-
Davel said "There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction so to say there is no evidence is untrue" so what is this evidence?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9252.msg452338#msg452338
-
Davel never offered any proof even after two people questioned him on this point. Let's see if we can elicit a response here.
-
Davel never offered any proof even after two people questioned him on this point. Let's see if we can elicit a response here.
First I said circumstantial evidence... And you are now asking for proof..
Second I've been out, all day so will answer tomorrow
-
First I said circumstantial evidence... And you are now asking for proof..
Second I've been out, all day so will answer tomorrow
"proof of circumstantial evidence", in other layman terms "ANYTHING" you consider as circumstantial evidence.
-
There were quite a few reports given to the Policia Judiciaria of children who looked similar to Madeleine; sometimes there is an account of how the investigation turned out but quite often a value judgement as opposed to investigation appears to suffice.
For example the follow up to a report made on May 4 2007 which included this CCTV image included the information
(https://imageserve.babycenter.com/7/000/408/bxc1b2NTUsXzQWaLDQ5tYwkBwLOKBfxs_lg.jpg)
that the vehicle in which the child arrived at the service station - didn't have current insurance.
- the registered owner was deceased
- the deceased had a clean record
As far as I can ascertain ... that appeared to be that ... although I would have thought that it didn't really matter too much whether or not the deceased had been known to the police or not since he could not have been driving the vehicle registered to him. Unless - he was actually still very much in the land of the living. The fact remains that the little girl in the photograph had been driven there by someone and it might have been useful if the police had wondered who and taken steps to find him and the child.
There is no mention whether or not this was the footage shown to Kate and Gerry.
Apparently the little girl in the CCTV image was eliminated from the enquiry on the basis of her hair Length.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
I think there are a lot of questions the answers to which might form the basis of confirming Madeleine's abduction for me, one of which is why there isn't more information available on the unlicensed vehicle with the deceased driver.
-
There were quite a few reports given to the Policia Judiciaria of children who looked similar to Madeleine; sometimes there is an account of how the investigation turned out but quite often a value judgement as opposed to investigation appears to suffice.
For example the follow up to a report made on May 4 2007 which included this CCTV image included the information
(https://imageserve.babycenter.com/7/000/408/bxc1b2NTUsXzQWaLDQ5tYwkBwLOKBfxs_lg.jpg)
that the vehicle in which the child arrived at the service station - didn't have current insurance.
- the registered owner was deceased
- the deceased had a clean record
As far as I can ascertain ... that appeared to be that ... although I would have thought that it didn't really matter too much whether or not the deceased had been known to the police or not since he could not have been driving the vehicle registered to him. Unless - he was actually still very much in the land of the living. The fact remains that the little girl in the photograph had been driven there by someone and it might have been useful if the police had wondered who and taken steps to find him and the child.
There is no mention whether or not this was the footage shown to Kate and Gerry.
Apparently the little girl in the CCTV image was eliminated from the enquiry on the basis of her hair Length.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
I think there are a lot of questions the answers to which might form the basis of confirming Madeleine's abduction for me, one of which is why there isn't more information available on the unlicensed vehicle with the deceased driver.
It is obvious from the footage that the child has much longer hair than Madeleine at the time so I’m not sure what pint you are making ?
-
It is obvious from the footage that the child has much longer hair than Madeleine at the time so I’m not sure what pint you are making ?
There is no point That's the point! Children around the world were being photographed and claimed to be MBM. Gypsie camps were invaded to'search' for MBM.
This is circumstantial evidence? hahahahaha All my children are blonde!
-
There were quite a few reports given to the Policia Judiciaria of children who looked similar to Madeleine; sometimes there is an account of how the investigation turned out but quite often a value judgement as opposed to investigation appears to suffice.
For example the follow up to a report made on May 4 2007 which included this CCTV image included the information
(https://imageserve.babycenter.com/7/000/408/bxc1b2NTUsXzQWaLDQ5tYwkBwLOKBfxs_lg.jpg)
that the vehicle in which the child arrived at the service station - didn't have current insurance.
- the registered owner was deceased
- the deceased had a clean record
As far as I can ascertain ... that appeared to be that ... although I would have thought that it didn't really matter too much whether or not the deceased had been known to the police or not since he could not have been driving the vehicle registered to him. Unless - he was actually still very much in the land of the living. The fact remains that the little girl in the photograph had been driven there by someone and it might have been useful if the police had wondered who and taken steps to find him and the child.
There is no mention whether or not this was the footage shown to Kate and Gerry.
Apparently the little girl in the CCTV image was eliminated from the enquiry on the basis of her hair Length.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
I think there are a lot of questions the answers to which might form the basis of confirming Madeleine's abduction for me, one of which is why there isn't more information available on the unlicensed vehicle with the deceased driver.
If there is circumstantial evidence of abduction, that isn't it imo.
-
If there is circumstantial evidence of abduction, that isn't it imo.
It is CCTV footage of a little girl who is obviously not a dead ringer for MBM.
Just one of eight thousand odd sightings which proved to be lemons.
-
It is CCTV footage of a little girl who is obviously not a dead ringer for MBM.
Just one of eight thousand odd sightings which proved to be lemons.
To be fair to the PJ / GNR, it was an image of a little fair-haired girl, and taken not that far away. And, at the time, not everyone had her little face embedded in their long-term memories.
-
To be fair to the PJ / GNR, it was an image of a little fair-haired girl, and taken not that far away. And, at the time, not everyone had her little face embedded in their long-term memories.
The poster photo had even shorter hair. http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/missing-madeleine-mccann-poster.thumbnail.gif
-
Madeleine must have been there, but I couldn't distinguish her from the others. They all looked the same - all blonde, all pink and pretty.
Our children made friends in the kiddie club and at the drop-off, we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group.
So even in the OC she didn’t stand out...
-
(https://imageserve.babycenter.com/7/000/408/bxc1b2NTUsXzQWaLDQ5tYwkBwLOKBfxs_lg.jpg)
With all due respect I fear members are evidencing the usual knee jerk reaction when any mention at all is made to the effect that a sighting of a child who may or who may not prove to be Madeleine McCann is reported in good faith.
It certainly appears that no-one posting on this forum has an inkling regarding the questions I have posed ... I make the presumption lack of knowledge would be the only obstacle in providing an answer.
Apparently no-one knows if Kate and Gerry were shown the CCTV footage which aroused enough suspicion for it to be reported to the police on the very first day of Madeleine's disappearance.
We know they were asked to view CCTV footage.
Would a Smith sighting, similarly recorded on video and showing a man who was not Madeleine's father carrying a child be met with similar derision?
Think on it!
What about the uninsured vehicle registered to a deceased man? Who was the man who drove it to the petrol station whose demeanour so excited the attention of the attendant that she reported him to the police?
Were these anomalies checked out?
Or was whether the child accompanying the driver might have been Madeleine determined someone who did not know her by the length of her hair?
-
With all due respect I fear members are evidencing the usual knee jerk reaction when any mention at all is made to the effect that a sighting of a child who may or who may not prove to be Madeleine McCann is reported in good faith.
It certainly appears that no-one posting on this forum has an inkling regarding the questions I have posed ... I make the presumption lack of knowledge would be the only obstacle in providing an answer.
Apparently no-one knows if Kate and Gerry were shown the CCTV footage which aroused enough suspicion for it to be reported to the police on the very first day of Madeleine's disappearance.
We know they were asked to view CCTV footage.
Would a Smith sighting, similarly recorded on video and showing a man who was not Madeleine's father carrying a child be met with similar derision?
Think on it!
What about the uninsured vehicle registered to a deceased man? Who was the man who drove it to the petrol station whose demeanour so excited the attention of the attendant that she reported him to the police?
Were these anomalies checked out?
Or was whether the child accompanying the driver might have been Madeleine determined someone who did not know her by the length of her hair?
Someone probably looked at the picture and said “no that isn’t her”.
-
It is CCTV footage of a little girl who is obviously not a dead ringer for MBM.
Just one of eight thousand odd sightings which proved to be lemons.
I have no information which confirms any kind of fruit here. Where did you get yours? Please share.
-
Someone probably looked at the picture and said “no that isn’t her”.
"Probably" doesn't come close when a child is missing. Do you have any pertinent information as to why this report was eliminated?
-
There were quite a few reports given to the Policia Judiciaria of children who looked similar to Madeleine; sometimes there is an account of how the investigation turned out but quite often a value judgement as opposed to investigation appears to suffice.
For example the follow up to a report made on May 4 2007 which included this CCTV image included the information
(https://imageserve.babycenter.com/7/000/408/bxc1b2NTUsXzQWaLDQ5tYwkBwLOKBfxs_lg.jpg)
that the vehicle in which the child arrived at the service station - didn't have current insurance.
- the registered owner was deceased
- the deceased had a clean record
As far as I can ascertain ... that appeared to be that ... although I would have thought that it didn't really matter too much whether or not the deceased had been known to the police or not since he could not have been driving the vehicle registered to him. Unless - he was actually still very much in the land of the living. The fact remains that the little girl in the photograph had been driven there by someone and it might have been useful if the police had wondered who and taken steps to find him and the child.
There is no mention whether or not this was the footage shown to Kate and Gerry.
Apparently the little girl in the CCTV image was eliminated from the enquiry on the basis of her hair Length.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
I think there are a lot of questions the answers to which might form the basis of confirming Madeleine's abduction for me, one of which is why there isn't more information available on the unlicensed vehicle with the deceased driver.
How do you know there isn't?
Having eliminated the child as not being MBM the rest becomes traffic violations....like failure to notify change of ownership(?).
Btw according to the link you posted the vehicle was not due to be relicensed until later in the year July/Aug.
-
"Probably" doesn't come close when a child is missing. Do you have any pertinent information as to why this report was eliminated?
Ok, someone looked at the photo and said “no it isn’t her”. IMO
-
Ok, someone looked at the photo and said “no it isn’t her”. IMO
Indeed. It would only take a quick look to see the hair was far too long. That would be obvious to any of the police officers working on the case. This really didn’t need the attention of the parents.
-
Ok, someone looked at the photo and said “no it isn’t her”. IMO
Pretyy much what it says in the document that was linked.
"The principal difference resides in the fact that the pictured child had hair half-way down her back, manifestly longer than that of the missing child, there having been no time/opportunity for the hair to have grown to that length, given that the average speed of hair growth is about 1cm/month (proven scientific data).
--- The results of the inquiries and the images of the episode in question are attached.
This is all, at the moment, that I have to bring to your attention".
-
Reported sightings of MBM are not evidence that she was abducted.
They are evidence that people are looking out for her.
They're doing that because her parents said she was abducted and asked people to look for her.
What evidence did her parents have to support their claim that MBM was abducted?
That's the evidence Rob is asking for in my opinion.
-
How do you know there isn't?
Having eliminated the child as not being MBM the rest becomes traffic violations....like failure to notify change of ownership(?).
Btw according to the link you posted the vehicle was not due to be relicensed until later in the year July/Aug.
Are you able to indicate the diligences pursued to eliminate this particular sighting. The link I posted ~ was that it?
-
Reported sightings of MBM are not evidence that she was abducted.
They are evidence that people are looking out for her.
They're doing that because her parents said she was abducted and asked people to look for her.
What evidence did her parents have to support their claim that MBM was abducted?
That's the evidence Rob is asking for in my opinion.
It was Davel who made the claim - has he come into the discussion yet?
-
Ok, someone looked at the photo and said “no it isn’t her”. IMO
In your opinion who do you think that someone might have been?
-
Reported sightings of MBM are not evidence that she was abducted.
They are evidence that people are looking out for her.
They're doing that because her parents said she was abducted and asked people to look for her.
What evidence did her parents have to support their claim that MBM was abducted?
That's the evidence Rob is asking for in my opinion.
In my opinion there isn't much point in sourcing information only to discard it without investigating it. So far no-one has been capable of indicating what steps were taken to eliminate this allegedly hirsute child from the inquiry.
-
In your opinion who do you think that someone might have been?
The key to any successful investigation is to get rid of the crap ASAP.
-
In your opinion who do you think that someone might have been?
Wasn't that Kate herself?
-
In my opinion there isn't much point in sourcing information only to discard it without investigating it. So far no-one has been capable of indicating what steps were taken to eliminate this allegedly hirsute child from the inquiry.
Are you of the opinion that sightings are evidence of abduction?
-
Are you able to indicate the diligences pursued to eliminate this particular sighting. The link I posted ~ was that it?
Quite simple; the geezer looked at the pic said the hair was too long, it could not have grown that much in a couple of days he citing scientific data on hair growth, then decided NFA. That sounds eminently reasonable to me.
In my line I can tell a fatigue failure in a shaft looking at it with my naked eye. I don't need a load of gobbledegook cobblersspeke chat surrounding it. No matter what diligences I pursue to eliminate possibilities thrown up by those with less expertise than mine.
Tell us precisely how much time and money you would have expected to have been wasted on unnecessary diligences? better yet delineate the diligences you feel would have been necessary after establishing the hair was too long?
-
The key to any successful investigation is to get rid of the crap ASAP.
It may have escaped your notice that the investigation was not successful. Contributing to that lack of success may very well have been as a result of information not being investigated. Perhaps as a result of investigators displaying the same contempt for information received as displayed by your good self in that post.
-
Are you of the opinion that sightings are evidence of abduction?
What would you consider a possible sighting of an unknown man and a missing child to be?
-
Quite simple; the geezer looked at the pic said the hair was too long, it could not have grown that much in a couple of days he citing scientific data on hair growth, then decided NFA. That sounds eminently reasonable to me.
In my line I can tell a fatigue failure in a shaft looking at it with my naked eye. I don't need a load of gobbledegook cobblersspeke chat surrounding it. No matter what diligences I pursue to eliminate possibilities thrown up by those with less expertise than mine.
Tell us precisely how much time and money you would have expected to have been wasted on unnecessary diligences? better yet delineate the diligences you feel would have been necessary after establishing the hair was too long?
On which intelligence did this geezer who had never seen Madeleine, base his value judgement that the hair was too long?
-
Wasn't that Kate herself?
I'm wondering that as well. Wasn't the 4th when the PJ rushed Kate and Gerry back to the police station to see if a child was Madeleine?
-
It may have escaped your notice that the investigation was not successful. Contributing to that lack of success may very well have been as a result of information not being investigated. Perhaps as a result of investigators displaying the same contempt for information received as displayed by your good self in that post.
More likely drowned in crap.
-
What would you consider a possible sighting of an unknown man and a missing child to be?
I'm interested in your opinion. That's why I asked you.
snip/
Are you of the opinion that sightings are evidence of abduction?
-
I'm interested in your opinion. That's why I asked you.
snip/
Are you of the opinion that sightings are evidence of abduction?
First establish an abduction occurred,no one can get past that first base.
-
I'm wondering that as well. Wasn't the 4th when the PJ rushed Kate and Gerry back to the police station to see if a child was Madeleine?
They were taken back to be shown CCTV of a child holding a woman's hand in a service station near Luz and were able to eliminate her from the inquiry.
They were never shown the images from a Repsol petrol station near Albufeira captured on the same day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2508744/Madeleine-McCann-police-didnt-reveal-sighting-of-Maddy.html
Why show one and not the other?
-
They were taken back to be shown CCTV of a child holding a woman's hand in a service station near Luz and were able to eliminate her from the inquiry.
They were never shown the images from a Repsol petrol station near Albufeira captured on the same day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2508744/Madeleine-McCann-police-didnt-reveal-sighting-of-Maddy.html
Why show one and not the other?
Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
Is there any thing to suggest just supposing the article to be the real McCoy that they were not the same people and didn't need showing?
-
They were taken back to be shown CCTV of a child holding a woman's hand in a service station near Luz and were able to eliminate her from the inquiry.
They were never shown the images from a Repsol petrol station near Albufeira captured on the same day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2508744/Madeleine-McCann-police-didnt-reveal-sighting-of-Maddy.html
Why show one and not the other?
I can't see any point in showing them images of someone who very obviously wasn't Maddie.
-
I can't see any point in showing them images of someone who very obviously wasn't Maddie.
It is just another stick to beat the PJ with IMO, the worse the investigation can be shown to have been, the less blame attaches to the parents in some people’s eyes.
-
It is just another stick to beat the PJ with IMO, the worse the investigation can be shown to have been, the less blame attaches to the parents in some people’s eyes.
Great shame for the supporters that very few people bother to read what they say. Talk about wasted effort.
-
First establish an abduction occurred,no one can get past that first base.
That's what the thread is supposed to be discussing, but it's been dragged off topic.
On 3rd May Madeleine's parents told a lot of people, including the police that she'd been abducted. Did the evidence support their theory?
-
That's what the thread is supposed to be discussing, but it's been dragged off topic.
On 3rd May Madeleine's parents told a lot of people, including the police that she'd been abducted. Did the evidence support their theory?
If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?
-
If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?
I very much doubt G-Unit would have left her infants indoors & gone out to eat in the first place.
-
If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?
That's probably why multi millions have been used in getting nowhere,all imo and that jazz.
-
If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?
If you put yourself in the McCann's shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had a hand in Madeleine's disappearance, it can all be seen as an attempt to deny culpability.
We're back to whether they can be believed or not.
-
If you put yourself in the McCann's shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had a hand in Madeleine's disappearance, it can all be seen as an attempt to deny culpability.
We're back to whether they can be believed or not.
Yes, well you've neatly deflected with your response there haven't you? You earlier asked what evidence the McCanns had that supported their theory that she'd been abducted. I have pointed out some fairly tangible evidence, whether you choose to believe them or it (or not) is your issue, not theirs.
-
I very much doubt G-Unit would have left her infants indoors & gone out to eat in the first place.
No doubt she is a truly wonderful parent and would have rather died than do so, but my point still stands.
-
The poster photo had even shorter hair. http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/missing-madeleine-mccann-poster.thumbnail.gif
No point in showing photos taken months before, IMO.
The only recent ones that we have to compare hair lengths are the photos taken with the tennis balls and the photo sitting by the pool dangling her feet in the water alongside her daddy. Dont have the time or energy to fined them at present.
-
They were taken back to be shown CCTV of a child holding a woman's hand in a service station near Luz and were able to eliminate her from the inquiry.
They were never shown the images from a Repsol petrol station near Albufeira captured on the same day.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2508744/Madeleine-McCann-police-didnt-reveal-sighting-of-Maddy.html
Why show one and not the other?
Good point. I don't have Kate's book to hand to check what she said the situation was. Perhaps someone here does.
-
Good point. I don't have Kate's book to hand to check what she said the situation was. Perhaps someone here does.
Later.
-
Good point. I don't have Kate's book to hand to check what she said the situation was. Perhaps someone here does.
‘It was seven-thirty by the time one of the PJ officers drove us away from the police station. Angela Morado came with us. Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey, the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he’d been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn’t allowed to tell us why. Already driving at quite a scary speed, he suddenly swung the car into a U-turn, floored the accelerator and drove us at a life-threatening 120mph plus back towards Portimão. I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleine been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.
Back at the police station we endured at least another ten minutes of torture in the waiting area before somebody showed us a photograph, clearly taken from CCTV, of a blonde child with a woman in a petrol-station shop. We weren’t told anything about this, just asked whether the little girl was Madeleine. She wasn’t. And that was that. Again we were sent on our way, utterly devastated.’
Do we know when the CCTV from the second piece of film was given to the PJ ? Was it on the same day ? Would it have been possible to show it to the McCanns at the same time ? Were they shown it later ?
-
Yes, well you've neatly deflected with your response there haven't you? You earlier asked what evidence the McCanns had that supported their theory that she'd been abducted. I have pointed out some fairly tangible evidence, whether you choose to believe them or it (or not) is your issue, not theirs.
So your opinion rests purely on your belief that they weren't involved. If you're mistaken your opinion is worthless. Beliefs aren't evidence.
-
So your opinion rests purely on your belief that they weren't involved. If you're mistaken your opinion is worthless. Beliefs aren't evidence.
No, it's not opinion we're debating here -you asked what evidence did the McCanns have to support their belief that there daughter was abducted. I've just pointed out what evidence they had that she was abducted. The fact that you think they had a hand in her disappearance is irrelevant to the question, your view of the McCanns has no bearing on the evidence of abduction they had, evidence which you yourself asked for, and evidence which supported their theory.
-
Yes, well you've neatly deflected with your response there haven't you? You earlier asked what evidence the McCanns had that supported their theory that she'd been abducted. I have pointed out some fairly tangible evidence, whether you choose to believe them or it (or not) is your issue, not theirs.
Can you repeat the "I have pointed out some fairly tangible evidence" part please? "Fairly tangible evidence" is what I was looking for.
-
Can you repeat the "I have pointed out some fairly tangible evidence" part please? "Fairly tangible evidence" is what I was looking for.
This thread is only a few pages long and I've not made that many posts on it. It won't take you long to find I'm sure.
-
This thread is only a few pages long and I've not made that many posts on it. It won't take you long to find I'm sure.
Keyword then please?
-
Keyword then please?
"Vertigo Swirl" - check out my posts, on the previous page, it won't take long.
-
‘It was seven-thirty by the time one of the PJ officers drove us away from the police station. Angela Morado came with us. Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey, the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he’d been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn’t allowed to tell us why. Already driving at quite a scary speed, he suddenly swung the car into a U-turn, floored the accelerator and drove us at a life-threatening 120mph plus back towards Portimão. I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleine been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.
Back at the police station we endured at least another ten minutes of torture in the waiting area before somebody showed us a photograph, clearly taken from CCTV, of a blonde child with a woman in a petrol-station shop. We weren’t told anything about this, just asked whether the little girl was Madeleine. She wasn’t. And that was that. Again we were sent on our way, utterly devastated.’
Do we know when the CCTV from the second piece of film was given to the PJ ? Was it on the same day ? Would it have been possible to show it to the McCanns at the same time ? Were they shown it later ?
Thanks, Faith.
It's not clear to me if there were two different sightings (in different places) or whether they were both images of the same place with one image showing a woman next to her and the other with a child alone.
-
"Vertigo Swirl" - check out my posts, on the previous page, it won't take long.
Was it this post? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg453469#msg453469
"If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?"
1. the window was left open
2. there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised.
-
Was it this post? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg453469#msg453469
"If you put yourself in the McCanns shoes, and then make the massive leap (for you) that they had no hand in Madeleine's disappearance, and given that the window was left open and given that there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised, what other explanation would you have arrived at?"
1. the window was left open
2. there was no sign of her for many hours post the alarm being raised.
Well done. If you're a parent returning to the room where you last saw your little child, and she has gone, the window is open, and there is no sign of her after 12 hours despite dozens of people looking for her, is it a reasonable assumption that she has been taken? Is it therefore not potentially evidence of an abduction?
-
I very much doubt G-Unit would have left her infants indoors & gone out to eat in the first place.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people are apparently perfect in this world. Never, ever, having done anything that could be criticised, or that they wish they hadn't done in retrospect, or managed in a different way.
Perhaps I should enrol for lessons.
-
No, it's not opinion we're debating here -you asked what evidence did the McCanns have to support their belief that there daughter was abducted. I've just pointed out what evidence they had that she was abducted. The fact that you think they had a hand in her disappearance is irrelevant to the question, your view of the McCanns has no bearing on the evidence of abduction they had, evidence which you yourself asked for, and evidence which supported their theory.
You have told us what evidence they said they had. Perhaps you believe everything people tell you. Most people, including police officers, know that people don't always tell the truth.
-
Well done. If you're a parent returning to the room where you last saw your little child, and she has gone, the window is open, and there is no sign of her after 12 hours despite dozens of people looking for her, is it a reasonable assumption that she has been taken? Is it therefore not potentially evidence of an abduction?
I agree those are circumstantial evidences of abduction, even though there could be alternative reasons put forward for the same findings.
E.g.
1 Kate opened the window herself
2. Body was hidden and taken further afield under the pretence of searching.
I suppose even had there been a ransom note, it could be falsified.
-
You have told us what evidence they said they had. Perhaps you believe everything people tell you. Most people, including police officers, know that people don't always tell the truth.
No, I don't always believe everything people tell me. Do you concede however that there is a possibility that the McCanns are telling the truth? If so, do you accept that the evidence that I have outlined is therefore circumstantial evidence of an abduction?
-
You have told us what evidence they said they had. Perhaps you believe everything people tell you. Most people, including police officers, know that people don't always tell the truth.
Furthermore, the window was open according to at least one witness apart from Kate. The child was not in the room when Kate did the 10pm check. The child WAS missing for 12 hours or more, according to numerous witnesses and the police. So...
-
Well done. If you're a parent returning to the room where you last saw your little child, and she has gone, the window is open, and there is no sign of her after 12 hours despite dozens of people looking for her, is it a reasonable assumption that she has been taken? Is it therefore not potentially evidence of an abduction?
If Kate's account of finding the window open, and assuming it wasn't open prior to her check, I would find it to be a reasonable assumption that whoever opened that window could be responsible for her disappearance. Unfortunately, there are no independent witnesses to corroborate that.
An alternative (aside from the notion that she invented that) is that someone attempting a burglary caused Madeleine to wake up and run out. But then, there's the issue of where from? Hardly from the source of where the noise was coming from, which would have left the balcony.
The so-called evidence that her fingerprints were in a window-opening position doesn't appear to exist. There's no such evidence in the files. Why Amaral and pals kept repeating this isn't clear.
-
I agree those are circumstantial evidences of abduction, even though there could be alternative reasons put forward for the same findings.
E.g.
1 Kate opened the window herself
2. Body was hidden and taken further afield under the pretence of searching.
I suppose even had there been a ransom note, it could be falsified.
Ooh you can't say that, it's not allowed. *&^^&
-
You have told us what evidence they said they had. Perhaps you believe everything people tell you. Most people, including police officers, know that people don't always tell the truth.
Then why did the PJ set such store by the (seemingly mistaken) initial impression that the window might have been jemmied, to conclude that she hadn't been abducted? They were aware that there two other plausible entry / exit routes...
-
Ooh you can't say that, it's not allowed. *&^^&
She might have done, but Amaral & cos assertions that her fingerprints were found in an opening position appears to be fact-free.
-
I'm wondering if it's difficult (impossible?) for those who doubt the McCanns to concede that they (the McCanns) might actually have been truthful about what they discovered that night, and that therefore there is circumstantial evidence of abduction?
-
I very much doubt G-Unit would have left her infants indoors & gone out to eat in the first place.
‘When I was a boy, I could cycle out of town and be in fields in ten minutes. I knew where the birds’ nests and badger setts were. Now children’s mothers would tell them they need someone to go with them, to make sure they weren’t molested by a sexual deviant.
‘When I was about 13, I cycled from Leicester to the Lake District and back again, collecting fossils and staying in youth hostels. I was away for three weeks, and my mother and father didn’t know where I was. I doubt many parents would let children do that now.’ Sir David Attenborough
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569361/Sir-David-Attenboroughs-childhood-memories.html#ixzz5AmH5pzeu
We've had this discussion ... how many times?
Until Kate returned to the apartment to find Madeleine gone the shutter raised and the bedroom window open it never occurred to her that the children were at risk from kidnap.
Praia da Luz was known as a child friendly holiday resort not the kidnap capital of the Algarve.
The fact that no one knows why the window had been opened or by whom or why it was put around by nationals familiar with that type of shutter that they were impossible to raise from outside when that is patently not so ~ are in my opinion evidence of illicit interference and poor interpretation of crime scene data.
-
‘It was seven-thirty by the time one of the PJ officers drove us away from the police station. Angela Morado came with us. Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey, the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he’d been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn’t allowed to tell us why. Already driving at quite a scary speed, he suddenly swung the car into a U-turn, floored the accelerator and drove us at a life-threatening 120mph plus back towards Portimão. I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleine been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.
Back at the police station we endured at least another ten minutes of torture in the waiting area before somebody showed us a photograph, clearly taken from CCTV, of a blonde child with a woman in a petrol-station shop. We weren’t told anything about this, just asked whether the little girl was Madeleine. She wasn’t. And that was that. Again we were sent on our way, utterly devastated.’
Do we know when the CCTV from the second piece of film was given to the PJ ? Was it on the same day ? Would it have been possible to show it to the McCanns at the same time ? Were they shown it later ?
The links I have provided accompanying posts on this thread show that the police had the CCTV images in their possession on the 4th and that they were not shown to Kate and Gerry.
-
No, I don't always believe everything people tell me. Do you concede however that there is a possibility that the McCanns are telling the truth? If so, do you accept that the evidence that I have outlined is therefore circumstantial evidence of an abduction?
It’s a bit like using Ronnie Biggs’ evidence as proof he wasn’t involved in the great train robbery.
-
It’s a bit like using Ronnie Biggs’ evidence as proof he wasn’t involved in the great train robbery.
Another one who finds it difficult, or near impossible to answer the question asked. You seem to be implying that the McCanns are like Ronnie Biggs, ie: guilty of a serious crime. Was that your intention? Moreover, what evidence did Ronnie Biggs put forward that he wasn't involved in the robbery? Furthermore where did I mention proof?
-
Davel said "There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction so to say there is no evidence is untrue" so what is this evidence?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9252.msg452338#msg452338
I haven't seen any such evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. Tanner's sighting has been explained away as almost certainly an innocent tourist by the nice former DCI Redwood so that leaves a big fat zero in my book.
All that exists is proof she was there on the 3rd May but gone by 10pm that night. There never has been any evidence of an abduction, merely a wild claim by her parents whose crap parenting skills led to this mess in the first place.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how many people are apparently perfect in this world. Never, ever, having done anything that could be criticised, or that they wish they hadn't done in retrospect, or managed in a different way.
Perhaps I should enrol for lessons.
Who said anything about being perfect? Not me.
Not leaving young children unattended is using basic common sense.
I wouldn't leave a toddler unattended in a car parked on a slip way, for example.
That would be plain stupid.
-
I'm wondering if it's difficult (impossible?) for those who doubt the McCanns to concede that they (the McCanns) might actually have been truthful about what they discovered that night, and that therefore there is circumstantial evidence of abduction?
In that event Kate McCann had nothing to lose by cooperating with the Portuguese investigation which would have led to them being cleared. She decided for whatever reason however that cooperating was not in her best interest so refused to answer the simplest of questions. No wonder investigators found that suspicious and went on to form their own conclusions.
-
In that event Kate McCann had nothing to lose by cooperating with the Portuguese investigation which would have led to them being cleared. She decided for whatever reason however that cooperating was not in her best interest so refused to answer the simplest of questions.
Does that mean she's guilty and that the McCanns evidence of abduction does not exist?
-
‘When I was a boy, I could cycle out of town and be in fields in ten minutes. I knew where the birds’ nests and badger setts were. Now children’s mothers would tell them they need someone to go with them, to make sure they weren’t molested by a sexual deviant.
‘When I was about 13, I cycled from Leicester to the Lake District and back again, collecting fossils and staying in youth hostels. I was away for three weeks, and my mother and father didn’t know where I was. I doubt many parents would let children do that now.’ Sir David Attenborough
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569361/Sir-David-Attenboroughs-childhood-memories.html#ixzz5AmH5pzeu
We've had this discussion ... how many times?
Until Kate returned to the apartment to find Madeleine gone the shutter raised and the bedroom window open it never occurred to her that the children were at risk from kidnap.
Praia da Luz was known as a child friendly holiday resort not the kidnap capital of the Algarve.
The fact that no one knows why the window had been opened or by whom or why it was put around by nationals familiar with that type of shutter that they were impossible to raise from outside when that is patently not so ~ are in my opinion evidence of illicit interference and poor interpretation of crime scene data.
For starters, there's a huge difference between 3 years old & 13.
I've never had this discussion with you at all before, thankyou very much.
The fact is, there is only Kate's claim that the window was discovered open & you have no way of knowing for sure that it was, or, indeed, that Maddie was actually kidnapped.
I don't believe she was & I'm not about to start pretending.
-
Does that mean she's guilty and that the McCanns evidence of abduction does not exist?
Who knows whether she is guilty or not ?
It's never been tested in court and as far as casual observers are concerned, it's all down to individual belief
-
Who knows whether she is guilty or not ?
It's never been tested in court and as far as casual observers are concerned, it's all down to individual belief
I was asking Angelo if he believed that refusal to answer questions (which was completely off topic to the question I asked but never mind) was evidence that Kate lied and that the evidence they put forward for abduction didn't actually exist.
-
Didn't realise you were running a private forum - I thought anyone could join in, as & when.
-
‘When I was a boy, I could cycle out of town and be in fields in ten minutes. I knew where the birds’ nests and badger setts were. Now children’s mothers would tell them they need someone to go with them, to make sure they weren’t molested by a sexual deviant.
‘When I was about 13, I cycled from Leicester to the Lake District and back again, collecting fossils and staying in youth hostels. I was away for three weeks, and my mother and father didn’t know where I was. I doubt many parents would let children do that now.’ Sir David Attenborough
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2569361/Sir-David-Attenboroughs-childhood-memories.html#ixzz5AmH5pzeu
We've had this discussion ... how many times?
Until Kate returned to the apartment to find Madeleine gone the shutter raised and the bedroom window open it never occurred to her that the children were at risk from kidnap.
Praia da Luz was known as a child friendly holiday resort not the kidnap capital of the Algarve.
The fact that no one knows why the window had been opened or by whom or why it was put around by nationals familiar with that type of shutter that they were impossible to raise from outside when that is patently not so ~ are in my opinion evidence of illicit interference and poor interpretation of crime scene data.
The McCanns and their friends decided to leave the children alone before they had any knowledge at all about PDL.
There is no independent evidence that the window was open upon Kate’s entry to the apartment. Whether you believe it rests entirely on faith.
99.9% of parents never leave their children alone, even in their own home, not because there is the chance of kidnap but because they know IT IS NOT SAFE IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
-
Another one who finds it difficult, or near impossible to answer the question asked. You seem to be implying that the McCanns are like Ronnie Biggs, ie: guilty of a serious crime. Was that your intention? Moreover, what evidence did Ronnie Biggs put forward that he wasn't involved in the robbery? Furthermore where did I mention proof?
A very expected response.
-
Didn't realise you were running a private forum - I thought anyone could join in, as & when.
???
-
A very expected response.
Likewise, further repeated failure to answer any questions put to you. Why is it so hard to give honest, direct replies without resort to prevarications and red herrings like "Ronnie Biggs"?!
-
Likewise, further repeated failure to answer any questions put to you. Why is it so hard to give honest, direct replies without resort to prevarications and red herrings like "Ronnie Biggs"?!
It isn’t a red herring, the police should never accept the statement of a suspect as the only pointer to an alternative solution without serious questioning. (The answers to which would help clear things up).
-
It isn’t a red herring, the police should never accept the statement of a suspect as the only pointer to an alternative solution without serious questioning. (The answers to which would help clear things up).
Have I suggested otherwise?
-
Have I suggested otherwise?
Yes.
-
Yes.
No I have not.
Now try answering my post again, this time honestly and directly:
Do you concede however that there is a possibility that the McCanns are telling the truth? If so, do you accept that the evidence that I have outlined is therefore circumstantial evidence of an abduction?
-
Expresso.
About the filing of the Maddie case.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/arquivo/sobre-o-arquivamento-do-caso-maddie=f372712#gs.uN4H0jY
-
Expresso.
About the filing of the Maddie case.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/arquivo/sobre-o-arquivamento-do-caso-maddie=f372712#gs.uN4H0jY
I don't see how anyone could argue with that... And from s Portuguese source too
-
Maybe it's time to revisit the definition of circumstantial evidence and a few of the types thereof ?
"Evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which have been proven".
Just for starters:
1) Behavioral including any denials, evasions, contradictions and the general conduct of the "accused".
2) Most scientific is circumstantial, as it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue.
3) Indirect witness testimony e.g the Tanner sighting.
-
Who knows whether she is guilty or not ?
It's never been tested in court and as far as casual observers are concerned, it's all down to individual belief
But then we go around in circles.
WHOEVER may eventually end up in court, the inescapable fact is that a missing child still hasn't been found, dead or alive.
For the moment, no one knows whether or not there is a link to the sexual attacks on children in the area over a period of years or not.
There might not be a connnection, but I do hope that whoever attacked or even just terrified those kids is eventually identified. As I'm sure we all do.
-
from Wikipedia:
Circumstantial 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[citation needed].
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
-
But then we go around in circles.
WHOEVER may eventually end up in court, the inescapable fact is that a missing child still hasn't been found, dead or alive.
For the moment, no one knows whether or not there is a link to the sexual attacks on children in the area over a period of years or not.
There might not be a connnection, but I do hope that whoever attacked or even just terrified those kids is eventually identified. As I'm sure we all do.
Going round in circles is all we ever do.
OG looked at these alleged attacks but they didn't seem to lead anywhere and it's not really within their remit to take it any further.
-
No I have not.
Now try answering my post again, this time honestly and directly:
Do you concede however that there is a possibility that the McCanns are telling the truth? If so, do you accept that the evidence that I have outlined is therefore circumstantial evidence of an abduction?
If the McCanns are telling the truth Kate found an open window and shutters in Madeleine's bedroom and she was gone.
She thought the open window and shutters were evidence that someone had abducted her daughter. That's what she told her husband and friends; someone's taken Madeleine.
Gerry McCann then demonstrates that it wasn't necessary to be inside the bedroom to open the shutters and window, it could be done from outside.
If it was done from the outside another possible motive arises; burglary. With this possibility comes another explanation for the missing child. Awoken and scared, she might have run off.
Why was this possibility not considered?
-
If the McCanns are telling the truth Kate found an open window and shutters in Madeleine's bedroom and she was gone.
She thought the open window and shutters were evidence that someone had abducted her daughter. That's what she told her husband and friends; someone's taken Madeleine.
Gerry McCann then demonstrates that it wasn't necessary to be inside the bedroom to open the shutters and window, it could be done from outside.
If it was done from the outside another possible motive arises; burglary. With this possibility comes another explanation for the missing child. Awoken and scared, she might have run off.
Why was this possibility not considered?
I think it was considered she would have run to the, reception...
-
But then we go around in circles.
WHOEVER may eventually end up in court, the inescapable fact is that a missing child still hasn't been found, dead or alive.
For the moment, no one knows whether or not there is a link to the sexual attacks on children in the area over a period of years or not.
There might not be a connnection, but I do hope that whoever attacked or even just terrified those kids is eventually identified. As I'm sure we all do.
At the time of the disappearance of the girl from the Ocean Club village, on May 3, at least seven specific situations of sexual abuse were reported to the local authorities for children housed with relatives in the same area and in surrounding areas. In one of these cases, a pedophile would have entered a room where the minor victim was, and masturbated at the front of the room when the child was lying in bed. GNR, at the time of its receipt and the six other complaints, communicated them to the Judiciary Police. It was possible to conclude that at least five situations will have occurred before the disappearance of the child. However, none of the situations came to be used as a line of investigation. Now, ten years later, the Met wants to revive this scenario even because, according to British media reports yesterday, British investigators are in possession of a list of 38 sex offenders who were identified, at the time of the disappearance of the child, in the vicinity of Praia da Luz.
Ler mais em: http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/ingleses-investigam-7-abusos-sexuais-antes-de-maddie-desaparecer
-
If the McCanns are telling the truth Kate found an open window and shutters in Madeleine's bedroom and she was gone.
She thought the open window and shutters were evidence that someone had abducted her daughter. That's what she told her husband and friends; someone's taken Madeleine.
Gerry McCann then demonstrates that it wasn't necessary to be inside the bedroom to open the shutters and window, it could be done from outside.
If it was done from the outside another possible motive arises; burglary. With this possibility comes another explanation for the missing child. Awoken and scared, she might have run off.
Why was this possibility not considered?
Because there was no sign of her after 12 hours plus, and also because Kate felt certain (knowing her child better than anyone else) that she would not / could not have left the apartment in the way it was left. If they thought burglary was a posssibilty then that puts a criminally minded individual in very close proximity to their children, so it's hardly surprising that they believed a criminal act had befallen their daughter is it.
-
If Kate's account of finding the window open, and assuming it wasn't open prior to her check, I would find it to be a reasonable assumption that whoever opened that window could be responsible for her disappearance. Unfortunately, there are no independent witnesses to corroborate that.
An alternative (aside from the notion that she invented that) is that someone attempting a burglary caused Madeleine to wake up and run out. But then, there's the issue of where from? Hardly from the source of where the noise was coming from, which would have left the balcony.
The so-called evidence that her fingerprints were in a window-opening position doesn't appear to exist. There's no such evidence in the files. Why Amaral and pals kept repeating this isn't clear.
Have you ever been woken by a noise? I think it is possible to be woken without being aware from which direction the sound came from. So I can see where the usual might not work "Hardly from the source of where the noise was coming from, which would have left the balcony" that logic is not guaranteed.
-
Furthermore, the window was open according to at least one witness apart from Kate. The child was not in the room when Kate did the 10pm check. The child WAS missing for 12 hours or more, according to numerous witnesses and the police. So...
You have undermined all your arguments if you say Madeleine "was missing for 12 hours or more", and then claim that "they maybe telling the truth". I can't see how you can have both of those ideas in the same theory. Whaen are you timing the 12 hours from? Is the prior to 10:00 PM or after 10:00 PM?
I think you need to outline your "theory" to stop us guessing as to what position you are arguing from.
-
Who knows whether she is guilty or not ?
It's never been tested in court and as far as casual observers are concerned, it's all down to individual belief
You've got to have evidence before the court case commences.
-
You've got to have evidence before the court case commences.
Which in my opinion is why this case will never come to court.
-
You have undermined all your arguments if you say Madeleine "was missing for 12 hours or more", and then claim that "they maybe telling the truth". I can't see how you can have both of those ideas in the same theory.
I think you need to outline your "theory" to stop us guessing as to what position you are arguing from.
???
-
???
Rob thinks you mean Maddie, was missing for 12 hours before the alarm was, raised
-
Who knows whether she is guilty or not ?
It's never been tested in court and as far as casual observers are concerned, it's all down to individual belief
The PJ found no evidence of abduction and as no one is an arguido at the moment it would appear OG and the new PJ investigation haven’t either.
-
Rob thinks you mean Maddie, was missing for 12 hours before the alarm was, raised
No that's certainly not what I meant.
-
The PJ found no evidence of abduction and as no one is an arguido at the moment it would appear OG and the new PJ investigation haven’t either.
The pj didn't find anything... Redwood made it clear that based on the evidence they believed maddie had been abducted.. Rowley has reinforced that...
-
The pj didn't find anything... Redwood made it clear that based on the evidence they believed maddie had been abducted.. Rowley has reinforced that...
At one point Amaral and Rebelo believed that the McCanns had been involved in Madeleinw’s disappearance. That could not be substantiated. Redwood in 2013, you believe, said that Madeleine may have been abducted. Five years later and their appears to be no evidence to substantiate that claim either.
Tell me Davel if there was enough evidence in 2011-2013 to convince Redwood that Madeleine had been abducted why has the evidence lead nowhere ? Further why have we not heard from Walls, Redwood’s successor, in all those years ?
-
At one point Amaral and Rebelo believed that the McCanns had been involved in Madeleinw’s disappearance. That could not be substantiated. Redwood in 2013, you believe, said that Madeleine may have been abducted. Five years later and their appears to be no evidence to substantiate that claim either.
Tell me Davel if there was enough evidence in 2011-2013 to convince Redwood that Madeleine had been abducted why has the evidence lead nowhere ? Further why have we not heard from Walls, Redwood’s successor, in all those years ?
It's led nowhere because the trail has run cold... Byron posted an article from a, Portuguese, paper highlighting the sheer incompetence of the initial investigation... If only SY could have been involved earlier we may have got some, answers
-
It's led nowhere because the trail has run cold... Byron posted an article from a, Portuguese, paper highlighting the sheer incompetence of the initial investigation... If only SY could have been involved earlier we may have got some, answers
UK police had an MIR in PdL early doors.
-
It's led nowhere because the trail has run cold... Byron posted an article from a, Portuguese, paper highlighting the sheer incompetence of the initial investigation... If only SY could have been involved earlier we may have got some, answers
Or they had a hypothesis but found nothing to substantiate it.
And my question re: Nicola Walls ? Could it be that she doesn’t want to go on the record and perhaps have to fudge the truth ? Perhaps she hasn’t as good a poker face as Redwood when asked if the parents are being investigated?
-
It's led nowhere because the trail has run cold... Byron posted an article from a, Portuguese, paper highlighting the sheer incompetence of the initial investigation... If only SY could have been involved earlier we may have got some, answers
When you translate the Portuguese it doesn’t quite say that.
-
Or they had a hypothesis but found nothing to substantiate it.
And my question re: Nicola Walls ? Could it be that she doesn’t want to go on the record and perhaps have to fudge the truth ? Perhaps she hasn’t as good a poker face as Redwood when asked if the parents are being investigated?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GUVT1NZtZPo
-
When you translate the Portuguese it doesn’t quite say that.
So what do you think it says... I've read the whole article with the online translation... Point out where that translation is, wrong
-
The pj didn't find anything... Redwood made it clear that based on the evidence they believed maddie had been abducted.. Rowley has reinforced that...
In 14 months they came up empty handed.
After 7 years the MPS have come up empty handed.
-
In 14 months they came up empty handed.
After 7 years the MPS have come up empty handed.
No.. They have at least ruled, the, parents out
-
Rob thinks you mean Maddie, was missing for 12 hours before the alarm was, raised
if VS is meaning 12 hours after there is no issue. But it wasn't clear in the post.
-
No.. They have at least ruled, the, parents out
No they haven't.
-
No.. They have at least ruled, the, parents out
So why hasn’t Walls told us that ?
Do you know of any other case where the DCI doesn’t do the photo calls ? Four years and I can’t find one direct quote from her. Maybe someone else can ?
-
No they haven't.
They (the Met and the PJ) have repeatedly told us the parents are not suspects so how come you seem to know they haven't been ruled out?
-
They (the Met and the PJ) have repeatedly told us the parents are not suspects so how come you seem to know they haven't been ruled out?
I doubt if the PJ have ruled the parents out. They don't have any evidence but they have not finished looking either. When I listen to what Pedro do Camo says I can't help thinking they still have the parents in focus.
I could get a better bit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwioCdcYesg
-
I doubt if the PJ have ruled the parents out. They don't have any evidence but they have not finished looking either. When I listen to what Pedro do Camo says I can't help thinking they still have the parents in focus.
I could get a better bit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwioCdcYesg
How do you think they are focusing on the parents then? What are they spending all their time and money doing if the parents are the chief suspects?
-
It’s not as if she’s a shrinking violet. Here she is informing the press regarding an ongoing investigation .http://news.met.police.uk/news/murder-investigation-launched-in-kilburn-244404
“DCI Nicola Wall said: "We know that the victim lived alone and her family who live in Italy last heard from her on 21 May. Officers attended her home address on 29 May following concerns raised by a neighbour and the decision was taken to force entry into the property.
"We have established that victim was in the Kilburn area on 22 May but we further need to understand her movements from this date onwards.
"Whilst enquiries are ongoing to establish the motive for the attack, it is considered likely that the motive is linked to the victim being a sex worker.
"I would urge sex workers in the London area to be extra vigilant at this time, we are working hard to identify the attacker but we urgently require their assistance. If you have any concerns about a recent client's behaviour, especially where threats or violence have been used do come and speak with us."
Surely it’s the DCI’s job to keep the public up to date with information regarding a case ? So why is she so quiet with regard to probably the biggest case of her working life ?
-
They (the Met and the PJ) have repeatedly told us the parents are not suspects so how come you seem to know they haven't been ruled out?
A C Rowley.
-
It’s not as if she’s a shrinking violet. Here she is informing the press regarding an ongoing investigation .http://news.met.police.uk/news/murder-investigation-launched-in-kilburn-244404
“DCI Nicola Wall said: "We know that the victim lived alone and her family who live in Italy last heard from her on 21 May. Officers attended her home address on 29 May following concerns raised by a neighbour and the decision was taken to force entry into the property.
"We have established that victim was in the Kilburn area on 22 May but we further need to understand her movements from this date onwards.
"Whilst enquiries are ongoing to establish the motive for the attack, it is considered likely that the motive is linked to the victim being a sex worker.
"I would urge sex workers in the London area to be extra vigilant at this time, we are working hard to identify the attacker but we urgently require their assistance. If you have any concerns about a recent client's behaviour, especially where threats or violence have been used do come and speak with us."
Surely it’s the DCI’s job to keep the public up to date with information regarding a case ? So why is she so quiet with regard to probably the biggest case of her working life ?
who knows. Maybe she's convinced the parents are guilty and is playing the waiting game, waiting for one of them to crack. In the meantime, what has this got to do with circumstantial evidence of abduction?
-
A C Rowley.
Rowley has told you the parents have not been ruled out?
-
who knows. Maybe she's convinced the parents are guilty and is playing the waiting game, waiting for one of them to crack. In the meantime, what has this got to do with circumstantial evidence of abduction?
But we’ve been told that OG believe this is an abduction and the parents and friends are not suspects. So why is she not telling us this as her predecessor did before her ?
-
How do you think they are focusing on the parents then? What are they spending all their time and money doing if the parents are the chief suspects?
Well did you agree with me or not? OK he is not that clear about anything in the longer interview but I suppose the PJ are letting MPS exhaust their investigation first, and then they can say what they want IMO and suspicion.
-
But we’ve been told that OG believe this is an abduction and the parents and friends are not suspects. So why is she not telling us this as her predecessor did before her ?
I've just given you the answer you want, I can do no more than that.
-
I've just given you the answer you want, I can do no more than that.
You have indeed and thank you for that. Does make you wonder though whether Rowley did the most recent interviews because he won’t be called to give evidence in court but as the senior investigating officer Wall will ?
-
Well did you agree with me or not? OK he is not that clear about anything in the longer interview but I suppose the PJ are letting MPS exhaust their investigation first, and then they can say what they want IMO and suspicion.
It doesn't matter if I agree with you or not but I am asking you to consider how this investigation into the parents is being conducted, what the police are actually doing on a day to day basis, what the vast sums of money are being spent on? Staking out the McCanns home? Wire-tapping? Honey traps? What? Why, if the McCanns are chief suspects, have they not been recalled to Portugal and reconstituted as arguidos? How many more years of merely sniffing round them are the police going to take before going in for the kill, and what would it take to precipitate such action, apart from a full confession from one or both of them, or their friends?
-
You have indeed and thank you for that. Does make you wonder though whether Rowley did the most recent interviews because he won’t be called to give evidence in court but as the senior investigating officer Wall will ?
Presumably that would possible apply whoever they eventually take to court?
-
It doesn't matter if I agree with you or not but I am asking you to consider how this investigation into the parents is being conducted, what the police are actually doing on a day to day basis, what the vast sums of money are being spent on? Staking out the McCanns home? Wire-tapping? Honey traps? What? Why, if the McCanns are chief suspects, have they not been recalled to Portugal and reconstituted as arguidos? How many more years of merely sniffing round them are the police going to take before going in for the kill, and what would it take to precipitate such action, apart from a full confession from one or both of them, or their friends?
Perhaps the early visit to Portugal by the CPS should be added to the mix ?
-
Perhaps the early visit to Portugal by the CPS should be added to the mix ?
when did that happen? What is everyone waiting for, in your opinion?
-
Presumably that would possible apply whoever they eventually take to court?
So why did Redwood speak to the press about the ongoing investigation and not Wall ? That is the odd thing.
-
It doesn't matter if I agree with you or not but I am asking you to consider how this investigation into the parents is being conducted, what the police are actually doing on a day to day basis, what the vast sums of money are being spent on? Staking out the McCanns home? Wire-tapping? Honey traps? What? Why, if the McCanns are chief suspects, have they not been recalled to Portugal and reconstituted as arguidos? How many more years of merely sniffing round them are the police going to take before going in for the kill, and what would it take to precipitate such action, apart from a full confession from one or both of them, or their friends?
If you ask me a question and I answer I would like you to tell me if you agree or disagree.
Your question was "They (the Met and the PJ) have repeatedly told us the parents are not suspects so how come you seem to know they haven't been ruled out?" I said from listening to what Pedro do Carmo said. So do you agree or not?
All those other questions no one can answer as we are not really told what they are doing. But to me IMO if GA was right and there is a UK cover-up going on, the funding will have to continue.
-
when did that happen? What is everyone waiting for, in your opinion?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/fresh-hope-in-madeleine-mccann-inquiry-as-cps-lawyers-travel-to-portugal-8668335.html
The middle of June 2013 shortly before Redwood’s retirement. It would appear his last appearance as head of the investigation was Crimewatch in November 2013 and at no time in that interview did he mention the parents. He did mention that the PJ had just reopened the case, apparently within months of the visit to Portugal from the CPS.
-
Rowley has told you the parents have not been ruled out?
He told everyone who listened to his interview that the parents had not been ruled out.
-
He told everyone who listened to his interview that the parents had not been ruled out.
When was this interview?
-
When was this interview?
It has been plastered all over this forum.
-
It has been plastered all over this forum.
I think there is a transcript was it last year or before that? you put his name down as "A C Rowley" but the only Rowley I know of was Mark Rowley. I see it now his name is A. C. Mark Rowley.
http://news.met.police.uk/documents/transcript-of-interview-with-ac-mark-rowley-66743
"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"
They must have accepted the work by the PJ in that it didn't reveal any evidence against the parents. How do you read that?
-
I think it was considered she would have run to the, reception...
Did you invent that or have you a cite?
-
Because there was no sign of her after 12 hours plus, and also because Kate felt certain (knowing her child better than anyone else) that she would not / could not have left the apartment in the way it was left. If they thought burglary was a posssibilty then that puts a criminally minded individual in very close proximity to their children, so it's hardly surprising that they believed a criminal act had befallen their daughter is it.
Forget 12 hours later, they were saying it, with conviction, much earlier than that. Kate McCann told her friends that evening that the patio door was unlocked so Madeleine could get out. She said Madeleine wouldn't have closed the door and gates behind herself, apparently. So she left the door unlocked knowing that if Madeleine did use it she would have left it, the child gate and the garden gate open with the twins still in the apartment.
-
Forget 12 hours later, they were saying it, with conviction, much earlier than that. Kate McCann told her friends that evening that the patio door was unlocked so Madeleine could get out. She said Madeleine wouldn't have closed the door and gates behind herself, apparently. So she left the door unlocked knowing that if Madeleine did use it she would have left it, the child gate and the garden gate open with the twins still in the apartment.
Kate explained exactly why she didn't think Madeleine had left the apartment voluntarily that night. The woman had a right to an opinion about what she believed had happened to her own child didn't she?
-
Kate explained exactly why she didn't think Madeleine had left the apartment voluntarily that night. The woman had a right to an opinion about what she believed had happened to her own child didn't she?
But it doesn't make it a fact. How come Kate doesn't discuss the front door? OK what Does Kate say about the front door?
-
Kate explained exactly why she didn't think Madeleine had left the apartment voluntarily that night. The woman had a right to an opinion about what she believed had happened to her own child didn't she?
Of course she has the right to an opinion. But they were setting it up as fact!
They wanted to control what was said and tell how things happened and what happened. A wee story developed into an actual -this is what happened and this is what didn't happen.
-
Kate explained exactly why she didn't think Madeleine had left the apartment voluntarily that night. The woman had a right to an opinion about what she believed had happened to her own child didn't she?
She had the right to an opinion. I'm not sure if she had the right to publicise her opinion as a fact.
-
She had the right to an opinion. I'm not sure if she had the right to publicise her opinion as a fact.
In what way does she not have that right.
-
She had the right to an opinion. I'm not sure if she had the right to publicise her opinion as a fact.
Unless it is fact disguised as opinion. Kate always says she know more than we do, and I wonder what she means by that?
-
Unless it is fact disguised as opinion. Kate always says she know more than we do, and I wonder what she means by that?
Kate can say what she, wants within the law.... She can state her opinion as fact if she wishes
-
Unless it is fact disguised as opinion. Kate always says she know more than we do, and I wonder what she means by that?
She said that and then said she couldn't give details due to 'Judicial secrecy'. Nothing of interest was ever divulged in my opinion.
-
Kate can say what she, wants within the law.... She can state her opinion as fact if she wishes
I apply another law on her. She want's God's help, as is evidenced by her resort to prayer etc, and in her case I hope because of that she set the highest moral standards on herself on her part. Honesty for a starter, I think, would be essential.
If one is looking for honesty something that is an opinion shouldn't be said as a fact. You don't like Amaral saying his opinions as facts, so same rules should apply to Kate IMO.
-
She had the right to an opinion. I'm not sure if she had the right to publicise her opinion as a fact.
why not? The Needhams always maintained that Ben was abducted, were they wrong to do so, in your opinion?
-
I apply another law on her. She want's God's help, as is evidenced by her resort to prayer etc, and in her case I hope because of that she set the highest moral standards on herself on her part. Honesty for a starter, I think, would be essential.
If one is looking for honesty something that is an opinion shouldn't be said as a fact. You don't like Amaral saying his opinions as facts, so same rules should apply to Kate IMO.
If you state God exists you are stating opinion as fact
You have no right to apply gods law to her if you are, a, Christian... Judgement is mine said the lord
Amaral is committing libel with his opinion.. Imo
-
Unless it is fact disguised as opinion. Kate always says she know more than we do, and I wonder what she means by that?
I think it goes without saying that Kate knows far more than we do. She certainly has a lot more information to inform her.
Scotland Yard undertook to keep her in the loop at the start of the investigation; I don't see why that situation would have changed.
Snip
Scotland Yard could not comment directly on this new development, but did say: “We are reviewing a significant number of documents and continue to identify potential lines of inquiry.
“We are in regular contact with [her parents] Kate and Gerry McCann and they are kept fully updated on the progress of our work. We also continue to work closely with the Portuguese police and are actively considering our next steps.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-to-fund-new-met-operation-into-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-8660084.html
-
Perhaps they also applied for assistentes in the Pt process.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
-
Perhaps they also applied for assistentes in the Pt process.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
Thanks for that link, Byron.
I've not seen that information before in such detail.
You seem to have a knack for sourcing new materials relevant to working out the processes which took place in Portugal in the lead up to reopening Madeleine's case.
It makes it abundantly clear that the Porto team's evidence based review has led them to the investigation of abduction.
Snip
Investigation centered on the rapture thesis
The PÚBLICO knows that the members of PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal investigations that will support the need to reopen the case. The reopening of the inquiry is the only way for the PJ to formally inquire these witnesses.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
PJ's source made it clear to PÚBLICO that the request to reopen the case is the result of the work of the Oporto team alone, not of elements collected by Scotland Yard, which also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie . This work is also not to be confused with that of another team of six inspectors from the PJ de Faro delegation who have been carrying out the steps requested by the British authorities for more than a month in the context of a request for international cooperation. The national board of the PJ refuses to give details of the new evidence collected and to whom it will be responsible for the investigation, trying to protect the work of the inspectors.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
Like their British counterparts the Policia Judiciaria found plenty of fresh evidence to get their teeth into. What a great pity it wasn't followed to its conclusion at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
Snip
The request of the PJ was the result of more than two years of reanalysis of the process carried out by a team from PJ do Porto, created in March 2011. A group of four inspectors led by research coordinator Helena Monteiro - who never contacted the inquiry, thus avoiding any contamination in the assessment - will have identified witnesses who were never questioned while the proceedings were in progress, until July 2008.
This is confirmed in a statement released Thursday by the PJ. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfilled the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
-
I think it goes without saying that Kate knows far more than we do. She certainly has a lot more information to inform her.
Scotland Yard undertook to keep her in the loop at the start of the investigation; I don't see why that situation would have changed.
Snip
Scotland Yard could not comment directly on this new development, but did say: “We are reviewing a significant number of documents and continue to identify potential lines of inquiry.
“We are in regular contact with [her parents] Kate and Gerry McCann and they are kept fully updated on the progress of our work. We also continue to work closely with the Portuguese police and are actively considering our next steps.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-to-fund-new-met-operation-into-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-8660084.html
Yes I agree Kate does know more...
-
Thanks for that link, Byron.
I've not seen that information before in such detail.
You seem to have a knack for sourcing new materials relevant to working out the processes which took place in Portugal in the lead up to reopening Madeleine's case.
It makes it abundantly clear that the Porto team's evidence based review has led them to the investigation of abduction.
Can we have the direct quote in English please " pj are seeing an abductor" or something like that.
Thanks.
Snip
Investigation centered on the rapture thesis
The PÚBLICO knows that the members of PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal investigations that will support the need to reopen the case. The reopening of the inquiry is the only way for the PJ to formally inquire these witnesses.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
PJ's source made it clear to PÚBLICO that the request to reopen the case is the result of the work of the Oporto team alone, not of elements collected by Scotland Yard, which also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie . This work is also not to be confused with that of another team of six inspectors from the PJ de Faro delegation who have been carrying out the steps requested by the British authorities for more than a month in the context of a request for international cooperation. The national board of the PJ refuses to give details of the new evidence collected and to whom it will be responsible for the investigation, trying to protect the work of the inspectors.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
Like their British counterparts the Policia Judiciaria found plenty of fresh evidence to get their teeth into. What a great pity it wasn't followed to its conclusion at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
Snip
The request of the PJ was the result of more than two years of reanalysis of the process carried out by a team from PJ do Porto, created in March 2011. A group of four inspectors led by research coordinator Helena Monteiro - who never contacted the inquiry, thus avoiding any contamination in the assessment - will have identified witnesses who were never questioned while the proceedings were in progress, until July 2008.
This is confirmed in a statement released Thursday by the PJ. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfilled the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
-
Please be careful of typing within the quote box. You mix up the post to which you are replying with your response and end up making no sense at all as above.
-
Please be careful of typing within the quote box. You mix up the post to which you are replying with your response and end up making no sense at all as above.
8()-000(
yeah.
OK, I was asking the question could we have the direct quote in English whre the PJ are searching for an abductor.
Thanks
-
8()-000(
yeah.
OK, I was asking the question could we have the direct quote in English whre the PJ are searching for an abductor.
Thanks
Please read the link clearly provided twice in the post to which you replied.
-
The whole shebang in Googlish
The parents of Madeleine McCann, Kate and Gerry, were in Portugal last week summoned informally by the Judicial Police (PJ) that informed them of the plans to reopen the investigation, a request that the Public Ministry announced on Thursday accepted The meeting took place last Thursday, 17th, at the end of a meeting with Scotland Yard inspectors who are also investigating the disappearance of the English girl while she was vacationing with her family at Praia de Luz, Algarve. May 2007. The information is contained in a statement released Thursday by the Metropolitan Police of London and confirmed by a source of the national board PJ, who said that the meeting took place at the headquarters of that police in Lisbon. McCann's lawyer Rogério Alves confirms that clients were informed of the request to reopen the investigation. "This means that the police understand that there are new paths that can be explored. And this provoked in the parents a legitimate expectation that not only the truth be discovered, but the fact that it is possible to discover Madeleine alive, which is the only objective of this effort that they have been undertaking. "Rogério Alves adds that the parents of Madeleine are considering to be assistants in the process, "since this line of investigation excluded any responsibility of the own ones as to the crime that will be in the base of the disappearance of Madeleine". In a statement, quoted by the English media, the McCanns manifested themselves "We hope this will eventually lead to the finding and discovery of whoever is responsible for this crime," they said.
Kate and Gerry McCann again appeal to the public to pass on relevant information to the police, but call for "respect" for the investigations. "Please be patient and respect the work of the police while it seeks to find the answers that we so desperately need." They also called on the media to take into account Madeleine's safety and the integrity of the investigation.
In a note, the Attorney General's Office (PGR) said that the reopening was determined "following a proposal by the Judiciary Police, and given the presentation of new evidence to justify further investigation."
-
So was the only evidence supplied by the McCanns? An open window and shutters seen by no-one except them and their assurance that they knew what their child was capable of and what she would or wouldn't do.
Kate McCanns told us how well she knew Madeleine when talking about her sleep habits;
However, in England Madeleine sometimes woke up during the night, around 2 ' 2:30 AM and went to her parents........Knowing that Madeleine sometimes woke and got up, she did not worry about leaving her alone, because when this happened, and it wasn't always, it was around 2 ' 3 AM at which time they would be back in the apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
When I realized Madeleine wasn’t actually there, I went through to our bedroom to see if she’d got into our bed. [madeleine]
Kate wasn't 100% sure she could predict Madeleine's behaviour then.
-
So was the only evidence supplied by the McCanns? An open window and shutters seen by no-one except them and their assurance that they knew what their child was capable of and what she would or wouldn't do.
Kate McCanns told us how well she knew Madeleine when talking about her sleep habits;
However, in England Madeleine sometimes woke up during the night, around 2 ' 2:30 AM and went to her parents........Knowing that Madeleine sometimes woke and got up, she did not worry about leaving her alone, because when this happened, and it wasn't always, it was around 2 ' 3 AM at which time they would be back in the apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
When I realized Madeleine wasn’t actually there, I went through to our bedroom to see if she’d got into our bed. [madeleine]
Kate wasn't 100% sure she could predict Madeleine's behaviour then.
In my opinion any mother finding her eldest child missing from her bed would have been terribly remiss not to have checked out all the possibilities.
Mind you in my opinion there are those who consider Kate damned if she did and damned if she didn't ... so you pays your money and you take your choice.
-
In my opinion any mother finding her eldest child missing from her bed would have been terribly remiss not to have checked out all the possibilities.
Mind you in my opinion there are those who consider Kate damned if she did and damned if she didn't ... so you pays your money and you take your choice.
If it was a possibility after she disappeared it was also a possibility before she disappeared. Otherwise why put the medicines away?
Before they left she took some precautions: put the medicine inside a bag with a clasp in her room inside the wardrobe or the dresser.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
-
Didn't the McCann's say they were shocked to find some witness reports of sightings of Madeleine which hadn't been investigated?
-
In my opinion any mother finding her eldest child missing from her bed would have been terribly remiss not to have checked out all the possibilities.
Mind you in my opinion there are those who consider Kate damned if she did and damned if she didn't ... so you pays your money and you take your choice.
Are you suggesting that she wouldn't have bothered if it had been one of the twins ?
-
Davel said "There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction so to say there is no evidence is untrue" so what is this evidence?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9252.msg452338#msg452338
There is no evidence of a stranger abduction from the bedroom and davel has never pointed to any.
-
There is no evidence of a stranger abduction from the bedroom and davel has never pointed to any.
Nor have Scotland yard.
-
If it was a possibility after she disappeared it was also a possibility before she disappeared. Otherwise why put the medicines away?
Before they left she took some precautions: put the medicine inside a bag with a clasp in her room inside the wardrobe or the dresser.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Do you leave medication lying around under any circumstances? I do not. Therefore I do not find it in the least surprising that parents ensure all medications are kept well out of child access at all times.
In my opinion ordinary everyday actions cannot be considered imbued of adverse implication which never existed just because they are performed by Kate or Gerry McCann.
Why on earth would you consider it extraordinary that they did not leave medication lying around at any time?
-
Why not? They said they left the patio door unlocked and where were the keys? Gerry doesn't mention bringing keys to the restaurant in his arguido statement. On 4 May it was a different story.
"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
-
If it was a possibility after she disappeared it was also a possibility before she disappeared. Otherwise why put the medicines away?
Before they left she took some precautions: put the medicine inside a bag with a clasp in her room inside the wardrobe or the dresser.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
The URL suggests it is an arguido statement, but in fact it was the statement made the day before.
-
Do you leave medication lying around under any circumstances? I do not. Therefore I do not find it in the least surprising that parents ensure all medications are kept well out of child access at all times.
In my opinion ordinary everyday actions cannot be considered imbued of adverse implication which never existed just because they are performed by Kate or Gerry McCann.
Why on earth would you consider it extraordinary that they did not leave medication lying around at any time?
It's such an everyday thing for a parent to do that it's unusual for one to not only remember doing it four months earlier but to feel the need to mention it. I notice some of it was taken out again later on;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_22.jpg)
-
It's such an everyday thing for a parent to do that it's unusual for one to not only remember doing it four months earlier but to feel the need to mention it. I notice some of it was taken out again later on;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_22.jpg)
What are you seeing exactly?
-
What are you seeing exactly?
A box of pills near the passports.
-
A box of pills near the passports.
what sort of pills?
-
Difficult to tell from the photo.
Is there a pharmacist in the house who can help identify it ?
-
Why not? They said they left the patio door unlocked and where were the keys? Gerry doesn't mention bringing keys to the restaurant in his arguido statement. On 4 May it was a different story.
"He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Gerry doesn't mention taking his hanky either, but I bet he did.
-
A box of pills near the passports.
I agree it looks like a packet of pills. The way the passports and the keys are in the same photo suggests IMO they were put there for photographic purposes by the PJ and in fact do not go to demonstrate how the McCanns left them in the first place.
-
Gerry doesn't mention taking his hanky either, but I bet he did.
Let's see your evidence of a hanky or have you invented it? You won't find anything about the key in Madeleine book of truth.
There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, in the kitchen’s counter. Right away, the lies started. (Gonçalo Amaral)
-
Difficult to tell from the photo.
Is there a pharmacist in the house who can help identify it ?
It's just my opinion but they look like prescribed medicine rather than over-the-counter. Kate said there was Calpol, Nurofen and Losec. I know that Losec (Omeprozole) is usually a prescribed medicine. It can bee
bought over the counter but it's expensive. Gerry mentions all the above plus Terfenadine, which was definitely a prescribed medicine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
-
So was the only evidence supplied by the McCanns? An open window and shutters seen by no-one except them and their assurance that they knew what their child was capable of and what she would or wouldn't do.
Kate McCanns told us how well she knew Madeleine when talking about her sleep habits;
However, in England Madeleine sometimes woke up during the night, around 2 ' 2:30 AM and went to her parents........Knowing that Madeleine sometimes woke and got up, she did not worry about leaving her alone, because when this happened, and it wasn't always, it was around 2 ' 3 AM at which time they would be back in the apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
When I realized Madeleine wasn’t actually there, I went through to our bedroom to see if she’d got into our bed. [madeleine]
Kate wasn't 100% sure she could predict Madeleine's behaviour then.
She did smirk and say' Madeleine would give her abductor her tuppence worth' aka be cheeky/challenging.
-
It's just my opinion but they look like prescribed medicine rather than over-the-counter. Kate said there was Calpol, Nurofen and Losec. I know that Losec (Omeprozole) is usually a prescribed medicine. It can bee
bought over the counter but it's expensive. Gerry mentions all the above plus Terfenadine, which was definitely a prescribed medicine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
The Terfenadine is an antihistamine- this was May so more than likely used for hay fever . it can cause drowseyness added with Alcohol can cause unknown side effects in some people.
I can't seem to find Davels 'circumstantial evidence for stranger abduction' anywhere.
They look like prescribed drugs to adults- to children sweeties? Could Madeleine given them to the twins if they all woke up and taken them herself? I wonder if this was looked at in detail and the pills were all accounted for.
-
Let's see your evidence of a hanky or have you invented it? You won't find anything about the key in Madeleine book of truth.
There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, in the kitchen’s counter. Right away, the lies started. (Gonçalo Amaral)
Thanks for finding that, I knew I'd read something about the key left on the kitchen counter, but couldn't find it again.
Did Gerry actually state that, or is it one of Amaral's truth-elastic utterings? I checked through Gerry's statements and couldn't find it, so where did Amaral's info come from? One of the informal interviews?
-
It's just my opinion but they look like prescribed medicine rather than over-the-counter. Kate said there was Calpol, Nurofen and Losec. I know that Losec (Omeprozole) is usually a prescribed medicine. It can bee
bought over the counter but it's expensive. Gerry mentions all the above plus Terfenadine, which was definitely a prescribed medicine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
In my opinion they look like a Boots own brand pack, with the blue logo, possibly even a box of plasters, but impossible to tell one way or the other.
-
In my opinion they look like a Boots own brand pack, with the blue logo, possibly even a box of plasters, but impossible to tell one way or the other.
Like this?
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-plaster-holding-boots-the-chemist-logo-sign-together-5125631.html
-
Like this?
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-plaster-holding-boots-the-chemist-logo-sign-together-5125631.html
Haha, yes precisely like that!! Well spotted...
-
I agree it looks like a packet of pills. The way the passports and the keys are in the same photo suggests IMO they were put there for photographic purposes by the PJ and in fact do not go to demonstrate how the McCanns left them in the first place.
I immediately thought that the photo looked staged:
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_22.jpg) (photo 18)
Glad you noticed it too.
-
In my opinion any mother finding her eldest child missing from her bed would have been terribly remiss not to have checked out all the possibilities.
Mind you in my opinion there are those who consider Kate damned if she did and damned if she didn't ... so you pays your money and you take your choice.
Yes ,Terribly remiss, however Kate claims she 'knew right away her daughter was abducted'- the window-shutter-curtains- why NOT call the police right away? Why do the supporters not get this?
-
Yes ,Terrib;ay remiss, however Kate claims she 'knew right away her daughter was abducted'- the window-shutter-curtains- why NOT call the police right away? Why do the supporters not get this?
Indeed. In these circumstances, does every minute not count ?
-
Indeed. In these circumstances, does every minute not count ?
Indeed, how much time was wasted?
- Kate searched the house quickly
then left the room- to run and tell the others Maddie is missing- (she didn't scream that her daughter had been ABDUCTED)
- They all ran accout looking searching
why was Diane asked to stay put? more hands searching the better? Diane didn't know about MBM being abducted at that time because no lone told her... strange that.
-
Yes ,Terribly remiss, however Kate claims she 'knew right away her daughter was abducted'- the window-shutter-curtains- why NOT call the police right away? Why do the supporters not get this?
Did you ever have a gut feeling about something bad but hope against hope that you were wrong?
-
Could posters please remain on topic.
-
Yes ,Terribly remiss, however Kate claims she 'knew right away her daughter was abducted'- the window-shutter-curtains- why NOT call the police right away? Why do the supporters not get this?
I think part of the problem is that she follows instructions from her husband too. On her own she might have rung the police straight away but once Gerry gets involved he could say "hang on a minute let us look around the facility a bit just in case she wandered.
-
I think part of the problem is that she follows instructions from her husband too. On her own she might have rung the police straight away but once Gerry gets involved he could say "hang on a minute let us look around the facility a bit just in case she wandered.
If Kate was still taking notice of Gerry she was a fool in my opinion.
'And she felt a bit nervous about it but Gerry, Gerry had sort of said 'Oh it will be fine', you know. But she was obviously, because it wasn't something she was quite easy with, that's the way it came across, you know, but, but Gerry said, you know, 'It'll be fine. It'll be fine'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Yes ,Terribly remiss, however Kate claims she 'knew right away her daughter was abducted'- the window-shutter-curtains- why NOT call the police right away? Why do the supporters not get this?
Kate says she knew Madeleine had been taken, due to the fact the window was open and Madeleine was missing. However, even if you believe this has happened you would still search around outside in case you were wrong wouldn't you? They did ,properly, they searched the surrounding area in case Madeleine had wandered off, then when she wasn't found they called the police. Can you imagine what the Police would have said if they had asked have you searched for her and they had said no?
-
Kate says she knew Madeleine had been taken, due to the fact the window was open and Madeleine was missing. However, even if you believe this has happened you would still search around outside in case you were wrong wouldn't you? They did ,properly, they searched the surrounding area in case Madeleine had wandered off, then when she wasn't found they called the police. Can you imagine what the Police would have said if they had asked have you searched for her and they had said no?
OK if they think it necessary to check around the outside there has to be a possibility that Madeleine woke and wandered, so I wonder why there are some who say Madeleine could not have got outside on her own?
-
OK if they think it necessary to check around the outside there has to be a possibility that Madeleine woke and wandered, so I wonder why there are some who say Madeleine could not have got outside on her own?
Kate & Gerry have both stated that there was absolouteley no way she could have got out on her own.
In Kate's own words " I mean I knew straight away she'd, err, been taken, you know"
There was never any doubt in Kate's mind that Madeleine hadn't just wandered off, she knew immediateley that this was an abduction.
So, naturally, she didn't bother to call the police....
-
Kate says she knew Madeleine had been taken, due to the fact the window was open and Madeleine was missing. However, even if you believe this has happened you would still search around outside in case you were wrong wouldn't you? They did ,properly, they searched the surrounding area in case Madeleine had wandered off, then when she wasn't found they called the police. Can you imagine what the Police would have said if they had asked have you searched for her and they had said no?
Having assessed the situation the GNR officer in charge recognised its seriousness by calling in the PJ ... but his officers still continued the search for Madeleine based on the hope she had merely wandered off on her own and they too checked the apartment for any sign of her.
In my opinion it is risible as a debating point to criticise a search starting at the centre and working out from it as searching around the point from where the child disappeared is nothing more or less than plain and ordinary common sense.
-
Kate & Gerry have both stated that there was absolouteley no way she could have got out on her own.
In Kate's own words " I mean I knew straight away she'd, err, been taken, you know"
There was never any doubt in Kate's mind that Madeleine hadn't just wandered off, she knew immediateley that this was an abduction.
So, naturally, she didn't bother to call the police....
The GNR weren't psychic ... they turned up at the scene as the result of being informed of a missing child by phone.
-
OK if they think it necessary to check around the outside there has to be a possibility that Madeleine woke and wandered, so I wonder why there are some who say Madeleine could not have got outside on her own?
The McCann's didn't think Madeleine had got outside by herself. Though you have to search the surrounding area before calling the police just in case.
-
There isn't any evidence of abduction. That's the problem.
-
There isn't any evidence of abduction. That's the problem.
exactly and that means whatever did happen to maddie it was due to lack of parental supervison
-
So your child is missing, you "know" straightaway she has been abducted.
First stop then would be to telephone the police; under the circumstances the delegation of the making of that phone call to a third party is an odd ball thing to do . imo
Me? I'd want to make quite sure it was done properly by doing it myself.
-
How would Matthew know they hadn't called the police? Jane told someone as soon as she heard Madeleine had disappeared, she only thought she had seen Madeleine being taken and it was about three quarters of an hour after she had had seen the man carrying a child.
According to Matthew's rogatory, he did. He was still thinking woke and wandered.
3/4 of an hour after Jane saw the man was when Kate raised the alarm. The clock moved on before she told anyone.
-
Did you ever have a gut feeling about something bad but hope against hope that you were wrong?
No, any gut feelings I had/have are acted upon. Sorry to disappoint. So the gut feeling Is the 'circumstantial' evidence then?
Good, cause that helps with Amarlas gut feeling in so far as he has the right to act on his? yes? no?
-
If the police had been called straight away, they would have been asked if they had searched the surrounding area, to which they would have had to reply 'no' the reply then would have been 'search around the area first' it is what any parents would do before calling the police no matter what their feelings are to what had happened to their child.
Yes- if your child was thought to be 'missing'
No- if thought to have been abducted!
it could be that Kate said she was missing and then changed this to her being abducted.. we don' know. Kate circumstantial evidence is: 'she said' abduction.
-
Yes- if your child was thought to be 'missing'
No- if thought to have been abducted!
it could be that Kate said she was missing and then changed this to her being abducted.. we don' know. Kate circumstantial evidence is: 'she said' abduction.
A frantic mother finding her child missing says she thinks she has been abducted, for goodness sake, you don't just scream down the phone 'my child has been abducted' you search the surrounding area first, then if she isn't found THEN you ring the police, you would have more credibility if you are able to say 'look my child who is under four wasn't in her bed when I checked, the window was open and we have searched where she could have wandered and we haven't found her, we fear she could have been abducted'.
-
A frantic mother finding her child missing says she thinks she has been abducted, for goodness sake, you don't just scream down the phone 'my child has been abducted' you search the surrounding area first, then if she isn't found THEN you ring the police, you would have more credibility if you are able to say 'look my child who is under four wasn't in her bed when I checked, the window was open and we have searched where she could have wandered and we haven't found her, we fear she could have been abducted'.
I don't disagree with the idea of checking the surrounding area first, but then they should at least say it is possible that Madeleine could have got outside.
-
I don't disagree with the idea of checking the surrounding area first, but then they should at least say it is possible that Madeleine could have got outside.
The McCann's say they don't think Madeleine would have wandered out, they know their child and to go out through the patio doors it is unlikely a child of that age would turn and shut the door and the gate and leave everything how it was. However, the police would say she could have wandered out, either through the patio doors or the front door. So it makes sense to make sure Madeleine hadn't wandered out doesn't it? Even if you know your child wouldn't have you search just in case.
-
The McCann's say they don't think Madeleine would have wandered out, they know their child and to go out through the patio doors it is unlikely a child of that age would turn and shut the door and the gate and leave everything how it was. However, the police would say she could have wandered out, either through the patio doors or the front door. So it makes sense to make sure Madeleine hadn't wandered out doesn't it? Even if you know your child wouldn't have you search just in case.
No, they say they were certain she hadn't, due to that alleged open window & shutter, which Kate asserts Maddie couldn't have opened herself.
'Not possible', in her own words.
https://youtu.be/WLvnfcl-Zkg?t=1370
So, no, no it doesn't make sense for them to search around first.
What would make perfect sense would have been for them to have alerted the authorities immediately & inform them of this certainty.
That simply didn't happen.
-
If the police had been called straight away, they would have been asked if they had searched the surrounding area, to which they would have had to reply 'no' the reply then would have been 'search around the area first' it is what any parents would do before calling the police no matter what their feelings are to what had happened to their child.
That's an excellent point Lace and one which proves that the PJ were wrong to discount the walk and wandered theory. If the missing child's parents thought she could have strayed to the extent they decided to look for her outside then the rest is history. If they were convinced she couldnt have escaped on her own and had been taken they would have contacted police immediately via staff members at the tapas.
-
The McCann's say they don't think Madeleine would have wandered out, they know their child and to go out through the patio doors it is unlikely a child of that age would turn and shut the door and the gate and leave everything how it was. However, the police would say she could have wandered out, either through the patio doors or the front door. So it makes sense to make sure Madeleine hadn't wandered out doesn't it? Even if you know your child wouldn't have you search just in case.
No one has explained to me why Madeleine hadn't left by the front door. I agree with Kate about the patio door and gates all being closed except that had there been another person involved that other person could have made sure the gates and doors were shut.
-
No, any gut feelings I had/have are acted upon. Sorry to disappoint. So the gut feeling Is the 'circumstantial' evidence then?
Good, cause that helps with Amarlas gut feeling in so far as he has the right to act on his? yes? no?
Do you accept that sometimes gut feelings are right, and sometimes they are wrong, and that had Madeleine shown up minutes after Kate felt certain she'd been taken, we would undoubtedly be none the wiser about Kate's gut feelings at the time she discovered her child missing?
-
No one has explained to me why Madeleine hadn't left by the front door. I agree with Kate about the patio door and gates all being closed except that had there been another person involved that other person could have made sure the gates and doors were shut.
She was used to going out the front door every morning so would have known how it operated and where the path outside led.
-
OK if they think it necessary to check around the outside there has to be a possibility that Madeleine woke and wandered, so I wonder why there are some who say Madeleine could not have got outside on her own?
There was a possibility that someone had taken her and abandoned her. The outside search was necessary because of that. IMO
The parents and IIRC at least one of the Tapas group is on record as saying that they did not believe that Madeleine could have got out on her own.
-
There was a possibility that someone had taken her and abandoned her. The outside search was necessary because of that. IMO
The parents and IIRC at least one of the Tapas group is on record as saying that they did not believe that Madeleine could have got out on her own.
It was David Payne who says that. Why did he say that? From what I read he went straight to the front door and found it closed. What can you read into a door that is closed at the time of viewing it. Can you tell if had been opened moments before? NO you can't.
-
The McCann's say they don't think Madeleine would have wandered out, they know their child and to go out through the patio doors it is unlikely a child of that age would turn and shut the door and the gate and leave everything how it was. However, the police would say she could have wandered out, either through the patio doors or the front door. So it makes sense to make sure Madeleine hadn't wandered out doesn't it? Even if you know your child wouldn't have you search just in case.
Three doors/gates, actually Lace
Patio door, child safety gate and gate at the bottom of the steps into the garden.
So Madeleine had to have opened all three of those doors/gates and closed them again when according to some of you she was distressed?
And how did she open the child safety gate in the first place? It is put there to stop children walking out.
Was she able to open the patio door? Kate thinks not, and I doubt it very much. Because of her diminutive height, the force she exerted on the door was too low down and she would tend to jam it. Anyway, where were her fingerprints?
-
That's an excellent point Lace and one which proves that the PJ were wrong to discount the walk and wandered theory. If the missing child's parents thought she could have strayed to the extent they decided to look for her outside then the rest is history. If they were convinced she couldnt have escaped on her own and had been taken they would have contacted police immediately via staff members at the tapas.
Please dont forget that children are sometimes taken then abandoned nearby. They must have had this thought in their minds.
Naturally in the circumstances of extreme fear and worry, (even if when rational they wouldn't have) that Madeleine had somehow got out.
They had to search around outside.
All of you would have criticized them if they hadn't searched outside, wouldn't you?
Cos what ever they did ... and whatever they do, is always wrong, isn't it ?
-
No one has explained to me why Madeleine hadn't left by the front door. I agree with Kate about the patio door and gates all being closed except that had there been another person involved that other person could have made sure the gates and doors were shut.
1) Like Kate, I dont believe Madeleine could physically have opened it.
2) I think that with the light from the street lamp illuminating the patio area, a little girl would go for a lit exit (patio) to a blank exit (front door) with nothing to see outside.
3) The front door was closed.
A little girl would not be strong enough to close that heavy front door, with only that giant knob to pull.
FGS, The knob was set in the middle of the door making it much harder to pull and her little hands would be too small to grip the giant knob. [edited to correct my error, my apologies]
If I am remembering my mechanics properly she would need twice the pull to close it, than if the knob were set at the edge of the door. She just wouldn't be physically able to close it IMO, with the difficulty of gripping it and especially as it was about head height rather than waist height
4) I dont believe that she would choose to exit that way either, cos most often she used the patio entrance
5) IF, and I don't believe it could have happened, she got out, she would be surrounded by high walls relative to her size. She would be in a very dark place, with only the sky and the whooshing trees to see. It would have been spooky. I think that she would have been terrified and gone straight back inside.
As a child, when on my own in the dark, I used to be frightened of trees that had whooshing branches hanging down. This fear went on into my teens.
The front door, Rob, was too heavy and wouldn't close for her ... and then it would have been too spooky and dark. And all that doesn't allow for the fact that her fingers might not have been strong enough to open the latch, if she knew how!
Nah, she didn't go out of the front door of her own volition
IMO
ETA: I dont know how to alter my post where the original was quoted by others. Again my apologies.
PS. It is good to see that slartis ALL IMO added to the top of this post has been removed. Thank you.
-
Three doors/gates, actually Lace
Patio door, child safety gate and gate at the bottom of the steps into the garden.
So Madeleine had to have opened all three of those doors/gates and closed them again when according to some of you she was distressed?
And how did she open the child safety gate in the first place? It is put there to stop children walking out.
Was she able to open the patio door? Kate thinks not, and I doubt it very much. Because of her diminutive height, the force she exerted on the door was too low down and she would tend to jam it. Anyway, where were her fingerprints?
A child safety gate won't stop a nearly four-year-old Sadie, I'm surprised you even suggested such a preposterous notion. They simply climb over them. In any event it has never been proven that any of the gates were closed.
-
1) Like Kate, I dont believe Madeleine could physically have opened it.
2) I think that with the light from the street lamp illuminating the patio area, a little girl would go for a lit exit (patio) to a blank exit (front door) with nothing to see outside.
3) The front door was closed.
A little girl would not be strong enough to close that heavy front door, with only that giant knob to pull.
FGS, The knob was set in the middle of the door making it much harder to pull and her little hands would be too small to grip the giant knob.
If I am remembering my mechanics properly she would need twice the pull to close it, than if the knob were set at the edge of the door. She just wouldn't be physically able to close it IMO, especially as it was about head heightrather than waist height
4) I dont believe that she would choose to exit that way either, cos most often she used the patio entrance
5) IF, and I don't believe it could have happened, she got out, she would be surrounded by high walls relative to her size. She would be in a very dark place, with only the sky and the whooshing trees to see. It would have been spooky. I think that she would have been terrified and gone straight back inside.
As a child, when on my own in the dark, I used to be frightened of trees that had whooshing branches hanging down. This fear went on into my teens.
The front door, Rob was too heavy and wouldn't close for her ... and then it would have been too spooky and dark. And all that doesn't allow for the fact that her fingers might not have been strong enough to open the latch, if she knew how!
Nah, she didn't go out of the front door of her own volition
IMO
All of that is just an excuse. Maddie would have been very capable of opening and closing the front door if it hadn't been security locked using the key.
-
Why was it deemed necessary, slarti, to add another emboldened ALL IMO at the front of this post? One was already at the end ... and it is all facts, except where I have couched the words with phrases such as 'I think'. 'I don't believe', and without your emboldened 'ALL IMO' there are already two IMO's.
With respect, you are showing your bias and moderators should not show bias. You dont really want these relevant facts and thoughts displayed, do you? Cos, if correct, they rubbish the theory of your side that Madeleine departed through the front door of her own volition
You know what i am saying about the Mechanical disadvantage is correct cos you too are, or have been, someone involved in Mechanics. You have shown that in your posts. An Engineer or an Architect maybe?
Maybe you should look to some of the posts from your side and slap emboldened 'ALL IMO's' at the beginning of them too
So stop the people of your persuasion putting out their often very bigotted thoughts as facts
As none of your post can be proved to be true, there are no facts in there in my opinion.
-
Why was it deemed necessary, slarti, to add another emboldened ALL IMO at the front of this post? One was already at the end ... and it is all facts, except where I have couched the words with phrases such as 'I think'. 'I don't believe', and without your emboldened 'ALL IMO' there are already two IMO's.
With respect, you are showing your bias and moderators should not show bias. You dont really want these relevant facts and thoughts displayed, do you? Cos, if correct, they rubbish the theory of your side that Madeleine departed through the front door of her own volition
You know what i am saying about the Mechanical disadvantage is correct cos you too are, or have been, someone involved in Mechanics. You have shown that in your posts. An Engineer or an Architect maybe?
Maybe you should look to some of the posts from your side and slap emboldened 'ALL IMO's' at the beginning of them too
So stop the people of your persuasion putting out their often very bigotted thoughts as facts
If there is to be a large slab of opinion/speculation in a post, it certainly helps me if the warning sticker is put at the front.
Personally, I dislike reading through large posts only to find that the last line is IMO, or similar.
It is the same with books. It is the same with films. I like to know up front whether I am getting a true account, or someone's personal viewpoint.
-
The difference between opinion and fact seems to be an extremely difficult concept for some to grasp. I don't understand why people make untrue statements either. The knob on the outside of the door to 5A, for example, wasn't "set in the middle of the door" as a poster claimed;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2308.jpg)
-
Back to topic please everyone and dispense with the goading. TY
-
The difference between opinion and fact seems to be an extremely difficult concept for some to grasp. I don't understand why people make untrue statements either. The knob on the outside of the door to 5A, for example, wasn't "set in the middle of the door" as a poster claimed;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2308.jpg)
You are quite correct and I am wrong. Having seen a similar door with a central similar knob elsewhere, I remembered it incorrectly. My apologies.
When I return home I will correct my error. Thank you for pointing it out.
sadie
-
You are quite correct and I am wrong. Having seen a similar door with a central similar knob elsewhere, I remembered it incorrectly. My apologies.
When I return home I will correct my error. Thank you for pointing it out.
sadie
Think about the action of closing the door too Sadie please?
-
A child safety gate won't stop a nearly four-year-old Sadie, I'm surprised you even suggested such a preposterous notion. They simply climb over them. In any event it has never been proven that any of the gates were closed.
Steps are usually about 7" high, so add that height to the height of the gate and that would be a daunting drop for Madeleine. The steps look concrete with rough brick like tiles on top ... and if Madeleine did try to climb over then she would have left finger prints all over the gate and fibres and probably have had a nasty fall at the bottom of the gate, leaving skin scrapings and ?blood.
Finger prints, fibres nor blood/skin were not picked up by the PJ, nor the dogs.
You do realise, Angelo, that not only was the formidable gates height +step height involved, but she also had to land upright on a narrow step.
But IF, and it is a big IF, she managed all this + the patio door, how come she didn't Yell her parents? No fingerprints there either.
The first thing that she would do when on the patio would be to hear and see her friends and parents just 50 metres away.
Then, how come she had the presence of mind to close the patio door behind her and also the garden gate? She was 3, nearly 4, not an older child who might have done some of these things.
Soz, Angelo, but she didn't go out that way either. IMO
-
All of that is just an excuse. Maddie would have been very capable of opening and closing the front door if it hadn't been security locked using the key.
Is that "IN YOUR OPINION"? Angelo
-
As none of your post can be proved to be true, there are no facts in there in my opinion.
It makes a nice read though doesn't it. ^*&&
I am still waiting for the 'circumstantial' evidence to be forthcoming...
However, I am inclined to think this will be -Kate said this , and Kate Said that, so it MUST be true kind of thing.
-
On the subject of sliding glass doors, small children are quite capable of opening them;
https://community.babycenter.com/post/a33711073/help_how_do_i_baby_proof_a_sliding_glass_door
They are also quite capable of opening stair gates;
https://www.circleofmoms.com/toddlers/what-do-you-when-your-two-year-old-s-can-open-your-stair-gates-579831
So there wasn't necessarily any physical reason why Madeleine couldn't exit via the patio door. The only evidence that she didn't is her mother's opinion.
-
Is that "IN YOUR OPINION"? Angelo
An opinion? Any able bodied almost four-year-old can open a door.
-
On the subject of sliding glass doors, small children are quite capable of opening them;
https://community.babycenter.com/post/a33711073/help_how_do_i_baby_proof_a_sliding_glass_door
They are also quite capable of opening stair gates;
https://www.circleofmoms.com/toddlers/what-do-you-when-your-two-year-old-s-can-open-your-stair-gates-579831
So there wasn't necessarily any physical reason why Madeleine couldn't exit via the patio door. The only evidence that she didn't is her mother's opinion.
We are ofcourse assuming they were closed! well are we assuming? or has Kate n Gerry told us they were closed and MBM had some kind of impairment which would make it 'impossible' for her daughter to exit that way?
-
An opinion? Any able bodied almost four-year-old can open a door.
I disagree.
There can be a huge difference in the height and strength of almost four year olds.
A petite little girl will not have the same strength as a taller and stronger almost four year old boy.
The variance in height and weight between the children in reception class was quite striking.
-
I disagree.
There can be a huge difference in the height and strength of almost four year olds.
A petite little girl will not have the same strength as a taller and stronger almost four year old boy.
The variance in height and weight between the children in reception class was quite striking.
I posted links to 2-3 year old children opening sliding doors and stair gates, so I wouldn't expect a child of Madeleine's age to have any problem.
-
I posted links to 2-3 year old children opening sliding doors and stair gates, so I wouldn't expect a child of Madeleine's age to have any problem.
Yes... but... Kate and the 'fan club' they say No. and when they say No, they do mean Maddie was abducted from the apartment by strangers.
Once the circumstantial evidence is forthcoming we will be enlightened, until then we will remain in the dark.
-
IMO a child who could easily exit an apartment via a door would therefore have no need to first open a window & raise shutters.
-
IMO a child who could easily exit an apartment via a door would therefore have no need to first open a window & raise shutters.
Yes! exactly. sometimes when you say it- it just sounds so right! 8**8:/:
MBM had no need to open shutters when a good easy to open door was there.
-
I posted links to 2-3 year old children opening sliding doors and stair gates, so I wouldn't expect a child of Madeleine's age to have any problem.
But you cannot know what an individual child can or cannot do.
The variance in children's abilities at any age can be quite striking.
A great deal depends on their height and strength.
I have no idea of whether Madeleine could have opened the door and may I suggest, neither do you.
-
Yes... but... Kate and the 'fan club' they say No. and when they say No, they do mean Maddie was abducted from the apartment by strangers.
Once the circumstantial evidence is forthcoming we will be enlightened, until then we will remain in the dark.
Who is the " fan club" ?
I thought it is against forum rules to name call either side of the debate?
-
Yes! exactly. sometimes when you say it- it just sounds so right! 8**8:/:
MBM had no need to open shutters when a good easy to open door was there.
You must ask yourself why both the window & shutter (which anyone would expect to be secured against access from exterior) were found open if a "woke & wandered" situation occurred.
-
You must ask yourself why both the window & shutter (which anyone would expect to be secured against access from exterior) were found open if a "woke & wandered" situation occurred.
Funny you should ask that. I did ask myself, as did the investigating officers in PDL did conclude , we seem inclined to believe that the shutters were a red herring. To deflect from the fact that a door had been left unlocked. It does add more drama to the 'abduction 'story. You know that whooshing,curtains blowing- and door slamming! Unfortunately, there is no evidence of outside entry and exit.
-
Funny you should ask that. I did ask myself, as did the investigating officers in PDL did conclude , we seem inclined to believe that the shutters were a red herring. To deflect from the fact that a door had been left unlocked. It does add more drama to the 'abduction 'story. You know that whooshing,curtains blowing- and door slamming! Unfortunately, there is no evidence of outside entry and exit.
Did it matter that the door was unlocked when so many contend Madeleine could have exited via either door of her own volition? Why (allegedly) stage an intrusion scene using the presumed secure access point when it would have been much simpler to say Madeleine had just wandered off & anything that subsequently happened was outside the parents' control?
-
Did it matter that the door was unlocked when so many contend Madeleine could have exited via either door of her own volition? Why (allegedly) stage an intrusion scene using the presumed secure access point when it would have been much simpler to say Madeleine had just wandered off & anything that subsequently happened was outside the parents' control?
The parents lost control of their children the minute they left them and went to dinner.
-
The parents lost control of their children the minute they left them and went to dinner.
I agree - but many children who wake & wander do so without their parents' knowledge despite the parents being on the premises. Cases have been cited here.
Why complicate an easily-explained disappearance by introducing an open window & shutter Madeleine would have not, in all probability, considered when there was at least one unlocked/open door?
-
I agree - but many children who wake & wander do so without their parents' knowledge despite the parents being on the premises. Cases have been cited here.
Why complicate an easily-explained disappearance by introducing an open window & shutter Madeleine would have not, in all probability, considered when there was at least one unlocked/open door?
It's quite different if the parents are where they're supposed to be.
-
It's quite different if the parents are where they're supposed to be.
Why is it? How would an investigation have panned out if this little lad had been picked up by a paedophile rather than a decent citizen, never to be found again?
http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/30/toddler-found-wandering-alone-dual-carriageway-1am-7191813/
-
I agree - but many children who wake & wander do so without their parents' knowledge despite the parents being on the premises. Cases have been cited here.
Why complicate an easily-explained disappearance by introducing an open window & shutter Madeleine would have not, in all probability, considered when there was at least one unlocked/open door?
If it wasn’t claimed that the shutter and window were open what else would there have been to suggest an abduction and not simply a woke and wandered ?
-
If it wasn’t claimed that the shutter and window were open what else would there have been to suggest an abduction and not simply a woke and wandered ?
The Amaral investigation quite obviously did not accept the 'woke and wandered theory'.
The Rebelo investigation didn't run with it either.
The current Portuguese and British investigations are both into Madeleine's abduction; which would lead one to suppose they have the evidence which points in that direction.
-
The Amaral investigation quite obviously did not accept the 'woke and wandered theory'.
The Rebelo investigation didn't run with it either.
The current Portuguese and British investigations are both into Madeleine's abduction; which would lead one to suppose they have the evidence which points in that direction.
I’m not suggesting Madeleine did wake and wonder but if the window and shutter hadn’t been open how could the McCanns have pushed the narrative of an abduction ? Without the window and shutter claim there would be no visible evidence of an abduction and that is why the open window and shutter has had to stay even though there’s no sensible reason for it being open.
-
I’m not suggesting Madeleine did wake and wonder but if the window and shutter hadn’t been open how could the McCanns have pushed the narrative of an abduction ? Without the window and shutter claim there would be no visible evidence of an abduction and that is why the open window and shutter has had to stay even though there’s no sensible reason for it being open.
Try to bear in mind that whatever your personal prejudices, two national police forces are currently investigating Madeleine's abduction based on the evidence to hand.
-
Try to bear in mind that whatever your personal prejudices, two national police forces are currently investigating Madeleine's abduction based on the evidence to hand.
And try to bear in mind that since Redwood’s last piece to camera (2014 I think ) we have been given no information on what OG or the PJ are investigating.
-
An opinion? Any able bodied almost four-year-old can open a door.
In your opinion
But this door was not a door she was familiar with; she may not have understood the locking mechanism, the mechanism may have been too strong for her little fingers, the door itself was solid wood and looked very heavy.
Also she was mechanically disadvantaged, most especially if trying to grasp that big knob level, or above her head, to pull the door closed. To try and pull that door to on a gusty night, with the wind obviously coming from a northerly direction, would I think have defeated her.
As misty so astutely points out, 'why would she bother to open the window and shutters if she could open the door and walk straight out?'
And as Erngath points out from an experienced position it sounds, the difference in strength between a slightly built nearly 4 year old girl could be immensely different from a strongly well built boy of the same age.
And Angelo, how do you account for there being no fingerprints on the door, nor the window, nor the patio door, nor either of the gates (aparantly?)
It is just IN YOUR OPINION, is it not? Please can we have the IMO added, as we (on our side of the discussion), all have to. Leadership from the top would be truly appreciated.
-
If it wasn’t claimed that the shutter and window were open what else would there have been to suggest an abduction and not simply a woke and wandered ?
In a hypothetical cover-up, why would there have been a need for an abduction which occurred from within the apartment? The patio door had been left unlocked; it would have been simple for a child to exit voluntarily, for whatever reason.
By introducing another physical presence via an open window/shutter, there would have been the need for some sort of additional evidence of an intruder. Why complicate matters when a woke & wandered scenario would have been the simplest & most plausible reason for Madeleine's disappearance?
Without any CCTV, who could ever prove what had subsequently happened out on the streets, causing Madeleine to disappear without trace?
-
In a hypothetical cover-up, why would there have been a need for an abduction which occurred from within the apartment? The patio door had been left unlocked; it would have been simple for a child to exit voluntarily, for whatever reason.
By introducing another physical presence via an open window/shutter, there would have been the need for some sort of additional evidence of an intruder. Why complicate matters when a woke & wandered scenario would have been the simplest & most plausible reason for Madeleine's disappearance?
Without any CCTV, who could ever prove what had subsequently happened out on the streets, causing Madeleine to disappear without trace?
The alleged open window and shutters, along with Jane Tanner's sighting, are supposedly evidence pointing to an abduction. Without them all you have is parents who went out leaving their children to do as they wished, including waking and wandering off. Which is, of course, what they did.
-
The alleged open window and shutters, along with Jane Tanner's sighting, are supposedly evidence pointing to an abduction. Without them all you have is parents who went out leaving their children to do as they wished, including waking and wandering off. Which is, of course, what they did.
So what have you concluded?
-
The Amaral investigation quite obviously did not accept the 'woke and wandered theory'.
The Rebelo investigation didn't run with it either.
The current Portuguese and British investigations are both into Madeleine's abduction; which would lead one to suppose they have the evidence which points in that direction.
Seven yrs later multi millions spent by the UK,still no arrest still no suspects,it could be easily said that the alleged abduction theory is the wrong direction.
-
So what have you concluded?
In my opinion the only evidence of an abduction was provided by the McCann couple. The only evidence that the garden gate and child gate were closed was provided by Kate McCann. They both reported that the window and shutters were open, but their friend who entered the apartment with them didn't see this evidence, so that's unconfirmed.
She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like........I didn't actually enter too much into the room but I walked to the edge and you know there was, you know the twins were in their cots, err they were in you know parallel, there was you know I could see, you know I think they were much further into the room but you know I could see Madeleine's bed
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Seven yrs later multi millions spent by the UK,still no arrest still no suspects,it could be easily said that the alleged abduction theory is the wrong direction.
What with The Met. The P.J and The Leicestershire Police all coming up empty handed ; then according to Tracy Kandohla eight (?) sets of PIs ditto, it's a good job the armchair internet sloofs with their dossiers n such are kicking up otherwise the case really would be behind the eight ball methinks.
-
The alleged open window and shutters, along with Jane Tanner's sighting, are supposedly evidence pointing to an abduction. Without them all you have is parents who went out leaving their children to do as they wished, including waking and wandering off. Which is, of course, what they did.
Exactly G.
-
The alleged open window and shutters, along with Jane Tanner's sighting, are supposedly evidence pointing to an abduction. Without them all you have is parents who went out leaving their children to do as they wished, including waking and wandering off. Which is, of course, what they did.
Jane Tanner's sighting only worked if one made the quantum leap that in an area where parents carrying kids was common place (allegedly) the man she happened to see carying a child was "the abductor"; with or without the status of windows and shutters and in the absence of a definitive time for the alleged event.
-
Try to bear in mind that whatever your personal prejudices, two national police forces are currently investigating Madeleine's abduction based on the evidence to hand.
Please provide a cite for the Portuguese police force looking for an 'abductor' based on what evidence.. thanks.
Because Kate said so isn't evidence .
-
Did it matter that the door was unlocked when so many contend Madeleine could have exited via either door of her own volition? Why (allegedly) stage an intrusion scene using the presumed secure access point when it would have been much simpler to say Madeleine had just wandered off & anything that subsequently happened was outside the parents' control?
Why (allegedly) stage an intrusion scene using the presumed secure access point when it would have been much simpler to say Madeleine had just wandered off & anything that subsequently happened was outside the parents' control?
Why indeed... Well I believe that to admit that a few things could have happened to change the scene.
1. they would have more likely been arrested & questioned - not treated as ' poor victims'
2. They would not have called home to say what they had done- no sky TV- no hysteria- no fund money
3. on return to the UK if they were not held for some charge , the UK social services would have certainly been involved ( I did make discreet enquiries).
4. A real back lash from many quarters. in the UK including from their employers. If they can't be bothered looking after their children should we trust them to look after our patients.
IMO they had a lot to lose by not admitting ther was no stranger abduction. = Motive
-
Please provide a cite for the Portuguese police force looking for an 'abductor' based on what evidence.. thanks.
Because Kate said so isn't evidence .
'They believe us': Portuguese police finally re-enact Madeleine abduction
Last updated at 13:09 30 October 2007
In a clear sign that Portuguese police are moving back towards the possibility that the four-year old was abducted the new head of the Portuguese police investigation returned to the McCanns' apartment last night to re-enact a possible abduction.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/SCULTcl-H0I/AAAAAAAACac/mqG5tCaoRno/s320/Paulo.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490610/They-believe-Portuguese-police-finally-enact-Madeleine-abduction.html#ixzz5CdfvxM4k
Snip
The Portuguese source said the police had been investigating Monteiro before Lisbon officialy reopened its McCann inquiries. "It was on based on the combination of leads that the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) decided to request permission to resume investigations into the case. The public prosecutor's office agreed with our evaluation and ordered the case to be reopened," the source said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/20/madeleine-mcann-suspect-died-in-2009
-
'They believe us': Portuguese police finally re-enact Madeleine abduction
Last updated at 13:09 30 October 2007
In a clear sign that Portuguese police are moving back towards the possibility that the four-year old was abducted the new head of the Portuguese police investigation returned to the McCanns' apartment last night to re-enact a possible abduction.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/SCULTcl-H0I/AAAAAAAACac/mqG5tCaoRno/s320/Paulo.jpg)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490610/They-believe-Portuguese-police-finally-enact-Madeleine-abduction.html#ixzz5CdfvxM4k
Snip
The Portuguese source said the police had been investigating Monteiro before Lisbon officialy reopened its McCann inquiries. "It was on based on the combination of leads that the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) decided to request permission to resume investigations into the case. The public prosecutor's office agreed with our evaluation and ordered the case to be reopened," the source said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/20/madeleine-mcann-suspect-died-in-2009
Well this is great news! erm why are they still searching for an abductor IF he is dead? case should have been closed?
So sauces said... and they told other sauces... and they....
-
Well this is great news! erm why are they still searching for an abductor IF he is dead? case should have been closed?
So sauces said... and they told other sauces... and they....
You asked for a cite. You've got not one ... but two. The fact that the Portuguese police have continued their investigation which was officially declared in 2013 suggests that in common with their British colleagues, they have not yet given up on Madeleine.
-
Are we now to take newspaper tittle tattle as verifiable cites, notwithstanding what M Rowley had to say about them.
Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
-
You asked for a cite. You've got not one ... but two. The fact that the Portuguese police have continued their investigation which was officially declared in 2013 suggests that in common with their British colleagues, they have not yet given up on Madeleine.
I have never suggested the PJ and Met had given up on Madeleine, why would you imply that.
What we don't have, and what you have failed to provide is is a direct quote from the PJ to tell us they believe the McCanns and are looking for an abductor. IF we are to believe in the sauces, then they have found one!- a dead sex offender? very convenient. So they have found who did it but are still looking for a live or dead MBM?.
-
I have never suggested the PJ and Met had given up on Madeleine, why would you imply that.
What we don't have, and what you have failed to provide is is a direct quote from the PJ to tell us they believe the McCanns and are looking for an abductor. IF we are to believe in the sauces, then they have found one!- a dead sex offender? very convenient. So they have found who did it but are still looking for a live or dead MBM?.
Judicial Secrecy is working exactly as it was designed to with no leaks to titillate anyone's interest. However we do know that when the Portuguese reopened their investigation into Madeleine's case, that Kate and Gerry were briefed about exactly what was happening.
Snip
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley and Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood met senior Portuguese police in Lisbon last Thursday for a briefing on the new lines of enquiry, which are "separate" to those being followed by the Met.
Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were also briefed on the case during the meeting.
They said they were "very pleased" the Portuguese inquiry, which will run alongside the Met operation, was being reopened.
"We hope that this will finally lead to her being found and to the discovery of whoever is responsible for this crime," they said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24655826
-
Judicial Secrecy is working exactly as it was designed to with no leaks to titillate anyone's interest. However we do know that when the Portuguese reopened their investigation into Madeleine's case, that Kate and Gerry were briefed about exactly what was happening.
Snip
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley and Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood met senior Portuguese police in Lisbon last Thursday for a briefing on the new lines of enquiry, which are "separate" to those being followed by the Met.
Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were also briefed on the case during the meeting.
They said they were "very pleased" the Portuguese inquiry, which will run alongside the Met operation, was being reopened.
"We hope that this will finally lead to her being found and to the discovery of whoever is responsible for this crime," they said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24655826
"Judicial Secrecy is working exactly as it was designed to with no leaks to titillate anyone's interest."
but then they sneak out a story about believing the McCanns?
Talk about getting all confuzzled...
lol the bbc story is from 2013. and it would seem thet PJ and MET were not working on an abduction together.
The PJ did NOT brief the McCanns... that was the OG saying they were investigating. Nothing more than that.
-
"Judicial Secrecy is working exactly as it was designed to with no leaks to titillate anyone's interest."
but then they sneak out a story about believing the McCanns?
Talk about getting all confuzzled...
lol the bbc story is from 2013. and it would seem thet PJ and MET were not working on an abduction together.
The PJ did NOT brief the McCanns... that was the OG saying they were investigating. Nothing more than that.
What I have quoted is in the public domain and is in my opinion self explanatory ... if you wish to disbelieve it ... that is entirely your privilege.
-
What I have quoted is in the public domain and is in my opinion self explanatory ... if you wish to disbelieve it ... that is entirely your privilege.
Did the McCanns say that they were pleased through their spokesperson or did they actually use their own mouths ?
-
What I have quoted is in the public domain and is in my opinion self explanatory ... if you wish to disbelieve it ... that is entirely your privilege.
Something being in the public domain doesn't make it true or false.
-
Judicial Secrecy is working exactly as it was designed to with no leaks to titillate anyone's interest. However we do know that when the Portuguese reopened their investigation into Madeleine's case, that Kate and Gerry were briefed about exactly what was happening.
Snip
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley and Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood met senior Portuguese police in Lisbon last Thursday for a briefing on the new lines of enquiry, which are "separate" to those being followed by the Met.
Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were also briefed on the case during the meeting.
They said they were "very pleased" the Portuguese inquiry, which will run alongside the Met operation, was being reopened.
"We hope that this will finally lead to her being found and to the discovery of whoever is responsible for this crime," they said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24655826
The differences are slight, but significant in my opinion. The M.P.S make no mention of the McCanns being briefed about the case;
Rowley and Redwood were invited to attend a briefing and were informed about the lines of inquiry the PJ would be following, which were different from those of OG.
At the conclusion of that meeting, the group were joined by Kate and Gerry McCann who were briefed on the plans to apply to reopen the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/78oct13/MetPolice_24_10_2013.htm
-
Did the McCanns say that they were pleased through their spokesperson or did they actually use their own mouths ?
Please tell us what specific difference it makes to anything.
-
Something being in the public domain doesn't make it true or false.
In my opinion that depends very much on the provenance ~ but is irrelevant to the fact that a request was made for a cite, to which I have complied
-
Please tell us what specific difference it makes to anything.
Like everything else on here, none at all.
-
Like everything else on here, none at all.
I agree but Faithlilly seems quited fixated on this (non) issue, hence my question which was addressed to her, and for which I am looking forward to receiving her straight answer.
-
In my opinion the only evidence of an abduction was provided by the McCann couple. The only evidence that the garden gate and child gate were closed was provided by Kate McCann. They both reported that the window and shutters were open, but their friend who entered the apartment with them didn't see this evidence, so that's unconfirmed.
She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
I was very interested in finding what the state of the apartment was like........I didn't actually enter too much into the room but I walked to the edge and you know there was, you know the twins were in their cots, err they were in you know parallel, there was you know I could see, you know I think they were much further into the room but you know I could see Madeleine's bed
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
So DP didn't see because he didn't venture deep enough into the room.
-
So DP didn't see because he didn't venture deep enough into the room.
IYO
-
IYO
"So DP didn't see because he didn't venture deep enough into the room" was a form of asking you if that is what you were implying with that quote. Is that the impression DP was trying to portray?
-
"So DP didn't see because he didn't venture deep enough into the room" was a form of asking you if that is what you were implying with that quote. Is that the impression DP was trying to portray?
On the way from the Tapas to the apartment there was conversation.
Err also obviously the, the, the issue with the, the shutters had been raised, was brought up err you know on the way up as well
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
So he was told, but didn't look when he got there.
we, we, I'm sure we went into the apartment, just looked and you know, incredulously you know well where, err where could she be, you know, you know we just looked in the obvious err places
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Are we now to take newspaper tittle tattle as verifiable cites, notwithstanding what M Rowley had to say about them.
Mark Rowley:There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.
Why not? It fits in with the general topography as you might say.
Starting with the Jane Tanner sighting then following the not insubstantial trail of breadcrumbs along the highways and byways until ten years later we reach "The Lady in Purple", what do we really have?
An amalgam of gossip,assumptions,inferences and speculation. IMO of course.
-
Why not? It fits in with the general topography as you might say.
Starting with the Jane Tanner sighting then following the not insubstantial trail of breadcrumbs along the highways and byways until ten years later we reach "The Lady in Purple", what do we really have?
An amalgam of gossip,assumptions,inferences and speculation. IMO of course.
At least with the HO insisting that the amount being spent is a secret and SY refusing to discuss what is being investigated then the stories will hopefully stop.
-
On the way from the Tapas to the apartment there was conversation.
Err also obviously the, the, the issue with the, the shutters had been raised, was brought up err you know on the way up as well
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
So he was told, but didn't look when he got there.
we, we, I'm sure we went into the apartment, just looked and you know, incredulously you know well where, err where could she be, you know, you know we just looked in the obvious err places
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
That is weird; who told David Payne about the shutters?
-
At least with the HO insisting that the amount being spent is a secret and SY refusing to discuss what is being investigated then the stories will hopefully stop.
Oh I don't know about that. When I was a young person I was a disciple of The Mad Magazine. Ca 1960 it did a skit on the film "The Alamo" directed by John Wayne. It depicts Wayne saying [approximatively]"To produce a film that is historically accurate requires a lot of research time and money, so we did the next best thing: we lied".
-
Oh I don't know about that. When I was a young person I was a disciple of The Mad Magazine. Ca 1960 it did a skit on the film "The Alamo" directed by John Wayne. It depicts Wayne saying [approximatively]"To produce a film that is historically accurate requires a lot of research time and money, so we did the next best thing: we lied".
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SeQw71JwCqI/AAAAAAAAEkQ/2i1jeKHbnhE/s400/PDVD_235.jpg)
Och ... I don't know if I would go so far as to say Amaral and co "did the next best thing:" but in my opinion he certainly left quite a bit of clearing up behind for the present Portuguese and British investigators to catch up with.
How come he missed out on following through on the abundance of evidence which has been driving them since Madeleine's case was reopened?
-
That is weird; who told David Payne about the shutters?
If he was told 'on the way up' the only person who could have told him was Kate. He went into the room far enough to see Madeleine's empty bed, but didn't look at the window;
I noticed that the bed was empty that Madeleine was sleeping in.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SeQw71JwCqI/AAAAAAAAEkQ/2i1jeKHbnhE/s400/PDVD_235.jpg)
Och ... I don't know if I would go so far as to say Amaral and co "did the next best thing:" but in my opinion he certainly left quite a bit of clearing up behind for the present Portuguese and British investigators to catch up with.
How come he missed out on following through on the abundance of evidence which has been driving them since Madeleine's case was reopened?
Are you saying that this evidence was in the possession of the PJ before October 2007? If so, do you have any cites to support your opinion?
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SeQw71JwCqI/AAAAAAAAEkQ/2i1jeKHbnhE/s400/PDVD_235.jpg)
Och ... I don't know if I would go so far as to say Amaral and co "did the next best thing:" but in my opinion he certainly left quite a bit of clearing up behind for the present Portuguese and British investigators to catch up with.
How come he missed out on following through on the abundance of evidence which has been driving them since Madeleine's case was reopened?
Driving on down the road to nowhere.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SeQw71JwCqI/AAAAAAAAEkQ/2i1jeKHbnhE/s400/PDVD_235.jpg)
Och ... I don't know if I would go so far as to say Amaral and co "did the next best thing:" but in my opinion he certainly left quite a bit of clearing up behind for the present Portuguese and British investigators to catch up with.
How come he missed out on following through on the abundance of evidence which has been driving them since Madeleine's case was reopened?
Do I need to remind you that Rebelo was coordinator of the case for longer than Amaral. Shouldn’t he shoulder some of the blame if there was any ‘clearing up’ to do ‘ ?
-
Do I need to remind you that Rebelo was coordinator of the case for longer than Amaral. Shouldn’t he shoulder some of the blame if there was any ‘clearing up’ to do ‘ ?
Seeing as no alleged abductor can be found some one has to take the can.
-
Seeing as no alleged abductor can be found some one has to take the can.
SY are now in the embarrassing position that they have spent a small fortune on a missing girl on the presumption that she was abducted by AN Other yet not a scrap of evidence has ever been produced to support this theory. They are now refusing to disclose how much more public money has been allocated to them...the cover-up has begun imo.
AFAIAC the only circumstantial evidence relates to the woke, wandered and was then abducted theory, everything else is pure fantasy imo.
-
SY are now in the embarrassing position that they have spent a small fortune on a missing girl on the presumption that she was abducted by AN Other yet not a scrap of evidence has ever been produced to support this theory. They are now refusing to disclose how much more public money has been allocated to them...the cover-up has begun imo.
AFAIAC the only circumstantial evidence relates to the woke, wandered and was then abducted theory, everything else is pure fantasy imo.
There is no evidence, even circumstantial, for woke, wondered and abducted.
-
There is no evidence, even circumstantial, for woke, wondered and abducted.
Yes there is. Two specially trained scent dogs independently followed her fresh trail from the apartment, around the block where it mysteriously stopped at the car park opposite mini reception. I for one cannot think of another explanation for such a compelling piece of evidence.
-
Snip
Yesterday, the prosecution announced the reopening of the proceedings. In a note released at lunch, the Attorney General's Office said that the reopening was determined "following a proposal by the Judiciary Police, and given the presentation of new evidence to justify further investigation."
Inquiry into secrecy
The investigation will continue to run at the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Portimão, which, according to the statement, asked the investigating judge that the case be subject to the secrecy of justice. The owner of the case will be the prosecutor of the Republic who previously directed the case, José Magalhães e Menezes.
PÚBLICO reported yesterday that a possible request for reopening was the result of a reanalysis of the process carried out by the team of PJ do Porto, created in March 2011. A group of four inspectors led by research coordinator Helena Monteiro - who had never contacted the inquiry, thus avoiding any contamination in the assessment - will have identified witnesses who were never questioned while the proceedings were in progress, by July 2008.
The PJ confirmed yesterday in a statement that it was the work of this team to give rise to the reopening of the case. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfilled the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note.
PÚBLICO knows that the members of the PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal procedures, which have made it possible to justify the need to reopen the case.
The PJ is focusing again on the investigation into the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an inquiry into Maddie's disappearance. However, the lines of investigation being followed by the two police are distinct and the proceedings will run in parallel, as the London Metropolitan Police acknowledged in a statement issued yesterday.
Os pais de Madeleine, Kate e Gerry McCann, estiveram em Portugal a semana passada convocados informalmente pela PJ, que os informou dos planos para reabrir a investigação.
Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were in Portugal last week informally called by the PJ, which informed them of plans to reopen the investigation.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/25/jornal/policia-judiciaria-ja-identificou-novas-diligencias-a-fazer-no-processo-maddie-27294106
Quite simply ... there is little or no information entering the public domain regarding the progress of Madeleine's case because the investigation is being conducted under the legal rule of judicial secrecy.
In my opinion Portuguese and British police when reviewing the evidence discovered huge swatches which had not been followed through in the original investigation and which to investigate adequately demanded the reopening of Madeleine's case.
Evidence led Portuguese and British police investigations in the direction of stranger abduction.
-
Do I need to remind you that Rebelo was coordinator of the case for longer than Amaral. Shouldn’t he shoulder some of the blame if there was any ‘clearing up’ to do ‘ ?
Yes, Rebelo was. But in the context of taking over what may have been a messy case (IMO) with 3 arguidos and a strict time-frame, I don't see how he could have done much more.
His team checked on potential sources of ink, but not potentially duplicate keys. The only logical explanation (IMO) is that it was a race against the clock as to whether to charge any of the arguidos or not.
-
Snip
Yesterday, the prosecution announced the reopening of the proceedings. In a note released at lunch, the Attorney General's Office said that the reopening was determined "following a proposal by the Judiciary Police, and given the presentation of new evidence to justify further investigation."
Inquiry into secrecy
The investigation will continue to run at the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Portimão, which, according to the statement, asked the investigating judge that the case be subject to the secrecy of justice. The owner of the case will be the prosecutor of the Republic who previously directed the case, José Magalhães e Menezes.
PÚBLICO reported yesterday that a possible request for reopening was the result of a reanalysis of the process carried out by the team of PJ do Porto, created in March 2011. A group of four inspectors led by research coordinator Helena Monteiro - who had never contacted the inquiry, thus avoiding any contamination in the assessment - will have identified witnesses who were never questioned while the proceedings were in progress, by July 2008.
The PJ confirmed yesterday in a statement that it was the work of this team to give rise to the reopening of the case. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfilled the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note.
PÚBLICO knows that the members of the PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal procedures, which have made it possible to justify the need to reopen the case.
The PJ is focusing again on the investigation into the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an inquiry into Maddie's disappearance. However, the lines of investigation being followed by the two police are distinct and the proceedings will run in parallel, as the London Metropolitan Police acknowledged in a statement issued yesterday.
Os pais de Madeleine, Kate e Gerry McCann, estiveram em Portugal a semana passada convocados informalmente pela PJ, que os informou dos planos para reabrir a investigação.
Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were in Portugal last week informally called by the PJ, which informed them of plans to reopen the investigation.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/25/jornal/policia-judiciaria-ja-identificou-novas-diligencias-a-fazer-no-processo-maddie-27294106
Quite simply ... there is little or no information entering the public domain regarding the progress of Madeleine's case because the investigation is being conducted under the legal rule of judicial secrecy.
In my opinion Portuguese and British police when reviewing the evidence discovered huge swatches which had not been followed through in the original investigation and which to investigate adequately demanded the reopening of Madeleine's case.
Evidence led Portuguese and British police investigations in the direction of stranger abduction.
Hindsight is a wonderful ability. Kate McCann's reference to Tweedledee and Tweedledum evidenced an appalling lack of respect for police charged with clearing up the mess resulting from their poor parenting skills. Amaral had to conduct the investigation under extremely challenging conditions with private consultants, a foreign police force second-guessing his every move and a media leaking like a sieve.
-
Yes there is. Two specially trained scent dogs independently followed her fresh trail from the apartment, around the block where it mysteriously stopped at the car park opposite mini reception. I for one cannot think of another explanation for such a compelling piece of evidence.
What of the thereafter Angelo,we know that SY did some landscaping under the banner of a supposed burglary gone wrong, obviously looking for a body imo,but maybe they were following through on a theory not too dissimilar to yours.
-
Yes there is. Two specially trained scent dogs independently followed her fresh trail from the apartment, around the block where it mysteriously stopped at the car park opposite mini reception. I for one cannot think of another explanation for such a compelling piece of evidence.
The dogs were given a blanket/towel which was allegedly Madeleine’s to sniff her scent. What if the item wasn’t actually Madeleine’s?
-
What of the thereafter Angelo,we know that SY did some landscaping under the banner of a supposed burglary gone wrong, obviously looking for a body imo,but maybe they were following through on a theory not too dissimilar to yours.
True. I can see no logic for any stranger risking an apartment intrusion to abduct a child only to kill her.
-
The dogs were given a blanket/towel which was allegedly Madeleine’s to sniff her scent. What if the item wasn’t actually Madeleine’s?
If it wasn't Maddie's then they followed someone else's scent but I don't believe that occurred.
-
Yes there is. Two specially trained scent dogs independently followed her fresh trail from the apartment, around the block where it mysteriously stopped at the car park opposite mini reception. I for one cannot think of another explanation for such a compelling piece of evidence.
The dogs did not act independently... It is suggested in the police files that the second dog may simply have followed the trail of the first... The evidence you think is compelling is not if you read the report of the dog handler in the files...
Probably why it, was ignored in the final report
-
The first dogs were patrol dogs who arrived at around 2.30 am. In the apartment there were PJ officers and the McCanns. They were given Madeleine's pink blanket from her bed.
The actual sniffer dogs were used at 11 pm on 4th and they were given the bath towel.
All the dogs followed the same route.
Was the pink blanket kept by the first dog team? They continued to search until morning. It depends what time the photos were taken in 5A, because the blanket was on the bed in those.
-
If it wasn't Maddie's then they followed someone else's scent but I don't believe that occurred.
And the dog alerts in the McCann’s apartment and only the McCann’s apartment? Coincidence?
-
The dogs were given a blanket/towel which was allegedly Madeleine’s to sniff her scent. What if the item wasn’t actually Madeleine’s?
If Madeleine's scent wasn't on the blanket/towel, the negative result given by the GNR dogs' search of Casa Liliana some 10 days later must be called into question.
-
Hindsight is a wonderful ability. Kate McCann's reference to Tweedledee and Tweedledum evidenced an appalling lack of respect for police charged with clearing up the mess resulting from their poor parenting skills. Amaral had to conduct the investigation under extremely challenging conditions with private consultants, a foreign police force second-guessing his every move and a media leaking like a sieve.
and its a matter of record IMO Amaral did not understand the evidence
-
and its a matter of record amaral did not understand the evidence
It's your opinion.
-
It's your opinion.
It isnt...he believed the evidence proved maddie died in the apartment...he is on record saying that.....the evidence does not prove that he is wrong......fact not opinion...
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
-
If Madeleine's scent wasn't on the blanket/towel, the negative result given by the GNR dogs' search of Casa Liliana some 10 days later must be called into question.
But not of the searches by the cadaver dog.
-
and its a matter of record amaral did not understand the evidence
That can only be determined in the final analysis, for all we know he was spot on. 😁
-
The dogs did not act independently... It is suggested in the police files that the second dog may simply have followed the trail of the first... The evidence you think is compelling is not if you read the report of the dog handler in the files...
Probably why it, was ignored in the final report
The GNR scent dogs were deployed independently a very short time after Maddie left the apartment and that was significant.
-
But not of the searches by the cadaver dog.
The cadaver dog was neither person specific or scent specific.
-
That can only be determined in the final analysis, for all we know he was spot on. 😁
No.. Amaral produced evidence which he claimed proved Maddie died in the apartment... It didn't.. He was wrong... Proof he did not understand the evidence
-
The GNR scent dogs were deployed independently a very short time after Maddie left the apartment and that was significant.
No it wasn't... They could have been picking up scent from earlier in the day
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/SeQw71JwCqI/AAAAAAAAEkQ/2i1jeKHbnhE/s400/PDVD_235.jpg)
Och ... I don't know if I would go so far as to say Amaral and co "did the next best thing:" but in my opinion he certainly left quite a bit of clearing up behind for the present Portuguese and British investigators to catch up with.
How come he missed out on following through on the abundance of evidence which has been driving them since Madeleine's case was reopened?
I don't know whether he did or didn't and to paraphrase that scoundrel Rhett Butler I don't much care.
Three police forces, eight(?) sets of PIs, according to Tracy Kandohla, and yet it drones on.
It's difficult to say at this point in time who what or which has been the most unsuccessful/successful.
If we take it on faith that Sr Amaral cocked it up in the first five months I really do rate those of whatever flavour who were tasked with clearing up the cock up. The fat end of ten years and no result should have been setting bells off in someones head.
-
It isnt...he believed the evidence proved maddie died in the apartment...he is on record saying that.....the evidence does not prove that he is wrong......fact not opinion...
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
The evidence does not prove that he is wrong, nor that he misunderstood the evidence.
Either prove that Madeleine did not die in 5A, or make it clear that it is simply your opinion.
Either prove that Amaral did not understand the evidence, or make it clear that it is simply your opinion.
-
The evidence does not prove that he is wrong, nor that he misunderstood the evidence.
Either prove that Madeleine did not die in 5A, or make it clear that it is simply your opinion.
Either prove that Amaral did not understand the evidence, or make it clear that it is simply your opinion.
I have proved that amaral did not understand the evidence... Read the posts again... You will also see that I haven't said Maddie did not die in 5a... She may well have.... But there is no proof... That is fact not opinion
-
I have proved that amaral did not understand the evidence... Read the posts again... You will also see that I haven't said Maddie did not die in 5a... She may well have.... But there is no proof... That is fact not opinion
Is there any evidence with all that SY have at their disposal they have understood it?
-
Is there any evidence with all that SY have at their disposal they have understood it?
I have shown IMO amaral did not understand the evidence.. Can you show SY dont
-
The evidence does not prove that he is wrong, nor that he misunderstood the evidence.
Either prove that Madeleine did not die in 5A, or make it clear that it is simply your opinion.
Either prove that Amaral did not understand the evidence, or make it clear that it is simply your opinion.
Did Amaral prove Madeleine died in the apartment? He claims he did, so is he right then?
-
Did Amaral prove Madeleine died in the apartment? He claims he did, so is he right then?
It does not matter one iota but we will no doubt find out when the wagon stops rolling.
We will then have a piece of information we can do nothing constructive with.
-
It does not matter one iota but we will no doubt find out when the wagon stops rolling.
We will then have a piece of information we can do nothing constructive with.
VS means is he right in as much he can prove it
-
Did Amaral prove Madeleine died in the apartment? He claims he did, so is he right then?
I doubt it very much. Possibly in the road outside or nearby would be my guess.
-
I doubt it very much. Possibly in the road outside or nearby would be my guess.
VS means is he right to say he can prove it... The answer is no... He isnt IMO
-
It does not matter one iota but we will no doubt find out when the wagon stops rolling.
We will then have a piece of information we can do nothing constructive with.
It matters to the forum.
-
It matters to the forum.
Yes
What matters is amaral said he would prove it and provide the evidence... He didn't... He failed
-
Yes
What matters is amaral said he would prove it and provide the evidence... He didn't... He failed
I tend to think Amaral pretended to have evidence when he didn't in an attempt to get a confession.
-
I tend to think Amaral pretended to have evidence when he didn't in an attempt to get a confession.
That may well be true but I'm referring to his claim in the documentary where he said in the next 50 minutes he would prove Maddie died in the apartment
-
That may well be true but I'm referring to his claim in the documentary where he said in the next 50 minutes he would prove Maddie died in the apartment
OK and he didn't, well not to our level of proof IIRC.
-
It does not matter one iota but we will no doubt find out when the wagon stops rolling.
We will then have a piece of information we can do nothing constructive with.
I think you misunderstand. Amaral claims to have supplied proof - either he did or he didn’t. If he did then there can be no finding out at a later date, if it was proof then it must already be established as such, so...
-
So Amaral thought the evidence he presented proved Maddie died in the apartment... It didn't... The man who wrote the book and has so much respect from some does not understand the evidence
-
The cadaver dog was neither person specific or scent specific.
Of course a cadaver dog is scent specific.
-
So Amaral thought the evidence he presented proved Maddie died in the apartment... It didn't... The man who wrote the book and has so much respect from some does not understand the evidence
That's another IYO.
Many a person holds a different opinion.
-
That's another IYO.
Many a person holds a different opinion.
Proof establishes a fact, it is not an opinion.
-
Proof establishes a fact, it is not an opinion.
Since we are dealing with a paucity of facts in certain crucial areas, we are drowning in opinions.
-
Of course a cadaver dog is scent specific.
No he wasn't.
He alerted to 1) dried blood from a living person as well as 2) Cadaver odour from a dead body. He was trained on desicated blood from a living person too
He was also trained to alert to 3) dead piglets, so....... ?
-
No he wasn't.
He alerted to 1) dried blood from a living person as well as 2) Cadaver odour from a dead body. He was trained on desicated blood from a living person too
He was also trained to alert to 3) dead piglets, so....... ?
He was trained to alert to cadaver odour and blood. Decomposing piglets were used to train him, which smell the same as decomposing humans. If he alerted and the CSI dog Keela didn't he was alerting to cadaver odour, as in the bedroom of G5A.
-
Since we are dealing with a paucity of facts in certain crucial areas, we are drowning in opinions.
Here’s a fact for you - Amaral failed to prove Madeleine died in the apartment, despite his contention to the contrary.
-
He was trained to alert to cadaver odour and blood. Decomposing piglets were used to train him, which smell the same as decomposing humans. If he alerted and the CSI dog Keela didn't he was alerting to cadaver odour, as in the bedroom of G5A.
So now it’s a fact that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent, or is that just your opinion?
-
So now it’s a fact that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent, or is that just your opinion?
It is the most likely scenario.
-
It is the most likely scenario.
In whose opinion... Because that is all it is
-
In whose opinion... Because that is all it is
It is a fact that if a dog trained to alert to a certain scent, alerts it is the most likely scenario that the dog has alerted as trained.
-
Here’s a fact for you - Amaral failed to prove Madeleine died in the apartment, despite his contention to the contrary.
That's an IYO.
Whilst others have different opinions.
-
It is a fact that if a dog trained to alert to a certain scent, alerts it is the most likely scenario that the dog has alerted as trained.
In your opinion
According to grime... In his first statement he said it was, possible, the, alert was to cadaver... And then suggestive... Never most likely... You are, quoting your opinion as fact
-
That's an IYO.
Whilst others have different opinions.
That would be a fact would it not?
-
That would be a fact would it not?
There is no proof Maddie, died in the apartment.... And certainly none from amaral... That is, fact not opinion
-
In your opinion
According to grime... In his first statement he said it was, possible, the, alert was to cadaver... And then suggestive... Never most likely... You are, quoting your opinion as fact
So you think it is more likely that the dog alerted to something other than it was trained for?
-
So you think it is more likely that the dog alerted to something other than it was trained for?
I prefer to rely on the opinion of Grime.... He never said it was likely... You are therefore quoting your opinion as fact
-
I prefer to rely on the opinion of Grime.... He never said it was likely... You are therefore quoting your opinion as fact
As you put store by what Grime says here are some more...
All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications
were at apartment 5a, the reported scene.
The EVRD alerted in the:
Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by
the door.
Living room, behind sofa.
Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
Garden area directly under veranda.
The dog will alert to the presence of cadaver scent whether it is at source or
some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to
identify the venting or exhaust channels of the scent through fissures in
bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce
the size of the search area.
Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are
independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals
as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained. They are
tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these
dogs are unique. Training records are maintained and are available if
required.
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.
-
So now it’s a fact that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent, or is that just your opinion?
In my opinion it's a logical conclusion, given his training and experience. What do you think he alerted to in the bedroom of G5A?
-
In my opinion it's a logical conclusion, given his training and experience. What do you think he alerted to in the bedroom of G5A?
Your opinion... But not Grimes opinion
-
Your opinion... But not Grimes opinion
You don’t know Grime’s opinion only what is in his statement, parts of which I have quoted above.
-
Your opinion... But not Grimes opinion
What did Eddie alert to in the bedroom of G5A in your opinion?
-
You don’t know Grime’s opinion only what is in his statement, parts of which I have quoted above.
Are you now saying that is not Grimes opinion and he is being untruthful.... It ties in exactly with what Harrison says
Grime could be prosecuted if he has made a false statement
-
Reminder:
Topic of the thread is: There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction
-
Reminder:
Topic of the thread is: There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction
A bit of a misnomer perhaps?
-
A bit of a misnomer perhaps?
I would agree. The only possible factors which could once be considered as evidence of a bedroom abduction were the Tanner sighting subsequently poo poo'd by Redwood and the unexplained open shutter and window through which nobody climbed according to the forensics. All very mysterious and establishes once and for all that no circumstantial evidence exists pointing to stranger abduction from the apartment.
IMO the McCanns should rightly be concerned by those findings.
-
There is no proof Maddie, died in the apartment.... And certainly none from amaral... That is, fact not opinion
There is no proof she left the apartment alive either according to various SY officers.
-
Incidents which might have led the police to investigate possible links when Madeline disappeared include ... the disappearance of Joana Cipriano http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3035.msg109970#msg109970 from a town which was very close to Luz.
Two burglaries occurred in the same block of flats from which Madeleine disappeared http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530 in the weeks prior to the arrival of the McCann family in the village.
One wonders why these incidents did not suggest an investigative opportunity into Madeleine's disappearance instead of the almost immediate and premature route apparently taken by the investigators ... "Headline: a badly told story." We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped. To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go. JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
-
Incidents which might have led the police to investigate possible links when Madeline disappeared include ... the disappearance of Joana Cipriano http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3035.msg109970#msg109970 from a town which was very close to Luz.
Two burglaries occurred in the same block of flats from which Madeleine disappeared http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530 in the weeks prior to the arrival of the McCann family in the village.
One wonders why these incidents did not suggest an investigative opportunity into Madeleine's disappearance instead of the almost immediate and premature route apparently taken by the investigators ... "Headline: a badly told story." We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped. To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go. JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
Why would the police investigate links to the Cipriano case ? There are none, unless you think there was parental involvement in both cases.
Burglaries yet no abductions. For this to be a burglary gone wrong the burglar would have had to have woken Madeleine up, without waking her siblings, killed her in some way and made the rather unlikely decision to flee with the body, if you believe the abductor was Tannerman, which I believe you think is still a possibility.
-
Incidents which might have led the police to investigate possible links when Madeline disappeared include ... the disappearance of Joana Cipriano http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3035.msg109970#msg109970 from a town which was very close to Luz.
Two burglaries occurred in the same block of flats from which Madeleine disappeared http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24528530 in the weeks prior to the arrival of the McCann family in the village.
One wonders why these incidents did not suggest an investigative opportunity into Madeleine's disappearance instead of the almost immediate and premature route apparently taken by the investigators ... "Headline: a badly told story." We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped. To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go. JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm
When the evidence offered is unconvincing and the witness statements are contradictory it tends to attract police attention imo.
-
That's an IYO.
Whilst others have different opinions.
Who is of the opinion (apart from the great man himself) that Amaral PROVED Madeleine died in the apartment?
-
In my opinion it's a logical conclusion, given his training and experience. What do you think he alerted to in the bedroom of G5A?
1) Cadaver odour transferred or otherwise - from human or pig
2) Blood
3) False alert
-
1) Cadaver odour transferred or otherwise - from human or pig
2) Blood
3) False alert
OK. Number 1; human is more likely than pig in an apartment. Number 2; no alert by Keela, so not blood. Number 3; highly unlikely given the dog's experience.
-
Who is of the opinion (apart from the great man himself) that Amaral PROVED Madeleine died in the apartment?
Most of Portugal, from what I have seen. They are also entitled to their opinion.
-
OK. Number 1; human is more likely than pig in an apartment. Number 2; no alert by Keela, so not blood. Number 3; highly unlikely given the dog's experience.
1) on what basis is odour from a dead human more likely in the apartment than from a dead pig? How much more likely?
2 & 3) Dogs can and do give false positives and also the opposite. Neither dog had been independently assessed and so there is no independent verification of their accuracy levels.
-
Why would the police investigate links to the Cipriano case ? There are none, unless you think there was parental involvement in both cases.
Burglaries yet no abductions. For this to be a burglary gone wrong the burglar would have had to have woken Madeleine up, without waking her siblings, killed her in some way and made the rather unlikely decision to flee with the body, if you believe the abductor was Tannerman, which I believe you think is still a possibility.
Not really the only obvious lines of inquiry neglected back in 2007 though were they? Homes being entered and children being assaulted in their beds didn’t seem to rate a second thought from investigators in a case where a home from where a child vanished may also have been entered illegally.
-
Most of Portugal, from what I have seen. They are also entitled to their opinion.
OK - so what was the proof presented by Amaral that convinced them Madeleine died in the apartment? Is it your opinion that proof about any given thing is entirely subjective?
-
When the evidence offered is unconvincing and the witness statements are contradictory it tends to attract police attention imo.
In my opinion quite a remarkable exercise in speed reading and collation of all the witness statements to hand.
Not to mention assessing evidence without benefit of forensic information.
In my opinion knee jerk, prejudicial leaks to the press in preference to assessing the information to hand hardly promotes confidence in the capabilities of the investigation; an opinion possibly reinforced by the eventual sacking of Amaral as co-ordinator.
Not to mention the elephant in the room of breached judicial secrecy.
-
Most of Portugal, from what I have seen. They are also entitled to their opinion.
That is their opinion but if they think amaral proved Maddie died in the apartment they are wrong
Amaral did not prove Maddie, died in the, apartment... He thinks, he did but he is wrong.... That is, fact... Not opinion
-
There is no proof she left the apartment alive either according to various SY officers.
Correct... There is no proof either way... That does not make amaral right
-
OK - so what was the proof presented by Amaral that convinced them Madeleine died in the apartment? Is it your opinion that proof about any given thing is entirely subjective?
Who cares? Debating beliefs and opinions is a waste of time.
It is the case that most of Portugal is of the opinion that Madeleine died in 5A on 3 May 2007.
Consequently, rubbish about what Amaral proved or did not prove is entirely beside the point.
-
That is their opinion but if they think amaral proved Maddie died in the apartment they are wrong
Amaral did not prove Maddie, died in the, apartment... He thinks, he did but he is wrong.... That is, fact... Not opinion
It's your opinion, nothing more.
-
Who cares? Debating beliefs and opinions is a waste of time.
It is the case that most of Portugal is of the opinion that Madeleine died in 5A on 3 May 2007.
Consequently, rubbish about what Amaral proved or did not prove is entirely beside the point.
You really don't understand the point in question.... It relates to whether amaral proved death as he claims...doesn't matter about opinions...
If amaral THINKS he has proved death then that's quite important as it shows he does not understand the evidence... Which is very important...
-
It's your opinion, nothing more.
As I said you obviously don't understand
-
Who cares? Debating beliefs and opinions is a waste of time.
It is the case that most of Portugal is of the opinion that Madeleine died in 5A on 3 May 2007.
Consequently, rubbish about what Amaral proved or did not prove is entirely beside the point.
You have spent hours and hours debating beliefs and opinions.... Do you now believe it's a waste of time
-
You really don't understand the point in question.... It relates to whether amaral proved death as he claims...doesn't matter about opinions...
If amaral THINKS he has proved death then that's quite important as it shows he does not understand the evidence... Which is very important...
I understand the point in question very well.
It does NOT relate to what he proved or did not prove.
It is about who believes what.
You have one opinion on this. Which is not influencing the beliefs or opinions of the Portuguese one iota.
-
I understand the point in question very well.
It does NOT relate to what he proved or did not prove.
It is about who believes what.
You have one opinion on this. Which is not influencing the beliefs or opinions of the Portuguese one iota.
You obviously don't understand the point in question....None of my posts refer to who believes what... My posts to which you have replied relate to whether amaral proved death in the apartment.. You have totally misunderstood the posts
-
It isnt...he believed the evidence proved maddie died in the apartment...he is on record saying that.....the evidence does not prove that he is wrong......fact not opinion...
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html
Just to clear up any misunderstanding
-
You have spent hours and hours debating beliefs and opinions.... Do you now believe it's a waste of time
Hours and hours = cobblers.
What is a waste of time? Separating the wheat from the chaff?
-
You obviously don't understand the point in question....None of my posts refer to who believes what... My posts to which you have replied relate to whether amaral proved death in the apartment.. You have totally misunderstood the posts
I understood your posts perfectly.
-
I understood your posts perfectly.
You do not... You said it's about who believes what... It isnt
Read the post I have reposted
-
Hours and hours = cobblers.
What is a waste of time? Separating the wheat from the chaff?
You are now not making any sense
-
Who cares? Debating beliefs and opinions is a waste of time.
It is the case that most of Portugal is of the opinion that Madeleine died in 5A on 3 May 2007.
Consequently, rubbish about what Amaral proved or did not prove is entirely beside the point.
That is most dismissive of you. If Amaral misled the entire nation of Portugal by convincing them that he had proof that Madeleine died in the apartment when clearly he did not, then I would say that’s quite a serious matter and not beside the point at all. It is neither a belief, nor an opinion that Amaral did not prove Madeleine died in the apartment, it’s a fact supported by the police report when the case was archived.
-
That is most dismissive of you. If Amaral misled the entire nation of Portugal by convincing them that he had proof that Madeleine died in the apartment when clearly he did not, then I would say that’s quite a serious matter and not beside the point at all. It is neither a belief, nor an opinion that Amaral did not prove Madeleine died in the apartment, it’s a fact supported by the police report when the case was archived.
Who said Amaral misled the entire nation?
-
Who said Amaral misled the entire nation?
quote from: Vertigo Swirl on Today at 06:07:06 PM
Who is of the opinion (apart from the great man himself) that Amaral PROVED Madeleine died in the apartment?
You said:
Most of Portugal, from what I have seen. They are also entitled to their opinion.
-
quote from: Vertigo Swirl on Today at 06:07:06 PM
Who is of the opinion (apart from the great man himself) that Amaral PROVED Madeleine died in the apartment?
You said:
Most of Portugal, from what I have seen. They are also entitled to their opinion.
You are still not being accurate.
You appear to be of the opinion that Madeleine did not die in 5A.
Others are entitled to hold the opinion that she did.
This is simply a re-run of McCanns v Amaral, which the McCanns lost.
-
You are still not being accurate.
You appear to be of the opinion that Madeleine did not die in 5A.
Others are entitled to hold the opinion that she did.
This is simply a re-run of McCanns v Amaral, which the McCanns lost.
You still don't understand
Maddie may or may not have died in 5a
There is no proof either way
That is, a, fact
Amaral claims he produced proof she died... He didnt
Therefore amaral is, wrong..
If you are going to respond to my posts, as you have please, address the pont Re, amarals, claim of proof
-
You are still not being accurate.
You appear to be of the opinion that Madeleine did not die in 5A.
Others are entitled to hold the opinion that she did.
This is simply a re-run of McCanns v Amaral, which the McCanns lost.
I have given no opinion. I have simply pointed out a fact, a fact substantiated by the police both in the current investigation and the original one, and that is that there is no proof that Madeleine died in the apartment, which is contrary to Amaral’s claim that he proved she did die in the apartment. Which bit of what I wrote is incorrect?
-
I have given no opinion. I have simply pointed out a fact, a fact substantiated by the police both in the current investigation and the original one, and that is that there is no proof that Madeleine died in the apartment, which is contrary to Amaral’s claim that he proved she did die in the apartment. Which bit of what I wrote is incorrect?
It seems to me to be a matter of opinion. Amaral may have believed he proved that Madeleine died in the apartment. His Portuguese audience may have agreed with him. The McCanns appear to have believed they had been cleared by the archiving dispatch. Some people believe it's been proved that Madeleine was abducted.
-
It seems to me to be a matter of opinion. Amaral may have believed he proved that Madeleine died in the apartment. His Portuguese audience may have agreed with him. The McCanns appear to have believed they had been cleared by the archiving dispatch. Some people believe it's been proved that Madeleine was abducted.
That is the whole point... Amaral certainly did believe he proved death in the apartment... But he didn't... It isn't a matter if opinion... It's a matter of fact
-
That is the whole point... Amaral certainly did believe he proved death in the apartment... But he didn't... It isn't a matter if opinion... It's a matter of fact
In my opinion it's a fact that nothing has been proved by anyone. This thread, for example, has shown that there is certainly not reliable circumstantial evidence of abduction, let alone proof.
-
In my opinion it's a fact that nothing has been proved by anyone. This thread, for example, has shown that there is certainly not reliable circumstantial evidence of abduction, let alone proof.
Then you have agreed that amarals claim ti have proved Maddie died in the apartment is false
-
Then you have agreed that amarals claim ti have proved Maddie died in the apartment is false
In my opinion it would depend on his definition of proof.
-
In my opinion it would depend on his definition of proof.
So amaral now, has, his own personal definition of proof... So I can say there is proof of abduction and you will support me
-
So amaral now, has, his own personal definition of proof... So I can say there is proof of abduction and you will support me
It's all opinion. The police and the CPS charge people with crimes because they think they can prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail. When they fail it's because a judge and/or jury disagree with their opinions.
-
You still don't understand
Maddie may or may not have died in 5a
There is no proof either way
That is, a, fact
Amaral claims he produced proof she died... He didnt
Therefore amaral is, wrong..
If you are going to respond to my posts, as you have please, address the pont Re, amarals, claim of proof
IYO he didn't, but of what value is your opinion?
This is a small forum of English-speaking people. Consequently opinions on here influence next to nothing. One might as well shout at the wind.
The battleground is Portugal, and I have yet to see a current news article which is supportive of the McCanns or OG.
The last was coverage of extra funding for OG. It got panned by over 90% very unhappy to less than 10% very happy.
Portuguese opinion is hostile to the McCanns and OG.
Your opinion is neither here nor there. As is mine. So I would rather sunbathe for 5 minutes than go round another iteration of a totally unimportant point.
-
IYO he didn't, but of what value is your opinion?
This is a small forum of English-speaking people. Consequently opinions on here influence next to nothing. One might as well shout at the wind.
The battleground is Portugal, and I have yet to see a current news article which is supportive of the McCanns or OG.
The last was coverage of extra funding for OG. It got panned by over 90% very unhappy to less than 10% very happy.
Portuguese opinion is hostile to the McCanns and OG.
Your opinion is neither here nor there. As is mine. So I would rather sunbathe for 5 minutes than go round another iteration of a totally unimportant point.
If it's unimportant to you why have you made so many replies to my posts... Why not simply ignore them..
We decided a long time ago that no ones, posts or opinions, make any difference so it's pointless you repeating something we are all aware of
There us no battleground as you put it.... The opinion of the vast majority of Portuguese is, also now unimportant...it's done and dusted
As you think posting is pointless please stop at any time
-
In my opinion it would depend on his definition of proof.
I disagree. In my opinion 'proof' requires to be supported independently by evidence and not solely on any individual's subjective definition.
-
If it's unimportant to you why have you made so many replies to my posts... Why not simply ignore them..
We decided a long time ago that no ones, posts or opinions, make any difference so it's pointless you repeating something we are all aware of
There us no battleground as you put it.... The opinion of the vast majority of Portuguese is, also now unimportant...it's done and dusted
As you think posting is pointless please stop at any time
I respectfully suggest that you don't take up PR in any form.
Clarence Mitchell has restricted himself to a UK audience. That will do b****r all for Madeleine. But then he's fighting for the McCanns, not Madeleine.
The battleground is and always was Portugal.
-
I respectfully suggest that you don't take up PR in any form.
Clarence Mitchell has restricted himself to a UK audience. That will do b****r all for Madeleine. But then he's fighting for the McCanns, not Madeleine.
The battleground is and always was Portugal.
Why "battleground"?
It is an active case involving a missing child which the Portuguese authorities are conducting.
-
I respectfully suggest that you don't take up PR in any form.
Clarence Mitchell has restricted himself to a UK audience. That will do b****r all for Madeleine. But then he's fighting for the McCanns, not Madeleine.
The battleground is and always was Portugal.
Why would I want to take up PR when I have a very successful career, already..
You seem preoccupied with it... This is not about PR it's, about justice for a missing child and when you have the lead detective claiming he can prove she is dead when he cannot then THAT is doing nothing for maddie
-
Why "battleground"?
It is an active case involving a missing child which the Portuguese authorities are conducting.
There is no battleground... Someone needs a reality check..
Both police forces are working towards a, single, aim... Justice for Maddie
-
Why "battleground"?
It is an active case involving a missing child which the Portuguese authorities are conducting.
If public opinion here is 90% anti-McCann, can you not see it is a battleground for hearts and mind?
Why should a Portuguese innocent Smithman come forward? Who cares about the McCanns here?
-
Don't suppose there will be many in UK who really care, either
-
If public opinion here is 90% anti-McCann, can you not see it is a battleground for hearts and mind?
Why should a Portuguese innocent Smithman come forward? Who cares about the McCanns here?
Who cares about maddie in Portugal... That's the question...
-
Why would I want to take up PR when I have a very successful career, already..
You seem preoccupied with it... This is not about PR it's, about justice for a missing child and when you have the lead detective claiming he can prove she is dead when he cannot then THAT is doing nothing for maddie
Respectfully, don't take up police work either.
You are re-running the McCanns v Amaral. The McCanns lost. It's time to accept reality and move on.
The battleground is still Portugal, because that's where Madeleine disappeared.
-
If public opinion here is 90% anti-McCann, can you not see it is a battleground for hearts and mind?
Why should a Portuguese innocent Smithman come forward? Who cares about the McCanns here?
I would agree that the battleground for hearts and minds are in Portugal, and that was caused by the Tapas crew involved with the non care of their children. I also believe the parents hired people to protect them and their reputation.
When they made the decision to trapse around acting like the 'Big I am's' it did get peoples back up. They were making derogatory claims about the Pj GNR and people not looking for Maddie- this was done for sympathy. They blogged and jogged did the whole celebrity bit meeting pope within days- phoning the prime minister etc and didn't go searching them selves. Their arrogance was well displayed for all to see. Blaming everyone, but themselves. that really didn't go down well at all....
SO has any supporters offered this circumstantial proof of stranger abduction yet? It pays to remind some that it was claimed there was not ENOUGH evidence to charge anyone regarding the disappearance of young MBM.
-
I would agree that the battleground for hearts and minds are in Portugal, and that was caused by the Tapas crew involved with the non care of their children. I also believe the parents hired people to protect them and their reputation.
When they made the decision to trapse around acting like the 'Big I am's' it did get peoples back up. They were making derogatory claims about the Pj GNR and people not looking for Maddie- this was done for sympathy. They blogged and jogged did the whole celebrity bit meeting pope within days- phoning the prime minister etc and didn't go searching them selves. Their arrogance was well displayed for all to see. Blaming everyone, but themselves. that really didn't go down well at all....
SO has any supporters offered this circumstantial proof of stranger abduction yet? It pays to remind some that it was claimed there was not ENOUGH evidence to charge anyone regarding the disappearance of young MBM.
Actually I have proof of abduction...
-
Actually I have proof of abduction...
yeah? ok but we would like to hear your circumstantial evidence first as you have claimed.. we will wait for the 'proof' you have to be explained by OG and PJ.
-
yeah? ok but we would like to hear your circumstantial evidence first as you have claimed.. we will wait for the 'proof' you have to be explained by OG and PJ.
I have, proof based on amarals treatise on proving things... It's pretty pathetic and full of holes... But acceptable to sceptics on the forum and most of the population of Portugal according to sil
-
Actually I have proof of abduction...
Yeah OK so what is it?
-
Yeah OK so what is it?
Read the post above
-
Read the post above
What this bit of rubbish? "I have, proof based on amarals treatise on proving things... It's pretty pathetic and full of holes... But acceptable to sceptics on the forum and most of the population of Portugal according to sil" That isn't proof IMO.
-
What this bit of rubbish? "I have, proof based on amarals treatise on proving things... It's pretty pathetic and full of holes... But acceptable to sceptics on the forum and most of the population of Portugal according to sil" That isn't proof IMO.
You need to read the post in context
-
yeah? ok but we would like to hear your circumstantial evidence first as you have claimed.. we will wait for the 'proof' you have to be explained by OG and PJ.
Claiming is one thing doing is a horse of an entirely different colour.
-
Claiming is one thing doing is a horse of an entirely different colour.
Precisely... Amaral claimed he would.... And failed
-
Precisely... Amaral claimed he would.... And failed
IYO.
How much does your opinion count for in Portugal? Thus far I haven't seen anyone in Portugal, or the UK MSM, referring to Davel's opinion.
-
IYO.
How much does your opinion count for in Portugal? Thus far I haven't seen anyone in Portugal, or the UK MSM, referring to Davel's opinion.
I'm not posting in portugal
Anything you say about my opinion applies to any opinion on here... Including yours... Your posts are sounding rather strange
-
If public opinion here is 90% anti-McCann, can you not see it is a battleground for hearts and mind?
Why should a Portuguese innocent Smithman come forward? Who cares about the McCanns here?
In my opinion you paint a very bleak picture of a Portugal which in your opinion counts public perception more valuable than the rule of law and concern about justice for a missing child.
Fortunately the authorities in Britain or more to the point, in Portugal don't feel themselves constrained by limitations such as you suggest.
In my opinion justice is not a popularity contest ... it is still evidence based ... and presently the evidence being followed has led to both investigations into Madeleine's disappearance to focus on abduction.
Maybe it is a battleground ... an allegory of good versus evil?
-
In my opinion you paint a very bleak picture of a Portugal which in your opinion counts public perception more valuable than the rule of law and concern about justice for a missing child.
Fortunately the authorities in Britain or more to the point, in Portugal don't feel themselves constrained by limitations such as you suggest.
In my opinion justice is not a popularity contest ... it is still evidence based ... and presently the evidence being followed has led to both investigations into Madeleine's disappearance to focus on abduction.
Maybe it is a battleground ... an allegory of good versus evil?
My picture of Portugal is one of reality.
In the absence of DNA evidence, both investigations rely on goodwill. I cannot say what the situation is in the UK, because I don't track opinion aka goodwill there. In Portugal, there is a lack of goodwill, which will help neither investigation.
There is no allegory of good v evil.
There was a McCann PR unit set up to protect the parents.
It focused on the UK and ignored Portugal.
It did next to nothing for Madeleine.
Team McCann chose to ignore Portugal.
-
In my opinion you paint a very bleak picture of a Portugal which in your opinion counts public perception more valuable than the rule of law and concern about justice for a missing child.
Fortunately the authorities in Britain or more to the point, in Portugal don't feel themselves constrained by limitations such as you suggest.
In my opinion justice is not a popularity contest ... it is still evidence based ... and presently the evidence being followed has led to both investigations into Madeleine's disappearance to focus on abduction.
Maybe it is a battleground ... an allegory of good versus evil?
Excellent post IMO
-
It seems to me to be a matter of opinion. Amaral may have believed he proved that Madeleine died in the apartment. His Portuguese audience may have agreed with him. The McCanns appear to have believed they had been cleared by the archiving dispatch. Some people believe it's been proved that Madeleine was abducted.
So in your opinion there is no such thing as proof, only opinion about proof?
-
IYO.
How much does your opinion count for in Portugal? Thus far I haven't seen anyone in Portugal, or the UK MSM, referring to Davel's opinion.
He either proved Madeleine died in the apartment or he failed to prove it. Which is it?
-
In my opinion you paint a very bleak picture of a Portugal which in your opinion counts public perception more valuable than the rule of law and concern about justice for a missing child.
Fortunately the authorities in Britain or more to the point, in Portugal don't feel themselves constrained by limitations such as you suggest.
In my opinion justice is not a popularity contest ... it is still evidence based ... and presently the evidence being followed has led to both investigations into Madeleine's disappearance to focus on abduction.
Maybe it is a battleground ... an allegory of good versus evil?
You keep saying that the Portuguese investigation is focusing on abduction. When Martin Brunt interviewed Pedro do Carmo last year he asked him about that;
MB Do you accept that she was abducted?
PdC; We don't know what happened and we have to be prepared to deal with different scenarios.
29:33 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic
-
In my opinion Davel has proved Madeleine was abducted.
-
He either proved Madeleine died in the apartment or he failed to prove it. Which is it?
Does it matter? SY can't crack this particular enigma.
-
So in your opinion there is no such thing as proof, only opinion about proof?
If it wasn't down to opinion there'd be no miscarriages of justice.
-
In my opinion Davel has proved Madeleine was abducted.
Dead or alive? SY can't or won't confirm either way if she is dead or alive.
-
In my opinion Davel has proved Madeleine was abducted.
Perhaps you could furnish us with this proof as Davel seems a little shy on the subject.
-
Perhaps you could furnish us with this proof as Davel seems a little shy on the subject.
No need. If I say it then it's a fact.
ETA: to be clear: it's a fact that it's my opinion.
-
Does it matter? SY can't crack this particular enigma.
Only as a point to be debated on a forum, of course in my view what Amaral believes or says he's done is completely beside the point. He is yesterday's man.
-
If it wasn't down to opinion there'd be no miscarriages of justice.
So if everything is opinion then perhaps we can dispense with the childish demands for stating "in my opinion" before every sentence we write.
-
Yes the open window....body language... Them both being doctors...abduction proved imo
-
Yes the open window....body language... Them both being doctors...abduction proved imo
Window closed, body language, Harold Shipman, death certain imo.
-
My picture of Portugal is one of reality.
In the absence of DNA evidence, both investigations rely on goodwill. I cannot say what the situation is in the UK, because I don't track opinion aka goodwill there. In Portugal, there is a lack of goodwill, which will help neither investigation.
There is no allegory of good v evil.
There was a McCann PR unit set up to protect the parents.
It focused on the UK and ignored Portugal.
It did next to nothing for Madeleine.
Team McCann chose to ignore Portugal.
So you are concerned about the lack of goodwill in Portugal which means you think that's, where the important information lies... Not in the uk.... So that's the parents ruled out.... Amaral thinks they're involved... I don't... So that makes my opinion more informed than his... Perfect
Edited spelling
-
The evidence does not prove that he is wrong, nor that he misunderstood the evidence.
Either prove that Madeleine did not die in 5A, or make it clear that it is simply your opinion.
Either prove that Amaral did not understand the evidence, or make it clear that it is simply your opinion.
Do you think Amaral should have been more careful with his words and instead should have said "I will prove that (in my opinion) Madeleine died in the apartment" or should he have said "In my opinion, I will prove that Madeleine died in the apartment" because he really should have made it clear it was only his opinion, shouldn't he?
-
Do you think Amaral should have been more careful with his words and instead should have said "I will prove that (in my opinion) Madeleine died in the apartment" or should he have said "In my opinion, I will prove that Madeleine died in the apartment" because he really should have made it clear it was only his opinion, shouldn't he?
I thought you said Amaral was yesterday's man. Why bring him up yet again ?
-
I thought you said Amaral was yesterday's man. Why bring him up yet again ?
https://youtu.be/W6N3o4TDYsI
-
My picture of Portugal is one of reality.
In the absence of DNA evidence, both investigations rely on goodwill. I cannot say what the situation is in the UK, because I don't track opinion aka goodwill there. In Portugal, there is a lack of goodwill, which will help neither investigation.
There is no allegory of good v evil.
There was a McCann PR unit set up to protect the parents.
It focused on the UK and ignored Portugal.
It did next to nothing for Madeleine.
Team McCann chose to ignore Portugal.
It appears your opinion is at variance with that of Pedro do Carmo who replied when asked why ten years after the event Madeleine's disappearance is still so much in the public eye ...
"First, there was a deliberate and legitimate effort on the part of the child's parents to keep the topic on the agenda of the media."
When asked if it had been a mistake to make Madeleine's parents arguidos in 2007, his emphatic response was ...
"I will not naturally answer that question.
But what I can say, like I did in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects.
This statement remains: the parents are not suspicious. Ponto.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2017-05-03-Pedro-do-Carmo-Os-pais-de-Maddie-nao-sao-suspeitos.-Ponto-1#gs.sEWw0fU
Pedro do Carmo who is the deputy director of the Judiciary Police seems to have a very positive outlook as far as Kate and Gerry McCann are concerned ... so perhaps there isn't as much doom and gloom amongst Portuguese opinion as you seem to think.
-
I thought you said Amaral was yesterday's man. Why bring him up yet again ?
Ancient History is a favourite subject of mine.
-
It appears your opinion is at variance with that of Pedro do Carmo who replied when asked why ten years after the event Madeleine's disappearance is still so much in the public eye ...
"First, there was a deliberate and legitimate effort on the part of the child's parents to keep the topic on the agenda of the media."
When asked if it had been a mistake to make Madeleine's parents arguidos in 2007, his emphatic response was ...
"I will not naturally answer that question.
But what I can say, like I did in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects.
This statement remains: the parents are not suspicious. Ponto.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2017-05-03-Pedro-do-Carmo-Os-pais-de-Maddie-nao-sao-suspeitos.-Ponto-1#gs.sEWw0fU
Pedro do Carmo who is the deputy director of the Judiciary Police seems to have a very positive outlook as far as Kate and Gerry McCann are concerned ... so perhaps there isn't as much doom and gloom amongst Portuguese opinion as you seem to think.
Haven't got a clue as to the point you are making.
Pedro do Carmo in no way makes up the 90% of the Portuguese respondents who were very unsatisfied that OG got yet more funding. He could have been one of the many, or a McCann supporter, a neutral, or not voted.
Does one care?
-
It appears your opinion is at variance with that of Pedro do Carmo who replied when asked why ten years after the event Madeleine's disappearance is still so much in the public eye ...
"First, there was a deliberate and legitimate effort on the part of the child's parents to keep the topic on the agenda of the media."
When asked if it had been a mistake to make Madeleine's parents arguidos in 2007, his emphatic response was ...
"I will not naturally answer that question.
But what I can say, like I did in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects.
This statement remains: the parents are not suspicious. Ponto.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2017-05-03-Pedro-do-Carmo-Os-pais-de-Maddie-nao-sao-suspeitos.-Ponto-1#gs.sEWw0fU
Pedro do Carmo who is the deputy director of the Judiciary Police seems to have a very positive outlook as far as Kate and Gerry McCann are concerned ... so perhaps there isn't as much doom and gloom amongst Portuguese opinion as you seem to think.
He will need to identify the crime before he starts suspecting people.
-
I thought you said Amaral was yesterday's man. Why bring him up yet again ?
He is rather like a Kelly Doll is he not? in that he just keeps bobbing up on every thread usually in the company of Eddie and Keela.
A new trinity as it were.
-
He is rather like a Kelly Doll is he not? in that he just keeps bobbing up on every thread usually in the company of Eddie and Keela.
A new trinity as it were.
The thing I remember about a kelly doll was that however many time it was knocked over, it bounced back up again unaffected.
-
He will need to identify the crime before he starts suspecting people.
Snip
This is confirmed in a statement released Thursday by the PJ. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfilled the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note. The PJ goes on to point out that, in common with all cases of missing children, despite the formal closure of the inquiry, "he continued to be attentive to any information that would make it possible to know the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which their disappearance and the identity of their author (s) ".
Investigation centered on the rapture thesis
The PÚBLICO knows that the members of PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal investigations that will support the need to reopen the case. The reopening of the inquiry is the only way for the PJ to formally inquire these witnesses.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
Worthy of note is that Pedro do Carmo dismissed discussion of events pre 2008 during the Expresso interview saying ... "About what happened until 2008, I do not want to talk. This has already been sufficiently debated in one's own place.
Sobre aquilo que se sucedeu até 2008 não quero falar. Isso já foi suficientemente debatido em sede própria.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2017-05-03-Pedro-do-Carmo-Os-pais-de-Maddie-nao-sao-suspeitos.-Ponto-1#gs.sEWw0fU
-
Snip
This is confirmed in a statement released Thursday by the PJ. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfilled the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note. The PJ goes on to point out that, in common with all cases of missing children, despite the formal closure of the inquiry, "he continued to be attentive to any information that would make it possible to know the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which their disappearance and the identity of their author (s) ".
Investigation centered on the rapture thesis
The PÚBLICO knows that the members of PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal investigations that will support the need to reopen the case. The reopening of the inquiry is the only way for the PJ to formally inquire these witnesses.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
Worthy of note is that Pedro do Carmo dismissed discussion of events pre 2008 during the Expresso interview saying ... "About what happened until 2008, I do not want to talk. This has already been sufficiently debated in one's own place.
Sobre aquilo que se sucedeu até 2008 não quero falar. Isso já foi suficientemente debatido em sede própria.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2017-05-03-Pedro-do-Carmo-Os-pais-de-Maddie-nao-sao-suspeitos.-Ponto-1#gs.sEWw0fU
In the light of what Mark Rowley said about the first investigation what do you think we should read into Sr do Carmo's statement ?
or
In the light of Sr do Carmo's statement what do you think we should read into what Mark Rowley said about the first investigation ?
-
Snip
This is confirmed in a statement released Thursday by the PJ. "This work of reanalysis, which took place during the last two and a half years, allowed us to know new evidence that, by imposing the continuation of the investigation, fulfilled the requirements ... for the reopening of the investigation," reads the note. The PJ goes on to point out that, in common with all cases of missing children, despite the formal closure of the inquiry, "he continued to be attentive to any information that would make it possible to know the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann, the circumstances in which their disappearance and the identity of their author (s) ".
Investigation centered on the rapture thesis
The PÚBLICO knows that the members of PJ do Porto have already visited the Algarve several times to gather elements and carry out informal investigations that will support the need to reopen the case. The reopening of the inquiry is the only way for the PJ to formally inquire these witnesses.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
Worthy of note is that Pedro do Carmo dismissed discussion of events pre 2008 during the Expresso interview saying ... "About what happened until 2008, I do not want to talk. This has already been sufficiently debated in one's own place.
Sobre aquilo que se sucedeu até 2008 não quero falar. Isso já foi suficientemente debatido em sede própria.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/sociedade/2017-05-03-Pedro-do-Carmo-Os-pais-de-Maddie-nao-sao-suspeitos.-Ponto-1#gs.sEWw0fU
Who should we believe? A newspaper reporter in 2013 or Pedro do Carmo speaking to Martin Brunt in 2017?
MB Do you accept that she was abducted?
PdC; We don't know what happened and we have to be prepared to deal with different scenarios.
29:33 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic
-
Who should we believe? A newspaper reporter in 2013 or Pedro do Carmo speaking to Martin Brunt in 2017?
MB Do you accept that she was abducted?
PdC; We don't know what happened and we have to be prepared to deal with different scenarios.
29:33 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic
Different scenarios in which the parents are not the suspects. The reports do not contradict each other so we can accept both.
-
Who should we believe? A newspaper reporter in 2013 or Pedro do Carmo speaking to Martin Brunt in 2017?
MB Do you accept that she was abducted?
PdC; We don't know what happened and we have to be prepared to deal with different scenarios.
29:33 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic
He also reiterated in 2017 that the parents aren't suspects in whatever happened to her:
Do you think it was a mistake to have the McCann couple constituted as arguidos in September 2007?
Obviously, I will not answer that question. But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period.
in Expresso, May 2, 2017
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html
-
Different scenarios in which the parents are not the suspects. The reports do not contradict each other so we can accept both.
I think you're missing the point. The point is that the Publico report wasn't necessarily correct.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
-
I think you're missing the point. The point is that the Publico report wasn't necessarily correct.
The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie. The PJ do Porto team was convinced of this thesis in view of the careful observation of all the information in the process.
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/sociedade/noticia/ministerio-publico-reabre-processo-do-desaparecimento-de-maddie-1610207
It's clear to me that the PJ believe Madeleine's disappearance is as a result of a crime committed by someone other than her parents, whether it's kidnapping or murder and subsequent body disposal or woke and wandered and killed or taken. Those seem to be the scenarios under investigation - unless you have any evidence that there are any others under investigation?
-
He also reiterated in 2017 that the parents aren't suspects in whatever happened to her:
Do you think it was a mistake to have the McCann couple constituted as arguidos in September 2007?
Obviously, I will not answer that question. But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period.
in Expresso, May 2, 2017
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/pedro-do-carmo-maddies-parents-are-not.html
Ah, but this is when the "we must read between the lines" caveat gets presented, and that obviously by saying white he meant black.
-
It's clear to me that the PJ believe Madeleine's disappearance is as a result of a crime committed by someone other than her parents, whether it's kidnapping or murder and subsequent body disposal or woke and wandered and killed or taken. Those seem to be the scenarios under investigation - unless you have any evidence that there are any others under investigation?
I admire your faith in the PJ, although I'm a little surprised given their track record.
8th August 2007
"The family are not suspects. This is the official position," said a spokesman for the Portuguese police, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa.
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Reports:_Parents_of_missing_girl_Madeleine_McCann_are_suspects_in_her_disappearance
-
It was extraordinary for Pedro do Carma to expose himself to an interview in the first instance. It would have been much more than extraordinary had he used the opportunity to criticise the Policia Judiciaria.
Interesting though that the interviewer asked it in the first place,
-
I admire your faith in the PJ, although I'm a little surprised given their track record.
8th August 2007
"The family are not suspects. This is the official position," said a spokesman for the Portuguese police, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa.
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Reports:_Parents_of_missing_girl_Madeleine_McCann_are_suspects_in_her_disappearance
Is that your only evidence that the PJ are investigating parental involvement? A singular quote from a member of the PJ in 2007? It's really not much to pin your hopes on is it?
-
Is that your only evidence that the PJ are investigating parental involvement? A singular quote from a member of the PJ in 2007? It's really not much to pin your hopes on is it?
It is you who made a claim, not me;
"It's clear to me that the PJ believe Madeleine's disappearance is as a result of a crime committed by someone other than her parents"
You seem to be basing that on do Carmo's statement that the parents are not suspects. I simply pointed out that they have said that before, so relying on it might be a little naive.
-
It was extraordinary for Pedro do Carma to expose himself to an interview in the first instance. It would have been much more than extraordinary had he used the opportunity to criticise the Policia Judiciaria.
Interesting though that the interviewer asked it in the first place,
The point is that he hasn't confirmed that the PJ are focusing on abduction, so any claims that they are can now cease.
-
It is you who made a claim, not me;
"It's clear to me that the PJ believe Madeleine's disappearance is as a result of a crime committed by someone other than her parents"
You seem to be basing that on do Carmo's statement that the parents are not suspects. I simply pointed out that they have said that before, so relying on it might be a little naive.
I asked for evidence that the PJ are investigating the parents. There is none, though back in 2007 there was plenty to suggest they were under suspicion, even when blokey from the PJ said they weren't. There is nothing whatsover to suggest they are under suspicion now. IMO it is naive to get your hopes up based on something said by one man 11 years ago.
-
It is you who made a claim, not me;
"It's clear to me that the PJ believe Madeleine's disappearance is as a result of a crime committed by someone other than her parents"
You seem to be basing that on do Carmo's statement that the parents are not suspects. I simply pointed out that they have said that before, so relying on it might be a little naive.
It is not naive at all. The mccanns we're not suspects in the original investigation until the pj completely misunderstood the evidence. Amaral thought he had proof that Maddie. died in the, apartment and the parents, we're involved... He was mistaken
The mccanns are now not suspects but we, all realise that if new evidence, came to light that could change...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9mdFMOaHlY
-
I asked for evidence that the PJ are investigating the parents. There is none, though back in 2007 there was plenty to suggest they were under suspicion, even when blokey from the PJ said they weren't. There is nothing whatsover to suggest they are under suspicion now. IMO it is naive to get your hopes up based on something said by one man 11 years ago.
I never claimed that the PJ were investigating the parents, so why ask me for evidence? I repeat, it was you making claims about the PJ's activities, not me.
-
I admire your faith in the PJ, although I'm a little surprised given their track record.
8th August 2007
"The family are not suspects. This is the official position," said a spokesman for the Portuguese police, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa.
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Reports:_Parents_of_missing_girl_Madeleine_McCann_are_suspects_in_her_disappearance
Could the McCanns become suspects?
“Up until now, they are not suspects. If we have any suspicions we are compelled by law to charge them in order to preserve their rights.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr Sousa, when questioned over whether police have admitted a mistake in charging Robert Murat, the only formal suspect in the case so far, he responds: “I am unaware that Portuguese police have apologised to Robert Murat, and for us to apologise, it would mean we have done something wrong. Whenever someone is suspected of involvement in a crime this person needs to be constituted a formal suspect to protect their rights”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brendan de Beer
During the 90 minutes I spent with Chief Inspector Olegário Sousa, it became clear that nothing will please him more than announcing to the world that Madeleine McCann has been found alive and well. While Kate and Gerry have been facing growing criticism - it was quite apparent that Mr Sousa, as a person (and not a police detective) is one of their biggest sympathisers. He even banged his desk, breaking what had been a statue-like posture to illustrate the point that, albeit an official one, the McCanns are not suspected of being involved in their daughter’s disappearance. While secrecy laws restrict and the austere image portrayed by PJ detectives seems a prerequisite of being accepted into the force, Mr Sousa is very human and if he is any way a reflection of how his colleagues operate, than Portugal can be proud of its police force and that all is being done to find Madeleine.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/exclusive-chief-inspector-olegario-sousa/22774
It has been said on the forum that being constituted arguido in Portugal is the equivalent of being questioned under caution in Britain.
That should be borne in mind in this instance particularly as no charges were laid.
-
I never claimed that the PJ were investigating the parents, so why ask me for evidence? I repeat, it was you making claims about the PJ's activities, not me.
You made no explicit claims, but your inference was clear, IMO. It was to paraphrase: "although the PJ say they are not investigating the McCanns you can't trust them to be telling the truth, because look what happened in 2007". This was in response to my asking for any evidence that the PJ are investigating the parents. Why bring it up otherwise?
-
You made no explicit claims, but your inference was clear, IMO.
Thank you. I made no inference either; you are mistaken.
-
You made no explicit claims, but your inference was clear, IMO. It was to paraphrase: "although the PJ say they are not investigating the McCanns you can't trust them to be telling the truth, because look what happened in 2007". This was in response to my asking for any evidence that the PJ are investigating the parents. Why bring it up otherwise?
What sort of investigation could be done against the McCanns at this stage.
-
What sort of investigation could be done against the McCanns at this stage.
They could be questioned under caution
-
You made no explicit claims, but your inference was clear, IMO. It was to paraphrase: "although the PJ say they are not investigating the McCanns you can't trust them to be telling the truth, because look what happened in 2007". This was in response to my asking for any evidence that the PJ are investigating the parents. Why bring it up otherwise?
Have the PJ said they're not investigating the McCanns? Do you have a cite for that?
-
Have the PJ said they're not investigating the McCanns? Do you have a cite for that?
As far as I'm aware the PJ haven't given any details of their activities.
-
As far as I'm aware the PJ haven't given any details of their activities.
And well done for that to the special Madeleine PJ group up in Porto. 8@??)(
-
And well done for that to the special Madeleine PJ group up in Porto. 8@??)(
Didn’t Heri give us news of a Portuguese leak only yesterday ?
-
Thank you. I made no inference either; you are mistaken.
in your opinion.
-
Have the PJ said they're not investigating the McCanns? Do you have a cite for that?
A cite has been given for the McCanns not being suspects, so unless you believe the McCanns whilst not suspects, are still being investigated I think it’s safe to say they are not, unless you can give me another instance of non-suspects being investigated?
-
in your opinion.
It's not my opinion, I know what I have written and what it meant. It is only in your opinion that I meant something I didn't write. 8(>((
-
It's not my opinion, I know what I have written and what it meant. It is only in your opinion that I meant something I didn't write. 8(>((
It's your opinion that I am mistaken. In my opinion I am not. In your opinion when the PJ say: "The McCanns are not suspects" what do you think they mean by it? Do you think they mean "The McCanns are not suspects", or do you infer some other meaning behind their words?
-
It's your opinion that I am mistaken. In my opinion I am not. In your opinion when the PJ say: "The McCanns are not suspects" what do you think they mean by it? Do you think they mean "The McCanns are not suspects", or do you infer some other meaning behind their words?
And do you think the public would be told if the McCanns were suspects?
-
And do you think the public would be told if the McCanns were suspects?
Is it Groundhog Day again? Didn't we do this a few days ago?
Yep - you've asked the same question twice before in recent days
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg451917#msg451917
-
Is it Groundhog Day again? Didn't we do this a few days ago?
Yep - you've asked the same question twice before in recent days
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9213.msg451917#msg451917
And? The question is still relevant.
-
And? The question is still relevant.
Can I refer you to Brietta's post earlier in which she posted an excerpt of an interview in which a member of the PJ stated that if they had any suspicions about the McCanns they would have to make them arguidos, so yes I do think the public would be told if they were suspects, just as the public were told they were suspects in the first investigation.
-
Can I refer you to Brietta's post earlier in which she posted an excerpt of an interview in which a member of the PJ stated that if they had any suspicions about the McCanns they would have to make them arguidos, so yes I do think the public would be told if they were suspects, just as the public were told they were suspects in the first investigation.
Then let me rephrase the question. Do you really think we’d be told if the McCanns are being investigated?
-
Then let me rephrase the question. Do you really think we’d be told if the McCanns are being investigated?
No, I don't think we'd be told directly but I think we'd have found out indirectly, and after 5 years there's not even a whisper of a shred of evidence to suggest they are being investigated. They have not been recalled to Portugal, they have not been made arguidos, the police HAVE investigated several people unconnected to the McCanns however, and we know about them. All the evidence supports the Met & PJ's public statements that the McCanns are not suspects.
-
No, I don't think we'd be told directly but I think we'd hae found out indirectly, and after 5 years there's not even a whisper of a shred of evidence to suggest they are being investigated. They have not been recalled to Portugal, they have not been made arguidos, the police HAVE investigated several people unconnected to the McCanns however, and we know about them. All the evidence supports the Met & PJ's public statements that the McCanns are not suspects.
No you are right, we wouldn’t be told directly.
-
No you are right, we wouldn’t be told directly.
And no one has claimed otherwise. But surely even you must agree that (in theory) after 5 years of being investigated, we would have a few big clues that the McCanns were in the frame by now.
-
It's your opinion that I am mistaken. In my opinion I am not. In your opinion when the PJ say: "The McCanns are not suspects" what do you think they mean by it? Do you think they mean "The McCanns are not suspects", or do you infer some other meaning behind their words?
You are mistaken in your interpretation of my posts, I assure you. I'm sure do Carmo meant that they are not suspects, but I'm not sure exactly what that phrase means. The only evidence I have is what the phrase meant in August 2007. Do you have any evidence that it meant something else in 2017?
-
You are mistaken in your interpretation of my posts, I assure you. I'm sure do Carmo meant that they are not suspects, but I'm not sure exactly what that phrase means. The only evidence I have is what the phrase meant in August 2007. Do you have any evidence that it meant something else in 2017?
What did the phrase mean in 2007 then?
-
And no one has claimed otherwise. But surely even you must agree that (in theory) after 5 years of being investigated, we would have a few big clues that the McCanns were in the frame by now.
After the war of attrition waged against the PJ by the former arguidos I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this set of PJ officers and OG are playing their cards very close to their chests.
-
After the war of attrition waged against the PJ by the former arguidos I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this set of PJ officers and OG are playing their cards very close to their chests.
I would say that after the last episode in 2007 when the PJ led by amaral thought they had evidence which solved the case but he hadnt ...which must have been a major embarrassment to the PJ... this investigation is beeing far more realistic
-
After the war of attrition waged against the PJ by the former arguidos I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this set of PJ officers and OG are playing their cards very close to their chests.
Based on their incontinence in the past, I would be very surprised if the PJ had managed not to let a tiny Anti McCann leak to seap out in five years. Do you really think the McCanns are so powerful that the PJ are afraid of another so-called “war of attrition”?
-
What did the phrase mean in 2007 then?
Judging by what happened in September 2007 it meant they were suspected but not 'suspects'.
-
Judging by what happened in September 2007 it meant they were suspected but not 'suspects'.
So there we have your inference then, the inference you denied making. You seem to think the 2017 statement means the same ie: the McCanns are not suspects but are suspected.
-
So there we have your inference then, the inference you denied making. You seem to think the 2017 statement means the same ie: the McCanns are not suspects but are suspected.
There are posters, who have spent 11 years of their lives convinced that maddie died due to an accident and her parents covered it up and have posted this belief everyday... How can we expect them... Even though the evidence is now overwhelming to realise that they have been wrong all this time
-
They could be questioned under caution
"the police caution: “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”"
So they would ask for a lawyer and say nothing.
-
Judging by what happened in September 2007 it meant they were suspected but not 'suspects'.
Is that like "not yet ruled out"?
-
"the police caution: “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”"
So they would ask for a lawyer and say nothing.
Is that your opinion... If so you need to say so
-
Is that like "not yet ruled out"?
Look at the evidence against them
-
Look at the evidence against them
I asking the forum for their view.
-
I asking the forum for their view.
Doesn't matter what the forum view is... What is, the evidence of the mccanns involvement
-
So there we have your inference then, the inference you denied making. You seem to think the 2017 statement means the same ie: the McCanns are not suspects but are suspected.
Some people appear to think the 2017 statement means something different than the 2007 statement. Perhaps it does, but where's the supporting evidence?
-
Is that like "not yet ruled out"?
If the PJ haven't identified the crime, how can anyone have been 'ruled out'?
-
If the Met are investigating a crime carried out against a UK minor by another 2 of this country's citizens, why do they keep having to apply for additional funding from the Home Office?
-
Some people appear to think the 2017 statement means something different than the 2007 statement. Perhaps it does, but where's the supporting evidence?
Where’s the supporting evidence that there is any inference in the 2017 statement? Why should both statements (uttered by different officers 11 years apart, in different circumstances) have the same hidden meaning?
-
If the Met are investigating a crime carried out against a UK minor by another 2 of this country's citizens, why do they keep having to apply for additional funding from the Home Office?
Why spend your own budget (Met) when you can spend someone else's (Home Office) ?
-
Why spend your own budget (Met) when you can spend someone else's (Home Office) ?
Ditto PJ budget & UK budget......why are the Portuguese spending money on something the UK could deal with?
-
Where’s the supporting evidence that there is any inference in the 2017 statement? Why should both statements (uttered by different officers 11 years apart, in different circumstances) have the same hidden meaning?
I'm not claiming anything, it's others who're doing that. It's up to those who claim that the meanings are different to provide evidence to support that claim.
-
I'm not claiming anything, it's others who're doing that. It's up to those who claim that the meanings are different to provide evidence to support that claim.
So you’re not claiming that the 2017 statement means the McCanns are suspected but not suspects then?
-
And no one has claimed otherwise. But surely even you must agree that (in theory) after 5 years of being investigated, we would have a few big clues that the McCanns were in the frame by now.
And how would this be done and who would do anything?
Would the McCanns really have a sauce claim they are being investigated? nah...You are trying to just cause an argument over nothing at all. leaving theory out of it, If the PJ /OG say they are investigating the McCanns in an open media this would cause major issues,because if it became a court case this could be jeopardised/compromised.
They first have to investigate WHAT crime was committed before looking for suspects! however, they can suspect the behaviour of the tapas and parents that they are involved in some way of the disappeared child. They cannot treat them as suspects of a non discript crime?
I am charging you of a crime we have not yet established...yeah good right...Next...
-
And how would this be done and who would do anything? You are trying to just cause an argument over nothing at all. leaving theory out of it.
If the PJ /OG say they are investigating the McCanns in an open media this would cause major issues,because if it became a court case this could be jeopardised/compromised.
They first have to investigate WHAT crime was committed before looking for suspects! however, they can suspect the behaviour of the tapas and parents that they are involved in some way-something.They cannot treat them as suspects of a non descript crime?
I am charging you of a crime we have not yet established...yeah good right...Next...
I can think of several individuals suspected by the police, with their names plastered across the papers, who were never charged and in some cases never even arrested. Next...
-
I can think of several individuals suspected by the police, with their names plastered across the papers, who were never charged and in some cases never even arrested. Next...
Yes so could I Cliff Richard being one, however he was suspected of a crime he was accused of... next
-
Yes so could I Cliff Richard being one, however he was suspected of a crime he was accused of... next
Are you telling me the police cannot suspect someone of foulplay until they know the precise nature of the crime?
-
Are you telling me the police cannot suspect someone of foulplay until they know the precise nature of the crime?
Are you telling me anyone can be suspected of a crime which has not be committed? seriously hahahahhaha
someone can act suspicious , but cannot be a named suspect if a crime has not been established...
Sorry if this is too difficult to understand.
Officer " I am charging you wif .. erm um well something I will let you know what it is and when you dun it.
-
Are you telling me anyone can be suspected of a crime which has not be committed? seriously hahahahhaha
someone can act suspicious , but cannot be a named suspect if a crime has not been established...
Sorry if this is too difficult to understand.
Officer " I am charging you wif .. erm um well something I will let you know what it is and when you dun it.
You are conflating being a suspect with being charged with a specific crime. When Murat and the McCanns were made arguidos what specific crimes were they suspected of?
-
So you’re not claiming that the 2017 statement means the McCanns are suspected but not suspects then?
No. You claimed it meant something else. I just pointed out what it meant previously. I asked on what evidence you were basing your opinion on, but it seems you have none.
-
You are conflating being a suspect with being charged with a specific crime. When Murat and the McCanns were made arguidos what specific crimes were they suspected of?
I don't know did they say? I believe it was in relation to MBMs disappearance. The crime was not fully established as they had not enough evidence to change anyone whom they may have suspected committed a crime.
So crime= evidence of a crime= suspect/s
no crime established= some evidence of a crime, not enough to charge and convict anyone= can suspect people of being involved in a crime, but cannot hold them as suspects unless they have enought evidence... aw you know how this works, except in the USA where being a Muslim=being a terrorist= is enought to sent you off to....
-
No. You claimed it meant something else. I just pointed out what it meant previously. I asked on what evidence you were basing your opinion on, but it seems you have none.
What relevance does a statement made in 2007 made by one officer in one set of circumstances have to a 2017 statement made by another officer in a different set of circumstances and if the answer is none, then why bring it up in the first place?
-
I don't know did they say? I believe it was in relation to MBMs disappearance. The crime was not fully established as they had not enough evidence to change anyone whom they may have suspected committed a crime.
So crime= evidence of a crime= suspect/s
no crime established= some evidence of a crime, not enough to charge and convict anyone= can suspect people of being involved in a crime, but cannot hold them as suspects unless they have enought evidence... aw you know how this works, except in the USA where being a Muslim=being a terrorist= is enought to sent you off to....
right, so the precise nature of the crime does not need to have been determined before someone is made an arguido / suspect and or having their name plastered all over the papers.
-
What relevance does a statement made in 2007 made by one officer in one set of circumstances have to a 2017 statement made by another officer in a different set of circumstances and if the answer is none, then why bring it up in the first place?
May be you can explain the different circumstances?
-
May be you can explain the different circumstances?
The principle one would be that in August 2007 McCanns had not been exhaustively investigated, or made arguidos, nor had the case been archived with a final report which concluded that there was a lack of any evidence of a crime committed by the McCanns.
-
Well, we don't seem to have found convincing circumstantial evidence of abduction. A C Rowley seemed to believe in it, but the PJ don't, they say they don't know what happened.
-
Well, we don't seem to have found convincing circumstantial evidence of abduction. A C Rowley seemed to believe in it, but the PJ don't, they say they don't know what happened.
But at least we know they have both ruled out parental involvement.
-
But at least we know they have both ruled out parental involvement.
Could you provide cites for that statement, or is it just your opinion?
-
Well, we don't seem to have found convincing circumstantial evidence of abduction. A C Rowley seemed to believe in it, but the PJ don't, they say they don't know what happened.
Rowley tellingly never mentioned stranger abduction though.
-
Could you provide cites for that statement, or is it just your opinion?
G-Unit ... don't you read quotes with which you disagree? In my opinion the provision of such cites has been provided on the forum on many occasions.
This being just one http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457193#msg457193 as well as the signature underneath.
-
G-Unit ... don't you read quotes with which you disagree? In my opinion the provision of such cites has been provided on the forum on many occasions.
This being just one http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457193#msg457193 as well as the signature underneath.
You seem to be quoting from an article in Publico where the writer claims;
"The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis"
I have looked at the article and that doesn't seem to be something the PJ said, it seems to be something the journalist said. Apologies if I'm mistaken.
-
I'm not claiming anything, it's others who're doing that. It's up to those who claim that the meanings are different to provide evidence to support that claim.
Using amarals, standards we could prove it
-
Using amarals, standards we could prove it
Then kindly prove it. That would be most interesting.
But I am not holding my breath.
-
You seem to be quoting from an article in Publico where the writer claims;
"The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis"
I have looked at the article and that doesn't seem to be something the PJ said, it seems to be something the journalist said. Apologies if I'm mistaken.
The same journalists who forecast the imminent reopening of Madeleine's case.
The same journalists who knew the Porto team had been on location working in Luz on Madeleine's case.
The same journalists who reported that the team led by Montiero had been on Madeleine's case and on the ground for nearly two years.
The same journalists who were able to report that witnesses from pre 2008 had never been questioned ... justifying the PJ request that the case be reopened.
The same journalists who were enough in the loop to know that the Porto team would do their own thing while the PJ team from Faro continued to do theirs in conjunction with SY.
These journalists appear to have had a seriously accurate overview of the workings of Madeleine's case in Portugal before there was any credence that the PJ were working it at all ~ with the exception of the Faro six.
The accuracy of their informed reports rather encourages me to take it very seriously when they publish ..."The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie."
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/jornal/autoridades-portuguesas-ponderam-reabrir-investigacao-ao-desaparecimento-de-maddie-27289056
-
Using amarals, standards we could prove it
It's ironic in my opinion that you scoff at Amaral's efforts, but appear to accept Operation Grange's;
In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. 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.
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/why-mark-rowley-interview-confirms-my.html
The fact that a child is too young to go and start a new life isn't evidence of abduction. Many young children disappear, but it doesn't mean they were abducted.
-
The same journalists who forecast the imminent reopening of Madeleine's case.
The same journalists who knew the Porto team had been on location working in Luz on Madeleine's case.
The same journalists who reported that the team led by Montiero had been on Madeleine's case and on the ground for nearly two years.
The same journalists who were able to report that witnesses from pre 2008 had never been questioned ... justifying the PJ request that the case be reopened.
The same journalists who were enough in the loop to know that the Porto team would do their own thing while the PJ team from Faro continued to do theirs in conjunction with SY.
These journalists appear to have had a seriously accurate overview of the workings of Madeleine's case in Portugal before there was any credence that the PJ were working it at all ~ with the exception of the Faro six.
The accuracy of their informed reports rather encourages me to take it very seriously when they publish ..."The reanalysis of the case returns to focus the investigation on the kidnapping thesis, the main line followed by Scotland Yard, who also opened an investigation into the disappearance of Maddie."
https://www.publico.pt/2013/10/24/jornal/autoridades-portuguesas-ponderam-reabrir-investigacao-ao-desaparecimento-de-maddie-27289056
If you prefer the words of journalists to those of Pedro do Carmo that's your prerogative. The PJ may have been investigating the 'kidnapping thesis' since 2013, but in 2017 do Carmo wasn't prepared to say he believed in it.
-
It's ironic in my opinion that you scoff at Amaral's efforts, but appear to accept Operation Grange's;
In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. 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.
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/why-mark-rowley-interview-confirms-my.html
The fact that a child is too young to go and start a new life isn't evidence of abduction. Many young children disappear, but it doesn't mean they were abducted.
I scoff at what amaral regards, as proof... It's basically opinion as you said
-
If you prefer the words of journalists to those of Pedro do Carmo that's your prerogative. The PJ may have been investigating the 'kidnapping thesis' since 2013, but in 2017 do Carmo wasn't prepared to say he believed in it.
-
Well now, that was a good one. How many times does he have to say this?
-
Based on their incontinence in the past, I would be very surprised if the PJ had managed not to let a tiny Anti McCann leak to seap out in five years. Do you really think the McCanns are so powerful that the PJ are afraid of another so-called “war of attrition”?
I certainly don't think the PJ are afraid of the McCanns. I think that they are giving them no room to cry foul if charges are ever brought.
Look at how the couple made hay with the alleged leaks during the first investigation.
-
Then kindly prove it. That would be most interesting.
But I am not holding my breath.
the clue is in...using amarals standard of proof...do you understnd what that means
-
the clue is in...using amarals standard of proof...do you understnd what that means
I understand it fully.
So it's back to you - go prove it.
-
I certainly don't think the PJ are afraid of the McCanns. I think that they are giving them no room to cry foul if charges are ever brought.
Look at how the couple made hay with the alleged leaks during the first investigation.
Made Hay? This comment doesn't even remotely relate to how The McCanns dealt with the lies that were leaked.
-
the clue is in...using amarals standard of proof...do you understnd what that means
I understand what you mean, but some simply don't want to understand. Unfortunately, Amaral's brand of evidence, proof even, has convicted some in the past.
-
I understand it fully.
So it's back to you - go prove it.
Davel doesn't have to prove anything.
-
I understand it fully.
So it's back to you - go prove it.
I doubt you do understand the words I have used in the context of this board..
So it's my opinion.... Therefore it's proven
-
Davel doesn't have to prove anything.
Using the amaral model of proof it's possible to prove just about anything... Ignore all expert opinion... Promote your own I'll informed opinion as fact... And there you have it
-
Using the amaral model of proof it's possible to prove just about anything... Ignore all expert opinion... Promote your own I'll informed opinion as fact... And there you have it
Fortunately, The PJ and The Judiciary had begun to suss this.
Sad to say that the disappearance of Madeleine has done wonders for Portugal and it's decidedly suspect Justice System at that time.
-
Made Hay? This comment doesn't even remotely relate to how The McCanns dealt with the lies that were leaked.
IYO.
-
IYO.
No, not in my opinion. Or are you saying that The McCanns didn't have to cope with lies, lies that they were in no position to refute at the time. And even welcomed these lies? Gosh, what fun they must have been having.
-
I doubt you do understand the words I have used in the context of this board..
So it's my opinion.... Therefore it's proven
Best laugh I've had today.
(&^&
-
Davel doesn't have to prove anything.
Then perhaps he would desist from claiming that he can. Or that he has!
It's lowering the credibility of the forum. IMO, of course.
-
Then perhaps he would desist from claiming that he can. Or that he has!
It's lowering the credibility of the forum. IMO, of course.
Then perhaps posters could stop suggesting that amaral can prove maddie died in the apartment... It afffects the credibility of some posters
-
No, not in my opinion. Or are you saying that The McCanns didn't have to cope with lies, lies that they were in no position to refute at the time. And even welcomed these lies? Gosh, what fun they must have been having.
No position to refute ? They paid £500,000 to have their opinion on the front page of every paper. Half a million buys a whole lot of refuting.
-
Then perhaps posters could stop suggesting that amaral can prove maddie died in the apartment... It afffects the credibility of some posters
Cite. Which posters?
-
Does that mean what it meant in 2007, or do the words have a new meaning in 2017?
-
No position to refute ? They paid £500,000 to have their opinion on the front page of every paper. Half a million buys a whole lot of refuting.
We've been here before though haven't we?
From DCI
Well someone is! Why would he have been paid for by the McCann's?
ALEX WOOLFALL (Bell-Pottinger Group - engaged by Wark Warner)
Within two days after Madeleine’s disappearance, the holiday firm Mark Warner had sent a crisis management team to Portugal. It included Alex Woolfall from Bell Pottinger, the public relations company. Alex Woolfall is Head of Issues and Crisis Management for the Bell Pottinger Group. Woolfall, who has 20 years experience in PR, spent the next two weeks advising the family on how to keep the media interested. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.msg224734#msg224734
Jean-Pierre said,
Oh dear. You seem to have fallen for it! 8(0(*
Before dignifying this claim with any semblence of the "the trust" - could you just provide the entry from the leverson enquiry, and a note of where the fund made a payment of £500K?
Given the fund is audited by a very reputable firm, it should be easy to identify that very considerable sum.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.msg224719#msg224719
-
Cite. Which posters?
When I said amaral could not prove maddies death in the apartment... Which he can't... You insisted but it was merely my opinion and nothing more...
So... You for one
-
Best laugh I've had today.
(&^&
You must be having a real bad day if that was the funniest thing that happened!
-
When I said amaral could not prove maddies death in the apartment... Which he can't... You insistedbitveas merely my opinion and nothing more...
So... You for one
Can you back this with a cite? I can't remember claiming Amaral proved anything.
And your opinion is merely that.
So no proof, merely your opinion.
-
Can you back this with a cite? I can't remember claiming Amaral proved anything.
And your opinion is merely that.
So no proof, merely your opinion.
I think that is the gist of what Davel is saying: "It is his opinion"
-
We've been here before though haven't we?
From DCI
Well someone is! Why would he have been paid for by the McCann's?
ALEX WOOLFALL (Bell-Pottinger Group - engaged by Wark Warner)
Within two days after Madeleine’s disappearance, the holiday firm Mark Warner had sent a crisis management team to Portugal. It included Alex Woolfall from Bell Pottinger, the public relations company. Alex Woolfall is Head of Issues and Crisis Management for the Bell Pottinger Group. Woolfall, who has 20 years experience in PR, spent the next two weeks advising the family on how to keep the media interested. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.msg224734#msg224734
Jean-Pierre said,
Oh dear. You seem to have fallen for it! 8(0(*
Before dignifying this claim with any semblence of the "the trust" - could you just provide the entry from the leverson enquiry, and a note of where the fund made a payment of £500K?
Given the fund is audited by a very reputable firm, it should be easy to identify that very considerable sum.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6114.msg224719#msg224719
As the fund accounts are somewhat less than transparent who knows what heading the money may have been filed under.
As to the truth of the quote from Owen Jones, has Lord Bell ever refuted his claim ?
-
I think that is the gist of what Davel is saying: "It is his opinion"
His opinion about Amaral is his opinion, and I have no interest whatsoever in that.
When someone claims I supported Amaral's view, it is a different matter.
Forum rules require a cite for such an allegation.
No cite will be forthcoming, because there isn't one.
*&(+(+
-
His opinion about Amaral is his opinion, and I have no interest whatsoever in that.
When someone claims I supported Amaral's view, it is a different matter.
Forum rules require a cite for such an allegation.
No cite will be forthcoming, because there isn't one.
*&(+(+
You claimed that my factual post the amaral was unable to prove maddue died in the apartment was merely my opinion and not fact... Thereby supporting amarals claim
-
You claimed that my factual post the amaral was unable to prove maddue died in the apartment was merely my opinion and not fact... Thereby supporting amarals claim
You are now claiming your opinion as a factual post.
-
Can you back this with a cite? I can't remember claiming Amaral proved anything.
And your opinion is merely that.
So no proof, merely your opinion.
YOU CANT REMEMBER AMARAL CLAIMING HE HAD PROVED ASNYTHING......do you read the thread...thats where my claim started ...with a cite...a transcript of amaral from morais site...where he claimed he could prove maddie died in the apartment...your knowledge of the case has some massive holes
-
You are now claiming your opinion as a factual post.
Its not my opinion...amaral claimed he would prove maddie doied in the apartment and produced the evidence....he cannot prove such...that is fact not opinion...part of his proof relied on two dogs taht had helped to solve 200 cases....thats rubbish as well...not opinion...fact
-
amaral actually stated this...
23.29 – The investigation uses two very special dogs that are used by the English and North American police, that have successfully solved over 200 cases.
so is it just my opinion it isnt true...have these two dogs solved 200 cases...no wonder the portuguese people think maddie died in the apartment
-
YOU CANT REMEMBER AMARAL CLAIMING HE HAD PROVED ASNYTHING......do you read the thread...thats where my claim started ...with a cite...a transcript of amaral from morais site...where he claimed he could prove maddie died in the apartment...your knowledge of the case has some massive holes
Re-read my post. It would help if you comprehended what I said.
It was not about Amaral. It was about me and you.
-
Re-read my post. It would help if you comprehended what I said.
It was not about Amaral. It was about me and you.
Perhaps you could read the thread.. It would help if you could comprehend
Time to stop the sniping.. Methinks
-
Perhaps you could read the thread.. It would help if you could comprehend
Time to stop the sniping.. Methinks
So still no cite?
I thought not.
-
Then perhaps he would desist from claiming that he can. Or that he has!
It's lowering the credibility of the forum. IMO, of course.
You would have to go some to do that.
-
You would have to go some to do that.
I can't understand what you mean.
-
You would have to go some to do that.
That's another (&^&
-
I can't understand what you mean.
It seems that the forum has, in Eleanor's opinion, so little credibility that it would be difficult to detract from it.
-
I can't understand what you mean.
Really? God preserve us all. But it always was the case.
I am so tired of the interminable inability to place the blame on the McCanns.
-
That's another (&^&
So why do you go on boring the us all half to death with your latter day opinions when you actually have no real idea?
-
It seems that the forum has, in Eleanor's opinion, so little credibility that it would be difficult to detract from it.
If you believe this to be true then you might just as well not bother. Please don't try to undermine my commitment to this Forum. It will fall on unhearing ears.
I have waited for a long time for you to say such a stupid thing. But I always knew that you would one day.
Merci beaucoup.
-
So why do you go on boring the us all half to death with your latter day opinions when you actually have no real idea?
I haven't given an opinion on Amaral's opinion. Davel is the one who has been banging on endlessly about Amaral's views, making claims Davel cannot substantiate.
My contribution over the past couple of days was about Portugal's opinion, not Amaral's.
?{)(**
-
I haven't given an opinion on Amaral's opinion. Davel is the one who has been banging on endlessly about Amaral's views, making claims Davel cannot substantiate.
My contribution over the past couple of days was about Portugal's opinion, not Amaral's.
?{)(**
rubbish..
amaral claimed he could prove Maddie died in tye apartment...he didnt...fact not opinion..
amaral claimed the two dogs had solved 200 cases...more rubbish...fact not opinion..
I have already provided the cite for both these ridiculous claims
-
I haven't given an opinion on Amaral's opinion. Davel is the one who has been banging on endlessly about Amaral's views, making claims Davel cannot substantiate.
My contribution over the past couple of days was about Portugal's opinion, not Amaral's.
?{)(**
Okay. Fine. Do we have to get off on this?
You are always absolute, so why should Davel not be?
Personally, I don't care, although I remain convinced of the innocence to The McCanns.
-
rubbish..
amaral claimed he could prove Maddie died in tye apartment...he didnt...fact not opinion..
amaral claimed the two dogs had solved 200 cases...more rubbish...fact not opinion..
I have already provided the cite for both these ridiculous claims
That is your opinion, to which you are entitled. Just not a fact.
-
That is your opinion, to which you are entitled. Just not a fact.
So the claim that the two dogs solved 200 cases is not rubbish... Are you claiming this may be true....
-
Gin on special offer was it Eleanor? Couldn’t resist eh ?
Are you teetotal Faithlilly?
You do seem preoccupied by what may or may not be Eleanor's drink of choice.
-
rubbish..
amaral claimed he could prove Maddie died in tye apartment...he didnt...fact not opinion..
amaral claimed the two dogs had solved 200 cases...more rubbish...fact not opinion..
I have already provided the cite for both these ridiculous claims
I don't suppose we could possibly stop this now, could we? Or are we all forever condemned?
Probably, But there you go. I suspect that it all amounts to whether or not we want this child to be found.
Sadly, some don't.
Stay calm and keep on going,
-
Are you teetotal Faithlilly?
You do seem preoccupied by what may or may not be Eleanor's drink of choice.
Stands a chance it's not Macieira.
For about half an hour I went out with a young lady who drank Blue Lagoons....that was in the days when I thought the law of diminishing returns started at the second Babycham. Blue Lagoons? I thought she meant a Lido.. @)(++(*
-
So the claim that the two dogs solved 200 cases is not rubbish... Are you claiming this may be true....
Your claim was that Amaral had said he would prove that Madeleine died in 5A, and that he didn't.
Such was your opinion. You can't claim it as fact unless
1 you prove that Madeleine did not die in 5A, which you can't
or
2 you prove that Amaral did not prove it. Thus far you have failed on this route.
I have no interest in being diverted onto the dogs. There must dozens of dog threads. Kindly stop deflecting.
?{)(**
-
Gin on special offer was it Eleanor? Couldn’t resist eh ?
Oh Dear, silly you. I don't even like Gin. But you had to piss on the head of Stephen and his ghastly Forum to score a point, even after the death of his wife.
Just how pathetic can this be.
-
Are you teetotal Faithlilly?
You do seem preoccupied by what may or may not be Eleanor's drink of choice.
Don't worry about it, Erngath. I never actually drink Gin. Although I would if I wanted to. Faithlilly probably has her own problems.
-
Okay. Fine. Do we have to get off on this?
You are always absolute, so why should Davel not be?
Personally, I don't care, although I remain convinced of the innocence to The McCanns.
I so love France, and you so love Portugal. This is what the likes of you and me do. But I didn't lose my marbles when I moved to France.
I could quite happily move to many an other country in Europe and be perfectly happy there. I make the most of my life in Portugal because time is not on my side. I am making the best of the hand I have been dealt.
Your last sentence is an ad-hom. Whilst I could report it, I would prefer if you would desist from such comments in future.
*&(+(+
-
I could quite happily move to many an other country in Europe and be perfectly happy there. I make the most of my life in Portugal because time is not on my side. I am making the best of the hand I have been dealt.
Your last sentence is an ad-hom. Whilst I could report it, I would prefer if you would desist from such comments in future.
*&(+(+
Oh Dear, how sad. No Ad Hom from me, unless you are paranoid..
-
It seems that the forum has, in Eleanor's opinion, so little credibility that it would be difficult to detract from it.
And here's me thinking how good everyone is behaving!
-
That is your opinion, to which you are entitled. Just not a fact.
I tend to favour Davel on those two points.
-
Your claim was that Amaral had said he would prove that Madeleine died in 5A, and that he didn't.
Such was your opinion. You can't claim it as fact unless
1 you prove that Madeleine did not die in 5A, which you can't
or
2 you prove that Amaral did not prove it. Thus far you have failed on this route.
I have no interest in being diverted onto the dogs. There must dozens of dog threads. Kindly stop deflecting.
?{)(**
I have a feeling if it had been proven that Madeleine had died in the apartment we would all know about it by now. I haven't seen any proof presented by GA therefore I'm satisfied it is a fact that there is no proof as such.
-
I tend to favour Davel on those two points.
Which two points?
-
Well, we don't seem to have found convincing circumstantial evidence of abduction. A C Rowley seemed to believe in it, but the PJ don't, they say they don't know what happened.
If you ruthlessly dismiss every thing that Kate and Gerry have stated, their emotional state, the way that they have thrown themselves into the search, taken the case to SY etc then you are missing vital information imo. Information that most people would recognise because they are not blinded by their adoration of Amaral and apparent hatred of The Mccanns
It can be proven that Gerry did NOT have the time, or opportunity (or motive) to do anything that people on here are intimating .... and I feel sure that both the PJ and SY will have double checked all this
Additionally, at least 3 credible witnesses saw a man watching 5A in the run up to that fateful evening.
I am about to post a list of pointers that imo demonstrate that neither Gerry nor Kate was involved and the likelyhood was that a stranger/strangers abducted Madeleine.
I would be grateful if you would allow the run of these posts to stay together before
commenting. There are 12 posts.
Thank you
Please Note: All 12 posts are in my honest opinion, where opinion is needed .... BUT GENERALLY MOST IS FACT
-
If you ruthlessly dismiss every thing that Kate and Gerry have stated, their emotional state, the way that they have thrown themselves into the search, taken the case to SY etc then you are missing vital information imo. Information that most people would recognise because they are not blinded by their adoration of Amaral and apparent hatred of The Mccanns
It can be proven that Gerry did NOT have the time, or opportunity (or motive) to do anything that people on here are intimating .... and I feel sure that both the PJ and SY will have double checked all this
Additionally, at least 3 credible witnesses saw a man watching 5A in the run up to that fateful evening.
I am about to post a list of pointers that imo demonstrate that neither Gerry nor Kate was involved and the likelyhood was that a stranger/strangers abducted Madeleine.
I would be grateful if you would allow the run of these posts to stay together before
commenting. There are 11 or 12 posts.
Thank you
Post 1
Gerry and Kate saw the window open and the shutters up and wrote statements to that effect. Are you calling them liars? Are you accusing them of some heinous deed?
-
> Gerry and Kate saw the window open and the shutters up and wrote statements to that effect. Are you calling them liars? Are you accusing them of some heinous deed?
Post 2.
No Madeleine fingerprints on (a)the window, frame, glass or shutters ... (b) the front door and presumably the outside knob and inner mechanism were checked. ....(c) The patio door How could she have walked out via the front door, the patio door or the via the window without leaving fingerprints?
Also no fingerprints found on the outside gate, the child gate.
Additionally to no Madeleine fingerprints, no skin, blood or fibres were found at any of these places.
Madeleine had to have been carried out, abducted, because of the lack of the above evidence. With no signs of Madeleine, finger prints etc., on any of the exits she could not have walked out on her own volition
-
No Madeleine fingerprints on (a)the window, frame, glass or shutters ... (b) the front door and presumably the outside knob and inner mechanism were checked. ....(c) The patio door How could she have walked out via the front door, the patio door or the via the window without leaving fingerprints?
Also no fingerprints found on the outside gate, the child gate.
Additionally to no Madeleine fingerprints, no skin, blood or fibres were found at any of these places.
Madeleine had to have been carried out, abducted, because of the lack of the above evidence. With no signs of Madeleine, finger prints etc., on any of the exits she could not have walked out on her own volition
Post3
* IF* Gerry had done something wrong, he had to have left window and shutter open. According to YOU guys, several passers by since 9.15pm would have noticed, yet no-one did. [please note that personally, I don’t think anyone would have noticed unless the shutters were well raised and the curtains fluttering; it was beyond their peripheral vision]
The only time that Gerry left the table according to many witnesses was between about 9 and 9.15(ish)
So Gerry wasn’t involved, according to YOU guys cos others, who passed, would have seen the shutters up and window open and no-one did despite several passing by.
-
* IF* Gerry had done something wrong, he had to have left window and shutter open. According to YOU guys, several passers by since 9.15pm would have noticed, yet no-one did. [please note that personally, I don’t think anyone would have noticed unless the shutters were well raised and the curtains fluttering; it was beyond their peripheral vision]
The only time that Gerry left the table according to many witnesses was between about 9 and 9.15(ish)
So Gerry wasn’t involved, according to YOU guys cos others, who passed, would have seen the shutters up and window open and no-one did despite several passing by.
Post 4
Historically, there had been a string of 8 abductions in first the Porto area and then the PdL area. All within 25 milesish of each place. The Porto ones stopped after the son of an elite was given a talking to and a warning from the Porto police. Someone pretty impressive must have stepped in here IMO to get him off so lightly. There was a gap of 5 years after an abduction approx. every 18 months, but with one little girl going in Madeira.
The last one was of Carolina Santos, a pretty blond 3 year old girl from Silves> She was just 3 years old, but the abduction was prevented by the parents looking out and seeing her in the distance walking off hand in hand with a stranger. They called her and she came running back. He vanished around the corner.
This was just 4 months before Madeleine Vanished !!
Had the abduction of Carolina succeeded, would Madeleine have vanished 4 months later?
-
post 4
Historically, there had been a string of 8 abductions in first the Porto area and then the PdL area. All within 25 milesish of each place. The Porto ones stopped after the son of an elite was given a talking to and a warning from the Porto police. Someone pretty impressive must have stepped in here IMO to get him off so lightly. There was a gap of 5 years after an abduction approx. every 18 months, but with one little girl going in Madeira.
The last one was of Carolina Santos, a pretty blond 3 year old girl from Silves> She was just 3 years old, but the abduction was prevented by the parents looking out and seeing her in the distance walking off hand in hand with a stranger. They called her and she came running back. He vanished around the corner.
This was just 4 months before Madeleine Vanished !!
Had the abduction of Carolina succeeded, would Madeleine have vanished 4 months later?
post 5
A man was witnessed by Jane Tanner walking away in a hurry, carrying a little girl. We call him Tannerman.
Where did he come from, if not block A ? There are no creches in the direction he came from, are there ?
If an innocent man, why hasn’t he come forward?
If a loving Father, why hadn’t he wrapped his daughter up more warmly on a chilly night?
If he was Crecheman carrying his own daughter back to their apartment in block 6, why was he walking in the wrong direction ?
So Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying away carrying a little girl. Said man, previously called Tannerman and now sometimes called Crechman was in a hurry and carrying a little girl who was of the correct size and wearing very similarly described clothes to Madeleine.
Sounds like an abductor to me, especially as he hasn’t come forward
Faith, I got in a mess because you interupted my posts. I would be pleased if could you hold off for a while. Thanks
-
A man was witnessed by Jane Tanner walking away in a hurry, carrying a little girl. We call him Tannerman.
Where did he come from, if not block A ? There are no creches in the direction he came from, are there ?
If an innocent man, why hasn’t he come forward?
If a loving Father, why hadn’t he wrapped his daughter up more warmly on a chilly night?
If he was Crecheman carrying his daughter, why was he walking in the wrong direction ?
So Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying away carrying a little girl. Said man, now called Tannerman was in a hurry and carrying a little girl who was of the correct size and wearing very similarly described clothes to Madeleine.
Sounds like an abductor to me, especially as he hasn’t come forward
Faith, I got in a mess because you interupted my posts. I would be pleased if you could you hold off for a while. Thanks
Post 6
Some have pointed the finger at Gerry as being the man that the Smiths saw. Put yourself in such a position.
If you wanted to dispose of your dead daughter, would you carry her through the public streets, completely openly?
Of course you wouldn’t, you would get a bag to hide her body, or at least a blamket.. Such a silly thing to suggest imo.
Now an abductor who had been let down by his pick up, was in a very different position IMO. If he had been commissioned, as I believe, to abduct Madeleine, he had a very valuable commodity and he was out of the apartment, already on his way to pick up, when he realised that the pick up wasn’t coming, IMO
He had to hoof it. No going back for a bag then.
*If * this man was the abductor and his getaway vehicle hadn’t arrived, he was forced to carry this little girl openly. Seems that he chose a quiet route and called in somewhere to get something warm for his valuable “Commodity”. When this man was seen by The Smiths,, if indeed they did see Tannerman, he appeared from the direction of the Staff quarters which was just about 40 metres up Rua d’Escola from the top group of the Smiths.
According to a source on the 3A's Forum, a scream was heard coming from the Staff Quarters. [I am sorry, but I cannot provide a cite for the scream because The 3A's forum is no longer with us, it has been deleted.]
-
Post 6
Some have pointed the finger at Gerry as being the man that the Smiths saw. Put yourself in such a position.
If you wanted to dispose of your dead daughter, would you carry her through the public streets, completely openly?
Of course you wouldn’t. Such a silly thing to suggest imo.
Now an abductor who had been let down by his pick up, was in a very different position IMO. If he had been commissioned, as I believe, to abduct Madeleine, he had a very valuable commodity and he was out of the apartment, already on his way to pick up, when he realised that the pick up wasn’t coming, IMO
He had to hoof it. No going back for a bag then.
*If * this man was the abductor and his getaway vehicle hadn’t arrived, he was forced to carry this little girl openly. Seems that he chose a quiet route and called in somewhere to get something warm for his valuable “Commodity”. When this man was seen by The Smiths,, if indeed they did see him, he appeared from the direction of the Staff quarters which was just about 40 metres up Rua d’Escola from the top group of the Smiths.
Post 7
I am happy to believe it possible that Jane saw Gerry and Jez chatting on her first visit to check her little ones, but also that she may have misremembered the time of seeing Tannerman.
Her sighting could have been at about 9.15, or it could have been at a later time when Jane went to relieve Russell, so that he could get his dinner. No actual times seem to be mentioned in Janes various statements and Rog but it seems that Russell arrived back at the restaurant at about 9.45
So it is likely that Jane was walking up towards Tnnerman corner at about 9.40 - 9.42 ish.
Was it at this time that Jane saw Tannerman ?
Was it at this time that Madeleine was being abducted ?
Almost immediately after Matts check?
Or, alternatively, was the shutter open at the time of Matts check?
Matt commented that there seemed to be light coming in via the window. Did he say it had a greenish glow?
Yellow light + blue curtains = green btw
Did a watcher on the balcony overlooking 5A warn the abductor to back off, cos Matt was just going in? Had he already opened the shutters, letting light in?
Immediately after a check (by Matt) would be a perfect time for an abduction.
-
Post 7
I am happy to believe it possible that Jane saw Gerry and Jez chatting on her first visit to check her little ones, but also that she may have misremembered the time of seeing Tannerman.
Her sighting could have been at about 9.15, or it could have been at a later time when Jane went to relieve Russell, so that he could get his dinner. No actual times seem to be mentioned in Janes various statements and Rog but it seems that Russell arrived back at the restaurant at about 9.45
So it is likely that Jane was walking up towards Tannerman corner at about 9.40 - 9.42 ish.
Was it at this time that Jane saw Tannerman ?
Was it at this time that Madeleine was being abducted ?
Almost immediately after Matts check?
Or, alternatively, was the shutter open at the time of Matts check?
Matt commented that there seemed to be light coming in via the window. Did he say it had a greenish glow?
Yellow light + blue curtains = green btw
Did a watcher on the balcony overlooking 5A warn the abductor to back off, cos Matt was just going in? Had he already opened the shutters, letting light in?
Immediately after a check (by Matt) would be a perfect time for an abduction.
Post 8
The pile of cigarette butts found on that balcony opposite support the likelihood that there was someone watching and co-ordinating an abduction
-
Post 8
The cigarette butts found on that balcony opposite support the likelihood that there was someone watching and co-ordinating an abduction
Post 9
* IF * Gerry and Kate had been involved in any way, then as Brietta points out , they were and still are world class actors to have passed it off, at the dinner table, calmly eating with the others ... and for 11 years since
Logically that is so unlikely that two people could do that in tandem with the World watching them and without falter at any time
Madeleine was abducted IMO, but they could not have been involved in any way, because of the above and also several witnesses were with them and saw the comings and goings. They just didn’t have the time.
-
Post 9
* IF * Gerry and Kate had been involved in any way, then as Brietta points out , they were and still are world class actors to have passed it off, at the dinner table, calmly eating with the others ... and for 11 years since
Logically that is so unlikely that two people could do that in tandem with the World watching them and without falter at any time
Madeleine was abducted IMO, but they could not have been involved in any way, because of the above and also several witnesses were with them and saw the comings and goings. They just didn’t have the time.
Post 10
Kate and Gerry pushed for SY to become involved. Had they been involved in Madeleine vanishing, they would hardly have called in arguably the Worlds best Police Force to look at the case.
Think about it logically, in similar circumstances, would you have lobbied for SY to be called in?
-
Post 10
Kate and Gerry pushed for SY to become involved. Had they been involved in Madeleine vanishing, they would hardly have called in arguably the Worlds best Police Force to look at the case.
Think about it logically, in similar circumstances, would you have lobbied for SY to be called in?
Post 11
Both SY and the special Force at Porto are looking for an abductor / abductors. They have stated that. They have also stated that Gerry and Kate are NOT suspects. And in any case, hHad it been Gerry ( or another Tapas group member), they would have had this case wrapped up months, nay years ago.
The above points are all pointers to the probability of a stranger abduction, IMO
There seems to be something Mega-big going on here
-
Post 11
Both SY and the special Force at Porto are looking for an abductor / abductors. They have stated that. They have also stated that Gerry and Kate are NOT suspects. And in any case, hHad it been Gerry ( or another Tapas group member), they would have had this case wrapped up months, nay years ago.
The above points are all pointers to the probability of a stranger abduction, IMO
There seems to be something Mega-big going on here
And finally as mentioned in the introductory post, there are witness statements, which some of you prefer to ignore from Kate and Gerry saying about the window being open and the shutters raised. They have no record of doing anything illegal or telling lies. The man who accused therm was found to be a perjurer (liar) in the law Courts, so why do you trust him and distrust the honest couple?
And the 3 witnesses who saw a man loitering staring at the Mccann apartment in the run up to what SY describe as an abduction.
Thank you for reading. Please add any things that you believe point to an abduction .... or indeed anything that points away from that
All 12 posts are in my honest opinion, where opinion is needed .... BUT GENERALLY MOST IS FACT
-
Post 1
Gerry and Kate saw the window open and the shutters up and wrote statements to that effect. Are you calling them liars? Are you accusing them of some heinous deed?
An open window and shutter aren't evidence that an abduction has occurred.
-
Post 2.
No Madeleine fingerprints on (a)the window, frame, glass or shutters ... (b) the front door and presumably the outside knob and inner mechanism were checked. ....(c) The patio door How could she have walked out via the front door, the patio door or the via the window without leaving fingerprints?
Also no fingerprints found on the outside gate, the child gate.
Additionally to no Madeleine fingerprints, no skin, blood or fibres were found at any of these places.
Madeleine had to have been carried out, abducted, because of the lack of the above evidence. With no signs of Madeleine, finger prints etc., on any of the exits she could not have walked out on her own volition
Unless you have a cite showing that these areas were checked for fingerprints, blood or fibres you can't say that there were none. The only one that was checked was her bedroom window in my opinion.
-
Post3
* IF* Gerry had done something wrong, he had to have left window and shutter open. According to YOU guys, several passers by since 9.15pm would have noticed, yet no-one did. [please note that personally, I don’t think anyone would have noticed unless the shutters were well raised and the curtains fluttering; it was beyond their peripheral vision]
The only time that Gerry left the table according to many witnesses was between about 9 and 9.15(ish)
So Gerry wasn’t involved, according to YOU guys cos others, who passed, would have seen the shutters up and window open and no-one did despite several passing by.
The window and shutter could have been opened at any time before the alarm was raised. The witnesses to the group's whereabouts are the group members. The Tapas staff saw them at the restaurant, but were unable to confirm who was where when.
-
Post 4
Historically, there had been a string of 8 abductions in first the Porto area and then the PdL area. All within 25 milesish of each place. The Porto ones stopped after the son of an elite was given a talking to and a warning from the Porto police. Someone pretty impressive must have stepped in here IMO to get him off so lightly. There was a gap of 5 years after an abduction approx. every 18 months, but with one little girl going in Madeira.
The last one was of Carolina Santos, a pretty blond 3 year old girl from Silves> She was just 3 years old, but the abduction was prevented by the parents looking out and seeing her in the distance walking off hand in hand with a stranger. They called her and she came running back. He vanished around the corner.
This was just 4 months before Madeleine Vanished !!
Had the abduction of Carolina succeeded, would Madeleine have vanished 4 months later?
No cites, no evidence of a connection; speculation only.
-
post 5
A man was witnessed by Jane Tanner walking away in a hurry, carrying a little girl. We call him Tannerman.
Where did he come from, if not block A ? There are no creches in the direction he came from, are there ?
If an innocent man, why hasn’t he come forward?
If a loving Father, why hadn’t he wrapped his daughter up more warmly on a chilly night?
If he was Crecheman carrying his daughter, why was he walking in the wrong direction ?
So Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying away carrying a little girl. Said man, now called Tannerman was in a hurry and carrying a little girl who was of the correct size and wearing very similarly described clothes to Madeleine.
Sounds like an abductor to me, especially as he hasn’t come forward
Faith, I got in a mess because you interupted my posts. I would be pleased if could you hold off for a while. Thanks
No-one is looking for this man any more.
-
Post 6
Some of you are pointing the finger at Gerry as being the man that the Smiths saw. Put yourself in such a position.
If you wanted to dispose of your dead daughter, would you carry her through the public streets, completely openly?
Of course you wouldn’t. Such a silly thing to suggest when Gerry had access to bags and blankets to hide her in/ with.
Now an abductor who had been let down by his pick up, was in a very different position IMO. If he had been commissioned, as I believe, to abduct Madeleine, he had a very valuable commodity and he was out of the apartment, already on his way to pick up, when he realised that the pick up wasn’t coming, IMO
He had to hoof it. No going back for a bag then.
*If * this man was the abductor and his getaway vehicle hadn’t arrived, he was forced to carry this little girl openly. Seems that he chose a quiet route and called in somewhere to get something warm for his valuable “Commodity”. When this man was seen by The Smiths,, if indeed they did see him, he appeared from the direction of the Staff quarters which was just about 40 metres up Rua d’Escola from the top group of the Smiths.
Did his accomplice live at the Staff quarters ? On the 3A’s forum it was stated that a scream was heard coming from there.
No-one knows who the Smiths saw, but the child certainly looked like Madeleine and, coincidentally, the man looked like her father. He certainly didn't look like the man Jane Tanner described.
-
Post 7
I am happy to believe it possible that Jane saw Gerry and Jez chatting on her first visit to check her little ones, but also that she may have misremembered the time of seeing Tannerman.
Her sighting could have been at about 9.15, or it could have been at a later time when Jane went to relieve Russell, so that he could get his dinner. No actual times seem to be mentioned in Janes various statements and Rog but it seems that Russell arrived back at the restaurant at about 9.45
So it is likely that Jane was walking up towards Tnnerman corner at about 9.40 - 9.42 ish.
Was it at this time that Jane saw Tannerman ?
Was it at this time that Madeleine was being abducted ?
Almost immediately after Matts check?
Or, alternatively, was the shutter open at the time of Matts check?
Matt commented that there seemed to be light coming in via the window. Did he say it had a greenish glow?
Yellow light + blue curtains = green btw
Did a watcher on the balcony overlooking 5A warn the abductor to back off, cos Matt was just going in? Had he already opened the shutters, letting light in?
Immediately after a check (by Matt) would be a perfect time for an abduction.
Speculation, not evidence.
-
Post 8
[Rewritten - soz mistake made and amended]
The cigarette butts found on that balcony opposite support the likelihood that there was someone watching and co-ordinating an abduction
Then again, maybe not.
-
Post 9
* IF * Gerry and Kate had been involved in any way, then as Brietta points out , they were and still are world class actors to have passed it off, at the dinner table, calmly eating with the others ... and for 11 years since
Logically that is so unlikely that two people could do that in tandem with the World watching them and without falter at any time
Madeleine was abducted IMO, but they could not have been involved in any way, because of the above and also several witnesses were with them and saw the comings and goings. They just didn’t have the time.
All IYO.
-
An open window and shutter aren't evidence that an abduction has occurred.
Of course they are... Evidence but not proof
-
Post 10
[Soz. Amended. similar mistake to before. the interrupting posts threw me]
Kate and Gerry pushed for SY to become involved. Had they been involved in Madeleine vanishing, they would hardly have called in arguably the Worlds best Police Force to look at the case.
Think about it logically, in similar circumstances, would you have lobbied for SY to be called in?
That's just your assessment. There are other possible explanations.
-
Your claim was that Amaral had said he would prove that Madeleine died in 5A, and that he didn't.
Such was your opinion. You can't claim it as fact unless
1 you prove that Madeleine did not die in 5A, which you can't
or
2 you prove that Amaral did not prove it. Thus far you have failed on this route.
I have no interest in being diverted onto the dogs. There must dozens of dog threads. Kindly stop deflecting.
?{)(**
It's quite obvious, amaral did not prove it... On the basis of the evidence he relied on for his proof... One piece of evidence being that the two dogs had solved 200 cases... Which is obviously rubbish
-
Post 11
Both SY and the special Force at Porto are looking for an abductor / abductors. They have stated that. They have also stated that Gerry and Kate are NOT suspects. And in any case, hHad it been Gerry ( or another Tapas group member), they would have had this case wrapped up months, nay years ago.
The above points are all pointers to the probability of a stranger abduction, IMO
There seems to be something Mega-big going on here
The PJ have not stated that they are looking for an abductor.
-
Of course they are... Evidence but not proof
No they're not. There's no reason to connect them to an abduction at all in my opinion. They seem to have been opened for no practical reason at all.
-
No they're not. There's no reason to connect them to an abduction at all in my opinion. They seem to have been opened for no practical reason at all.
IMO they are.... Everything you post is, simply your opinion... Quite clearly... IMO... They suggest the presence of a third party
-
No they're not. There's no reason to connect them to an abduction at all in my opinion. They seem to have been opened for no practical reason at all.
Opened by whom
-
Opened by whom
Not just whom; when and why also.
-
Post 8
[Rewritten - soz mistake made and amended]
The cigarette butts found on that balcony opposite support the likelihood that there was someone watching and co-ordinating an abduction
The butts support the likelihood that some one was on the balcony smoking, thats it unless one is into conspiracy theories.
-
Not just whom; when and why also.
I agree... Quite possibly by an abductor... Therefore evidence but not proof
-
It's quite obvious, amaral did not prove it... On the basis of the evidence he relied on for his proof... One piece of evidence being that the two dogs had solved 200 cases... Which is obviously rubbish
Surely just a mistranslation?
-
post 5
A man was witnessed by Jane Tanner walking away in a hurry, carrying a little girl. We call him Tannerman.
Where did he come from, if not block A ? There are no creches in the direction he came from, are there ?
If an innocent man, why hasn’t he come forward?
If a loving Father, why hadn’t he wrapped his daughter up more warmly on a chilly night?
If he was Crecheman carrying his daughter, why was he walking in the wrong direction ?
So Jane Tanner saw a man hurrying away carrying a little girl. Said man, now called Tannerman was in a hurry and carrying a little girl who was of the correct size and wearing very similarly described clothes to Madeleine.
Sounds like an abductor to me, especially as he hasn’t come forward
So Redwoods revelation moment didn't happen?
DCI Redwood described his decision to come forward as 'revelation moment'
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html
-
I agree... Quite possibly by an abductor... Therefore evidence but not proof
Evidence of them being open,thats it.
-
Surely just a mistranslation?
So you accept it's a ridiculous claim
-
Evidence of them being open,thats it.
Yes... Opened by whom
-
Yes... Opened by whom
That may come out in court,don't hold your breath expecting a case to get that far though.
-
Post 2.
No Madeleine fingerprints on (a)the window, frame, glass or shutters ... (b) the front door and presumably the outside knob and inner mechanism were checked. ....(c) The patio door How could she have walked out via the front door, the patio door or the via the window without leaving fingerprints?
Also no fingerprints found on the outside gate, the child gate.
Additionally to no Madeleine fingerprints, no skin, blood or fibres were found at any of these places.
Madeleine had to have been carried out, abducted, because of the lack of the above evidence. With no signs of Madeleine, finger prints etc., on any of the exits she could not have walked out on her own volition
On that basis one could argue that only Kate McCann was ever in that apartment as only her fingerprints were found but we know that is not the case. The truth is that the missing child could well have made her own way outside where she got into trouble of some sort.
-
An open window and shutter aren't evidence that an abduction has occurred.
We have looked at this previously. Only Kate McCanns prints were found on the children's bedroom window and that is suggestive that it was she who opened it most probably as a means to look for the child. Partial memory loss following a sudden trauma is easily explained.
-
So you accept it's a ridiculous claim
I agree Grime said 200 case searches.
-
I agree Grime said 200 case searches.
Amaral said the dogs had solved 200 cases. That isn't even remotely the same and I'm sure you would agree
-
Yes... Opened by whom
You would have to look for evidence such as fingerprints.
-
You would have to look for evidence such as fingerprints.
That would not give a definitive answer
-
rubbish..
amaral claimed he could prove Maddie died in tye apartment...he didnt...fact not opinion..
amaral claimed the two dogs had solved 200 cases...more rubbish...fact not opinion..
I have already provided the cite for both these ridiculous claims
Your ellipses shows an easy opputunity for translation error.
-
That would not give a definitive answer
Didn’t say it did?
-
Your ellipses shows an easy opputunity for translation error.
But in this case we have the original Portuguese..... What is patently clear is anaral did not prove death in the apartment as he claimed he would ... once you introduce translation error you cast doubt on all the other statements where we do not have the original to compare
-
But in this case we have the original Portuguese..... What is patently clear is anaral did not prove death in the apartment as he claimed he would ... once you introduce translation error you cast doubt on all the other statements where we do not have the original to compare
What IS the original Portuguese?
By the way, for those statements that were taken in Portuguese we have the original Portuguese.
-
What IS the original Portuguese?
By the way, for those statements that were taken in Portuguese we have the original Portuguese.
we do not have the original statements of the mccanns given in english....
my quote is from a translation from the morais site...do you not trust that..
The main pointmis amaral did not prove death in the aparatment as he claimed...you need to accept reality
-
Its even better...
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
so amaral THINKS he can prove there was no abduction......
-
But in this case we have the original Portuguese..... What is patently clear is anaral did not prove death in the apartment as he claimed he would ... once you introduce translation error you cast doubt on all the other statements where we do not have the original to compare
As translation errors are usually your forte I thought it would be appropriate to use it here.
-
26.34 – The dogs’ investigation continues. They inspect several vehicles, and they only alert to the car that was hired by the McCanns 23 days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Eddie alerts that the car key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body.
eddie never alerted in the boot.....and grime did not say eddie alerted to a dead body re the car....amarals claims are absolute rubbish
-
As translation errors are usually your forte I thought it would be appropriate to use it here.
you are really striggling now to defend the indefensible...this translation is also verbatim
-
26.34 – The dogs’ investigation continues. They inspect several vehicles, and they only alert to the car that was hired by the McCanns 23 days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Eddie alerts that the car key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body.
eddie never alerted in the boot.....and grime did not say eddie alerted to a dead body re the car....amarals claims are absolute rubbish
I could understand your angst if it had resulted in a conviction and you thought it had been a miscarriage of justice but seeing as it didn't why so worked up about nothing?
-
I could understand your angst if it had resulted in a conviction and you thought it had been a miscarriage of justice but seeing as it didn't why so worked up about nothing?
I'm not worked up about anything.. Rather a silly comment
It's a discussion forum... We discuss things here
-
I agree... Quite possibly by an abductor... Therefore evidence but not proof
So in answer to the questions who, when and why, your answer is that it might have been an abductor. My answer to you is it might not have been an abductor. Therefore it isn't evidence that it was an abductor. The only forensic evidence found belonged to Kate McCann.
-
I'm not worked up about anything.. Rather a silly comment
It's a discussion forum... We discuss things here
As usual we have been dragged off topic. Amaral vs the McCann is finished. This topic is about circumstantial evidence of abduction. Any mor off topic posts will be removed.
-
As usual we have been dragged off topic. Amaral vs the McCann is finished. This topic is about circumstantial evidence of abduction. Any mor off topic posts will be removed.
I can always, start a new thread.... This is not about amaral v the mccanns... It's about amarals understanding of the evidence and I believe it was Angelo who originally took the thread off topic
-
What IS the original Portuguese?
By the way, for those statements that were taken in Portuguese we have the original Portuguese.
None of those statements made in Portuguese were electronically recorded though. Nor were they verbatim ... they were paraphrased, missing out the filler uhms and ahhs naturally used in a highly charged situation. Nor is there a record of questions asked to elicit responses made.
Those of us who are not Portuguese or Portuguese speakers are reliant on amateur translations from Portuguese into English done in haste.
-
I can always, start a new thread.... This is not about amaral v the mccanns... It's about amarals understanding of the evidence and I believe it was Angelo who originally took the thread off topic
It has no relevance to circumstantial evidence of abduction.
-
None of those statements made in Portuguese were electronically recorded though. Nor were they verbatim ... they were paraphrased, missing out the filler uhms and ahhs naturally used in a highly charged situation. Nor is there a record of questions asked to elicit responses made.
Those of us who are not Portuguese or Portuguese speakers are reliant on amateur translations from Portuguese into English done in haste.
Even worse in the case of some of the most important statements, relating to the alleged abduction we do not have the original English statements to check
-
None of those statements made in Portuguese were electronically recorded though. Nor were they verbatim ... they were paraphrased, missing out the filler uhms and ahhs naturally used in a highly charged situation. Nor is there a record of questions asked to elicit responses made.
Those of us who are not Portuguese or Portuguese speakers are reliant on amateur translations from Portuguese into English done in haste.
That's why I was asking Davel for the original Portuguese.
If we agreed on that then we could move on to establish whether the translation is accurate.
Thus far, Davel has not produced the original Portuguese. *&^^&
-
Davel never offered any proof even after two people questioned him on this point. Let's see if we can elicit a response here.
So far as I can see an open window is this alleged proof.
-
That's why I was asking Davel for the original Portuguese.
If we agreed on that then we could move on to establish whether the translation is accurate.
Thus far, Davel has not produced the original Portuguese. *&^^&
The translation I have provided comes from the morais site...someone you rate highly so its strange you now question it.... can probably find the original portuguese..
getting back to evidence of abduction...you have minutely examined and criticised the mccann statements and never once questioned their accuracy even though they are twice translated...non verbatim and we do not have the original english to check...that is rank hypocricy
-
That's why I was asking Davel for the original Portuguese.
If we agreed on that then we could move on to establish whether the translation is accurate.
Thus far, Davel has not produced the original Portuguese. *&^^&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g...original portuguese
-
Even worse in the case of some of the most important statements, relating to the abduction we do not have the original English statements to check
It is interesting that analysis of what evidence was available that both investigations independently arrived at the conclusion there was more to be had from the many witnesses who had not been interviewed.
It must have been quite a task tracking them all down and it must have been quite a task for potential witnesses to recall exactly what they had been doing at the time after the passage of years.
If reports are to be believed about the numbers involved in my opinion we are familiar only with evidence which is actually the tip of the iceberg.
The authorities have uncovered more arising from their reviews and subsequent interviews which have stretched the active inquiry over the years from the reopening of the investigation into Madeleine's case in 2013 to being able to justify funding now into 2018.
Therefore to be stuck in a time warp of evidence used against the McCanns in 2007 to the exclusion of consideration of the myriad of evidence available in 2007 but ignored until reviews years later ... ignores the potential to have overlooked available evidence of abduction.
I think the repercussions of that as far as Madeleine is concerned are quite staggering ... therefore I can see why there are those who have campaigned against funding for the investigation and why there is such denial that Madeleine may have been the victim of stranger abduction.
What I don't understand is why they think the embarrassment of their eleven year campaign against Madeleine's parents outweighs the new evidence not in the public domain being followed by the PJ and SY.
-
The translation I have provided comes from the morais site...someone you rate highly so its strange you now question it.... can probably find the original portuguese..
getting back to evidence of abduction...you have minutely examined and criticised the mccann statements and never once questioned their accuracy even though they are twice translated...non verbatim and we do not have the original english to check...that is rank hypocricy
Cobblers. Utter tosh.
The only thing one can do with the McCann statements is check whether the Portuguese record matches the English translation.
Now, returning to Amaral, are you going to provide the original Portuguese?
Or are you going to stick with deflecting?
-
So what are the words, in Portuguese, in the relevant part?
do you read the thread...do you comprehend the posts...
-
do you read the thread...do you comprehend the posts...
"So what are the words, in Portuguese, in the relevant part?" is what I said.
As it's a Saturday, perhaps you could start your new thread soon, whilst the background is fresh in our memories.
*&(+(+
-
"So what are the words, in Portuguese, in the relevant part?" is what I said.
As it's a Saturday, perhaps you could start your new thread soon, whilst the background is fresh in our memories.
*&(+(+
im not bothered if you dont accept amaral cannot prove that maddie died in the apartment...anyone would realise proof is impossible.
-
im not bothered if you dont accept amaral cannot prove that maddie died in the apartment...anyone would realise proof is impossible.. [delete possible insult].
I have expressed no view as to whether, IMO, Amaral is correct or not.
I have supplied information re the opinion of the people of Portugal.
Your position all boils down to being your opinion. Nothing more.
I await your new thread with relish. Then we can hack about with what original words and sentences were used by Amaral.
See you soon? &^&*%
-
I have expressed no view as to whether, IMO, Amaral is correct or not.
I have supplied information re the opinion of the people of Portugal.
Your position all boils down to being your opinion. Nothing more.
I await your new thread with relish. Then we can hack about with what original words and sentences were used by Amaral.
See you soon? &^&*%
We don't need to hack about anything... Amaral did not prove maddie died in the apartment.... Because no proof exists
-
Topic
-
None of those statements made in Portuguese were electronically recorded though. Nor were they verbatim ... they were paraphrased, missing out the filler uhms and ahhs naturally used in a highly charged situation. Nor is there a record of questions asked to elicit responses made.
Those of us who are not Portuguese or Portuguese speakers are reliant on amateur translations from Portuguese into English done in haste.
I disagree. The Portuguese nationals who have translated the statements are highly educated individuals and did the work for free in their own time. Nobody has ever been able to point to any major discrepancy in any of the translated files and that is to their credit.
-
So in answer to the questions who, when and why, your answer is that it might have been an abductor. My answer to you is it might not have been an abductor. Therefore it isn't evidence that it was an abductor. The only forensic evidence found belonged to Kate McCann.
It is evidence of an abductor but not proof.
-
I disagree. The Portuguese nationals who have translated the statements are highly educated individuals and did the work for free in their own time. Nobody has ever been able to point to any major discrepancy in any of the translated files and that is to their credit.
actually I ponted out a fault ...on this forum a couple of yeras ago....ie that the final report asked the mccanns to demonstrate their innocence...not prove it..
the point that brietta is making is that there is no way of checking many of the original statements vbecause we dont have the original english... The mccanns statements are not verbatim which makes things even worse
-
actually I ponted out a fault ...on this forum a couple of yeras ago....ie that the final report asked the mccanns to demonstrate their innocence...not prove it..
the point that brietta is making is that there is no way of checking many of the original statements vbecause we dont have the original english... The mccanns statements are not verbatim which makes things even worse
Taking into consideration the process as a whole perhaps you would care to substantiate your assertion that it "makes things worse" and demonstrate which particular aspect of the overall process has been affected in a deleterious manner?
It would seem to be a case of your attempting to pass off opinion as fact unless you are able to show otherwise.
-
Taking into consideration the process as a whole perhaps you would care to substantiate your assertion that it "makes things worse" and demonstrate which particular aspect of the overall process has been affected in a deleterious manner?
It would seem to be a case of your attempting to pass off opinion as fact unless you are able to show otherwise.
There is no accurate record of the mccanns original statements... The fact that the translations are not verbatim makes things even worse.... Surely that is self explanatory
-
There is no accurate record of the mccanns original statements... The fact that the translations are not verbatim makes things even worse.... Surely that is self explanatory.
That response in no way addresses the question I posed.
Try again.
-
That response in no way addresses the question I posed.
Try again.
What makes you think that bothers, me in the slightest
-
What makes you think that bothers, me in the slightest
If the McCanns statements are translated incorrectly it could either have a positive or negative effect on their case.
-
If the McCanns statements are translated incorrectly it could either have a positive or negative effect on their case.
What case are you talking about?
As far as I am aware the only member of the McCann family who has a case being investigated is Madeleine.
The fact that we are discussing the lack of evidence either for abduction or for Amaral's assertion that she died in various locations in the family holiday rental are - in my opinion - an indication of how badly the initial investigation into her case let her down as soon as the lead detective settled on his thesis of death.
-
What case are you talking about?
As far as I am aware the only member of the McCann family who has a case being investigated is Madeleine.
The fact that we are discussing the lack of evidence either for abduction or for Amaral's assertion that she died in various locations in the family holiday rental are - in my opinion - an indication of how badly the initial investigation into her case let her down as soon as the lead detective settled on his thesis of death.
I am sure you understand what I mean.
-
What makes you think that bothers, me in the slightest
I don't.
-
What case are you talking about?
As far as I am aware the only member of the McCann family who has a case being investigated is Madeleine.
The fact that we are discussing the lack of evidence either for abduction or for Amaral's assertion that she died in various locations in the family holiday rental are - in my opinion - an indication of how badly the initial investigation into her case let her down as soon as the lead detective settled on his thesis of death.
Of course if he's right, then he's the only one who hasn't let her down, isn't he?
-
Of course if he's right, then he's the only one who hasn't let her down, isn't he?
Failing to interview the number of potential witnesses his investigation ignored lets everyone down across the board but none more so than the failure to address the collection of forensic samples which might have led to evidence which at the least might have dictated the true course for investigation.
One example of which was the laundering of Madeleine's bedding.
-
Members are warned that I will take action if goading or disruptive comments continue to be identified.
Admin
-
Failing to interview the number of potential witnesses his investigation ignored lets everyone down across the board but none more so than the failure to address the collection of forensic samples which might have led to evidence which at the least might have dictated the true course for investigation.
One example of which was the laundering of Madeleine's bedding.
That, in my opinion, is just general mud=slinging. Which witnesses were ignored? Whose job was it to collect forensic samples? Whose job was it to take the bedding to be tested if necessary? Why not take a leaf out of Hogan-Howe's book?
Anybody can go back after two, three, five, six years and say 'why didn't you do that'? That's easy in hindsight.
“We don't like it when it happens to the Met, and I'm certainly not going to do it to the Portuguese.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/madeleine-mccann-case-re-opened-portuguese-police-re-start-investigation-into-her-disappearance-8901696.html
-
What case are you talking about?
As far as I am aware the only member of the McCann family who has a case being investigated is Madeleine.
The fact that we are discussing the lack of evidence either for abduction or for Amaral's assertion that she died in various locations in the family holiday rental are - in my opinion - an indication of how badly the initial investigation into her case let her down as soon as the lead detective settled on his thesis of death.
Of course discussing Amral’s thesis is off topic.
-
Of course they are... Evidence but not proof
But not photographic evidence. At most it is a claim.
-
It's quite obvious, amaral did not prove it... On the basis of the evidence he relied on for his proof... One piece of evidence being that the two dogs had solved 200 cases... Which is obviously rubbish
Did he claim Eddie had solved 200 cases?
-
The PJ have not stated that they are looking for an abductor.
If that is true that is real strange for then we would have to consider whether the PJ had considered sufficient options for Madeleine's disappearance.
If they considered abduction they would have to consider looking for an abductor. It could be true they never considered this option.
-
If that is true that is real strange for then we would have to consider whether the PJ had considered sufficient options for Madeleine's disappearance.
If they considered abduction they would have to consider looking for an abductor. It could be true they never considered this option.
Or it could be that they considered and rejected it.
-
What case are you talking about?
As far as I am aware the only member of the McCann family who has a case being investigated is Madeleine.
The fact that we are discussing the lack of evidence either for abduction or for Amaral's assertion that she died in various locations in the family holiday rental are - in my opinion - an indication of how badly the initial investigation into her case let her down as soon as the lead detective settled on his thesis of death.
The lack of evidence of an alleged abduction could quite easily be due to the fact one never occurred let alone be the opinion that the initial investigation was settled on a thesis of death.All opinion of course.
-
Or it could be that they considered and rejected it.
Well then we must hope they had good reasons to reject it. Was there "certainly [No] circumstantial evidence of abduction"? Or else why would they reject it? It then makes you wonder how they approached any of the claims of Madeleine sightings. Were they rejected and dismissed too? For you can't have a sighting if she wasn't abducted.
-
Well then we must hope they had good reasons to reject it. Was there "certainly [No] circumstantial evidence of abduction"? Or else why would they reject it? It then makes you wonder how they approached any of the claims of Madeleine sightings. Were they rejected and dismissed too? For you can't have a sighting if she wasn't abducted.
Well you can have false sightings & wishful thinking sightings without an abduction.
Follow up would depend upon who these sightings were reported to - PJ only have jurisdiction in Portugal
-
Well you can have false sightings & wishful thinking sightings without an abduction.
Follow up would depend upon who these sightings were reported to - PJ only have jurisdiction in Portugal
Those categories would only become evident if the had been some investigation. I know there was one situation reported that there were 3 MM sightings in 3 different countries on the same day. Obviously there was no way a person could be in 3 widely separated countries on the same day. Some of these sightings must be "false".
What did you mean by false?
-
What I still don't understand is why SY are still blindly following this abducted from her bedroom mantra when the actual evidence says something else. Is this simply a ploy?
-
What I still don't understand is why SY are still blindly following this abducted from her bedroom mantra when the actual evidence says something else. Is this simply a ploy?
because IMO the evidence doesnt say something else it says abduction...quite simple really...its been what I have been saying for years...and it seems SY agree
-
because IMO the evidence doesnt say something else it says abduction...quite simple really...its been what I have been saying for years...and it seems SY agree
As per the topic, we haven’t seen any evidence brought forward here.
-
As per the topic, we haven’t seen any evidence brought forward here.
In your opinion
-
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT
Rob, it has taken many hours and I have given a 12 post+ direct answer to your topic which is named * There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction *
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457
I finished posting way after 3am ... but started whilst Gunit and others were on forum. It seems that Gunit was determined to get in first and started popsting at 7.03 am
Within minutes she had replied to each post, cursorily dismissing everything .........
....And effectively, with the help of a few others hidden it all from virtually everyone, because no-one bothers to look back very far. A couple of pages back and it is dead.
HIDDEN FROM PLAIN SIGHT EFFECTIVELY
It is your thread and along with others, I dont think that you have seen my posts about "Circumstantial evidence of abduction", which I have never claimed as proof, but I do claim as pointers/likely possibilities.
In order to help find the 12/13 posts with a similar number of pointers, I have now changed the print colour to teal from black.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457
I know that you do not support the idea of abduction, but I can only guess why.
Your opinion would be appreciated, please
-
because IMO the evidence doesnt say something else it says abduction...quite simple really...its been what I have been saying for years...and it seems SY agree
From the road outside possibly but not from inside the apartment. As you say, the evidence is there for all to see.
-
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT
Rob, it has taken many hours and I have given a 12 post+ direct answer to your topic which is named * There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction *
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457
I finished posting way after 3am ... but started whilst Gunit and others were on forum. It seems that Gunit was determined to get in first and started popsting at 7.03 am
Within minutes she had replied to each post, cursorily dismissing everything .........
....And effectively, with the help of a few others hidden it all from virtually everyone, because no-one bothers to look back very far. A couple of pages back and it is dead.
HIDDEN FROM PLAIN SIGHT EFFECTIVELY
It is your thread and along with others, I dont think that you have seen my posts about "Circumstantial evidence of abduction", which I have never claimed as proof, but I do claim as pointers/likely possibilities.
In order to help find the 12/13 posts with a similar number of pointers, I have now changed the print colour to teal from black.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457
I know that you do not support the idea of abduction, but I can only guess why.
Your opinion would be appreciated, please
I will give you credit for those posts Sadie because you have highlighted some important points but regardless none of it is evidence of a stranger abduction' from the bedroom. The open window and shutter and the absence of the child's fingerprints on any door is not evidence of an abduction. How the parents reacted after the 3rd May 2007 also proves nothing really, ever heard of the double bluff? Isolated instances of other children disappearing have no identified connection to the Maddie case. We know Joana Cipriano was killed by her uncle in a conspiracy which included her own mother so again no relevance to the Maddie case. And even SY have discarded Tanner's sighting as nothing more than an innocent tourist carrying his daughter back to his apartment. As for the McCanns perceived keeness to pursue an enquiry involving SY, I would question that as to not do so would have raised more questions than provided answers.
What you have actually achieved in your 13 posts is that in reality the abduction theory hangs by a very thin thread.
-
I will give you credit for those posts Sadie because you have highlighted some important points but regardless none of it is evidence of a stranger abduction' from the bedroom. The open window and shutter and the absence of the child's fingerprints on any door is not evidence of an abduction. How the parents reacted after the 3rd May 2007 also proves nothing really, ever heard of the double bluff? Isolated instances of other children disappearing have no identified connection to the Maddie case. We know Joana Cipriano was killed by her uncle in a conspiracy which included her own mother so again no relevance to the Maddie case. And even SY have discarded Tanner's sighting as nothing more than an innocent tourist carrying his daughter back to his apartment. As for the McCanns perceived keeness to pursue an enquiry involving SY, I would question that as to not do so would have raised more questions than provided answers.
What you have actually achieved in your 13 posts is that in reality the abduction theory hangs by a very thin thread.
The open window and shutter and the absence of the child's fingerprints on any door is not evidence of an abduction. It is very strong evidence that Madeleine did not let herself out of the apartment, because she would not have worn rubber/plasticf gloves ... and WOULD definitely have left fingerprints on the door window that she left by.
Therefore she was abducted.
-
I will give you credit for those posts Sadie because you have highlighted some important points but regardless none of it is evidence of a stranger abduction' from the bedroom. The open window and shutter and the absence of the child's fingerprints on any door is not evidence of an abduction. How the parents reacted after the 3rd May 2007 also proves nothing really, ever heard of the double bluff? Isolated instances of other children disappearing have no identified connection to the Maddie case. We know Joana Cipriano was killed by her uncle in a conspiracy which included her own mother so again no relevance to the Maddie case. And even SY have discarded Tanner's sighting as nothing more than an innocent tourist carrying his daughter back to his apartment. As for the McCanns perceived keeness to pursue an enquiry involving SY, I would question that as to not do so would have raised more questions than provided answers.
What you have actually achieved in your 13 posts is that in reality the abduction theory hangs by a very thin thread.
How the parents reacted after the 3rd May 2007 also proves nothing really, ever heard of the double bluff?
Come on Angelo. For both to be so destroyed by it. Poor Kate, she looked so desperately unhappy and ill; at times she looked older than her very pretty Mum.
To maintain a double bluff and in front of their friends too, they would both need to be pschopaths and brilliant liars and actors too. You are not being realistic imo
How often have you heard of a couple who were guilty actually fighting for the best Police Force in the UK to investigate ? SY are world famous and solve most of their cases.
OMO, but I think they have solved this one, but it is complex and involving important people globally. It will need massive evidence and the very best lawyers to prove anything
We know Joana Cipriano was killed by her uncle in a conspiracy which included her own mother so again no relevance to the Maddie case.
You and John maintain that but there was NO REAL EVIDENCE as you well know. Just the statement of a tortured woman, which was immediately rescinded when she was out of their grasp .... and the statement of a druggie, who if not tortured, would have been very easy to persuad using drugs as a carrot .... and a rediculous film that would not persuade the simplest of people unless already biased.
I believe that Joana Cipriano is still alive, or at least she was in 2008 ish. Two other things, which I am not prepared to share, also convince me that she is likely to be still alive.
People are questioning whether the Courts finding was Just. This forum should be about Justice and not about supporting Amaral willy nilly. We KNOW that he doesn't always tell the truth from his Court trial .... and his "O Enigma" was a laugh a minute with all its incorrect statements.
-
I will give you credit for those posts Sadie because you have highlighted some important points but regardless none of it is evidence of a stranger abduction' from the bedroom. The open window and shutter and the absence of the child's fingerprints on any door is not evidence of an abduction. How the parents reacted after the 3rd May 2007 also proves nothing really, ever heard of the double bluff? Isolated instances of other children disappearing have no identified connection to the Maddie case. We know Joana Cipriano was killed by her uncle in a conspiracy which included her own mother so again no relevance to the Maddie case. And even SY have discarded Tanner's sighting as nothing more than an innocent tourist carrying his daughter back to his apartment. As for the McCanns perceived keeness to pursue an enquiry involving SY, I would question that as to not do so would have raised more questions than provided answers.
What you have actually achieved in your 13 posts is that in reality the abduction theory hangs by a very thin thread.
Isolated instances of other children disappearing have no identified connection to the Maddie case.
Oh Really? When there is a definite pattern to them of an abduction roughly every 18 months or so
.... and a pretty blond little 3 year old [Carolina Santos] attempted abducted only 4 months before Madeleine and only 25 miles away
Then the case of Joana Cipriano, a little over 2 years before that and just 7 miles away from Praia de Luz. She was a pretty little fair haired girl. Was there a terrible Miscarriage of Justice in her case? Was she actually abducted?
What happened to the man in the camper van parked near her home. The man who had been camping nearby, but suddenly vanished about the time that Joana did.
And how come that he abandoned his camper van in Praia de Luz?
[Par for the course, I notice that reports on the camper van have vanished from the internet, yet were there when i mentioned it about a year ago]
People dont normally abandon camper vans. Who was he? Where did he vanish to? Where did Joana vanish to ?
I think I know the answer to the last question and maybe the previous one, but obviously I cant share.
-
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT
Rob, it has taken many hours and I have given a 12 post+ direct answer to your topic which is named * There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction *
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457
I finished posting way after 3am ... but started whilst Gunit and others were on forum. It seems that Gunit was determined to get in first and started popsting at 7.03 am
Within minutes she had replied to each post, cursorily dismissing everything .........
....And effectively, with the help of a few others hidden it all from virtually everyone, because no-one bothers to look back very far. A couple of pages back and it is dead.
HIDDEN FROM PLAIN SIGHT EFFECTIVELY
It is your thread and along with others, I dont think that you have seen my posts about "Circumstantial evidence of abduction", which I have never claimed as proof, but I do claim as pointers/likely possibilities.
In order to help find the 12/13 posts with a similar number of pointers, I have now changed the print colour to teal from black.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457
I know that you do not support the idea of abduction, but I can only guess why.
Your opinion would be appreciated, please
I get up early every morning and I post early every morning. I'm heartily sick of seeing not very veiled hints that I do things because I have some sort of hidden agenda. I would be grateful if it would cease, unless you have some evidence to offer up.
Your posts were indeed numerous, but sadly lacking in evidence. A lack of fingerprints is interesting only if the locations were examined for fingerprints, and there's no evidence that they were, apart from the patio door.
Other cases aren't relevant unless there is reason to believe they are all connected, like the method, time of day, age and sex of the child, and so on.
People allegedly watching weren't necessarily watching at all. People smoking on balconies likewise.
You have nothing which amounts to evidence which could be used to build a case for abduction, just your opinion about how people behave and what motivates them and a lot of probably unrelated rumour and gossip. I do congratulate you on your ability to weave it all into your narrative, but the connections between all these 'pointers' are not demonstrable.
-
What I still don't understand is why SY are still blindly following this abducted from her bedroom mantra when the actual evidence says something else. Is this simply a ploy?
The other mantra which I find inexplicable is the conviction that the parents are innocent of any wrongdoing. I can't count the times I've read variations on the theme that 'it's ludicrous to suggest that Kate and Gerry had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance'. Those who have said such things have offered no concrete evidence as to why they reached that conclusion.
-
The other mantra which I find inexplicable is the conviction that the parents are innocent of any wrongdoing. I can't count the times I've read variations on the theme that 'it's ludicrous to suggest that Kate and Gerry had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance'. Those who have said such things have offered no concrete evidence as to why they reached that conclusion.
According to Pedro de Carmo there is no evidence against them... They are not suspects, in either investigation.. Their actions in keeping the investigation open are, all evidence of their non involvement
-
According to Pedro de Carmo there is no evidence against them... They are not suspects, in either investigation.. Their actions in keeping the investigation open are, all evidence of their non involvement
IYO.
No one else is a suspect,would any one really expect the PJ or SY to announce who they are looking at,if that is indeed the case.
-
No one else is a suspect,would any one really expect the PJ or SY to announce who they are looking at,if that is indeed the case.
If they were suspects I wouldn't expect the investigators to comment... There is evidence if their non involvement but sceptics want to ignore it
-
According to Pedro de Carmo there is no evidence against them... They are not suspects, in either investigation.. Their actions in keeping the investigation open are, all evidence of their non involvement
You have a cite for that statement, do you?
-
If they were suspects I wouldn't expect the investigators to comment... There is evidence if their non involvement but sceptics want to ignore it
I believe many a time you've been asked to high light it but seem reluctant to do so.
-
You have a cite for that statement, do you?
It was supplied yesterday... [removed possible insult].
-
I believe many a time you've been asked to high light it but seem reluctant to do so.
I've just posted it... But you wish to ignore it because it doesn't fit you closed view
-
It was supplied yesterday... Are you not aware if it... If you are not then it would show your lack of knowledge of the case is causing you to reach incorrect conclusions
By you or someone else? Please provide a link or post number.
-
By you or someone else? Please provide a link or post number.
It's there now
-
I've just posted it... But you wish to ignore it because it doesn't fit you closed view
My mind is open,I don't have a fixated view either way above all else.
-
My mind is open,I don't have a fixated view either way above all else.
of course it is...so what conclusions have you drawn after nearly eleven years re the parents involvement
-
It's there now
Post number?
-
Post number?
why are you asking me for the post number...the post is supplied
-
Are you saying that 'The McCanns are not suspects' can be quoted elsewhere as 'According to Pedro de Carmo there is no evidence against them'? They look like two completely different statements to me. That, in my opinion, is the reason why cites should be provided because there's a tendency to misrepresent what was actually said.
-
Are you saying that 'The McCanns are not suspects' can be quoted elsewhere as 'According to Pedro de Carmo there is no evidence against them'? They look like two completely different statements to me. That, in my opinion, is the reason why cites should be provided because there's a tendency to misrepresent what was actually said.
t would help if you watched the short video...its only one minutes long...what is the point in asking for a cite if you do not look at it....your accusation is totally without merit and again shows your ignorance of what has been said by the PJ..
its at about...1.08...no fact or evidence at this point that suggests they were involved in the disappearance of madeleine..
so tell me...in what way am I misrepresenting the facts
-
of course it is...so what conclusions have you drawn after nearly eleven years re the parents involvement
Not being a investigative officer I've no access to all the evidence ,but the Portuguese Supreme Court in its ruling Jan 2017, page 70 had this to say.
And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.
In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).
The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)
There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.
Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.
Once they become convinced I will be to.
-
Not being a investigative officer I've no access to all the evidence ,but the Portuguese Supreme Court in its ruling Jan 2017, page 70 had this to say.
Once they become convinced I will be to.
De Carmo has said there is no evidence...the SCdid not claim there was any evidence
-
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT
Rob, it has taken many hours and I have given a 12 post+ direct answer to your topic which is named * There is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction *
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457
I finished posting way after 3am ... but started whilst Gunit and others were on forum. It seems that Gunit was determined to get in first and started popsting at 7.03 am
Within minutes she had replied to each post, cursorily dismissing everything .........
....And effectively, with the help of a few others hidden it all from virtually everyone, because no-one bothers to look back very far. A couple of pages back and it is dead.
HIDDEN FROM PLAIN SIGHT EFFECTIVELY
It is your thread and along with others, I dont think that you have seen my posts about "Circumstantial evidence of abduction", which I have never claimed as proof, but I do claim as pointers/likely possibilities.
In order to help find the 12/13 posts with a similar number of pointers, I have now changed the print colour to teal from black.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9278.msg457457#msg457457
I know that you do not support the idea of abduction, but I can only guess why.
Your opinion would be appreciated, please
There are a lot of ideas which could be debated within those 12 posts Sadie. Over the years I personally would have made a thread to thrash out each of those points.
-
The open window and shutter and the absence of the child's fingerprints on any door is not evidence of an abduction. It is very strong evidence that Madeleine did not let herself out of the apartment, because she would not have worn rubber/plasticf gloves ... and WOULD definitely have left fingerprints on the door window that she left by.
Therefore she was abducted.
I had a thread on fingerprints and there were only 3 areas examined for fingerprints, the shutters the window and the patio door.
-
How the parents reacted after the 3rd May 2007 also proves nothing really, ever heard of the double bluff?
Come on Angelo. For both to be so destroyed by it. Poor Kate, she looked so desperately unhappy and ill; at times she looked older than her very pretty Mum.
To maintain a double bluff and in front of their friends too, they would both need to be pschopaths and brilliant liars and actors too. You are not being realistic imo
How often have you heard of a couple who were guilty actually fighting for the best Police Force in the UK to investigate ? SY are world famous and solve most of their cases.
OMO, but I think they have solved this one, but it is complex and involving important people globally. It will need massive evidence and the very best lawyers to prove anything
We know Joana Cipriano was killed by her uncle in a conspiracy which included her own mother so again no relevance to the Maddie case.
You and John maintain that but there was NO REAL EVIDENCE as you well know. Just the statement of a tortured woman, which was immediately rescinded when she was out of their grasp .... and the statement of a druggie, who if not tortured, would have been very easy to persuad using drugs as a carrot .... and a rediculous film that would not persuade the simplest of people unless already biased.
I believe that Joana Cipriano is still alive, or at least she was in 2008 ish. Two other things, which I am not prepared to share, also convince me that she is likely to be still alive.
People are questioning whether the Courts finding was Just. This forum should be about Justice and not about supporting Amaral willy nilly. We KNOW that he doesn't always tell the truth from his Court trial .... and his "O Enigma" was a laugh a minute with all its incorrect statements.
I have expressed my opinion previously that the way the McCanns have kept the case active seems to suggest non-involvement.
-
I have expressed my opinion previously that the way the McCanns have kept the case active seems to suggest non-involvement.
Which indirectly supports, abduction and is, therefore on topic
-
Which indirectly supports, abduction and is, therefore on topic
I think that is logically correct.
-
I had a thread on fingerprints and there were only 3 areas examined for fingerprints, the shutters the window and the patio door.
So no fingerprints from the front door?
-
t would help if you watched the short video...its only one minutes long...what is the point in asking for a cite if you do not look at it....your accusation is totally without merit and again shows your ignorance of what has been said by the PJ..
its at about...1.08...no fact or evidence at this point that suggests they were involved in the disappearance of madeleine..
so tell me...in what way am I misrepresenting the facts
So we have two police forces who can see no evidence pointing to parental involvement. Both say they don't know what happened on 3rd May. One of the forces has used the abduction word, the other hasn't. What on earth are they hoping to achieve?
-
So we have two police forces who can see no evidence pointing to parental involvement. Both say they don't know what happened on 3rd May. One of the forces has used the abduction word, the other hasn't. What on earth are they hoping to achieve?
Clearly the Portuguese aren't actively investigating this case but are merely paying lip service to SY as they too wind down the enquiry.
-
Clearly the Portuguese aren't actively investigating this case but are merely paying lip service to SY as they too wind down the enquiry.
Its hard to find anything to argue against that,which would logically show there is little or no evidence to support any theory.
-
I had a thread on fingerprints and there were only 3 areas examined for fingerprints, the shutters the window and the patio door.
If that is correct, it demonstrates a huge LACK of thoroughness by the PJ.
Quite disgraceful. imo
-
I had a thread on fingerprints and there were only 3 areas examined for fingerprints, the shutters the window and the patio door.
Areas of potential entry and exit for any intruder which was the correct procedure. Strangely enough though, only Kate McCann's fingerprints and those of a police officer who attended the scene were identified which in itself proves that the CSI woman was doing her job properly. Those findings undoubtedly led police to the conclusion that Kate McCann had opened the window but in her momentary distress blocked it from her memory.
It is unfortunate that no other witnesses saw the shutter and window open.
-
The open window and shutter and the absence of the child's fingerprints on any door is not evidence of an abduction. It is very strong evidence that Madeleine did not let herself out of the apartment, because she would not have worn rubber/plasticf gloves ... and WOULD definitely have left fingerprints on the door window that she left by.
Therefore she was abducted.
Total tosh Sadie. For all we know the patio door wasn't even closed completely given the goings and comings of all those supposed checkers.
-
So no fingerprints from the front door?
It appeared it was never checked for fingerprints.
-
It appeared it was never checked for fingerprints.
It was pointless checking for Madeleine's fingerprints on the doors as she occupied the apartment. Finding her fingerprints on the front door or the patio door was not significant.
-
If that is correct, it demonstrates a huge LACK of thoroughness by the PJ.
Quite disgraceful. imo
It does, and as I see it, if there are politics involved, in the case as long as the case remains "active" it serves as a reminder to Portugal to do a better job on the cases where UK tourists are involved. No more keeping them quiet just so they don't affect the tourist trade IMO.
-
It does, and as I see it, if there are politics involved, in the case as long as the case remains "active" it serves as a reminder to Portugal to do a better job on the cases where UK tourists are involved. No more keeping them quiet just so they don't affect the tourist trade IMO.
There was no indication that anyone had entered the apartment so fingerprint dusting was rightly limited to potential points of entry and we all know what the outcome of that particular exercise was.
-
Agreed
And that either rubber/plastic gloves were worn, or somone clleaning off all the places where their fingerprints might have been.
I believe the front door was unlocked and opened, then closed, using the key alone. No finger prints would be there then
IMO
I have not seen any evidence to support that Sadie, but if you can give me a clue I'll look into it again.
-
It was pointless checking for Madeleine's fingerprints on the doors as she occupied the apartment. Finding her fingerprints on the front door or the patio door was not significant.
I'm trying to think how they would have got a reference sample of Madeleine's fingerprints in the first place. If small fingerprints were found they could be attributed to a child but who?
-
So in answer to the questions who, when and why, your answer is that it might have been an abductor. My answer to you is it might not have been an abductor. Therefore it isn't evidence that it was an abductor. The only forensic evidence found belonged to Kate McCann.
If it turns out that there was indeed an abductor who actually did open the window (something even you must concede is a possibility) then obviously the open window would turn out to have been evidence of an abductor.
-
So we have two police forces who can see no evidence pointing to parental involvement. Both say they don't know what happened on 3rd May. One of the forces has used the abduction word, the other hasn't. What on earth are they hoping to achieve?
I believe they’re hoping to solve the case.
-
It does, and as I see it, if there are politics involved, in the case as long as the case remains "active" it serves as a reminder to Portugal to do a better job on the cases where UK tourists are involved. No more keeping them quiet just so they don't affect the tourist trade IMO.
Who was keeping who quiet? perhaps a reminder we don't know what happened to MBM, the parents may or may not be involved so how would that affect tourist trade, and another thing if Tourist was to go out drinking and eating they should take their children with them or stay at their apartments. No point in blaming anyone else ...
-
Who was keeping who quiet? perhaps a reminder we don't know what happened to MBM, the parents may or may not be involved so how would that affect tourist trade, and another thing if Tourist was to go out drinking and eating they should take their children with them or stay at their apartments. No point in blaming anyone else ...
I have seen discussion where the tourist operators kept incidences quiet as it would affect their business. Had the McCanns been made aware that PdL was not as safe as they believed the whole matter may have been different.
-
I have not seen any evidence to support that Sadie, but if you can give me a clue I'll look into it again.
Common sense, Rob. If rubber/plastic type gloves were used no fimgerprints would show.
Also doors can be opened and closed JUST using a key. Takes practice. Why not try it yourself?
Facts, not opinion.
-
I'm trying to think how they would have got a reference sample of Madeleine's fingerprints in the first place. If small fingerprints were found they could be attributed to a child but who?
If they checked the twins finger prints ... and then in places that Madeleine would have touched if exiting the apartment, all they had to do was ignore eliminate prints belonging to the twins.
I dont think that there was much socializing with other children in 5A. In fact I cant remember reading of any. Can you?
-
Common sense, Rob. If rubber/plastic type gloves were used no fimgerprints would show.
Also doors can be opened and closed JUST using a key. Takes practice. Why not try it yourself?
Facts, not opinion.
It's a fact that rubber gloves stop fingerprints from being left. It's possibly a fact that doors can be opened and closed with just a key. What is lacing is any evidence that those things happened. Therefore they're not evidence of abduction, circumstantial or otherwise. What they are are attempts to explain how no evidence of an abductor's presence was found.
-
It's a fact that rubber gloves stop fingerprints from being left. It's possibly a fact that doors can be opened and closed with just a key. What is lacing is any evidence that those things happened. Therefore they're not evidence of abduction, circumstantial or otherwise. What they are are attempts to explain how no evidence of an abductor's presence was found.
OK it might be possible to open and close the front door with just holding the key. I agree.
-
It's a fact that rubber gloves stop fingerprints from being left. It's possibly a fact that doors can be opened and closed with just a key. What is lacing is any evidence that those things happened. Therefore they're not evidence of abduction, circumstantial or otherwise. What they are are attempts to explain how no evidence of an abductor's presence was found.
I remember reading that there was no sign of gloves being used, that baffled me as how can they tell if gloves had been worn or not?
-
I remember reading that there was no sign of gloves being used, that baffled me as how can they tell if gloves had been worn or not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glove_prints
-
OK it might be possible to open and close the front door with just holding the key. I agree.
Just because something might be possible doesn't mean it happened. I thought we were looking for evidence that an abduction took place, not speculating about how it might have been accomplished.
-
Just because something might be possible doesn't mean it happened. I thought we were looking for evidence that an abduction took place, not speculating about how it might have been accomplished.
What else is there to do? You are not able to prove that an abduction didn't happen, so why be so scathing about the possibility?
-
What else is there to do? You are not able to prove that an abduction didn't happen, so why be so scathing about the possibility?
That's not how it works. The trick is to prove that the abduction did happen, not that it didn't.
-
That's not how it works. The trick is to prove that the abduction did happen, not that it didn't.
if you can show the other two options are highly unlikely it makes abduction highly likely
-
I have seen discussion where the tourist operators kept incidences quiet as it would affect their business. Had the McCanns been made aware that PdL was not as safe as they believed the whole matter may have been different.
Are you seriously trying to pamp me off with a story that the 'alledgedly 'highly intelligent, professional doctors did not think it was unsafe to leave children alone. what!?
It is not the tourist operators job to tell parents how to look after their children fgs. Besides GERRY said it was ok. so... well how do you argue with a man like that... oh it felt safe.. lies, lies, lies, they did not consider safety at all because they took the decision to leave their children alone every night while they had dinner and drinks in peace BEFORE they left the UK.
-
if you can show the other two options are highly unlikely it makes abduction highly likely
There are many,many theories not just two or three.
-
Just because something might be possible doesn't mean it happened. I thought we were looking for evidence that an abduction took place, not speculating about how it might have been accomplished.
The evidence present will be very dependent on the way it happened. If an abduction was possible using a key to enter the apartment and the person locked the door behind him using the same key, what evidence would be left behind?
Then it seems vital that the bed linen would need to be forensically tested rather than laundered.
-
The evidence present will be very dependent on the way it happened. If an abduction was possible using a key to enter the apartment and the person locked the door behind him using the same key, what evidence would be left behind?
Then it seems vital that the bed linen would need to be forensically tested rather than laundered.
What would be being tested for?
-
That's not how it works. The trick is to prove that the abduction did happen, not that it didn't.
Well the initial assessment by the GNR and the PJ went towards showing that they thought an abduction didn't happen, i.e. There was no sign of break in. There was a lack of new unidentified fingerprints on the shutters and window, and the lack of signs of someone going through the window.
But Amaral's security expert, admitted it was possible to enter the building from the car park side if they had a key.
What would it be tested for? [edited for spelling]
Hair samples and DNA. If and intruder got in and lifted Madeleine off her bed there could hair or DNA left behind.
-
The evidence present will be very dependent on the way it happened. If an abduction was possible using a key to enter the apartment and the person locked the door behind him using the same key, what evidence would be left behind?
Then it seems vital that the bed linen would need to be forensically tested rather than laundered.
If there's no evidence of something then it doesn't belong on a thread set up to discuss what evidence does exist.
-
If there's no evidence of something then it doesn't belong on a thread set up to discuss what evidence does exist.
The lack of evidence in other areas points to someone using a key. If they used a key where would the required evidence be? On the bed linen. Where is the bed linen? Laundered. Who allowed the bed linen to be removed from the crime scene?
-
Well the initial assessment by the GNR and the PJ went towards showing that they thought an abduction didn't happen, i.e. There was no sign of break in. There was a lack of new unidentified fingerprints on the shutters and window, and the lack of signs of someone going through the window.
But Amaral's security expert, admitted it was possible to enter the building from the car park side if they had a key.
Hair samples and DNA. If and intruder got in and lifted Madeleine off her bed there could hair or DNA left behind.
DLTD
-
There wasn't a DNA database in Portugal in 2007, so what do you run these samples against?
It would be the presence of unmatched DNA or hair that would be the clue. The sample and the profile would remain on record and if there was an abductor another sample taken in the future could link the perpetrator to the McCann case. There are plenty of documented cases where historic samples have been used to solve a crime.
-
It would be the presence of unmatched DNA or hair that would be the clue. The sample and the profile would remain on record and if there was an abductor another sample taken in the future could link the perpetrator to the McCann case. There are plenty of documented cases where historic samples have been used to solve a crime.
But they didn't find any so there is no clue. There may never have been any so the supposition that there might have been is worthless.
-
Are you seriously trying to pamp me off with a story that the 'alledgedly 'highly intelligent, professional doctors did not think it was unsafe to leave children alone. what!?
It is not the tourist operators job to tell parents how to look after their children fgs. Besides GERRY said it was ok. so... well how do you argue with a man like that... oh it felt safe.. lies, lies, lies, they did not consider safety at all because they took the decision to leave their children alone every night while they had dinner and drinks in peace BEFORE they left the UK.
They didn't decide to do this because they thought it was unsafe. They thought what they were planning was enough. They would have thought twice if they were aware of the facts. The facts as has been shown were kept quite by the tourist operators. Are you disputing that?
-
But they didn't find any so there is no clue. There may never have been any so the supposition that there might have been is worthless.
True, but then that scenario of an intruder using a key to enter and leave can not be ruled out either.
-
True, but then that scenario of an intruder using a key to enter and leave can not be ruled out either.
Indeed, but without evidence the idea doesn't go anywhere - it remains an imagined option.
-
Indeed, but without evidence the idea doesn't go anywhere - it remains an imagined option.
A real possibility is another way of describing it.
-
A real possibility is another way of describing it.
Not really as there is nothing to support it. IMO
-
There are many,many theories not just two or three.
Not in the real world... There is either parental involvement nor not... If not abduction ir woke and wandered.. That's it
-
There wasn't a DNA database in Portugal in 2007, so what do you run these samples against?
Against future suspects of course...
-
That's not how it works. The trick is to prove that the abduction did happen, not that it didn't.
Only in your opinion, which is no better or worse than that of anyone else.
-
Against future suspects of course...
DLTD
-
Not in the real world... There is either parental involvement nor not... If not abduction ir woke and wandered.. That's it
Yes in the real world there are other theories. Think of motive first! who and why would anyone remove MBM from that apartment.
-
Treatment of DNA did not and does not work like that in Portugal.
can you provide a cite ...surely dna collected from a crime scene could be checked against suspects in the future...without a cite your post is merely your opinion
-
Treatment of DNA did not and does not work like that in Portugal.
Then it is about time they developed their systems better.
-
Then it is about time they developed their systems better.
I really doubt sil is correct...portugal simply could not be so backward in its forensic science
The Portuguese National DNA database can include DNA profiles from: volunteers, unidentified corpses (for civil identification purposes), missing persons or their relatives, crime scene stains, persons convicted to not less than three years in prison, and laboratory and crime scene personnel who collect and analyze samples.
http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/genewatch-forensic-dna/arguido-or-no-the-portuguese-dna-database/
-
I really doubt sil is correct...portugal simply could not be so backward in its forensic science
I'm not so sure.
-
can you provide a cite ...surely dna collected from a crime scene could be checked against suspects in the future...without a cite your post is merely your opinion
DLTD
-
So OG was able to check DNA against the alleged 3 burglar arguidos of July 2014?
No, because DNA regulations don't work like that in Portugal.
I have made extensive posts about this on my blog. I have no interest in doing a re-run.
You have provided no cite so it's opinion
-
Then it is about time they developed their systems better.
DLTD
-
You need to stick an IYO round your opinion.
I am not aware of any dissatisfaction with DNA regulations in Portugal.
And as you have provided no cite you need, an iyo around your post... Perhaps, Carana who is the accepted expert on Portuguese law will explain
-
I really doubt sil is correct...portugal simply could not be so backward in its forensic science
The Portuguese National DNA database can include DNA profiles from: volunteers, unidentified corpses (for civil identification purposes), missing persons or their relatives, crime scene stains, persons convicted to not less than three years in prison, and laboratory and crime scene personnel who collect and analyze samples.
http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/genewatch-forensic-dna/arguido-or-no-the-portuguese-dna-database/
DLTD
-
The key word is can, not does. And you have not covered how such information may be used and when it can't.
And neither have you... I have provided a cite.... You have provided your opinion
-
You have provided no cite so it's opinion
DLTD
-
No.
Carry on... Without any sort of cite, we have no idea how accurate your claim is... It is therefore mere opinion
-
Carry on... Without any sort of cite, we have no idea how accurate your claim is... It is therefore mere opinion
DLTD
-
Check my blog.
Why should I want to read your blog.. You obviously can't provide any cite.. Fair enough
-
Check my blog.
On this forum cites have to be provided otherwise they are considered merely opinion. "Check my blog" is not a cite.
-
Why should I want to read your blog.. You obviously can't provide any cite.. Fair enough
DLTD
-
On this forum cites have to be provided otherwise they are considered merely opinion. "Check my blog" is not a cite.
DLTD
-
Feel free to consider it as opinion.
I have better things to do - there is a backlog of dish-washing beckoning.
Goodnight.
If you have made a statement not of fact but of opinion please amend your post accordingly. Thank you.
-
If you have made a statement not of fact but of opinion please amend your post accordingly. Thank you.
The work is based not on a single cite but dozens.
-
There is no requirement to provide dozens of cites, just one would do - how about you cut and paste the relevant cite from your blog?
-
I really doubt sil is correct...portugal simply could not be so backward in its forensic science
The Portuguese National DNA database can include DNA profiles from: volunteers, unidentified corpses (for civil identification purposes), missing persons or their relatives, crime scene stains, persons convicted to not less than three years in prison, and laboratory and crime scene personnel who collect and analyze samples.
http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/genewatch-forensic-dna/arguido-or-no-the-portuguese-dna-database/
The cite I have provided explains the DNA position in Portugal very well
-
The cite I have provided explains the DNA position in Portugal very well
IYO.
-
IYO.
I've provided a cite... You didnt... Can you explain it better... Let's, see
-
I've provided a cite... You didnt... Can you explain it better... Let's, see
If you actually want a better explanation, it appeared on ShiningInLuz.wordpress.com quite some time ago.
Better IMO, of course. &^^&*
-
The cite I have provided explains the DNA position in Portugal very well
The problem is there was no DNA database in Portugal until 2008. In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case.
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/dnadata/Countries/PT.html
-
If you actually want a better explanation, it appeared on ShiningInLuz.wordpress.com quite some time ago.
Better IMO, of course. &^^&*
I've had a look but it's quite hard to find things on your site. What was the blog entry post called and when did it appear?
-
The problem is there was no DNA database in Portugal until 2008. In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case.
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/dnadata/Countries/PT.html
But any sample collected, from the crime scene could be kept to compare to a suspect arrested, in the, future
-
But any sample collected, from the crime scene could be kept to compare to a suspect arrested, in the, future
One would hope so.
-
The problem is there was no DNA database in Portugal until 2008. In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case.
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/dnadata/Countries/PT.html
Obviously I need to re-read my own article on this, but from memory, there was no database in 2008. Your link is to the implementation of the law, which established that a DB should be set up, and roughly what it could contain. It made the INML the keeper. But there was no practical implementation of such a DB until later.
"In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case." I may have misunderstood you on this but ... that is what the PJ did and the documentation is in the PJ Files. However, that DNA was ring-fenced i.e. it was not cross-checked against other live cases, AFAIK. If my understanding is correct, this is important as DNA from the sex assaults on the Algarve would not have been run against the Madeleine case.
-
I've had a look but it's quite hard to find things on your site. What was the blog entry post called and when did it appear?
I'm busy this morning, but I'll dig it out when I get some spare time.
-
Obviously I need to re-read my own article on this, but from memory, there was no database in 2008. Your link is to the implementation of the law, which established that a DB should be set up, and roughly what it could contain. It made the INML the keeper. But there was no practical implementation of such a DB until later.
"In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case." I may have misunderstood you on this but ... that is what the PJ did and the documentation is in the PJ Files. However, that DNA was ring-fenced i.e. it was not cross-checked against other live cases, AFAIK. If my understanding is correct, this is important as DNA from the sex assaults on the Algarve would not have been run against the Madeleine case.
If they had dna from the break ins in the algarve and they were able to match it to 5a that would be more than signiglficant..... If they hadn't tried... That would be a disgrace
-
If they had dna from the break ins in the algarve and they were able to match it to 5a that would be more than signiglficant..... If they hadn't tried... That would be a disgrace
Portuguese law in 2007 did not match up with UK law in 2007. The same was true in 2014. There is no point in applying UK concepts as the incident did not occur in the UK.
I can't remember who from or when OG went to Coimbra, but I assume that was to discuss what had been kept and what could be done with it.
-
If they had dna from the break ins in the algarve and they were able to match it to 5a that would be more than signiglficant..... If they hadn't tried... That would be a disgrace
Look what happened in this case. https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/golden-state-killer-suspect-arrested-in-california/ar-AAwlbFy?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=UP97DHP
-
Portuguese law in 2007 did not match up with UK law in 2007. The same was true in 2014. There is no point in applying UK concepts as the incident did not occur in the UK.
I can't remember who from or when OG went to Coimbra, but I assume that was to discuss what had been kept and what could be done with it.
I'm not applying UK concepts I'm applying common sense concepts.... Not cross checking DNA with known samples is basic ignorance... IMO and I would think in most peoples opinion
-
Obviously I need to re-read my own article on this, but from memory, there was no database in 2008. Your link is to the implementation of the law, which established that a DB should be set up, and roughly what it could contain. It made the INML the keeper. But there was no practical implementation of such a DB until later.
"In May 2007 the PJ would have had no reason to try to obtain DNA samples from a crime scene for use within the same case." I may have misunderstood you on this but ... that is what the PJ did and the documentation is in the PJ Files. However, that DNA was ring-fenced i.e. it was not cross-checked against other live cases, AFAIK. If my understanding is correct, this is important as DNA from the sex assaults on the Algarve would not have been run against the Madeleine case.
My bad. I should have written "only had reason to try to obtain....". The PJ had no database against which to check the non-eliminated DNA present at the crime scene.
-
My bad. I should have written "only had reason to try to obtain....". The PJ had no database against which to check the non-eliminated DNA present at the crime scene.
But all police organisations would have been in that position to begin with. It takes time to build up a database.
-
But all police organisations would have been in that position to begin with. It takes time to build up a database.
Quote from SIL blog (the news article was in the Portugal Resident a few years ago)
"A news report dated Nov 2009 said the database was completely empty, without a single entry, while the INML had received just 23 requests to provide matches.".
Additionally -
"Further, unlike the UK, it is not once on, always on. Criminal records in Portugal get expunged after specific periods of time, and whenever a criminal record was expunged, it was mandatory to remove the related DNA entry from the INML database.
By mid-Feb 2012, the national database stood at precisely 395 entries in total (criminal in the main, but also volunteer and civil). This was the date at which a major Portuguese news source reported the first successful use of the database in a criminal case. An offender was tracked via DNA in a theft case.
This case was then used by the police and related authorities to ‘advertise’ to judges the benefits of ordering DNA samples in cases of convictions for 3 years or more.
By the end of March 2015, the database had grown to 5,393 entries."
-
iIhope sil can now see why his cite to search his site was not acceptable when he appears to be having difficulty finding the information himself
-
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/madeleine-by-helena-machado-filipe-santos/
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/madeleine-dna-in-portugal/
Most or all of the underlying cites are in my files. I repeat, I have no intention of wasting my time digging them out.
-
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/madeleine-by-helena-machado-filipe-santos/
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/madeleine-dna-in-portugal/
Most or all of the underlying cites are in my files. I repeat, I have no intention of wasting my time digging them out.
the article I posted expalined that a judge has to order a dna sample from a suspect so nothing you have posted is new....on a judges order it can actually be taken forcibly...there is nothing in both articles you have posted that is not in the cite I had already provided...
-
the article I posted expalined that a judge has to order a dna sample from a suspect so nothing you have posted is new....on a judges order it can actually be taken forcibly...there is nothing in both articles you have posted that is not in the cite I had already provided...
I was asked by VS to provide links to the articles on my blog.
I provided links to the articles on my blog.
-
It was me who asked for a cite and you failed to provide one... I provided one which covered all these points, and more
See VS at R796, requesting links to the article(s) on my blog, not cites.
Links provided.
-
I asked for a cite...... You quoted your blog... Then got angry and deleted all your posts
That is true but there is nothing we can do about that, but I would be very frustrated if the forum became a whole series of "DLTD" posts.
-
Less points scoring please and back to the meat of the topic.