Please could we have some Cites as I am at a loss to understand what you are talking of.
I had trouble reading this book to begin with because of the excessive factual errors but later when I read that Summers and Swan had read Danny's book I forced myself to read it. Has anyone else read it ad what comments can you make?I purchased this on Kindle for £3.79.
There are about 20 places where I question points he raises, these are over about the 15 odd places where he has a different idea of the basic facts of the case.
I purchased this on Kindle for £3.79.Same here when I first started reading it I nearly threw it in the fire.
As an information source, I would say this is £3.79 too much, though I have to say as an entertainment source £3.79 is not bad for a couple of hours of diversion.
The Sun gave a synopsis of it.That seems to be his second book on the subject. "Madeleine McCann - Ten years on"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3390510/shocking-new-abduction-theory-claims-madeleine-mccann-left-portuguese-apartment-looking-for-her-parents-before-being-taken/
Please could we have some Cites as I am at a loss to understand what you are talking of.I don't really want to retype the book but I have raised a few on FB.
That seems to be his second book on the subject. "Madeleine McCann - Ten years on"
I don't really want to retype the book but I have raised a few on FB.
Chapter 1 " First Report" page 3: Danny Collins discusses the likelihood of the front door being used as an exit, he doesn't discount it but then always favours the back door for no particular reason. Quote: "Thus back to a front door exit .... but the method of entry was still in doubt." That is typical of the difficult to understand dialogue in the book, who was exiting the front door? Who was entering the apartment? Madeleine was inside so she only had to go out so there was no need to consider how she got in.
Also: On the same page he says "the metal shutters .... of 5A were impossible to lever up wards more than 1 or 2 centimetres" Now that could upset my theory for how do the burglars open the window if they can't lift the shutters? But it has been demonstrated by Heriberto Janosch that the shutters can be lifted manually. https://youtu.be/fzpniKAWvUI so I think Danny is wrong.
That seems to be his second book on the subject. "Madeleine McCann - Ten years on"
Does it stray far from his first one.Looking at that synopsis NO. but this bit could be new "During his investigations, Collins was told by Iberian travellers that if Madeleine had been found on the street it was likely she would have been taken and a plan hatched to extract a ransom or reward.
I notice you say that the shutters can be lifted,are those the actual shutters of 5a? There is a video of Peter Mac I believe showing the actual shutters of 5a.Well he didn't have trouble lifting them a couple of feet.
https://youtu.be/IeuMzyaCnnY
Well he didn't have trouble lifting them a couple of feet.
Agree but Collins says from inside the apartment.You got that wrong. Danny Collins says they can only be raised from inside the apartment.
Looking at that synopsis NO. but this bit could be new "During his investigations, Collins was told by Iberian travellers that if Madeleine had been found on the street it was likely she would have been taken and a plan hatched to extract a ransom or reward.
But then, given the immediate high-profile nature of the case, they might have sold her to Romany gypsies.
Collins thinks this is the “most logical conclusion”."
You got that wrong. Danny Collins says they can only be raised from inside the apartment.
Its a possible theory along with others but sadly because of the high profile nature at the time another ending is a possibility, which we know Rowley can't confirm either way.But even if we use the general theme of that possibility, in that whatever reason someone took Madeleine their plans were altered by the high profile nature of the case, I'd be happy with that. But not to blame a class of people without any proof in the general case.
I had trouble reading this book to begin with because of the excessive factual errors but later when I read that Summers and Swan had read Danny's book I forced myself to read it. Has anyone else read it ad what comments can you make?"20 places where I question points he raises" well we've debunked one at least only 19 more to go.
There are about 20 places where I question points he raises, these are over about the 15 odd places where he has a different idea of the basic facts of the case.
"20 places where I question points he raises" well we've debunked one at least only 19 more to go.
"the 15 odd places where he has a different idea of the basic facts of the case"
1. The McCann building sandcastles on the beach with Madeleine on the 3rd. - Wrong; Madeleine went sailing with the Kids group.
2. Matthew and Rachael had "two daughters" - wrong; they only had one child.
3. "Madeleine's birthday was 2 days after she disappeared" - wrong; it was 9 days.
4. All the things he says about Jose Baptista don't match Jose statement.
5. Saying that Jane and Russell arrive at the dinner at the same time. Wrong; Jane says she arrives alone and first.
6. He has Russell in apartment 5B when in fact it was the Oldfield family there.
7. He has the Payne family in an apartment along the ground floor of the apartment block not on the second story.
8. He has Matthew making a statement that he checked the kids at 9:45 PM not the 9:30 PM as we now have it.
9. He has Pennington doing child minding in a nearby apartment. Not at the drop in creche as per her own words.
Those 9 were all in the Prologue.
10. On page 51 he has the McCanns staying in apartment 5A for many days after the disappearance.
11. On page he gets Eddie confused with Ernie. or was there another dog called Ernie?
12. On page 116 he has Gerry turning left into the walkway behind the apartments???
13 on page 118 he has the quiz night as Thursday night. Wrong it was on Sunday and Tuesday nights.
14 On page 212 he is confused as to where the Smith sightings were. He makes out it was on Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.
OK 14 not the 15 I estimated.
In Chapter 7 he makes a profound remark "The day after Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a Friday".
Good work Rob finding those errors. That is the main reason why I don't pay too much heed to these books, they just don't reflect many of the facts accurately which renders them somewhat benign when it comes to proper investigation analysis. There is only one way for a new reader to get a grasp of the real fact in this case and that is to wade through the files.None of these minor errors affect the outcome majorly. But it just shows me how difficult it must have been for people to get the full story in the early days before the files were released.
None of these minor errors affect the outcome majorly. But it just shows me how difficult it must have been for people to get the full story in the early days before the files were released.
I don't believe we have had the full story and that is why I want SY and the PJ to widen the scope of their investigation to include what went on after the disappearance.Danny Collins includes another case at the end of his book that highlights some of the trouble the British had in accepting what the Portuguese PJ etc had done. A certain Michael Cook was arrested and convicted of a girl's murder, "Extract from Hansard, House of Commons debate". It would be a highly provocative move for the SY to investigate what the PJ and the prosecutors had done.
None of these minor errors affect the outcome majorly. But it just shows me how difficult it must have been for people to get the full story in the early days before the files were released.
Now we are just into Chapter 2 "Looking for Zebras" page 13 he mentions a night security guard manning the secondary reception entrance. I never seen anyone mention that the reception entrance was controlled nor a statement from that guard. Has anyone got an insight on that task?There was no guard the evening that we ate there Rob, but it was deathly quiet.
To Danny's credit he does raise a good point in Chapter 12 "Blood and Fluids" page 96, where he points out that there were no enquires into who had rented the Renault Scenic prior to the McCanns hiring it. I would imagine that was done but was it?Enquiries should have been made but as the dogs alerts amounted to nothing, it seems that it doesn't matter any more.
Enquiries should have been made but as the dogs alerts amounted to nothing, it seems that it doesn't matter any more.It still matters to me. I have not heard that they have found Madeleine as yet.
To Danny's credit he does raise a good point in Chapter 12 "Blood and Fluids" page 96, where he points out that there were no enquires into who had rented the Renault Scenic prior to the McCanns hiring it. I would imagine that was done but was it?Further on the hire car is mentioned again Chapter 16 " Forensics and Cuddle Cat" he mentions people's comments as to why the Scenic was not impounded as crucial evidence.
Now we are just into Chapter 2 "Looking for Zebras" page 13 he mentions a night security guard manning the secondary reception entrance. I never seen anyone mention that the reception entrance was controlled nor a statement from that guard. Has anyone got an insight on that task?
Enquiries should have been made but as the dogs alerts amounted to nothing, it seems that it doesn't matter any more.
There was no forensic evidence which confirmed the dog's alerts, but that doesn't mean they amounted to nothing. Dog alerts can be proved to be right at a later date.
Now we are just into Chapter 2 "Looking for Zebras" page 13 he mentions a night security guard manning the secondary reception entrance. I never seen anyone mention that the reception entrance was controlled nor a statement from that guard. Has anyone got an insight on that task?
This sounds like desperation.
There was no forensic evidence which confirmed the dog's alerts, but that doesn't mean they amounted to nothing. Dog alerts can be proved to be right at a later date.Any suggestions how ?
Not on the night Madeleine disappeared otherwise they would have been crucial to the investigattion and the first contact for the police.8((()*/ I think you must be right, John .... but we cant be sure, can we?
8((()*/ I think you must be right, John .... but we cant be sure, can we?
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the guard was a multi tasker and not full time. Had there been a guard on duty the night Madeleine disappeared surely they would have been pro active.OK so it has been mentioned.
OK so it has been mentioned.Is post#35 invisible or what?
Possibly someone from this group, Rob. They did operate back in 2007.I looked at it Misty but I wasn't sure what you meant by it. Are you suggesting OC employed private contractors to do the guard duty? I don't know. The Danny Collins' book is the only one suggesting there was a guard on duty that I have seen.
http://guardasnocturnos.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/night-guard-guarda-nocturno.html
I looked at it Misty but I wasn't sure what you meant by it. Are you suggesting OC employed private contractors to do the guard duty? I don't know. The Danny Collins' book is the only one suggesting there was a guard on duty that I have seen.No, I'm suggesting that the night guard who covered Luz & worked alongside the regular police possibly started work at midnight that night and may have arrived at the scene offering his assistance. That's all. If he was on duty, IMO he would have done so after seeing many people on the streets.
OK so it has been mentioned.
There was a position described as 'Security Guard' but the woman employed didn't actually guard anything. Interestingly she mentions using the creche. I wonder how many other employees did that?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PIEDADE_MENDES.htm
Have you ever seen anything about childcare for the over 5's in Luz? Mark Warner at Levante currently offer it.
https://www.markwarner.co.uk/sun-holidays/greece/levante-beach/childcare
There was a position described as 'Security Guard' but the woman employed didn't actually guard anything. Interestingly she mentions using the creche. I wonder how many other employees did that?A security guard that is employed as a general go for. Her hours would not cover the time period that we are needing. Were the general public just allowed to come and go through the secondary reception gates. In the Dispatches documentary the secondary reception was manned and non guests were not allowed through. But that was filmed in the day time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PIEDADE_MENDES.htm
OK so there were 14 places where he was wrong IMO. based on the file.Things I agree with Danny Collins:
There has also been 12 points raised where I have questioned his writing.
There were at least 8 places where he raised a point where I agree with his findings or conclusions.
Things I agree with Danny Collins:
1. "... incidentally the probability that Madeleine left the apartment of her own volition was the first and most logical thought of the GNR officers arriving at the scene." Page 9.
2. "What is clear is that total confusion reigned an and around apartment 5A that night. Just who called the police to report the child missing in that atmosphere of panic has never been satisfactorily resolved." Page 10
3. Around that time public hope also focused on the possibility that the three year old might have been taken by a mother who had recently lost her own child ...." Page 45.
4. "Nor do the UK police discount the possibility of Madeleine leaving the apartment and being carried off in the street." Page 85.
5. "....general tenet of forensics is that a corpse must lie for at least two hours before removal to leave enough residues to alert a trained [cadaver ] dog." Page 90.
6. "He [Gerry] is too in control of their actions, her [Kate] emotions too controlled ...." Page 223.
I am tired so I will just tackle number 6.We can see why Kate behaves as she does but what about the controlling nature of Gerry?
It was known that the police warned Kate and Gerry not to show emotion cos this would give the perp a "kick".
How very brave both Kate and Gerry were facing all those cameras. At the time Kate was frightened of the media, but she steeled herself to face them and do everything she could to find Madeleine.
We can see why Kate behaves as she does but what about the controlling nature of Gerry?Gerry is a leader. He is an organiser and has a strong grip on things. He is a hard worker, thinks ahead and tries to work the best way thru.
Gerry is a leader. He is an organiser and has a strong grip on things. He is a hard worker, thinks ahead and tries to work the best way thru.Well that is how you see it. Thanks.
He has been very angry about some of the unjust criticisms and lies heaped upon them and so would I have been . He controls himself as well as he is able, because he knows that to lose his temper would also affect the support he gets from a large number of people. Kate and Gerrys priority, without doubt, is to get Madeleine home.
Gerry is Kates rock. There can be no doubt about that
I am tired so I will just tackle number 6.
It was known that the police warned Kate and Gerry not to show emotion cos this would give the perp a "kick".
How very brave both Kate and Gerry were facing all those cameras. At the time Kate was frightened of the media, but she steeled herself to face them and do everything she could to find Madeleine.
What perp ?They weren't to know that the investigation would come up empty handed.
No such person has been found to exist.
It is pure speculation.
They weren't to know that the investigation would come up empty handed.
Tell me Rob, how do you find someone who hasn't even been determined to exist ?
I am tired so I will just tackle number 6.
It was known that the police warned Kate and Gerry not to show emotion cos this would give the perp a "kick".
How very brave both Kate and Gerry were facing all those cameras. At the time Kate was frightened of the media, but she steeled herself to face them and do everything she could to find Madeleine.
They certainly won't be found if no one looks.
They have Eleanor.
Not hard enough, Stephen. Actually, mainly not at all for a live child. But the fact that they have never found a dead one should give everyone pause for thought.
Then we will have to agree to differ Eleanor.
We usually do, Stephen.
Can you cite for "It was known..."
Indeed. However, we can disagree amicably.
Can you cite for "It was known..."
Tell me Rob, how do you find someone who hasn't even been determined to exist ?The only way to find out is to look.
The only way to find out is to look.
You must look as if that someone does exist even when you don't know who it is.
Took me and Google appx. 30 seconds to come up with ...
Snip
In a separate interview, Kate explained why she had appeared cold in televised appeals at the time of her daughter's disappearance. 'Behavioural experts advised me not to show emotion in case the abductor got a kick from it,' she said. 'It's only recently, with the anniversary, that they've started showing footage from the early days. I don't recognise the person they asked me to be at that time, but to all the people out there who criticised me I say, would they want to swap places, really?'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/04/madeleinemccann.ukcrime
Certainly well worth trying a search engine when in doubt sometimes. If it can't be found ... that is when a cite may be required. In My Opinion.
Took me and Google appx. 30 seconds to come up with ...
Snip
In a separate interview, Kate explained why she had appeared cold in televised appeals at the time of her daughter's disappearance. 'Behavioural experts advised me not to show emotion in case the abductor got a kick from it,' she said. 'It's only recently, with the anniversary, that they've started showing footage from the early days. I don't recognise the person they asked me to be at that time, but to all the people out there who criticised me I say, would they want to swap places, really?'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/04/madeleinemccann.ukcrime
Certainly well worth trying a search engine when in doubt sometimes. If it can't be found ... that is when a cite may be required. In My Opinion.
If they existed.10 years is not that long. It has kept the name out there, look we are still discussing the case 10 years on.
I don't believe they, singular or plural, did.
What has 10 plus years of worldwide publicity achieved in finding this person(s) whose existence has not been proven ?
10 years is not that long. It has kept the name out there, look we are still discussing the case 10 years on.
Can you name me a case of a missing child with the level of publicity surrounding it and with several investigations which have come up with nothing ?
I know it as I am sure you do too ... if you pretend to know anything at all about Madeleine McCann's case.
If a cite is truly required to substantiate a statement or phrase in a conversation, fair enough. However there are some things which are "common knowledge" which can surely be sensibly allowed to enable the discussion to flow.
For example if I say in a sentence: " ... perhaps the man Jane saw carrying a child ..." do I really need to add http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
If so that's fine by me ... but it is certainly going to have to be implemented across the board by members ... and monitored or controlled (whichever takes your fancy) consistently and with fairness ... by forum monitors.
Her behaviour also seemed strange to the first GNR officers on the scene.
"He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm "He has been a GNR officer since 1986, he currently works at the Lagos GNR post."
Wow! can you think of any reason why the parents of a missing child might be "nervous and anxious" ??
Can you think of any reason why they made crying noises but produced no actual tears?
I have two problems with this 'fact' as accepted by McCann supporters. Firstly, there is no independent evidence that the McCanns were advised to show no emotion. Secondly, most relatives of missing people would find such advice impossible to follow in my opinion.
I would soon be advised by British police experts to try to stay as calm as possible and not to show any emotion in public
Madeleine
'Behavioural experts advised me not to show emotion in case the abductor got a kick from it,'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/may/04/madeleinemccann.ukcrime
Ah yes, the 'Cracker' team Dr Joe Sullivan and Detective Chief Superintendent Graham Hill. He gives other reasons for the McCann's lack of emotion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1gOOkyaPAU
Despite being there within days, he seems to have a lack of knowledge of the basics of the case. He says they went on holiday with 16 friends, he says they left the apartment locked....I do agree when he says that statistically it's unlikely that Madeleine is alive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JMlJqx1-4s&app=desktop
If the police gave similar advice to others it had no effect whatsoever;
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=april+jones+appeal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJcnM4S3OzQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YITVWIfsI08
Can you think of any reason why they made crying noises but produced no actual tears?
If they existed.
I don't believe they, singular or plural, did.
What has 10 plus years of worldwide publicity achieved in finding this person(s) whose existence has not been proven ?
So, as I found, it is not known. It is known that McCanns said they were advised.
Can you name me a case of a missing child with the level of publicity surrounding it and with several investigations which have come up with nothing ?
Can you think of any reason why they made crying noises but produced no actual tears?
Reminds me of Jeremy Bamber at his parents funeral.
Come on, Stephen, you must know that there are several.
Examples please.
Can you think of any reason why they made crying noises but produced no actual tears?
Every missing child case that has ever been solved.
A happy instance is Shannon Matthews.
An unhappy one being Holly and Jessica.
Everyone is an individual and how they perform in front of a camera is individual to them ... nor no matter how upset innocent victims are there are those who see fit to disbelieve them and who take to the internet to abuse them.
Alice Gross's parents being an example of that.
Then there are people like the Philpots ...'nuff said.
https://www.channel4.com/news/crocodile-tears-and-catching-killers-philpott-hazell-ahmeds
Why should the parents of a missing child feel they have to explain anything at all to people who disbelieve as a matter of principal every word they say?
I have of course watched the initial McCann appeal and in my opinion they need explain nothing to nobody who has eyes to see and ears to hear. Your opinion may well be different, but that is for you.
Can you think of any reason why they made crying noises but produced no actual tears?After my son died at the age nine, I never shed a tear for 10 years. During that period half my family died, including my Mum and Dad, who I loved dearly, but for some strange reason I never shed a tear.
After my son died at the age nine, I never shed a tear for 10 years. During that period half my family died, including my Mum and Dad, who I loved dearly, but for some strange reason I never shed a tear.
Neither did I cry at my little boys funeral ... so strange, but I was tearing myself apart internally. I think I was in a sort of "automan" mode. I think I was so deadened by what had happened that something took over and controlled me thru life. It sort of protected me, but I must have looked very hard if any unsypathetic others were watching.
No one commented, except to say that I was very strong ... and it was true I spent more effort in looking after my daughter, my hubby and my aged parents than i did of me.
Maybe something strange like this happened to Kate and Gerry. They went into search for mode ... and get back Madeleine mode almost immediately ... altho Kate especially showed massive distress in her slumping body and face many times.
I dont think it is fair to judge people who have had such a shock and massive distress in their lives by your own limited experiences. Cos to be quite frank, you dont have any idea what such massive distress can do to you.
"I dont think it is fair to judge people who have had such a shock and massive distress in their lives by your own limited experiences. Cos to be quite frank, you dont have any idea what such massive distress can do to you."
Kate McCann chose to put herself in the media, no-one forced her to do that. When she realised that her demeanour was seen by some as puzzling she chose to offer an explanation. I'm not discussing how she felt, I'm discussing how she behaved and the reason she offered for it.
"I dont think it is fair to judge people who have had such a shock and massive distress in their lives by your own limited experiences. Cos to be quite frank, you dont have any idea what such massive distress can do to you."Oh dear,
Kate McCann chose to put herself in the media, no-one forced her to do that. When she realised that her demeanour was seen by some as puzzling she chose to offer an explanation. I'm not discussing how she felt, I'm discussing how she behaved and the reason she offered for it.
Oh dear,
A mother who has lost her dearly loved daughter being criticized for doing her best to find her daughter by keeping Madeleines name in the foreground. That needed publicity, and Kate who is on record as hating publicity forced herself (initially) to go on TV programs etc. to help keep that publicity going.
What ever Kate and Gerry do is denegraded by some. They cant do right for doing wrong! Tragic.
What you cant seem to accept is that after all the denigration she may have felt a need to put the record straight, and let people know that the Police had advised that she show no emotion. But that doesn't mean that there weren't other forces and emotions within her that enabled her much of the time to keep her emotions from showing ... as was the case with me and my son.
Even if she didn't cry in public, the signs of her suffering are shown all over her face. At one time, poor Kate looked older than her Mum.
Human psychology is an extremely complex matter and we are all different. We shouldn't be judging people on our limited experiences IMHO
You keep missing my point, which is that she said the behavioural experts from CEOP told her not to show emotion in public. Perhaps they did, but in his interview one of those experts gave a completely different reason for the couple's public demeanour.
Why does there only have to be one reason? There could be several for all we know. Does it really matter. I don't understand what it is you are trying to prove.
This is Sara Paynes view on Kate's first reaction from her latest book - 'Letters to Sarah'.
Quote
I was so horrified by how the McCanns have been getting treated and I wouldn't add to that for the world. I think the way people have taken a dislike to them all boils down to the first view. People judged Kate on how she first reacted and that's wrong; she was a rabbit stuck in the headlights and she was the one that bore the brunt - the mother, the woman. My heart went out to her and when people went after them, I was so upset. I felt sick that they were judged as if they deserved it.
End quote
That is the opinion of someone who has spent time in exactly the same nightmare situation and IMO knows far more about this subject than people who haven't. She has no criticism at all about Kate's reaction.
It all began with post 36;
It was known that the police warned Kate and Gerry not to show emotion cos this would give the perp a "kick".
This gives the impression that it's common knowledge that the police did give this advice. It turns out, however, that there is no evidence which supports Kate's claim. I have found nothing to suggest that the police do or did give such advice. I have found nothing to suggest that the CEOP people gave such advice. It seems that a statement by a suspect in a case has been accepted as truthful despite there being nothing to support it except the word of the suspect.
SY dont see Kate as a suspect. Why do you?
SY don't see her as a suspect, but their explanation as to why doesn't convince me.There is nothing forensic or time wise or dog wise to point to them. Nada zilch. No pionters what so ever to guilt
There is nothing forensic or time wise or dog wise to point to them. Nada zilch. No pionters what so ever to guilt
Just what do you need to convince you of their non involvement ?
Easy.
You would get all that if the child wandered. Then there is no evidence in the apartment for whatever happened, happened outside.
No evidence of abduction.
No forensic trace of a third party in the apartment.
No trace of an abductor/burglar or kidnapper.
Have you forgotten all that ?
You would get all that if the child wandered. Then there is no evidence in the apartment for whatever happened, happened outside.
No evidence of abduction.
No forensic trace of a third party in the apartment.
No trace of an abductor/burglar or kidnapper.
Have you forgotten all that ?
No evidence of abduction.
No forensic trace of a third party in the apartment.
No trace of an abductor/burglar or kidnapper.
Have you forgotten all that ?
1) No evidence of the parents involvement, and they had no time for such nor knowledge of anywhere in PT to hide a body. No locals to help them. No car. Additionally, at the time Madeleine obviously vanished, neither parent showed any behaviour that indicated that anything was amiss. Dont think either is psychopathic, do you?
2) No forensic or other trace of anything untoward happening to Madeleine via the family or friends in the apartment. However evidence of an opened shutter and window, which can have been done via the outside as Heri and Petermac clearly showed us.
3)
a) Except for the several parts that the PJ failed to check, there were no chances for forensic traces by a careful abductor via the front door (see b). Walk in and out using a spare key to open and close that door. Finger prints only on the key, which pulled the door to, as well as opening it.
b) The police failed to ensure that any evidence, that might have been, was ruined because they never sealed the apartment off.
c) There was a history of recent burglaries in that very block + recent cases where a man /paedo entered apartments and assaulted children as their parents slept in adjoining rooms.
d) Then the history of abductions in the Algarve.
John might ignore the possible abduction of pretty fair haired Joana Cipriano, but I dont and i doubt SY do either. Just 7 miles away and less than three years before. The case against Leonor and Joao was totally unsafe and one of the three Judges refused to find with the other Judges. The case was won on a basis of 2:1 + the often outragious thoughts of Amaral and Cristovao.
It could have so easily gone the other way. Just one vote in it !
e) The aborted abduction of pretty little blond Carolina Santos, aged 3 and 25 miles away. This was a little over 4 months before Madeleine vanished.
f) Rene Hassee a pretty little blond boy, aged 6, who vanished at Amoreiras Beach Aljezur on the west coast of The Algarve.
All these children vanished within 25 miles of PdL. All very pretty, fair haired and aged between 3 and 7.
Repeating History should not be ignored stephen.
So:
I. Break ins, via the front door using a key.
II. Children assaulted with parents sleeping in next room
III. Pretty fair haired children between the ages of 3 and 7 vanishing within a radius of 25 miles of PdL
IV. Oh and I, of course, believe that i have numerous other pointers that show there was an abduction, but sorry I cant share them. They are with SY
V. And then we have Briettas reminder that a man was seen carrying a little girl away + unidentified forensic traces recovered from the apartment.
Suggest you rethink, stephen.
No need to rethink Sadie.
You pick and choose, to suit your pointers.
There is no forensic evidence of a third party in the apartment.
No corroboration of the shutter or window being open before 10 pm.
Basically, b....r all.
Like I said, if you have 'evidence, you take it to the authorities.
If all you have is your biased pointers, well I know how the police would view those.
Hahahah
So you have already dismissed the unidentified forensic traces recovered from the apartment ?
As for my pointers, nothing is biased. All are facts.
Oh and Matt thought that the room was lighter than it should have been .... light coming in via the window space . How do you reconcile that?
Maybe the abduction had already happened?
sorry, stephen but you have scored 0/10. One hundred lines by tomorrow if you please 8(0(* 8**8:/:
There is nothing forensic or time wise or dog wise to point to them. Nada zilch. No pionters what so ever to guilt
Just what do you need to convince you of their non involvement ?
I don't know if they were involved or not, but they have failed to convince me of their non-involvement. There is a distinct lack of evidence to show what did happen in PdL. I will be convinced when the case is solved and someone else is charged and convicted with Madeleine's disappearance. Until then my position will remain the same.Danny Collins raised the point that Madeleine woke and wandered and was later abducted from the outside position. We don't expect forensic evidence to be found on the inside of the apartment in that scenario. Who was around on the outside? Burglars, clients, paedophiles???
You are living a fantasy Sadie.
...and that is a problem you will have to deal with.
There is no proof those other 'forensic traces' were left that night.
When did I specify that night? There were finger prints and hairs that could not be attached to anyone known tho' IIRC. These may well have have been from that night, we just dont know cos it seems they were not persued.
Tell me Sadie, how would you prove the hairs and partial fingerprints were made that night ?Sometimes these cases take years to get the right evidence.
You are clutching at straws.
Sometimes these cases take years to get the right evidence.
Tell me Sadie, how would you prove the hairs and partial fingerprints were made that night ?Tell me stephen how could you prove that the dried blood from a living person which the dogs alerted to were made that night? Remember that they alerted to such blood that was up to 30 years old.
You are clutching at straws.
Tell me stephen how could you prove that the dried blood from a living person which the dogs alerted to were made that night? Remember that they alerted to such blood that was up to 30 years old.
You and your side are clutching at straws.
At least with the hairs, which if I remember correctly were on the bed linen, must have been left there very recently.
The unidentified fingerprints, had they bothered with them, might have had other finger prints partially overlaying them or they might have overlaid family fingerprints. Forensics could, I would have thought, have identified any food residue on the prints and any work related dust. That could have dated them possibly and pointed in certain directions.
But no-one bothered to check them. More important, it seems, to find something to try and tie The Mccanns to Madeleines supposed demise. Right from the word 'GO', it appears that was all Amaral was interested in
AIMHO
Recommend you do some research on forensic science and D.N.A. fingerprinting.Please specify what is wrong with what i am saying
It doesn't mean it is relevant evidence in this case.It could be in the future. Cold cases are often solved this way.
No evidence of abduction.? Raised shutters and open window ~ a man carrying a child seconds away from the apartment ~ at least two sightings of a child resembling Madeleine in the wee small hours.
No forensic trace of a third party in the apartment. ? unidentified forensic traces recovered from the apartment.
No trace of an abductor/burglar or kidnapper. ? No burglars operating in the resort?? ... I think not ... at least two flats that we know of had been invaded in block 5.
Remember if the early investigation had taken a different path from that epitomised by the headline in the 'Diario de Noticias' ... 'A Badly Told Tale', the outcome for Madeleine might have been more a more positive one.
I don't see any evidence of abduction.
The raised shutter and open window are not independently confirmed.
The child seen by Jane Tanner didn't resemble Madeleine unless Jane can identify a child by it's legs, which are all she saw.
There was no evidence of burglary in the apartment.
Please specify what is wrong with what i am saying
I would have thought it easy peasy in this modern age to check any food traces for age and type, over-lapping finger prints and to check for work related dust in finger prints.
The blood alerts are well recorded as happening when dried blood from a living person is up to 30 years old.
What else was there? ... nothing was there?
Please tell me where I was wrong IYO
I don't see any evidence of abduction.
The raised shutter and open window are not independently confirmed.
The child seen by Jane Tanner didn't resemble Madeleine unless Jane can identify a child by it's legs, which are all she saw.
There was no evidence of burglary in the apartment.
If people pick and choose their 'evidence' and simply ignore or choose to disbelieve evidence that doesn't suit them - then they will always end up with the result they want.
It was by using those very 'tactics' that Amaral built his case against the McCanns imo.
Fortunately, truly professional policemen who genuinely want to find the perpetrator of a crime and are not just looking for 'a result' - (regardless of who actually committed it) do not behave like that.
AIMHO
Jane Tanner never saw any open shutter and she claimed to have walked through the car park adjoining the apartment seconds after encountering crecheman. Matt never saw it open either and he made two trips to the apartment, one to listen at the very shutter and the other in which he went into the apartment and listened at the children's bedroom door.
As the diagonal path taken by those crossing the carpark was nowhere near apartment 5A which was in darkness, and not in the natural line of sight of anyone walking across it - that is hardly surprising. People, especially if they are in a hurry tend to look ahead to where they are going.
Heri posted an arial piccie of the car park - showing the diagonal path taken, and also showing the extensive trees and foliage which caused the corner where 5a was to be in darkness.
If anyone can find that piccie (I haven't been able to) - it shows exactly how anything going on at 5a's would be easily missed by anyone in the few seconds it took them to cross the carpark IMO.
AIMHO
Oh the irony of that post, when OG has only one remit.
*&*%£
It makes no difference what the remit was - the 40 odd thousand pages of 'evidence' they examined didn't change. Anyone who thinks the professional officers of SY would ignore evidence which emerged pointing to the perpetrator of this crime whoever it was - is being unrealistic IMO.
Are you claiming that the Oporto team were not allowed to carry out their investigations in exactly the way they wanted to - but have been restricted by a 'remit'. They have also ruled the McCanns out of their investigations.
AIMHO
Has it never occurred to you, that the shutter and window were never open ?
They haven't investigated the McCann's.
They were off limits.
Have you forgotten why Sutton refused to take on OG ?
No.
The open window and shutters were the main reason why the McCanns knew their daughter had been abducted.
It has been claimed that they were 'staged'. However if that was true then the one thing the McCanns would have done would have been to make sure they stayed open for the police or other independent witnesses to see this compelling evidence which they had apparently dreamed up to prove abduction.
They didn't do that - and so IMO by closing them, it proved that either the McCanns are as thick as pudding and stupidly ruined their own cunning master plan - or that they were telling the truth and closed them to protect the twins from the cold breeze. AFAIAC - the McCanns are not a pair of thickos.
IMO
As the diagonal path taken by those crossing the carpark was nowhere near apartment 5A which was in darkness, and not in the natural line of sight of anyone walking across it - that is hardly surprising. People, especially if they are in a hurry tend to look ahead to where they are going.
Heri posted an arial piccie of the car park - showing the diagonal path taken, and also showing the extensive trees and foliage which caused the corner where 5a was to be in darkness.
If anyone can find that piccie (I haven't been able to) - it shows exactly how anything going on at 5a's would be easily missed by anyone in the few seconds it took them to cross the carpark IMO.
AIMHO
If people pick and choose their 'evidence' and simply ignore or choose to disbelieve evidence that doesn't suit them - then they will always end up with the result they want.
It was by using those very 'tactics' that Amaral built his case against the McCanns imo.
Fortunately, truly professional policemen who genuinely want to find the perpetrator of a crime and are not just looking for 'a result' - (regardless of who actually committed it) do not behave like that.
AIMHO
Forensics established early on that nobody entered by the bedroom window which set the scene for the investigation. The police officers who answered the initial call and whom Kate McCann referred to as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum in her book are on record as doubting abduction based on their observation of the parents.
In my opinion not nearly on a par with reports of what Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee were thinking about distraught crime victims ... as portrayed in Amaral's dramatisation of his book.(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/GAD/kg_small.jpg)(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/GAD/gnr1_small.jpg)(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/GAD/6a.jpg)
How about those who believe every word uttered by the McCanns and their friends and ignore any evidence that casts doubt on their stories?
I don't rate a policeman as 'truly professional' who expects me to accept that an abduction occurred when all he offers by way of evidence is that the child concerned was too young to leave and start a new life.
They haven't investigated the McCann's.
They were off limits.
Have you forgotten why Sutton refused to take on OG ?
Abduction is a belief, not a fact.
So tell me yet again Benice, why did they search the apartment after claiming abduction.
Personally, I think the claim of abduction is complete hogwash.
As to being thickos, well they left their children unattended and exposed to danger.
So Brietta, do you think the prostrating behaviour exhibited by the McCann's was normal ?
What they should have been doing is searching for their daughter.
That response is so beneath you Stephen, I'm not going to dignify it with an answer.
So do you think it was normal?
Is Sutton the one who was retired prior to Operation Grange starting up?
No.
The open window and shutters were the main reason why the McCanns knew their daughter had been abducted.
It has been claimed that they were 'staged'. However if that was true then the one thing the McCanns would have done would have been to make sure they stayed open for the police or other independent witnesses to see this compelling evidence which they had apparently dreamed up to prove abduction.
They didn't do that - and so IMO by closing them, it proved that either the McCanns are as thick as pudding and stupidly ruined their own cunning master plan - or that they were telling the truth and closed them to protect the twins from the cold breeze. AFAIAC - the McCanns are not a pair of thickos.
IMO
Mr. Sutton has been discussed extensively.
He was offered the post..
He refused because the Mccanns would be off limits
Detective Colin Sutton has drawn on his 30 years of policing to compile a list of the five most likely situations
By Paul Jollands
23:00, 21 APR 2017
Updated23:03, 21 APR 2017
There are five possible scenarios that could explain Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
Colin Sutton has drawn on his 30 years of policing to compile the list.
He says: “Detectives like to put all the scenarios down in a flow chart system.
They then methodically go down each scenario and all the forks and branches that come off them.
“You go down the most likely scenario – the one likely to bring you success more quickly – and may come to a stage where you realise it’s the wrong scenario.
"Then you go back to the beginning and choose the next scenario.
“It’s like a game of snakes and ladders which carries on until you have exhausted all the options.”
The scenarios he came up with include one that she wandered out of apartment 5A by herself and had a fatal accident.
Another possibility is that a paedophile was watching the McCann family and deliberately targeted the youngster.
Here, Colin looks in detail at the five scenarios – and comes up with the most likely explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance.
1 The McCanns or the Tapas Seven
I can understand why the Portuguese police asked questions about the McCanns and the Tapas Seven.
As uncomfortable as it is, the first place I would have started looking is their group.
Without any other information to go on, the most likely scenario when a three-year-old girl disappears into thin air is that someone close to her knows what happened.
However, the police do appear to have decided quite quickly that was the only line of investigation they were going to take.
By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route.
2 Targeted kidnap by a trafficking gang
This is the most likely scenario once those closely linked to Madeleine have been ruled out.
This was not the first night that Madeleine and the twins had been left alone.
Crucially there was a routine.
If you were watching you would know there were three children in that apartment and the parents were in the tapas restaurant.
It would make it easier for abductors to pull it off.
Not only that, but if the Tapas group’s timings are accurate, it gave the abductor a 30-minute slot where they knew they would not be disturbed. Given all the facts we know, it’s the most likely and credible scenario.
A trafficking ring is more likely than a lone paedophile or paedophile ring.
Yes there are paedophiles, yes she is a little blonde girl.
But I think six and seven-year-old girls are much more at risk from paedophiles or child abuse rings.
Looking at the trafficking angle, unless the order was specifically for a young blonde girl, why her and not one of the twins?
Babies have less memories than a three-year-old.
If Madeleine is alive she will probably remember she had another mother and father and used to live in another house.
No risks of that if you take a baby.
More importantly, babies have far less physical identity. They have not developed as a three or four-year-old has.
If you were stealing on spec you would have taken one of the twins.
Not both, just one.
So it goes back to a specific order for a young blonde girl.
Has a young blonde girl died and their parents want to replace her? Or is there another reason for stealing to order? When you pick it all apart it’s the most likely scenario.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-stolen-order-just-10272346
Logically, can you envisage why Colin Sutton might have had any qualms about following a remit which mirrored a similar idea to his own?
Mr. Sutton has been discussed extensively.
He was offered the post..
He refused because the Mccanns would be off limits
As to Victims of crime.
That has get to be determined, assuming there was one.
That's news to me. When was he offered the post?
You do realize I have read all this before.
He wanted an open investigation and look at all aspects of the case.
That hasn't happened and we know that already.
Then you read it with a closed mind.
You have missed entirely the description of how an investigation is properly conducted by a person who knows.
Quote
He says: “Detectives like to put all the scenarios down in a flow chart system.
They then methodically go down each scenario and all the forks and branches that come off them.
“You go down the most likely scenario – the one likely to bring you success more quickly – and may come to a stage where you realise it’s the wrong scenario.
"Then you go back to the beginning and choose the next scenario.
“It’s like a game of snakes and ladders which carries on until you have exhausted all the options.”
End quote
The suggestion this procedure was not carried out by detectives trained as was Mr Sutton prior to the decision to reopen Madeleine's case is risible.
On the other hand they needed a reason for having their dibs on the window.
Really ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4467832/Met-interested-proving-McCann-parents-innocent.html
Nowhere in that article does he say he had been offered the post and that he had turned it down.
The only conversation he had about the case appears to be with another police officer who commented that he didn't think this case would be his cup of tea. Apparently Sutton didn't seek any clarification of that remark during that phone call. Would he have done that if he had been offered the job and was mulling it over? I don't think so.
If Sutton had actually been offered the post and subsequently turned it down - then I am sure he would have wanted to make that crystal clear.
Unless and until he does confirm that - I will continue to believe that even if he - along with others - was being considered for the post, no firm offer ever transpired.
AIMHO
You can believe what you want to.
..and that includes the tooth fairy.
Sutton was no mug.
He knew the lay of the land as an experienced copper.
He wouldn't touch a case with tied hands or a barge pole
Again I blame the person or persons who gave the orders, NOT TO INVESTIGATE THE McCann's.
Hardly.
The closed mind as you call it , was in the instructions given to SY.
I don't blame the police for that.
I blame the person or persons who gave the instructions , not to have a thorough and complete investigation.
You still haven't proved your claim that he had been offered the job but had turned it down. Until you can then imo you should edit your post to show that it is only your opinion and not the fact you claim it to be. Posting opinion as fact is against the rules.
You can believe what you want to.
..and that includes the tooth fairy.
Sutton was no mug.
He knew the lay of the land as an experienced copper.
He wouldn't touch a case with tied hands or a barge pole
Again I blame the person or persons who gave the orders, NOT TO INVESTIGATE THE McCann's.
You still haven't proved your claim that he had been offered the job but had turned it down. Until you can then imo you should edit your post to show that it is only your opinion and not the fact you claim it to be. Posting opinion as fact is against the rules.
What is evident Brietta, is that no forensic trace of any third party has been found on the 3 rd May 2007, and there is no getting away from that.
You are wrong.
Vital evidence was lost through contamination.
Unidentified traces from the apartment lie with the Portuguese forensic services awaiting a match.
So Brietta, do you think the prostrating behaviour exhibited by the McCann's was normal ?
What they should have been doing is searching for their daughter.
You are wrong.
Vital evidence was lost through contamination.
Unidentified traces from the apartment lie with the Portuguese forensic services awaiting a match.
It is perfectly normal for people to collapse to their knees when overcome with anxiety, shock and fear. What is not normal is the bizarre description of Gerry's terrible anguish by Silvia (?) as that of a praying arab. It is even more abnormal IMO for anyone to actually want to use that description as a stick to beat the McCanns with. However IMO it says far more about them than it does about Kate and Gerry The words 'spiteful and cruel' hardly seem enough.
The portrayal of the McCanns in that video kneeling in the bedroom is almost as unbelievable as the portrayal of JT practically having to turn sideways to squeeze past Gerry and Jes when she passed them in the road. To exaggerate to such ridiculous lengths is a sign of desperation IMO. It would be risible if it were not so pathetic.
The whole video is an insult to normal people's intelligence.
AIMHO
So how many people have you seen prostrate themselves in the manner of the Mccanns ?
Perhaps you can provide a cite or two.
It isn't a wonder that the local police thought their behaviour strange, when instead they should have been looking for their daughter instead.
Now that would be a natural reaction to a missing and loved child.
I'm sure you know very well Stephen that people can and do collapse to the floor in despair in times of great stress. If that never happened the phrase 'buckling at the knees' would not exist.
At the time it happened to Gerry the police had just arrived. Are you saying they should have ignored the police and gone off searching instead of talking to them? Surely not.
I notice your criticism about searching does not extend to April Jones family or Sandy Davidsons mother - neither of whom searched for their children once the police had arrived. In fact Mrs Davidson didn't search at all because she was too frightened of what she might find. You must be absolutely appalled at her behaviour.
AIMHO
That assumes there was evidence to be lost in the first place.
Did they prostrate themselves like the McCann's ?
To me, searching would be imperative.
Likewise, did these people do the same as the McCann's in the aftermath of their children's disappearance
..and we know what the McCann's did. That has been documented and well reported.
I'm sure you know very well Stephen that people can and do collapse to the floor in despair in times of great stress. If that never happened the phrase 'buckling at the knees' would not exist.The police had just arrived where when Gerry prostrated himself?
At the time it happened to Gerry the police had just arrived. Are you saying they should have ignored the police and gone off searching instead of talking to them? Surely not.
I notice your criticism about searching does not extend to April Jones family or Sandy Davidsons mother - neither of whom searched for their children once the police had arrived. In fact Mrs Davidson didn't search at all because she was too frightened of what she might find. You must be absolutely appalled at her behaviour.
AIMHO
We do not know for the simple reason their privacy was respected.
Many people were searching. It is normal for police to wish to speak to the parents.
These people did not have to finance the search for their child ... the police were doing that.
The McCanns made the biggest mistake of their lives in Luz. They have to live with it forever. The point you might consider is the damage done to Madeleine and her siblings by the ten year unabated campaign of opprobrium mounted against her parents.
Madeleine's parents are instigated the damage inflicted on their children.
No one else has been brought to account.
The sins of the fathers ... ?? Very prosaic.
So how many people have you seen prostrate themselves in the manner of the Mccanns ?
Perhaps you can provide a cite or two.
It isn't a wonder that the local police thought their behaviour strange, when instead they should have been looking for their daughter instead.
Now that would be a natural reaction to a missing and loved child.
You obviously consider their reaction unnatural.
Do you believe that this unnatural reaction can be explained?
You are kidding, aren't you.The act of going down on your knees might have been part of their religion. It is certainly a very humbling experience, if it was intended that way.
You are kidding, aren't you.
You obviously consider their reaction unnatural.
Do you believe that this unnatural reaction can be explained?
One explanation of behaviour that is unnatural from a UK point of view is that it is not genuine, other explanations would revolve around psychological issues or cultural differences. There may be other reasons.
It's perfectly 'genuine' when associated with extreme shock and anguish - and is in the same category as being 'rooted to the spot' with fear unable to move - or going dizzy and fainting when confronted with shocking news or a shocking sight. Or even being unable to speak because your throat has constricted with fear.
People's legs do give way and they do fall to their knees when they become overwhelmed by an horrific situation. Why anyone would question that is a mystery to me.
AIMHO
No mystery at all, given your stance in this case.
A situation of their own making..
There lies the key.
So predictable. When you don't have a counter argument revert to your usual mantra.
One explanation of behaviour that is unnatural from a UK point of view is that it is not genuine, other explanations would revolve around psychological issues or cultural differences. There may be other reasons.
Never heard of shock? Never heard of uncontrollable bodily reaction?
Quote
Researchers say they have identified how emotional trauma - from winning the lottery to losing a close relative - can trigger a potentially lethal catastrophe in the body they call the 'broken heart syndrome'.
////////
They say the news or event (of a traumatic event) causes the body to produce large amounts of stress hormones including adrenaline, which narrows the main arteries which supply blood to the heart.
This paralyses the heart's main pumping chamber, causing a sudden change in rhythm similar to a heart attack.
////////
Dr Christoph Nienaber, director of cardiology at the university, said: 'These patients suffer under a heavy emotional load, either positive or negative. Their hearts literally break. It usually happens within minutes to an hour of hearing the news.
'The typical scenario is bad news but there are reports of both and we don't know what causes it most.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2218009/Why-shock-kill-good-news--Release-adrenaline-sudden-discovery-lead-heart-problems.html#ixzz4pRUtKQ9o
I would say that sort of reaction over which there is no control would be sufficient for one to 'go weak at the knees' and collapse into the 'praying arab' position used to deride Gerry McCann during what most would describe as the single most stressful event of his life.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Going further ... why would I or any other pontificate on extreme the grief of parents who have just discovered their eldest child is missing from her bed?
Is there anything to compare it with? I've seen no other case where the horror of such an event has either been publicised and exploited to ridicule bereaved parents as in the Amaral video.
In my opinion, it is utterly despicable and beneath contempt as are most sceptic shibboleths.
Never heard of shock? Never heard of uncontrollable bodily reaction?
Quote
Researchers say they have identified how emotional trauma - from winning the lottery to losing a close relative - can trigger a potentially lethal catastrophe in the body they call the 'broken heart syndrome'.
////////
They say the news or event (of a traumatic event) causes the body to produce large amounts of stress hormones including adrenaline, which narrows the main arteries which supply blood to the heart.
This paralyses the heart's main pumping chamber, causing a sudden change in rhythm similar to a heart attack.
////////
Dr Christoph Nienaber, director of cardiology at the university, said: 'These patients suffer under a heavy emotional load, either positive or negative. Their hearts literally break. It usually happens within minutes to an hour of hearing the news.
'The typical scenario is bad news but there are reports of both and we don't know what causes it most.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2218009/Why-shock-kill-good-news--Release-adrenaline-sudden-discovery-lead-heart-problems.html#ixzz4pRUtKQ9o
I would say that sort of reaction over which there is no control would be sufficient for one to 'go weak at the knees' and collapse into the 'praying arab' position used to deride Gerry McCann during what most would describe as the single most stressful event of his life.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Going further ... why would I or any other pontificate on extreme the grief of parents who have just discovered their eldest child is missing from her bed?
Is there anything to compare it with? I've seen no other case where the horror of such an event has either been publicised and exploited to ridicule bereaved parents as in the Amaral video.
In my opinion, it is utterly despicable and beneath contempt as are most sceptic shibboleths.
There in lies the irony.
I cannot comprehend people who defend what the McCann's did.
The trauma could have been caused by the arrival of the police of course.
Fortunately, there appears to have been a more humane attitude prevalent in Portugal at the time and subsequently.
Quote
this morning in Diario de Noticias: 24 Jul, 2007
Clinical psychologist Luis Villas-Boas, the director of a foster home in Faro, is surprised by the turmoil that is going on in british justice and press, even classifying the situation as "paradoxal and ridiculous". This is said taking into account the case of a 3-month old baby (meanwhile adopted by a portuguese family), that was abandoned close to Faro airport in 2001, by her parents, english citizens that flew to London at that time. "That was clearly a case of abandonment with exposure, which classifies as a crime that follows directly after homicide, in the Penal Code. And yet, as far as we know, that couple was neither condemned, nor arrested. I'm perplexed by the fact that the british are now worried about finding an accusation for the parents of the kidnapped child, when they were not worried about arresting a criminal couple a few years ago", he said.
According to that specialist, the McCann couple didn't reveal "intention or deceit" in the case of Madeleine's disappearance, who at the time was a week away from becoming 4 years old. "There was no crime of negligence, which is punished when someone is abused. Abandonment is a definitive disconnection, which implies intention or deceit, and Madeleine's parents did not intend to abandon their children. They just manifested an excess of confidence, having committed a mistake they now are confronted with in emotional terms, for the rest of their lives, if the child is not found. They are fighting to search for their daughter and they are suffering a lasting feeling of guilt. They don't need the courts for that", Villas-Boas reinforced.
http://3as.madeleinemccann.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=262&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=a33984ec8ef5bef91e62b20f68652fac&start=45
You are kidding, aren't you.
I think it is a fair question.
One explanation of behaviour that is unnatural from a UK point of view is that it is not genuine, other explanations would revolve around psychological issues or cultural differences. There may be other reasons.
It's perfectly 'genuine' when associated with extreme shock and anguish - and is in the same category as being 'rooted to the spot' with fear unable to move - or going dizzy and fainting when confronted with shocking news or a shocking sight. Or even being unable to speak because your throat has constricted with fear.
People's legs do give way and they do fall to their knees when they become overwhelmed by an horrific situation. Why anyone would question that is a mystery to me.
AIMHO
Never heard of shock? Never heard of uncontrollable bodily reaction?
Quote
Researchers say they have identified how emotional trauma - from winning the lottery to losing a close relative - can trigger a potentially lethal catastrophe in the body they call the 'broken heart syndrome'.
////////
They say the news or event (of a traumatic event) causes the body to produce large amounts of stress hormones including adrenaline, which narrows the main arteries which supply blood to the heart.
This paralyses the heart's main pumping chamber, causing a sudden change in rhythm similar to a heart attack.
////////
Dr Christoph Nienaber, director of cardiology at the university, said: 'These patients suffer under a heavy emotional load, either positive or negative. Their hearts literally break. It usually happens within minutes to an hour of hearing the news.
'The typical scenario is bad news but there are reports of both and we don't know what causes it most.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2218009/Why-shock-kill-good-news--Release-adrenaline-sudden-discovery-lead-heart-problems.html#ixzz4pRUtKQ9o
I would say that sort of reaction over which there is no control would be sufficient for one to 'go weak at the knees' and collapse into the 'praying arab' position used to deride Gerry McCann during what most would describe as the single most stressful event of his life.
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Going further ... why would I or any other pontificate on extreme the grief of parents who have just discovered their eldest child is missing from her bed?
Is there anything to compare it with? I've seen no other case where the horror of such an event has either been publicised and exploited to ridicule bereaved parents as in the Amaral video.
In my opinion, it is utterly despicable and beneath contempt as are most sceptic shibboleths.
I don't find their behaviour unnatural.
Of course you don't.
You back them 100%, no matter what.
And you attack everything they do, no matter what.
Cite, to back that up.
I don't find their behaviour unnatural.
I find the timing of it strange, earlier I.e. At point of discovery or later I.e. When it became apparent that she wasn't going to turn up anytime soon would have been more natural. IMO
I know funny things happen. Does Danny write about the not functioning parents that are able to function their mobiles very well 8(>((
On May 4th, the parents authorise us to check the phone calls logged on their mobile.
- Here's a copy of the summary of calls.
- I only have that of the couple. We have yet to receive the summary from BTS
- OK, what have we got?
- Do you see what I see?
- Yes, I think so: between April 27th and May 4th, Kate did not make any calls. Hum...
- None either, between 11.22am and 11.17pm on the night of the disappearance.
- Kate mustn't like making telephone calls...
- For Gerald, there's nothing before May 4th at exactly 12.15am
- What does that mean? They never made phone calls then?
- Wait, there's something here. Look at the number at the top of the list.
- Yes, so?
- On her telephone, her husbands' number is logged: she called him on May 3rd at 11.17pm, but on Gerald's, nothing, no trace of that call!
- How can that be explained?
- It's simple as anything: the list of calls has been deleted.
- Always the same old question: why?
I know funny things happen. Does Danny write about the not functioning parents that are able to function their mobiles very well 8(>((What is the source of this information?
On May 4th, the parents authorise us to check the phone calls logged on their mobile.
- Here's a copy of the summary of calls.
- I only have that of the couple. We have yet to receive the summary from BTS
- OK, what have we got?
- Do you see what I see?
- Yes, I think so: between April 27th and May 4th, Kate did not make any calls. Hum...
- None either, between 11.22am and 11.17pm on the night of the disappearance.
- Kate mustn't like making telephone calls...
- For Gerald, there's nothing before May 4th at exactly 12.15am
- What does that mean? They never made phone calls then?
- Wait, there's something here. Look at the number at the top of the list.
- Yes, so?
- On her telephone, her husbands' number is logged: she called him on May 3rd at 11.17pm, but on Gerald's, nothing, no trace of that call!
- How can that be explained?
- It's simple as anything: the list of calls has been deleted.
- Always the same old question: why?
Have you read online other psychologists and police views as to what the Mccanns did, which do not agree with the one you quoted ?
Cite them, please
Hahahah
After they had sent for them?
Think again Gunit.
As I recall it was John Hill who asked the receptionist to phone the police. The receptionist said Gerry was with him, but Hill says the only time he saw Gerry leave the apartment was when he went to reception to speak to the GNR.Could they both be the same event? The GNR arrive 5 minutes or so after the the 10:52 call so Gerry may have waited there till they arrive.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_HILL.htm
Could they both be the same event? The GNR arrive 5 minutes or so after the the 10:42 call so Gerry may have waited there till they arrive.
I have a bog standard mobile which is years old. I use it maybe 5 times a week. I never text because it takes me too long. It only accepts a certain no. of messages and then I have to delete existing messages before I can receive any more.
It could be their mobiles were the same and if they suddenly began receiving lots of calls instead of the usual few - then they may have needed to delete some before they could receive any more.
As I recall it was John Hill who asked the receptionist to phone the police. The receptionist said Gerry was with him, but Hill says the only time he saw Gerry leave the apartment was when he went to reception to speak to the GNR.As you must well know from the statements of several people, and mentioned on here many times, Matt had run over there and had tried to get reception to call the police at about 10.10 -10.15. Presumably reception either ignored his request, or may have been busy booking new guests in, or had to get permission from a senior member of staff before calling Police in.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_HILL.htm
-snip- At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30. -snip-
After she arrived she went immediately to the apartment A5 where she found several people inside the apartment and outside of it. She entered in the flat but soon left without having spoken with anyone, because she was informed that elements of the GNR were in the principal reception. She went there to meet them.Can we actually get a proper time-line of this drawn up?
When she came close to the elements of the GNR she found that behind her was
Gerry, Madeleine's father, accompanied by another man whose identity she doesn't remember.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
As you must well know from the statements of several people, and mentioned on here many times, Matt had run over there and had tried to get reception to call the police at about 10.10 -10.15. Presumably reception either ignored his request, or may have been busy booking new guests in, or had to get permission from a senior member of staff before calling Police in.
Totally reasonably, Gerry thought that the Police had been called via Matt. AT 10.30 Mrs Fenn offered the use of her phone to call the police, which Gerry declined because he thought they were already on their way
2412 to 2415 Witness Statement of Pamela Isobel Fenn 2007.08.20
John Hill appeared well after that ... was it about 22.40 ?
I am finding it difficult to understand, why you, Gunit, a clever person, keep forgetting these things. Such basic things.
I thought that I had answered this . Perhaps I got interrupted and failed to send ?
Engath
For Engath to prove just how often you, stephen, attack everything they, meaning The Mccanns, do would take months of collating evidence, as surely you must know and accept
To put it mildly Sadie, that is rich coming from you, and the time you claim you have spent on this case, and, criticizing and insulting people such as Amaral.
You, Erngath and others, back the McCann's 100%, so any behaviour and comments on other people, has to be judged in reference to that.
I don't forget, Sadie. Who are these 'several people'? Who asked Matt to go? Why didn't the receptionist see him on either of his alleged visits? Why did Kate question John Hill at around 10.35;
‘Where are the police?’ I yelled at him.[Madeleine]
I think he went with John Hill just then to call them. The receptionist thought he was Gerry.
Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ [Madeleine]
Kate places the interaction with Mrs Fenn well after John Hill's visit. Who are you going to believe, Sadie?
To put it mildly Sadie, that is rich coming from you, and the time you claim you have spent on this case, and, criticizing and insulting people such as Amaral.Aw come on, stephen, don't be coy.
You, Erngath and others, back the McCann's 100%, so any behaviour and comments on other people, has to be judged in reference to that.
Aw come on, stephen, don't be coy.
You must know just how often you criticize The Mccanns. Almost every post ... and with no valid reason. Would take months for Engath to collate them and post. Then would almost half fill the forum ... you are a very prolific poster
On older mobiles you have to delete messages to make room for more. You don't have to delete the call history for any reason.
Several people knew that Matt had gone to reception to ask them to call the police. That he had gone would be passed around like wildfire within the group .... some positive news at last ! The police were on their way !!! &%&£(+ Little did they know.
From considerable experience of signing in to hotel receptions, I have noticed that dealing with new guests appears to be number one priority. Everyone else is ignored. It is probably hotel policy that they be dealt with first.
I seem to remember that one of the statements was from an employee who was doing the airport run that evening, so there could have been a bunch of new arrivals. Please correct me if I am wrong on that one. Checking in time is a very pressurized time for receptionists, especially if several groups arrive together.
As for Mrs Fenn. She spoke to Gerry not Kate. Why should Kate remember the time? I prefer Mrs fenns timing to that of someone who wasn't part of the conversation.
Thanks for that G - but would the McCanns necessarily have known that? I didn't. In fact when I discovered (by receipt of a message) that there was in fact a 'memory' limit on my mobile - it did not occur to me that this only applied to text messages.
Kate McCann 4th May; employees contacted the authoritiesThe people you mention above are not all talking about the same specific time. The times are varied, but by taking words out of context, you give the impression that they all happened at the same time.
The whole group then set about searching for Madeleine throughout the complex, looked in all the buildings, swimming pool, tennis courts etc....as well as in the apartment with the help of employees, who, at the same time, contacted the authorities.
Russell O'Brien 4th May;
He does not know who called the police.
Rachael 4th May
After this they began to search and called the police.
Fiona Payne Rogatory
'And by the time I got back everyone else had done their loop and at that point then no-one had seen Madeleine. Erm, I remember saying to Matt at that point 'You go down to main reception and phone the Police'. Erm, and I, I don't know what Matt, erm, I don't know what Dave and Russell did at that point.
According to Fiona (a year after the event) there were a group there but none of them reported on 4th May that police were called by Matthew.
The people you mention above are not all talking about the same specific time. The times are varied, but by taking words out of context, you give the impression that they all happened at the same time.What times are they referring to if not the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance?
That is twisting facts.
What times are they referring to if not the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance?
It has always been my experience that constant reiterating salient facts of a case lend nothing to change them from what they are to what one would like them to be.
I quoted facts and someone suggested they are not as I quoted them. That person therefore needs to clarify their argument by supplying facts which contradict mine.
So we have two sets of facts? From different people? At different times? Quite possibly non-verbatim and in a foreign language? Translated into that language from another, then back again?
No problem there then ... hmmm.
Glad we have got that sorted out at last. The Mail inferred in its article that Sutton had been approached about taking the job but Sutton himself denies that he was ever offered it.
I think it proves the value of members like Davel to the forum in getting relevant information direct from source and it tends to remind us all to beware tabloids putting their own spin on issues.
I think all members should be aware that the media should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. There has been a tendency to rely on what they have said in the past.
Are we including Danny Collins' book part of the MSM?
He works in the industry as a self-styled freelance investigative journalist. His investigative skills (if any) seem to have let him down in this case imo.
The journalists do not know that case in as much detail as those of us who have followed it for ten years
To call oneself an investigative journalist one needs to look at things in depth and attempt to uncover new details or evidence. I can see no evidence that Collins did anything of the kind.He came up with the idea that the PJ rushed to make Kate and Gerry arguidos before the new law on arguidos came into operation.
He came up with the idea that the PJ rushed to make Kate and Gerry arguidos before the new law on arguidos came into operation.
To call oneself an investigative journalist one needs to look at things in depth and attempt to uncover new details or evidence. I can see no evidence that Collins did anything of the kind.
have you read his bookI have, as I explained near the start of this thread.
Speculation.Well in a days more the PJ would have had to have evidence and not just suspicion. The fact is they had no evidence therefore in a few more days they could not have made the McCanns an arguido.
I have, as I explained near the start of this thread.
I picked up nothing of interest on the Madeleine McCann case, merely chunks of misinformation. Collins did cover the Michael Cook case (exchange in Parliament) in an appendix, which was as accurate as Hansard is.
I got the distinct impression that Mr Collins had cobbled his book together, at long range from Luz, using published media articles. If so, it would be as accurate or inaccurate as those early reports were.
my question was specifically directed at gunit in resonse to her postShe'll answer too in due course.
my question was specifically directed at gunit in resonse to her postTry the PM system, or @G-Unit, rather than open forum.
Try the PM system, or @G-Unit, rather than open forum.
I replied because G-Unit's post struck me as having veracity. 8((()*/
have you read his book
I read enough to tell me that his effort was minimal.It is easy for us to get the facts now but in the first year before the file was released maybe it was a lot more difficult.
The McCanns didn't book a ten day holiday.
Madeleine was not with her brother as she climbed the steps of the plane.
The McCanns didn't go to the beach or the Paraiso on 3rd May.
Kate McCann didn't lower the shutters on the children's bedroom window after putting them into bed.
The Oldfields didn't have two daughters.
Madeleine's Fund does not have trustees.
I never before heard that Brian Kennedy was Praia da Luz based.
There were no patrols by Ocean Club security guards.
The Paynes were on the first floor, not the ground floor.
Matthew Oldfield didn't check his child by going through his garden gate at 9.38pm
The twins didn't whimper when Kate discovered Madeleine was missing.
Kate's hysterical shouts didn't bring Charlotte Pennington from a nearby apartment where she was on watch.
I don't forget, Sadie. Who are these 'several people'? Who asked Matt to go? Why didn't the receptionist see him on either of his alleged visits? Why did Kate question John Hill at around 10.35;
‘Where are the police?’ I yelled at him.[Madeleine]
I think he went with John Hill just then to call them. The receptionist thought he was Gerry.
Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ [Madeleine]
Kate places the interaction with Mrs Fenn well after John Hill's visit. Who are you going to believe, Sadie?
I read enough to tell me that his effort was minimal.
The McCanns didn't book a ten day holiday.
Madeleine was not with her brother as she climbed the steps of the plane.
The McCanns didn't go to the beach or the Paraiso on 3rd May.
Kate McCann didn't lower the shutters on the children's bedroom window after putting them into bed.
The Oldfields didn't have two daughters.
Madeleine's Fund does not have trustees.
I never before heard that Brian Kennedy was Praia da Luz based.
There were no patrols by Ocean Club security guards.
The Paynes were on the first floor, not the ground floor.
Matthew Oldfield didn't check his child by going through his garden gate at 9.38pm
The twins didn't whimper when Kate discovered Madeleine was missing.
Kate's hysterical shouts didn't bring Charlotte Pennington from a nearby apartment where she was on watch.
It is easy for us to get the facts now but in the first year before the file was released maybe it was a lot more difficult.
I have, as I explained near the start of this thread.
I picked up nothing of interest on the Madeleine McCann case, merely chunks of misinformation. Collins did cover the Michael Cook case (exchange in Parliament) in an appendix, which was as accurate as Hansard is.
I got the distinct impression that Mr Collins had cobbled his book together, at long range from Luz, using published media articles. If so, it would be as accurate or inaccurate as those early reports were.
I'm not sure when it was published. He quotes from Matthew Oldfield's 4th May statement at one point. It doesn't matter anyway, my point about investigative journalism stands. They are supposed to find and reveal hidden facts, not make facts up themselves.In fact what he says about Matthew seems to show he had some access to information beyond what we do. Maybe he did a bit of investigative journalism. I nearly threw the book away to begin with.
I'm not sure when it was published. He quotes from Matthew Oldfield's 4th May statement at one point. It doesn't matter anyway, my point about investigative journalism stands. They are supposed to find and reveal hidden facts, not make facts up themselves.
In fact what he says about Matthew seems to show he had some access to information beyond what we do. Maybe he did a bit of investigative journalism. I nearly threw the book away to begin with.
no...i specifically asked gunit if she had read the book....I wasnt interested in the fact that you had read the book...Then try the PM system or @G-Unit.
so if you are going to reply to the post you need to tell me if gunit has read the book.....thats the question.....perhaps you simply misunderstood
Then try the PM system or @G-Unit.
It's an open forum, as I'm sure you understand.
It would seem that his contribution consists of the wandered hypothesis and she was picked up from the street and abducted.
At his time of cashing in on Madeleine's disappearance I think there were two hypotheses on the table ...
- death and concealment
- stranger abduction
In my opinion the death and concealment hypothesis is dead in the water for the simple reason none of its suggested components have proved viable ... as affirmed in the Policia Judiciaria final report presented to the prosecutors who archived Madeleine's case.
Which leaves that which was determined to be the only other hypothesis by the PJ of stranger abduction well and truly on the table.
This case has been so intensely investigated perhaps there are no hidden facts
He has no access to interview important witnesses so it was pretty obvious he would come up with nothing new
It was a book for the general public to give them an overview of the case from his point of view
Every such book will contain inaccuracies
We would expect a book from someone in Amarals position to be accurate.... unfortunately it is full of errors
In fact what he says about Matthew seems to show he had some access to information beyond what we do. Maybe he did a bit of investigative journalism. I nearly threw the book away to begin with.
What are you referring to?What he says about Matt Oldfield on page 4 chapter called "First report". Does Matt change his statement as Danny implies?
It would seem that his contribution consists of the wandered hypothesis and she was picked up from the street and abducted.
At his time of cashing in on Madeleine's disappearance I think there were two hypotheses on the table ...
- death and concealment
- stranger abduction
In my opinion the death and concealment hypothesis is dead in the water for the simple reason none of its suggested components have proved viable ... as affirmed in the Policia Judiciaria final report presented to the prosecutors who archived Madeleine's case.
Which leaves that which was determined to be the only other hypothesis by the PJ of stranger abduction well and truly on the table.
I believe Danny Collins gave a chunk of the money earned from the book to the Find Madeleine Fund.I find it amazing that he made money out of it.
I believe Danny Collins gave a chunk of the money earned from the book to the Find Madeleine Fund.
What he says about Matt Oldfield on page 4 chapter called "First report". Does Matt change his statement as Danny implies?
A cite supporting your belief would be helpful.
Not sure why you think it's simply a 'belief'. The author explicitly states it just before the foreword in the 2008 edition of his book. 15% of royalties to the OFM fund.
Hardly impartial then.
You have got to remember there was a limited radius of the search in and around PdL and beyond that there seemed to be miles and miles of wild countryside. There is no way Madeleine walked out that far barefooted. There was also no time for the McCanns or their friends to carry Madeleine out that far. Which then tends to leave it up to someone else to have taken her inside a building with in the search zone and kept her or carried her by vehicle beyond that radius. Both of these actions would IMO be classed as an abduction. If she was later killed or died for whatever reason the initial crime is still an abduction.
That is just what Danny Collins was proposing back in 2008. Not so much an accident but just an unfortunate meeting. I'd still call that an abduction even if it did not occur in the apartment.
You have no idea what happened Rob.
Do you have a breakdown and locations of the Mccanns in the hours and days after May the 3 rd.
Have you forgotten the hypothesis that she walked out and then had an accident ?
That is just what Danny Collins was proposing back in 2008. Not so much an accident but just an unfortunate meeting. I'd still call that an abduction even if it did not occur in the apartment.
An accident is not an abduction Rob.Let's say she was knocked over by the fleeing car, an accident. Therefore if she wasn't abducted she would be lying on the road unconscious.
Let's say she was knocked over by the fleeing car, an accident. Therefore if she wasn't abducted she would be lying on the road unconscious.
I am well aware of that.So you are willing to concede she could have been abducted from the road following a car accident?
So you are willing to concede she could have been abducted from the road following a car accident?
So you are willing to concede she could have been abducted from the road following a car accident?
I have said there are several possibilities Rob.Killed, hurt or unhurt. I think it is significant that Smithman is seen carrying a girl right past Luz Doc the supposedly 24 hour medical provider.
None of them have been proven.
She could also have been killed in a road side accident after walking out if the apartment.
Killed, hurt or unhurt. I think it is significant that Smithman is seen carrying a girl right past Luz Doc the supposedly 24 hour medical provider.
Have you taken your theories to SY Rob ?I used to do that but it felt frustrating, so now I'm just working through the forum and social media, FB and YT.
If so, have they replied ?
So you are willing to concede she could have been abducted from the road following a car accident?
Abducted isn't the right word in those circumstances. Removed maybe or hidden.Would those words only be correct if she died in the car accident. The Smith sighting is not of a dead girl but one that is "sleeping" or more correctly sleepy. If he took her for medical care as I suspect but later did not give her back what was then "taken" becomes "abduction" with the delay.
Would those words only be correct if she died in the car accident. The Smith sighting is not of a dead girl but one that is "sleeping" or more correctly sleepy. If he took her for medical care as I suspect but later did not give her back what was then "taken" becomes "abduction" with the delay.
It is very strange that she never turned up eventually which would leave one to the conclusion that she was taken by someone and hidden. Someone somewhere must know the answer to this puzzle!It might be like finding a wallet full of money and you pick it up with the intention of taking it to the police station but change your mind after you find the station unattended.