new requirement, we have plenty of evidence now that this is nonsense.
posting opinion as fact again.....what evidence do you have to support the claim in red
-
You could say that about Galilieo Galilei, Nicolaus Copperknickers and the first white geezer who discovered the Duckbilled Platypus.
i.e were general folk too stupid to believe or too afraid to go off piste as you might say ?
No you could not.
Unless you can quote them making unfounded accusations of heinous crime? In either case I believe you may well be straying far off topic.
-
(Partial) credit for citing the correct term (used by the prosecutors) demonstrate rather than prove.
It's a pity the prosecutors didn't add that there was no need for the McCanns to demonstrate their innocence.
Also a pity that they didn't record (even if they did think it) that the disgraceful modus operandi of the PJ's questioning of the McCanns during their arguido interviews (including either incompetent or fraudulent misrepresentation of evidence) left the McCanns ample and justified reason to suspect the motive behind this so-called 'reconstitution' which, in any event, could never have shed light on anything, since you can never recreate in retrospect a sequence of events that have already come to pass in real-time.
Human memory (including honest human memory) is too fallible and unreliable for that.
Totally disagree.
The Smiths managed it, and thank goodness they did. Without the photo recon, we would have another dog's dinner to debate.
I guess the PJ must have some belief in the method if they did it with the Smiths, and wanted to do it with the T9. And it appears to be a part of Portuguese law.
-
Totally disagree.
The Smiths managed it, and thank goodness they did. Without the photo recon, we would have another dog's dinner to debate.
I guess the PJ must have some belief in the method if they did it with the Smiths, and wanted to do it with the T9. And it appears to be a part of Portuguese law.
I'm not quite with you.
What did the Smiths manage?
-
Totally disagree.
The Smiths managed it, and thank goodness they did. Without the photo recon, we would have another dog's dinner to debate.
I guess the PJ must have some belief in the method if they did it with the Smiths, and wanted to do it with the T9. And it appears to be a part of Portuguese law.
The only known incidence I have read about concerning reconstitution of an alleged crime was in the Cipriano case.
I must confess to being dumbfounded.
-
Awareness?
The term 'abduction' should be used without caveat or qualification, unless or until someone both competent (ie having read the files, and formed an informed opinion) and qualified steps forward to do so.
Or unless Operation Grange brings into the public domain previously unknown information (at least publicly) to cast (genuine!) doubt on abduction.
All else (that questions abduction) is ill-informed conjecture.
The term abduction applied to Madeleine McCann is merely a supposition so posts should be crystal clear in regard to this.
-
this IS a definition of circumstantail evidence....
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out
OK so if we concentrate on the salient points we have two types of evidence:
Direct Evidence which proves or disproves a fact directly; commonly eye witness testimony, where a witness describes exactly what he/she saw, heard, or experienced.
Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence which is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Indirect evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Indirect evidence implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating an event happened or did not happen.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-circumstantial-evidence-what-is-direct-evidence/
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/direct+evidence
-
I can't be bothered (yet again!) to quote what the Portuguese prosecutors made very clear did NOT happen.
That Gerry was proved to be at the Tapas Restaurant at the moment of the Smith sighting (and also the moment of Kate's alert) scuppers all notion of parental involvement in anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
If true it certainly scuppers the Smithman is Gerry claim but then that has little to do with abduction and parental involvement can take many forms.
-
No you could not.
Unless you can quote them making unfounded accusations of heinous crime? In either case I believe you may well be straying far off topic.
You misunderstand as usual. Either by lack of knowledge or by design to have a biased pop.
I don't care which.
-
If true it certainly scuppers the Smithman is Gerry claim but then that has little to do with abduction and parental involvement can take many forms.
Indeed it can
-
The McCanns announced their departure date.
The Portuguese chose to interview them before their departure date.
Because of what was to be covered, they were interviewed as arguidos, as per the legal requirements.
If you are implying that the McCanns chose a departure that they knew pre-dated a change in legal requirements, I'm going to ROFL.
If you think the McCanns would not have been made arguidos under the new requirement, we have plenty of evidence now that this is nonsense.
It was (presumably) Amaral and his cohorts who knew about impending changes in Portuguese law.
The McCanns wouldn't have known the first thing about Portuguese law.
Nor is there the slightest reason why they should have.
-
You misunderstand as usual. Either by lack of knowledge or by design to have a biased pop.
I don't care which.
Please concentrate on the thread topic future off topic posts are going to be consigned to the cutting room floor.
Thank you
-
(Partial) credit for citing the correct term (used by the prosecutors) demonstrate rather than prove.
It's a pity the prosecutors didn't add that there was no need for the McCanns to demonstrate their innocence.
Also a pity that they didn't record (even if they did think it) that the disgraceful modus operandi of the PJ's questioning of the McCanns during their arguido interviews (including either incompetent or fraudulent misrepresentation of evidence) left the McCanns ample and justified reason to suspect the motive behind this so-called 'reconstitution' which, in any event, could never have shed light on anything, since you can never recreate in retrospect a sequence of events that have already come to pass in real-time.
Human memory (including honest human memory) is too fallible and unreliable for that.
It wasn't for the McCann's to second guess their interrogators, they should have afforded them the simple courtesy of answering all of their questions and persuaded their friends to actively take part in any reconstruction necessary in order to establish exactly who was where and who did what that night. Thwarting a police enquiry into the disappearance of your own child is a no no in police circles I can assure you.
One question which never seems to get asked is, why didn't the McCann's ask to speak to the head honcho directly?
-
It wasn't for the McCann's to second guess their interrogators, they should have afforded them the simple courtesy of answering all of their questions and persuaded their friends to actively take part in any reconstruction necessary in order to establish exactly who was where and who did what that night. Thwarting a police enquiry into the disappearance of your own child is a no no in police circles I can assure you.
It does complicate matters when the police don't understand the evidence
-
Do you mean Metodo3 'created false sightings'?
Or do you mean that sightings, reported by Metedo3, turned out not to be Madeleine?
That's what I posted, MP3 created false everything in order to impress their clients. Their boss Marco even claimed he knew who took the girl and that she would be home for Christmas.. what a liar!!
-
The term abduction applied to Madeleine McCann is merely a supposition so posts should be crystal clear in regard to this.
The view of the Portuguese prosecutors (written as fact) carries more weight than that, and can/should only be supplanted if something, at present, not in the public domain comes to light conclusively demonstrating that there is genuine reason to doubt abduction.
-
That's what I posted, MP3 created false everything in order to impress their clients. Their boss Marco even claimed he knew who took the girl and that she would be home for Christmas.. what a liar!!
You have no evidence of false sightings
-
Such as?
4 more people arguidoed. 4 more now told that they are no longer persons of interest.
I don't know the precise requirement for making someone an arguido. Nor do I know who approves such a request.
But Panorama door-stepped one of the 4 in central Luz, and in a short clip, it is possible to evaluate his personality.
Would I trust that man to keep it secret for 10 years if he was in any way involved in or had any knowledge of Madeleine's disappearance? Absolutely not.
Would I trust that man to keep it secret for 10 years if he was in any way involved in or had any knowledge of burglaries in Luz? Absolutely not.
He appears to have been arguidoed because he was he was resident in Luz and had a mobile phone.
On that basis most of the T7 should have been arguidoed, and the McCanns should have been arguidoed. The T9 were in Luz, were several hundreds of metres closer to the incident, and most were using a mobile.
Unless the McCanns had special privileges, I can see no reason to believe they would have been exempt under new rules. It is a requirement on anyone claiming this or asserting the interviews were rushed in to avoid such changes to provide supporting evidence for such. Without this, it is mere propaganda.
The source that provides the real order to events is Kate's book 'madeleine'. Intended date of departure announced. PJ fit the interviews into that schedule. McCanns leave on announced date.
That the interviews were rushed through to avoid a change in the law is a myth, and accordingly it should be quashed.
That the McCanns 'fled' Portugal because of being made arguidos is a myth, and accordingly it should be quashed.
-
It wasn't for the McCann's to second guess their interrogators, they should have afforded them the simple courtesy of answering all of their questions and persuaded their friends to actively take part in any reconstruction necessary in order to establish exactly who was where and who did what that night. Thwarting a police enquiry into the disappearance of your own child is a no no in police circles I can assure you.
One question which never seems to get asked is, why didn't the McCann's ask to speak to the head honcho directly?
By head honcho I take it you mean Goncalo Amaral?
-
That's what I posted, MP3 created false everything in order to impress their clients. Their boss Marco even claimed he knew who took the girl and that she would be home for Christmas.. what a liar!!
He actually said that he "Hoped" to have her home by Christmas.
-
That's what I posted, MP3 created false everything in order to impress their clients. Their boss Marco even claimed he knew who took the girl and that she would be home for Christmas.. what a liar!!
So, you've made the claim.
Where is the evidence to back it?
OK, yes, I'm aware of the expression of hope Madeleine would be home by Christmas.
-
You have no evidence of false sightings
Do look up blond girls, Riff Mountains, Morocco. M3 was paying locals to invent stories.
-
4 more people arguidoed. 4 more now told that they are no longer persons of interest.
I don't know the precise requirement for making someone an arguido. Nor do I know who approves such a request.
But Panorama door-stepped one of the 4 in central Luz, and in a short clip, it is possible to evaluate his personality.
Would I trust that man to keep it secret for 10 years if he was in any way involved in or had any knowledge of Madeleine's disappearance? Absolutely not.
Would I trust that man to keep it secret for 10 years if he was in any way involved in or had any knowledge of burglaries in Luz? Absolutely not.
He appears to have been arguidoed because he was he was resident in Luz and had a mobile phone.
On that basis most of the T7 should have been arguidoed, and the McCanns should have been arguidoed. The T9 were in Luz, were several hundreds of metres closer to the incident, and most were using a mobile.
Unless the McCanns had special privileges, I can see no reason to believe they would have been exempt under new rules. It is a requirement on anyone claiming this or asserting the interviews were rushed in to avoid such changes to provide supporting evidence for such. Without this, it is mere propaganda.
The source that provides the real order to events is Kate's book 'madeleine'. Intended date of departure announced. PJ fit the interviews into that schedule. McCanns leave on announced date.
That the interviews were rushed through to avoid a change in the law is a myth, and accordingly it should be quashed.
That the McCanns 'fled' Portugal because of being made arguidos is a myth, and accordingly it should be quashed.
I would say the McCanns fled Portugal because they feared they were going to be arrested
-
Do look up blond girls, Riff Mountains, Morocco. M3 was paying locals to invent stories.
Still no cite and as you haven't provided one it's obvious you don't have one
-
I'm not quite with you.
What did the Smiths manage?
By taking part in a reconstitution of what they saw on 3 May 2007, we have photographic evidence thereof. The photographic evidence considerably clarifies the statements.
We didn't get that with the Tapas time line.
-
Do you mean Metodo3 'created false sightings'?
Or do you mean that sightings, reported by Metedo3, turned out not to be Madeleine?
Does this help?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/290600/Madeleine-Secret-files-reveal-four-sightings-in-Morocco
-
By taking part in a reconstitution of what they saw on 3 May 2007, we have photographic evidence thereof. The photographic evidence considerably clarifies the statements.
We didn't get that with the Tapas time line.
The Smiths' 'guilt' or 'innocence' of anything was never in question.
-
Does this help?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/290600/Madeleine-Secret-files-reveal-four-sightings-in-Morocco
None of that confirms Angelia claim that m3 manufactured false sightings
-
By taking part in a reconstitution of what they saw on 3 May 2007, we have photographic evidence thereof. The photographic evidence considerably clarifies the statements.
We didn't get that with the Tapas time line.
Tell us what it adds to the statements
Nothing
-
If true it certainly scuppers the Smithman is Gerry claim but then that has little to do with abduction and parental involvement can take many forms.
Can being the operative word.
But not a shred of evidence that it did
-
It was (presumably) Amaral and his cohorts who knew about impending changes in Portuguese law.
The McCanns wouldn't have known the first thing about Portuguese law.
Nor is there the slightest reason why they should have.
Who cares?
It was the McCanns who chose and announced the date of departure, not anyone else. They chose to leave before a change in the law would come into effect.
This chosen date of departure has nothing to with what Amaral and team might or might not have known re this legal change.
-
then provide a cite...it is NOT a well known fact
It is to those who are well read on the case. Could I suggest you read the book Smokescreen by former M3 employees Julian Peribanez and Antonio Tamarit.
-
Does this help?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/290600/Madeleine-Secret-files-reveal-four-sightings-in-Morocco
I read that as evidence that Metedo3 put in serious efforts to try to locate Madeleine.
This type of work by its very nature carries no guarantee of success.
In particular, this:
“We took inquiries as far as we could and then handed it over to the Portuguese police. We did it all in the proper way, wrote a report then gave it to Spanish police and they would pass it on to the Portuguese police for us.
Don't see how any of that justifies the claim (on this board!) of Angelo.
-
Who cares?
It was the McCanns who chose and announced the date of departure, not anyone else. They chose to leave before a change in the law would come into effect.
This chosen date of departure has nothing to with what Amaral and team might or might not have known re this legal change.
The McCanns announced their departure before they were questioned and made arquidos, mainly because the villa rental was due to come to an end.
Amaral knew that they were leaving.
This suggests to me the reason for the haste. And the haste in which it was done was mentioned later by the Detective who took over.
Sorry. I can never remember if it was Ribello or Ribeiro.
-
Who cares?
It was the McCanns who chose and announced the date of departure, not anyone else. They chose to leave before a change in the law would come into effect.
This chosen date of departure has nothing to with what Amaral and team might or might not have known re this legal change.
Strawman!
The topic of discussion is why the Portuguese authorities chose to press imposition of arguido status before a change in Portuguese law that would have required them to justify their reasons.
In particular, it was made clear by Harrison and Grime that no incriminating inference could be made from the reactions of the dogs.
-
I would say the McCanns fled Portugal because they feared they were going to be arrested
You are libelling Kate McCann, because in her book she describes a quite different set of events. I would suggest you refrain from further libellous comments, and instead read her book.
I have put the references in before.
P232. "We'd waited almost 4 weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country."
-
The Smiths' 'guilt' or 'innocence' of anything was never in question.
????
This sounds like you are implying the T9 had something to hide, IMO.
-
You are libelling Kate McCann, because in her book she describes a quite different set of events. I would suggest you refrain from further libellous comments, and instead read her book.
I have put the references in before.
P232. "We'd waited almost 4 weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country."
Stop posting rubbish I am libelling no one
I think it's clear one of the reasons the McCanns left was they were concerned about being arrested
-
????
This sounds like you are implying the T9 had something to hide, IMO.
They didn't
But it seems the pj thought they did
-
Tell us what it adds to the statements
Nothing
It adds a lot.
That you are incapable of seeing it or are choosing to ignore it is not my problem.
-
It adds a lot.
That you are incapable of seeing it or are choosing to ignore it is not my problem.
You think it adds a lot
I think you are mistaken
Tell us something it adds
-
I would say the McCanns fled Portugal because they feared they were going to be arrested
I have no doubt. Didn't Kate record in her novel that Gerry was ready to pack up their belongings in the hire car and head off to Spain but she talked him out of it?
-
The McCanns announced their departure before they were questioned and made arquidos, mainly because the villa rental was due to come to an end.
Amaral knew that they were leaving.
This suggests to me the reason for the haste. And the haste in which it was done was mentioned later by the Detective who took over.
Sorry. I can never remember if it was Ribello or Ribeiro.
That's not what it says in Kate's book, but does it matter?
The McCanns decided to leave. The McCanns passed this information via Bob Small to the PJ. Their intended departure date was before the change in the law.
Team Amaral could not wait until the law changed. The McCanns intended departure date precluded that.
It was McCann choice. Not team Amaral choice.
-
You are libelling Kate McCann, because in her book she describes a quite different set of events. I would suggest you refrain from further libellous comments, and instead read her book.
I have put the references in before.
P232. "We'd waited almost 4 weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country."
I do not consider Davel's comment to be Libellous. Kate did appear to be afraid of being arrested.
-
Strawman!
The topic of discussion is why the Portuguese authorities chose to press imposition of arguido status before a change in Portuguese law that would have required them to justify their reasons.
In particular, it was made clear by Harrison and Grime that no incriminating inference could be made from the reactions of the dogs.
Does any of this matter?
The topic of discussion is whether posters should make clear that abduction is alleged. I swear I can hear Brietta getting her pruning shears out to make this sequence more relevant to the thread title.
-
Stop posting rubbish I am libelling no one
I think it's clear one of the reasons the McCanns left was they were concerned about being arrested
You think it's clear?
I have provided the cite about the sequence of events re their departure.
Can you present a cite re fleeing arrest? 8((()*/
-
You think it's clear?
I have provided the cite about the sequence of events re their departure.
Can you present a cite re fleeing arrest? 8((()*/
. John has confirmed it
See his post
They then hired a top extradition lawyer on return
-
The view of the Portuguese prosecutors (written as fact) carries more weight than that, and can/should only be supplanted if something, at present, not in the public domain comes to light conclusively demonstrating that there is genuine reason to doubt abduction.
The conclusion of the prosecutors. I have bolded the important bits for you. They DID NOT say Madeleine was abducted;
Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
Does any of this matter?
The topic of discussion is whether posters should make clear that abduction is alleged. I swear I can hear Brietta getting her pruning shears out to make this sequence more relevant to the thread title.
The opening post states opinion (as if 'fact') that abduction is not a 'fact'.
How do you propose we debate that?
-
The opening post states opinion (as if 'fact') that abduction is not a 'fact'.
How do you propose we debate that?
The alleged abduction. Use your imagination. There are other words.
-
Do look up blond girls, Riff Mountains, Morocco. M3 was paying locals to invent stories.
Cite.
-
Does this help?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/290600/Madeleine-Secret-files-reveal-four-sightings-in-Morocco
John, please could you explain why you are attempting to support Angelo in his claim that agents of the McCanns deliberately faked sightings in order to undermine the official investigation, a claim for which there is precisely zero evidence and which should, therefore, come with a great big CAVEAT.
Furthermore why have you failed to authorise my thread on this topic?
-
????
This sounds like you are implying the T9 had something to hide, IMO.
What?
-
????
This sounds like you are implying the T9 had something to hide, IMO.
Your opinion leaves me speechless.
-
The opening post states opinion (as if 'fact') that abduction is not a 'fact'.
How do you propose we debate that?
One issue with threads that are taken from another is that the OP can look clumsy without its context.
I believe the OP is simply stating the obvious i.e. abduction has not been proved, and therefore is one allegation or possibility.
Here is another possibility. If Matthew Oldfield is involved, each piece of information that we have can be explained.
And another. If Kate McCann is involved, each piece of information can be explained.
And another. If Gerry McCann is involved, each piece of information can be explained.
And another. If Madeleine woke and wandered, each piece of information can be explained.
I happen to think abduction is the most probable explanation, and the 3 May 2017 Panorama special has a chunk that goes down one potential route. I don't think they got an abductor, but they might have made some progress.
With all options on the table, an abductor is alleged but far from proven.
-
One issue with threads that are taken from another is that the OP can look clumsy without its context.
I believe the OP is simply stating the obvious i.e. abduction has not been proved, and therefore is one allegation or possibility.
Here is another possibility. If Matthew Oldfield is involved, each piece of information that we have can be explained.
And another. If Kate McCann is involved, each piece of information can be explained.
And another. If Gerry McCann is involved, each piece of information can be explained.
And another. If Madeleine woke and wandered, each piece of information can be explained.
I happen to think abduction is the most probable explanation, and the 3 May 2017 Panorama special has a chunk that goes down one potential route. I don't think they got an abductor, but they might have made some progress.
With all options on the table, an abductor is alleged but far from proven.
A-men for (the part of) your post I embolden.
-
A-men for (the part of) your post I embolden.
I wonder why he thinks that? I doubt he'll tell us.
-
Off topic but this is what Kate reveals in her book, Madeleine:
On the drive home from the police station it had become clear to Gerry that Carlos believed charges were likely and that we might have to stay in Portugal. The preparation of a case like this could take years. If the charge was murder, rather than the lesser crime of hiding a body, we might even be remanded in custody for all that time. Given the lack of evidence, it was impossible to understand how such charges could be brought, but if you’d told us a few weeks earlier that we were going to be declared arguidos we wouldn’t have believed that, either. The prospect of being separated from Sean and Amelie, holed up in jail unable to prepare our defence properly, was terrifying. Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the border to Spain. It would have been crazy. The whole world would have thought we were guilty, and maybe that was what the police were hoping we’d do. Most people find it hard to comprehend how innocent people can confess to crimes they haven’t committed. Gerry and I don’t. Not now. The monumental psychological duress we were under can easily lead to bad, irrational decision-making. Thankfuly, we resisted the urge to flee. When we left Portugal, it would be with the blessing of the PJ and our heads held high.
-
John, please could you explain why you are attempting to support Angelo in his claim that agents of the McCanns deliberately faked sightings in order to undermine the official investigation, a claim for which there is precisely zero evidence and which should, therefore, come with a great big CAVEAT.
Furthermore why have you failed to authorise my thread on this topic?
Are you saying that Método 3 didn't provide false information in the search for Madeleine McCann?
As for your new thread you need to revise it since Angelo did not state that which you posted.
-
Are you saying that Método 3 didn't provide false information in the search for Madeleine McCann?
I am asking for proof that agents employed by the McCanns deliberately faked sightings to discredit the official investigation. This is the claim being made by Angelo. Do you think it is an established fact? If so please provide the proof here and now, otherwise we're looking at a severe case of double standards are we not?
-
Are you saying that Método 3 didn't provide false information in the search for Madeleine McCann?
As for your new thread you need to revise it since Angelo did not state that which you posted.
You removed my thread so I can't revise it.
-
Off topic but this is what Kate reveals in her book, Madeleine:
On the drive home from the police station it had become clear to Gerry that Carlos believed charges were likely and that we might have to stay in Portugal. The preparation of a case like this could take years. If the charge was murder, rather than the lesser crime of hiding a body, we might even be remanded in custody for all that time. Given the lack of evidence, it was impossible to understand how such charges could be brought, but if you’d told us a few weeks earlier that we were going to be declared arguidos we wouldn’t have believed that, either. The prospect of being separated from Sean and Amelie, holed up in jail unable to prepare our defence properly, was terrifying. Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the border to Spain. It would have been crazy. The whole world would have thought we were guilty, and maybe that was what the police were hoping we’d do. Most people find it hard to comprehend how innocent people can confess to crimes they haven’t committed. Gerry and I don’t. Not now. The monumental psychological duress we were under can easily lead to bad, irrational decision-making. Thankfuly, we resisted the urge to flee. When we left Portugal, it would be with the blessing of the PJ and our heads held high.
There is no question that Amaral (whether he realised it or not) headed up a murder enquiry.
Several references in the reports of Harrison make that clear, not least his offer to consider other possibilities or scenarios (sic) on request.
-
Your opinion leaves me speechless.
You said the Smiths could take part in a reconstitution because the were not guilty of anything.
The T9 could have taken part in a reconstitution. It didn't happen.
-
One issue with threads that are taken from another is that the OP can look clumsy without its context.
I believe the OP is simply stating the obvious i.e. abduction has not been proved, and therefore is one allegation or possibility.
Here is another possibility. If Matthew Oldfield is involved, each piece of information that we have can be explained.
And another. If Kate McCann is involved, each piece of information can be explained.
And another. If Gerry McCann is involved, each piece of information can be explained.
And another. If Madeleine woke and wandered, each piece of information can be explained.
I happen to think abduction is the most probable explanation, and the 3 May 2017 Panorama special has a chunk that goes down one potential route. I don't think they got an abductor, but they might have made some progress.
With all options on the table, an abductor is alleged but far from proven.
I have some sympathy with those points but for me it is all about the evidence and that appears to point to Madeleine being out on the street. What happened next is anyone's guess?
Was she lifted by some opportunist paedophile or was she hit by an over-the-limit driver who panicked and drove off with her?
-
Off topic but this is what Kate reveals in her book, Madeleine:
On the drive home from the police station it had become clear to Gerry that Carlos believed charges were likely and that we might have to stay in Portugal. The preparation of a case like this could take years. If the charge was murder, rather than the lesser crime of hiding a body, we might even be remanded in custody for all that time. Given the lack of evidence, it was impossible to understand how such charges could be brought, but if you’d told us a few weeks earlier that we were going to be declared arguidos we wouldn’t have believed that, either. The prospect of being separated from Sean and Amelie, holed up in jail unable to prepare our defence properly, was terrifying. Gerry was seriously considering sneaking us into a car and driving us all across the border to Spain. It would have been crazy. The whole world would have thought we were guilty, and maybe that was what the police were hoping we’d do. Most people find it hard to comprehend how innocent people can confess to crimes they haven’t committed. Gerry and I don’t. Not now. The monumental psychological duress we were under can easily lead to bad, irrational decision-making. Thankfuly, we resisted the urge to flee. When we left Portugal, it would be with the blessing of the PJ and our heads held high.
Yes, walking away free from your daughters plight and from justice... head held high indeed! Well done Kate!
-
Yes, walking away free from your daughters plight and from justice... head held high indeed! Well done Kate!
I wouldn't be surprised if that was exactly what the police were hoping for, put enough pressure on the suspects and they will bolt. Thereafter all credibility would have flown with them and their arrest and extradition which would follow.
-
I have some sympathy with those points but for me it is all about the evidence and that appears to point to Madeleine being out on the street. What happened next is anyone's guess?
Was she lifted by some opportunist paedophile or was she hit by an over-the-limit driver who panicked and drove off with her?
Or as suggested, helped by a childless couple who are looking after her? Hmmm highly unlikely imo. I agree with those other two suggestions. either of them could be true.
-
I have some sympathy with those points but for me it is all about the evidence and that appears to point to Madeleine being out on the street. What happened next is anyone's guess?
Was she lifted by some opportunist paedophile or was she hit by an over-the-limit driver who panicked and drove off with her?
By evidence I presume you mean the tracker dogs
So one dog says Maddie died in the apartment the other that she left the apartment
Which one was wrong or were they both wrong
-
Please concentrate on the thread topic future off topic posts are going to be consigned to the cutting room floor.
Thank you
Your argument was that as no one was agreeing with Sr Amaral, the implication being he must be considered to be wrong as no no one was agreeing with him.
I put forward a counter argument with two well known cases from history.
Heinous crime? well what Galilieo Galilei proposed certainly was in his time. It only took 350 years for The Catholic Church to cotton on and forgive him.
End of history lesson; delete if you wish but I have demonstrated your argument did not hold water.
-
By evidence I presume you mean the tracker dogs
So one dog says Maddie died in the apartment the other that she left the apartment
Which one was wrong or were they both wrong
The GNR dogs were tracking specifically Madeleine as they were trained to do hours after she disappeared whereas the cadaver dog was deployed weeks later and could have alerted to numerous substances. I know which two my money is on.
-
I don't have time to read numerous pages from a book, especially not when the writing is so small I need a magnifying glass to read it, even after clicking on the thumbnail. A specific page reference or copy and paste of the passage which proves that sightings were invented by agents in the pay of the McCanns please. Better still approve my thread on the subject and we can discuss it there.
-
I don't have time to read numerous pages from a book, especially not when the writing is so small I need a magnifying glass to read it, even after clicking on the thumbnail. A specific page reference or copy and paste of the passage which proves that sightings were invented by agents in the pay of the McCanns please. Better still approve my thread on the subject and we can discuss it there.
You asked for the cite, it was provided for you and is perfectly legible. There can be little doubt that Metodo 3 set out to benefit financially and fradulently from the arrangement they had entered into with millionaire Brian Kennedy and the Madeleine Fund and at the expense of the real search for Madeleine.
Acccording to the Metodo 3 whistleblowers, facts were invented and fake invoices created in a sham exercise to disguise the actual number of operatives employed by the detective agency.
-
As a reminder.
The crime if any, is unknown, and no matter the hype, as John, Angelo and others know, that remains the case.
The McCann's remain the last known people to have seen Madeleine.
No forensic evidence has been uncovered to show anyone else was there the night Madeleine disappeared.
...and before anyone states it again, the hairs and the unidentifiable fingerprints exist, but it doesn't mean they were made/left on that night.
As was pointed out last night, and elsewhere, there are contradictions on what SY have said
The proposal that everyone at SY follows the abduction scenario, needs to be cited. 1 opinion counts for nothing.
PS. IMHO, it is eminently obvious that SY were TOLD to examine abduction and nothing else. So if that
is the case, who gave them that instruction...........
-
AFAICS, there is no evidence of abduction, which can't be explained by other scenarios.
The sheer lack of forensic corroboration of that, is of course rather marked.
-
AFAICS, there is no evidence of abduction, which can't be explained by other scenarios.
The sheer lack of forensic corroboration of that, is of course rather marked.
Are you of the mindset that it will never be solved. Aren't the thoughts that the family and friends had nothing to do with the abduction a state of the case being partially solved?
-
Topic, Please, on this fine Sunday morning.
-
Perhaps reading through my posts would help.
Nothing has come from the SY investigation, IMO, other than cliches, and rehashing of one line of inquiry, which appears to have changed gender on a few occasions, as regards who they are 'looking' for.
I see nothing that will change my mind.
As I stated at the start of the investigation, nothing would come of it, but for the eventual shelving of the case.
-
Topic, Please, on this fine Sunday morning.
Yes, a beautiful Sunny morning.
Heavy rain and wind to follow late tonight, into tomorrow.
-
Yes, a beautiful Sunny morning.
Heavy rain and wind to follow late tonight, into tomorrow.
You can keep that. Sunny again here tomorrow.
Now, about the alleged abductor.
-
SY are looking for an abductor and it seem s that has upset posters here
-
It's usually separated parents who abduct their own child. As the McCanns weren't separated there's no reason why either or both should want to abduct her, so they are obviously not involved in any abduction. No need for a policeman to tell us that. Did he mention their friends?
However, until these various policemen and experts share the evidence which excludes the parents and their friends from any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance their words merely express their opinions.
A C Rowley said the archived investigation 'dealt with' the question of parental involvement, but it didn't. The possibilities remaining were;
Death due to neglect
Death due to murder
A targeted abduction
An opportunistic abduction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
-
It's usually separated parents who abduct their own child. As the McCanns weren't separated there's no reason why either or both should want to abduct her, so they are obviously not involved in any abduction. No need for a policeman to tell us that. Did he mention their friends?
However, until these various policemen and experts share the evidence which excludes the parents and their friends from any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance their words merely express their opinions.
A C Rowley said the archived investigation 'dealt with' the question of parental involvement, but it didn't. The possibilities remaining were;
Death due to neglect
Death due to murder
A targeted abduction
An opportunistic abduction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Only if you want to gainsay the Portuguese prosecutors, which you clearly do, for reasons I could certainly guess
The Prosecutors, who have read a set of reports much more accurate, and much fuller, than anything any of us on this board have read, are in no doubt Madeleine was abducted.
-
It's usually separated parents who abduct their own child. As the McCanns weren't separated there's no reason why either or both should want to abduct her, so they are obviously not involved in any abduction. No need for a policeman to tell us that. Did he mention their friends?
However, until these various policemen and experts share the evidence which excludes the parents and their friends from any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance their words merely express their opinions.
A C Rowley said the archived investigation 'dealt with' the question of parental involvement, but it didn't. The possibilities remaining were;
Death due to neglect
Death due to murder
A targeted abduction
An opportunistic abduction
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
the archived investigation found no evidence of parental involvement...SY looked at and agreed. the mccanns will then have been interviewed as witnesses and if any evidence of involvement came to light would have been investigated
-
Only if you want to gainsay the Portuguese prosecutors, which you clearly do, for reasons I could certainly guess
The Prosecutors, who have read a set of reports much more accurate, and much fuller, than anything any of us on this board have read, are in no doubt Madeleine was abducted.
It is quite remarkable that yoiu have not leaned from experience.
Anyone can read through the shelving report and see quite clearly in the shelving, the cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown.
-
SY are looking for an abductor and it seem s that has upset posters here
OG have been looking for an abductor for years, but what does that prove? It doesn't prove that an abduction happened, that's for sure.
-
OG have been looking for an abductor for years, but what does that prove? It doesn't prove that an abduction happened, that's for sure.
it proves thats what the experts think happened
-
Only if you want to gainsay the Portuguese prosecutors, which you clearly do, for reasons I could certainly guess
The Prosecutors, who have read a set of reports much more accurate, and much fuller, than anything any of us on this board have read, are in no doubt Madeleine was abducted.
Cherry-picking bits of the Legal Summary for your own ends fools no-one. The conclusion of the report is the important bit, and the conclusion left at least four possibilities on the table. It clearly states that they didn't know what crime had been committed.
-
Cherry-picking bits of the Legal Summary for your own ends fools no-one. The conclusion of the report is the important bit, and the conclusion left at least four possibilities on the table. It clearly states that they didn't know what crime had been committed.
and they clearly stated that there was no evidence against the aprents
-
it proves thats what the experts think happened
You passionately defended the McCanns for questioning the expertise of the PJ. Now you are passionately defending the expertise of the Metropolitan Police. Could that be due to your passionate belief in the innocence of the McCanns, I wonder?
-
Cherry-picking bits of the Legal Summary for your own ends fools no-one. The conclusion of the report is the important bit, and the conclusion left at least four possibilities on the table. It clearly states that they didn't know what crime had been committed.
I sincerely hope that your cherry-picking doesn't fool anyone.
-
You passionately defended the McCanns for questioning the expertise of the PJ. Now you are passionately defending the expertise of the Metropolitan Police. Could that be due to your passionate belief in the innocence of the McCanns, I wonder?
no its because of the available evidence. I actually made a post 2 weeks before Rowleys article where I came to the same conclusions he did
-
What is abundantly clear is that the shelving process revealed it wasn't known what happened, anyone can read the report for themselves and ascertain that fact.
-
and they clearly stated that there was no evidence against the aprents
Senior judges said 'insufficient evidence' was the reason the case was archived.
-
Rowley is merely plodding the line he has been told to do. IMHO, of course.
Now still waiting for an answer to who gave instructions to SY to only look at abduction.
-
Senior judges said 'insufficient evidence' was the reason the case was archived.
They interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of the Almeida Interim report rather than the PJ final report (written by Joao Carlos).
Big mistake.
-
They interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of the Almeida Interim report rather than the PJ final report (written by Joao Carlos).
Big mistake.
No they didn't. They looked at the archiving dispatch because Duarte claimed 'it cleared the parents. The judges rejected her argument.
-
Senior judges said 'insufficient evidence' was the reason the case was archived.
That important Portuguese bloke on the telly recently said there was NO evidence at all against anyone.
-
The term insufficient evidence was not in the archiving report
The SC was not concerned with the innocence or guilt of the McCanns and would therefore not have looked at the evidence
I think the SC decision was flawed and hopefully the ECHR will agree
-
The problem is that while some of us believe that there was an abductor, or not, there is actually no proof either way.
-
The problem is that while some of us believe that there was an abductor, or not, there is actually no proof either way.
Spot on Eleanor, it is incorrect to post abductor just as much as it is to post killer or murderer. There are many ways to describe a belief in abduction and there are several ways abduction might have occurred such as from the apartment or from the street.
-
This is the thing. It's actually not difficult to chose words more carefully.
In fact it's quite interesting. A small exercise in The English Language.
-
However, I shall be looking closely at any comment that states that there was No Abduction.
-
OG have been looking for an abductor for years, but what does that prove? It doesn't prove that an abduction happened, that's for sure.
First and foremost SY are looking for someone to prosecute in order to justify their involvement in the case and the huge resources already provided to them. Finding missing children comes a poor second if past performance is anything to go by.
-
John I see you have deleted the offending sentence of Angelo's which proved my point and which now makes my post less meaningful, and all without the good grace to acknowledge what you have done.
-
At this moment in time no-one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Theories abound, but no-one knows beyond doubt. Despite that, those who support her parents insist that she was abducted.
Supporters on this forum quote the press, various experts, and the Met in an attempt to suggest that it must be true if all these 'experts' believe it.
Opinions are not evidence.
-
At this moment in time no-one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Theories abound, but no-one knows beyond doubt. Despite that, those who support her parents insist that she was abducted.
Supporters on this forum quote the press, various experts, and the Met in an attempt to suggest that it must be true if all these 'experts' believe it.
Opinions are not evidence.
There is no evidence at all that Claudia Lawrence is dead, has been murdered or abducted yet everyone believes this to be the case - why is that? Let's not forget she unlike Madeleine could have gone off to start a new life but no one is suggesting that is what happened. Why not?
-
At this moment in time no-one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Theories abound, but no-one knows beyond doubt. Despite that, those who support her parents insist that she was abducted.
Supporters on this forum quote the press, various experts, and the Met in an attempt to suggest that it must be true if all these 'experts' believe it.
Opinions are not evidence.
Some sceptics insist that she wasn't abducted. Neither will do.
-
Some sceptics insist that she wasn't abducted. Neither will do.
Tony Bennett knows of 60 reasons why Madeleine was not abducted. I trust G-Unit is full of contempt for his pamphlet?
-
At this moment in time no-one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Theories abound, but no-one knows beyond doubt. Despite that, those who support her parents insist that she was abducted.
Supporters on this forum quote the press, various experts, and the Met in an attempt to suggest that it must be true if all these 'experts' believe it.
Opinions are not evidence.
Absence of anything that indicates harm to Madeleine combined with the legal presumption of innocence is potent evidence.
-
John I see you have deleted the offending sentence of Angelo's which proved my point and which now makes my post less meaningful, and all without the good grace to acknowledge what you have done.
I asked for it to be removed. To be clear the deceit was by the Spanish based private investigators employed by Kennedy and the McCanns. What has never been explained though is why they didn't sue Metodo for defrauding them? Why were the Metodo whistleblowers stonewalled when they went to the Kennedy, Smethurst and the McCanns with the fraud report?
-
John I see you have deleted the offending sentence of Angelo's which proved my point and which now makes my post less meaningful, and all without the good grace to acknowledge what you have done.
You asked for it to be reviewed, Angelo agreed, I removed it. End of!
-
At this moment in time no-one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Theories abound, but no-one knows beyond doubt. Despite that, those who support her parents insist that she was abducted.
Supporters on this forum quote the press, various experts, and the Met in an attempt to suggest that it must be true if all these 'experts' believe it.
Opinions are not evidence.
I think that is the message which should be being portrayed by the media instead of promoting speculation as fact.
-
I think that is the message which should be being portrayed by the media instead of promoting speculation as fact.
The media have seriously damaged their own credibility in recent years and their reporting of this case is a good example of why many people no longer have any faith in them.
-
The media have seriously damaged their own credibility in recent years and their reporting of this case is a good example of why many people no longer have any faith in them.
As the McCanns' successful legal actions against The Mirror and The Times demonstrates.
-
At this moment in time no-one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Theories abound, but no-one knows beyond doubt. Despite that, those who support her parents insist that she was abducted.
Supporters on this forum quote the press, various experts, and the Met in an attempt to suggest that it must be true if all these 'experts' believe it.
Opinions are not evidence.
Well if people are going to ignore what two police forces have said and that is 'the parents are not suspects' then abduction will not be a theory. If however people do believe what the two police forces have said [me included] then it was abduction.
-
I asked for it to be removed. To be clear the deceit was by the Spanish based private investigators employed by Kennedy and the McCanns. What has never been explained though is why they didn't sue Metodo for defrauding them? Why were the Metodo whistleblowers stonewalled when they went to the Kennedy, Smethurst and the McCanns with the fraud report?
Why did you accuse the McCanns of despicable behaviour then? Do you think not sueing fraudsters is a despicable act?
-
There is no evidence at all that Claudia Lawrence is dead, has been murdered or abducted yet everyone believes this to be the case - why is that? Let's not forget she unlike Madeleine could have gone off to start a new life but no one is suggesting that is what happened. Why not?
When an adult disappears in suspicious circumstances investigators have to look carefully at their background, lifestyle and those around them. Claudia Lawrence's disappearance was out of character leading police and family to believe she was abducted and killed.
Kate Prout's disappearance was also out of character despite the claims of her husband Adrian who insisted she had gone off by herself. Some simple checks revealed that many of her personal effects had been left behind, her bank account was untouched etc..
As you have pointed out Madeleine McCann was a child so unlikely to have gone off to start a new life on her own and nobody except SY has even mentioned such a preposterous scenario. It was Mark Rowley who made this comment in his recent interview, the fact that he should even have made such a stupid remark undermined the entire communication.
-
Well if people are going to ignore what two police forces have said and that is 'the parents are not suspects' then abduction will not be a theory. If however people do believe what the two police forces have said [me included] then it was abduction.
...unless the police are wrong.
-
When an adult disappears in suspicious circumstances investigators have to look carefully at their background, lifestyle and those around them. Claudia Lawrence's disappearance was out of character leading police and family to believe she was abducted and killed.
Kate Prout's disappearance was also out of character despite the claims of her husband Adrian who insisted she had gone off by herself. Some simple checks revealed that many of her personal effects had been left behind, her bank account was untouched etc..
As you have pointed out Madeleine McCann was a child so unlikely to have gone off to start a new life on her own and nobody except SY has even mentioned such a preposterous scenario. It was Mark Rowley who made this comment in his recent interview, the fact that he should even have made such a stupid remark undermined the entire communication.
So police can come to a conclusion without any forensic or wtness evidence like they have done in the Claudia Lawrence case and everyone accepts it, so why not, when they come to a conclusion in the Madeleine McCann case (similarly lacking in hard evidence) are we not allowed to accept it and have to use caveats instead?
-
Why did you accuse the McCanns of despicable behaviour then? Do you think not sueing fraudsters is a despicable act?
Francisco Marco and Kevin Halligen will both have inside information about the failed search for Maddie which would no doubt emerge in any civil action against them.
-
...unless the police are wrong.
Oh well there you are then, don't suppose Amaral is wrong is he?
Thing is they are privy to much more than we are, they can determine whether the McCann's are where they were as they said in their statements.
If you think anything happened before the alert, then the McCann's deserve an Oscar as their performance was fantastic, behaving as though nothing had happened an all.
-
When an adult disappears in suspicious circumstances investigators have to look carefully at their background, lifestyle and those around them. Claudia Lawrence's disappearance was out of character leading police and family to believe she was abducted and killed.
Kate Prout's disappearance was also out of character despite the claims of her husband Adrian who insisted she had gone off by herself. Some simple checks revealed that many of her personal effects had been left behind, her bank account was untouched etc..
As you have pointed out Madeleine McCann was a child so unlikely to have gone off to start a new life on her own and nobody except SY has even mentioned such a preposterous scenario. It was Mark Rowley who made this comment in his recent interview, the fact that he should even have made such a stupid remark undermined the entire communication.
Mark Rowley was saying it wasn't as if she was an adult and able to walk out by herself and start a new life, what is stupid about that? Madeleine wasn't able to just walk out of her life was she? she was probably abducted.
-
When an adult disappears in suspicious circumstances investigators have to look carefully at their background, lifestyle and those around them. Claudia Lawrence's disappearance was out of character leading police and family to believe she was abducted and killed.
Kate Prout's disappearance was also out of character despite the claims of her husband Adrian who insisted she had gone off by herself. Some simple checks revealed that many of her personal effects had been left behind, her bank account was untouched etc..
As you have pointed out Madeleine McCann was a child so unlikely to have gone off to start a new life on her own and nobody except SY has even mentioned such a preposterous scenario. It was Mark Rowley who made this comment in his recent interview, the fact that he should even have made such a stupid remark undermined the entire communication.
He was possibly rather ruffled due to the questions he was being asked, which were surprisingly specific and searching imo.
-
Well if people are going to ignore what two police forces have said and that is 'the parents are not suspects' then abduction will not be a theory. If however people do believe what the two police forces have said [me included] then it was abduction.
I wonder if the Police have ever said such things before and then changed their minds? If they have then their words can't be relied upon.
-
Francisco Marco and Kevin Halligen will both have inside information about the failed search for Maddie which would no doubt emerge in any civil action against them.
Antonio Jimenez was the Método operative who went to Morocco and created false sightings of Madeleine.
In February 2008, another Metodo 3 private detective, known as Antonio Jimenez or ‘Antonio J.R.’ (aged 53), working for the McCanns as their ‘detective in charge of special operations’, was charged with stealing 400 kilograms of cocaine - nearly half a ton - from an illegal shipment of 1,500 kg, said to have been worth £25 million, on a ship coming from Venezuela. He had been Chief Inspector of the Drugs and Organised Crime Unit for the Barcelona police at the time those 400 kilos of cocaine went missing from the port of Barcelona. But he had left the police to work for Metodo 3 in August 2005, just when an internal investigation was looking into how those 400 kilos had disappeared. He was remanded in custody by a Barcelona court on charges of breach of trust, corruption, corruption of public officials and illicit criminal association.
It had been the same Antonio Jimenez of Metodo 3 who had travelled to Morocco and, whilst he was there, was able - somehow - to find a number of witnesses who claimed to have seen Madeleine. It was around the time of Jimenez’s trip to Morocco that the Moroccan government took the unusual step of expelling a man who had been visiting hotels and garages in various parts of Morocco offering people money if they could claim to have seen a girl looking like Madeleine. A coincidence, perhaps but Metodo's days were numbered.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3085.msg113348#msg113348
-
From The Telegraph
24 Feb 2008
Clarence Mitchell, the spokesman for the McCanns, sought to distance Jimenez from Metodo 3.
He said: "He is nothing to do with us. He collaborated with Metodo 3 on a project, but that was two years before the company was hired to find Madeleine.
"We still have faith in the work of Metodo 3."
Mr Marco denied Spanish television reports that Jiminez, 53, has worked for Metodo 3 for three years.
He insisted that Jimenez was, until three weeks ago, a business partner of his mother, Maria Fernandez Lado, who founded Metodo 3. He said Jimenez had been involved with a separate company.
Spanish records, however, reportedly showed that this business had the same listed address as Metodo 3.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1579678/Madeleine-McCann-detective-agency-link-held.html
Strange that since on November 13, 2007, a meeting took place, in Portimão. Two PJ detectives – Ricardo Paiva and Paulo Ferreira, the director of Metodo 3, Mr. Francisco Marco, an adviser from the private detectives company, Mr. António Jimenez (former head of Police Anti-Kidnapping Unit from Catalonia) and Mr. Brian Kennedy participated in the meeting.
-
So police can come to a conclusion without any forensic or wtness evidence like they have done in the Claudia Lawrence case and everyone accepts it, so why not, when they come to a conclusion in the Madeleine McCann case (similarly lacking in hard evidence) are we not allowed to accept it and have to use caveats instead?
This may provide a more comprehensive overview:
https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/claudia-lawrence-investigation/claudia-lawrence-enquiry-moves-reactive-phase/
-
So police can come to a conclusion without any forensic or witness evidence like they have done in the Claudia Lawrence case and everyone accepts it, so why not, when they come to a conclusion in the Madeleine McCann case (similarly lacking in hard evidence) are we not allowed to accept it and have to use caveats instead?
What conclusion? Neither case has been determined. Claudia Lawrence was an adult on her way to work while Madeleine McCann was a child who disappeared from her bed, the cases have nothing in common other than the disappearances.
-
He was possibly rather ruffled due to the questions he was being asked, which were surprisingly specific and searching imo.
I don't know about feathers but he put both feet right in it! @)(++(*
-
What conclusion? Neither case has been determined. Claudia Lawrence was an adult on her way to work while Madeleine McCann was a child who disappeared from her bed, the cases have nothing in common other than the disappearances.
Surely the similarities are (Madeleine's disappearance and Claudia's disappearance) that in both cases, every conceivable avenue has been explored to try to solve (either) case; and that in neither case was anyone close to the missing person suspected of any crime related to the disappearance.
-
Mark Rowley was saying it wasn't as if she was an adult and able to walk out by herself and start a new life, what is stupid about that? Madeleine wasn't able to just walk out of her life was she? she was probably abducted.
I think most people will have realised that as Madeleine was 3. Rowley erred when he stated that, "However she left that apartment, she has been abducted." It was an irresponsible comment for any senior copper to make publicly on national TV after stating that they must keep all options open. It made him look really foolish imo.
-
Antonio Jimenez was the Método operative who went to Morocco and created false sightings of Madeleine.
In February 2008, another Metodo 3 private detective, known as Antonio Jimenez or ‘Antonio J.R.’ (aged 53), working for the McCanns as their ‘detective in charge of special operations’, was charged with stealing 400 kilograms of cocaine - nearly half a ton - from an illegal shipment of 1,500 kg, said to have been worth £25 million, on a ship coming from Venezuela. He had been Chief Inspector of the Drugs and Organised Crime Unit for the Barcelona police at the time those 400 kilos of cocaine went missing from the port of Barcelona. But he had left the police to work for Metodo 3 in August 2005, just when an internal investigation was looking into how those 400 kilos had disappeared. He was remanded in custody by a Barcelona court on charges of breach of trust, corruption, corruption of public officials and illicit criminal association.
It had been the same Antonio Jimenez of Metodo 3 who had travelled to Morocco and, whilst he was there, was able - somehow - to find a number of witnesses who claimed to have seen Madeleine. It was around the time of Jimenez’s trip to Morocco that the Moroccan government took the unusual step of expelling a man who had been visiting hotels and garages in various parts of Morocco offering people money if they could claim to have seen a girl looking like Madeleine. A coincidence, perhaps but Metodo's days were numbered.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3085.msg113348#msg113348
Wasn't he later acquitted? Or have I got that wrong?
-
Wasn't he later acquitted? Or have I got that wrong?
He was indeed acquitted on the basis of insufficient evidence.
It was also Jimenez who met with Marcos Aragão Correia at the Arcade dam fiasco yet all this was denied by Clarence Mitchell. It would be interesting to know which Método 3 detectives approached João Grade as part of their plan to damage Amaral?
-
Insufficient Evidence, eh? Where have I heard that before?
It doesn't mean he was Innocent because he definitely dun it. Although not in my opinion as it happens.
-
Oh well there you are then, don't suppose Amaral is wrong is he?
Thing is they are privy to much more than we are, they can determine whether the McCann's are where they were as they said in their statements.
If you think anything happened before the alert, then the McCann's deserve an Oscar as their performance was fantastic, behaving as though nothing had happened an all.
I don't have an issue with people believing the police, however believing the police does not mean their opinion is correct.
-
I don't have an issue with people believing the police, however believing the police does not mean their opinion is correct.
Neither does it mean it isn't.
-
What conclusion? Neither case has been determined. Claudia Lawrence was an adult on her way to work while Madeleine McCann was a child who disappeared from her bed, the cases have nothing in common other than the disappearances.
Police in the CL case are treating her disappearance as a murder investigation. Police in the MMC case are treating her disappearance as an abduction / murder. In neither case is their any hard evidence, yet I don't suppose if I were to write about Claudia Lawrence's murder it would raise much of an eyebrow on this forum. Mention the "A" word in the Madeleine case however and we must follow a new rule of inserting a caveat.
Whatever.
-
Neither does it mean it isn't.
True, so a bit of a moot point.
-
Police in the CL case are treating her disappearance as a murder investigation. Police in the MMC case are treating her disappearance as an abduction / murder. In neither case is their any hard evidence, yet I don't suppose if I were to write about Claudia Lawrence's murder it would raise much of an eyebrow on this forum. Mention the "A" word in the Madeleine case however and we must follow a new rule of inserting a caveat.
Whatever.
But the Claudia Lawrence case is not a murder investigation, it is a missing person enquiry just as Madeleine's is.
-
But the Claudia Lawrence case is not a murder investigation, it is a missing person enquiry just as Madeleine's is.
Wrong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-23402183
-
Launching a murder investigation does not necessarily equate to murder.
A murder investigation would be launched even it later turned out to be manslaughter or even accidental death
-
http://news.sky.com/story/claudia-lawrence-investigation-scaled-down-after-police-review-10732083
-
Launching a murder investigation does not necessarily equate to murder.
A murder investigation would be launched even it later turned out to be manslaughter or even accidental death
Or an abduction, perhaps?
-
Or an abduction, perhaps?
Could be, the OG team deployed was a murder squad
-
Police in the CL case are treating her disappearance as a murder investigation. Police in the MMC case are treating her disappearance as an abduction / murder. In neither case is their any hard evidence, yet I don't suppose if I were to write about Claudia Lawrence's murder it would raise much of an eyebrow on this forum. Mention the "A" word in the Madeleine case however and we must follow a new rule of inserting a caveat.
Whatever.
Is it a new rule? I thought posting opinion as fact was already frowned upon? It probably wasn't enforced as much as it could have been, but it was regularly commented on.
-
Is it a new rule? I thought posting opinion as fact was already frowned upon? It probably wasn't enforced as much as it could have been, but it was regularly commented on.
thats the whole point...if we have rules they need to be applied evenly...and apply to everyone...including moderators
no opinion as fact...thats fine...but it MUST apply to everyone
-
thats the whole point...if we have rules they need to be applied evenly...and apply to everyone...including moderators
no opinion as fact...thats fine...but it MUST apply to everyone
It will.
-
Might the caveat be "b........" abductor?
-
Might the caveat be "b........" abductor?
No. I don't think so. In My Opinion.
-
No. I don't think so. In My Opinion.
Spoil-sport.
-
thats the whole point...if we have rules they need to be applied evenly...and apply to everyone...including moderators
no opinion as fact...thats fine...but it MUST apply to everyone
I'll do my best.
I hope you and the other members will let me know if or when I'm failing.
-
Spoil-sport.
You could try A....... Abductor. I wouldn't mind that.
-
You could try A....... Abductor. I wouldn't mind that.
Maybe we need to invent a new word "the alleged abductor" becoming the "allegeductor".
-
How about we simply ban all mention of an abductor or an abduction, that way we'll be sure not to upset anyone's delicate constitution. Both words could appear as [censored word]s.
-
How about we simply ban all mention of an abductor or an abduction, that way we'll be sure not to upset anyone's delicate constitution. Both words could appear as [censored word]s.
No need as it's really very simple. Stop posting references to an abductor when it isn't even known if there even was one. Abduction in the Madeleine McCann case is merely a claim, a theory or an opinion and nothing more even at this stage. As Rowley stated, the Met doesn't have definitive evidence as to what happened to Madeleine and that all hypotheses have to remain open.
-
No need as it's really very simple. Stop posting references to an abductor when it isn't even known if there even was one. Abduction in the Madeleine McCann case is merely a claim, a theory or an opinion and nothing more even at this stage. As Rowley stated, the Met doesn't have definitive evidence as to what happened to Madeleine and that all hypotheses have to remain open.
Would you therefore please also ask people to stop repeating that there is no evidence of an abduction when they are not in possession of the same facts as SY & the PJ. People cannot state as a fact that there is no evidence of an abduction.
-
No need as it's really very simple. Stop posting references to an abductor when it isn't even known if there even was one. Abduction in the Madeleine McCann case is merely a claim, a theory or an opinion and nothing more even at this stage. As Rowley stated, the Met doesn't have definitive evidence as to what happened to Madeleine and that all hypotheses have to remain open.
i agree john one should be open minded
-
Would you therefore please also ask people to stop repeating that there is no evidence of an abduction when they are not in possession of the same facts as SY & the PJ. People cannot state as a fact that there is no evidence of an abduction.
You do realize that this applies then to the other theories as well.
Accidental death and the walking out scenario.
-
It will be interesting to see in the light of this what is and isn't allowed
Can posters stop posting that the McCann said the shutters were jemmied
Can they stop saying the McCann didn't search
Lets see how fairly this rule will be applied ie
-
It is interesting to note that some poster are trying to stick to the rules while still managing to express their opinions.
Jolly good show. It can be done.
-
'Her aunt Trish Cameron, who lives in Glasgow, said she felt certain her niece had been abducted.
"They last checked at half past nine and they were all sound asleep, sleeping, windows shut, shutters shut.''
"Kate went back at 10 o'clock to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open or whatever you call it and Madeleine was missing...''
"She's an absolutely beautiful, wee blonde girl, blue-green eyes - one distinguishing feature is that one of her pupils runs into the iris of her right eyes. She's an absolutely gorgeous wee girl."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6623127.stm
Meanwhile, the last recorded 'physical search' by the McCann's, took place the morning after she disappeared.
Nothing else has been recorded or claimed by the McCann's.
-
Then of course the statements
We don't know how accurate they are as we don't have the original in english
So in essence nothing that cannot be proved can be posted without a caveat
-
'Her aunt Trish Cameron, who lives in Glasgow, said she felt certain her niece had been abducted.
"They last checked at half past nine and they were all sound asleep, sleeping, windows shut, shutters shut.''
"Kate went back at 10 o'clock to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open or whatever you call it and Madeleine was missing...''
"She's an absolutely beautiful, wee blonde girl, blue-green eyes - one distinguishing feature is that one of her pupils runs into the iris of her right eyes. She's an absolutely gorgeous wee girl."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6623127.stm
Meanwhile, the last recorded 'physical search' by the McCann's, took place the morning after she disappeared.
Nothing else has been recorded or claimed by the McCann's.
Posters have claimed the McCann didn't search and have claimed that they said the windows were jemmied
Neither is proven and therefore must be posted with a caveat
-
Posters have claimed the McCann didn't search and have claimed that they said the windows were jemmied
Neither is proven and therefore must be posted with a caveat
Precisely.
-
So nothing that cannot be proven can be posted without a caveat
A new reason for reporting
Caveat
I hope it's applied fairly but doubt it will
-
Fascinating.
Even when cites are provided and certain facts are already known, some will still deny them.
-
What a fuss just because people are asked to stop referring to one of the theories of what happened to Madeleine as if it was the only possible answer! Why can't they accept that there are other possibilities?
-
What a fuss just because people are asked to stop referring to one of the theories of what happened to Madeleine as if it was the only possible answer! Why can't they accept that there are other possibilities?
i agree why are they so upset they cant say abduction? why are they so keen on abduction?? anything to protect gerry and kate??
-
there is NO evidence that maddie was abducted though so i dont think posters should be allowed to post it as fact jassi do you??
-
there is NO evidence that maddie was abducted though so i dont think posters should be allowed to post it as fact jassi do you??
Because we don't know what evidence the PJ and SY have we can't say "there is NO evidence that maddie was abducted". You would only be correct if you say "there is no evidence that I know of that maddie was abducted"
-
there is NO evidence that maddie was abducted though so i dont think posters should be allowed to post it as fact jassi do you??
I'm all for live & let live, tempered with a bit of mickey-taking.
Things that are not proven should not be stated as fact, but other than that I simply not interested in the various mantra.
-
I'm all for live & let live, tempered with a bit of mickey-taking.
Things that are not proven should not be stated as fact, but other than that I simply not interested in the various mantra.
i agree and some posters lump other posters together with amarals beliefs etc me personally i dont give a rats you know what what amaral thinks....... i have my own mind and ideas
-
i agree why are they so upset they cant say abduction? why are they so keen on abduction?? anything to protect gerry and kate??
They can say abduction though, just not continue to promote it as a fact. All they have to do is change their language slightly.
Instead of 'it's obvious Madeleine was abducted' they can say 'I think it's obvious'
Instead of 'the abductor did this or that' they can say 'an abductor may have'
It's not so hard, is it?
-
They can say abduction though, just not continue to promote it as a fact. All they have to do is change their language slightly.
Instead of 'it's obvious Madeleine was abducted' they can say 'I think it's obvious'
Instead of 'the abductor did this or that' they can say 'an abductor may have'
It's not so hard, is it?
Anyone with even a scintilla of intelligence is not going to confuse some anonymous poster's blatherings on a forum with established fact are they?
So if I write "it's obvious madeleine was abducted" then it's obviously MY OPINION and not an established fact.
It's not rocket science is it??!
-
They can say abduction though, just not continue to promote it as a fact. All they have to do is change their language slightly.
Instead of 'it's obvious Madeleine was abducted' they can say 'I think it's obvious'
Instead of 'the abductor did this or that' they can say 'an abductor may have'
It's not so hard, is it?
Absolutely correct.
-
Absolutely correct.
Thank you Eleanor.
-
Thank you Eleanor.
Je vous en prie.
-
They can say abduction though, just not continue to promote it as a fact. All they have to do is change their language slightly.
Instead of 'it's obvious Madeleine was abducted' they can say 'I think it's obvious'
Instead of 'the abductor did this or that' they can say 'an abductor may have'
It's not so hard, is it?
right and instead of saying maddie was taken from her bed by an abductor they can say maddie may have been taken from her bed etc i think a little bit less emotional descriptions
-
I think most people will have realised that as Madeleine was 3. Rowley erred when he stated that, "However she left that apartment, she has been abducted." It was an irresponsible comment for any senior copper to make publicly on national TV after stating that they must keep all options open. It made him look really foolish imo.
Mark Rowley also said that the investigation into the McCann's was done by the Portuguese and that it was done and dusted that they didn't want rumours going around that they were investigating the McCann's. THEN he went on to say the McCann's were parents of a missing child, however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted. So what do you think he means? Parents of a missing child, seems to say that she is still missing that the McCann's have done nothing. The options could mean that they don't know where she is or whether she is dead or alive, not that the option of the McCann's being involved.
Anyway as to the abductor argument, what is wrong with the 'In my opinion' quote as it is what we have been doing for a long time.
-
right and instead of saying maddie was taken from her bed by an abductor they can say maddie may have been taken from her bed etc i think a little bit less emotional descriptions
Or we could just add 'in my opinion, IMO' couldn't we?
-
i think john rightly wants an open minded forum and he thinks abduction shouldnt be mentioned just what i think because there is no evidence of abduction
-
Thank you Eleanor.
I hope you will accept that you cannot post that the statements in the files are accurate as we have no way of checking them
You will need to say.. In your opinion they are accurate
-
i think john rightly wants an open minded forum and he thinks abduction shouldnt be mentioned just what i think because there is no evidence of abduction
Even when two police forces think there is a pigeon hold where an abduction could have taken place? The fact that a child is missing and hasn't been found is evidence of abduction.
-
i think john rightly wants an open minded forum and he thinks abduction shouldnt be mentioned just what i think because there is no evidence of abduction
How can you say there is no evidence unless you are privy to all the information which NSY and the PJ have.
You should not be saying "there is no evidence of abduction".
-
Even when two police forces think there is a pigeon hold where an abduction could have taken place? The fact that a child is missing and hasn't been found is evidence of abduction.
How so? evidence of a missing child presumed abducted according to some is more accurate surely.
-
How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment is undetermined, and likewise her fate.
There are 3 main theories, none of which have been proven or disproven.
SY in the form of Redwood, promised a full and open review. that never happened.
-
i think john rightly wants an open minded forum and he thinks abduction shouldnt be mentioned just what i think because there is no evidence of abduction
I think you should have added IMO there carly.
-
Mark Rowley also said that the investigation into the McCann's was done by the Portuguese and that it was done and dusted that they didn't want rumours going around that they were investigating the McCann's. THEN he went on to say the McCann's were parents of a missing child, however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted. So what do you think he means? Parents of a missing child, seems to say that she is still missing that the McCann's have done nothing. The options could mean that they don't know where she is or whether she is dead or alive, not that the option of the McCann's being involved.
Anyway as to the abductor argument, what is wrong with the 'In my opinion' quote as it is what we have been doing for a long time.
As John has said, as have others.
What Rowley said is full of contradictions.
For a very simple reason, he doesn't know what happened.
-
As John has said, as have others.
What Rowley said is full of contradictions.
For a very simple reason, he doesn't know what happened.
abduction would be at the bottom of the list of most police forces around the world i would think childrens abductions are like 90% usally parental abduction IE custody battles etc
-
How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment is undetermined, and likewise her fate.
There are 3 main theories, none of which have been proven or disproven.
SY in the form of Redwood, promised a full and open review. that never happened.
Under the new rules are you allowed to say that a full and open review has never happened?
-
Or we could just add 'in my opinion, IMO' couldn't we?
I am not sure. It probably depends on the content of the comment.
I don't think "Madeleine was abducted, in my opinion" quite cuts the mustard.
But "I think Madeleine might have been abducted" probably would.
-
i think john rightly wants an open minded forum and he thinks abduction shouldnt be mentioned just what i think because there is no evidence of abduction
Nor is there evidence of an accident, or death. So bear that in mind as well.
-
I hope you will accept that you cannot post that the statements in the files are accurate as we have no way of checking them
You will need to say.. In your opinion they are accurate
Agreed.
-
Even when two police forces think there is a pigeon hold where an abduction could have taken place? The fact that a child is missing and hasn't been found is evidence of abduction.
But not of Proof.
-
When it comes to expressing opinions of the Mccanns, then the same rules apply to others.
Grime, Amaral, Clarence Mitchell, et al.
-
How Madeleine disappeared from the apartment is undetermined, and likewise her fate.
There are 3 main theories, none of which have been proven or disproven.
SY in the form of Redwood, promised a full and open review. that never happened.
If and its looks as if it was done to the letter of the remit then it was full and open in only treating as if it was an abduction,what is clear all the resources available costing upward of £12 million only eliminates people.
-
Even when two police forces think there is a pigeon hold where an abduction could have taken place? The fact that a child is missing and hasn't been found is evidence of abduction.
It looks like it's going to be more difficult than it seemed.
Please provide cites from the two police forces then we know what quotes you are basing your statement on.
Please note that there are various reasons why a child might disappear and not be found; abduction being just one of them, so that's not evidence pointing to just one scenario.
-
Under the new rules are you allowed to say that a full and open review has never happened?
We already know that didn't happen.
From Rowley.
-
I think you should have added IMO there carly.
Yes, she should.
-
I am not sure. It probably depends on the content of the comment.
I don't think "Madeleine was abducted, in my opinion" quite cuts the mustard.
But "I think Madeleine might have been abducted" probably would.
Exactly the same IMO , so I think.
-
i think john rightly wants an open minded forum and he thinks abduction shouldnt be mentioned just what i think because there is no evidence of abduction
Just because no evidence was identified by the Forensic bods, does not prove it never existed. Especially as we know that the crime scene was not cordoned off for a long time and so existing evidence could have been destroyed or contaminated by the many people/dogs who had been present.
To say ''there is no evidence of abduction'' infers that it is a proven fact that there never was any evidence. That is not the case imo.
As no-one can claim as a fact that the unidentified hairs/partial fingerprints do not belong to an abductor then the correct statement should be .. 'No evidence of abduction has yet been identified. ' IMO
AIMHO
-
If and its looks as if it was done to the letter of the remit then it was full and open in only treating as if it was an abduction,what is clear all the resources available costing upward of £12 only eliminates people.
If this is the case, then do you believe that in the course of all the investigation and inquiries which have taken place any evidence which would implicate Kate and Gerry would be ignored or dismissed.
-
We already know that didn't happen.
From Rowley.
Where has he said that " a full and open review has never happened"?
-
abduction would be at the bottom of the list of most police forces around the world i would think childrens abductions are like 90% usally parental abduction IE custody battles etc
Eh, is that why we have 'Amber alert' then?
-
Where has he said that " a full and open review has never happened"?
When did they investigate the McCann's ?
Since he said they didn't, they accepted the shelving report, which of course came up in the Supreme Court Judgement.
Have you forgotten already ?
-
As John has said, as have others.
What Rowley said is full of contradictions.
For a very simple reason, he doesn't know what happened.
They had come to the conclusion the McCann's weren't involved and so have the Portuguese.
-
When did they investigate the McCann's ?
Since he said they didn't, they accepted the shelving report, which of course came up in the Supreme Court Judgement.
Have you forgotten already ?
The McCanns were not interviewed Under Caution. There is a difference.
-
i dont believe anything the mainstream media says at all journalists are paid to print what people want to hear imo i make my own mind up with the media some people are gullible though
-
When did they investigate the McCann's ?
Since he said they didn't, they accepted the shelving report, which of course came up in the Supreme Court Judgement.
Have you forgotten already ?
No need to be rude.
No where has Rowley used those words.
You should have added in my opinion there has not been a full and fair review.
-
i dont believe anything the mainstream media says at all journalists are paid to print what people want to hear imo i make my own mind up with the media some people are gullible though
I'm not.
Are you implying supporters are gullible but sceptics are not?
-
I'm not.
I think you would have to use a caveat after that statement, for it can't be proven as a fact.
-
The McCanns were not interviewed Under Caution. There is a difference.
Rowley said they weren't investigated.
-
If this is the case, then do you believe that in the course of all the investigation and inquiries which have taken place any evidence which would implicate Kate and Gerry would be ignored or dismissed.
That's not for me to say,OG don't give a running commentary I only comment on what is known.
-
When did they investigate the McCann's ?
Since he said they didn't, they accepted the shelving report, which of course came up in the Supreme Court Judgement.
Have you forgotten already ?
No need to be rude.
No where has Rowley used those words.
You should have added in my opinion there has not been a full and fair review.
I wasn't being rude Erngath.
I have read through Rowley's statement.
I refer to what Redwood said at the start of the review/investigation.
A full and open investigation.
However, this has already been gone through several times.
The remit was limited and SY were clearly told, IMHO of course, not to investigate the McCann's or their associates.
-
No need to be rude.
No where has Rowley used those words.
You should have added in my opinion there has not been a full and fair review.
I wasn't being rude.
Redwood promised a full and open review of the case.
That never happened, since the McCann's and their associates have not been investigated by SY.
Rowley referred to the shelving of the case, and that was that.
I wonder if he read the original shelving report himself, or the Supreme Court Judgment.
-
Mark Rowley also said that the investigation into the McCann's was done by the Portuguese and that it was done and dusted that they didn't want rumours going around that they were investigating the McCann's. THEN he went on to say the McCann's were parents of a missing child, however Madeleine left the apartment she was abducted. So what do you think he means? Parents of a missing child, seems to say that she is still missing that the McCann's have done nothing. The options could mean that they don't know where she is or whether she is dead or alive, not that the option of the McCann's being involved.
Anyway as to the abductor argument, what is wrong with the 'In my opinion' quote as it is what we have been doing for a long time.
The problem with Rowley's opinion lies in what it's based on.
Did the first investigation fully investigate parental involvement and find nothing? He says yes, others disagree.
Does the fact that Madeleine was too young to go off and start a new life mean she must have been abducted? Not really.
If Rowley wants to convince he needs more than that.
If people had been clear that abduction was an opinion and not a fact this thread wouldn't exist.
-
Oh My, what a mess I made of that. Stephen appears to have done a better job.
-
I will start this in the manner of John Pilger: “This is just my opinion”.
Claudia Lawrence, Case A and Madeleine McCann, Case B, both mentioned within this thread.
Similarities and differences.
Case A: An attractive looking white female adult disappeared under suspicious circumstances yet to be determined. The police carried out an investigation, suspects were questioned under caution resulting in the CPS being of the opinion there was insufficient evidence to bring a charge.
The investigation was eventually wound down and shelved waiting to be revived should compelling evidence of a lead turn up. The case is listed as a disappearance but the police believe it to be murder.
We are asked in this instance to believe the police are correct.
Case B: A photogenic white female child disappeared under suspicious circumstances yet to be determined. The police carried out an investigation, suspects were questioned under caution resulting in the appropriate prosecuting authority being of the opinion there was insufficient evidence to bring a charge. The case was archived waiting to be revived should compelling evidence of a lead turn up.
The case is listed as a disappearance but the police believe there to have been parental involvement.
We are asked in this instance to believe the police are incorrect.
In Case A there has been little reported word from the police after the review linked in one of my earlier posts
In Case B there has been little reported by the police except in Tabloid Newspapers and TV Chat Shows. I include Crimewatch and Panorama in the Generic Chat Show Group as it they exist primarily as entertainment, most reporters not having Mr Pilger’s integrity to preface their reports with “this is just my opinion”.
I suppose with both cases there is an element of Missing White Woman Syndrome.
-
I wasn't being rude.
Redwood promised a full and open review of the case.
That never happened, since the McCann's and their associates have not been investigated by SY.
Rowley referred to the shelving of the case, and that was that.
I wonder if he read the original shelving report himself, or the Supreme Court Judgment.
You do not know if they have been investigated or not.
You do not know what evidence has been uncovered.
So you should add that in your opinion it has not been "a fair and full" investigation/review
-
The problem with Rowley's opinion lies in what it's based on.
Did the first investigation fully investigate parental involvement and find nothing? He says yes, others disagree.
Does the fact that Madeleine was too young to go off and start a new life mean she must have been abducted? Not really.
If Rowley wants to convince he needs more than that.
If people had been clear that abduction was an opinion and not a fact this thread wouldn't exist.
imo it is nothing to do with us so called skeptics supporters in the past have said emotive things like maddie was taken from her bed etc by an abductor when there is no proof it is all down to context isnt it
-
The problem with Rowley's opinion lies in what it's based on.
Did the first investigation fully investigate parental involvement and find nothing? He says yes, others disagree.
Does the fact that Madeleine was too young to go off and start a new life mean she must have been abducted? Not really.
If Rowley wants to convince he needs more than that.
If people had been clear that abduction was an opinion and not a fact this thread wouldn't exist.
Its clear there are lots of reasons to rule out parental involvement
-
I am not sure. It probably depends on the content of the comment.
I don't think "Madeleine was abducted, in my opinion" quite cuts the mustard.
But "I think Madeleine might have been abducted" probably would.
I fear that at the moment we are in danger of becoming too OTT in the 'Politically Correct' department. IMO it is going to interfere with and stifle debate if folk are going to be spending so much more of their time pointing out rule breaks by others and having to watch every word they type themselves to make sure they haven't slipped up.
We have excellent mods and in my experience because both sides are represented - no-one from either side is allowed to get away with downright libel or blatently posting opinion as fact.
I really appreciate this forum - I would hate to see it strangled to death by rules that are too rigorously applied.
Just my opinion -no-one is obliged to agree with it.
-
I fear that at the moment we are in danger of becoming too OTT in the 'Politically Correct' department. IMO it is going to interfere with and stifle debate if folk are going to be spending so much more of their time pointing out rule breaks by others and having to watch every word they type themselves to make sure they haven't slipped up.
We have excellent mods and in my experience because both sides are represented - no-one from either side is allowed to get away with downright libel or blatently posting opinion as fact.
I really appreciate this forum - I would hate to see it strangled to death by rules that are too rigorously applied.
Just my opinion -no-one is obliged to agree with it.
Give it a try. It gets easier.
-
I will start this in the manner of John Pilger: “This is just my opinion”.
Claudia Lawrence, Case A and Madeleine McCann, Case B, both mentioned within this thread.
Similarities and differences.
Case A: An attractive looking white female adult disappeared under suspicious circumstances yet to be determined. The police carried out an investigation, suspects were questioned under caution resulting in the CPS being of the opinion there was insufficient evidence to bring a charge.
The investigation was eventually wound down and shelved waiting to be revived should compelling evidence of a lead turn up. The case is listed as a disappearance but the police believe it to be murder.
We are asked in this instance to believe the police are correct.
Case B: A photogenic white female child disappeared under suspicious circumstances yet to be determined. The police carried out an investigation, suspects were questioned under caution resulting in the appropriate prosecuting authority being of the opinion there was insufficient evidence to bring a charge. The case was archived waiting to be revived should compelling evidence of a lead turn up.
The case is listed as a disappearance but the police believe there to have been parental involvement.
We are asked in this instance to believe the police are incorrect.
In Case A there has been little reported word from the police after the review linked in one of my earlier posts
In Case B there has been little reported by the police except in Tabloid Newspapers and TV Chat Shows. I include Crimewatch and Panorama in the Generic Chat Show Group as it they exist primarily as entertainment, most reporters not having Mr Pilger’s integrity to preface their reports with “this is just my opinion”.
I suppose with both cases there is an element of Missing White Woman Syndrome.
What police believe there is parental invovement
Cite or caveat
-
Its clear there are lots of reasons to rule out parental involvement
There seems to be reports and backed up by the likes of Rowley that the parents have not been investigated is there one from any official capacity that confirms this not to be the case and the parents have been investigated by OG and ruled out,world of difference one would think.
-
That's not for me to say,OG don't give a running commentary I only comment on what is known.
But one could say that so far there has been no incriminating evidence against the McCanns which has either been ignored or dismissed or has just not been sufficient to have them charged.
-
I fear that at the moment we are in danger of becoming too OTT in the 'Politically Correct' department. IMO it is going to interfere with and stifle debate if folk are going to be spending so much more of their time pointing out rule breaks by others and having to watch every word they type themselves to make sure they haven't slipped up.
We have excellent mods and in my experience because both sides are represented - no-one from either side is allowed to get away with downright libel or blatently posting opinion as fact.
I really appreciate this forum - I would hate to see it strangled to death by rules that are too rigorously applied.
Just my opinion -no-one is obliged to agree with it.
That is exactly what will hsppen
-
A full and open investigation would have included the parents and the rest of the group.
-
But one could say that so far there has been no incriminating evidence against the McCanns which has either been ignored or dismissed or has just not been sufficient to have them charged.
A proper investigation would not release that information.
-
This is no minor issue Jassi. It will affect the way people post on the forum, in fact it might make it so difficult that posters will just give up.
Of course it is. This is a forum in cyberspace. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.
-
A proper investigation would not release that information.
However if during the investigation any evidence incriminating the mccanns would now surely have
been ignored /dismissed or led to them being charged.
Must be one or the other.
Or the alternative is there is no such evidence.
-
i read it means injunction?? @)(++(* are supporters lawyers now? lol
Some would like to think so.
IMHO, of course. 8)-)))
-
However if during the investigation any evidence incriminating the mccanns would now surely have
been ignored /dismissed or led to them being charged.
Must be one or the other.
Or the alternative is there is no such evidence.
Another alternative is there is no evidence.I would say upwards of £12 million of resouces might lead one to suspect that.
-
I think you should have added IMO there carly.
Probably well covered by the "I think" at the start of her sentence.
-
i read it means injunction?? @)(++(* are supporters lawyers now? lol
Perhaps some of us are.
Perhaps some sceptics are.
-
Its clear there are lots of reasons to rule out parental involvement
In your opinion. In Rowley's opinion the first investigation dealt with it. That's the only reason he offered.
-
Eh, is that why we have 'Amber alert' then?
Amber Alert only applies when a certain set of criteria are met.
-
In your opinion. In Rowley's opinion the first investigation dealt with it. That's the only reason he offered.
Exactly.
So did Rowley read the shelving report ?
8(0(*
-
Amber Alert only applies when a certain set of criteria are met.
amber alert goes in action here in australia with any missing children BUT as i say jassi 90% of children abducted are usally domestic/family related a random snatching is highly unusal
-
Another alternative is there is no evidence.I would say upwards of £12 million of resouces might lead one to suspect that.
No evidence at all?
Could be the case.
I see no reason why any incriminating evidence against the Mccanns would be ignored/dismissed/covered up, unless one goes down the conspiracy road which imo leads nowhere.
So in the belief that there is no conspiracy I will continue to believe that the investigation has been open and fair and that there is no evidence to doubt the McCann's non-involvement in Madeleine's disappearance(imo).
-
In your opinion. In Rowley's opinion the first investigation dealt with it. That's the only reason he offered.
Rowley said the first investigation dealt with it
They had looked at and agreed
That reads to me that they had considered the parental involvement and ruled it out
Its a matter of opinion
-
Amber Alert only applies when a certain set of criteria are met.
Three year old missing cannot be found, does that apply to a certain set of criteria? It should.
-
the issue was too the mcanns and the tapas allowed the crime scene whatever that crime was be destroyed ie the mcanns and their friends trampling in and out wiping out possible dna evidence etc the pj should have secured the apartment right away im not knocking the pj but the same thing happned in the jon benet ramsey case
Of course people trampled in and out, they were searching for Madeleine, how were they to know she wouldn't be found hiding in there somewhere? You only mention the McCann's and friends I see, what about the Police smoking and the dogs?
-
Rowley said the first investigation dealt with it
They had looked at and agreed
That reads to me that they had considered the parental involvement and ruled it out
Its a matter of opinion
Yet the remit to investigate as if an abduction took place in the uk,was clearly drawn up with out the files being first translated so that circle doesn't square.
-
the issue was too the mcanns and the tapas allowed the crime scene whatever that crime was be destroyed ie the mcanns and their friends trampling in and out wiping out possible dna evidence etc the pj should have secured the apartment right away im not knocking the pj but the same thing happned in the jon benet ramsey case
It wasn't a crime scene until it had been established that Madeleine was not in 5a or in the immediate vicinity. They could not do that without first walking around the apartment. It is a human reaction for anyone arriving on the scene to check for themselves, even though they know others have checked. The first thing the GNR officers did when they arrived was to search the apartment.
The idea that the McCanns or their friends should have behaved like policemen on finding Madeleine missing is totally unrealistic. The police on the other hand were not suffering from massive shock and panic when they arrived and so have no excuse for failing to cordon off 5a far more quickly than they did.
IIRC it was spilt red fingerprint powder, cigarette ash and a multitude of dog hairs which caused problems when it came to collecting evidence.
AIMHO
-
Yet the remit to investigate as if an abduction took place in the uk,was clearly drawn up with out the files being first translated so that circle doesn't square.
The shape (circle or square) fits perfectly.
The shelved enquiry thoroughly investigated the McCanns and their friends and found they had no case to answer.
The logical next step (and the smooth progression) from there is to investigate the crime as if afresh, but starting with the premise that no one close to Madeleine has any case to answer.
-
SY did not investigate the McCann's.
They relied on the shelving report.
Which is what the Supreme Court referred to.
Why are some unwilling to accept the truth ?
-
The shape (circle or square) fits perfectly.
The shelved enquiry thoroughly investigated the McCanns and their friends and found they had no case to answer.
The logical next step (and the smooth progression) from there is to investigate the crime as if afresh, but starting with the premise that no one close to Madeleine has any case to answer.
So you agree that OG have not investigated the parents then.
-
Probably well covered by the "I think" at the start of her sentence.
This is what carly posted - i think john rightly wants an open minded forum and he thinks abduction shouldnt be mentioned just what i think because there is no evidence of abduction
The 'I think' at the start of her post refers to why John has started this thread, she clearly says she thinks that John wants an open minded forum, because there is no evidence of abduction.
-
i read it means injunction?? @)(++(* are supporters lawyers now? lol
No, it does not mean Injunction. Mayhap you should look it up. This might help.
-
The shape (circle or square) fits perfectly.
The shelved enquiry thoroughly investigated the McCanns and their friends and found they had no case to answer.
The logical next step (and the smooth progression) from there is to investigate the crime as if afresh, but starting with the premise that no one close to Madeleine has any case to answer.
Would you accept that the PJ conducted a thorough investigation throughout or do you only accept selected excerpts?
If their investigation was rubbish, how is it that their conclusion regarding the McCanns is OK?
-
Amber Alert only applies when a certain set of criteria are met.
This is not entirely true.
-
Yet the remit to investigate as if an abduction took place in the uk,was clearly drawn up with out the files being first translated so that circle doesn't square.
It is more likely the remit was drawn up having spoken to the McCann and interviewing them as witnesses imo
-
Would you accept that the PJ conducted a thorough investigation throughout or do you only accept selected excerpts?
If their investigation was rubbish, how is it that their conclusion regarding the McCanns is OK?
That is a strawman.
While there may have been a tendency, more widely, to condemn the whole (shelved) enquiry, I, personally have never been among those critics. On the contrary, I have always been careful to give credit where (I believe) it's due to those aspects of the shelved enquiry (including, and especially, on the Portuguese side) to the shelved enquiry.
The enquiry was manifestly flawed in many respects. But there was also some (genuinely) excellent work put in, particularly on the Portuguese side.
-
It is more likely the remit was drawn up having spoken to the McCann and interviewing them as witnesses imo
But yet no one can produce anything of substance to back it up.
-
SY did not investigate the McCann's.
They relied on the shelving report.
Which is what the Supreme Court referred to.
Why are some unwilling to accept the truth ?
All in your opinion.
-
SY did not investigate the McCann's.
They relied on the shelving report.
Which is what the Supreme Court referred to.
Why are some unwilling to accept the truth ?
That the Supreme Court screwed up, you mean?
Why indeed.
-
All in your opinion.
No Erngath.
A matter of fact.
-
So you agree that OG have not investigated the parents then.
Operation Grange have no need to investigate the parents.
That has already been done.
-
That the Supreme Court screwed up, you mean?
Why indeed.
Is that in your opinion ?
-
police forces change their opinion about things all the time they are not set in their ways like the public are
-
No Erngath.
A matter of fact.
No it is not.
You can have no idea of what has taken place throughout the entire investigation and your post (imo) is against the new forum rules.
-
No it is not.
You can have no idea of what has taken place throughout the entire investigation and your post (imo) is against the new forum rules.
Have you not read what Rowley said ?
Have you read John's posts on this issue ?
-
Wouldn't it be far easier for the purposes of debate if we all pretended to be ex-PJ officers on TV? Freedom of speech to talk about Child Catchers & Body Occulters not an issue.
-
Have you not read what Rowley said ?
Have you read John's posts on this issue ?
Yes to both.
Do you believe that any incriminating evidence against the mccanns which may have been noted, discovered, found will have been dismissed/ignored/covered up?
-
Yes to both.
Do you believe that any incriminating evidence against the mccanns which may have been noted, discovered, found will have been dismissed/ignored/covered up?
We don't know what decisions may have been made.
Rowley is not exactly close to the investigation and must rely heavily on his briefing notes
-
Operation Grange have no need to investigate the parents.
That has already been done.
I wonder if I can pose Erngaths question to you.
Yes to both.
Do you believe that any incriminating evidence against the mccanns which may have been noted, discovered, found will have been dismissed/ignored/covered up?
-
No Erngath.
A matter of fact.
It is certain Imo that SY interviewed the McCann as witnesses and came to the conclusion combined with everything else that they were not suspects
You are stating your opinion as fact
-
The shape (circle or square) fits perfectly.
The shelved enquiry thoroughly investigated the McCanns and their friends and found they had no case to answer.
The logical next step (and the smooth progression) from there is to investigate the crime as if afresh, but starting with the premise that no one close to Madeleine has any case to answer.
There is no where written that the case was shelved because then McCanns had no case to answer. It was shelved due to LACK of evidence not that there was NONE just a lack of...
-
We don't know what decisions may have been made.
Rowley is not exactly close to the investigation and must rely heavily on his briefing notes
Does not answer my question.
Do you believe that during this long investigation that any indication of the Mccann's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance would just be brushed aside/ignored/by a professional police force?
-
There is no where written that the case was shelved because then McCanns had no case to fast swer. It was shelved due to LACK of evidence not that there was NONE just a lack of...
There was no case for the McCann to answer... Fact
-
There is no where written that the case was shelved because then McCanns had no case to answer. It was shelved due to LACK of evidence not that there was NONE just a lack of...
In your opinion what does that tell you?
-
There is no where written that the case was shelved because then McCanns had no case to answer. It was shelved due to LACK of evidence not that there was NONE just a lack of...
How else would you interpret the reference to the McCanns (sic) non-involvement in any penally relevant activity?
-
It is certain Imo that SY interviewed the McCann as witnesses and came to the conclusion combined with everything else that they were not suspects
Are you certain of your opinion or certain it happened.
-
Does not answer my question.
Do you believe that during this long investigation that any indication of the Mccann's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance would just be brushed aside/ignored/by a professional police force?
If it suited their purpose, yes I do.
That is not to say that it happened in this case.
-
I see someone has claimed , in their opinion, that SY interviewed the McCann's.
Let's have a cite for that.
For it is plain to see that SY relied on the shelving report, as did the Supreme Court.
As to the claim that the Mccann's have nothing to answer for.
That is also a matter of opinion.
After all, how did this case start ? %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
-
I see someone has claimed , in their opinion, that SY interviewed the McCann's.
Let's have a cite for that.
For it is plain to see that SY relied on the shelving report, as did the Supreme Court.
As to the claim that the Mccann's have nothing to answer for.
That is also a matter of opinion.
After all, how did this case start ? %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#
No cite for opinion
-
No cite for opinion
Because it is not based on any fact?
-
In your opinion what does that tell you?
In my Opinion? It tells me a lot of things, begining with no one entered/left that apartment via a window to steal a child. And also evidence could have been removed or tampered with. The truth always leaves clues, unless the truth is well hidden.
-
No cite for opinion
Maybe we should be asked to justify our opinions.
-
If it suited their purpose, yes I do.
That is not to say that it happened in this case.
I know in the past this has happened because of racism and other issues.
Is there a reason why they would do so in this case?
Why would it suit their purpose in this case?
-
No cite for opinion
Quite right and as it is merely an opinion, need not be taken too seriously- IMO
-
Here's a solution.
Everyone change their signature line to
"The views expressed in my post are my opinion only and may not necessarily constitute 100% verifiable fact"
Would that do?
-
8((()*/
" and may contain an element of truth"
-
Quite right and as it is merely an opinion, need not be taken too seriously- IMO
Are you under the illusion that anything here should be taken seriously
-
Are you under the illusion that anything here should be taken seriously
I do. This forum is second to none for information on the McCann case IMO.
-
Does not answer my question.
Do you believe that during this long investigation that any indication of the Mccann's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance would just be brushed aside/ignored/by a professional police force?
I assume you mean the Met when you refer to a professional police force? As opposed to an unnamed unprofessional police force you mean?'
The PJ paid attention to the timeline because they weren't satisfied that it was correct. When they archived their investigation the questions regarding the timeline remained unanswered.
I have seen no evidence that the Met noticed this or did any work to clarify it. They didn't appear to interview any of the witnesses in Portugal whose statements disagreed with the time given by the T9 for their exodus from the Tapas restaurant, for example.
-
Here's a solution.
Everyone change their signature line to
"The views expressed in my post are my opinion only and may not necessarily constitute 100% verifiable fact"
Would that do?
There are those here who would take that to mean you are not certain of your facts
Whereas as they feel their version is factual
-
Sutton said he disagreed with Asst Com Rowley's assessment. He said inconsistencies in some of Kate and Gerry's statements, Kate's 2011 book madeleine and also some of the witness accounts of the Tapas 7 disturbed him.
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/05/15/12/03/uk-police-guilty-of-flawed-tunnel-vision-in-hunt-for-maddie-mccann-answers#bbfbmMG3efc43JrW.99
-
I do. This forum is second to none for information on the McCann case IMO.
But some of it is incorrect opinion posted as fact
-
As John has said, as have others.
What Rowley said is full of contradictions.
For a very simple reason, he doesn't know what happened.
Precisely so, that's what happens when someone attempts to explain the inexplicable.
-
Sutton said he disagreed with Asst Com Rowley's assessment. He said inconsistencies in some of Kate and Gerry's statements, Kate's 2011 book madeleine and also some of the witness accounts of the Tapas 7 disturbed him.
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/05/15/12/03/uk-police-guilty-of-flawed-tunnel-vision-in-hunt-for-maddie-mccann-answers#bbfbmMG3efc43JrW.99
Sutton is not privy to all the information and has not interviewed the McCanns whereas I feel certain Rowley had
-
Precisely so, that's what happens when someone attempts to explain the inexplicable.
John is stating his opinion not facts
Rowley will have interviewed the McCanns imo and decided they should not be considered suspects
-
Cite Rowley's interview with the McCann's.
-
They can say abduction though, just not continue to promote it as a fact. All they have to do is change their language slightly.
Instead of 'it's obvious Madeleine was abducted' they can say 'I think it's obvious'
Instead of 'the abductor did this or that' they can say 'an abductor may have'
It's not so hard, is it?
I second that. Abduction could have occurred within or without the apartment, then again she could have been run over and put in an open excavation before being covered over. End of the day nobody except the person involved knows what happened.
-
John is stating his opinion not facts
Rowley will have interviewed the McCanns imo and decided they should not be considered suspects
Rowley is a manager, he doesn't interview anyone.
-
Nor is there evidence of an accident, or death. So bear that in mind as well.
But there is evidence she walked out to the street and was lifted.
-
I do. This forum is second to none for information on the McCann case IMO.
I think you are right. But Mr Bennett wouldn't agree with you.
-
But there is evidence she walked out to the street and was lifted.
No there isn't.
Joao Carlos ruled out 'woke and wandered' and the PJ and Scotland Yard are investigating abduction from the apartment.
-
I do. This forum is second to none for information on the McCann case IMO.
With emphasis being on impartiality, accuracy and freedom of speech.
-
No there isn't.
Joao Carlos ruled out 'woke and wandered' and the PJ and Scotland Yard are investigating abduction from the apartment.
The GNR dogs say different. woof woof
John Carlos' opinion is only that...an opinion!!
-
So you agree that OG have not investigated the parents then.
I do, beyond the scoping exercise will have reviewed all information from the shelved enquiry and satisfied itself that information (in the shelved enquiry) was sufficient to establish the point that the McCanns had/have no case to answer.
-
But there is evidence she walked out to the street and was lifted.
I suppose you mean the tracker dogs
Then why are SY talking about an abduction
More unreliable dog evidence perhaps
-
Should that not be Rowley was asked if the McCanns were interviewed as SUSPECTS, not whether they were interviewed. A subtle difference MTI.
My reading of that question and answer was that the McCanns had been interviewed but as witnesses rather than as suspects.
Point taken I graciously. I was just answering the exact question of Davel. re the word 'interview'.
Correction- They were not interviewed as suspects in abducting their daughter from the apartment- which is what their remit is.
better? 8**8:/:
-
No there isn't.
Joao Carlos ruled out 'woke and wandered' and the PJ and Scotland Yard are investigating abduction from the apartment.
You do not know what the PJ are investigating. unlesss you care to share your insightful, insider knowledge?
-
You do not know what the PJ are investigating. unlesss you care to share your insightful, insider knowledge?
Panaorama the now top PJ officer (whose name escapes me) has confirmed that they are not investigating the McCanns.
-
With emphasis being on impartiality, accuracy and freedom of speech.
only in some instances!! As I can testify!
-
The GNR dogs say different. woof woof
John Carlos' opinion is only that...an opinion!!
Did the GNR dogs find Madeleine?
-
Did the GNR dogs find Madeleine?
Has Anyone?
-
Sutton said he disagreed with Asst Com Rowley's assessment. He said inconsistencies in some of Kate and Gerry's statements, Kate's 2011 book madeleine and also some of the witness accounts of the Tapas 7 disturbed him.
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/05/15/12/03/uk-police-guilty-of-flawed-tunnel-vision-in-hunt-for-maddie-mccann-answers#bbfbmMG3efc43JrW.99
That's his opinion to which he is entitled but it doesn't mean his opinion is in any way shape or form relevant to the investigation.
-
The use of the term 'abductor' should be qualified by caveat.
Increasingly, some posters have taken to using the 'abductor' term as if it was a foregone conclusion. This is not the case.
The information currently within the public domain is that all options are open in respect of the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Posters should give careful consideration to the comments they post and not use terminology such as 'the abductor' or 'the killer' etc without providing an appropriate caveat.
Terms such as 'if there was an abductor' or 'in my view there was an abductor' are perfectly acceptable.
Please note that I have added a new opening post in order to save Stephen any more grief.
-
Did the GNR dogs find Madeleine?
They most definitely found her scent which is more than SY have done in 10 years and £11 million later.
-
They most definitely found her scent which is more than SY have done in 10 years and £11 million later.
Most definitely?
-
They most definitely found her scent which is more than SY have done in 10 years and £11 million later.
As Maddie had been in and out of the apartment all week its not surprising they found her scent
Whether relates to Woke and wandered requires a caveat
-
As Maddie had been in and out of the apartment all week its not surprising they found her scent
Whether relates to Woke and wandered requires a caveat
I believe the dogs will follow the strongest scent given to them ... could there have been a stronger scent than Madeleine's on the object they were given to sniff?
-
Point taken I graciously. I was just answering the exact question of Davel. re the word 'interview'.
Correction- They were not interviewed as suspects in abducting their daughter from the apartment- which is what their remit is.
better? 8**8:/:
Thank you for that MTI.
Just to clarify, here is the exact exchange:
Rowley's response to the direct question, "Did you formally interview the McCann’s under
caution, ever consider them as suspects?"
Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is
that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them. When you started
your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under
caution, ever consider them as suspects?
MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and
accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new
investigation.
MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the
evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what
does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work
your way through the case.
Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8138.msg400450#msg400450
-
I believe the dogs will follow the strongest scent given to them ... could there have been a stronger scent than Madeleine's on the object they were given to sniff?
That is an excellent point Brietta. Who supplied this item and who else used it/came into contact with it?
-
I believe the dogs will follow the strongest scent given to them ... could there have been a stronger scent than Madeleine's on the object they were given to sniff?
From memory I believe it was the blanket which covered her in bed so perfect for scent dogs to follow.
-
It puzzles me why clothing she wore that day -the pink sunsuit featured in the 'last photo' - was not the item of choice.
-
Thank you for that MTI.
Just to clarify, here is the exact exchange:
Rowley's response to the direct question, "Did you formally interview the McCann’s under
caution, ever consider them as suspects?"
Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is
that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them. When you started
your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under
caution, ever consider them as suspects?
MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive.
Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and
accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new
investigation.
MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the
evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what
does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work
your way through the case.
Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?
MR: No
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8138.msg400450#msg400450
That's why I have said that imo the McCanns would have been interviewed as witnesses
If anything had come to light to suspect them they would then have been interviewed as suspects
-
It puzzles me why clothing she wore that day -the pink sunsuit featured in the 'last photo' - was not the item of choice.
If I recall on holiday abroad we would stick children's clothes in the wash immediately if there were facilities available. Maybe the McCanns did the same especially as there were three kids to keep clean daily.
Evidence is certainly as scarce as hens teeth in this enquiry but that provided by the two dogs (both independently followed the exact same route) has to be the most positive available to us.
-
From memory I believe it was the blanket which covered her in bed so perfect for scent dogs to follow.
Well, the parents would have had contact with this as well, as they would be tucking Maddie up at night. or sitting on the bed to tell bed time stories ?
Her pillow would surely have been better? Re: day time clothes. I agree John clothes are usualy whipped off and chucked into washer, especially if you have three mucky pups having a great day!:) I should know!
Kate didn't mention she did a washing did she?
-
Well, the parents would have had contact with this as well, as they would be tucking Maddie up at night. or sitting on the bed to tell bed time stories ?
Her pillow would surely have been better? Re: day time clothes. I agree John clothes are usualy whipped off and chucked into washer, especially if you have three mucky pups having a great day!:) I should know!
Kate didn't mention she did a washing did she?
I don't think she did mention doing a wash, just another little detail which would have been identified in a proper reconstruction.
The interesting thing with the scent dogs is that the scent abruptly stops at the lamp post immediately opposite mini reception. Its as if she was hit and flung to that point before being lifted and carried away. Alternatively, maybe she stopped at the lamp post to take her bearings and was hit or lifted on recrossing to mini reception. Its such a riddle!
-
I don't think she did mention doing a wash, just another little detail which would have been identified in a proper reconstruction.
The interesting thing with the scent dogs is that the scent abruptly stops at the lamp post immediately opposite mini reception. Its as if she was hit and flung to that point before being lifted and carried away. Alternatively, maybe she stopped at the lamp post to take her bearings and was hit or lifted on recrossing to mini reception. Its such a riddle!
Is it at all possible that Maddie was hit and flung and picked up by car...and the person/s tried to get help by going towards the first aid/doctor/clinic in the vacinity, and same person would be 'smithman'.
Please note this is just a question, not an opinion, or fact.
-
Open apology to Davel. Sowwies!
I was pointing out Your statement was fanciful and innacurate. I corrected my part which was missing the word 'Suspect'.
-
Is it at all possible that Maddie was hit and flung and picked up by car...and the person/s tried to get help by going towards the first aid/doctor/clinic in the vacinity, and same person would be 'smithman'.
Please note this is just a question, not an opinion, or fact.
I think closer to reality would be "It is possible that Maddie was hit and flung up by car...and another person/s tried to get help by going towards the first aid/doctor/clinic in the vicinity, and that same person would be 'Smithman'."
-
And what happened next? In your opinion.
-
And what happened next? In your opinion.
That is the tricky bit but I have a feeling it has something to do with those charity collectors. They were hanging around PDL and people make out they were fraudsters but maybe they were legit and Smithman knew where they were staying and he sort their help. He goes somewhere else once he finds LuzDoc closed.
I think there are enough caveats in that.
-
I fear that at the moment we are in danger of becoming too OTT in the 'Politically Correct' department. IMO it is going to interfere with and stifle debate if folk are going to be spending so much more of their time pointing out rule breaks by others and having to watch every word they type themselves to make sure they haven't slipped up.
We have excellent mods and in my experience because both sides are represented - no-one from either side is allowed to get away with downright libel or blatently posting opinion as fact.
I really appreciate this forum - I would hate to see it strangled to death by rules that are too rigorously applied.
Just my opinion -no-one is obliged to agree with it.
Sorry for the late reply Benice, I agree with you on the need not to strangle debate. The problem lies with the many readers we have who just watch from the sidelines. This forum prides itself on being factually correct in as much as we can be, we don't want to give new readers the impression already served up by the British Press that Madeleine WAS abducted.
-
Sorry for the late reply Benice, I agree with you on the need not to strangle debate. The problem lies with the many readers we have who just watch from the sidelines. This forum prides itself on being factually correct in as much as we can be, we don't want to give new readers the impression already served up by the British Press that Madeleine WAS abducted.
IMO this forum is far more likely to give the impression that the McCanns have got something to hide, or are "despicable" in some way.
-
IMO this forum is far more likely to give the impression that the McCanns have got something to hide, or are "despicable" in some way.
I would disagree with that Alfie. I know people who read the forum but do not comment or are even members.
People are entitled to comment on the behaviour of the parents and opine some of their behaviour is despicable, as for hiding anything, They failed to convince me, and many others, of their 'abductor' story from window and that is about the size of it. There is nothing wrong with commenting on these issues.
People will make up their own minds.