UK Justice Forum

Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: pegasus on February 20, 2016, 12:35:47 AM

Title: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on February 20, 2016, 12:35:47 AM
This thread is for posts which wandered off topic on other threads.

4636
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 20, 2016, 02:13:11 PM
This thread is for posts which wandered off topic on other threads.
I have thought for a while that a small topic index would be of use.

I seem to be having quite major problems with the forum software since I upgraded to Windows 10.  A lot of features that worked before have ceased to work now.

One of those is the Search feature.  If I search for something I know for certain exists, I get told there is nothing.  Hence I have a propensity towards topic drift, simply because I cannot find the right one.

I don't know exactly what the top 10 or top 20 topics would be, but surely the dogs, Smithman, Tannerman, Operation Grange and PJ/Gonçalo Amaral would be in there.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2016, 02:25:01 PM
I have thought for a while that a small topic index would be of use.

I seem to be having quite major problems with the forum software since I upgraded to Windows 10.  A lot of features that worked before have ceased to work now.

One of those is the Search feature.  If I search for something I know for certain exists, I get told there is nothing.  Hence I have a propensity towards topic drift, simply because I cannot find the right one.

I don't know exactly what the top 10 or top 20 topics would be, but surely the dogs, Smithman, Tannerman, Operation Grange and PJ/Gonçalo Amaral would be in there.

Being facetious by nature SiL I thought a starter for 10 would be good.
Dogs...........some swear by 'em others at 'em. Hard to see why K9s have been used for 30 years or more if they are so kin useless.
Smithman...... some think is he is a figment of the imagination. O.G. don't however if one was to believe what DCI Andy said in October 2013
Tannerman.... greased by DCI Andy over two years ago. Consign to the bin.
O.G...remains on going but with reduced staff since the back end of last year (October I think). Was that because they were within an ace of arrests (four months ago?!) or just winding down.
P.J.... still doing something but we don't really know what. They have primacy however.
Sr Amaral.... yesterday's man; nuff said.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 20, 2016, 02:33:00 PM
Being facetious by nature SiL I thought a starter for 10 would be good.
Dogs...........some swear by 'em others at 'em. Hard to see why K9s have been used for 30 years or more if they are so kin useless.
Smithman...... some think is he is a figment of the imagination. O.G. don't however if one was to believe what DCI Andy said in October 2013
Tannerman.... greased by DCI Andy over two years ago. Consign to the bin.
O.G...remains on going but with reduced staff since the back end of last year (October I think). Was that because they were within an ace of arrests (four months ago?!) or just winding down.
P.J.... still doing something but we don't really know what. They have primacy however.
Sr Amaral.... yesterday's man; nuff said.
To be honest, I was thinking of a sticky with topics and a link to the correct thread, a sort of forum sitemap.

Wandering off topic (can one on this thread?) the latest info on Tannerman was Dec 2015, when in a very curious response, SY said they were still looking for more info on him, and the public should follow that line of thinking.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2016, 03:15:08 PM
To be honest, I was thinking of a sticky with topics and a link to the correct thread, a sort of forum sitemap.

Wandering off topic (can one on this thread?) the latest info on Tannerman was Dec 2015, when in a very curious response, SY said they were still looking for more info on him, and the public should follow that line of thinking.

Tell us more. I missed that on the Met website; where is it?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfred R Jones on February 20, 2016, 03:38:20 PM
Being facetious by nature SiL I thought a starter for 10 would be good.
Dogs...........some swear by 'em others at 'em. Hard to see why K9s have been used for 30 years or more if they are so kin useless.
Smithman...... some think is he is a figment of the imagination. O.G. don't however if one was to believe what DCI Andy said in October 2013
Tannerman.... greased by DCI Andy over two years ago. Consign to the bin.
O.G...remains on going but with reduced staff since the back end of last year (October I think). Was that because they were within an ace of arrests (four months ago?!) or just winding down.
P.J.... still doing something but we don't really know what. They have primacy however.
Sr Amaral.... yesterday's man; nuff said.
Have you considered a career in stand up?  You really are a hoot and a half.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2016, 03:53:02 PM
Have you considered a career in stand up?  You really are a hoot and a half.

The truth frequently is droll.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on February 20, 2016, 03:54:12 PM
This was wandering off topic on another thread, but IMO is interesting, so have put it here
There's the watch on the 4th May. Shame he can't tell the time  - 10:03 where did you get time from Mr McCann  8)--))

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4May2007/gerry-mccann-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann-in-portugal-ZfHyz3.jpg)
That photo is not on the 4th Pathfinder, it's on the 5th, IMO.
Have you noticed there were two different men alternately carrying that baguette.
 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 20, 2016, 04:12:58 PM
Tell us more. I missed that on the Met website; where is it?
I have no reason to think it is on the Met website, unless you can point me at a section for FOI requests.

It is on the CMoMM forum, in the section on FOI requests.

Mr Bennett submitted an FOI.  For some reason SY decided to respond, but not as an FOI, rather as Business As Usual.  I do not know what SY BAU means.  I thought it was to not provide a running commentary on Operation Grange.

Mr Bennett's first question was whether the public should now discount the Tannerman sighting, and cease to send information on it.  The gist of the reply is that the public should continue to send information re Tannerman.  I take this to mean Tannerman is not done and dusted.

Mr Bennett's second question was whether the public should now cease to send information re Smithman.  The gist of the reply is that the public should continue to send information re Smithman.  I take this to mean Smithman is not done and dusted, whatever that should actually mean in this instance.

Mr Bennett published the response in full, so precise details such as date of response, wording of questions, wording of answers and the name of the person responding and his role/position within SY are all transparent.

If you wish to check it out, please visit CMoMM FOI section for yourself.  I'm not sure what forum policy here is to links to there and equally, I do not wish to cut and paste material from there to here.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on February 20, 2016, 05:08:58 PM
I have no reason to think it is on the Met website, unless you can point me at a section for FOI requests.

It is on the CMoMM forum, in the section on FOI requests.

Mr Bennett submitted an FOI.  For some reason SY decided to respond, but not as an FOI, rather as Business As Usual.  I do not know what SY BAU means.  I thought it was to not provide a running commentary on Operation Grange.

Mr Bennett's first question was whether the public should now discount the Tannerman sighting, and cease to send information on it.  The gist of the reply is that the public should continue to send information re Tannerman.  I take this to mean Tannerman is not done and dusted.

Mr Bennett's second question was whether the public should now cease to send information re Smithman.  The gist of the reply is that the public should continue to send information re Smithman.  I take this to mean Smithman is not done and dusted, whatever that should actually mean in this instance.

Mr Bennett published the response in full, so precise details such as date of response, wording of questions, wording of answers and the name of the person responding and his role/position within SY are all transparent.

If you wish to check it out, please visit CMoMM FOI section for yourself.  I'm not sure what forum policy here is to links to there and equally, I do not wish to cut and paste material from there to here.
Thanks SiL. I had seen that a while ago and couldn't make up my mind about it. The Met playing it with a straight bat saying "still send us anything you got" ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on February 20, 2016, 05:13:15 PM
I have no reason to think it is on the Met website, unless you can point me at a section for FOI requests.

It is on the CMoMM forum, in the section on FOI requests.

Mr Bennett submitted an FOI.  For some reason SY decided to respond, but not as an FOI, rather as Business As Usual.  I do not know what SY BAU means.  I thought it was to not provide a running commentary on Operation Grange.

Mr Bennett's first question was whether the public should now discount the Tannerman sighting, and cease to send information on it.  The gist of the reply is that the public should continue to send information re Tannerman.  I take this to mean Tannerman is not done and dusted.

Mr Bennett's second question was whether the public should now cease to send information re Smithman.  The gist of the reply is that the public should continue to send information re Smithman.  I take this to mean Smithman is not done and dusted, whatever that should actually mean in this instance.

Mr Bennett published the response in full, so precise details such as date of response, wording of questions, wording of answers and the name of the person responding and his role/position within SY are all transparent.

If you wish to check it out, please visit CMoMM FOI section for yourself.  I'm not sure what forum policy here is to links to there and equally, I do not wish to cut and paste material from there to here.

confirms another one of my assertions that Tannerman has not been eliminated
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on February 20, 2016, 05:55:14 PM
confirms another one of my assertions that Tannerman has not been eliminated
Davel do you mean the man in SY's blurred photo is not Tannerman?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on February 20, 2016, 06:00:50 PM
Back to the photo from Pathfinder. And the 2 baguette men. One obviously is the resort manager. The other is the car driver, who did he work for?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on February 20, 2016, 06:14:05 PM
I intended this thread strictly only for discussions that originated on another thread and got thrown off for being off-topic.

 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on February 20, 2016, 06:52:18 PM
Thanks SiL. I had seen that a while ago and couldn't make up my mind about it. The Met playing it with a straight bat saying "still send us anything you got" ?
I'm really not sure.

At first, I thought it was clear communication that both Tannerman and Smithman were still in the frame.

Then the FOI v Business as Usual bit percolated through.  Why not answer an FOI under FOI law?  Why claim there is a Business As Usual terms of engagement?

In reality, it could be a lot of things.  OG dodging an FOI request for operational reasons.  Someone dodging an FOI request to prevent the reality being told.  Other options.

Hmmm, very curious.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on February 20, 2016, 06:57:34 PM
I'm really not sure.

At first, I thought it was clear communication that both Tannerman and Smithman were still in the frame.

Then the FOI v Business as Usual bit percolated through.  Why not answer an FOI under FOI law?  Why claim there is a Business As Usual terms of engagement?

In reality, it could be a lot of things.  OG dodging an FOI request for operational reasons.  Someone dodging an FOI request to prevent the reality being told.  Other options.

Hmmm, very curious.

Basically they didn't answer the FOI just gave a routine statement.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on February 20, 2016, 08:06:52 PM
This was wandering off topic on another thread, but IMO is interesting, so have put it hereThat photo is not on the 4th Pathfinder, it's on the 5th, IMO.
Have you noticed there were two different men alternately carrying that baguette.

The photo on the website said 4 May but that wasn't the reason I posted it. I wasn't finding a pic of baguette man.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on February 21, 2016, 04:00:57 AM
The photo on the website said 4 May but that wasn't the reason I posted it. I wasn't finding a pic of baguette man.
IMO the original caption if you found it would probably say 5th May.
In exposay images the baguette is carried sometimes by JH and sometimes by a different man. Who did he work for? And do you agree the photo you posted is just before the 2 large bags were moved out of the apartment?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2016, 06:00:40 PM
As I've said before, this witness is a truthful accurate and valuable source -

"JULY 6 ... Miliband (the new Foreign Secretary) phoned Gerry to offer support."
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/kate-healy-mccann-diary.html

You can see the actual 18 minute call here, at 15:43
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_121.jpg

But on what date was the call that lasted over an hour?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 10, 2016, 07:26:39 PM
As I've said before, this witness is a truthful accurate and valuable source -

"JULY 6 ... Miliband (the new Foreign Secretary) phoned Gerry to offer support."
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/kate-healy-mccann-diary.html

You can see the actual 18 minute call here, at 15:43
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_121.jpg

But on what date was the call that lasted over an hour?

Dyou mean 15:14?

What hour plus long call?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 10, 2016, 08:06:48 PM
IMO the original caption if you found it would probably say 5th May.
In exposay images the baguette is carried sometimes by JH and sometimes by a different man. Who did he work for? And do you agree the photo you posted is just before the 2 large bags were moved out of the apartment?

What do you find significant about the baguette?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 10, 2016, 08:15:52 PM
What do you find significant about the baguette?

I was just about to post on this...but my question was about " baguette man"...i doubt if the filling was tuna and sweetcorn or ham and tomato comes into it at all
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 10, 2016, 09:21:23 PM
I was just about to post on this...but my question was about " baguette man"...i doubt if the filling was tuna and sweetcorn or ham and tomato comes into it at all

Maybe it had a secret camcorder filling? ;)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2016, 09:30:27 PM
Dyou mean 15:14? ...
Yes sorry the 6 July call from the new foreign sec to GM was at 15:14

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 10, 2016, 09:35:46 PM
Yes sorry the 6 July call from the new foreign sec to GM was at 15:14

How dyou know that anyway
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 10, 2016, 09:38:03 PM
Maybe it had a secret camcorder filling? ;)

doubt it...anyway i thought baguette man was john hill? PF will let us know when he comes on and if reads....

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 10, 2016, 09:43:12 PM
doubt it...anyway i thought baguette man was john hill? PF will let us know when he comes on and if reads....

If we're talking about the guy seen from the back with a plastic bag and a baguette, I thought it looked John Hill as well. Not sure what's supposed to be intriguing about it (baguette / man).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2016, 09:58:26 PM
... What hour plus long call?
Only because you asked Merc, here it is -
"Gerry once spoke to him for more than an hour about the situation"
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209

Here's how to work out what date and time that hour+ call was. The info comes from DH so the call was very probably in the short period he was involved. That places the call in the few days before, or after arguido status happened.

But didn't some other spokesperson assure us that after arguido status happened there were no calls with the top level of the UK government?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2016, 10:00:37 PM
How dyou know that anyway
From KM diary Merc, an accurate and truthful source.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 10, 2016, 10:08:25 PM
I can't see an hour-long call, or am I looking in the wrong place?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 10, 2016, 10:09:35 PM
From KM diary Merc, an accurate and truthful source.

It doesnt say in the diary they spoke for 18 mins??? And seeing as two of the fields in the phone  records are blank , in your link you gave, not sure where to start or why youre asking when the hour plus call happened and why it matters
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2016, 10:16:48 PM
If we're talking about the guy seen from the back with a plastic bag and a baguette, I thought it looked John Hill as well. Not sure what's supposed to be intriguing about it (baguette / man).
See photos, he was accompanied that morning 5th by two different helpers Carana. The baguette was carried sometimes by one helper, sometimes by the other. One is easily identified (resort manager), but the other is completely un-named.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2016, 10:22:33 PM
It doesnt say in the diary they spoke for 18 mins??? And seeing as two of the fields in the phone  records are blank , in your link you gave, not sure where to start or why youre asking when the hour plus call happened and why it matters
The only call on 6 July that fits KM's accurate description, is the 18 minute call at 15:14 Merc. This is the foreign sec calling GM to offer his support.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 10, 2016, 10:35:48 PM
The only call on 6 July that fits KM's accurate description, is the 18 minute call at 15:14 Merc. This is the foreign sec calling GM to offer his support.

Why? Why wasnt it  the 18:26 one lasting 24 mins?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2016, 10:37:40 PM
I can't see an hour-long call, or am I looking in the wrong place?
The only one I've found so far is on afternoon 8th Aug Carana.
But of course that would be ludicrous as it is in the arguido period when we've been assured there were were no such calls.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on March 10, 2016, 10:53:08 PM
From KM diary Merc, an accurate and truthful source.

Since someone involved in this whole case is a criminal, I can only assume you have decided that everyone named is truthful and anyone Unknown is a liar?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2016, 11:19:10 PM
Why? Why wasnt it  the 18:26 one lasting 24 mins?
18:46 isn't redacted, 18:14 is Merc, I'm assuming redaction was of whitehall landlines.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 10, 2016, 11:24:09 PM
Since someone involved in this whole case is a criminal, I can only assume you have decided that everyone named is truthful and anyone Unknown is a liar?
Not at all, I'm literally just trying to solve the case Slarti.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 10, 2016, 11:26:23 PM
18:46 isn't redacted, 18:14 is Merc, I'm assuming redaction was of whitehall landlines.

Ok, thers also anther "redacted" one on that page


I forgot what your query was btw, oh yes, when was the over an hour one made, who said there was one?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2016, 12:13:01 AM
DH said there was a call with foreign sec of over an hour but he didn't say the date Merc.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2016, 12:15:16 AM
Now here's a chance to demonstrate your eye for faces and skill in figure drawing from unusual angles.
Do you recognise anyone here?
http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz357/JillyCL/JillyCL001/gmc1.jpg
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 11, 2016, 12:34:08 AM
Now here's a chance to demonstrate your eye for faces and skill in figure drawing from unusual angles.
Do you recognise anyone here?
http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz357/JillyCL/JillyCL001/gmc1.jpg

Is your quiz open to anyone or just for Sadie?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 11, 2016, 12:48:13 AM
IMO the original caption if you found it would probably say 5th May.
In exposay images the baguette is carried sometimes by JH and sometimes by a different man. Who did he work for? And do you agree the photo you posted is just before the 2 large bags were moved out of the apartment?

The carrier bag in JH's hand appears to contain a lot more than the other guy's carrier. Also, one baguette looks significantly longer than the other.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2016, 01:46:23 AM
Is your quiz open to anyone or just for Sadie?
Anyone Misty
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2016, 02:03:04 AM
The carrier bag in JH's hand appears to contain a lot more than the other guy's carrier. Also, one baguette looks significantly longer than the other.
Both men are carrying the same baguette Misty. The real question is why are they carrying it? It's absurd. Even the pope doesn't have an official "carrier of the baguette" following him around, and he certainly doesn't have two. The answer is that the baguette is irrelevant. So what are they really doing?  Maybe arranging something by mobile and waiting for agreement from PJ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 11, 2016, 02:09:36 AM
Both men are carrying the same baguette Misty. The real question is why are they carrying it? It's absurd. Even the pope doesn't have an official "carrier of the baguette" following him around, and he certainly doesn't have two. The answer is that the baguette is irrelevant. So what are they really doing?  Maybe arranging something by mobile and waiting for agreement from PJ?

Do you have timings on those 2 pictures?


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2016, 02:14:51 AM
Do you have timings on those 2 pictures?
There are more than 2 pictures Misty. Lunchtime 5th IMO.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 11, 2016, 02:44:09 AM
There are more than 2 pictures Misty. Lunchtime 5th IMO.

Is it possible JH had bought them some provisions for lunch from the supermarket, brought them up to Gerry & then he, Kate, the twins & Fiona were walking back to the new apartment accompanied by man no.2?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2016, 12:14:38 PM
Is it possible JH had bought them some provisions for lunch from the supermarket, brought them up to Gerry & then he, Kate, the twins & Fiona were walking back to the new apartment accompanied by man no.2?
One report says some had lunch at tapas on 5th Misty. BTW to get permission to enter crimescene and remove all possessions only about 37 hours into the investigation must have taken some arranging?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 11, 2016, 12:25:41 PM
One report says some had lunch at tapas on 5th Misty. BTW to get permission to enter crimescene and remove all possessions only about 37 hours into the investigation must have taken some arranging?

Had it been sealed as a crime scene?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2016, 12:44:27 PM
Had it been sealed as a crime scene?
It was certainly an investigation scene which had keep out tape around it and was being guarded by the GNR (see photo taken morning 5th). But somehow permission was arranged to enter the investigation scene on morning of 5th and remove everything.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 11, 2016, 12:47:41 PM
It was certainly an investigation scene which was being guarded by the GNR, but somehow permission was arranged to enter the investigation scene on morning of 5th and remove everything.

Did the PJ ever tell the GNR not to allow anyone in who wasn't from the forensics team?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2016, 12:54:21 PM
Did the PJ ever tell the GNR not to allow anyone in who wasn't from the forensics team?
IMO the GNR would let in only PJ and people with permission from PJ, and IMO that is probably what the mobile calls were about Misty.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 11, 2016, 01:11:21 PM
It was certainly an investigation scene which had keep out tape around it and was being guarded by the GNR (see photo taken morning 5th). But somehow permission was arranged to enter the investigation scene on morning of 5th and remove everything.


Yes, I agree that there was tape and a GNR chap. However, there was no CSI protocol back then. One was only even launched in Feb 2009.



Today, at the Polícia Judiciária’s School, in Lisbon, a crime scene practises manual is launched, establishing rules on how to enter, how to mark the investigators’ passage, how to photograph and/or draw a crime scene, among other procedures. “The potentialities in the collection of a certain type of residues are incommensurably different today from what they were years ago”, said Carlos Farinha, according to whom “nowadays the level of collection of elements on location is scarily superior”. Hence, he adds, the need to “reorganise and think about the manner to proceed on a crime scene”.


I don't have the link to hand, but the source is:

20 May 2009
PJ Laboratory receives 24 thousand requests per year

by Joana de Belém
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 11, 2016, 01:24:00 PM
Thanks Carana. Yes the PJ have since greatly improved their CSI protocol. But even in PDL 2007 it was fairly good, because the PJ did see the need for forensics and insisted the family move out so that forensics could be done. Much better than a more recent UK case where those measures were not taken.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on March 11, 2016, 03:12:56 PM
Thanks Carana. Yes the PJ have since greatly improved their CSI protocol. But even in PDL 2007 it was fairly good, because the PJ did see the need for forensics and insisted the family move out so that forensics could be done. Much better than a more recent UK case where those measures were not taken.

You mean the UK have bumbling incompetent policemen too? Well I never.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 12:08:15 AM
You mean the UK have bumbling incompetent policemen too? Well I never.
No, not bumbling incompetence. The PJ and the Met are both highly competent. The point is that lessons can be learnt from cases after they are solved, and CSI practices improved, I'll give you an example soon.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 12:35:35 AM
Example of how police can learn lessons from a solved case, to improve CSI in other cases.
The Met case of missing person in New Addington (where the many experts reportedly included our SIO).

Event: People were allowed to continue living in the property for the following nights and days.
Lesson: Move all residents out of the property to alternative accommodation.
Event: It was assumed the property had been completely searched.
Lesson: Never assume the property has been completely searched even if people tell you it has been.
Event: The entire search was based on an assumed timewindow of leaving property.
Lesson: Never rely on an assumed timewindow - it may be completely wrong by hours or more.
Event: Over-reliance was placed on one reported sighting of the missing person leaving the property.
Lesson: Never base a whole investigation on one sighting.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 12, 2016, 12:48:01 AM
Example of how police can learn lessons from a solved case, to improve CSI in other cases.
The Met case of missing person in New Addington (where the many experts reportedly included our SIO).

Event: People were allowed to continue living in the property for the following nights and days.
Lesson: Move all residents out of the property to alternative accommodation.
Event: It was assumed the property had been completely searched.
Lesson: Never assume the property has been completely searched even if people tell you it has been.
Event: The entire search was based on an assumed timewindow of leaving property.
Lesson: Never rely on an assumed timewindow - it may be completely wrong by hours or more.
Event: Over-reliance was placed on one reported sighting of the missing person leaving the property.
Lesson: Never base a whole investigation on one sighting

At what stage does a missing juvenile become a possible victim of a crime within the home?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 12:54:00 AM
At what stage does a missing juvenile become a possible victim of a crime within the home?
Crime scene investigation should gather facts without making any assumption of what the solution will be.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on March 12, 2016, 01:05:53 AM
Crime scene investigation should gather facts without making any assumption of what the solution will be.

The problem may arise from determining what constitutes a crime scene. 

Making the assumption that the home of a 'missing juvenile' is the crime scene may be premature and the usual presence of a liaison officer pre empts undue disturbance.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 12, 2016, 01:09:53 AM
Crime scene investigation should gather facts without making any assumption of what the solution will be.

Do you not think that by moving people out of the home there is a risk the possible area of incriminating evidence is extended?
In the TS case, the thimble was well & truly on the thumb. I'm struggling to think of another case off the top of my head where a child's cadaver was hidden in the last known domain during an extensive police search.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 01:17:02 AM
(snip)..When they looked at their phones it showed neither had used their phone in Portugal until after 11pm on 3 May... (snip)
That's inaccurate, for example her phone had an undeleted record before 11pm, and his phone had a deleted record after 11pm.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 01:40:28 AM
From an ocean club exchange phone there was a dial-up internet connection for 30 minutes, from 1:45am to 2:15am that night.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 02:00:24 AM
(snip) ..struggling to think of another case ... (snip)
Zyia, Misty
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 12, 2016, 02:09:29 AM
From an ocean club exchange phone there was a dial-up internet connection for 30 minutes, from 1:45am to 2:15am that night.

What relevance do you place on that? There was an 80 minute dial-up connection on 3/5 at 1021 hrs & 2 others shown during daytime 4/5,
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 02:19:02 AM
What relevance do you place on that? There was an 80 minute dial-up connection on 3/5 at 1021 hrs & 2 others shown during daytime 4/5,
Only posted it because another poster mentioned internet access.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 12, 2016, 02:50:50 AM
Zyia, Misty

Thanks, just read it. Hardly surprising they didn't find her quickly - bit of a mess. Very sad for the little girl, who was probably dead before anyone realised she was missing. At least the cadaver dogs were effective.
Can't find the complete conclusions of the autopsy - I presume it was treated as an accident as I don't see any further reference to homicide charges?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 03:11:05 AM
Thanks, just read it. Hardly surprising they didn't find her quickly - bit of a mess. Very sad for the little girl, who was probably dead before anyone realised she was missing. At least the cadaver dogs were effective.
Can't find the complete conclusions of the autopsy - I presume it was treated as an accident as I don't see any further reference to homicide charges?
Yes it would be interesting to see the autopsy result but I can't find.
IMO it was an accident - children are known to fall asleep in odd places - possibly crawled under pile of clothes in closet, fell asleep, possibly choked on something???

Another example: Elisa (took 17 years to find).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 12, 2016, 03:37:36 AM
Yes it would be interesting to see the autopsy result but I can't find.
IMO it was an accident - children are known to fall asleep in odd places - possibly crawled under pile of clothes in closet, fell asleep, possibly choked on something???

Another example: Elisa (took 17 years to find).

Yes. we discussed that one a while ago - a very well-hidden corpse.
I know you are concerned about the missing manhole cover. My concern is the lift shaft.
However, as both SY & the PJ have been absolutely silent about this case for months, I think whatever they are doing merits more than a woke and wandered agenda.
I'd dearly like to know why Amaral is so rattled about the Paraguay issue. It's surely got to be more than just his appeal. Time will tell, we all hope.
Night, Pegasus.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 09:55:39 PM
Please explain your lift shaft concern Misty.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 12, 2016, 10:37:41 PM
Were there any lengthy phone chats between GM and top-level UK government peeps in Sept 2007 after arguido day?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 12, 2016, 11:05:33 PM
Please explain your lift shaft concern Misty.

Just as a method for concealment of a cadaver. There's no mention of cadaver dogs carrying out lengthy examinations of other blocks or their elevators.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on March 12, 2016, 11:21:12 PM
Just as a method for concealment of a cadaver. There's no mention of cadaver dogs carrying out lengthy examinations of other blocks or their elevators.

What lies beneath?

The apartment block is built on a slope.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 12, 2016, 11:42:57 PM
What lies beneath?

The apartment block is built on a slope.

Yes, that's been bugging me for years. I've been told by an architect that there would almost definitely be a void underneath. I can't remember the explanations of the various options, but certainly a likely one would have been to have a crawl space as it would be cheaper, and would also allow access for any major works.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on March 12, 2016, 11:56:32 PM
Yes, that's been bugging me for years. I've been told by an architect that there would almost definitely be a void underneath. I can't remember the explanations of the various options, but certainly a likely one would have been to have a crawl space as it would be cheaper, and would also allow access for any major works.

It is quite a hilly area.  Casa Liliana certainly has a crawl space ... don't know about block 6 ... but block 5 would almost certainly have room for one.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 12, 2016, 11:58:22 PM
It is quite a hilly area.  Casa Liliana certainly has a crawl space ... don't know about block 6 ... but block 5 would almost certainly have room for one.

Yes, with more room under the 5A side (if I remember correctly what I was told).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on March 13, 2016, 12:07:15 AM
Yes, with more room under the 5A side (if I remember correctly what I was told).

The builder of casa Liliana got in touch with the police to inform them about the construction.  One would have assumed had there been access to 5A they would have checked that out too.  But the dogs didn't check there.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 13, 2016, 12:10:49 AM
Yes, that's been bugging me for years. I've been told by an architect that there would almost definitely be a void underneath. I can't remember the explanations of the various options, but certainly a likely one would have been to have a crawl space as it would be cheaper, and would also allow access for any major works.
The 5A bathroom has no outside wall. So the drainage pipe from the toilet and bath must go under the floor of another 5A room to get to the public drains outside. Is that pipe buried in a solid concrete floor making it non-repairable? Or is it in an underfloor void?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 13, 2016, 12:33:58 AM
The 5A bathroom has no outside wall. So the drainage pipe from the toilet and bath must go under the floor of another 5A room to get to the public drains outside. Is that pipe buried in a solid concrete floor making it non-repairable? Or is it in an underfloor void?

Well, that's what I've been wondering about for ages. Would there have been a need to access such a void during the general works at the time?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 13, 2016, 12:47:53 AM
Well, that's what I've been wondering about for ages. Would there have been a need to access such a void during the general works at the time?
No. The works were all further south and on public roads only not under buildings.

Back to floor of ground floor of Block G5 - what would have been the most efficient way to construct it?
Maybe there's a void with no access?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on March 13, 2016, 02:05:47 PM
It is quite a hilly area.  Casa Liliana certainly has a crawl space ... don't know about block 6 ... but block 5 would almost certainly have room for one.

Anything built on a hill ... and block 6 is at its western end anyway, has to have some sort of void underneath ... unless the builders have gone to the expence of filling it all in.  I doubt they will have done

And the void would be usefull for repairing plumbing, drainage etc.     I wonder where the entrances to the voids are?

As suggested above, maybe there are no entrances?   But it seems sensible that there would have been.   I wonder if the voids are individual or all joined together into one massive space?   Structurally that might be difficult, but not impossible with pillars underground to support the structures above.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 13, 2016, 06:04:08 PM
In stairwell is an inspection cover but probably just for electrical supply?
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/hg/1/h11/Imagem3%20275%20(Large).jpg
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on March 13, 2016, 06:16:11 PM
In stairwell is an inspection cover but probably just for electrical supply?
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/hg/1/h11/Imagem3%20275%20(Large).jpg

Thanks Pecasus, that is a possibility, but rather small maybe?

I had wonderd if there was a small door positioned out of sight under the rear outside steps to one of the apartments.  If the void was one big one, only one door would be needed
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 13, 2016, 07:19:55 PM
Thanks Pecasus, that is a possibility, but rather small maybe?

I had wonderd if there was a small door positioned out of sight under the rear outside steps to one of the apartments.  If the void was one big one, only one door would be needed
No sign of any door or vent on face of 5A Sadie, and this is where the drop is deepest
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/73may13/port29513MADELEINE_APARTMENT.jpg
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on March 13, 2016, 07:34:40 PM
No sign of any door or vent on face of 5A Sadie, and this is where the drop is deepest
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/73may13/port29513MADELEINE_APARTMENT.jpg

I don't think there would be an entrance in that wall, pegasus, the steps are behind and looks it very solid to me ...

I think it is more likely to be under the inside staircase where the laundryman apparently saw a person lurking.  An entrance wouldn't have to be very big.  Could possibly give access to the lift mechanism as well, although I have seen engineers elsewhere working directly into the shaft.

(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/73may13/mirror29513Mario-FernandoStair.jpg)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 13, 2016, 08:00:11 PM
John Wayne Gacy rides again !
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on March 13, 2016, 08:14:24 PM
No sign of any door or vent on face of 5A Sadie, and this is where the drop is deepest
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/73may13/port29513MADELEINE_APARTMENT.jpg
I am not thinking of the main south facing wall of the flats, but have you had chance to look at the western end of the outside staircase going under the actual stairs but then opening up ito the void?


Otherwise I think that it is very possible that Brietta has something with it maybe being right under the main staircase inside.   The small hatch you showed looked rather too small to me ... but it is possible, I guess.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 13, 2016, 10:34:05 PM
(Answered here to avoid wandering off topic)
(snip)... you mention high powered phone calls ... from whom to whom??
I don't know but I have two interesting questions Brietta
1. Were there any phonecalls between father and any top government minister(s) or similar, in the period which starts when arguido status began (7th Sept) and ends when Mr Amaral was removed (Oct 2nd)?
2. In the unlikely event that there were, were any calls to/from Viana do Castelo?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 13, 2016, 10:46:44 PM
Gerry rang martin grimes boss! Lol

Love to be fly in the wall on that one
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 13, 2016, 11:16:28 PM
(Answered here to avoid wandering off topic)I don't know but I have two interesting questions Brietta
1. Were there any phonecalls between father and any top government minister(s) or similar, in the period which starts when arguido status began (7th Sept) and ends when Mr Amaral was removed (Oct 2nd)?
2. In the unlikely event that there were, were any calls to/from Viana do Castelo?

DM did a TV interview on 8/9/2007.
Disclosure of private phone calls was not deemed in the public interest under one of the many FOI requests.
Now do you really think he, CM & A N Other contrived to get ONLY GA removed from the case?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 13, 2016, 11:19:59 PM
Gerry rang martin grimes boss! Lol

Love to be fly in the wall on that one
Was that between arguido day and the day someone arranged for Sr Amaral to be removed Merc?
Anyway I doubt Mr Grime's boss was working in northern Portugal.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 13, 2016, 11:30:21 PM
DM did a TV interview on 8/9/2007.
Disclosure of private phone calls was not deemed in the public interest under one of the many FOI requests.
Now do you really think he, CM & A N Other contrived to get ONLY GA removed from the case?
Yes Misty, in the north, what time?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 13, 2016, 11:32:38 PM
Was that between arguido day and the day someone arranged for Sr Amaral to be removed Merc?
Anyway I doubt Mr Grime's boss was working in northern Portugal.

Dont know, Iwas just mentioning it and wonderng why
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 13, 2016, 11:45:25 PM
Yes Misty, in the north, what time?

Please don't ask me to look for the video clip - there are 119 matches for DM on the JH site.
Why is the time critical?
I noticed Fox News & The Guardian were also reporting from the same place re. the arguidos on 7/9/2007, which indicates the main focus of news was in Viana at that time. not PdL.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 14, 2016, 12:14:33 AM
(answered here because was off topic elsewhere)
8)-))) (snip) He wasn't wearing a jacket when SB saw him. (snip)  I even surprise myself sometimes at the perfection @)(++(*
Does that perfection stretch to actually reading the original portuguese statement by SB, and looking up the word "camisa" in a dictionary and noticing that it can mean either "shirt" or "jacket" Pathfinder?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 14, 2016, 12:18:45 AM
Dont know, Iwas just mentioning it and wonderng why
I was just skimming through the phone records for calls of 1hr+ Misty that's all.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 14, 2016, 12:31:37 AM
(answered here because was off topic elsewhere)Does that perfection stretch to actually reading the original portuguese statement by SB, and looking up the word "camisa" in a dictionary and noticing that it can mean either "shirt" or "jacket" Pathfinder?

Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. MS
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 14, 2016, 12:59:24 AM
I was just skimming through the phone records for calls of 1hr+ Misty that's all.


You're looking at the one at 1342 hrs on 8/9/07 for 1hr 15 mins? Another call to same number at 1602 for almost 15 mins?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 14, 2016, 01:10:47 AM


You're looking at the one at 1342 hrs on 8/9/07 for 1hr 15 mins? Another call to same number at 1602 for almost 15 mins?
and another earlier in opposite direction. Probably just a minor advisor.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 14, 2016, 01:29:38 AM
and another earlier in opposite direction. Probably just a minor advisor.

My eyes are killing, so I'm not looking for the earlier record now.
What is it in the number that makes you sure there is a political connection? Surely someone would have ensured it was blacked out?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 14, 2016, 08:59:10 AM
(answered here because was off topic elsewhere)Does that perfection stretch to actually reading the original portuguese statement by SB, and looking up the word "camisa" in a dictionary and noticing that it can mean either "shirt" or "jacket" Pathfinder?

I've been informed that "Camisa" means a shirt.

"Camisa is shirt and nothing else. Camisola is more vague and can be a sweat shirt, eventually a light jacket. This is a camisola."

(http://s18.postimg.org/gcvzx5wu1/jacket.jpg)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 14, 2016, 10:58:57 AM
I've been informed that "Camisa" means a shirt.

"Camisa is shirt and nothing else. ....(snip)
Commonest meaning is shirt however it can mean jacket or sark etc
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 14, 2016, 11:08:51 AM
My eyes are killing, so I'm not looking for the earlier record now.
What is it in the number that makes you sure there is a political connection? Surely someone would have ensured it was blacked out?
I never said it was, just noting a 1h+ that's all, and as you say it's not redacted so probably of no importance.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 14, 2016, 12:14:20 PM
For reputation of solving cases quickly see http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2013/04/04/may-2013-vogue-true-crime . And forget smart city suits and ties and polished dress shoes, I like to see investigators in forensic gear like this http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/23/article-2375165-1AF09630000005DC-388_634x428.jpg (and BTW that was a case of transportation by a pedestrian).
But no latex gloves like seen in a draw.
A guest's latex gloves in the guest bedroom had nothing to do with the case Pathfinder. Do you have any more observations on photo?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 14, 2016, 05:51:21 PM
Commonest meaning is shirt however it can mean jacket or sark etc

I was told dark shirt like in the translated files. SB was questioned by SY.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 14, 2016, 09:26:40 PM
I was told dark shirt like in the translated files. ...(snip)
Have you ever looked at the original page in the files Pathfinder?
It's in portuguese. There is no english translation of it in the files.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 14, 2016, 09:43:16 PM
My eyes are killing, so I'm not looking for the earlier record now.
What is it in the number that makes you sure there is a political connection? Surely someone would have ensured it was blacked out?
Checked all the relevant phone records and there are only 2 calls of 1h+.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 12:15:13 AM
How many times did top government peeps take time out while abroad in USA and Portugal attending important meetings, to speak on phone with an ordinary parent of a missing child like KN?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 15, 2016, 12:28:12 AM
How many times did top government peeps take time out while abroad in USA and Portugal attending important meetings, to speak on phone with an ordinary parent of a missing child like KN?

That's an unfair comparison as there were no mobile phones back in those days & telephone reception from the US to UK was terrible.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 12:52:54 AM
That's an unfair comparison as there were no mobile phones back in those days & telephone reception from the US to UK was terrible.
Fair enough Misty. Next question - how many times did top government peeps take time out while abroad in USA and Portugal attending important meetings, to speak on phone with GM?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 15, 2016, 01:45:21 AM
Fair enough Misty. Next question - how many times did top government peeps take time out while abroad in USA and Portugal attending important meetings, to speak on phone with GM?

Are you referring to pre-arguido or post-arguido status period?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 02:08:41 AM
Are you referring to pre-arguido or post-arguido status period?
Here's a pre-arguido example Misty
"even breaking off from important talks in Washington to telephone"
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 15, 2016, 02:36:58 AM
Here's a pre-arguido example Misty
"even breaking off from important talks in Washington to telephone"

I can understand lots of pre-arguido phone calls, bearing in mind the CM connection to DM & all things governmenty. It's the post-arguido contact which would perhaps be harder to understand.
 Is being made an arguido in Portugal classed in the same way as being arrested (I think of RM & how the consulate was told not to offer him any help) which would totally restrict any type of special treatment, just provide basic advice & minimal aid (see https://www.gov.uk/help-if-you-are-arrested-abroad/y/portugal).

Are you expecting me to go through all those phone records (please..... nooooooo) when I've already seen calls to Holland, Germany, South Africa, America & can't make sense of half the phone number data?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 03:01:44 AM
I can understand lots of pre-arguido phone calls, bearing in mind the CM connection to DM & all things governmenty. It's the post-arguido contact which would perhaps be harder to understand.
 Is being made an arguido in Portugal classed in the same way as being arrested (I think of RM & how the consulate was told not to offer him any help) which would totally restrict any type of special treatment, just provide basic advice & minimal aid (see https://www.gov.uk/help-if-you-are-arrested-abroad/y/portugal).

Are you expecting me to go through all those phone records (please..... nooooooo) when I've already seen calls to Holland, Germany, South Africa, America & can't make sense of half the phone number data?
IMO RM got less consular support because of dual nationality.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 05:31:06 PM
Which is more important? Reducing nuclear arsenals, or a tapas tourist?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 15, 2016, 05:34:27 PM
Which is more important? Reducing nuclear arsenals, or a tapas tourist?

¿Qué?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 15, 2016, 06:13:48 PM
Which is more important? Reducing nuclear arsenals, or a tapas tourist?

No chance the reporter was being over-dramatic?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 06:15:45 PM
¿Qué?
A very good speech on nuclear non-proliferation was given at the Carnegie Institute on 25 Jun 2007 Carana.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 06:23:03 PM
No chance the reporter was being over-dramatic?
The reporter was directly quoting the words of a source close to the parents Misty.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 15, 2016, 06:34:50 PM
The reporter was directly quoting the words of a source close to the parents Misty.

So they spoke with Margaret Beckett before they started on DM?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 08:00:26 PM
"Regular calls" Misty (Express).
He pleaded with her to try to "improve the way the investigation and the search were being handled" (Book).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 15, 2016, 08:42:42 PM
"Regular calls" Misty (Express).
He pleaded with her to try to "improve the way the investigation and the search were being handled" (Book).

Is there proof of those regular calls in the phone records before she was replaced? ( A yes or no will suffice)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 10:00:16 PM
Is there proof of those regular calls in the phone records before she was replaced? ( A yes or no will suffice)
Problem is most top level calls have number redacted Misty.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 15, 2016, 10:18:48 PM
Problem is most top level calls have number redacted Misty.

Do I need to look to see if there is evidence of that?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 10:33:21 PM
Do I need to look to see if there is evidence of that?
You won't find the numbers of TB MB GB and DM Misty they are missing.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 15, 2016, 11:11:20 PM
(journalist to Leveson Enquiry) "the convention was that, although unidentified specifically in the article, Mr Mitchell would at times, and on his request, be referred to as a ’friend close to the McCanns’ or ’a family spokesman’ when our quotes were attributed."
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 15, 2016, 11:28:00 PM
The calls were probably exchanged via CM's phone.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 16, 2016, 12:16:31 AM
The calls were probably exchanged via CM's phone.
But how would that work for CB's call on 8 May 2007? Or MB's call on 9 May 2007? CM wasn't even in Portugal. Anyway didn't he state that GB had GM's mobile number?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 16, 2016, 12:50:55 AM
But how would that work for CB's call on 8 May 2007? Or MB's call on 9 May 2007? CM wasn't even in Portugal. Anyway didn't he state that GB had GM's mobile number?

There were 4 redacted incoming numbers on 4/5, so no, obviously not conducted via CM's phone.
I don't know what was going on, what GM's connections were. Maybe Jon Corner was right - the story wasn't really about Madeleine, but if so, then no amount of speculation is going to provide us with information which is classified. Perhaps the truth of the case really is stranger than fiction, yet it doesn't explain the actions of so many in Luz.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 16, 2016, 01:10:18 AM
There were 4 redacted incoming numbers on 4/5, so no, obviously not conducted via CM's phone.
I don't know what was going on, what GM's connections were. Maybe Jon Corner was right - the story wasn't really about Madeleine, but if so, then no amount of speculation is going to provide us with information which is classified. Perhaps the truth of the case really is stranger than fiction, yet it doesn't explain the actions of so many in Luz.
On 23 May trip to Fatima CM was in car with them but the 2 top level calls from UK were direct to GM mobile.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 17, 2016, 03:54:50 PM
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_107.jpg
On 23 May the first call from Chancellor of Exchequer is the one at 10:16 10:28 (14 minutes long).
Second call from same is either the one at 14:21 (5 minutes long) or the one at 14:59 (14 minutes long).
(edited to correct time of first call)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 17, 2016, 04:16:59 PM
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_107.jpg
On 23 May the first call from Chancellor of Exchequer is the one at 10:16 (14 minutes long).
Second call from same is either the one at 14:21 (5 minutes long) or the one at 14:59 (14 minutes long).

You don't think it's a call from the British Ambassador/his office?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 17, 2016, 04:27:43 PM
You don't think it's a call from the British Ambassador/his office?
(BTW I've corrected the time of the first call to 10.28).
The 23 May 10:28 call with redacted number is definitely from the Chancellor of Exchequer Misty.
GM received this call just before arrival at the Fatima shrine.
Have you not read the account by KM? It's a truthful and valuable source.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 17, 2016, 04:47:17 PM
(BTW I've corrected the time of the first call to 10.28).
The 23 May 10:28 call with redacted number is definitely from the Chancellor of Exchequer Misty.
GM received this call just before arrival at the Fatima shrine.
Have you not read the account by KM? It's a truthful and valuable source.

I've just dug it out & read the relevant page (I just looked at Pamalam before), and, yes, Kate does say that Gerry received a call of support from GB seconds before they arrived at the Fatima shrine, so 10.28 fits. Somehow I doubt that GB would ring again that day. It was CM's first full day - maybe he had been busy setting up contacts, maybe some were calls from the British Ambassador re. meeting the following day.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 17, 2016, 05:51:51 PM
I've just dug it out & read the relevant page (I just looked at Pamalam before), and, yes, Kate does say that Gerry received a call of support from GB seconds before they arrived at the Fatima shrine, so 10.28 fits. Somehow I doubt that GB would ring again that day. It was CM's first full day - maybe he had been busy setting up contacts, maybe some were calls from the British Ambassador re. meeting the following day.
Ah but if you had read KM's full account Misty you would know he did also phone GM a second time that day, and it was in the afternoon. IMO this second call was probably at 14:59 (again 14 minutes long). So that's possibly two 14 minute calls in one day?

Look at the first phone talk with Obama - during which were discussed
(a) the joint efforts to confront the global economic crisis,
(b) the situation in Gaza,
(c) the urgent need to make Afghanistan a priority.
That call was about 15 minutes long

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 17, 2016, 08:31:27 PM
Ah but if you had read KM's full account Misty you would know he did also phone GM a second time that day, and it was in the afternoon. IMO this second call was probably at 14:59 (again 14 minutes long). So that's possibly two 14 minute calls in one day?

Look at the first phone talk with Obama - during which were discussed
(a) the joint efforts to confront the global economic crisis,
(b) the situation in Gaza,
(c) the urgent need to make Afghanistan a priority.
That call was about 15 minutes long

I can't find the reference to the 2nd call on 23/5 in the book or in Kate's diaries.

Going totally in another direction - what do you know about the nursery school located opposite block 4? I can't believe I've never known about it until today.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 17, 2016, 08:39:31 PM
Ah but if you had read KM's full account Misty you would know he did also phone GM a second time that day, and it was in the afternoon. IMO this second call was probably at 14:59 (again 14 minutes long). So that's possibly two 14 minute calls in one day?

Look at the first phone talk with Obama - during which were discussed
(a) the joint efforts to confront the global economic crisis,
(b) the situation in Gaza,
(c) the urgent need to make Afghanistan a priority.
That call was about 15 minutes long

Is this tongue-in-cheek, Pegasus?

Do be aware that some in the conspiracy brigade will take it as trooo fact.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 17, 2016, 09:33:49 PM
I can't find the reference to the 2nd call on 23/5 in the book or in Kate's diaries.

Going totally in another direction - what do you know about the nursery school located opposite block 4? I can't believe I've never known about it until today.
GB definitely phoned GM twice on 23 May Misty. We would never had known this were it not for KM. An excellent reliable and honest source.

Re the school again the same source mentioned it 2007. BTW it is called Centro Infantil da Vila da Luz and is run by CASLAS.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 17, 2016, 11:04:10 PM
Is this tongue-in-cheek, Pegasus?

Do be aware that some in the conspiracy brigade will take it as trooo fact.
No tongue in cheek Carana. I certainly believe she is telling the truth in stating he phoned GM just before they arrived at Fatima shrine.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 17, 2016, 11:13:17 PM
No tongue in cheek Carana. I certainly believe she is telling the truth in stating he phoned GM just before they arrived at Fatima shrine.

So not an accepted "[ censored word ] trooo factoid"

though many may be its best not to throw the baby out with the bathwater always
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 18, 2016, 12:35:30 AM
GB definitely phoned GM twice on 23 May Misty. We would never had known this were it not for KM. An excellent reliable and honest source.

Re the school again the same source mentioned it 2007. BTW it is called Centro Infantil da Vila da Luz and is run by CASLAS.

https://youtu.be/CNXqChAVCkY

Not sure if this is suggestive there were no calls between GB/GM prior to 23rd May or not.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 18, 2016, 01:03:44 AM

Pegasus has just proved a point, I found a video clip which supports his point.

My attention is now focussed on the school. That opens up a whole new dimension & I can't believe it's never been discussed before.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 18, 2016, 01:29:26 AM
I said he remnded me when he WAS  a PROVEN liar, good luck with your school whatever thats about if you care to share or get a room
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html
(scroll down to almost bottom of the page)


Extract from Kate's diary.

1. The following people were heard?
 
(I) teachers and all other officers of the school across the street from our apartment;
(II) all staff working in the Ocean Club Tapas bar / restaurant;
(III) [text cut]

=====================================================================

As there was a school across the road (nursery there according to local paper), I wonder how much extra pedestrian traffic there was during daylight hours & also whether any evening activities were on offer?
School = children = potential paedophile interest.



Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 18, 2016, 01:59:35 AM
https://youtu.be/CNXqChAVCkY

Not sure if this is suggestive there were no calls between GB/GM prior to 23rd May or not.
IMO yes, the first calls from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to brit tourist GM were on 23rd May 2007. These 2 calls were the result of an email sent to him from PDL very early that morning.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 18, 2016, 02:20:51 AM
http://youtu.be/CNXqChAVCkY
(snip)
A certain spokesperson may be slightly overstating his own importance, because despite having been to meetings at number 10 he had never actually spoken directly with GB.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 18, 2016, 03:12:57 AM
A certain spokesperson may be slightly overstating his own importance, because despite having been to meetings at number 10 he had never actually spoken directly with GB.

Were you a member of Blair's cabinet, Pegasus? Just asking......lol.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 18, 2016, 03:17:19 AM
So not an accepted "[ censored word ] trooo factoid"

though many may be its best not to throw the baby out with the bathwater always
Trooo factoids Merc - two prime ministers and two foreign secretarys spoke by phone with GM.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 18, 2016, 03:25:16 AM
Were you a member of Blair's cabinet, Pegasus? Just asking......lol.
I would have walked out if I was, Misty. The source for CM never having spoken directly with GB, is CM.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 18, 2016, 03:40:57 AM
CM stated (see clip from RTP program 2 Nov 2007 http://youtu.be/CNXqChAVCkY )

"Since arguido has happened, there has been no government contact"


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 18, 2016, 03:47:10 AM
I would have walked out if I was, Misty. The source for CM never having spoken directly with GB, is CM.

I find the CM remark a little ambiguous. He must have had some personal contact with TB/GB prior to this case hitting the headlines (or what was all the fuss about Coulson & Cameron). I took it to mean he didn't have direct contact about this matter but as the below is "one of them there translated thingys" I'm just not sure.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id255.html
Investigation may last a year Expresso (no online link)
 
It is in the experience of Clarence Mitchell that the McCanns put their trust to regain public opinion
 
Maria Barbosa
29 September 2007
Thanks to 'maya' for translation
*snipped*
A: Every time that a British subject has problems abroad Consular assistance is offered. As it was regarding a missing child and not the theft of documents, the help provided by the Consul of Portimão was greater. Since the case dominated the media, The Foreign Office, in London, thought of me because I had experience as a reporter and I knew key English people. It wasn't Tony Blair nor the present Prime minister, Gordon Brown, that sent me. I am not their spokesperson nor do I call them asking for advice.

Q: But you were responsible for the projection of the McCanns in the media at a world scale. The fact that you worked for the British Government facilitated this...

A: In Portugal there has been a wrong image created about me. I was the Director of the Government's Media Monitoring Unit. Their work, about 40 people, and their function is to control what gets printed in the press. Every morning I had a meeting with the Prime Minister's spokesperson at 10 Downing Street and we discussed any developments. I didn't get to speak to Gordon Brown directly. Everything that I have been able to do for the McCanns has been through my computer and my mobile.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 18, 2016, 03:55:42 AM
@Pegasus
I'm not sure quite where you are trying to go with all this.
Jill Renwick was the one who knew GB's brother and may well have initiated the contact.
CM comments suggest he was there purely for the McCanns yet he may have had to protect the interests of our government at the same time despite the PM not having sent him.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 18, 2016, 04:02:38 AM
He had never spoken with GB directly- that's what he said. Anyway he can't claim any part in arranging the calls in  first week from PM's OH and FS.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 18, 2016, 04:11:13 AM
@Pegasus
I'm not sure quite where you are trying to go with all this.
Jill Renwick was the one who knew GB's brother and may well have initiated the contact.
CM comments suggest he was there purely for the McCanns yet he may have had to protect the interests of our government at the same time despite the PM not having sent him.
His sole responsibility was to the government.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 18, 2016, 08:30:50 AM
I find the CM remark a little ambiguous. He must have had some personal contact with TB/GB prior to this case hitting the headlines (or what was all the fuss about Coulson & Cameron). I took it to mean he didn't have direct contact about this matter but as the below is "one of them there translated thingys" I'm just not sure.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id255.html
Investigation may last a year Expresso (no online link)
 
It is in the experience of Clarence Mitchell that the McCanns put their trust to regain public opinion
 
Maria Barbosa
29 September 2007
Thanks to 'maya' for translation
*snipped*
A: Every time that a British subject has problems abroad Consular assistance is offered. As it was regarding a missing child and not the theft of documents, the help provided by the Consul of Portimão was greater. Since the case dominated the media, The Foreign Office, in London, thought of me because I had experience as a reporter and I knew key English people. It wasn't Tony Blair nor the present Prime minister, Gordon Brown, that sent me. I am not their spokesperson nor do I call them asking for advice.

Q: But you were responsible for the projection of the McCanns in the media at a world scale. The fact that you worked for the British Government facilitated this...

A: In Portugal there has been a wrong image created about me. I was the Director of the Government's Media Monitoring Unit. Their work, about 40 people, and their function is to control what gets printed in the press. Every morning I had a meeting with the Prime Minister's spokesperson at 10 Downing Street and we discussed any developments. I didn't get to speak to Gordon Brown directly. Everything that I have been able to do for the McCanns has been through my computer and my mobile.

I wish the original could be found as I'm nearly certain that there's a translation issue. I think the original would have been "controlar" which has been translated as "control". That is one of the meanings, but it can also mean to monitor, which makes more sense it terms of what he is likely to have actually said.



À UE cabe a responsabilidade de controlar e aprovar a implementação dessa ajuda.
The EU has a responsibility to monitor and approve the implementation of this aid.
http://en.bab.la/dictionary/portuguese-english/a-controlar
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 18, 2016, 08:39:03 AM
CM was seconded to the FO for that initial period, wasn't he? Having someone to help deal with the media scrum when there has been intense media interest in a UK-related event overseas, has happened before but I can't find the article for the moment.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on March 18, 2016, 08:40:42 AM
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Clarence Mitchell

Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Mr. Clarence Mitchell was seconded by his Department to act as an official spokesperson for the family of Madeleine McCann. [202007]

Mr. Jim Murphy: Clarence Mitchell was seconded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, from the Central Office of Information (COI), for a period of 25 days in May 2007 to provide assistance with the media to the family of Madeleine McCann. He resigned from the COI in September 2007.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080507/text/80507w0012.htm
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 18, 2016, 01:29:05 PM
" He had to return to his government role, and others handled the McCanns’ PR. But even then, he says, the family still called him for advice in his own time. ‘We had bec­ome friends,’ he says. ‘But I couldn’t help them beyond the odd phone call, bec­ause officially the Government couldn’t be seen to be involved.’ "
http://www.prweek.com/article/769746/profile-clarence-mitchell-spokesman-mccann-family

Does anyone remember this old sketch?

"Ah hah! Well if you were still a government employee and you were advising them, then by definition the government was still advising them. Ah Haaaaaahhh! Gotcha!"

"No you haven't!"

"Yes I have!"

"Not necessarily. I could have been advising them in my spare time."


I've had enough of this
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 18, 2016, 01:49:51 PM
I wish the original could be found as I'm nearly certain that there's a translation issue. I think the original would have been "controlar" which has been translated as "control". That is one of the meanings, but it can also mean to monitor, which makes more sense it terms of what he is likely to have actually said.



À UE cabe a responsabilidade de controlar e aprovar a implementação dessa ajuda.
The EU has a responsibility to monitor and approve the implementation of this aid.
http://en.bab.la/dictionary/portuguese-english/a-controlar
Agreed Carana, IMO what CM said is "monitor", not "control".
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 21, 2016, 01:50:21 AM
"I met Gerry ... It was a circumstantial meeting at Leicestershire Police station. At the time I was working as part of the Consular Assistance Group" (source: CM statement in PJ files)

"circumstantial"?

What would Jim Royle say about that?




Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 21, 2016, 02:12:46 AM
"I met Gerry ... It was a circumstantial meeting at Leicestershire Police station. At the time I was working as part of the Consular Assistance Group" (source: CM statement in PJ files)

"circumstantial"?

What would Jim Royle say about that?

Is "circumstantial" correct in the twice-translated sense?
What would Jim Royle say? I never really watched the Royle family, found it a it boring.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on March 21, 2016, 02:18:32 AM
Is "circumstantial" correct in the twice-translated sense?
What would Jim Royle say? I never really watched the Royle family, found it a it boring.

'Circumstantial' doesn't make sense to me ... maybe 'coincidental' fits a bit better?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 21, 2016, 02:30:33 AM
Is "circumstantial" correct in the twice-translated sense?
What would Jim Royle say? I never really watched the Royle family, found it a it boring.
The portuguese in the files is "Foi um encontro circunstancial"

BTW "at the time" is correct but actually secondment to the COI had occurred only  a handful of hours before this meeting IMO.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 21, 2016, 02:35:19 AM
The portuguese in the files is "Foi um encontro circunstancial"

BTW "at the time" is correct but actually secondment to the COI had occurred only  a handful of hours before this meeting IMO.

The original statement is not there, Pegasus. I don't know of any Englishman who would use the phrase "circumstantial meeting"
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 21, 2016, 02:37:28 AM
'Circumstantial' doesn't make sense to me ... maybe 'coincidental' fits a bit better?

Congratulations, Mrs Moderator.  ?{)(** 8((()*/

We'll try to behave on the late shift for you.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 21, 2016, 02:55:19 AM
Congratulations, Mrs Moderator.  ?{)(** 8((()*/

We'll try to behave on the late shift for you.
Does that mean a coincidental meeting on May 21st, with a person whom one's new boss of a few hours has coincidentally been in touch by phone with since May 9th?

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 21, 2016, 03:01:45 AM
Does that mean a coincidental meeting on May 21st, with a person whom one's new boss of a few hours has coincidentally been in touch by phone with since May 9th?

Eh?
Have you put the right quote in the wrong box or the wrong quote in the right box?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on March 21, 2016, 03:21:55 AM
Eh?
Have you put the right quote in the wrong box or the wrong quote in the right box?
Yes my mistake with quotes Misty.
Back to that statement, is it possible the original english was something like "deliberate meeting" or "preplanned meeting" and it got mistranslated by the police translator into the incorrect portuguese "um encontro circumstancial"?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on March 27, 2016, 08:31:46 PM
according to the stats there are 100 + guests watching...but when we look at each individual topic guests total less than 10...whats going on...perhaps the mods could tell us
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Myster on March 27, 2016, 09:07:09 PM
according to the stats there are 100 + guests watching...but when we look at each individual topic guests total less than 10...whats going on...perhaps the mods could tell us

I asked a similar question three years ago on the Bamber board but didn't get a satisfactory answer. It's a mystery, so don't worry unduly!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 27, 2016, 09:13:34 PM
You'd need to count the number of guests on every single thread IMO past and present?, as sme guests read very old threads too
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 27, 2016, 09:18:34 PM
Go to Home page.
Scroll to bottom.
Users online. Click on members & guests. There you will find which topic each member or guest is currently viewing.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on March 27, 2016, 09:47:00 PM
Go to Home page.
Scroll to bottom.
Users online. Click on members & guests. There you will find which topic each member or guest is currently viewing.

Thanks, very useful.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on March 27, 2016, 11:09:31 PM
Thanks, very useful.

Pleased to agree with you, Slarti

Thanks misty, could be very useful.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on March 27, 2016, 11:22:04 PM
Pathfinders signature line

Quote
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 8 years later.
[/b]

When are you going to verify how you KNOW this Pathfinder?

You cant KNOW this unless you are Smithman. 

If you can't prove it, then you should apologise and remove it.



IT IS MALICIOUS PROPAGANDA against Gerry Mccann.       
Deliberate, it seems


Please explain or remove it.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on March 27, 2016, 11:42:55 PM
Both are still unidentified 8 years later.

I could prove the 10:03 time in a reconstruction with the Smith family. Only one of them said in their statement that they knew the time they left Kelly's Bar on 3 May 2007.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on March 28, 2016, 02:51:12 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/us/oldest-cold-case/


An interesting read, with several parallels to the Madeleine case.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on March 28, 2016, 12:39:30 PM
Both are still unidentified 8 years later.

I could prove the 10:03 time in a reconstruction with the Smith family. Only one of them said in their statement that they knew the time they left Kelly's Bar on 3 May 2007.

Please justify your statement in your avatar, that Smithman looked at his watch and it was 10.03.  Each time you post, you are spreading disinformation Pfinder ...


Hitler is credited with saying "Tell a big enough lie, tell it often enough, and it becomes the truth.= "Propaganda personified."   
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on March 28, 2016, 01:09:30 PM
Please justify your statement in your avatar, that Smithman looked at his watch and it was 10.03.  Each time you post, you are spreading disinformation Pfinder ...


Hitler is credited with saying "Tell a big enough lie, tell it often enough, and it becomes the truth.= "Propaganda personified." 

Looks more like Colombo.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on March 28, 2016, 11:40:25 PM
Please justify your statement in your avatar, that Smithman looked at his watch and it was 10.03.  Each time you post, you are spreading disinformation Pfinder ...


Hitler is credited with saying "Tell a big enough lie, tell it often enough, and it becomes the truth.= "Propaganda personified." 

PF like yourself btw Sadie, has only ever posted what their theory is, they are not spreading "hitleresque propaganda" steady on hey?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 01, 2016, 11:31:47 AM
According to Carpenter the T9 were all seated a while before 9pm;
At approximately half past eight, Gerry and Kate and their group of approximately ten people were already seated at their table, which was so close to ours that it was possible to converse with them
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm
8:30pm can't be accurate, because three of the T7 didn't arrive at tapas until about 9pm.
Maybe SC has all his times out by about 30 minutes?
So add 30 mins to his remembered times and maybe the C family left Tapas at about 9:50pm just before KM check?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on April 01, 2016, 11:49:15 AM
8:30pm can't be accurate, because three of the T7 didn't arrive at tapas until about 9pm.
Maybe SC has all his times out by about 30 minutes?
So add 30 mins to his remembered times and maybe the C family left Tapas at about 9:50pm just before KM check?

This sound reasonable.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 01, 2016, 12:01:31 PM
This sound reasonable.
Yes SC and his family left Tapas about 30 minutes later than he remembered IMO.
Just like PS and his family left Dolphin about 30 minutes later than he remembered.
People relaxing having a nice family meal in a restaurant do not watch the clock or rush.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on April 01, 2016, 12:14:49 PM
Yes SC and his family left Tapas about 30 minutes later than he remembered IMO.
Just like PS and his family left Dolphin about 30 minutes later than he remembered.
People relaxing having a nice family meal in a restaurant do not watch the clock or rush.

I can't tell you what time I woke up this morning, so time differences are not a problem for me.  And I certainly don't look at the clock if I hear a noise.

You come up with some really good stuff, plodding away quietly, never causing a problem and never being unpleasant.
Well done, you.  You deserve much more credit than you get.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 01, 2016, 12:31:16 PM
8:30pm can't be accurate, because three of the T7 didn't arrive at tapas until about 9pm.
Maybe SC has all his times out by about 30 minutes?
So add 30 mins to his remembered times and maybe the C family left Tapas at about 9:50pm just before KM check?

MO said Kate left the table at 9:50 but unfortunately SC never said if the voice was male or female. That would narrow down the possibilities.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on April 01, 2016, 12:49:32 PM
MO said Kate left the table at 9:50 but unfortunately SC never said if the voice was male or female. That would narrow down the possibilities.

You do well as well.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on April 01, 2016, 04:51:11 PM
8:30pm can't be accurate, because three of the T7 didn't arrive at tapas until about 9pm.
Maybe SC has all his times out by about 30 minutes?
So add 30 mins to his remembered times and maybe the C family left Tapas at about 9:50pm just before KM check?

Why do you decide that Carpenter was wrong as opposed to the T9?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 03:00:24 AM
A new question no-one ever asked before.
What is the absolute latest possible time the child could have still been in the apartment?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 03:11:32 AM
Why do you decide that Carpenter was wrong as opposed to the T9?
I have not solved this one yet Misty.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 02, 2016, 01:46:53 PM
Why do you decide that Carpenter was wrong as opposed to the T9?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm

*snipped*

DCF: Yes, is there anyone you remember that night, did you see anyone in the area'

SC: No.

DCF: At what time did you go to bed'

SC: Almost immediately, we put the children to bed because it was already quite late for them, humm... about half past ten, yes, about half past ten (inaudible).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Work backwards from 10.30pm.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 02:12:00 PM
(snip) Work backwards from 10.30pm.
Working back from 10.30pm, here's a possible timeline.
Probably the c family left restaurant one or two minutes before KM left restaurant to check her children.
KM's check, and her run back towards restaurant, and the rush of 7 people from restaurant, all happen during the c family's walk home. And just before getting home mrs c hears the first searcher who headed east (GM), shouting the girl's name.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2016, 02:14:20 PM
Working back from 10.30pm, probably the Carpenter family left restaurant one or two minutes before KM left restaurant to check her children.
KM's check, her run back towards restaurant, and the rush of 7 people from restaurant, all happen during C family's walk home. And just before getting home she hears the first searcher who headed east (GM?), shouting the girl's name.

Kate should be the only one shouting for Madeleine on her check so it should be her voice Mrs Carpenter heard.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 02:22:50 PM
Kate should be the only one shouting for Madeleine on her check so it should be her voice Mrs Carpenter heard.
If KM shouted from apartment before running back to restaurant, it was not audible at the restaurant, therefore it was not audible near the c family apartment.

IMO mrs c heard the very first searcher to go east along the start of the lobster route, which was GM.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 02, 2016, 03:03:28 PM
If KM shouted from apartment before running back to restaurant, it was not audible at the restaurant, therefore it was not audible near the c family apartment.

IMO mrs c heard the very first searcher to go east along the start of the lobster route, which was GM.

Not necessarily, Pegasus.  One of the first things Kate did on discovering her disappearance was to look out of the window for Madeleine.  In my opinion it would have been logical for her to scream Madeleine's name while doing so.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 03:09:47 PM
Not necessarily, Pegasus.  One of the first things Kate did on discovering her disappearance was to look out of the window for Madeleine.  In my opinion it would have been logical for her to scream Madeleine's name while doing so.
Good thinking Brietta - shouting out of child's bedroom window which faces north would certainly be inaudible at restaurant, but IMO would also be inaudible near c family's apartment. I show you map of c family walk home ...

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 02, 2016, 03:35:22 PM
Good thinking Brietta - shouting out of child's bedroom window which faces north would certainly be inaudible at restaurant, but IMO would also be inaudible near c family's apartment. I show you map of c family walk home ...

Sound waves travel and bounce in odd directions and are affected by many factors.

Stephen was concentrating on negotiating crossing the road because of the parked cars and heard nothing.  His wife may perhaps have been more receptive.
It would be interesting to be able to read her first statement for comparison with his ... particularly as he seemed concerned about some "the truthful recording of the facts and that they could have had some distortions by what you have read about the event."
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2016, 04:15:59 PM
Good thinking Brietta - shouting out of child's bedroom window which faces north would certainly be inaudible at restaurant, but IMO would also be inaudible near c family's apartment. I show you map of c family walk home ...

She didn't say that in her statement. Let's stick to the facts.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 02, 2016, 04:38:29 PM
She didn't say that in her statement. Let's stick to the facts.

Don't you think if you were sticking your head out of a window to look for someone in similar circumstances ... the logical thing would also be shouting that person's name as loud as you could?

The statements are not 'action replays', nor were they verbatim or recorded in video or audio.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 05:01:30 PM
Kate should be the only one shouting for Madeleine on her check so it should be her voice Mrs Carpenter heard.
OK that is possible, CC hears KM shouting just after she discovers the apparent disappearance from the apartment.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2016, 05:15:07 PM
Don't you think if you were sticking your head out of a window to look for someone in similar circumstances ... the logical thing would also be shouting that person's name as loud as you could?

The statements are not 'action replays', nor were they verbatim or recorded in video or audio.

Of course it would be normal but there is nothing normal in their actions that night. Leaving children in an unsecured apartment next to two main roads is hard for many to believe and then tampering with the crime scene (window/shutter) before the police arrived much later are two facts that stand out.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 05:20:32 PM
Of course it would be normal but there is nothing normal in their actions that night. Leaving children in an unsecured apartment next to two main roads is hard for many to believe and then tampering with the crime scene (window/shutter) before the police arrived much later are two facts that stand out.
Who did CC hear shouting in your theory PF?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 02, 2016, 05:48:54 PM
Of course it would be normal but there is nothing normal in their actions that night. Leaving children in an unsecured apartment next to two main roads is hard for many to believe and then tampering with the crime scene (window/shutter) before the police arrived much later are two facts that stand out.
If they had gone for dinner earlier than 8.30pm, then describing the roads as "two main roads" is something I might well agree with.

By the time supermarket Baptista closed at 8pm that evening, these were quiet roads, a fact that is possibly important in understanding the incident.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on April 02, 2016, 05:50:27 PM
Steve Carpenter saw 'cars' (plural) to his left when he left the Tapas complex. Cars were parked there between 21.10 and 21.40 according to one witness;

When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates. Although he cannot be definite, he believes it was a Fiesta or Focus. The deponent furthers that is was not a small car, and for this reason it could very well have been a Focus and not a Fiesta. He tells that he does not remember any sticker indicating that it was a rental car. Inside the vehicle he saw no one.
. After parking his vehicle...........

 Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
. When he left, he noticed that the dark blue vehicle was no longer in its location
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 02, 2016, 06:01:48 PM
Who did CC hear shouting in your theory PF?

If she heard shouting it connects to Kate at around 9:50. If not it connects to the one who removed her but I doubt he/she would be shouting for people to hear before committing a crime.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 10:28:07 PM
If she heard shouting it connects to Kate at around 9:50. (snip)
Good we agree on that PF.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 10:46:27 PM
(snip) I'll be interested to hear  someone's take on a conversation between 2 burglars concerning "what to do about the child"
Misty do you mean "why did you bring her here?"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488487/EXCLUSIVE-Potential-key-witness-McCann-case
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 02, 2016, 11:00:21 PM
Misty do you mean "why did you bring her here?"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488487/EXCLUSIVE-Potential-key-witness-McCann-case

No. I meant a conversation which may have taken place soon after the wannabe burglars discovered the target property contained a child and they were forced to scarper without entering.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 11:10:29 PM
No. I meant a conversation which may have taken place soon after the wannabe burglars discovered the target property contained a child and they were forced to scarper without entering.
It is very possible there is a burglar or pair of burglars out there, who opened that shutter and window, saw children inside, scarpered PDQ, and had nothing to do with the subsequent disappearance.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 02, 2016, 11:18:40 PM
It is very possible there is a burglar or pair of burglars out there, who opened that shutter and window, saw children inside, scarpered PDQ, and had nothing to do with the subsequent disappearance.

You have a plausible theory which started the chain of events. Do you not agree that the theory stalls at the point the burglars scarper?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 11:25:55 PM
You have a plausible theory which started the chain of events. Do you not agree that the theory stalls at the point the burglars scarper?
It doesn't stall. The chain of events continues logically.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 02, 2016, 11:43:05 PM
It doesn't stall. The chain of events continues logically.

Please continue.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 02, 2016, 11:44:14 PM
Imagine burglars opened shutter and window, saw children inside, and scarpered PDQ, but also imagine hypothetically there was no disappearance of the child.

The next checker would obviously find the window and shutter open and the child not on her bed - where would the child be do you think?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 02, 2016, 11:52:05 PM
Imagine burglars opened shutter and window, saw children inside, and scarpered PDQ, but also imagine hypothetically there was no disappearance of the child.

The next checker would obviously find the window and shutter open and the child not on her bed - where would the child be do you think?

The next checker did not notice the child was missing from her bed. The child could have
a)been hiding in or behind furniture
b)been locked in the bathroom
c) gone out the front door/patio door to seek help.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2016, 12:04:03 AM
(snip) The child could have
a)been hiding in or behind furniture
b)been locked in the bathroom
c) gone out the front door/patio door to seek help.
Yes the main point is that following an interrupted entry attempt at the window of the the exact room the child was in, it is not at all surprising that the child was not on her bed.

If the child had been found safe and well, she would have been found either outside, or self-concealed in a different room.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 12:07:27 AM
Yes the main point is that following an interrupted entry attempt at the window of the the exact room the child was in, it is not at all surprising that the child was not on her bed.

If the child had been found safe and well, she would have been found either outside, or self-concealed in a different room.

The child was not found safe & well in the circumstances you list.
What is the next logical step in your chain of events?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2016, 12:18:32 AM
(snip) What is the next logical step in your chain of events?
After burglar opens shutter and window, sees child moving inside, and scarpers....
the next logical deduction is (the event would be simultaneous actually) the child flees to another room.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 01:06:14 AM
After burglar opens shutter and window, sees child moving inside, and scarpers....
the next logical deduction is (the event would be simultaneous actually) the child flees to another room.

Why didn't the next checker & subsequent searchers find the child?
Why didn't the child reveal herself when she heard familiar voices?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2016, 01:47:13 AM
Why didn't the next checker & subsequent searchers find the child?
Why didn't the child reveal herself when she heard familiar voices?
If no-one had opened the window and shutter, the child would have stayed on the bed.
But if someone did open the window and shutter, the child would have run to to another room at least.
The next logical step is to ask a question. Which scenario has the greatest risks?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 01:58:34 AM
If no-one had opened the window and shutter, the child would have stayed on the bed.
But if someone did open the window and shutter, the child would have run to to another room at least.
The next logical step is to ask a question. Which scenario has the greatest risks?

A third party opening the shutter & window posed the greater threat to the children's welfare.
Please continue. The scene discovered by Kate did not indicate panic or disturbance.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2016, 02:14:45 AM
A third party opening the shutter & window posed the greater threat to the children's welfare.
Please continue. The scene discovered by Kate did not indicate panic or disturbance.
It's essential to get this comparision right first
1. Running scared to another room at least.
2. Laying on a bed not scared.
Which has the greatest risks?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 03, 2016, 02:19:34 AM
So much speculative discussion about a possible burglary thatended up in abduction..thought this was a fact based forum...seen enough rubbish for another night
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 02:42:12 AM
It's essential to get this comparision right first
1. Running scared to another room at least.
2. Laying on a bed not scared.
Which has the greatest risks?

Running scared.
What risk did she encounter that prevented her from revealing herself to the next checker?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2016, 02:56:31 AM
Running scared.
What risk did she encounter that prevented her from revealing herself to the next checker?
I haven't exactly worked that out yet Misty.
Randomly looking at just one of many risks - and starting first with the laying on a bed scenario - how high is the bed?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 03:06:26 AM
I haven't exactly worked that out yet Misty.
Randomly looking at just one of many risks - and starting first with the laying on a bed scenario - how high is the bed?

!8" as it appears to be the same height as the bed under the window.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2016, 03:16:40 AM
!8" as it appears to be the same height as the bed under the window.
So if no-one had opened the shutter and window, and the child remained laying on the bed, the maximum distance it was possible to fall would have been about 18 inches.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 03:25:52 AM
So if no-one had opened the shutter and window, and the child remained laying on the bed, the maximum distance it was possible to fall would have been about 18 inches.

The chest beside the bed would make a normal roll & fall impossible (unless the child's head was positioned further down the bed), therefore probably ruling out a head injury.
In panic circumstances & semi-darkness, it is possible a child would clip its head on the corner of the chest if attempting to leave the bed.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2016, 03:41:59 AM
The chest beside the bed would make a normal roll & fall impossible (unless the child's head was positioned further down the bed), therefore probably ruling out a head injury.
In panic circumstances & semi-darkness, it is possible a child would clip its head on the corner of the chest if attempting to leave the bed.
If no-one opens shutter and window, and child stays on bed, maximum possible fall distance 18 inches, and fall destination is easily visible.
If someone opens shutter and window, and child runs to another room,  ...?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 03:48:06 AM
If no-one opens shutter and window, and child stays on bed, maximum possible fall distance 18 inches, and fall destination is easily visible.
If someone opens shutter and window, and child runs to another room,  ...?

Back of the sofa, approx 36".
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2016, 03:51:48 AM
Back of the sofa, approx 36".
and visibility of fall destination .... ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on April 03, 2016, 08:32:06 AM
If no-one opens shutter and window, and child stays on bed, maximum possible fall distance 18 inches, and fall destination is easily visible.
If someone opens shutter and window, and child runs to another room, ...?

If Madeleine runs to another room, would there not be disarray of the bedclothes to show she had left in a hurry ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2016, 08:42:03 AM
If Madeleine runs to another room, would there not be disarray of the bedclothes to show she had left in a hurry ?

I think so and if she had met with an accident I think an intruder would have left as quickly as possible, without her.  When found lying injured by her parents or their friends I think the alarm would have been raised immediately, they would have assisted as medical practitioners and would have called emergency services immediately.

In neither circumstance would she have been spirited away, particularly as there was absolutely no evidence of disturbance or assault in the apartment.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 03, 2016, 03:27:41 PM
If Madeleine runs to another room, would there not be disarray of the bedclothes to show she had left in a hurry ?
The covers were disarrayed, also she was possibly on top of the covers.

If a 3 yr old child, home unsupervised, at night, parents gone out, sees and hears someone opening their bedroom shutter and window from outside, the child will definitely run urgently to another room.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 09:14:26 PM
and visibility of fall destination .... ?

Child would not climb on top of sofa if intention was to hide behind it.  Young children tend to stay low to hide, so there would be little risk of injury.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on April 03, 2016, 09:15:50 PM
Child would not climb on top of sofa if intention was to hide behind it.  Young children tend to stay low to hide, so there would be little risk of injury.

You haven't been around much, have you. &%&£(+ &%&£(+
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 09:43:00 PM
You haven't been around much, have you. &%&£(+ &%&£(+

Would you rephrase that, please, into a context I can understand?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on April 03, 2016, 09:48:06 PM
Would you rephrase that, please, into a context I can understand?

So have you been grabbed by the algorithms then ? @)(++(* @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 10:16:48 PM
So have you been grabbed by the algorithms then ? @)(++(* @)(++(*

Not when I last checked, approx 30 mins ago. 8)--))
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on April 03, 2016, 10:17:47 PM
Not when I last checked, approx 30 mins ago. 8)--))

Down Mexico way I presume. *&*%£
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 03, 2016, 10:27:52 PM
Down Mexico way I presume. *&*%£

Good grief, no. North of the border.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 04, 2016, 12:19:31 AM
Child would not climb on top of sofa if intention was to hide behind it.  Young children tend to stay low to hide, so there would be little risk of injury.
Behind the right end of the sofa is a likely place to hide, because it is next to the only light left on, when the parents went out for a meal.
However, what if a burglar opened the child bedroom shutter and window, child ran away from that into lounge, and heard the chat just beneath the lounge window, and tried to signal for help?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 04, 2016, 12:58:16 AM
Behind the right end of the sofa is a likely place to hide, because it is next to the only light left on, when the parents went out for a meal.
However, what if a burglar opened the child bedroom shutter and window, child ran away from that into lounge, and heard the chat just beneath the lounge window, and tried to signal for help?

If the settee was away from the window, the child would have been able to stand behind it, partly open the curtains but then discover that the shutters were down. (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2309.jpg Foto 7 PJ forensics 4th May)
If the settee was very close to the window, as per the PJ crime scene photo taken that night, the child would have had to visibly disturb the curtains before accessing the window, only to discover the shutters down. In those circumstances, there was insufficient room for her to topple over & down the back. There were also no forensics to indicate blood or tissue loss relating to the child at that precise location.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 04, 2016, 01:43:05 AM
Is there any evidence that the shutters of the lounge window were shut?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 04, 2016, 01:58:38 AM
Is there any evidence that the shutters of the lounge window were shut?
There is no evidence they were open.
1. The shutters were photographed in the closed position the next day.
2. The curtains were photographed in an almost closed position by CSI a few hours after the disappearance. There does not appear to be any light visible through the window. It would also perhaps be unusual to draw the curtains but leave shutters in a raised position to be lowered later.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 04, 2016, 11:02:52 PM
(snip) The shutters were photographed in the closed position the next day (snip)
Do you have a link for that photo please Misty
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 04, 2016, 11:06:03 PM
It is probably crucial for Amaral's theory (child climbs up on back of sofa because she hears father chatting just below lounge window) that the shutter is open?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 04, 2016, 11:09:12 PM
It is probably crucial for Amaral's theory (child climbs up on back of sofa because father is chatting just outside lounge window) that the shutter is open?

From Amarals book and tv documentary I never got the impression his "theory" was written in stone, it was more like a possibility amongst others, just an example of what may have befallen the child
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 04, 2016, 11:19:11 PM
From Amarals book and tv documentary I never got the impression his "theory" was written in stone, it was more like a possibility amongst others, just an example of what may have befallen the child
I take it back, in Mr Amaral's documentary, when the child climbs on the back of the sofa, the lounge window shutter is closed. (Source: A Verdade Da Mentira film 48m17)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 05, 2016, 12:14:01 AM
Do we know exact height above lounge floor of the inside windowsill of lounge window?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 06, 2016, 01:15:23 AM
Do we know exact height above lounge floor of the inside windowsill of lounge window?

Around 36" I would say. Settee is low back, around 30", windowsill appears about 6" higher.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 06, 2016, 01:29:34 AM
Around 36" I would say. Settee is low back, around 30", windowsill appears about 6" higher.
Around 36 inches for the windowsill is interesting Misty.

In that still from Mr Amaral's video the sofa is positioned a long way from the window, making it look like the sofa back is less high than the windowsill. IMO the sofa back is about the same height as the windowsill .
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 06, 2016, 01:48:54 AM
Around 36 inches for the windowsill is interesting Misty.

In that still from Mr Amaral's video the sofa is positioned a long way from the window, making it look like the sofa back is less high than the windowsill. IMO the sofa back is about the same height as the windowsill .

It's from the Eddie & Keela video on our forum.
(see Wilyboo has had a change of name on YouTube)
I tried using the floor tiles as a guide, that still gave a figure of about 34". My settee back is 34" & it's higher than the average modern settee.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 06, 2016, 05:31:25 PM
(from other thread)
Going back to square one without assumptions, could the the problem be rewritten as "a child left the interior of the apartment sometime between about 7.15pm 3 May and an undetermined later time/date"?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2016, 06:07:29 PM
(from other thread)
Going back to square one without assumptions, could the the problem be rewritten as "a child left the interior of the apartment sometime between about 7.15pm 3 May and an undetermined later time/date"?

I do not go with the thinking that Madeleine was missed by those who searched the apartment after the alarm was raised.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 06, 2016, 06:31:51 PM
I do not go with the thinking that Madeleine was missed by those who searched the apartment after the alarm was raised.
It has happened in many other cases Brietta..
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 06, 2016, 06:48:17 PM
It has happened in many other cases Brietta..

(http://i3.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article1838619.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/An-Police-handout-picture-of-the-squalor-in-Kim-Haineys-flat.jpg)

A little boy's body lay under the rubbish visible in the above photograph, and for obvious reasons was not immediately seen when the premises were eventually entered.

The McCann holiday apartment was sparsely furnished and had been searched by family, friends and outsiders including the police.  There was no loft - there was no cellar and no other obvious hiding place.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 06, 2016, 06:54:46 PM
What an awfully sad case that was in Paisley Brietta I had not seen it before.
The discovery was made by grandparents who then called police.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 06, 2016, 06:56:21 PM
It has happened in many other cases Brietta..
Where on earth do you think she was in the apartment then, when it was searched by the McCanns, their friends and police officers?  And is she there still in your view??
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 06, 2016, 07:13:40 PM
Where on earth do you think she was in the apartment then, when it was searched by the McCanns, their friends and police officers?  And is she there still in your view??
The 10.00pm onwards inside search by a few people was incomplete and assumed an awake child.
The 11.15pm inside search by one GNR officer was incomplete and assumed an awake child.

There are many known cases where an indoors search by relatives and by police assumed an awake child and therefore failed to find an asleep child. The child can be asleep almost anywhere - in a wardrobe, in a kitchen cupboard, under a bed, under a bean bag, in a suitcase, under a pile of clothes, in a chest of drawers, and the relatives and police fail to find them. Those are all real cases. Answer to your last question Alf = no.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 06, 2016, 10:30:59 PM
The 10.00pm onwards inside search by a few people was incomplete and assumed an awake child.
The 11.15pm inside search by one GNR officer was incomplete and assumed an awake child.

There are many known cases where an indoors search by relatives and by police assumed an awake child and therefore failed to find an asleep child. The child can be asleep almost anywhere - in a wardrobe, in a kitchen cupboard, under a bed, under a bean bag, in a suitcase, under a pile of clothes, in a chest of drawers, and the relatives and police fail to find them. Those are all real cases. Answer to your last question Alf = no.
So you think she was asleep in the apartment when everyone was looking for her? What happened when she woke up then?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 07, 2016, 12:39:34 AM
So you think she was asleep in the apartment when everyone was looking for her? What happened when she woke up then?
IMO the search inside after 10pm by a very small number of tourists and employees, and the search inside at about 11.15pm by just one policeman, were only for an awake child. You can see this in phrases like "just in case she is cowering in a cupboard" (KM book) which makes the assumption of looking only for an awake child.  Some other people wanted to search inside but didn't because they were told things like "yeah she's not here" (FP rog) and "'no, no, she's not here, she's not here" (CP interview). 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 07, 2016, 12:54:22 PM
The sofa was pushed up against the wall and the curtain was now trapped. Evidence from dog alerts was found under the tile where the sofa was now covering!  It couldn't be up against the wall with a child lying behind it.
What if the sofa was at 11.15pm was still a few inches away from the wall?
What if the GNR officer did not pull it out further to look behind it?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 07, 2016, 02:04:43 PM
IMO the search inside after 10pm by a very small number of tourists and employees, and the search inside at about 11.15pm by just one policeman, were only for an awake child. You can see this in phrases like "just in case she is cowering in a cupboard" (KM book) which makes the assumption of looking only for an awake child.  Some other people wanted to search inside but didn't because they were told things like "yeah she's not here" (FP rog) and "'no, no, she's not here, she's not here" (CP interview).
You didn't answer my question.  What happened when she woke up then?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 07, 2016, 02:10:27 PM
"Eddie alerted in the small garden in front of the apartment."  Did he?

Or is there confusion between what is front and what is back?
The apartment has only one garden.
Eddie in the garden alerted slightly to a flowerbed under a climbing plant.
Also alerted slightly at the same climbing plant while sniffing through the railings from the balcony .
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 07, 2016, 02:21:27 PM
You didn't answer my question.  What happened when she woke up then?
I don't have an answer to that Alf. There have been many real cases where a non-awake child in the residence is missed by civilians and even by police searchers.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 07, 2016, 06:21:55 PM
I don't have an answer to that Alf. There have been many real cases where a non-awake child in the residence is missed by civilians and even by police searchers.
Is "non-awake" a euphemism for "dead" in this case?  I'm trying to figure out your theory but it remains as oblique as ever!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 08, 2016, 01:59:47 PM
Is "non-awake" a euphemism for "dead" in this case?  I'm trying to figure out your theory but it remains as oblique as ever!
In all but one of the cases I mentioned of indoor search missing a child, luckily the child eventually was found asleep (alive) in the residence that had supposedly been "completely" searched earlier, and the exception is a case where the child was sadly not alive when found about 12 hours later under a very large pile of clothes in the "completely" searched residence. It's oblique because I haven't worked out what happened yet Alf.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2016, 03:55:11 PM
In all but one of the cases I mentioned of indoor search missing a child, luckily the child eventually was found asleep (alive) in the residence that had supposedly been "completely" searched earlier, and the exception is a case where the child was sadly not alive when found about 12 hours later under a very large pile of clothes in the "completely" searched residence. It's oblique because I haven't worked out what happened yet Alf.

There is no doubt that there have been occasions when premises have been searched and a missing person's body has been overlooked.
I don't think that is the case in the McCann apartment.  My reasoning for that is it was a sparsely furnished holiday apartment with few opportunities for a body to lie unobserved or where a body could be hidden from view.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 08, 2016, 04:39:47 PM
There is no doubt that there have been occasions when premises have been searched and a missing person's body has been overlooked.
I don't think that is the case in the McCann apartment.  My reasoning for that is it was a sparsely furnished holiday apartment with few opportunities for a body to lie unobserved or where a body could be hidden from view.
Sparsely furnished with 4 beds 2 cots 2 chests of drawers 3 coffee tables 1 telly 1 fully fitted kitchen 1 complete set of patio furniture 1 sideboard 1 dining table 6 dining chairs 1 complete bathroom suite 1 cane chair 2 sofas and 4 built in wardrobes?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on April 08, 2016, 04:44:25 PM
No doubt it was done, but is there any mention of beds being moved and lifted  to ensure that she was not concealed under or inside of them?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 08, 2016, 04:51:47 PM
No doubt it was done, but is there any mention of beds being moved and lifted  to ensure that she was concealed under or inside of them?
Yes there is mention in the statements of looking under beds.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2016, 05:06:35 PM
No doubt it was done, but is there any mention of beds being moved and lifted  to ensure that she was concealed under or inside of them?

My children did a bunk on one occasion.  On discovering them missing from their beds I found them curled up fast asleep in the linen cupboard.  They had been watching a documentary on dust mites and decided they weren't sleeping in beds crawling with these creatures ... so the linen cupboard???

I found them quite quickly ... but believe me, the adrenalin rush on finding one's children gone would have ensured there was not one centimetre of of the house that would have remained unchecked to find them.

Even if there was no mention of a thorough search of 5A taking place ... I have no doubt a systematic search would be conducted.

All you have to do to confirm that is to think what your own reaction would be if you were searching for a missing child.  Nor should it be forgotten that there were trained observers taking part in the search.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 08, 2016, 05:08:08 PM
England, 2014, a 3-year old child disappears - 30 police officers and many volunteers and a police helicopter launch a full-scale search, 3 hours later it's dark and the child still has not been found.

What sort of terrain was the child eventually found in?
Which equipment on the search helicopter located the child?
How many miles did the child walk in 3 and a half hours?

ETA this was a real case in Cambridgeshire in Feb 2014.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2016, 05:16:16 PM
Sparsely furnished with 4 beds 2 cots 2 chests of drawers 3 coffee tables 1 telly 1 fully fitted kitchen 1 complete set of patio furniture 1 sideboard 1 dining table 6 dining chairs 1 complete bathroom suite 1 cane chair 2 sofas and 4 built in wardrobes?

It isn't the average family home though is it Pegasus, where there are numerous places for concealment. 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfred R Jones on April 08, 2016, 08:08:45 PM
Why Am I not allowed to ask Pegasus where he or she thinks Madeleine was hidden or hiding, and why am I not allowed to express an opinion about his or her theory? If this post is deleted without explanation would you also kindly once and for all delete this account permanently.  There is no point continuing to post on a forum where one is censored for no good reason.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 08, 2016, 09:19:58 PM
Why Am I not allowed to ask Pegasus where he or she thinks Madeleine was hidden or hiding, and why am I not allowed to express an opinion about his or her theory? If this post is deleted without explanation would you also kindly once and for all delete this account permanently.  There is no point continuing to post on a forum where one is censored for no good reason.
Not claiming it happened and it does sound unlikely, just going back to square one without assumptions that's all.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 08, 2016, 09:25:40 PM
Why Am I not allowed to ask Pegasus where he or she thinks Madeleine was hidden or hiding, and why am I not allowed to express an opinion about his or her theory? If this post is deleted without explanation would you also kindly once and for all delete this account permanently.  There is no point continuing to post on a forum where one is censored for no good reason.

I entirely agree with what you are saying.  Please do not allow one biased person to dictate whether or not you continue to post on this forum.
I rather think he/she would consider that "job well done" 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 08, 2016, 09:31:42 PM
My children did a bunk on one occasion.  On discovering them missing from their beds I found them curled up fast asleep in the linen cupboard.  They had been watching a documentary on dust mites and decided they weren't sleeping in beds crawling with these creatures ... so the linen cupboard???

I found them quite quickly ... but believe me, the adrenalin rush on finding one's children gone would have ensured there was not one centimetre of of the house that would have remained unchecked to find them.

Even if there was no mention of a thorough search of 5A taking place ... I have no doubt a systematic search would be conducted.

All you have to do to confirm that is to think what your own reaction would be if you were searching for a missing child.  Nor should it be forgotten that there were trained observers taking part in the search.
Interesting Brietts thankyou. The interior search in PDL was psychologically conditioned from the start by the fact that a window was found open.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on April 08, 2016, 09:54:28 PM
Interesting Brietts thankyou. The interior search in PDL was psychologically conditioned from the start by the fact that a window was found open.

How do you know? The police didn't really take much notice of the assertion about the window I thought.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 09, 2016, 12:50:56 AM
Interesting Brietts thankyou. The interior search in PDL was psychologically conditioned from the start by the fact that a window was found open.

Was it conditioned in favour of preserving a potential crime scene or preventing multiple complete searches for a child in a limited space?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 09, 2016, 01:11:06 AM
Was it conditioned in favour of preserving a potential crime scene or preventing multiple complete searches for a child in a limited space?
The knowledge that the window had been opened by a stranger automatically created a strong assumption, in the minds of the very few people who actually did search inside the apartment, that the child had been taken by whatever stranger had opened the window. This reduced the inside search to a less than complete one IMO.
Similar psychology happened in the Cambs case I mentioned - a possible witness indicating the front door created a strong subconscious psychological assumption of an exit direction, which greatly influenced where was searched fully, and where wasn't .
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 09, 2016, 01:35:39 AM
The knowledge that the window had been opened by a stranger automatically created a strong assumption, in the minds of the very few people who actually did search inside the apartment, that the child had been taken by whatever stranger had opened the window. This reduced the inside search to a less than complete one IMO.
Similar psychology happened in the Cambs case I mentioned - a possible witness indicating the front door created a strong subconscious psychological assumption of an exit direction, which greatly influenced where was searched fully, and where wasn't .

I don't suppose the fact that the mother involved in the Cambs case had 6 other children (no father mentioned) posed any sort of distraction either?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 09, 2016, 01:45:15 AM
I don't suppose the fact that the mother involved in the Cambs case had 6 other children (no father mentioned) posed any sort of distraction either?
In the Cambs case what about all the relatives and friends who also searched, and the 30 police officers Misty?
Didn't they have any undercounter detectives?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 09, 2016, 01:59:40 AM
In the Cambs case what about all the relatives and friends who also searched, and the 30 police officers Misty?
Didn't they have any undercounter detectives?

Obviously not, Pegasus. The rule is - you start in the middle & work out. The police have a lot to answer for - just as in Madeleine's case - they are in control from the moment they arrive on the scene. Is police training really that bad?
"Family" probably meant her other children.
The mother had been upstairs. The 3 & 4 year old were downstairs. The 3 year old who went missing was still in his pyjamas at 3pm so I suspect it was a chaotic household. There were very few hiding places in 5a, though.
Why don't you just go with the abduction theory - all the pieces fit that scenario. It really is the only explanation.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 09, 2016, 02:20:38 AM
Obviously not, Pegasus. The rule is - you start in the middle & work out. The police have a lot to answer for - just as in Madeleine's case - they are in control from the moment they arrive on the scene. Is police training really that bad?
"Family" probably meant her other children.
The mother had been upstairs. The 3 & 4 year old were downstairs. The 3 year old who went missing was still in his pyjamas at 3pm so I suspect it was a chaotic household. There were very few hiding places in 5a, though.
Why don't you just go with the abduction theory - all the pieces fit that scenario. It really is the only explanation.
The fact that officers were standing in the kitchen about one metre away from the child and didn't find him is complete confirmation that as soon as there is an assumption a missing child has exited a residence, all commonsense and logic goes down the plughole, and the internal search is almost guaranteed to be incomplete.
http://dailym.ai/1UONTEi
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 09, 2016, 03:16:54 AM
North Carolina, 4-yr-old boy reported missing, police search apartment, find nothing, issue an Amber Alert, then child is found 5 hours later in a wardrobe asleep under a pile of clothes
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 09, 2016, 11:50:52 AM
North Carolina, 4-yr-old boy reported missing, police search apartment, find nothing, issue an Amber Alert, then child is found 5 hours later in a wardrobe asleep under a pile of clothes

In the cases you have sourced, Pegasus, despite the failure of the initial search of the premises which failed to locate the missing child ... the child did eventually turn up.

The point about Madeleine is that she did not ... as far as I am concerned that rules out the notion she may have been quietly snoozing in a cupboard oblivious to her mother's wails of despair and the noise which was loud enough to cause Mrs Fenn to wonder what was going on.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on April 09, 2016, 03:18:20 PM
In the cases you have sourced, Pegasus, despite the failure of the initial search of the premises which failed to locate the missing child ... the child did eventually turn up.

The point about Madeleine is that she did not ... as far as I am concerned that rules out the notion she may have been quietly snoozing in a cupboard oblivious to her mother's wails of despair and the noise which was loud enough to cause Mrs Fenn to wonder what was going on.

Unless she slept as deeply as the twins seemed to sleep?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 09, 2016, 06:37:57 PM
Unless she slept as deeply as the twins seemed to sleep?

She would have wakened at some point in time and been found by the forensic team working in the apartment.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 09, 2016, 08:56:09 PM
She would have wakened at some point in time and been found by the forensic team working in the apartment.
What about the south bedroom? The PJ forensic team May 4 did nothing in the south bedroom IMO, no searching,  no collection of hairs, no dragon dusting for prints, no uv lights, no examination of footprints. See the plan of the apartment in the files on which all the areas examined forensically are marked - it shows that there were no forensics done in south bedroom.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 10, 2016, 12:13:50 AM
What about the south bedroom? The PJ forensic team May 4 did nothing in the south bedroom IMO, no searching,  no collection of hairs, no dragon dusting for prints, no uv lights, no examination of footprints. See the plan of the apartment in the files on which all the areas examined forensically are marked - it shows that there were no forensics done in south bedroom.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

They believed the parents? Of what happened and where? And how possibly? Can police be so naive?
Or is it a case of no experience due to no child abductions ever having happened in that town??
It is a pity they didnt do forensics in the whole apartment
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 10, 2016, 12:29:57 AM
What about the south bedroom? The PJ forensic team May 4 did nothing in the south bedroom IMO, no searching,  no collection of hairs, no dragon dusting for prints, no uv lights, no examination of footprints. See the plan of the apartment in the files on which all the areas examined forensically are marked - it shows that there were no forensics done in south bedroom.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

In light of GA's assertions that he suspected the parents from 4th May 2007, can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why he would not have ordered a forensic sweep of the south bedroom?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 10, 2016, 12:49:40 AM
In light of GA's assertions that he suspected the parents from 4th May 2007, can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why he would not have ordered a forensic sweep of the south bedroom?
The first intelligence to indicate that the south bedroom may have been a crime scene was obtained on evening of 1 Aug 2007 Misty.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 10, 2016, 01:10:30 AM
... however I agree that forensics should have been done of the whole apartment on on 4 May.
Unfortunatly the PJ on 4 May did absolutely no forensics behind that sofa (they didn't even pull it away from the window IMO). And they did absolutely no forensics on the wardrobe of the south bedroom on 4 May, no forensics of the large luggage item in that wardrobe (is there any record that they even looked inside in it?), and no forensics of the jumbled pile of clothes in that wardrobe.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 10, 2016, 01:12:16 AM
The first intelligence to indicate that the south bedroom may have been a crime scene was obtained on evening of 1 Aug 2007 Misty.
If the suspicion of parental involvement was there, examinations should have been undertaken almost immediately, not after a 3 month period during which contamination was permitted.
There was a forensic sweep done on 4th May on the ground from the children's bedroom to the front door & also through to the rear patio door. Why would CSI not have examined the route to the third exit point, ie the patio doors in the parents' bedroom?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 10, 2016, 01:27:02 AM
If the suspicion of parental involvement was there, examinations should have been undertaken almost immediately, not after a 3 month period during which contamination was permitted.
There was a forensic sweep done on 4th May on the ground from the children's bedroom to the front door & also through to the rear patio door. Why would CSI not have examined the route to the third exit point, ie the patio doors in the parents' bedroom?
Probably because there was no evidence that the south bedroom glass door had been unlocked that evening Misty, also because its shutter was down, and it would be very difficult (although not completely impossible) for someone to exit that way and close the shutter behind them.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 10, 2016, 01:42:42 AM
Probably because there was no evidence that the south bedroom glass door had been unlocked that evening Misty, also because its shutter was down, and it would be very difficult (although not completely impossible) for someone to exit that way and close the shutter behind them.

Can that very same argument not be applied to the children's bedroom window if, as Amaral said, he believed the scene was staged?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 10, 2016, 01:57:47 AM
Can that very same argument not be applied to the children's bedroom window if, as Amaral said, he believed the scene was staged?
Forensics were done on the north bedroom window simply because it was found open.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Gadfly1.3 on April 10, 2016, 01:19:05 PM
Why Am I not allowed to ask Pegasus where he or she thinks Madeleine was hidden or hiding, and why am I not allowed to express an opinion about his or her theory? If this post is deleted without explanation would you also kindly once and for all delete this account permanently.  There is no point continuing to post on a forum where one is censored for no good reason.

Don't go Alfred.  Even I'll stick up for your freedom of speech, even if Brietta has started censoring me.

Hope you listen to my advice and come back (I have twice).  We go back a long way -- I mean you even warned me via PM about all the lynchmob that will target me if I look at this case in an even handed way.   It's a shame you became more critical of me when I started to evaluate the evidence, but I'd still prefer you around.  You built up my self-esteem in my early posts by praising the quality of them publicly.

Come on, my old aristocratic son, -- I know Gerry got a little bit agitated this week on national television, but there is no need for the agitation to spread to people who aren't directly involved in the case.

If you don't come back, can I start using your trademark R. in the middle of my username?  Thanks, G.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 10, 2016, 06:34:01 PM
30 seconds, 3 minutes or 30 minutes.

"David's visit was to help her to take the children to the recreation area. When David returned from the beach he was with Gerry at the tennis courts, and it was Gerry who asked him to help Kate with taking the children to the recreation area, which had been arranged but did not take place. David was at the apartment for around 30 seconds." (KM 6 Sep 2007)

"At 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00" (GM 10 May 2007)

"Gerry had asked me just to pop in and check everything was alright err with Kate or you know again I can't remember the exact reason whether he was just making sure it was alright that he could stay there and you know more time but you know he'd asked me to pop in." (DP 11 April 2008)

1485 "I'm gonna pin you down and ask you how long you think you were in there for. I know you say minutes.'

DP "In their apartment, it, it, I'd say three minutes, five maximum.'
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2016, 07:55:12 PM
I think me and Matt went straight to the, the courts, Dave went off to his apartment and I believe, erm, to Gerry and Kate’s apartment as well........“You said Dave went to the apartment'”
 Reply    “Well he did, but only briefly and then, well he went, he went back there and then, and then joined us, so fairly rapidly there was the full kind of compliment of, erm, of, the male adults within the group were playing tennis.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

So we went, got our stuff and came back to the courts, which were already in play, because the social had already started. And Gerry was down playing on a court, I think there was only three of them, I think the, erm, the coach, whose name I can't remember, the tennis coach, the blonde haired bloke, erm, was playing to make up the numbers. And so we waited and watched for a little while, so we didn't get on court until, phew, sometime closer to seven, so maybe sort of quarter to or twenty to or ten to seven we went down to the court.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

I'm not sure you know what happened to Matt and Russell at that particular moment but I remember then you know I went over to see err Gerry at the err you know tennis courts, just to see you know what was happening, and err decided that we'd, you know I'd come, come back to play tennis.......got my stuff, went back to the tennis courts and then err there was me, Matt and Russell and I think Gerry played a little, for a little while but he decided that he'd, he'd played enough tennis for that day and err was going back and so it left with me, Russell and err Matt and err Dan who was the, the you know the tennis coach from Mark Warner.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

Regarding his previous statement where he states that David returned half an hour later around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court after getting ready for the game.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

So they went straight to the tennis courts (Russell) or they all three went and got their stuff from the apartments (Matt) or David went to see Gerry while Russell and Matt went somewhere unknown.(David)

David came back very quickly from the McCann's apartment (Russ). Gerry agrees, but he went off again to get ready then, returning at 7pm. Matt agrees they didn't play until 7pm, but they were watching the game from 6.40 or 6,45 or 6.50pm.







Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 10, 2016, 08:13:01 PM
So we finished and set off, probably about twenty past six, sometime around there, because it was after when we'd got them to move, we were already late, so I think if we'd said, if they'd move it to six thirty and we're setting off at six twenty, I would have been happy that we could have made it there in time, but we'd already gone past the time when I thought we won't be able to go because we were already so late'.

00.07.20 4078 'Was that you, David and'.

Reply 'Russell'.
 
4078 'Russell'.

Reply 'It was men's social. Erm, so we went back up, erm, back to, well I went back to the apartment, got the tennis gear and back onto the courts or back to the courts area, erm, and the other guys went to get their stuff. Erm, and I think Dave said that he'd been to the apartment, but I don't know that for definite, that's just something I think has come out, I didn't know anything about that. So we went, got our stuff and came back to the courts, which were already in play, because the social had already started. And Gerry was down playing on a court, I think there was only three of them, I think the, erm, the coach, whose name I can't remember, the tennis coach, the blonde haired bloke, erm, was playing to make up the numbers. And so we waited and watched for a little while, so we didn't get on court until, phew, sometime closer to seven, so maybe sort of quarter to or twenty to or ten to seven we went down to the court. And we were hoping that Gerry would actually stay and make up the four, because everybody, there was one court that was full of four and then there was a three over he, but he, erm, sort of went back to, erm, to sort of help with, you know, Kate and the kids and didn't stay to sort of play with us and there was just the three of us and I think the coach stayed and played to make up the four initially, but didn't want to stay, so he didn't stay the whole time. But we played then for, I think the best part of an hour, erm, before going back to the apartment.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 11, 2016, 05:56:27 PM
"I'm already getting bids from some US networks for interviews with the McCanns for the 10th Anniversary." CM


"Tf they'd been able to have a professional nanny service which wasn't available at the time." CM

MirandaThePanda52 minutes ago
Great big lying b.........
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2016, 06:17:55 PM
"I'm already getting bids from some US networks for interviews with the McCanns for the 10th Anniversary." CM


"Tf they'd been able to have a professional nanny service which wasn't available at the time." CM

MirandaThePanda52 minutes ago
Great big lying b.........


Of course, it's what he's paid to do   8)--))
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 11, 2016, 06:32:08 PM

Of course, it's what he's paid to do   8)--))


"We have monitoring continuously online of the various fora." CM

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 18, 2016, 02:37:09 PM
This PDF document contains detailed accounts by UK police of several fascinating investigations.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_10.2.pdf
Includes a no-body conviction.
And a case of two cases.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 18, 2016, 02:44:52 PM
... and a test of reading observation skills  (ETA which no-one passed so I posted answer on other thread)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 18, 2016, 08:33:48 PM
This PDF document contains detailed accounts by UK police of several fascinating investigations.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_10.2.pdf
Includes a no-body conviction.
And a case of two cases.

An interesting read (despite the disclaimer), which I've just finished. How did you locate that?
Why did you start with the dogs? The police had been given a location in that murder case & it wasn't the dogs who located the body, it was a human with a digger.
I thought you'd have been more interested in the blood on the climbing plant & the solitary piece of DNA which connected the perp to the scene.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 18, 2016, 08:52:20 PM
An interesting read (despite the disclaimer), which I've just finished. How did you locate that?
Why did you start with the dogs? The police had been given a location in that murder case & it wasn't the dogs who located the body, it was a human with a digger.
I thought you'd have been more interested in the blood on the climbing plant & the solitary piece of DNA which connected the perp to the scene.
I found it by chance while researching the latest incarnation of the SY investigation Misty.
There are many more issues - weeks of fascinating reading.
It's a way to learn how the professional experts in this field think - by reading what they read.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 18, 2016, 09:00:52 PM
I found it by chance while researching the latest incarnation of the SY investigation Misty.

I found the information on T.I.E. very interesting as it provided the reasoning behind the questioning of the last known round of witnesses i.e. the grouping.
Does that methodology put a slightly different spin on DCI Redwood's statement "not considered persons of interest"?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 18, 2016, 09:49:36 PM
I found the information on T.I.E. very interesting as it provided the reasoning behind the questioning of the last known round of witnesses i.e. the grouping.
Does that methodology put a slightly different spin on DCI Redwood's statement "not considered persons of interest"?
Trace Interview Eliminate makes sense.
I never saw any indication that the people Mr Redwood apparantly was interested in were even doing any burglaries so presumably they've been TIE'd.
As for the "not considered persons of interest" he has never publically stated anything to the contrary.
Here is the index of the HWG (of which MD is a member) journal - years of fascinating reading for us Misty.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 19, 2016, 09:39:39 AM
This PDF document contains detailed accounts by UK police of several fascinating investigations.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_10.2.pdf
Includes a no-body conviction.
And a case of two cases.

Thanks for that, Pegasus. I'm only part of the way through, but I find it really interesting.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 19, 2016, 09:41:18 AM
Trace Interview Eliminate makes sense.
I never saw any indication that the people Mr Redwood apparantly was interested in were even doing any burglaries so presumably they've been TIE'd.
As for the "not considered persons of interest" he has never publically stated anything to the contrary.
Here is the index of the HWG (of which MD is a member) journal - years of fascinating reading for us Misty.

?? Did you mean to add a link?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 19, 2016, 10:07:26 AM
Trace Interview Eliminate makes sense.
I never saw any indication that the people Mr Redwood apparantly was interested in were even doing any burglaries so presumably they've been TIE'd.
As for the "not considered persons of interest" he has never publically stated anything to the contrary.
Here is the index of the HWG (of which MD is a member) journal - years of fascinating reading for us Misty.

I find that the suggestion of Trace Investigate Evaluate makes more sense. Investigation can include interviews, but isn't necessarily limited to it. A police interview that I found jaw-droppingly clever involved a lot of fact-checking prior to it. No need for slippery stairs: the officer had done his homework. Evaluate is broader as well: while some people can be eliminated for all sorts of reasons, there are evidently the obvious ones who become targets for thorough active investigation, but there may also be others of a lower priority who need to remain on a back-burner.

Another thing that I've found interesting so far is the fact that it's even online: I doubt that the general public often gets a glimpse into the internal strategic issues facing a major authority.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 19, 2016, 11:55:29 AM
?? Did you mean to add a link?
Sorry, google journal name.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 19, 2016, 12:22:52 PM
Sorry, google journal name.

Ah. Just spotted it at the end of the document.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 20, 2016, 08:03:43 PM
In her notes dated July 18, almost two months after Maddie's disappearance and at a time when there are starting to appear indicia against the McCanns, Kate sounds disheartened and reinforces the accusations against Murat: "I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't".

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 20, 2016, 10:04:43 PM
The Strange Case of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the McCanns

Excerpt

Which leads me on to the question of why they received such exceptional treatment from British authorities, directed straight from No. 10, to the extent that Blair and Brown eventually gave them a PR representative? I used at one stage to be Resident Clerk in the FCO, a now abolished post effectively of night duty officer. I can tell you from horrible personal experience that the FCO deals with gut-wrenching cases of lost or dead children abroad frequently. I spent one of the most terrible three hours of my life, through to a cold dawn, on the phone with a hysterical bereaved mother desperate to explore any avenue that might give a possibility that the boy who had just drowned in Brazil was misidentified as her son. On average, I am afraid such tragedies get substantially less than 1% of the public resources that were devoted to the McCanns.

I am going to come straight out with this. British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case. I have direct information that more than one of those diplomatic staff found the McCanns less than convincing and their stories inconsistent. Embassy staff were perturbed to be ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.

This again is absolutely not the norm. On a daily basis more British citizens have contact with foreign authorities than the total staff of the FCO. It would be simply impossible to give that level of support to everybody. Plus, against jingoistic presumption, a great many Brits who have contact with foreign police are actually criminals.

The British Ambassador in Portugal, John Buck, had been my direct boss in the FCO. he was Deputy Head of Southern European Department when I was Head of Cyprus Section. He and his staff were concerned by contradictions in the McCann’s story. The Embassy warned, in writing, that being perceived as too close to the McCanns might not prove wise. They demanded the instruction from London be reconfirmed. It was.

I know of people’s misgivings because I was told directly. But material was also leaked to a Belgian newspaper confirming what I have said. It was published by the Express, but like so much other material which is not supportive of the McCanns, it got taken down. Fortunately that last link preserved it. It also shows that the FCO continues to refuse Freedom of Information requests for the material on the interesting grounds that it might damage relations with Portugal.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 20, 2016, 10:17:39 PM
"You may be interested to know that Martin Grime, the (then) South Yorkshire Police dog handler whose dogs alerted to cadaver scent and blood in the apartment, car and on McCann clothing also had pressure put on him to over emphasize the need for forensic corroboration in both his statements and rogatory. Never in his career, on any case, had he been asked to do so."
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 20, 2016, 10:20:56 PM
The Strange Case of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the McCanns

Excerpt

Which leads me on to the question of why they received such exceptional treatment from British authorities, directed straight from No. 10, to the extent that Blair and Brown eventually gave them a PR representative? I used at one stage to be Resident Clerk in the FCO, a now abolished post effectively of night duty officer. I can tell you from horrible personal experience that the FCO deals with gut-wrenching cases of lost or dead children abroad frequently. I spent one of the most terrible three hours of my life, through to a cold dawn, on the phone with a hysterical bereaved mother desperate to explore any avenue that might give a possibility that the boy who had just drowned in Brazil was misidentified as her son. On average, I am afraid such tragedies get substantially less than 1% of the public resources that were devoted to the McCanns.

I am going to come straight out with this. British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case. I have direct information that more than one of those diplomatic staff found the McCanns less than convincing and their stories inconsistent. Embassy staff were perturbed to be ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.

This again is absolutely not the norm. On a daily basis more British citizens have contact with foreign authorities than the total staff of the FCO. It would be simply impossible to give that level of support to everybody. Plus, against jingoistic presumption, a great many Brits who have contact with foreign police are actually criminals.

The British Ambassador in Portugal, John Buck, had been my direct boss in the FCO. he was Deputy Head of Southern European Department when I was Head of Cyprus Section. He and his staff were concerned by contradictions in the McCann’s story. The Embassy warned, in writing, that being perceived as too close to the McCanns might not prove wise. They demanded the instruction from London be reconfirmed. It was.

I know of people’s misgivings because I was told directly. But material was also leaked to a Belgian newspaper confirming what I have said. It was published by the Express, but like so much other material which is not supportive of the McCanns, it got taken down. Fortunately that last link preserved it. It also shows that the FCO continues to refuse Freedom of Information requests for the material on the interesting grounds that it might damage relations with Portugal.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/
Thankyou Pathfinder for posting this extremely interesting article
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/
It is complete confirmation that the leak to belgian media, that at least one FCO person warned the government about the bizarrely high level of support and political pressure being provided, was absolutely true.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 20, 2016, 10:32:21 PM
"You may be interested to know that Martin Grime, the (then) South Yorkshire Police dog handler whose dogs alerted to cadaver scent and blood in the apartment, car and on McCann clothing also had pressure put on him to over emphasize the need for forensic corroboration in both his statements and rogatory. Never in his career, on any case, had he been asked to do so."
The source for this is a comment under
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/
I believe that this is not simply hypothesising, but a statement of direct knowledge. It helps to confirm the statement by Sr Amaral that that the UK government's secret service did indeed "have a quiet chat with"  one of the UK operatives as he returned to the UK.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 20, 2016, 10:45:00 PM
The author of this article had originally intended to publish this information in 2014, but didn't.

One of the reasons (IMO the main reason) why he now does publish it, on 20 April 2016, is because of the  court decision in Lisbon which cancels the banning of Mr Amaral's book.

Is it possible that a lot more information will now be published, by people with direct knowledge of the case, who were scared to publish before because of the aggressive legal machine of these tourists?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on April 20, 2016, 10:49:43 PM
The author of this article had originally intended to publish this information in 2014, but didn't.

One of the reasons (IMO the main reason) why he now does publish it, on 20 April 2016, is because of the  court decision in Lisbon which cancels the banning of Mr Amaral's book.

Is it possible that a lot more information will now be published, by people with direct knowledge of the case, who were scared to publish before because of the aggressive legal machine of these tourists?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/

Well, that can't be bad.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 20, 2016, 11:08:47 PM
The author of this article had originally intended to publish this information in 2014, but didn't.

One of the reasons (IMO the main reason) why he now does publish it, on 20 April 2016, is because of the  court decision in Lisbon which cancels the banning of Mr Amaral's book.

Is it possible that a lot more information will now be published, by people with direct knowledge of the case, who were scared to publish before because of the aggressive legal machine of these tourists?

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/

What "direct" source did Murray have or is it just hearsay?
Leaked to a Belgium newspaper = Duarte Levy. Enough said.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 20, 2016, 11:09:21 PM
Oh my oh my...another layer unravelled
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 20, 2016, 11:13:44 PM
The source for this is a comment under
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/
I believe that this is not simply hypothesising, but a statement of direct knowledge. It helps to confirm the statement by Sr Amaral that that the UK government's secret service did indeed "have a quiet chat with"  one of the UK operatives as he returned to the UK.

What knowledge do you have of Denise Thomson which leads you to believe she is making a statement of "direct knowledge"?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 20, 2016, 11:19:20 PM
Well, that can't be bad.
Agreed, I imagine that many in the FCO thought it was extremely odd, that the UK government not only instructed the PJ that a UK gov person was to be present at all the update meetings, but also had the cheek to pressurise the PJ to hold those update meetings with the tourists, not at the PJ Police Station, but in the UK consulate, or even in a residential house south of Portimao. Most odd.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 20, 2016, 11:26:36 PM
Agreed, I imagine that many in the FCO thought it was extremely odd, that the UK government not only instructed the PJ that a UK gov person was to be present at all the update meetings, but also had the cheek to pressurise the PJ to hold those update meetings with the tourists, not at the PJ Police Station, but in the UK consulate, or even in a residential house south of Portimao. Most odd.

There are some very dangerous stairs in Portuguese police stations. Best to be accompanied by someone familiar with the health & safety laws.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 20, 2016, 11:28:24 PM
What "direct" source did Murray have or is it just hearsay?
Leaked to a Belgium newspaper = Duarte Levy. Enough said.
Note which organisation he was a high-up employee of.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 20, 2016, 11:29:53 PM
Note which organisation he was a high-up employee of.

Got the sack, didn't he?

ETA Suggest you check where he was working in 2007, Pegasus.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 20, 2016, 11:35:20 PM
There are some very dangerous stairs in Portuguese police stations. Best to be accompanied by someone familiar with the health & safety laws.
No Misty, that was not the reason why the UK government pressurised the PJ to hold the regular update meetings with these tourists in (most unusually) UK consulate buildings.

This unique treatment became so established that the two tourists were shocked when eventually they were told that an update meeting with the PJ would be held at a PJ building. (source: book by KM)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 20, 2016, 11:41:42 PM
No Misty, that was not the reason why the UK government pressurised the PJ to hold the regular update meetings with these tourists in (most unusually) UK consulate buildings.

This unique treatment became so established that the two tourists were shocked when eventually they were told that an update meeting with the PJ would be held at a PJ building. (source: book by KM)

With due respect Pegasus - I suggest you look at Mr Murray's Wiki page before you believe some rubbish claims posted on an internet blog.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 20, 2016, 11:45:06 PM
With due respect Pegasus - I suggest you look at Mr Murray's Wiki page before you believe some rubbish claims posted on an internet blog.

Why dont mccann supporters ever investigate the facts rather than jump to discredit the source
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 20, 2016, 11:50:11 PM
Why dont mccann supporters ever investigate the facts rather than jump to discredit the source

What facts? There are no facts. Murray had to leave the FCO 2 years prior to the McCann case. You can read the sordid details on his Wiki page.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 20, 2016, 11:50:41 PM
I note that he has been awarded the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence Misty
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 20, 2016, 11:56:02 PM
With due respect Pegasus - I suggest you look at Mr Murray's Wiki page before you believe some rubbish claims posted on an internet blog.
Murray's claim, that the UK Govt insisted to the PJ on a UK Govt presence at meetings between the PJ and these tourists, is fully confirmed in the book by honest witness KM. It most certainly is not a rubbish claim Misty. It is true.

I added the extra information which Murray doesn't mention, that these PJ meetings were held, remarkably, not at a PJ building, but at a UK consular building in/near Portimao. Again this is confirmed in the book by KM.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 21, 2016, 12:00:48 AM
I note that he has been awarded the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence Misty


He's on the same pedestal as Julian Assange, then.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 12:09:55 AM

He's on the same pedestal as Julian Assange, then.
Sentence 3 indicates he was pressurised to not publish this information in 2014. I wonder if any of those "decent people" happened by chance to be in the legal profession?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2016, 12:12:51 AM
Why dont mccann supporters ever investigate the facts rather than jump to discredit the source

You may stop to consider that Misty did indeed "investigate the facts" a talent in which she excels.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 21, 2016, 12:15:04 AM
Sentence 3 indicates he was pressurised to not publish this information in 2014. I wonder if any of those "decent people" happened by chance to be in the legal profession?

Why do you suppose he waited all those years until 2014 to consider publishing the information?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 21, 2016, 12:20:30 AM
What facts? There are no facts. Murray had to leave the FCO 2 years prior to the McCann case. You can read the sordid details on his Wiki page.

Excuse me if i dint count your words as all correct and written in stone, my POINT was it is a true fact that mccann supporters rubbish anyone disturbing the narrative, researched or not
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 21, 2016, 12:21:07 AM
You may stop to consider that Misty did indeed "investigate the facts" a talent in which she excels.

If i ever need your advice i shall ask for it, ta
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 21, 2016, 12:25:18 AM
Excuse me if i dint count your words as all correct and written in stone, my POINT was it is a true fact that mccann supporters rubbish anyone disturbing the narrative, researched or not

You should always check the information & the source, Mercury. Rather like checking out the man who had a photo of the house he claimed MM had been to in Bavaria - but that's another story.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 12:28:26 AM
Why do you suppose he waited all those years until 2014 to consider publishing the information?
I haven't researched that detail Misty.
Much of what he says is confirmed in the book by honest witness KM.

Her book is a valuable and honest source which includes:
Phone communication between MB and GM.
Phone communication between TB and GM.
Phone communication between GB and GM, for example the two international calls on 23 May 2007.
Phone communication between DM and GM.
The fulltime allocation of an FCO employee (for example FCO were present on the Fatima trip).
Presence of FCO at the meetings with PJ.
Location at UK Govt buildings of meetings with PJ.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 21, 2016, 12:31:07 AM
You should always check the information & the source, Mercury. Rather like checking out the man who had a photo of the house he claimed MM had been to in Bavaria - but that's another story.

The info is always more inportant especially if it has not been proven to be incorrect

And the fact that a source may have once been wrong is not a sentence for life
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 21, 2016, 12:35:30 AM
I haven't researched that detail Misty.
Much of what he says is confirmed in the book by honest witness KM.

Her book is a valuable and honest source which includes:
Phone communication between MB and GM.
Phone communication between TB and GM.
Phone communication between GB and GM, for example the two international calls on 23 May 2007.
Phone communication between DM and GM.
The fulltime allocation of an FCO employee (for example FCO were present on the Fatima trip).
Presence of FCO at the meetings with PJ.
Location at UK Govt buildings of meetings with PJ.

I'm not disputing the FCO special attention, Pegasus. IMO it was warranted because of the impending Cipriano case.
What I am disputing is that Murray was privy to confidential information from a source inside the FCO in the UK 2 years after his sacking.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 21, 2016, 12:37:46 AM
I note that he has been awarded the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence Misty

And it backs up Amaral's book.


Someone puts forward the hypothesis according to which Madeleine would have died in her apartment, and that a member of the group would have removed her. It's a possibility, but nothing so far, no evidence, happens to support that theory.

The McCanns are put up with David Payne. We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try to pick up Madeleine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35pm when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins. Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.

- I'm sure this check is necessary.

- The clothes? Are you mad? if I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take clothes to have them analysed?

- Yes. What's the problem? It's a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this.

- Of course, but with this media hype...I don't think I have ever in my life seen so many journalists....And I didn't come down in the last shower.

THE PJ'S DIFFICULTIES IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE MEDIA; THE PRO McCANN PRESS OFFICE.

From the start of the investigation, we ask for the presence of a press attaché to accompany us and take on communicating with the media. The Justice Minister fulfills this request. Very quickly, however, this decision is contested. The reaction of the press itself is feared and public opinion, which might interpret that presence with direct intervention in the investigation by the minister....Finally, the person retained is an investigator, who is not working on the case, speaks English and has some experience in this field. With hindsight, it can be said that it wasn't a good decision. In fact, after the reading of our first press release and the parents' press conferences, the press let fly.

We were convinced that the people directly involved in the investigation should remain distanced from the media whirlwind. We needed help: the police judiciaire would have to engage staff to dissect published articles, focusing on the analysis of press statements from the parents and their friends.But that didn't happen. The media circus was in full swing: all the time, new articles, live TV, a growing number of journalists running around the streets of Vila da Luz.

It didn't seem normal to us either that a couple whose child has just disappeared engages press attachés to deal with their relations with the media. It is not a question here of minimising the role of the means of communication and ignoring that a subject like this stirs up a lot of curiosity, but that constant preoccupation with the management of their communication by the parents, appeared to us, to say the least, astonishing.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2016, 12:45:30 AM
I haven't researched that detail Misty.
Much of what he says is confirmed in the book by honest witness KM.

Her book is a valuable and honest source which includes:
Phone communication between MB and GM.
Phone communication between TB and GM.
Phone communication between GB and GM, for example the two international calls on 23 May 2007.
Phone communication between DM and GM.
The fulltime allocation of an FCO employee (for example FCO were present on the Fatima trip).
Presence of FCO at the meetings with PJ.
Location at UK Govt buildings of meetings with PJ.

I took a leaf out of Misty's book, Pegasus, and did a little searching of my own.
Denise Thomson (the commentator referred to earlier) who seemed to be well informed regarding Martin Grime is a prolific twitterati ... I suggest you check her tweets before making an assessment on her expertise.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 21, 2016, 12:52:56 AM
I took a leaf out of Misty's book, Pegasus, and did a little searching of my own.
Denise Thomson (the commentator referred to earlier) who seemed to be well informed regarding Martin Grime is a prolific twitterati ... I suggest you check her tweets before making an assessment on her expertise.

Another source.

"When the PJ files were first published and issued to some Journalists in 2008, Grimes was interviewed, "off the record" by a small number of journo's including a good friend and colleague of mine who was , at the time, a sub-editor of a National Sunday newspaper.

Grimes made it very clear that he was unhappy with what he referred to as his "treatment" by authorities unknown, (although he did say they were British), who had coerced him, he says, to "play down" the significance of the dogs' findings. Grimes let it be known that Eddies and Keelas 'scentings' were irrefutable, in his mind, having worked with the dogs successfully on very many cases for the many of the Constabularies in the UK on high profile cases.

Grimes stated that he was "instructed" to ensure that in his subsequently produced report, he was to emphasise that the dog's findings were inadmissable as evidence, (which is of course, true, but he had NEVER been instructed on any other case to point this out), and that they were effectively inconsequential without further corroborative evidence."

http://jerseyabusescandal.blogspot.com/2011/08/jersey-martin-grime-was-told-to-play.html
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 12:55:33 AM
I took a leaf out of Misty's book, Pegasus, and did a little searching of my own.
Denise Thomson (the commentator referred to earlier) who seemed to be well informed regarding Martin Grime is a prolific twitterati ... I suggest you check her tweets before making an assessment on her expertise.
Fair enough, but I notice you are not disputing what Murray says.
The links with blair and brown, and the extraordinary actions of the FCO, they are in KM's book.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 21, 2016, 01:00:59 AM
Fair enough, but I notice you are not disputing what Murray says.
The links with blair and brown, and the extraordinary actions of the FCO, they are in KM's book.

What do you find extraordinary about the actions of the FCO ensuring the safety of the parents of a child who may have been the victim of kidnapping?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 01:11:22 AM
Another source.

"When the PJ files were first published and issued to some Journalists in 2008, Grimes was interviewed, "off the record" by a small number of journo's including a good friend and colleague of mine who was , at the time, a sub-editor of a National Sunday newspaper.

Grimes made it very clear that he was unhappy with what he referred to as his "treatment" by authorities unknown, (although he did say they were British), who had coerced him, he says, to "play down" the significance of the dogs' findings. Grimes let it be known that Eddies and Keelas 'scentings' were irrefutable, in his mind, having worked with the dogs successfully on very many cases for the many of the Constabularies in the UK on high profile cases.

Grimes stated that he was "instructed" to ensure that in his subsequently produced report, he was to emphasise that the dog's findings were inadmissable as evidence, (which is of course, true, but he had NEVER been instructed on any other case to point this out), and that they were effectively inconsequential without further corroborative evidence."

http://jerseyabusescandal.blogspot.com/2011/08/jersey-martin-grime-was-told-to-play.html
When and where did this "instruction" originate? The answer is provided by none other than Mr Amaral himself

' In his latest interview he claims that after two British police dogs were used to searched the McCann’s apartment at the Ocean Club, his team had to take the British person responsible for the operation to Faro Airport. Amaral, now retired and working as a crime writer, went on: "He’s at the airport waiting for a plane to return to England and he receives a phone call. Then he explains to our colleague that a member of MI5 was at the airport, waiting to talk with him about the result of the investigation.'
http://bit.ly/242dr2s

So the answer is, someone from the UK Govt met the person responsible for the UK dogs operation (IMO not MG) off the plane when it arrived at the UK airport on x Sept 2007

What is very interesting is that Mr Amaral is now in a position where if he does take the legal action he says he will, he can force this information, and many  more things, out into the open.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 01:22:02 AM
What do you find extraordinary about the actions of the FCO ensuring the safety of the parents of a child who may have been the victim of kidnapping?
Pressurising PJ to hold meetings at a UK consular building instead of at a PJ building.
Multiple phone communications between two Foreign Secretaries and GM.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 21, 2016, 01:23:27 AM
They said it's a case of national security. This is an absolute disgrace. Protecting who? The McCanns. Why are they being protected? Heads should roll SY the truth must prevail.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2016, 01:27:46 AM
Fair enough, but I notice you are not disputing what Murray says.
The links with blair and brown, and the extraordinary actions of the FCO, they are in KM's book.

I do not find the alleged links at all extraordinary ... particularly so now that I have seen the Portuguese justice system in operation.

As for much of what Mr Murray says, I reserve judgement except to say one can indeed be judged by the company one keeps.

Having linked to a couple of blogs from his blog I make the same assessment of him as I do of Denise Murray having seen her twitter posts and those she tweets to and about.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 01:38:14 AM
(snip) As for much of what Mr Murray says, I reserve judgement except to say one can indeed be judged by the company one keeps. (snip)
But much of what Murray states is also stated by KM Brietta.
Have you read her book?
I can post the page numbers in her book which mention Brown and FCO actions, if you want?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 21, 2016, 01:41:29 AM
British diplomat warned Foreign Office of concerns over McCanns
Last updated at 10:18 03 December 2007

The Foreign Office was alerted to fears over Gerry and Kate McCann by a British diplomat in Portugal just days after their daughter Madeleine went missing.
The diplomat was sent to the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in the days following the four-year-old's disappearance and soon became concerned over "inconsistencies" in the testimonies by her parents and their friends.
After visiting the McCanns, the unnamed diplomat sent a report to the Foreign Office in London, admitting his worries about "confused declarations" of the McCanns' movements on the night of May 3.

He also noted the couple's "lack of co-operation" with the Portuguese police.
The diplomat's concerns were made over four months before Gerry and Kate were named arguidos (suspects) on September 7.
Contents of the letter were leaked to Belgian newspaper La Dernière Heure over the weekend.
The diplomat expressed his fears after receiving instruction from the Foreign Office to provide "all possible assistance to the McCann couple".
The French-language paper printed excerpts of the letter, quoting the diplomat as saying: "With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple.
"Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous ­message."
Although the Government was quick to assist the McCanns in the days following Madeleine's disappearance, direct contact with the couple ceased when they were named as suspects.
La Dernière Heure pointed out that a majority of the diplomats originally involved in the case have now been taken off it.

The then-Prime Minister Tony Blair sent special envoy Sheree Dodd to act as a "media liaison officer" for the pair soon after Madeleine vanished.
Ms Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, while the British consul in the Algarve, Bill Henderson, has retired.
John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, no longer works in the country.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499340/British-diplomat-warned-Foreign-Office-concerns-McCanns.html#ixzz46PuRkgXr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 21, 2016, 01:52:36 AM


La Derniere Heure - wasn't that the same newspaper who got hold of the Gaspar's original statements?


You really don't see the Levy connection, do you Pathfinder?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2016, 02:00:45 AM
But much of what Murray states is also stated by KM Brietta.
Have you read her book?
I can post the page numbers in her book which mention Brown and FCO actions, if you want?

There is absolutely no dispute about FO involvement in Madeleine's case.  I just do not find it extraordinary, Pegasus, in fact I would have found it decidedly odd of there hadn't been.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 02:10:53 AM
There is absolutely no dispute about FO involvement in Madeleine's case.  I just do not find it extraordinary, Pegasus, in fact I would have found it decidedly odd of there hadn't been.
It is the amount of involvement that is absolutely unique Brietta, the number of phonecalls between GM and top UK Govt people is staggering, and unprecedented in any other case.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2016, 02:18:57 AM
It is the amount of involvement that is absolutely unique Brietta, the number of phonecalls between GM and top UK Govt people is staggering, and unprecedented in any other case.

Madeleine's case was unprecedented ... not even Ben's came close to what we now know had been happening in Portugal ... but bet your bottom dollar the Brit diplomats did.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 02:25:30 AM
Madeleine's case was unprecedented ... not even Ben's came close to what we now know had been happening in Portugal ... but bet your bottom dollar the Brit diplomats did.
It's a bit odd if top people spent as long on the phone to GM as they did to world leaders.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2016, 03:11:15 AM
It's a bit odd if top people spent as long on the phone to GM as they did to world leaders.

I neither know nor do I care ... it is water under the bridge.

I do not subscribe to the huge government conspiracy seen by Mr Amaral and others.  I have my own opinion why there was British government input into Madeleine McCann's case.  They had feet on the ground and knew the situation in Portugal. If I may say so on this wonderful off topic thread ... we have had a perfect example of the vagaries of Portuguese justice only this week.

It is a bit of a topsy turvy situation where one person's right to expression supersedes another's right not to be libelled.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Benice on April 21, 2016, 10:14:58 AM
The source for this is a comment under
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/
I believe that this is not simply hypothesising, but a statement of direct knowledge. It helps to confirm the statement by Sr Amaral that that the UK government's secret service did indeed "have a quiet chat with"  one of the UK operatives as he returned to the UK.

IMO if our Secret Service had had a quiet chat with anyone at all  - we would not know a single thing about it.  The clue being in the word 'secret'.




Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 21, 2016, 11:16:56 AM
IMO if our Secret Service had had a quiet chat with anyone at all  - we would not know a single thing about it.  The clue being in the word 'secret'.

That doesn't make any sense. They are normal people like us not invisible. Get real.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on April 21, 2016, 11:21:50 AM
And, of course, Special Branch were involved in chauffeuring services when the McCanns fled Portugal.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Benice on April 21, 2016, 11:30:24 AM
That doesn't make any sense. They are normal people like us not invisible. Get real.

The whole point of a Secret Service is that their actions are carried out in secret and are not privy to the general public.  Not much point in having one otherwise.

imo.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 12:01:37 PM
I neither know nor do I care ... it is water under the bridge.

I do not subscribe to the huge government conspiracy seen by Mr Amaral and others.  I have my own opinion why there was British government input into Madeleine McCann's case.  They had feet on the ground and knew the situation in Portugal. If I may say so on this wonderful off topic thread ... we have had a perfect example of the vagaries of Portuguese justice only this week.

It is a bit of a topsy turvy situation where one person's right to expression supersedes another's right not to be libelled.
One phonecall between a Foreign Secretary and GM exceeded an hour in length.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 12:05:11 PM
The whole point of a Secret Service is that their actions are carried out in secret and are not privy to the general public.  Not much point in having one otherwise.

imo.
How do you know that there is a secret service?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 12:07:37 PM
And, of course, Special Branch were involved in chauffeuring services when the McCanns fled Portugal.
Who provided chauffeuring within Portugal in the early days?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on April 21, 2016, 12:13:32 PM
Who provided chauffeuring within Portugal in the early days?


Surely not Embassy or FCO staff ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Benice on April 21, 2016, 12:14:16 PM
How do you know that there is a secret service?

Errm  - my reference to a 'secret service' was in response to your own post making that very claim.  You said:-

 Quote
It helps to confirm the statement by Sr Amaral that that the UK government's secret service did indeed "have a quiet chat with"  one of the UK operatives as he returned to the UK.
unquote.





Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 21, 2016, 12:27:09 PM
Errm  - my reference to a 'secret service' was in response to your own post making that very claim.  You said:-

 Quote
It helps to confirm the statement by Sr Amaral that that the UK government's secret service did indeed "have a quiet chat with"  one of the UK operatives as he returned to the UK.
unquote.

Presumably he meant S.I.S [Secret Intelligence Service aka MI6] the UK not having a secret service and all. The Americans have a Secret Service, it's job is to guard the President.
Now you know that I'll have to kill you  8(>((
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 12:30:47 PM
Did the UK experts write the dog result documents before or after flying back to UK from Faro?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on April 21, 2016, 12:30:52 PM
IMO if our Secret Service had had a quiet chat with anyone at all  - we would not know a single thing about it.  The clue being in the word 'secret'.

Why would there have been any need for the secret service to be involved ????
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 21, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
Did the UK experts write the dog result documents before or after flying back to UK from Faro?

The written report from Grime is merely dated Aug. 2007. Omitted for a specific reason?
 Link to file page not currently accessible.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on April 21, 2016, 12:36:09 PM
Why would there have been any need for the secret service to be involved ????

There have been some suggestions that the Intelligence Services were not there for the direct benefit of the McCanns, but to conceal the presence of some Establishment figure - all un-substantiated, of course, otherwise it wouldn't be secret    @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 12:36:41 PM
I am assuming that Mr Amaral is telling the truth, that he did accompany a UK expert to the airport, and that  someone would be waiting to have a chat with expert at disembarkation in the UK.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on April 21, 2016, 12:45:09 PM
There have been some suggestions that the Intelligence Services were not there for the direct benefit of the McCanns, but to conceal the presence of some Establishment figure - all un-substantiated, of course, otherwise it wouldn't be secret    @)(++(*

Then why would an establishment figure need to be there either ?

After all the mccanns were 2 ordinary run of the mill doctors.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 21, 2016, 12:48:21 PM
@Pegasus
IMO MG report must have been written in Portugal. I do not recall seeing it being forwarded as an attachment from LP or any other source in the UK.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
"when your flight from Faro lands in the UK, go to the sushi bar and sit next to the oriental priest, he will be wearing a bowler hat and a red rose in his lapel, and will be reading the Times, ask him what the weather is like in Paris in the spring, he will then provide you with your instructions"
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 21, 2016, 01:16:05 PM
Presumably he meant S.I.S [Secret Intelligence Service aka MI6] the UK not having a secret service and all. The Americans have a Secret Service, it's job is to guard the President.
Now you know that I'll have to kill you  8(>((

Our 'secret service' is so secret there are people who think it is MI5.  Masters of disguise if not invisibility.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 01:33:30 PM
Our 'secret service' is so secret there are people who think it is MI5.  Masters of disguise if not invisibility.
The secret service even if they exist cannot compete with the mastery of disguise and invisibility attained by the private investigators. Here is one of them in PDL, cunningly blending unnoticed into the background, travelling incognito as a priest to avoid suspicion. I'm not joking - that really is one of the PIs.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 21, 2016, 02:11:32 PM
"when your flight from Faro lands in the UK, go to the sushi bar and sit next to the oriental priest, he will be wearing a bowler hat and a red rose in his lapel, and will be reading the Times, ask him what the weather is like in Paris in the spring, he will then provide you with your instructions"

Is that an extract from the Satanic Verses or James Bond?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 02:44:27 PM
Is that an extract from the Satanic Verses or James Bond?
It's my guess of the content of that voice call the UK expert received at Faro Airport Misty.
Partly inspired by an associate of MI5/MI6 who was part of the campaign to discredit Mr Amaral.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 21, 2016, 02:46:39 PM
I am assuming that Mr Amaral is telling the truth, that he did accompany a UK expert to the airport, and that  someone would be waiting to have a chat with expert at disembarkation in the UK.

Did he personally accompany someone to the airport? Or is this yet another hearsay assertion on his part?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 21, 2016, 02:50:12 PM
Did he personally accompany someone to the airport? Or is this yet another hearsay assertion on his part?
I will read the interview and check.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 21, 2016, 02:51:13 PM
I see Ched Evans has had his conviction quashed and because of new evidence can have a retrial.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on April 21, 2016, 03:21:49 PM
I see Ched Evans has had his conviction quashed and because of new evidence can have a retrial.

remember me telling you appeals could be made if new evidence came to light and you disagreeing
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 21, 2016, 03:31:46 PM
I will read the interview and check.

At the time, did Amaral understand spoken English, or not?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 21, 2016, 03:41:42 PM
remember me telling you appeals could be made if new evidence came to light and you disagreeing

I think you will find that was in a different context.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on April 21, 2016, 03:44:26 PM
I think you will find that was in a different context.
I think you will find it wasn't...it was in general...but I'm not one dwell
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 21, 2016, 04:05:58 PM
I think you will find it wasn't...it was in general...but I'm not one dwell

I expect I posted:
The appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was either:

    Wrong (in that it erred in law or in fact or in the exercise of its discretion).

    Unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.

They are the only grounds. Fresh evidence may be heard if the court of appeal allow it:
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

    it appears capable of belief;
    it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
    it would have been admissible;
    it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
    there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
 But the fresh evidence is not grounds for appeal.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on April 21, 2016, 04:14:10 PM
I expect I posted:
The appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was either:

    Wrong (in that it erred in law or in fact or in the exercise of its discretion).

    Unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court.

They are the only grounds. Fresh evidence may be heard if the court of appeal allow it:
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

    it appears capable of belief;
    it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
    it would have been admissible;
    it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
    there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
 But the fresh evidence is not grounds for appeal.

but  fresh evidence is grounds for appeal as Cheddars has shown
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 21, 2016, 05:27:53 PM
I see Ched Evans has had his conviction quashed and because of new evidence can have a retrial.

I couldn't remember who this chap is, and went off to Google: An English criminal conviction being retried.

Somewhat different from a PT civil trial in which a former initial senior officer, with next to no knowledge of missing children investigations, cited some facts from the files (while not citing others) and then presented his analyis in an authoritative way that many may accept as "fact". 

What he can be credited with as having got right is still one of the shortest threads on this forum.

The PT civil system, IMO, seems far more attuned to the more concrete cases of "your kid threw a football through my window, and this is what it cost me to replace the window in question".
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 22, 2016, 12:30:27 AM
At the time, did Amaral understand spoken English, or not?
+++
In his latest interview he claims that after two British police dogs were used to search the McCann’s apartment at the Ocean Club, his team had to take the British person responsible for the operation to Faro Airport.
Amaral, now retired and working as a crime writer, went on: “He’s at the airport waiting for a plane to return to England and he receives a phone call. Then he explains to our colleague that a member of MI5 was at the airport, waiting to talk with him about the result of the investigation.
+++
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/485524/Portuguese-detective-says-MI5-spies-know-what-happened-to-Madeleine-McCann

Therefore the PJ officer who accompanies the unnamed UK expert to Faro airport is not Mr Amaral, it is one of Mr Amaral's colleagues. As Carana has deduced, it is a PJ officer who is able to converse in English with the UK expert. It is probably Freitas (excellent english-speaker) or Paiva (good english-speaker). Does anyone have a link to the actual Amaral interview in portuguese please?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 22, 2016, 01:29:28 AM
+++
In his latest interview he claims that after two British police dogs were used to search the McCann’s apartment at the Ocean Club, his team had to take the British person responsible for the operation to Faro Airport.
Amaral, now retired and working as a crime writer, went on: “He’s at the airport waiting for a plane to return to England and he receives a phone call. Then he explains to our colleague that a member of MI5 was at the airport, waiting to talk with him about the result of the investigation.
+++
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/485524/Portuguese-detective-says-MI5-spies-know-what-happened-to-Madeleine-McCann

Therefore the PJ officer who accompanies the unnamed UK expert to Faro airport is not Mr Amaral, it is one of Mr Amaral's colleagues. As Carana has deduced, it is a PJ officer who is able to converse in English with the UK expert. It is probably Freitas (excellent english-speaker) or Paiva (good english-speaker). Does anyone have a link to the actual Amaral interview in portuguese please?

Try this one.
http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-teoria-de-rapto-de-maddie-nao-passa-de-uma-farsa.html
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 22, 2016, 02:13:38 AM
Try this one.
http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-teoria-de-rapto-de-maddie-nao-passa-de-uma-farsa.html
Thankyou Misty yes that is the interview.
The account of PJ accompanying a UK expert to Faro airport, and that expert being met in the UK by MI5, is at 14m45. Does anyone know where there is a portuguese transcript of 14m45 onwards?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 22, 2016, 03:19:19 AM
"Local Portuguese Woman [with excavation site as backdrop] - That has no logic. What thief breaks into a house, takes the child away, murders her, carries the child on his arms in everyone's sight on the street and then comes here to bury her in an place that is only ground rock? Only a fool would do that! That's all I have to say about that. [laughs at the idea]"
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/goncalo-amaral-there-was-no-breaking-in.html

This lady in the street is talking common-sense, however note that
Part 1 of SY theory ("thief breaks into a house") which if a window is unlocked does not require force, is good.
Excellent theory so far, because that is exactly what burglars do, and it's confirmed by the open shutter and window.

Part 2 of SY theory ("takes the child away") is rubbish.
No burglar would do that, as that lady on the street can easily tell SY.
The answer is to retain part 1, but replace part 2, with the SIO actually imagining they are a burglar, they think everyone is out, open a shutter and window, but then inside they see children.

The obvious result will be that the SIO turned burglar will immediately flee empty-handed (confirmed by the fact that no material items were stolen), and any awakened mobile child will simultaneously flee in the opposite direction, out of that room into another room (confirmed by the fact the child is missing from the first room).

That doesn't completely solve the disappearance, but it is the first step IMO.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2016, 12:52:30 PM
"Local Portuguese Woman [with excavation site as backdrop] - That has no logic. What thief breaks into a house, takes the child away, murders her, carries the child on his arms in everyone's sight on the street and then comes here to bury her in an place that is only ground rock? Only a fool would do that! That's all I have to say about that. [laughs at the idea]"
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/goncalo-amaral-there-was-no-breaking-in.html

This lady in the street is talking common-sense, however note that
Part 1 of SY theory ("thief breaks into a house") which if a window is unlocked does not require force, is good.
Excellent theory so far, because that is exactly what burglars do, and it's confirmed by the open shutter and window.

Part 2 of SY theory ("takes the child away") is rubbish.
No burglar would do that, as that lady on the street can easily tell SY.
The answer is to retain part 1, but replace part 2, with the SIO actually imagining they are a burglar, they think everyone is out, open a shutter and window, but then inside they see children.

The obvious result will be that the SIO turned burglar will immediately flee empty-handed (confirmed by the fact that no material items were stolen), and any awakened mobile child will simultaneously flee in the opposite direction, out of that room into another room (confirmed by the fact the child is missing from the first room).

That doesn't completely solve the disappearance, but it is the first step IMO.

It is horses for courses, Pegasus, what normal law abiding citizen who would never dream of illicitly entering someone's home know about what a criminal burglar might or might not do?
Burglars are not nice people they are criminals capable of heinous actions.

Who could contemplate a fourteen year old girl and a fourteen year old boy entering a home with the murderous intention of killing a mother and daughter ... but it happened.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/18/two-14-year-olds-lincoln-court-mother-elizabeth-edwards-daughter-katie-found-dead

Who would have believed two children were capable of kidnapping and murdering James Bulger ... and how long would the police have searched for adults if Thomson and Venables hadn't been caught on CCTV taking him from the shopping centre?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2006/12/04/local_history_bulger_feature.shtml

I don't think your theory works ...
(a)  there is no supporting evidence
(b)  there is no explanation of what subsequently happened to Madeleine

Mr Amaral also struggles to expand his accidental death theory by his failure to suggest subsequent events.

Evidence of absence should have been enough to ensure all theories were checked to conclusion ... deciding on one (according to his unbanned book translations of which his supporters should be giving serious thought to removing from the internet as he is in a bit of a litigious mood) on the 4th of May and sticking to it really isn't good investigative practice.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 22, 2016, 01:43:32 PM
It is horses for courses, Pegasus, what normal law abiding citizen who would never dream of illicitly entering someone's home know about what a criminal burglar might or might not do? (snip)
Brietta do you not agree that a good detectives must be able to think like the perp?.
If NW and MD put themselves in the shoes of a burglar, complete with striped t-shirt and swag bag, who thinks everyone is out, but then on opening a window, is shocked to find people are in, what would they do?
And do you agree good detectives must be able to transform themselves into the innocent victim? In this case that means travelling back in time a few decades- what would the 3-yr old MD or NW have done if awoken at night by a stranger outside opening the window of their bedroom while their parents were out?

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 22, 2016, 02:04:25 PM
(snip)  (a)  there is no supporting evidence (snip)
I admit Brietta my hypothesis has absolutely no evidence supporting it except for the open shutter, the open window, the open bedroom door, and the absence of the child from her bedroom.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2016, 02:31:55 PM
Brietta do you not agree that a good detectives must be able to think like the perp?.
If NW and MD put themselves in the shoes of a burglar, complete with striped t-shirt and swag bag, who thinks everyone is out, but then on opening a window, is shocked to find people are in, what would they do?
And do you agree good detectives must be able to transform themselves into the innocent victim? In this case that means travelling back in time a few decades- what would the 3-yr old MD or NW have done if awoken at night by a stranger outside opening the window of their bedroom while their parents were out?

I think there may be a very fine line in some instances ... witness the arrests of former and presently employed detectives in Portugal.
If found guilty of the heinous charges made against them, they will have the book thrown at them, depending on which book ~ they could do a long stretch which on appeal is reduced to a couple of hours community service.

In my opinion the views expressed by many of the detectives working on Madeleine's case were indeed regressive ... so actually acting out the behaviour of a four year old should have presented no difficulty.

I think it is clear from his book ~ various interviews ~ statements from Ricardo Piava ... that Mr Amaral formed a firm view of events from which he never deviated.
He was totally inflexible and remains so nearly nine years down the line ... confirmed by his intention to publish a book containing so many mistakes and basic misunderstandings that to be relevant would require to be rewritten ... perhaps he has done that, I don't know.
But in the light of present day knowledge if he hasn't ~ he runs the risk of being ridiculed when it is scrutinised in the English speaking world and comparisons are made between his assertions and actual events.

One of the first things he needs to address is explaining exactly the mechanics of how and where Madeleine's parents hid her remains to complete his thesis.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 22, 2016, 09:49:58 PM
(snip) In my opinion the views expressed by many of the detectives working on Madeleine's case were indeed regressive ... so actually acting out the behaviour of a four year old should have presented no difficulty.(snip)
I was suggesting that the Met SIO whoever it is now should travel back in time to when they were an almost 4 yr old boy or girl and ask themselves which direction they would run if a stranger outside opened their bedroom shutter and window. Thinking like a child is a positive and, to solve this case, essential skill.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 22, 2016, 09:58:46 PM
(snip) I think it is clear from his book ~ various interviews ~ statements from Ricardo Piava ... that Mr Amaral formed a firm view of events from which he never deviated. (snip)
I disagree with some of Mr Amaral's deductions, for example his claim that KM opened the window
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 22, 2016, 10:38:47 PM
I was suggesting that the Met SIO whoever it is now should travel back in time to when they were an almost 4 yr old boy or girl and ask themselves which direction they would run if a stranger outside opened their bedroom shutter and window. Thinking like a child is a positive and, to solve this case, essential skill.

A four year old cannot conceal her own cadaver from all available resources for 9 years.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 22, 2016, 10:55:36 PM
I was suggesting that the Met SIO whoever it is now should travel back in time to when they were an almost 4 yr old boy or girl and ask themselves which direction they would run if a stranger outside opened their bedroom shutter and window. Thinking like a child is a positive and, to solve this case, essential skill.

Four year olds are not a homogeneous bunch, Pegasus.  They would not all act in the same or even in a predictable pattern.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 22, 2016, 11:06:01 PM
A four year old cannot conceal her own cadaver from all available resources for 9 years.
If a group of detectives makes a hypothesis that perhaps the shutter and window were opened from outside by someone intending to burgle a property where apparently everyone is out (clearly one of SY's hypotheses IMO), but then the detectives don't put themselves in the position of the child when that happens and work out exactly what the child would do, it would prove that millions of pounds can't buy common sense. More advanced and complex considerations like you mention Misty are important but should IMO not even be considered until long after the likely results of the noisy shutter opening are predicted.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 22, 2016, 11:16:56 PM
If a group of detectives makes a hypothesis that perhaps the shutter and window were opened from outside by someone intending to burgle a property where apparently everyone is out (clearly one of SY's hypotheses IMO), but then the detectives don't put themselves in the position of the child when that happens and work out exactly what the child would do, it would prove that millions of pounds can't buy common sense. More advanced and complex considerations like you mention Misty are important but should IMO not even be considered until long after the likely results of the noisy shutter opening are predicted.

OK. Let's assume that the child progressed to beyond the side gate, without leaving any apparent evidence in doing so.
What was the child seeking? ...... Help.
Who was she seeking it from?.......Mum/Dad/friends/sone other grown-up.
Where would she go to find that help and how far would she have had to venture before she found someone?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 22, 2016, 11:25:12 PM
OK. Let's assume that the child progressed to beyond the side gate, without leaving any apparent evidence in doing so.
What was the child seeking? ...... Help.
Who was she seeking it from?.......Mum/Dad/friends/sone other grown-up.
Where would she go to find that help and how far would she have had to venture before she found someone?
To work that out we would need to know
1. Did the parents tell the child they would be going out about an hour and threequarters after bedtime?
2. If so, did they tell her which restuarant?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 22, 2016, 11:32:42 PM
To work that out we would need to know
1. Did the parents tell the child they would be going out about an hour and threequarters after bedtime?
2. If so, did they tell her which restuarant?

I'll have to answer that with another question. Did the child really cry for 75 mins without getting out of bed to see where her parents were or was the question "Mummy, why didn't you come...." asked out of unawareness?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 12:11:06 AM
I'll have to answer that with another question. Did the child really cry for 75 mins without getting out of bed to see where her parents were or was the question "Mummy, why didn't you come...." asked out of unawareness?
Good question, IMO the child would certainly have got out of bed and looked in the lounge and in the parent bedroom.

Returning to the evening of the 3rd, do I recall that GM states that on seeing the door angle his first thought was maybe she had gone to look for them in parent bedroom? Also that KM at 10 also thinks at first maybe she has gone to look for them in the parent bedroom?  That means probably the child at bedtime was not told that they would be going out an hour and three quarters after she went to slleep? 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 12:37:55 AM
(snip) Mr Armstrong sued the Sunday Times successfully in the UK (snip)
His 2003 book "Every Second Counts" was in the villa in Aug 2007.
It describes his remarkable recovery from serious illness to win races and start a foundation.



Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 01:27:49 AM
What do people think about the "secret cardinal"?
Was he, as stated in a film, a person being watched by the private investigators?
Or was he a private investigator in cunning disguise?
Did someone take the old saying "You can't get the staff these days" a bit too literally?

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 23, 2016, 01:35:10 AM
Good question, IMO the child would certainly have got out of bed and looked in the lounge and in the parent bedroom.

Returning to the evening of the 3rd, do I recall that GM states that on seeing the door angle his first thought was maybe she had gone to look for them in parent bedroom? Also that KM at 10 also thinks at first maybe she has gone to look for them in the parent bedroom?  That means probably the child at bedtime was not told that they would be going out an hour and three quarters after she went to slleep?

Why not go outside on Tue if crying for 75 minutes and any tom, dick and harry could get in. Maybe she couldn't get out. Yes that sounds right. A door that keeps moving only in fantasy luzland.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 23, 2016, 01:39:18 AM
Good question, IMO the child would certainly have got out of bed and looked in the lounge and in the parent bedroom.

Returning to the evening of the 3rd, do I recall that GM states that on seeing the door angle his first thought was maybe she had gone to look for them in parent bedroom? Also that KM at 10 also thinks at first maybe she has gone to look for them in the parent bedroom?  That means probably the child at bedtime was not told that they would be going out an hour and three quarters after she went to slleep?

It was KM

15 40

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 23, 2016, 01:40:27 AM
It was KM

15 40


That bloody magic door (Gerry yes keep on nodding). Obsession!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 23, 2016, 01:44:55 AM
That bloody magic door. Obsession!

I know, a moved door can have move 8(*(d by the air from the irresponsibly left open patio door or MM gettng up for the loo, or naybe it wasnt moved at all, not an abductor definitely

Oh well, time will tell
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 01:47:19 AM
It was KM

15 40 (snip)
Thanks. And doesn't GM say that on his check he thought maybe she had gone to look for them in the parent bedroom?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 23, 2016, 01:56:12 AM
Thanks. And doesn't GM say that on his check he thought maybe she had gone to look for them in the parent bedroom?

Not really. 8:30 left in same sleeping position. According to Gerry she was in the same position i.e. never awoke and didn't move any magic door.

"Around 8:30-8:35 they left for the Tapas restaurant. Before leaving they checked on the children, she doesn't know who; however Gerry says it was him."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 02:05:03 AM
Not really. 8:30 left in same sleeping position. According to Gerry she was in the same position i.e. never awoke and didn't move any magic door.

"Around 8:30-8:35 they left for the Tapas restaurant. Before leaving they checked on the children, she doesn't know who; however Gerry says it was him."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Pathfinder the 8.30pm check was not visual.
" 20H35 ... listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence, he did not even enter" GM 10May
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 23, 2016, 02:19:56 AM
What do people think about the "secret cardinal"?
Was he, as stated in a film, a person being watched by the private investigators?
Or was he a private investigator in cunning disguise?
Did someone take the old saying "You can't get the staff these days" a bit too literally?

Weren't there two of them? One said he was sent by the Pope because the town wa evil; he aid he knew Madeleine was dead & who killed her. The other was an undercover agent, sent to infiltrate the church & local community.
Do Cardinals look out of place in Luz or are they featured on picture postcards as part of the scenery?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 02:39:08 AM
Weren't there two of them? One said he was sent by the Pope because the town wa evil; he aid he knew Madeleine was dead & who killed her. The other was an undercover agent, sent to infiltrate the church & local community.
Do Cardinals look out of place in Luz or are they featured on picture postcards as part of the scenery?
There was the fake priest who was definitely an undercover PI. And there was the cardinal who was supposedly a real character under close surveillence by the PIs. The cardinal has a thin face and a staff. The PI priest has a medium oriental looking face and no staff. At least the fake priest PI did some real searching - he was knocking at all the doors in the area just down those steps from the smith sighting.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 23, 2016, 02:48:25 AM
There was the fake priest who was definitely an undercover PI. And there was the cardinal who was supposedly a real character under close surveillence by the PIs. The cardinal has a thin face and a staff. The PI priest has a medium oriental looking face and no staff. At least the fake priest PI did some real searching - he was knocking at all the doors in the area just down those steps from the smith sighting.

LOL How do you know that last bit? Did he get reported as yet another fake charity collector?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 03:14:26 AM
LOL How do you know that last bit? Did he get reported as yet another fake charity collector?
Because disguised as a Tibetan monk I was following the PI priest who was following the Secret Cardinal Misty
 

 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 23, 2016, 09:02:21 AM
Pathfinder the 8.30pm check was not visual.
" 20H35 ... listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence, he did not even enter" GM 10May

There are way too many contradictions. I wonder why Kate has such a hard time remembering the last time she saw Madeleine that day?

"Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 23, 2016, 09:31:31 AM
Because disguised as a Tibetan monk I was following the PI priest who was following the Secret Cardinal Misty

  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 11:42:04 AM
PI checking area downsteps from smith sighting
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 23, 2016, 11:49:16 AM
Weren't there two of them? One said he was sent by the Pope because the town wa evil; he aid he knew Madeleine was dead & who killed her. The other was an undercover agent, sent to infiltrate the church & local community.
Do Cardinals look out of place in Luz or are they featured on picture postcards as part of the scenery?


  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 12:11:31 PM
Ditto private investigator checking area downsteps from sighting
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 23, 2016, 01:44:10 PM
There has clearly been a mega spat between Halligan and those he was supposed to pay (or reimburse).

I can understand that these people want to be paid... but who from? Should the Madeleine Fund have paid out twice? On what basis?

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 23, 2016, 01:44:30 PM
Because disguised as a Tibetan monk I was following the PI priest who was following the Secret Cardinal Misty


 @)(++(*  Brilliant!
Shades of Clouseau & Cato.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 02:12:34 PM
There was a case of an actor hired to pose as a priest 5800km away in Georgetown.
An idea later re-used by the private investigation in PDL.
The psychology of repetitive behaviour is fascinating.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 06:22:15 PM
What a tease   @)(++(*
Is there more?
Possibly just a desperate pink concoction in the sun?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on April 23, 2016, 06:28:50 PM
Possibly just a desperate pink concoction in the sun?

A very strong possibility, I should think, but we shall see tomorrow - or even tonight if people can  be bothered to stay up long enough. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 06:42:44 PM
A very strong possibility, I should think, but we shall see tomorrow - or even tonight if people can  be bothered to stay up long enough. @)(++(*
It will be a sunrise anti-Amaral attack IMO
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on April 23, 2016, 06:49:23 PM
On the face of it, almost certainly, but newspapers sometime implant other little messages for their readers to enjoy, so that all is not always as it seems.

Is the Sun behind a paywall, as I certainly won't be buying a copy ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 23, 2016, 07:06:31 PM
On the face of it, almost certainly, but newspapers sometime implant other little messages for their readers to enjoy, so that all is not always as it seems.

Is the Sun behind a paywall, as I certainly won't be buying a copy ?

It's free again now - changed 30/11/15.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 09:53:28 PM
It is possible the sun article may be about illness (eg diabetes)?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 10:08:17 PM
I think kates description is more accurate
I'm trying to bring the handful unit into the world of mathematical precision Dave1.
A "couple" of prime ministers had phone chats with GM in 2007.
As did a "brace" of foreign secretaries.
And rumour is there might be a "handful" of officers from the original investigation on telly later tonite.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 23, 2016, 10:18:57 PM


I do hope that none of those officers is going to breach judicial secrecy live on air tonight or say anything which will undermine the current investigation.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 10:38:26 PM
Watching CMTV. They just showed a short trailer for the special later tonight.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 23, 2016, 10:59:48 PM

I do hope that none of those officers is going to breach judicial secrecy live on air tonight or say anything which will undermine the current investigation.

Dont be so private eye funny
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 11:18:20 PM
The Sun article now appears to be online.
It is just a rewrite of the pathetic "Sick Brit trolls" article.
What is happening?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7100537/Madeleine-McCann-cop-paid-50k-by-sick-Brit-trolls-after-accusing-her-parents-of-lying-about-her-abduction.html
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 23, 2016, 11:33:44 PM
The person who the Suni claims "wrote to a star asking him to put in £10,000" has already left a comment underneath pointing out that the Sun has got it wrong.

"EXCUSE ME !! I did no such thing writing to a celebrity asking for £10,000 I wrote to many asking if they could donate but I didn't specify amount, Please show me a copy of the letter you have, that shows this, if you are unable to please amend the article to Marian Greaves contacted many celebrities asking them to support the campaign, which is the actual fact of what I did."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7100537/Madeleine-McCann-cop-paid-50k-by-sick-Brit-trolls-after-accusing-her-parents-of-lying-about-her-abduction.html

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 23, 2016, 11:52:36 PM
The sun dont care, their business is NOT facts and truths, the opposite
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 24, 2016, 12:00:09 AM
The person who the Suni claims "wrote to a star asking him to put in £10,000" has already left a comment underneath pointing out that the Sun has got it wrong.

"EXCUSE ME !! I did no such thing writing to a celebrity asking for £10,000 I wrote to many asking if they could donate but I didn't specify amount, Please show me a copy of the letter you have, that shows this, if you are unable to please amend the article to Marian Greaves contacted many celebrities asking them to support the campaign, which is the actual fact of what I did."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7100537/Madeleine-McCann-cop-paid-50k-by-sick-Brit-trolls-after-accusing-her-parents-of-lying-about-her-abduction.html

Here is the link to the copy of the letter she sent to Gary Barlow & Olly Murs. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6716.msg285032#msg285032    Post number 1048
 Interpret the £10,000/£300000 as you will.
She also suggested to Amaral's wife that a prolific supporter tweeter should be prosecuted for libelling Amaral & money could be raised to assist. Amaral's wife apparently declined. (screenshots available).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: carlymichelle on April 24, 2016, 12:05:52 AM
live link to  GA   http://www.tvtuga.com/cmtv/
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 24, 2016, 12:16:04 AM
I have reposted a copy of the public email letter she sent to Gary Barlow on Amazon. Interpret the £10,000/£300000 as you will.
She also suggested to Amaral's wife that a prolific supporter tweeter should be prosecuted for libelling Amaral & money could be raised to assist. Amaral's wife apparently declined. (screenshots available).

Does anyone really care?
Enough money was available for Sr Amaral to lodge his appeal successfully.
His fund and Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd were both begging bowls....... so what?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 24, 2016, 12:27:20 AM
Does anyone really care?
Enough money was available for Sr Amaral to lodge his appeal successfully.
His fund and Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd were both begging bowls....... so what?

The mcann begging bowl doesnt like the other begging bowl lol

It might make a nice cartoon


Your bowl is horrible my one is righteous and moral,  yours is Immoral and not righteous

My one i can spend on whatever i want
Yours is only for one purpose
You b........
Lol

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: carlymichelle on April 24, 2016, 12:32:31 AM
i wish i could understand portugese because   GA is  speakign  really  well
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: puglove on April 24, 2016, 12:37:26 AM
The mcann begging bowl doesnt like the other begging bowl lol

It might make a nice cartoon


Your bowl is horrible my one is righteous and moral,  yours is Immoral and not righteous

My one i can spend on whatever i want
Yours is only for one purpose
You b........
Lol

And Moab is my washpot!

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 24, 2016, 12:43:54 AM
The mcann begging bowl doesnt like the other begging bowl lol

It might make a nice cartoon


Your bowl is horrible my one is righteous and moral,  yours is Immoral and not righteous

My one i can spend on whatever i want
Yours is only for one purpose
You b........
Lol

Sounds like an idea for Edward Monkton to use for a calendar  ?{)(**
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 24, 2016, 12:48:00 AM
Well, I watched it, didn't understand much, kept seeing Euclides Monteiro, but wait........no pictures of Smithman?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: puglove on April 24, 2016, 12:51:50 AM
Sounds like an idea for Edward Monkton to use for a calendar  ?{)(**

Not Edward Mordrake, though. He's SO two-faced.   ?8)@)-)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2016, 12:57:22 AM
Does anyone really care?
Enough money was available for Sr Amaral to lodge his appeal successfully.
His fund and Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd were both begging bowls....... so what?

Marian Greaves apparently ~ who took the time to contradict the Sun's claim ~ and her contradiction has now been contradicted by publication of her email asking celebs/pensioners or whoever for a substantial gift to the cause of freedom of expression.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 24, 2016, 01:18:44 AM
Marian Greaves apparently ~ who took the time to contradict the Sun's claim ~ and her contradiction has now been contradicted by publication of her email asking celebs/pensioners or whoever for a substantial gift to the cause of freedom of expression.

And? or so? or why is this relevant?
Cast your mind back to when some geezer needed dosh to make an appeal to a higher court.
The necessary funds were raised by begging bowl (see earlier posts) and the appeal went ahead and was upheld. THAT is all that counts. It's like in golf the key thing is not "how" but "how many".
I don't expect that will stop about another100 pages boring the arse off everyone with inconsequential chatter about whether or not Mrs Wembley had just the one or some such similar sort of animile.
It's rather like snapping at gnats when when being stampeded by heffalumps.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on April 24, 2016, 01:51:30 AM
And? or so? or why is this relevant?
Cast your mind back to when some geezer needed dosh to make an appeal to a higher court.
The necessary funds were raised by begging bowl (see earlier posts) and the appeal went ahead and was upheld. THAT is all that counts. It's like in golf the key thing is not "how" but "how many".
I don't expect that will stop about another100 pages boring the arse off everyone with inconsequential chatter about whether or not Mrs Wembley had just the one or some such similar sort of animile.
It's rather like snapping at gnats when when being stampeded by heffalumps.

I haven't noticed you being shy about commenting on a subject while deriding members for doing just that.  Surely a bit of the "don't do's ... " there.

We are a discussion forum ... so that is what we do ... discuss.  Pity if that offends you ... but that was on the label when we all applied to join and most of us are content enough to be "snapping ants".
Please don't take it upon yourself to discourage members from posting.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 24, 2016, 02:24:00 AM
Two interesting points picked up from Twitter tonight.
1. Leanne Baulch did not set up the GFM account, it was allegedly already in existence but she just publicised it. What???? Await further information.

2. Amaral has said in the TV interview that there are some badly translated English copies of his book on the internet.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on April 24, 2016, 06:47:39 AM
Two interesting points picked up from Twitter tonight.
1. Leanne Baulch did not set up the GFM account, it was allegedly already in existence but she just publicised it. What???? Await further information.

2. Amaral has said in the TV interview that there are some badly translated English copies of his book on the internet.

Point 2 would mean it would be impossible to sue him based on the English versions.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on April 25, 2016, 06:22:26 PM
Point 2 would mean it would be impossible to sue him based on the English versions.

I dare say Isabel Durate has the Portuguese original.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: John on April 25, 2016, 06:31:24 PM
Please note that the Secret Cardinal posts now have their own thread.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7165.msg324880#msg324880
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 26, 2016, 10:27:04 AM
"BBCRadio4 reporting that the police are following one, remaining inquiry before McCann investigation closes."

From twitter so if true I told you this months ago. There is only one lead left to pursue hence the small remaining team.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on April 26, 2016, 10:30:47 AM
"BBCRadio4 reporting that the police are following one, remaining inquiry before McCann investigation closes."

From twitter so if true I told you this months ago. There is only one lead left to pursue hence the small remaining team.

Interesting.  And likely true.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 26, 2016, 08:39:36 PM
I predict that if this case get solved, the answer will involve no uncovered carrying through the streets.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 12:47:32 AM
Why did the UK government phone GM in very early June 2007 (less than 2 weeks after Mitchell arrived) and inform him that they would be withdrawing Mitchell from the case?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 28, 2016, 01:28:05 AM
Why did the UK government phone GM in very early June 2007 (less than 2 weeks after Mitchell arrived) and inform him that they would be withdrawing Mitchell from the case?

I can think of a reason why they may have asked him if he wished to withdraw from the case.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 01:37:26 AM
Daily Star 28 Apr claims that the one remaining lead being investigated by SY is the 3 burglars.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/511311/Three-key-burglar-suspects-questioned-Madeleine-McCann-police-theory-attack-lead-Portugal
IMO this article is diversion - it is a rewrite of an earlier article - it has no new content - no new quotes from police - only the usual pink "source".
 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 01:41:26 AM
I can think of a reason why they may have asked him if he wished to withdraw from the case.
On 1/2/3 Jun 2007 the FCO told GM that they were going to withdraw CM from the case.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 28, 2016, 02:14:16 AM
On 1/2/3 Jun 2007 the FCO told GM that they were going to withdraw CM from the case.

Ok - so the FCO suggested that CM was too high profile & the McCanns would be best to pay someone for their PR from the FMF.
Was that John Williams who made the call on behalf of the new Foreign Secretary? Cost-cutting - or where are you leading with this?

ETA Not John Williams - misleading Guardian report.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 02:29:15 AM
Ok - so the FCO suggested that CM was too high profile & the McCanns would be best to pay someone for their PR from the FMF.
Was that John Williams who made the call on behalf of the new Foreign Secretary? Cost-cutting - or where are you leading with this?
Presumably yes it was JW who phoned GM. This was June 1st or 2nd or 3rd Misty when MB had been FCS for ages and was certainly not new.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on April 28, 2016, 02:31:46 AM
Presumably yes it was JW who phoned GM. This was June 1st or 2nd or 3rd June Misty when Beckett had been FCS for ages and was certainly not new.

A withdrawal of UK government help for the McCanns, not interference then?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 02:39:34 AM
A withdrawal of UK government help for the McCanns, not interference then?
This was IMO an intended reconfiguration of that Govt help to GM to make it less visible.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 11:48:20 AM
"At the beginning of June, Gerry had a call from the director of communications at the Foreign Office. There was concern in the government, he said, that Clarence was 'becoming the story'. Whatever the case, it was suggested to Gerry that we should used Madeleine's Fund to employ someone to replace Clarence once our campaign visits were complete. Reluctantly Gerry agreed." (Source: KM book p170)

Did the FCO pull Mr Mitchell off the case?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 12:06:31 PM
You are too trusting, Pegasus (snip)
No more trusting than G was, Misty - why did he let this man into the house and who was this man? 

"One day G, in what I can only assume was a moment of weakness, let the self-appointed ‘Lord’s Helper’ into the house. He was a tall, elderly gentleman sporting a wooden crucifix the size of Kansas around his neck. I stared at G in disbelief and soon decided it would be wise to take ... out to the park." (KM book p309-10)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on April 28, 2016, 12:56:17 PM
"At the beginning of June, Gerry had a call from the director of communications at the Foreign Office. There was concern in the government, he said, that Clarence was 'becoming the story'. Whatever the case, it was suggested to Gerry that we should used Madeleine's Fund to employ someone to replace Clarence once our campaign visits were complete. Reluctantly Gerry agreed." (Source: KM book p170)

Did the FCO pull Mr Mitchell off the case?

CM was on temporary secondment to the FCO assist with the massive media interest in a drama involving UK subjects that had occurred in a foreign country.

There was bound to be a limit at some point as to the support offered in the immediate aftermath.

I don't see the issue.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 01:41:33 PM
CM was on temporary secondment to the FCO assist with the massive media interest in a drama involving UK subjects that had occurred in a foreign country.

There was bound to be a limit at some point as to the support offered in the immediate aftermath.

I don't see the issue.
Less than 12 days after his assignment to the case, there was concern in the government that he was becoming the story. The source is KM book p170.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 05:45:21 PM
It was very philanthropic of people to provide free use of luxury jets.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on April 28, 2016, 07:13:24 PM
It was very philanthropic of people to provide free use of luxury jets.

Yep, some people have empathy combined with concern and kindness

When our little boy died from his brain tumour, we were all devastated and we decided to push the boat out and take our daughter to Disney in Florida in an effort to get her and both of us back on track.  Travel to the USA was rare in 1976 and we hadn't a clue where we would stay.

An American customer of my hubbies company (hubby was not the owner nor in charge), heard about our son dying and our proposed visit ... and offered us the use of his gorgeous luxury apartment there.  Such kindness to complete strangers!

Some people have empathy and kindness, others have coldness, bitterness and animosity.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on April 28, 2016, 07:15:12 PM
It was very philanthropic of people to provide free use of luxury jets.

Nothing but the best - except when they have to pay themselves, then its Easyjet
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 28, 2016, 07:31:49 PM
Nothing but the best - except when they have to pay themselves, then its Easyjet

I would have been really impressed had they used the Jet to go and check out the very many 'sightings' around the world... No one from Oprahs  country had a sighting did they? and did the Pope know anything  about a dodgy priest or something?  Hence the Pope visit, what was that about? show ,show ,show!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 28, 2016, 09:29:55 PM
Obviously not favours requested by someone in UK gov then?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on April 29, 2016, 02:51:58 PM
What happened with the private jet that was planned for the trio's 10 June Lisbon-Casablanca flight?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on April 30, 2016, 12:00:46 AM
Three new articles from a case follower to peruse and ponder on

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2016-04-25T18:45:00%2B01:00&max-results=1

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/out-of-date.html

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2016_04_01_archive.html
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 01, 2016, 02:28:57 PM
Just came across this - hadn't seen mention of it before.  Seems to be a fairly new appointment

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/cardiovascular-sciences/people/mccann

Professor of Cardiac Imaging and Honorary Consultant Cardiologist

Does this mean he is purely research and doesn't see patients any more?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Benice on May 01, 2016, 02:51:17 PM
Just came across this - hadn't seen mention of it before.  Seems to be a fairly new appointment

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/cardiovascular-sciences/people/mccann

Professor of Cardiac Imaging and Honorary Consultant Cardiologist

Does this mean he is purely research and doesn't see patients any more?

Who knows.   But I'm sure it won't be long before someone finds fault with it .  No doubt every word is being scrutinised as we speak - with that sole aim in mind.

IMO

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 01, 2016, 04:56:27 PM
Who knows.   But I'm sure it won't be long before someone finds fault with it .  No doubt every word is being scrutinised as we speak - with that sole aim in mind.

IMO
Professor of Cardiac Imaging and Honorary Consultant Cardiologist

Mayor of Olhão

Both look impressive
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 01, 2016, 05:05:24 PM
honorary consultant   
A clinical academic in the UK who is employed by a higher education institution or other organisation in a research and/or teaching capacity, and who also provides services for NHS patients at a consultant level in NHS facilities.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 01, 2016, 05:12:38 PM
honorary consultant   
A clinical academic in the UK who is employed by a higher education institution or other organisation in a research and/or teaching capacity, and who also provides services for NHS patients at a consultant level in NHS facilities.

looks like he is extremely successful
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 01, 2016, 05:37:15 PM
looks like he is extremely successful

Indeed it does.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 01, 2016, 07:08:32 PM
Is it true that the UK consul sat in on all 3 formal police interviews of GM/KM in September 2007?

"We've had the British Consul from the Foreign Office present during the questioning"
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 01, 2016, 11:51:05 PM
consuls are normally bored...this was exciting
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 02, 2016, 12:12:48 AM
consuls are normally bored...this was exciting
Is it usual to be present at police interviews?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2016, 12:14:52 AM
Is it usual to be present at police interviews?

Is it usual for a British child to be kidnapped abroad?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 02, 2016, 12:15:45 AM
Is it usual to be present at police interviews?

NO
"Someone" ensured they were for "some" reason
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 02, 2016, 12:18:14 AM
Is it usual for a British child to be kidnapped abroad?

Not usual at all, errr........
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: puglove on May 02, 2016, 12:23:01 AM
Is it usual for a British child to be kidnapped abroad?

Would Gerry leave his camera or wallet on the bed?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 02, 2016, 12:49:55 AM
Craig Murray says:
Embassy staff were .... ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns

Here is confirmation that Craig is telling the truth. D.Hughes says:
"We've had the British Consul from the Foreign Office present during the questioning"
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2016, 01:02:11 AM
Craig Murray says:
Embassy staff were .... ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns

Here is confirmation that Craig is telling the truth. D.Hughes says:
"We've had the British Consul from the Foreign Office present during the questioning"
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209

The link also says ...

"The likelihood of Kate and Gerry McCann being charged over the death of their daughter was dramatically increased this morning, after DNA found in the family's hire-car was reported as 'almost certainly' Madeleine's."

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/cm/jarrow-and-hebburn-gazette/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209#ixzz47S3Vbc41

In the light of such decidedly false information leaked by the investigation circulating about them and which they knew to be impossible ... do you think they weren't entitled as ordinary citizens to approach the foreign secretary of the day for protection.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 02, 2016, 01:09:01 AM
The link also says ...

"The likelihood of Kate and Gerry McCann being charged over the death of their daughter was dramatically increased this morning, after DNA found in the family's hire-car was reported as 'almost certainly' Madeleine's."

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/cm/jarrow-and-hebburn-gazette/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209#ixzz47S3Vbc41

In the light of such decidedly false information leaked by the investigation circulating about them and which they knew to be impossible ... do you think they weren't entitled as ordinary citizens to approach the foreign secretary of the day for protection.
That information was released on 11th Sept Brietta therefore it cannot possibly have been justification for UK government presence at every meeting between the PJ and GM/KM from 4th May to 7th Sept inclusive.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 02, 2016, 01:12:50 AM
That information was released on 11th Sept Brietta therefore it cannot possibly have been justification for UK government presence at every meeting between the PJ and GM/KM from 4th May to 7th Sept inclusive.

The devil is alwys in the detail, oops brietta

 @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 02, 2016, 01:27:30 AM
The devil is alwys in the detail, oops brietta

 @)(++(*
Although to be fair, that regional newspaper article indicates there was an intention to request additional help from the UK government soon after 11th Sept.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2016, 01:32:02 AM
That information was released on 11th Sept Brietta therefore it cannot possibly have been justification for UK government presence at every meeting between the PJ and GM/KM from 4th May to 7th Sept inclusive.

At the time that information was merely the latest in a long line of propaganda stories leaked by the investigation and directed against Madeleine's parents.

"This is a very badly told story" Diário de Notícias
 
by: José Manuel Oliveira and Paula Martinheira

05 May 2007

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the English three-year-old child that was on holidays in Lagos, "is a very badly told story", a source from the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão has confided to DN. The statement reflects the authorities' doubts concerning the "confused" depositions that were given by the witnesses yesterday, throughout the day.

///   ///

The parents, who were taken to the PJ in Portimão at around mid-morning, refused to speak to the journalists, but advanced the idea that the apartment had been broken into, to the British media. Nevertheless, the resort's administration and the GNR assert that "there were no signs of a break-in whatsoever".
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id119.html

(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/dn050507.jpg)


Therefore within hours of Madeleine's abduction and while her case was being treated as such by the officers on the ground ... someone somewhere in the PJ was spinning against her parents and using the Portuguese press to do so.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 02, 2016, 01:49:51 AM
"11 September 2007 ... if the situation progresses further, we'll make direct contact again  ..."

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/cm/jarrow-and-hebburn-gazette/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2016, 02:14:19 AM
"11 September 2007 ... if the situation progresses further, we'll make direct contact again  ..."

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/cm/jarrow-and-hebburn-gazette/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209

Their daughter was missing and as early as 5th May someone within the PJ investigation was attacking them in the Portuguese press picked up worldwide ... and continued to do so relentlessly.

I really fail to see where you of all people are subscribing to the conspiracy theories put around about shadowy government interference.

If the British government were exercising their duty of protecting British citizens abroad that is fine by me ... and no-one was in more need of that protection than an innocent couple whose name was being systematically destroyed for some reason or other by those who would have been better employed looking for a missing child. imo
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 02, 2016, 02:36:00 AM
"11 September 2007 ... if the situation progresses further, we'll make direct contact again  ..."

Things certainly did progress further over the following days.
So IMO soon after 11th Sept they did make direct contact again with the highest level of UK Govt.
Remember this is after they and all the UK police had returned to England.
So what exactly did they request during this direct contact?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 02, 2016, 03:05:58 AM
Their daughter was missing and as early as 5th May someone within the PJ investigation was attacking them in the Portuguese press picked up worldwide ... and continued to do so relentlessly.



As early as 5th may philomena mccann was being fed lies and attacking the pj

Ie she said on tv that the pj took 5 hours to arrive, dont  you agree bretta that was false? Thnk about it, i will catch up tomrrow, nighty nite x
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2016, 05:45:35 AM
I wondered why Special Branch got involved.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 02, 2016, 12:24:16 PM
"11 September 2007 ... if the situation progresses further, we'll make direct contact again  ..."

Things certainly did progress further over the following days.
So IMO soon after 11th Sept they did make direct contact again with the highest level of UK Govt.
Remember this is after they and all the UK police had returned to England.
So what exactly did they request during this direct contact?

Assistance to find their daughter? since it was quite clear by that stage that the Portuguese police weren't doing so.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 02, 2016, 12:56:57 PM
I wondered why Special Branch got involved.

Do you mean "what was the national security interest" ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 02, 2016, 01:06:06 PM
Is it true that the UK consul sat in on all 3 formal police interviews of GM/KM in September 2007?

"We've had the British Consul from the Foreign Office present during the questioning"
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209
I don't recall anything like that in Kate's book.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on May 02, 2016, 01:48:03 PM
I don't recall anything like that in Kate's book.

Cecilia Edwards, British Consul, was waiting for KM & Justine M when they arrived for interrogation on Fri 7th Sept.
(page 248 Madeleine). There is no reference to CE being present in the room during the questioning (she was probably on staircase duty).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 02, 2016, 02:51:56 PM
Assistance to find their daughter? since it was quite clear by that stage that the Portuguese police weren't doing so.
But there is no mention of searching in the article Brietta, it is all about the possibility of being charged.
The reason given for proposed further "direct contact" with the top level of UK Govt after 11th Sept, is that it was the
"last option for support if they were charged".
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2016, 04:29:39 PM
Do you mean "what was the national security interest" ?

Yes. What is their interest or relevance to this case?

Special Branch is a label customarily used to identify units responsible for matters of national security in British and Commonwealth police forces, as well as in Ireland and the Royal Thai Police. A Special Branch unit acquires and develops intelligence, usually of a political nature, and conducts investigations to protect the State from perceived threats of subversion—particularly terrorism and other extremist activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Branch

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 02, 2016, 04:49:28 PM
Maybe a Gamble connection.  He was  the head of the Belfast Region of the RUC's Special Branch.

Maybe just a coincidence, this case seems to  full of them.

If Wayback was correct, he had a special interest before the event.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 03, 2016, 02:17:15 PM
"Mr H sat with Mrs M as she was grilled by Portuguese police as a witness, and then as an official suspect"
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209
Is this normal practice?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 03, 2016, 04:54:06 PM
"Gerry once spoke to him for more than an hour"

Was that before or after arguidisation?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 04, 2016, 01:17:23 AM
"Mr H sat with Mrs M as she was grilled by Portuguese police as a witness, and then as an official suspect"
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209
Is this normal practice?

Soz, but who is Mr H ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 04, 2016, 01:26:19 AM
I thnk it was david hughes, remember the really fat geezer? Blobbng along with the mccanns at arguido interviews?
You can spot him here


http://youtu.be/F2IIIBAMjpc
Here he is talkng about no fund mney will be used for legal costs oh dear


http://youtu.be/BqnHDPeR6-c
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 01:43:19 AM
Soz, but who is Mr H ?
A PR representative who was substituted to attend the September police interviews in place of Mr Mitchell because the UK Govt did not wish to be seen to be so deeply involved.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on May 04, 2016, 01:48:06 AM
"Mr H sat with Mrs M as she was grilled by Portuguese police as a witness, and then as an official suspect"
http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/mccanns-sos-to-miliband-1-1281209
Is this normal practice?

According to KM's book, the only people mentioned as being present in the interviews were KM, her lawyer Carlos, his assistant Sofia, Joao Carlos, Ricardo Paiva & Paulo Ferreira.

Is there a page in the files which details when the PJ applied to make KM & GM arguidos?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 04, 2016, 01:54:17 AM
I thnk it was david hughes, remember the really fat geezer? Blobbng along with the mccanns at arguido interviews?
You can spot him here


http://youtu.be/F2IIIBAMjpc

A PR representative who was substituted to attend the September police interviews in place of Mr Mitchell because the UK Govt did not wish to be seen to be so deeply involved.

Thank you mercury and thank you Pegasus. 

With your desciptions, now I know who Mr H is, and I remember him well.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 01:56:36 AM
According to KM's book, the only people mentioned as being present in the interviews were KM, her lawyer Carlos, his assistant Sofia, Joao Carlos, Ricardo Paiva & Paulo Ferreira (snip)
I believe that UK police were possibly monitoring those Sept interviews from an adjoining room?
I agree it seems unlikely that DH was allowed to sit in, but that is what the newspaper says.
DH was there because the brit gov did not want CM there.
CM said:"officially the Government couldn't be seen to be involved'"
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 11:16:17 AM
Why, after 9 years, hasn't even this elementary question been solved?
"What time was it when the child physically exited the property?"

Here is the easy three-step-method to solving that
1. Write down the earliest possible time of exit.
2. Write down the latest possible time of exit.
3. Reconstruct the period in between those two times.
 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2016, 12:47:40 PM
Why, after 9 years, hasn't even this elementary question been solved?
"What time was it when the child physically exited the property?"

Here is the easy three-step-method to solving that
1. Write down the earliest possible time of exit.
2. Write down the latest possible time of exit.
3. Reconstruct the period in between those two times.

I think if the exact time of Jane Tanner's sighting is established you would be well on the way to working out the exact time of Madeleine's exit from the apartment.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 12:58:42 PM
I think if the exact time of Jane Tanner's sighting is established you would be well on the way to working out the exact time of Madeleine's exit from the apartment.
Interesting theory Brietta. So you think that a stranger opened the window and shutter immediately after GM left the apartment?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2016, 01:09:30 PM
Interesting theory Brietta. So you think that a stranger opened the window and shutter immediately after GM left the apartment?

I think it possible the window was already open and the shutter raised.  I think it is possible the abductor was already in the apartment during Gerry McCann's check.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 04, 2016, 02:49:27 PM
I think it possible the window was already open and the shutter raised.  I think it is possible the abductor was already in the apartment during Gerry McCann's check.

An 'abductor' is not a fact Brietta,
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 02:57:21 PM
I think it possible the window was already open and the shutter raised.  I think it is possible the abductor was already in the apartment during Gerry McCann's check.
We know he can't have been hiding in the bathroom Brietta.
Do you think he was hiding
(A) Behind the door of the children's bedroom?
(B) In a wardrobe in the children's bedroom?
(C) Behind a sofa in the lounge?
(D) In a wardrobe in the parent's bedroom?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2016, 02:59:48 PM
I think it possible the window was already open and the shutter raised.  I think it is possible the abductor was already in the apartment during Gerry McCann's check.

A very quick abductor. Matt did a listening check outside the window only minutes earlier. Must have been quiet as a mouse or not there.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 03:00:57 PM
I think it possible the window was already open and the shutter raised.  I think it is possible the abductor was already in the apartment during Gerry McCann's check.
Brietta if the window and shutter had been opened by a stranger shortly before GM entered the apartment, and GM saw the child asleep, do you agree that means that the noise of the stranger opening the shutter did not awaken the child?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2016, 03:26:19 PM
We know he can't have been hiding in the bathroom Brietta.
Do you think he was hiding
(A) Behind the door of the children's bedroom?
(B) In a wardrobe in the children's bedroom?
(C) Behind a sofa in the lounge?
(D) In a wardrobe in the parent's bedroom?

If already in the apartment which cannot be determined ~ none of those.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2016, 03:28:49 PM
Brietta if the window and shutter had been opened by a stranger shortly before GM entered the apartment, and GM saw the child asleep, do you agree that means that the noise of the stranger opening the shutter did not awaken the child?

There is no way of knowing when exactly the shutter was raised.  Therefore there is no way of knowing if one child was disturbed ... ... but not the other two?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 03:33:44 PM
If already in the apartment which cannot be determined ~ none of those.
I thought you were going to say behind the children's bedroom door Brietta, which when you look at the layout of the child bedroom and the fitted wardrobes, is quite possible.
If a stranger was in the apartment during GM's check, which you seem to think is possible, where do you think he was hiding?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 03:42:51 PM
There is no way of knowing when exactly the shutter was raised.  Therefore there is no way of knowing if one child was disturbed ... ... but not the other two?
Thinking about it from the missing child's perspective (something that most people fail to do) I think she would wake up when someone opened the shutter, which makes a lot of noise. The non-waking of the others I admit I have no explanation for, do you?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2016, 03:46:28 PM
I thought you were going to say behind the children's bedroom door Brietta, which when you look at the layout of the child bedroom and the fitted wardrobes, is quite possible.
If a stranger was in the apartment during GM's check, which you seem to think is possible, where do you think he was hiding?

Crouched behind the opaque back of the cot nearest to the wardrobe.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 04:18:11 PM

The Abductor probably opened the window and shutter after being scared by Gerry.  A means to escape or to check outside.  It would only have taken seconds.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2016, 04:21:05 PM
The Abductor probably opened the window and shutter after being scared by Gerry.  A means to escape or to check outside.  It would only have taken seconds.

So Jane noticed a man carrying a child but didn't notice a wide open window and raised shutters seconds later? Neither did Matt nor Russell when they passed through the car park on their checks. That didn't happen.

Not a draught inside that apartment nevermind moving doors & whooshing curtains.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 04:26:46 PM
Crouched behind the opaque back of the cot nearest to the wardrobe.
@Brietta so that scenario would be: a stranger opens the shutter and window, but the child continues sleeping, then GM enters, and the stranger hides behind a cot. It's all possible.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 04:33:47 PM
The Abductor probably opened the window and shutter after being scared by Gerry.  A means to escape or to check outside.  It would only have taken seconds.
@Eleanor so your scenario would be: a stranger enters the apartment through a door, and the child remains asleep, then GM enters, and the stranger hides somewhere in the apartment, then GM leaves, then the stranger opens the shutter and window from inside?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 04:35:18 PM
Is it possible that the sound of the toilet flushing awoke the child?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 04:38:51 PM
@Eleanor so your scenario would be: a stranger enters the apartment through a door, and the child remains asleep, then GM enters, and the stranger hides somewhere in the apartment, then GM leaves, then the stranger opens the shutter and window from inside?

Yes.  This has always been my opinion.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2016, 05:39:09 PM
Yes.  This has always been my opinion.

I think the intruder entered via the door and exited the same way.  The window was opened as an escape route or to pass Madeleine through to an accomplice, who I think was the person seen by Jane Tanner walking briskly away from the scene.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 05:52:37 PM
I think the intruder entered via the door and exited the same way.  The window was opened as an escape route or to pass Madeleine through to an accomplice, who I think was the person seen by Jane Tanner walking briskly away from the scene.

This is what I think.  The child seen by Jane Tanner was facing the opposite way to which she would have been picked up from her bed, so obviously passed to someone else, who then took off, carrying her in a most uncomfortable fashion.
Changing the way of carrying would have easily been done, once out of sight.
And Yes, I do think that Madeleine was sedated with something like Chloroform, easily reapplied with a pad in a plastic bag, in a pocket.

I have Googled "Making Chloroform from Household Products" enough times to get arrested myself.  It is easily done, and doesn't smell if done correctly.

I would be looking at people connected to Brazil to suggest where Madeleine could well have finished up.  Try finding a lost child in Brazil, let alone extradition.  Portuguese speaking, by the way.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 04, 2016, 06:00:00 PM
And of course if you wanted a child and were prepared to pay...you may well want one with good genes...the daughter of two doctors would do just nicely
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 06:10:58 PM
And of course if you wanted a child and were prepared to pay...you may well want one with good genes...the daughter of two doctors would do just nicely

That is precisely what they would want.  Although God knows what the going rate is.  But it would have been a lot of money to a bunch of misfits in Praia da Luz.

Even the resort itself would suggest a child of relatively intelligent parents if Madeleine wasn't the precise target.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ChloeR on May 04, 2016, 06:25:59 PM
Interesting actually..though I do think if the window had been opened after Gerry left..he, Jez or Jane would probably have noticed it.

So if this is what both Eleanor and Brietta think happened..what do you make of SY 'finding' Tannerman after all this time? I have always thought it was bollocks..and it seems we may agree on something if you do believe the man Tanner saw was an abductor?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2016, 06:29:07 PM
Interesting actually..though I do think if the window had been opened after Gerry left..he, Jez or Jane would probably have noticed it.

So if this is what both Eleanor and Brietta think happened..what do you make of SY 'finding' Tannerman after all this time? I have always thought it was bollocks..and it seems we may agree on something if you do believe the man Tanner saw was an abductor?


Not sure about that. It was round the corner from where G & J were standing, even though they can't agree exactly where that was.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 06:48:27 PM
Interesting actually..though I do think if the window had been opened after Gerry left..he, Jez or Jane would probably have noticed it.

So if this is what both Eleanor and Brietta think happened..what do you make of SY 'finding' Tannerman after all this time? I have always thought it was bollocks..and it seems we may agree on something if you do believe the man Tanner saw was an abductor?

Neither Jez or Gerry would have been called upon to notice.  These shutter don't actually make a noise, otherwise I would be aware of it on a daily basis, which I am not.
Oh, and I raise and close shutters on a Holiday House, and they hardly make a sound.

Jane Tanner won't have been looking in that direction.  Why should she?  In the dark.  Look at the car park and the entrance to other apartments.

I would not go so far as to say that SY were talking bollox, but anyone with a thinking brain was bound to question that anyone coming from The Night Creche would have been walking in that direction, and carrying a child in that uncomfortable fashion for so long.

But I am not going to add to speculation that SY were trying to confuse the issue in an attempt to hide what they really know.

I honestly think that Scotland Yard didn't know the location as well as we all do.  We had all been at it for four years before they came along.

Yes, I do believe that the man Jane Tanner saw was one of the Abductors.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 06:53:16 PM

Not sure about that. It was round the corner from where G & J were standing, even though they can't agree exactly where that was.

Gerry and Jez wouldn't have heard the shutters going up.  I never hear those of my immediate neighbours.  And it takes seconds to do.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ChloeR on May 04, 2016, 06:55:54 PM
I just never understood the whole tannerman has been living under a rock and finally found out that the world has been looking for him for 7 years...and look he even knows exactly what he and his child were wearing that night AND still has them! spiel  @)(++(*

Reason for 'lying'..I can't see one though...its slightly odd
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2016, 06:58:23 PM
I just never understood the whole tannerman has been living under a rock and finally found out that the world has been looking for him for 7 years...and look he even knows exactly what he and his child were wearing that night AND still has them! spiel  @)(++(*

Reason for 'lying'..I can't see one though...its slightly odd

Crecheman has never said anything openly - all we have is what OP claim he said.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 07:02:17 PM
I just never understood the whole tannerman has been living under a rock and finally found out that the world has been looking for him for 7 years...and look he even knows exactly what he and his child were wearing that night AND still has them! spiel  @)(++(*

Reason for 'lying'..I can't see one though...its slightly odd

Quite possibly he thought he might be of some use.  But he always was on The Night Creche Register.  What Scotland Yard decided to do with the information at that late stage is only for them to explain.  Which they almost certainly won't.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ChloeR on May 04, 2016, 07:11:19 PM
Quite possibly he thought he might be of some use.  But he always was on The Night Creche Register.  What Scotland Yard decided to do with the information at that late stage is only for them to explain. Which they almost certainly won't.
Well no, we can't expect them to explain everything they do. I just cannot understand how they can effectively eliminate the guy Jane thought she saw...on nothing. I mean, he was going the wrong way even for where he was meant to be coming from :S
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2016, 07:21:16 PM
Well no, we can't expect them to explain everything they do. I just cannot understand how they can effectively eliminate the guy Jane thought she saw...on nothing. I mean, he was going the wrong way even for where he was meant to be coming from :S

My interpretation is that by identifying  Tannerman as Crecheman, a bona fidi parent, they have managed to eliminate  Tannerman as an abductor without openly rubbishing Jane's statements.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ChloeR on May 04, 2016, 07:22:37 PM
My interpretation is that by identifying  Tannerman as Crecheman, a bona fidi parent, they have managed to eliminate  Tannerman as an abductor without openly rubbishing Jane's statements.
What would be the need in this though? That comes across a bit like they think shes talking rubbish but don't want to say so so lets create this guy out of thin air to get rid of the focus on him? Sorry if I'm understanding this wrong.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2016, 07:26:33 PM
What would be the need in this though? That comes across a bit like they think shes talking rubbish but don't want to say so so lets create this guy out of thin air to get rid of the focus on him? Sorry if I'm understanding this wrong.

That's exactly what I think.  OG can't actually prove Jane's statement to be rubbish - ( they probably can't prove anything), so this is an alternative method of removing Tannerman from the equation.

OG are no longer looking for Tannerman, but they are looking for Smithman.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
Well no, we can't expect them to explain everything they do. I just cannot understand how they can effectively eliminate the guy Jane thought she saw...on nothing. I mean, he was going the wrong way even for where he was meant to be coming from :S

We could all see that, Chloe.  I went off in mild bemusement at the time, while I had a think about it.

I think the problem was the half an hour or more between the Tanner Sighting and the Smith Sighting, although that wouldn't be hard to explain if you consider the time required to arrange a Pick Up.
None of them would have known if it would be successful until it actually happened.  So the abductor probably hid somewhere until it was arranged.
I think Madeleine was taken off from a beach, and no one would have wanted to be hanging around on some beach for half an hour with an abducted child.

I worked this out a very long time ago.  And whether or not I am right is actually not that important.  But I haven't changed my mind in nine years.

Yes, I have considered other options, but none of them make the same sort of sense.  This why the Cell Phone Pings are so important.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 07:38:15 PM
(snip) These shutter don't actually make a noise, otherwise I would be aware of it on a daily basis, which I am not.
Oh, and I raise and close shutters on a Holiday House, and they hardly make a sound ... (snip)
Re your shutters on two houses Eleanor. Are they metal? And are they manually operated?

The question of how noisy or silent these shutters are is so important. Do we have any cites from statements? Or  videos of of these shutters being opened?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 07:56:59 PM
Re your shutters on two houses Eleanor. Are they metal? And are they manually operated?

The question of how noisy or silent these shutters are is so important. Do we have any cites from statements? Or  videos of of these shutters being opened?

It's not just two houses, Pegasus.  It is several.  Some plastic, and supposedly some metal, although I am not certain about that.  None of them ever need painting.  All manually operated.  Same sort of thing as 5a.  These shutters are standard on the Continent.  None of them make  any noise.  I would hear them if they did.

And none of them are impossible to break into.  Believe me or not, as you will.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2016, 08:04:30 PM

Not sure about that. It was round the corner from where G & J were standing, even though they can't agree exactly where that was.

Jez would have been walking straight past without any reason to look behind over his left shoulder towards the McCann apartment while negotiating a buggy over cobbles.  Even if he had seen the raised shutter, would there have been any reason for him to think there was anything suspicious about it?

The car park was dark.  There was no security lighting.  There were overhanging trees. The window would have been outside Jane Tanner's peripheral vision as she walked from the entrance of the car park to the building. 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2016, 08:07:12 PM
Well no, we can't expect them to explain everything they do. I just cannot understand how they can effectively eliminate the guy Jane thought she saw...on nothing. I mean, he was going the wrong way even for where he was meant to be coming from :S

Jane did not 'think' she saw a man.  She saw him.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2016, 08:11:29 PM
Jane did not 'think' she saw a man.  She saw him.

Indeed, but she also thought (after the event) that she had seen the abductor.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 08:15:36 PM
Indeed, but she also thought (after the event) that she had seen the abductor.

She did.  She just didn't realise at the time.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2016, 08:19:40 PM
OG seem to disagree.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2016, 08:41:46 PM
OG seem to disagree.

If you say so.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 04, 2016, 10:24:12 PM
OG seem to disagree.
OG have opened up another scenario.  That doesn't necessarily mean that they have ruled Janes testimony out.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ChloeR on May 04, 2016, 10:27:14 PM
Jane did not 'think' she saw a man.  She saw him.
Indeed..I was not trying to insinuate that Jane went crackers for the night or something. Just a very badly worded post. Apologies.

Also I do not believe that SY have it right ruling that Janes guy out and using night creche dad to do so. It is highly unlikely that this guy taking his kid home was what Jane saw.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 10:46:18 PM
The sound of shutters being opened http://youtu.be/1uWUXFMZdWE
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 04, 2016, 10:55:22 PM
(snip)... It is highly unlikely that this guy taking his kid home was what Jane saw.
9.15pm is a bit early to pick up from creche, he could have been on way to creche?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ChloeR on May 04, 2016, 11:10:10 PM
9.15pm is a bit early to pick up from creche, he could have been on way to creche?

Maybe. I'm sure I remember it as he was taking the child home though? Was a couple years ago now mind and my memory isn't the best
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 05, 2016, 12:34:13 AM
The sound of shutters being opened http://youtu.be/1uWUXFMZdWE

Making a bit of a noise i would say....rather than "no noise"

I have stayed in various med apartments over the years, the shutters getting raised or let down was always somethng I had to do very slowly so as to not make a noise at siesta time
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 05, 2016, 12:56:01 AM
Making a bit of a noise i would say....rather than "no noise"

I have stayed in various med apartments over the years, the shutters getting raised or let down was always somethng I had to do very slowly so as to not make a noise at siesta time
The shutters Heri used in the video are not 5A shutters, but they are similar.
IMO the noise would be likely to wake a sleeping child.

@Heri In the first part of the video, when the window is still closed, and the shutter is being raised by hands, is the microphone inside the room? Is that the sound which a child inside the room would hear, even while the window is closed?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 05, 2016, 12:59:05 AM
The shutters Heri used in the video are not 5A shutters, but they are similar.
IMO the noise would be likely to wake a sleeping child.
@Heri In the first part of the video, when the window is still closed, and the shutter is being raised by hands, is the microphone inside the room? Is that the sound which a child inside the room would hear, even while the window is closed?
It is impossible that these shutters make no noise at all,when lifted or closed, the whole mechanism and material construction ensures this. GOodnght!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 05, 2016, 01:10:07 AM
It is impossible that these shutters make no noise at all,when lifted or closed, the whole mechanism and material construction ensures this. GOodnght!
What we need is some cites from the statements in the files about how noisy the actual shutters fitted in block 5 were.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 05, 2016, 01:19:38 AM
What we need is some cites from the statements in the files about how noisy the actual shutters fitted in block 5 were.

If they existed I am sure 8 years later they would be common knowledge

This should do as evidence of "noise" from 5a shutters, must dash now



Edited for correct video
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 05, 2016, 01:25:12 AM
Making a bit of a noise i would say....rather than "no noise"

I have stayed in various med apartments over the years, the shutters getting raised or let down was always somethng I had to do very slowly so as to not make a noise at siesta time

The noise depends on where the microphone was and the settings on the mike.  Then the audio settings when it was played back

I dont think that you can rely on a video to tell you all those things.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 05, 2016, 01:33:37 AM
The noise depends on where the microphone was and the settings on the mike.  Then the audio settings when it was played back

I dont think that you can rely on a video to tell you all those things.

As i posted earlier, I have used these on umpteen occasions, they make a small to large racket dependng on how you handle them, they are not ROMAN blnds or NETS

There is no way GM will not have heard them if in the apartment at the time....if whilst chattng to Jez it is irrelevant if he did or not

It is 1.30 bye now
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 05, 2016, 01:46:50 AM
This should do as evidence of "noise" from 5a shutters, must dash now
http://youtu.be/IeuMzyaCnnY
Thanks Merc for proof that the shutter is certainly noisy.
http://youtu.be/IeuMzyaCnnY
On hearing this noise at their window at night any mobile child would certainly wake and run straight out that bedroom door to ...
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 05, 2016, 02:23:52 AM
Thanks Merc for proof that the shutter is certainly noisy.
http://youtu.be/IeuMzyaCnnY
On hearing this noise at their window at night any mobile child would certainly wake and run straight out that bedroom door to ...

I have no idea what the psychology and possble actions of any 3 year old is in those circumstances might  be
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 05, 2016, 02:31:50 AM
I have no idea what the psychology and possble actions of any 3 year old is in those circumstances might  be
You could make an educated guess Merc?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 05, 2016, 09:24:38 AM
Thanks Merc for proof that the shutter is certainly noisy.
http://youtu.be/IeuMzyaCnnY
On hearing this noise at their window at night any mobile child would certainly wake and run straight out that bedroom door to ...

The shutters only made an appreciable noise when they were being forced repeatedly in an attempt to make them 'lock' in place.  No burglar would do that ... nor is that a demonstration of the technique used to raise them ... which was once the window had been slid open, the interior mechanism was used.

Listen to the shutter being raised before force was used ...  and listen as the shutters are allowed to fall back into place ... that will give a more realistic idea of the noise level normal opening of these shutters would produce ~ rather than the bull charging at the gate effort as seen here.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 05, 2016, 04:47:36 PM
The shutters only made an appreciable noise when they were being forced repeatedly in an attempt to make them 'lock' in place.  No burglar would do that ... nor is that a demonstration of the technique used to raise them ... which was once the window had been slid open, the interior mechanism was used.

Listen to the shutter being raised before force was used ...  and listen as the shutters are allowed to fall back into place ... that will give a more realistic idea of the noise level normal opening of these shutters would produce ~ rather than the bull charging at the gate effort as seen here.
We need someone to do a video demo of Heri's method, but with maximum speed and maximum quietness, exactly as a burglar would do. IMO a burglar with experience would get both window and shutter completely open in 10 seconds. @Heri do you think 10 seconds is possible?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 06, 2016, 01:22:23 AM
The shutters only made an appreciable noise when they were being forced repeatedly in an attempt to make them 'lock' in place.  No burglar would do that ... nor is that a demonstration of the technique used to raise them ... which was once the window had been slid open, the interior mechanism was used.

Listen to the shutter being raised before force was used ...  and listen as the shutters are allowed to fall back into place ... that will give a more realistic idea of the noise level normal opening of these shutters would produce ~ rather than the bull charging at the gate effort as seen here.

Shutters ALWAYS make a noise howver they are opened or closed
The point is why/where does it matter
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 06, 2016, 01:45:19 AM
Shutters ALWAYS make a noise howver they are opened or closed
The point is why/where does it matter
Shutter noise matters because the the child was only 3 metres away from the shutter when it was opened
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 06, 2016, 02:25:04 AM
Shutter noise matters because the the child was only 3 metres away from the shutter when it was opened

Ah thanks, i was caught up in whether gerry jane or jez would have heard them
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 06, 2016, 03:01:17 AM
Ah thanks, i was caught up in whether gerry jane or jez would have heard them
The sound of the shutter being raised entered 8 ears Merc if you think about it.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 06, 2016, 03:15:11 AM
The sound of the shutter being raised entered 8 ears Merc if you think about it.

8 ears? 4 people? One burglar and three kids?

Off to watch  a film, laters

Peggy you seem to forget a basic fact, many people just dont believe the mccans
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 06, 2016, 03:34:19 AM
8 ears? 4 people? One burglar and three kids? (snip)
Yes.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 06, 2016, 11:37:26 AM
Ah thanks, i was caught up in whether gerry jane or jez would have heard them
I am pretty sure that neither Gerry nor Jez would have heard anything.

The sound would have had to travel

1)  Around the corner of the building  and over the wall.  The building was between them and the noise and they were effectively at the back of the building whilst any noise would have been at the front
2)  They were about 26 yards away.  Too far and with the building in between.

If someone other than Tannerman messed with them ... ?attempting to close them? ... and Jane was in line with the window at that particular moment as she walked, she might have heard a faint noise but it had to travel over 6 yards and over a very high wall,, dropping down to her ears.  It wouldn't have been much.  I doubt that it would register even .... and if it did, so what?

Someone just closing their shutters somewhere ... an everyday sound
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2016, 12:20:36 PM
And you believe Jane Tanner passed them both within a few feet without being heard or seen. Please  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 06, 2016, 02:02:11 PM
(snip) an everyday sound
It would not sound like an everyday sound to a child in that bedroom.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2016, 03:39:05 PM
Shutter noise matters because the the child was only 3 metres away from the shutter when it was opened

Two other children were nearer.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2016, 06:33:56 PM

At 5:59 there is an example of a blind being raised ... it sounds as if it is a very quiet operation.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2016, 07:36:14 PM
Paul Gordon 5A occupant said they were noisy.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 06, 2016, 09:22:03 PM
And you believe Jane Tanner passed them both within a few feet without being heard or seen. Please  @)(++(*

Easily done when engrossed in conversation and when Gerry who had his back to Jane blocked Jezes view with his body.  Probably tho, both were looking down at Jezes baby in the pushchair ... and quite probably they were in a smallish gap between parked cars.

IIRC Steven Carpenter commented on the cars parked down there.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2016, 09:24:20 PM
Easily done when engrossed in conversation and when Gerry who had his back to Jane blocked Jezes view with his body.  Probably tho, both were looking down at Jezes baby in the pushchair ... and quite probably they were in a smallish gap between parked cars.

IIRC Steven Carpenter commented on the cars parked down there.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

Can you provide evidence of parked cars from the 3 witnesses? SC wasn't there at the time.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2016, 09:27:49 PM
Can you provide evidence of parked cars from the 3 witnesses? SC wasn't there at the time.

If Jez remained standing on the road with his child in a buggy during the conversation it suggests there was some sort of barrier between him and traffic ... a parked vehicle for example?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2016, 09:46:47 PM
If Jez remained standing on the road with his child in a buggy during the conversation it suggests there was some sort of barrier between him and traffic ... a parked vehicle for example?

Did you see any parked cars in Jane and Gerry's reconstruction? You have zero evidence from the 3 witnesses of parked vehicles.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2016, 09:57:48 PM
Did you see any parked cars in Jane and Gerry's reconstruction? You have zero evidence from the 3 witnesses of parked vehicles.

There is a witness statement which mentions parked cars ... and zero evidence that there were none still parked there during the conversation.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2016, 10:09:42 PM
There is a witness statement which mentions parked cars ... and zero evidence that there were none still parked there during the conversation.

It's amazing how Jane Tanner can remember clearly Tannerman as time went by but parked vehicles is a toughie. But the last sentence is most interesting. How far away was she really when she saw the man  &%+((£

4078    “Were there any cars around there?”

Reply    “Erm, umm, no, I don’t know.  I don’t remember.  I don’t remember walking past any going up here and I think I would have probably, if there had been I would have realised, because that would have obscured my view of the person walking, so I can’t think of, I can’t think of any, no”.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 06, 2016, 10:10:58 PM
http://youtu.be/Ff-4H_K1mlc

At 5:59 there is an example of a blind being raised ... it sounds as if it is a very quiet operation.
Thanks Brietta, very interesting to see how the strap and the stops work.
However he has edited the video by turning the original audio to very low volume, which reduces the shutter noise to almost nothin, then he has added a second audio track (narration) at much higher volume.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 06, 2016, 10:15:07 PM
Can you provide evidence of parked cars from the 3 witnesses? SC wasn't there at the time.

Time doesn't normally seem to bother you.  You adjust it to suit your purpose it seems


Stpephen Carpenter was there at approximately the same time as Gerry and Jez, withion a very few minutes either way.

PdL in  May is not a busy time.  We were there in June in 2010 IIRC and the roads were so empty of traffick that evening or day it was the norm for us to walk in the road much of the time.  It is unlikely that the cars parked there would change in the couple or so minutes that the Carpenters walked across relative to the time that Gerry and Jez chatted.

Stephen Carpenter IIRC stated that there were parked cars there.  And that was close as damn-it to the time that Gerry and Jez chatted.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 06, 2016, 10:18:56 PM
If Jez remained standing on the road with his child in a buggy during the conversation it suggests there was some sort of barrier between him and traffic ... a parked vehicle for example?

Precisely.

He felt protected by the parked cars.  Almost certainly he stood in the gap between two of them.


No dad with a child in a buggy would stand in the road, despite the extremely light traffick, unless he was protected.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 06, 2016, 10:21:56 PM
Paul Gordon 5A occupant said they were noisy.
Thanks Pathfinder

P.Gordon statement: "We used to open the blinds during the day, returning to close them at night. When the blinds were being closed they would make much noise."

S.Gordon statement: "The bedroom shutters made a lot of noise and I find it difficult to understand that opening them would go un-noticed."
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 06, 2016, 11:06:17 PM
Thanks Pathfinder

P.Gordon statement: "We used to open the blinds during the day, returning to close them at night. When the blinds were being closed they would make much noise."

S.Gordon statement: "The bedroom shutters made a lot of noise and I find it difficult to understand that opening them would go un-noticed."

They were an every day sound pegasus ... and unlikely to disturb because of that
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2016, 11:07:10 PM
It's amazing how Jane Tanner can remember clearly Tannerman as time went by but parked vehicles is a toughie. But the last sentence is most interesting. How far away was she really when she saw the man  &%+((£

4078    “Were there any cars around there?”

Reply    “Erm, umm, no, I don’t know.  I don’t remember.  I don’t remember walking past any going up here and I think I would have probably, if there had been I would have realised, because that would have obscured my view of the person walking, so I can’t think of, I can’t think of any, no”.

Jane Tanner did not see the man carrying a child until she had passed Gerry and Jez and was referring to the area beyond the gate up to the junction where the man crossed ... not to the area immediately outside the tapas nearer to the men in conversation.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 07, 2016, 12:03:27 AM
They were an every day sound pegasus ... and unlikely to disturb because of that
The night of 3rd May was not day, it was nighttime Sadie.
It was at least 2 hours after her bedtime when someone opened the shutter and window of her bedroom.

 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 12:13:31 AM
Jane Tanner did not see the man carrying a child until she had passed Gerry and Jez and was referring to the area beyond the gate up to the junction where the man crossed ... not to the area immediately outside the tapas nearer to the men in conversation.

Both Gerry and Kate's first statements say Jane was a lot further away when she spotted the man crossing the road. Maybe Pegasus can confirm the distance from the original Portuguese statements given on 4 May 2007.

SY will know if crecheman saw anybody on that road when he looked right before crossing it.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 07, 2016, 12:14:45 AM
The night of 3rd May was not day, it was nighttime Sadie.
It was at least 2 hours after her bedtime when someone opened the shutter and window of her bedroom.
I was using day to refer to the 24 hour day, Pegasus.  I realise that it was evening and dark.  But I think the same would apply; the noise would be so usual as to not  be noticed by most.

Mrs Fenn didn't notice the sound of the shutter being opened for instance ... altho Mr Gordon differentiated and mentioned that the noise was happening as the shutters were closed.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 07, 2016, 12:14:56 AM
The night of 3rd May was not day, it was nighttime Sadie.
It was at least 2 hours after her bedtime when someone opened the shutter and window of her bedroom.

I agree with Sadie,gosh, raising and closing shutters happens at mornngs, lunchtimes and late evenings and sometmes other times, so in itself not a suspicious sound at all, unless one hears one they know is theirs and they know no one is home, and theyre standing close by
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 07, 2016, 12:17:51 AM
Both Gerry and Kate's first statements say Jane was a lot further away when she spotted the man crossing the road. Maybe Pegasus can confirm the distance from the original Portuguese statements given on 4 May 2007.
Neither Gerry nor Kate was there. 

Different distances are given.  In some reports / statements Jane was only about 5 yards from Tannerman, in others further away.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 12:19:10 AM
Neither Gerry nor Kate was there. 

Different distances are given.  In some reports / statements Jane was only about 5 yards from Tannerman, in others further away.

Kate and Gerry got the distance from somebody. Jane told Gerry about the sighting.

How could a parked car be blocking her view from that short distance?

"If there had been I would have realised, because that would have obscured my view of the person walking." JT
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 07, 2016, 12:23:27 AM
Both Gerry and Kate's first statements say Jane was a lot further away when she spotted the man crossing the road. Maybe Pegasus can confirm the distance from the original Portuguese statements given on 4 May 2007.

SY will know if crecheman saw anybody on that road when he looked right before crossing it.

At the re-enactment although the men may have been positioned wherever ... Jane Tanner is almost level with the lounge window while viewing the man carrying the little girl if memory serves me well.

If that man looked right ... I assume that at the least he would have seen a woman approaching in flip flops ... she certainly saw him.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 12:29:07 AM
At the re-enactment although the men may have been positioned wherever ... Jane Tanner is almost level with the lounge window while viewing the man carrying the little girl if memory serves me well.

If that man looked right ... I assume that at the least he would have seen a woman approaching in flip flops ... she certainly saw him.

I think it was impossible for Jane to pass them both by the gate without being noticed so I think she may have spotted him before taking the route Amaral's believed she took - the path way so she turned left and never passed Gerry and Jes.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 07, 2016, 12:33:33 AM
I think it was impossible for Jane to pass them both by the gate without being noticed so I think she may have spotted him before taking the route Amaral's believed she took - the path way so she she turned left and never passed Gerry and Jes.

I'm sorry.  I really know nothing about Mr Amaral thinking Jane Tanner turned left.  Please explain.

However, had she done so ... how on earth could she have seen the man she saw with a building in between?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 07, 2016, 12:34:03 AM
(snip) the noise would be so usual as to not  be noticed by most (snip).
That night was the very first time the child heard her bedroom shutter being opened.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 07, 2016, 12:35:28 AM
I think it was impossible for Jane to pass them both by the gate without being noticed so I think she may have spotted him before taking the route Amaral's believed she took - the path way so she turned left and never passed Gerry and Jes.

She said they locked their patio doors, so was she avoiding gerry? By taking the roundabout other route?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 12:39:43 AM
I'm sorry.  I really know nothing about Mr Amaral thinking Jane Tanner turned left.  Please explain.

However, had she done so ... how on earth could she have seen the man she saw with a building in between?

I agree with Amaral on this point.

As Jane left the secondary reception entrance and started walking up the road she saw the man crossing from about 25 metres away before she turned left onto the path and took that route back to her apartment. It was impossible for her to pass by the side gate where they were facing each other without being noticed. They weren't facing her direction.

Jes clearly says where he was in his first statement on 7 May 2007.

"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs."
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 12:41:44 AM
She said they locked their patio doors, so was she avoiding gerry? By taking the roundabout other route?

Yes I believe she avoided him.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 07, 2016, 12:47:01 AM
Yes I believe she avoided him.

Id probably avoid him as well
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 12:50:54 AM
Id probably avoid him as well

 @)(++(* and it explains if there were any parked cars it may have blocked her view of the man from that distance away.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 07, 2016, 12:59:28 AM
@)(++(* and it explains if there were any parked cars it may have blocked her view of the man from that distance away.

not up to speed on the parked cars discussion, but it was a stretch to believe what tanner said she saw of the manwith some of the minutest details of the hair,clothes and shoes she gave having only looked at him for a couple seconds, details about every strand of his hair, whether there was creases in his trousers and high many inches in his heels, plus description of skin, not to mention description of the child, their clothing,then agan maybe many people have been cia trained
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 07, 2016, 01:04:38 AM
I agree with Amaral on this point.

As Jane left the secondary reception entrance and started walking up the road she saw the man crossing from about 25 metres away before she turned left onto the path and took that route back to her apartment. It was impossible for her to pass by the side gate where they were facing each other without being noticed. They weren't facing her direction.

Jes clearly says where he was in his first statement on 7 May 2007.

"I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs."

How did she get into her apartment?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 07, 2016, 01:14:42 AM
I agree with Amaral on this point.

As Jane left the secondary reception entrance and started walking up the road she saw the man crossing from about 25 metres away before she turned left onto the path and took that route back to her apartment. (snip)
On what page of his book does Mr Amaral say this?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 01:20:23 AM
How did she get into her apartment?

You can take the path route to the car park. There are two routes.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 01:21:27 AM
On what page of his book does Mr Amaral say this?

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 07, 2016, 01:25:22 AM
You can take the path route to the car park. There are two routes.

But that involves walking the length of the apartment block in the direction of block 4 ... then walking up the side of the apartment block and walking all the way along the path between the apartment and the wall of the car park.

Long road for a short cut ... and why would she take it in the dark and seclusion?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 07, 2016, 01:27:40 AM

Does this mean they all left their back doors open for ease of checking? I suppose, yet again, since there are no independent witnesses otherwise its a possibility despite their sworn statements

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 01:27:49 AM
But that involves walking the length of the apartment block in the direction of block 4 ... then walking up the side of the apartment block and walking all the way along the path between the apartment and the wall of the car park.

Long road for a short cut ... and why would she take it in the dark and seclusion?

It eliminates the impossible.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 07, 2016, 01:28:39 AM
But that involves walking the length of the apartment block in the direction of block 4 ... then walking up the side of the apartment block and walking all the way along the path between the apartment and the wall of the car park.

Long road for a short cut ... and why would she take it in the dark and seclusion?

To avoid gerry and/or to enter flat from patio door
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 01:34:35 AM
But that involves walking the length of the apartment block in the direction of block 4 ... then walking up the side of the apartment block and walking all the way along the path between the apartment and the wall of the car park.

Long road for a short cut ... and why would she take it in the dark and seclusion?

That was Madeleine's last route from the tapas bar back to the apartment front key door at 5:30/40 on 3 May 2007.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 01:39:52 AM
"Inner route would take less than minute and outer route just over a minute."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 07, 2016, 01:54:34 AM
"Inner route would take less than minute and outer route just over a minute."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

Jane Tanner is on record as having walked past the two men in conversation towards the junction where she had seen the man carrying the pyjama clad child crossing the road in front of her.

She turned left at the junction followed the route which the man she saw had just traversed before turning into the  5A car park and home.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 09:07:07 AM
This is simply not believable when she claims to have passed them within a few feet. "I don’t think they did see because as I went to acknowledge them and they, they didn’t sort of say hello back or anything." The truth is she can't remember much at all except seeing the man crossing the road.

"Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. "

4078    “Go back over it and have a think if you heard anything from the point where you have passed Gerry and Jez to seeing this man, what could you hear?”
Reply    “Phew, I can’t think of anything, there was nothing, no, nothing that comes to mind, there was nothing, as I say, I can’t remember hearing a car or, no, nothing, I mean, it was quite, apart from, as I say, it was very quiet really around there”.

4078    “And Gez may have been facing you but you can’t really remember.”
Reply    “I can’t remember which, I’m trying to remember, because he obviously had the pram I’m trying to remember which way the pram was facing but I, no I can’t, no.”

4078    “What about the man and the child, did you hear his footsteps?”
Reply    “No, not that I can remember”.
 
4078    “Not that you were conscious of?”
Reply    “No, no, not that I’m conscious of, no”.

4078    “And you, obviously you can’t remember whether or not Gez saw you?”
Reply    “No. As I say I don’t think they did see because as I went to acknowledge them and they, they didn’t sort of say hello back or anything.”

4078    “So as you are trying to remember it and you can think of yourself walking up that road and you have gone past Gerry and Jez”.
Reply    “Umm”.
 
4078    “Are you conscious of any other movement?”
Reply    “It’s, it’s too long now.  Erm, no, not really.  I mean, I was just walking up, you know, I was like just sort of on a, not on a mission, but I was just like, you know, on the way to, to check, so I didn’t notice anything either side.  The only thing I noticed a movement was when somebody walked across at the top”.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 07, 2016, 10:48:36 AM
This is simply not believable when she claims to have passed them within a few feet. "I don’t think they did see because as I went to acknowledge them and they, they didn’t sort of say hello back or anything." The truth is she can't remember much at all except seeing the man crossing the road.

"Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. "

4078    “Go back over it and have a think if you heard anything from the point where you have passed Gerry and Jez to seeing this man, what could you hear?”
Reply    “Phew, I can’t think of anything, there was nothing, no, nothing that comes to mind, there was nothing, as I say, I can’t remember hearing a car or, no, nothing, I mean, it was quite, apart from, as I say, it was very quiet really around there”.

4078    “And Gez may have been facing you but you can’t really remember.”
Reply    “I can’t remember which, I’m trying to remember, because he obviously had the pram I’m trying to remember which way the pram was facing but I, no I can’t, no.”

4078    “What about the man and the child, did you hear his footsteps?”
Reply    “No, not that I can remember”.
 
4078    “Not that you were conscious of?”
Reply    “No, no, not that I’m conscious of, no”.

4078    “And you, obviously you can’t remember whether or not Gez saw you?”
Reply    “No. As I say I don’t think they did see because as I went to acknowledge them and they, they didn’t sort of say hello back or anything.”

4078    “So as you are trying to remember it and you can think of yourself walking up that road and you have gone past Gerry and Jez”.
Reply    “Umm”.
 
4078    “Are you conscious of any other movement?”
Reply    “It’s, it’s too long now.  Erm, no, not really.  I mean, I was just walking up, you know, I was like just sort of on a, not on a mission, but I was just like, you know, on the way to, to check, so I didn’t notice anything either side.  The only thing I noticed a movement was when somebody walked across at the top”.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

Indeed ... that was a very full and detailed interview which was recorded over a period of some hours ... she did actually say a lot more about the man she saw than the one sentence you have highlighted.

Just as she made no bones about passing Gerry and Jez in the street.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 11:05:29 AM
Indeed ... that was a very full and detailed interview which was recorded over a period of some hours ... she did actually say a lot more about the man she saw than the one sentence you have highlighted.

Just as she made no bones about passing Gerry and Jez in the street.

She did not pass them - it was not possible the way she claims. She had to turn left before meeting them. It's the only explanation why she wasn't seen or heard. She can't remember hearing footsteps, Gerry or Jes talking, she remembers nothing and it was quiet. All she remembered was seeing a man crossing at the top.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2016, 06:48:13 PM
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — The nephew of a retired Bronx nurse was charged with her murder late Friday, following her disappearance more than a week ago.

Police said her body still had not been found late Friday night after Topping was charged.

Myers had last been seen at her home at 1295 Grand Concourse last Wednesday, police said. Investigators believed foul play may be involved after sources say a cadaver dog got a hit in her bedroom.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/05/06/retired-bronx-nurse-disappearance/

Sirius, one of Singapore's first cadaver detector police dogs, given a hero's farewell

Said Mr Tan in his Facebook post: "He made Singapore proud, he served the nation as a service dog, he served the people, he helped to crack down cases. He is just so wonderful."

The post was shared more than 2,000 times and had garnered more than 19,000 'likes' as of Saturday morning.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/sirius-one-of-singapores-first-cadaver-detector-police-dogs-given-a-heros-farewell
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 08, 2016, 02:24:56 AM
We all know cadaver dogs dont react to nose snot, sweat hidden in cuddly toys and pizza as suggested by some deluded posters
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 08, 2016, 02:50:30 AM
We all know cadaver dogs dont react to nose snot, sweat hidden in cuddly toys and pizza as suggested by some deluded posters
Eddie was double trained

In  addition to his cadaver training,  he also had been trained to find dead and living bodies in collapsed buildings etc.

Part of his training for this was for bodily fluids such as nose snot (nice!), urine, sweat and blood.  Once a dog has been trained to something, he cannot be untrained ..... so .. . he will alert to such things.  He had also been trained to alert to dead pigs.  They couldn't use human bodies in the UK, so they used pigs. 

He was, we are told also trained to alert to human bodies in the USA.  Again, once trained to alerting to pigs, it could not be untrained out of him

Soz, mercury but you are forgetting all these things.

Thoroughly analysed and discussed in an earlier thread ... or two ... or three.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 08, 2016, 03:08:13 AM
(snip) Part of his training for this was for bodily fluids such as ... sweat (snip)
Every person has millions of sweat paricles on their skin.
So why didn't Eddie alert in 5A to every person in the dog team Sadie?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 08, 2016, 03:18:33 AM
Every person has millions of sweat paricles on their skin.
So why didn't Eddie alert in 5A to every person in the dog team Sadie?

Dunno.  Maybe it is only old sweat that he alerts to?   Or maybe he only alerts to it when instructed to do so in certain areas ... he would be conditioned by daily contact to fresh sweat
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2016, 10:46:43 AM
Eddie was double trained

In  addition to his cadaver training,  he also had been trained to find dead and living bodies in collapsed buildings etc.

Part of his training for this was for bodily fluids such as nose snot (nice!), urine, sweat and blood.  Once a dog has been trained to something, he cannot be untrained ..... so .. . he will alert to such things.  He had also been trained to alert to dead pigs.  They couldn't use human bodies in the UK, so they used pigs. 

He was, we are told also trained to alert to human bodies in the USA.  Again, once trained to alerting to pigs, it could not be untrained out of him

Soz, mercury but you are forgetting all these things.

Thoroughly analysed and discussed in an earlier thread ... or two ... or three.

All cadaver dogs will alert to pig. You need to do research and a dead pig was not reported as missing from 5A.

"Acting in my role of advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced
pig based products into training assessments 100%! of the animals alerted to the medium"

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 08, 2016, 11:03:55 AM
All cadaver dogs will alert to pig. You need to do research and a dead pig was not reported as missing from 5A.

"Acting in my role of advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced
pig based products into training assessments 100%! of the animals alerted to the medium"

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

Despite claims and counterclaims regarding the woof woofs, something which has never been explained is why they only alerted to materials and objects which were associated with the McCanns or accommodation occupied by them.  From what I have read in the files, alerts were never recorded elsewhere.

Anyone like to explain this troubling coincidence?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 11:32:59 AM
Despite claims and counterclaims regarding the woof woofs, something which has never been explained is why they only alerted to materials and objects which were associated with the McCanns or accommodation occupied by them.  From what I have read in the files, alerts were never recorded elsewhere.

Anyone like to explain this troubling coincidence?

It has been explained...according to the files the dogs completely ignored the McCanns apartment  before being repeatedly brought back and alerting to areas they had completely ignored...same with the car


Maybe this great alleged skills of the dog made an intelligent member of the Polícia Judiciária, Inspector Paulo Días to ask the following (Relatório de Análise dos primeiros 11 Volumes): "If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times

can anyone explain this troubling fact
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on May 08, 2016, 11:38:56 AM
Despite claims and counterclaims regarding the woof woofs, something which has never been explained is why they only alerted to materials and objects which were associated with the McCanns or accommodation occupied by them.  From what I have read in the files, alerts were never recorded elsewhere.

Anyone like to explain this troubling coincidence?

Multiple cadaver alerts in multiple places, which must have occurred in different time frames & connected only to the McCanns, reeks like dead herrings. IMO.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 11:47:42 AM
It has been explained...according to the files the dogs completely ignored the McCanns apartment  before being repeatedly brought back and alerting to areas they had completely ignored...same with the car


Maybe this great alleged skills of the dog made an intelligent member of the Polícia Judiciária, Inspector Paulo Días to ask the following (Relatório de Análise dos primeiros 11 Volumes): "If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times

can anyone explain this troubling fact

What is your expertise in the handling of dogs in these situations ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 08, 2016, 11:54:42 AM
It has been explained...according to the files the dogs completely ignored the McCanns apartment  before being repeatedly brought back and alerting to areas they had completely ignored...same with the car


Maybe this great alleged skills of the dog made an intelligent member of the Polícia Judiciária, Inspector Paulo Días to ask the following (Relatório de Análise dos primeiros 11 Volumes): "If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times

can anyone explain this troubling fact

Strange that isn't quite how Grime tells it.  According to the dog handler Eddie sensed something the moment he was brought to the door of apartment 5a.

You still haven't answered my question, why did the dogs only alert to the McCanns apartment and property?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 11:55:30 AM
What is your expertise in the handling of dogs in these situations ?

#what was amarals seeing as he drew all the wrong conclusions
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 11:57:12 AM
Strange that isn't quite how Grime tells it.  According to the dog handler Eddie sensed something the moment he was brought to the door of apartment 5a.

Grimes opinion....nothing concrete...you cannot ignore what the pj said about the alerts...and you cannot ignore what Harrison said....NO INFERENCE....many people are drawing their own conclusions
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 11:58:31 AM
What is your expertise in the handling of dogs in these situations ?

what is [ removed goading ] R Hall's experience...making an absolute fool of himself on the phone to SY re the dogs
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 08, 2016, 11:59:56 AM
#what was amarals seeing as he drew all the wrong conclusions

That is your opinion, it has by no means been established.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 08, 2016, 12:02:07 PM
Grimes opinion....nothing concrete...you cannot ignore what the pj said about the alerts...and you cannot ignore what Harrison said....NO INFERENCE....many people are drawing their own conclusions

Grime's opinion?  He's the expert or hadn't you realised?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 12:03:17 PM
what is [ removed goading ] R Hall's experience...making an absolute fool of himself on the phone to SY re the dogs

You do make some strange comments.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2016, 12:48:57 PM
"I am convinced that on May 3, 2007, between 21:40 and 22:00, a man, I do not know who yet, opened from outside the window of Madeleine's room, trying to theft, believing that no one was in the apartment, he ran to Madeleine, and took her away. That man (or an accomplice) was seen by Jane Tanner and members of the Smith family."

Heri's theory. The abductor was seen by Jane Tanner after 21:40 and the Smiths at 10. So he believes Jane saw him going one way (much later than she claimed and with long hair!) and the Smiths saw him going another way (now with short hair!). It seems like the aductor didn't know which way he was going and Jane is incredibly unreliable as a witness. He opened the window and ran to Madeleine and took her away (ignoring and running through the twins in their cots I presume). I want to see this reconstruction.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Benice on May 08, 2016, 01:51:06 PM
Despite claims and counterclaims regarding the woof woofs, something which has never been explained is why they only alerted to materials and objects which were associated with the McCanns or accommodation occupied by them.  From what I have read in the files, alerts were never recorded elsewhere.

Anyone like to explain this troubling coincidence?

You must have missed a lot of posts Angelo:

Here's one I made earlier on the subject:-

It seems to me that 'time allowed to search' is the obvious discrepancy between searches of anything McCann related - and other searches.

It's plain from the videos that the dogs do not always go in and immediately identify and make a beeline for a place or object that has been contaminated.    If that was the case then surely Eddie would have immediately alerted to Cuddlecat - and Keela would have alerted to the white curtains on her first search - and Eddie would have alerted to the keyfob on his first encounter with the Renault.

The dogs obviously need time.   

The longest time spent on any of the other cars was around 30 seconds - and no alerts were made.   After the same amount of time i.e. 30 seconds was spent on the Renault  -similarly  - no alerts were made.   It was only after being given a lot more time and encouragement regarding the Renault that Eddie finally alerted.     What would have happened if all the other cars had been given the same amount of time and attention?

IMO it's highly likely that other alerts would have occurred, because (as with the apartments) it's hard to believe that no alertable material had ever been deposited in those 9 cars - either in the factory while they were being built - or by their subsequent owners/families/friends.    The same goes for the apartments.




Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 08, 2016, 01:54:25 PM
"I am convinced that on May 3, 2007, between 21:40 and 22:00, a man, I do not know who yet, opened from outside the window of Madeleine's room, trying to theft, believing that no one was in the apartment, he ran to Madeleine, and took her away. That man (or an accomplice) was seen by Jane Tanner and members of the Smith family."

Heri's theory. The abductor was seen by Jane Tanner after 21:40 and the Smiths at 10. So he believes Jane saw him going one way (much later than she claimed and with long hair!) and the Smiths saw him going another way (now with short hair!). It seems like the aductor didn't know which way he was going and Jane is incredibly unreliable as a witness. He opened the window and ran to Madeleine and took her away (ignoring and running through the twins in their cots I presume). I want to see this reconstruction.

Should be hilarious
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 08, 2016, 02:02:30 PM
You must have missed a lot of posts Angelo:

Here's one I made earlier on the subject:-

It seems to me that 'time allowed to search' is the obvious discrepancy between searches of anything McCann related - and other searches.

It's plain from the videos that the dogs do not always go in and immediately identify and make a beeline for a place or object that has been contaminated.    If that was the case then surely Eddie would have immediately alerted to Cuddlecat - and Keela would have alerted to the white curtains on her first search - and Eddie would have alerted to the keyfob on his first encounter with the Renault.

The dogs obviously need time.   

The longest time spent on any of the other cars was around 30 seconds - and no alerts were made.   After the same amount of time i.e. 30 seconds was spent on the Renault  -similarly  - no alerts were made.   It was only after being given a lot more time and encouragement regarding the Renault that Eddie finally alerted.     What would have happened if all the other cars had been given the same amount of time and attention?

IMO it's highly likely that other alerts would have occurred, because (as with the apartments) it's hard to believe that no alertable material had ever been deposited in those 9 cars - either in the factory while they were being built - or by their subsequent owners/families/friends.    The same goes for the apartments.

The dog handler knew from initial responses or in most cases the lack of them whether it was worth pursuing other objects.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 02:07:35 PM
The dog handler knew from initial responses or in most cases the lack of them whether it was worth pursuing other objects.

the dogs handlers opinion is not worth a bean as evidence...for very good reasons
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 08, 2016, 02:12:07 PM
the dogs handlers opinion is not worth a bean as evidence...for very good reasons

Sorry misread your post.  As proof yes but it is still evidence albeit unreliable at this time.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 02:27:03 PM
Sorry misread your post.  As proof yes but it is still evidence albeit unreliable at this time.
Not proof
Not evidence
In fact no inference at all can be made from a them
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2016, 02:39:37 PM
You must have missed a lot of posts Angelo:

Here's one I made earlier on the subject:-

It seems to me that 'time allowed to search' is the obvious discrepancy between searches of anything McCann related - and other searches.

It's plain from the videos that the dogs do not always go in and immediately identify and make a beeline for a place or object that has been contaminated.    If that was the case then surely Eddie would have immediately alerted to Cuddlecat - and Keela would have alerted to the white curtains on her first search - and Eddie would have alerted to the keyfob on his first encounter with the Renault.

The dogs obviously need time.   

The longest time spent on any of the other cars was around 30 seconds - and no alerts were made.   After the same amount of time i.e. 30 seconds was spent on the Renault  -similarly  - no alerts were made.   It was only after being given a lot more time and encouragement regarding the Renault that Eddie finally alerted.     What would have happened if all the other cars had been given the same amount of time and attention?

IMO it's highly likely that other alerts would have occurred, because (as with the apartments) it's hard to believe that no alertable material had ever been deposited in those 9 cars - either in the factory while they were being built - or by their subsequent owners/families/friends.    The same goes for the apartments.

An excellently succinct post Benice which covers everything. 

It would have been impossible for the dogs not to have encountered traces of blood (both alert to blood) in none of the other residences they visited had they been given time.

On record in apartment 5A were two bloody incidents over a short period of time.  Logic dictates that 5A could not have been the only apartment in Luz where similar events had occurred.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2016, 02:45:29 PM
Eddie goes in first to find evidence of death odour. If he doesn't find any the blood dog ain't used.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2016, 02:58:05 PM
Eddie goes in first to find evidence of death odour. If he doesn't find any the blood dog ain't used.

Eddie alerted to blood, sometimes from the living ~ along with other scents of human putrefaction.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Eddie alerted to blood, sometimes from the living ~ along with other scents of human putrefaction.

No blood was found at Eddie's first alert by Keela nor on clothes etc. Keela can detect blood that has been cleaned off murder weapons etc.

Check this out:

(http://s32.postimg.org/o1hqru5xh/blooddog1.png)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2016, 03:17:43 PM
No blood was found at Eddie's first alert by Keela nor on clothes etc. Keela can detect blood that has been cleaned off murder weapons etc.

Check this out:

(http://s32.postimg.org/o1hqru5xh/blooddog1.png)

We came to this from the point being made that the only places in Luz that Eddie alerted in was related to the McCanns and the exaggerated time given to inspecting those places in comparison to others.

The alerts in the garage were ruled out by forensics ... therefore zero alerts there.

No reliance can be placed on a dog which failed to alert to substances which must be present in every residence in Luz even or particularly new build.

People bleed ... sometimes profusely ... sometimes not a lot.

Eddie alerted to blood.  It is illogical that he only alerted in the McCann apartment to the exclusion of all others. 

That certainly needs some explanation.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2016, 03:27:19 PM
We came to this from the point being made that the only places in Luz that Eddie alerted in was related to the McCanns and the exaggerated time given to inspecting those places in comparison to others.

The alerts in the garage were ruled out by forensics ... therefore zero alerts there.

No reliance can be placed on a dog which failed to alert to substances which must be present in every residence in Luz even or particularly new build.

People bleed ... sometimes profusely ... sometimes not a lot.

Eddie alerted to blood.  It is illogical that he only alerted in the McCann apartment to the exclusion of all others. 

That certainly needs some explanation.

Cadaver dogs alert to blood but they first go into crime scene's to detect cadaver odour strangely enough how they get their name  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Admin on May 08, 2016, 03:32:29 PM
Posters are reminded to keep comments amiable otherwise the big delete stick will come out.

Admin
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2016, 03:38:53 PM
Cadaver dogs alert to blood but they first go into crime scene's to detect cadaver odour strangely enough how they get their name  @)(++(*

The point is though ... sometimes there is no cadaver to be found ... sometimes the odour is found as in the Shannon Matthews case ... but thankfully continuing the search resulted in her being found alive and well.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 04:02:00 PM
The point is though ... sometimes there is no cadaver to be found ... sometimes the odour is found as in the Shannon Matthews case ... but thankfully continuing the search resulted in her being found alive and well.

Dogs have no agenda.

They are trained for specific tasks and that is just what Eddie and Keela did.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2016, 04:09:34 PM
Dogs have no agenda.

They are trained for specific tasks and that is just what Eddie and Keela did.

Precisely.
They did what they were trained to do and found or did not find what they were trained to.  But their use most certainly did not resolve what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Part of that was that it was not understood by the senior investigator just exactly what their role in the investigation was nor did he have a grasp of forensics associated with that role.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 04:11:45 PM
Precisely.
They did what they were trained to do and found or did not find what they were trained to.  But their use most certainly did not resolve what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Part of that was that it was not understood by the senior investigator just exactly what their role in the investigation was nor did he have a grasp of forensics associated with that role.

I was not aware Amaral was a forensic  scientist.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 08, 2016, 04:12:21 PM
Precisely.
They did what they were trained to do and found or did not find what they were trained to.  But their use most certainly did not resolve what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Part of that was that it was not understood by the senior investigator just exactly what their role in the investigation was nor did he have a grasp of forensics associated with that role.

And yet OG didn't reject the idea that Madeleine might not have left 5A alive. Where did they get that idea from?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2016, 04:23:11 PM
I was not aware Amaral was a forensic  scientist.

You are possibly quite correct in that assumption however it is usual for the police to seek the advice of experts in fields in which they have no expertise or knowledge and he had the advantage of having Portugal's top forensics scientist Francisco Corte-Real to advise when necessary.
All he had to do was, ask, listen and apply.  I am sure Corte-Real who was in close contact with the FSS throughout would have kept him informed, whether he understood the information being given is less sure.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 04:26:02 PM
You are possibly quite correct in that assumption however it is usual for the police to seek the advice of experts in fields in which they have no expertise or knowledge and he had the advantage of having Portugal's top forensics scientist Francisco Corte-Real to advise when necessary.
All he had to do was, ask, listen and apply.  I am sure Corte-Real who was in close contact with the FSS throughout would have kept him informed, whether he understood the information being given is less sure.

Yet his thesis of accidental death has not been disproved.

Amaral also remains a fixation of McCann supporters, even more highlighted since the recent judgement.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2016, 05:00:20 PM
Yet his thesis of accidental death has not been disproved.

Amaral also remains a fixation of McCann supporters, even more highlighted since the recent judgement.

Are you suggesting Mr Amaral is not pivotal to Madeleine's case?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 05:02:08 PM
Are you suggesting Mr Amaral is not pivotal to Madeleine's case?

The McCanns are.

That is where yet he case started, not Amaral.

...and with the inevitable shelving of the case... .
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 08, 2016, 05:06:59 PM
"I am convinced that on May 3, 2007, between 21:40 and 22:00, a man, I do not know who yet, opened from outside the window of Madeleine's room, trying to theft, believing that no one was in the apartment, he ran to Madeleine, and took her away. That man (or an accomplice) was seen by Jane Tanner and members of the Smith family."

Heri's theory. The abductor was seen by Jane Tanner after 21:40 and the Smiths at 10. So he believes Jane saw him going one way (much later than she claimed and with long hair!) and the Smiths saw him going another way (now with short hair!). It seems like the aductor didn't know which way he was going and Jane is incredibly unreliable as a witness. He opened the window and ran to Madeleine and took her away (ignoring and running through the twins in their cots I presume). I want to see this reconstruction.
His theory is more complex than you have described.

Alternatively, your description is not accurate in terms of his theory.

Take your pick.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2016, 05:09:43 PM
The McCanns are.

That is where yet he case started, not Amaral.

...and with the inevitable shelving of the case... .

  ... and where exactly does the missing child fit into all of this?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2016, 05:10:08 PM
His theory is more complex than you have described.

Alternatively, your description is not accurate in terms of his theory.

Take your pick.

Which part is wrong? Jane Tanner now seeing a man (cleared by SY) with longer hair much later than she said and the Smiths saw the same man with short hair?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 08, 2016, 05:18:22 PM
Which part is wrong? Jane Tanner now seeing a man (cleared by SY) with longer hair much later than she said and the Smiths saw the same man with short hair?
I am not interested in 'championing' someone else's theory.

I am stating, as a fact, that you do not understand Heriberto's theory.

He does not have a single person involved.  He has 2 different people, with 2 different hair lengths.

And if you wish to discuss his theory, please PM him or comment on his blog.  He is quite happy to discuss his thinking.  Or at least, he was with me.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Benice on May 08, 2016, 05:19:56 PM
The dog handler knew from initial responses or in most cases the lack of them whether it was worth pursuing other objects.

M. Grime tells us that

1. Eddie and Keela alerted to blood from living persons.

2.  that they alert to deposits so small that they cannot even be detected by forensics.

3. that they can detect blood deposited decades ago.

I do not believe that with the huge amount of holiday-makers (families) who stayed in those other apartments over the decades - that at no time had anyone ever spilt a single drop of blood in them.

With regard to the cars.   Eddie showed as little initial interest in the Renault as he did in the other cars.    It was not his behaviour which changed around that car - it was Martin Grimes.     It took a full two minutes before Eddie finally alerted - but only after being repeatedly called back -  with MG even tapping on the car to draw the dog's attention to it.

The maximum amount of time spent on any of the other cars was 30 seconds, in fact Eddie did not even complete a full circuit of one car before being allowed to run off to the next one.

If Eddie had been made to inspect the other cars for a full two minutes - then IMO there would have similar alerts in at least some of those cars as with the Renault.

In any event  - the fact that the Renault was clearly identifiable as belonging to the McCanns meant that any claim made that the testing was unbiased was completely untenable.

AIMHO

 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2016, 05:21:15 PM
I am not interested in 'championing' someone else's theory.

I am stating, as a fact, that you do not understand Heriberto's theory.

He does not have a single person involved.  He has 2 different people, with 2 different hair lengths.

And if you wish to discuss his theory, please PM him or comment on his blog.  He is quite happy to discuss his thinking.  Or at least, he was with me.

Thanks for clearing it up and hopefully he will revise his page.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 08, 2016, 06:07:45 PM
Are you suggesting Mr Amaral is not pivotal to Madeleine's case?

Of course not - he's just your handy bete noire.

He was merely coordinator - a team leader - for a few months.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 06:14:17 PM
Of course not - he's just your handy bete noire.

He was merely coordinator - a team leader - for a few months.

Exactly Jassi, and his thesis was shared with other members of the PJ.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 06:15:47 PM
Exactly Jassi, and his thesis was shared with other members of the PJ.

that's right...it seems not one of them understood the evidence
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 06:19:23 PM
that's right...it seems not one of them understood the evidence

They understood perfectly well, there was no evidence of abduction, which has not changed.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2016, 07:42:06 PM
that's right...it seems not one of them understood the evidence

Which is a bit worrying for a modern law enforcement body.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 08, 2016, 07:45:27 PM
Which is a bit worrying for a modern law enforcement body.

Well it might be if it were true, rather than just an opinion.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 07:46:07 PM
Which is a bit worrying for a modern law enforcement body.


In your opinion, which of course is geared towards defending the mccanns.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on May 08, 2016, 08:13:55 PM
Of course not - he's just your handy bete noire.

He was merely coordinator - a team leader - for a few months.

Exactly, something team McCann struggle with.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 08:15:36 PM
  ... and where exactly does the missing child fit into all of this?

That is a question you should pose to the mccanns, as regards child care.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2016, 08:26:57 PM
His theory is more complex than you have described.

Alternatively, your description is not accurate in terms of his theory.

Take your pick.

I have asked him to explain in more detail how he concluded that it was physically impossible for the McCanns to be involved in Madeleine's disappearance, but he hasn't answered. (which is his prerogative). I just wondered if you understood how he reached that conclusion?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 08, 2016, 09:30:55 PM
I have asked him to explain in more detail how he concluded that it was physically impossible for the McCanns to be involved in Madeleine's disappearance, but he hasn't answered. (which is his prerogative). I just wondered if you understood how he reached that conclusion?
Theorem.  Burglar A burgles 5A, and in so doing disturbs Madeleine, then silences her.

Makes it to a place nearby, where person B, linked to the burglary, is now confronted with a dead body.

Persons A and B are local, thus having much more knowledge of Luz than the McCanns.

Person A is Tannerman.  Person B is Smithman.

Person B, with local knowledge, gets rid of the body.

Heri hasn't ruled out the McCanns.  He is open to evidence that changes his current viewpoint.  I mentioned your username as one of those more open-minded than most, and he was genuinely interested.  Mind you, we covered so much stuff that I could write a book just about what we discussed.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2016, 09:36:04 PM
Theorem.  Burglar A burgles 5A, and in so doing disturbs Madeleine, then silences her.

Makes it to a place nearby, where person B, linked to the burglary, is now confronted with a dead body.

Persons A and B are local, thus having much more knowledge of Luz than the McCanns.

Person A is Tannerman.  Person B is Smithman.

Person B, with local knowledge, gets rid of the body.

Heri hasn't ruled out the McCanns.  He is open to evidence that changes his current viewpoint.  I mentioned your username as one of those more open-minded than most, and he was genuinely interested.  Mind you, we covered so much stuff that I could write a book just about what we discussed.

Why would a burglar need to silence a 3 year old child just woken up ?

Secondly, a burglar seeing the place occupied would invaribly scarper thinking other people were there.

Third, no sign of a struggle and the apartment was not in a mess.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 09:44:19 PM
Theorem.  Burglar A burgles 5A, and in so doing disturbs Madeleine, then silences her.

Makes it to a place nearby, where person B, linked to the burglary, is now confronted with a dead body.

Persons A and B are local, thus having much more knowledge of Luz than the McCanns.

Person A is Tannerman.  Person B is Smithman.

Person B, with local knowledge, gets rid of the body.

Heri hasn't ruled out the McCanns.  He is open to evidence that changes his current viewpoint.  I mentioned your username as one of those more open-minded than most, and he was genuinely interested.  Mind you, we covered so much stuff that I could write a book just about what we discussed.

From what you have said Heri does not suspect the mcCanns at the moment but would change his mind if new evidence arose...that is my position and the stated position of the very open minded supporters on this forum
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 08, 2016, 09:55:30 PM
Why would a burglar need to silence a 3 year old child just woken up ?

Secondly, a burglar seeing the place occupied would invaribly scarper thinking other people were there.

Third, no sign of a struggle and the apartment was not in a mess.
Let me start again.  I do not support Heri's theorem, which I have said before.   And I do not wish to champion Heri's theorem, which I have said before.

But here it is.  The burglar does not have the mental stability/maturity that you or I do.  The burglar is not acting as a mature and balanced adult.

The act is one of panic.  Something done in a flash that was stupid, but impulse made it seem reasonable at the time.

It's like a lightening strike.  Why does it happen where it happens and when it happens, rather than a half a mile away and ten seconds later?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 08, 2016, 10:32:56 PM
@Heri did you look at all the names marked with convictions ?

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 08, 2016, 10:36:31 PM
Why would a burglar need to silence a 3 year old child just woken up ? (snip)
Agreed. On seeing a child present a burglar would flee.
No way would a burglar take the child.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 10:39:01 PM
Theorem.  Burglar A burgles 5A, and in so doing disturbs Madeleine, then silences her.

Makes it to a place nearby, where person B, linked to the burglary, is now confronted with a dead body.

Persons A and B are local, thus having much more knowledge of Luz than the McCanns.

Person A is Tannerman.  Person B is Smithman.

Person B, with local knowledge, gets rid of the body.

Heri hasn't ruled out the McCanns.  He is open to evidence that changes his current viewpoint.  I mentioned your username as one of those more open-minded than most, and he was genuinely interested.  Mind you, we covered so much stuff that I could write a book just about what we discussed.

I find this statement strange. Heri states on his blog that Maddie was abducted by a stranger...he states it as a fact...yet you claim he has not ruled out the Mccanns ...that does not add up. 

The fact that you describe one of the leading sceptics on the forum as one of the most open minded is also strange. Please note that myself and other supporters are very open minded and would be happy to consider any new evidence that implicates the McCanns...there just isn't any...and Heri seems to agree with us
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 08, 2016, 10:46:42 PM
Theorem.  Burglar A burgles 5A, and in so doing disturbs Madeleine, then silences her.

Makes it to a place nearby, where person B, linked to the burglary, is now confronted with a dead body.

Persons A and B are local, thus having much more knowledge of Luz than the McCanns.

Person A is Tannerman.  Person B is Smithman.

Person B, with local knowledge, gets rid of the body.




Heri hasn't ruled out the McCanns.  He is open to evidence that changes his current viewpoint.  I mentioned your username as one of those more open-minded than most, and he was genuinely interested.  Mind you, we covered so much stuff that I could write a book just about what we discussed.




That is  one theorm that errs on the could have happened. Another recent theorm I was interested in was Maddie could have witnessed something she shouldn't have and been silenced....( I am not prepered to say what, or by who)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 10:51:22 PM



That is  one theorm that errs on the could have happened. Another recent theorm I was interested in was Maddie could have witnessed something she shouldn't have and been silenced....( I am not prepered to say what, or by who)

I prefer the abducted by aliens from the planet Zog...its more believable
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 08, 2016, 10:59:24 PM
Theorem.  Burglar A burgles 5A, and in so doing disturbs Madeleine, then silences her.

Makes it to a place nearby, where person B, linked to the burglary, is now confronted with a dead body.

Persons A and B are local, thus having much more knowledge of Luz than the McCanns.

Person A is Tannerman.  Person B is Smithman.

Person B, with local knowledge, gets rid of the body.

Heri hasn't ruled out the McCanns.  He is open to evidence that changes his current viewpoint.  I mentioned your username as one of those more open-minded than most, and he was genuinely interested.  Mind you, we covered so much stuff that I could write a book just about what we discussed.

I think you should correct your post...Heri plainly believes maddie was abducted...you are misrepresenting his views
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 08, 2016, 10:59:30 PM
Let me start again.  I do not support Heri's theorem, which I have said before.   And I do not wish to champion Heri's theorem, which I have said before.

But here it is.  The burglar does not have the mental stability/maturity that you or I do.  The burglar is not acting as a mature and balanced adult.

The act is one of panic.  Something done in a flash that was stupid, but impulse made it seem reasonable at the time.

It's like a lightening strike.  Why does it happen where it happens and when it happens, rather than a half a mile away and ten seconds later?

Two burglars wearing the same clothes but different hair explained
One burglar being located east,(one walking towards there wth dead body)  doing what?
He then goes west to get rid of body
Crecheman being almost eliminated by Redwood must fit in here somewhere, but where?

If Heri has moved Tanners sighting to half hour later than what she said, are we supposed to thnk tanner made two major mstakes, one of the time and two seeing jez and gerry at the time of her check?





Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: John on May 08, 2016, 11:26:22 PM
I prefer the abducted by aliens from the planet Zog...its more believable

You know you could be onto something there Dave.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 09, 2016, 12:34:07 AM
I find this statement strange. Heri states on his blog that Maddie was abducted by a stranger...he states it as a fact...yet you claim he has not ruled out the Mccanns ...that does not add up. 

The fact that you describe one of the leading sceptics on the forum as one of the most open minded is also strange. Please note that myself and other supporters are very open minded and would be happy to consider any new evidence that implicates the McCanns...there just isn't any...and Heri seems to agree with us
Take it up with Heri.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 09, 2016, 07:27:59 AM
Take it up with Heri.

I have taken it up with Heri........he has sent me a PM..I don't propose to reveal the contents of the pm but...what you are saying is untrue...Heri considers Maddie was abducted and her parents were not involved
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 09, 2016, 08:51:25 AM
I find this statement strange. Heri states on his blog that Maddie was abducted by a stranger...he states it as a fact...yet you claim he has not ruled out the Mccanns ...that does not add up. 

The fact that you describe one of the leading sceptics on the forum as one of the most open minded is also strange. Please note that myself and other supporters are very open minded and would be happy to consider any new evidence that implicates the McCanns...there just isn't any...and Heri seems to agree with us

It depends on your definition of 'sceptic' I suppose. I didn't give myself that label, so I can't comment on what you think it means.

My position is that I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann, and I haven't seen any theory which explains it to my satisfaction.

That, in my opinion, allows me to be more open minded than someone who has committed themselves to defending a particular theory.

They, in my opinion, are more likely to accept evidence which supports their theory than to accept evidence which casts doubt on it. That isn't being open minded.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 09, 2016, 09:50:49 AM
It depends on your definition of 'sceptic' I suppose. I didn't give myself that label, so I can't comment on what you think it means.

My position is that I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann, and I haven't seen any theory which explains it to my satisfaction.

That, in my opinion, allows me to be more open minded than someone who has committed themselves to defending a particular theory.

They, in my opinion, are more likely to accept evidence which supports their theory than to accept evidence which casts doubt on it. That isn't being open minded.

I think you misunderstand the position of the supporters...we do not support blindly but based on the evidence. we are not foot ball supporters who support blindly. All the evidence including the actions of SY point towards the McCanns having no involvement. I consider myself to be openminded ...show me evidence that points to guilt and I'm happy to consider it and change my mind. The fact is many sceptics still do not understand the evidence of the dogs and dna.

I believe ...based on lots of reasons...that Kate is telling the truth. You are not sure if Kate is telling the truth...you are therefore sceptical..a sceptic.

I am pleased to see that Heri...an intelligent man who has done a lot of research on the case...agrees with me
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 09, 2016, 09:52:23 AM
I think you misunderstand the position of the supporters...we do not support blindly but based on the evidence. we are not foot ball supporters who support blindly. All the evidence including the actions of SY point towards the McCanns having no involvement. I consider myself to be openminded ...show me evidence that points to guilt and I'm happy to consider it and change my mind. The fact is many sceptics still do not understand the evidence of the dogs and dna.

I believe ...based on lots of reasons...that Kate is telling the truth. You are not sure if Kate is telling the truth...you are therefore sceptical..a sceptic.

I am pleased to see that Heri...an intelligent man who has done a lot of research on the case...agrees with me

The position of the supporters is not misunderstood.

It is very clearly defined.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 09, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
The position of the supporters is not misunderstood.

It is very clearly defined.

not by you it isn't...so who has defined it
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 09, 2016, 12:27:01 PM
I think you misunderstand the position of the supporters...we do not support blindly but based on the evidence. we are not foot ball supporters who support blindly. All the evidence including the actions of SY point towards the McCanns having no involvement. I consider myself to be openminded ...show me evidence that points to guilt and I'm happy to consider it and change my mind. The fact is many sceptics still do not understand the evidence of the dogs and dna.

I believe ...based on lots of reasons...that Kate is telling the truth. You are not sure if Kate is telling the truth...you are therefore sceptical..a sceptic.

I am pleased to see that Heri...an intelligent man who has done a lot of research on the case...agrees with me

I can only speak as I find. We have had threads presenting the evidence on which supporters base their position and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in my opinion. Lots of opinion and very little evidence.

I'm not sure if anyone has told the truth and if I see evidence that a story has been changed that suggests to me that someone may be an unreliable witness. Tell me, did Kate McCann have a bath after the children were in bed or a shower while they played? If I'm sceptical of her evidence there's reasons, and that's one of them.

I'm sure Heri is intelligent but until he's willing to explain how he ruled the parents out I'm entitled to be sceptical about his conclusion. As a fan of 'scientific research' I'm surprised you seem prepared to accept his word for it, I must say.


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 09, 2016, 12:37:13 PM
I can only speak as I find. We have had threads presenting the evidence on which supporters base their position and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in my opinion. Lots of opinion and very little evidence.

I'm not sure if anyone has told the truth and if I see evidence that a story has been changed that suggests to me that someone may be an unreliable witness. Tell me, did Kate McCann have a bath after the children were in bed or a shower while they played? If I'm sceptical of her evidence there's reasons, and that's one of them.

I'm sure Heri is intelligent but until he's willing to explain how he ruled the parents out I'm entitled to be sceptical about his conclusion. As a fan of 'scientific research' I'm surprised you seem prepared to accept his word for it, I must say.

Well said.  8((()*/ 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 09, 2016, 01:11:22 PM
I can only speak as I find. We have had threads presenting the evidence on which supporters base their position and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in my opinion. Lots of opinion and very little evidence.

I'm not sure if anyone has told the truth and if I see evidence that a story has been changed that suggests to me that someone may be an unreliable witness. Tell me, did Kate McCann have a bath after the children were in bed or a shower while they played? If I'm sceptical of her evidence there's reasons, and that's one of them.

I'm sure Heri is intelligent but until he's willing to explain how he ruled the parents out I'm entitled to be sceptical about his conclusion. As a fan of 'scientific research' I'm surprised you seem prepared to accept his word for it, I must say.

The evidence you use are the twice translated non verbatim files which I think are a point of confusion IMO. ...so the evidence you are relying on to asses Kate is unreliable...You are entitled to be sceptical then please don't suggest that you are not a sceptic. I don't simply accept Heri's word for it ...you are mistaken again. I arrived at my conclusions independently based on the evidence and it just happen s that my ideas are similar to Heri's.

Again...I am open minded...something you cannot accept because in some ways you are closed minded
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 09, 2016, 02:59:26 PM
The evidence you use are the twice translated non verbatim files which I think are a point of confusion IMO. ...so the evidence you are relying on to asses Kate is unreliable...You are entitled to be sceptical then please don't suggest that you are not a sceptic. I don't simply accept Heri's word for it ...you are mistaken again. I arrived at my conclusions independently based on the evidence and it just happen s that my ideas are similar to Heri's.

Again...I am open minded...something you cannot accept because in some ways you are closed minded

The same files you are happy to accept when you agree with them you mean?

I never said I'm not sceptical, I said it depends on the definition of 'sceptic' as used by you whether I'm one of them or not.

I would love to see the evidence which you think makes it physically impossible for the McCanns to be involved in the disappearance, but I don't expect to.

Your last sentence is meaningless because it's just an opinion. I'll let others decide if it's correct or not.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 09, 2016, 03:17:23 PM
The same files you are happy to accept when you agree with them you mean?

I never said I'm not sceptical, I said it depends on the definition of 'sceptic' as used by you whether I'm one of them or not.

I would love to see the evidence which you think makes it physically impossible for the McCanns to be involved in the disappearance, but I don't expect to.

Your last sentence is meaningless because it's just an opinion. I'll let others decide if it's correct or not.

Could you point out anywhere I have used the twice translated files to support anything I have said
You are totally wrong again...
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 09, 2016, 06:48:33 PM
None of the bath times makes sense when you find the contradicting statements e.g. the Payne's. You go for a run but don't get a shower and get out of your sweaty clothes until an hour later. The other witness can't remember you in a towel. Gimme a break.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 09, 2016, 08:55:15 PM
None of the bath times makes sense when you find the contradicting statements e.g. the Payne's. You go for a run but don't get a shower and get out of your sweaty clothes until an hour later. The other witness can't remember you in a towel. Gimme a break.
Where does your theory start Pathfinder?
For example, do you agree that the child did arrive back at the apartment after tapas tea?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 09, 2016, 10:29:03 PM
Did Operation Grange ever test the bedroom window and shutter?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 10, 2016, 10:02:07 AM
Where does your theory start Pathfinder?
For example, do you agree that the child did arrive back at the apartment after tapas tea?

Yes all back to the apartment at 5:40 and Gerry leaves for tennis at 6..............A reconstruction should start from 5:30 on 3 May - parents and children at tapas eating area being signed out.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 10, 2016, 12:46:57 PM
Yes all back to the apartment at 5:40 and Gerry leaves for tennis at 6..............A reconstruction should start from 5:30 on 3 May - parents and children at tapas eating area being signed out.
So we agree that the child was in the apartment at about 5.40pm.
Jumping ahead, do you agree that the child was in the child bedroom at about 7.15pm?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 10, 2016, 01:36:49 PM
So we agree that the child was in the apartment at about 5.40pm.
Jumping ahead, do you agree that the child was in the child bedroom at about 7.15pm?

I think you know my answer to that question if you have read my theory.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on May 10, 2016, 06:33:54 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/man-held-over-babes-in-the-wood-murders/ar-BBsRNvN?ocid=spartanntp


Yet another cold case may be about to be resolved, which is good news for the families concerned.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 12, 2016, 08:03:18 AM
So what news on the appeal to the Supreme Court ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: xtina on May 12, 2016, 06:22:21 PM
I  thought this interesting....

I didn't know were else to put it and i do mean ....as in which thread


Richard D Hall Telephone Call to Scotland Yard re McCann Case

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHGngf4wy8Y
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 12, 2016, 06:31:11 PM
I  thought this interesting....

I didn't know were else to put it and i do mean ....as in which thread


Richard D Hall Telephone Call to Scotland Yard re McCann Case

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHGngf4wy8Y

That was one of the funniest things I've ever listened to.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: xtina on May 12, 2016, 06:40:31 PM
That was one of the funniest things I've ever listened to.


this isnt funny though is it

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-12/ben-needham-case-police-recalled-over-drinking-in-kos/


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 12, 2016, 06:53:58 PM

this isnt funny though is it

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-12/ben-needham-case-police-recalled-over-drinking-in-kos/

It depends on whether or not you believe it is true.  Although I am entirely unsure of what they are supposed to have done.
Did they go out for a meal and a drink after they finished work?  Oh My.  That could be shocking.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 12, 2016, 07:00:59 PM
It depends on whether or not you believe it is true.  Although I am entirely unsure of what they are supposed to have done.
Did they go out for a meal and a drink after they finished work?  Oh My.  That could be shocking.

Apart from not working of course, that's what the mccanns and the rest did.

At least at that point, it wasn't at the tax payers expense.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 12, 2016, 07:33:51 PM
I  thought this interesting....

I didn't know were else to put it and i do mean ....as in which thread


Richard D Hall Telephone Call to Scotland Yard re McCann Case

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eHGngf4wy8Y

Absolutely cringe worthy ... and this man has set himself up as a guru who actually seems to have a following.  Phew!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 12, 2016, 07:40:29 PM
Absolutely cringe worthy ... and this man has set himself up as a guru who actually seems to have a following.  Phew!

CAVADER?  Sorry, sorry.  I really shouldn't mock.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 12, 2016, 11:12:00 PM
That was one of the funniest things I've ever listened to.

Made me laugh too.

Richard Hall getrting it wrong .... and recording himself then publishing it himself !

How naive or biggoted he is showing himself to be   *&*%£
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: xtina on May 13, 2016, 08:40:52 AM
Made me laugh too.

Richard Hall getrting it wrong .... and recording himself then publishing it himself !

How naive or biggoted he is showing himself to be   *&*%£


Richard Hall getrting it wrong ....... @)(++(*


i think you will find..........he does have a really massive following

because he shows the mccs/SY ....for what they are ..............and not afraid to do it

the main reason also .........he does not believe.... maddie was abducted ..same as the vast majority don't
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 13, 2016, 08:59:59 AM
Made me laugh too.

Richard Hall getrting it wrong .... and recording himself then publishing it himself !

How naive or biggoted he is showing himself to be   *&*%£

There are bigots on both sides imo.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 13, 2016, 09:04:53 AM

Sadie's was a Typo Error.  Richard Hall's was a verbal error, several times.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 13, 2016, 09:08:10 AM
There are bigots on both sides imo.

Indeed there are.

...and Sadie can hardly claim to be neutral bearing in mind her stance on the case, and her claims of meeting the mccanns. 8)-)))
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 13, 2016, 09:08:51 AM
he's broken the law by playing that taped converstation
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 13, 2016, 09:15:29 AM
I am sure if SY need to take action they will do.

Meanwhile Richard Hall and Heriberto, whom I believe you are fond of dave and have communicated with, or so you claim, are both into U.F.O.'s.

Quite a curious coincidence, isn't it ? 8)-)))
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Eleanor on May 13, 2016, 09:22:15 AM

Have a care about what is said of any member of this Forum.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 13, 2016, 09:27:10 AM
Have a care about what is said of any member of this Forum.

I gave facts.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 15, 2016, 12:33:53 AM
To clarify something on another thread
M Marreiros was collecting laundry at about 7.30pm-8pm Wed 2nd and saw a man in the stairwell
B da Silva was collecting laundry at about 6pm Thu 3rd and saw a man in the stairwell.
(corrected name)
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 15, 2016, 12:47:40 AM
To clarify something on another thread
M Fernando was collecting laundry at about 7.30pm-8pm Wed 2nd and saw a man in the stairwell
B da Silva was collecting laundry at about 6pm Thu 3rd and saw a man in the stairwell.

So two witnesses saw the same happening on the night before and the night of Madeleine's disappearance.  It was checked and ruled out, so I wonder what the explanation was to allow that.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 15, 2016, 12:50:07 AM
I am sure if SY need to take action they will do.

Meanwhile Richard Hall and Heriberto, whom I believe you are fond of dave and have communicated with, or so you claim, are both into U.F.O.'s.

Quite a curious coincidence, isn't it ? 8)-)))

I am not into UFO's. .... not at all

But because I have never seen one doesn't mean that they don't exist.  They may, or may not exist.

I am open minded


Perhaps you would benefit by being more open minded stephen
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 15, 2016, 12:54:35 AM
So two witnesses saw the same happening on the night before and the night of Madeleine's disappearance.  It was checked and ruled out, so I wonder what the explanation was to allow that.

Fancy ruling those two witnesses out?  Whatever was Amaral thinking of?

Hmmm?  £5%4%
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 15, 2016, 12:59:19 AM
Fancy ruling those two witnesses out?  Whatever was Amaral thinking of?

Hmmm?  £5%4%

Well, you can make a start on the discussion by proving
Amaral personally ruled them out,cant you
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on May 15, 2016, 01:02:59 AM
Well, you can make a start on the discussion by proving
Amaral personally ruled them out,cant you

Amaral was Head Honcho on the case.   Ultimately it was his decision


The Head Honcho carries the buck.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 15, 2016, 01:06:08 AM
Amaral was Head Honcho on the case.   Ultimately it was his decision


The Head Honcho carries the buck.

you may have a problem there with what a coordinator does
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 15, 2016, 01:09:43 AM
So two witnesses saw the same happening on the night before and the night of Madeleine's disappearance.  It was checked and ruled out, so I wonder what the explanation was to allow that.
Few realise there were two sightings - by different laundry collectors, on different evenings, but in the same stairwell.
Wed 2nd 7.30pm-8pm stairwell sighting by M F M Marreiros.
Thu 3rd 6pm stairwell sighting by B d A P da Silva.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 15, 2016, 01:41:35 AM
Stairwell sighting 6pm Thu, matches sighting in files by B da Silva, press report in 2007
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-madeleine-suspect-seen-in-stairwell-509604

Stairwell sighting 7.30pm-8pm Wed, by M Marreiros, press report in 2013
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-witness-saw-weird-1918572

There are close similarities between both sightings.

BTW the first sighting, by B da Silva, is also reported indirectly in statement by T Castela

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: xtina on May 15, 2016, 01:45:52 PM
Absolutely cringe worthy ... and this man has set himself up as a guru who actually seems to have a following.  Phew!



not actually seems to have a following .................he has..........

not a guru...just  shows the alternative to abduction .

for people to make up there own minds ...who have a mind of there own........

not what the mccs tell/want u to  believe

you tube stats
FIRST FILM: "The True Story of Madeleine McCann" (overall view of the case)

934,000 views - currently being watched by 1,190 per day


SECOND FILM: "The Phantoms" (showing that claimed abductors are mere 'phantoms' which were fabricated


120,500 views - currently being watched by 310 per day


THIRD FILM: "When Madeleine Died?" (suggesting that Madeleine may have already been dead by Sunday or Monday)
 

130,000 views - currently being watched by 1,320 per day


TOTAL YOUTUBE VIEWS to date:

1,185,000 views = currently being watched by 2,820 per day

This means that every minute, 24/7, two more people click on one or other of Richard's films.

====

These figures EXCLUDE:

* Hundreds of thousands of views on one or more of Richard's channels or websites

* People who have bought his DVDs and perhaps also shown it to relatives and friends

* Other YouTube videos of e.g. Richard giving talks or presentations about Madeleine on his tours.

====

Reading the hundreds of favourable comments made by YouTube viewers on his films also gives a very good indication of the success of his films
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 15, 2016, 02:10:19 PM


not actually seems to have a following .................he has..........

not a guru...just  shows the alternative to abduction .

for people to make up there own minds ...who have a mind of there own........

not what the mccs tell/want u to  believe

you tube stats
FIRST FILM: "The True Story of Madeleine McCann" (overall view of the case)

934,000 views - currently being watched by 1,190 per day


SECOND FILM: "The Phantoms" (showing that claimed abductors are mere 'phantoms' which were fabricated


120,500 views - currently being watched by 310 per day


THIRD FILM: "When Madeleine Died?" (suggesting that Madeleine may have already been dead by Sunday or Monday)
 

130,000 views - currently being watched by 1,320 per day


TOTAL YOUTUBE VIEWS to date:

1,185,000 views = currently being watched by 2,820 per day

This means that every minute, 24/7, two more people click on one or other of Richard's films.

====

These figures EXCLUDE:

* Hundreds of thousands of views on one or more of Richard's channels or websites

* People who have bought his DVDs and perhaps also shown it to relatives and friends

* Other YouTube videos of e.g. Richard giving talks or presentations about Madeleine on his tours.

====

Reading the hundreds of favourable comments made by YouTube viewers on his films also gives a very good indication of the success of his films


Proof positive that there is indeed no accounting for taste.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 15, 2016, 02:32:38 PM
Stairwell sighting 6pm Thu, matches sighting in files by B da Silva, press report in 2007
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-madeleine-suspect-seen-in-stairwell-509604

Stairwell sighting 7.30pm-8pm Wed, by M Marreiros, press report in 2013
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-witness-saw-weird-1918572

There are close similarities between both sightings.

BTW the first sighting, by B da Silva, is also reported indirectly in statement by T Castela

Correct Pegasus ... I read this newspaper report some time ago at the start of the reopening of Madeleine's case and have assumed it was the one sighting since then.  I had no idea that two employees had seen a man lurking in the stairwell on different nights immediately preceding Madeleine's disappearance.

By the time B da Silva gave his statement it appears the previous sighting had been dismissed.

I am sure there must be a record of Mario Marreiros' statement ... perhaps in the files which we have not seen or which are in the public domain.

Extraordinary if these events don't tie in somewhere to Madeleine's case. It may not be illegal to do what that individual was doing, but you have to ask what exactly it was that he was doing.


**snip
Mario, who only started working at the Ocean Club a month before Madeleine vanished, said he identified a potential suspect to Portuguese police a few months after Madeleine went missing.

He spent hours with an officer looking at pictures and videos.

Investigators could then find no other evidence linking the identified man to the girl’s disappearance.

However, according to Portuguese files, officers asked British police to put more questions to this man – a full year after Madeleine vanished.

Mario was 80% convinced he was the man he saw but admits he could not be sure and now six years have passed.

Referring to Portugal’s “secrecy of justice” law, he said: “I couldn’t speak then. I’d been warned by police I would be in trouble if I spoke to anyone.”

But Mario now says: “I am available. I am happy to speak.

"I have not spoken to the British police about what I saw but I want the truth to be revealed.”

Twice-divorced Mario, who has a 21-year-old son and lives in a village on the outskirts of Praia da Luz, worked at the Ocean Club for nine months.

Describing the man who haunts him he explained: “He was quite tall and looked sort-of Scandinavian.

"He had lots of hair, close to his head — like it was glued. It was straight hair. He was about my age now — 45, 46.”

Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, head of Scotland Yard’s Homicide and Serious Crime Command, said earlier this month that there are many people who could be spoken to and eliminated from the inquiry.

Mario added: “I agree with what the British police have said and lots of people should be interviewed again.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-witness-saw-weird-1918572
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: xtina on May 15, 2016, 03:33:04 PM

Proof positive that there is indeed no accounting for taste.


He is saying ....here's the other side to the abduction .............

make your own mind up.

 it's that which may help guide others to search for the truth.

where as the mccs .....want to make your mind up for you .............very tasteless...i would say


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 15, 2016, 04:29:53 PM

He is saying ....here's the other side to the abduction .............

make your own mind up.

 it's that which may help guide others to search for the truth.

where as the mccs .....want to make your mind up for you .............very tasteless...i would say

As well as working ceaselessly to have official investigations reopened into what happened to Madeleine that night and to do the best they can to have her returned to her home and loving family ... the McCanns have had to thole ignorant ill researched balderdash from sources such as your man being spread throughout the internet.

'Justice for Madeleine' really has very little to do with those who have taken pleasure for nine years in hounding her parents whenever and however they can with their amateur ill informed badly formulated videos in the vanguard.  The only beneficiaries of such a lack of judgement must surely be those who already know precisely what happened to Madeleine and who could perhaps give pointers to where she may be now.

That is the sort of behaviour I find tasteless ... not the desperate fight of a couple anxious to find their missing daughter.  They have enough to put up with, without people plotting to undermine them and the job they continue to do on Madeleine's behalf.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 15, 2016, 11:08:48 PM
(snip)...Car and driver when needed...(snip)
Many people seem to unquestioningly accept that was an MW employee driving an MW car.
But think about the Fatima trip on 23rd May - the UK govt sent their own FCO employee CM on that trip, and there were two phonecalls between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and GM during that trip - does anyone really believe the driver and car were provided just by MW?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 16, 2016, 12:04:33 AM
Trying to trace the mystery 3rd apartment. Meanwhile here are apartments of a few of the many advisors etc who flew in almost instantly. Alderton G4B. David GP03. Pike 5CAT. Alex 54B.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 16, 2016, 12:22:13 AM
Gerry visited. Do you 'go round' to next door but one? It depends on the layout of the floors and your speech patterns I suppose.

Gerry had gone round to one of the other apartments our party was occupying,
Madeleine. Kate McCann
"gone round to one of the other apartments our party was occupying"

Thanks GUnit. That was on a Sunday evening. Do you know what date? Was it Sun 7th May maybe?

Apparantly there was some sort of less than relaxed discussion, resulting in some people returning to the UK?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 16, 2016, 08:50:09 AM
"gone round to one of the other apartments our party was occupying"

Thanks GUnit. That was on a Sunday evening. Do you know what date? Was it Sun 7th May maybe?

Apparantly there was some sort of less than relaxed discussion, resulting in some people returning to the UK?

It was Sunday 6th May and yes, the 'granny express' home was the result of the less than friendly discussion. Apparently someone made a comment which annoyed Gerry McCann.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 16, 2016, 09:58:36 PM
To which of the 3 apartments were the contents of 5A taken?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 16, 2016, 10:01:00 PM
It was Sunday 6th May and yes, the 'granny express' home was the result of the less than friendly discussion. Apparently someone made a comment which annoyed Gerry McCann.
Do you know which people got sent home G-Unit?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 16, 2016, 10:16:32 PM
Where was the unidentified 3rd apartment?
The two apartments identified are 4-G and 4-I both on first floor of Block 4. 
Also on first floor are 4-H and 4-J.
But the 3rd apartment can't be 4-J because that was occupied by other tourists.
Could it be 4-H?
Or could it be an apartment on a higher floor?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 17, 2016, 09:12:26 AM
Well, here's an interesting article.


' Growing trend: Last year it was revealed that parents in England and Wales were being arrested every day on suspicion of leaving one or more of their children at home alone '

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3592641/Would-leave-10-month-old-home-Mother-causes-outrage-saying-pops-shop-baby-sleeping-surprising-number-women-agree.html#ixzz48tmQCaoZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 17, 2016, 09:53:26 AM
Do you know which people got sent home G-Unit?

It was clear that our parents were struggling to cope and would have more help at home. Johnny, too, seemed like a fish out of water in Praia da Luz. Michelle was very distressed and had two babies in Liverpool who needed her. After giving the matter some thought, we agreed we would ask Trisha, Sandy, Michael and Nicky to stay on.
Madeleine; Kate McCann

So Kate's parents and Nora [3] brother John and Gerry's mum [2] Michelle [Jon Corner's partner][1]

The purpose seemed to be to limit their support team  [at the suggestion of Alan Pike] to make it more streamlined and focused. The need became even clearer on Monday 7th.

This day provided us with a good example of one of the disadvantages of a large group: unless it is coordinated with military precision, people do not always know who is doing what and tasks can slip through the net. When
lunchtime came, Gerry and I were in the middle of another meeting when we discovered there was no one around to collect Sean and Amelie. We had to interrupt proceedings and go to the Toddler Club ourselves, phoning round our friends and family en route to try to get somebody who wasn’t too far away to come back and give them their lunch.
Madeleine; Kate McCann

I wonder what happened to all the lunches delivered by the Tapas every day? Had they been cancelled or would the missing ten people have returned once they realised lunch was due to be delivered? Apparently this happened at 1pm.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIAGO_BARREIROS.htm





Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 17, 2016, 01:49:45 PM
The third apartment was on the top floor of Block 4 [Nicky Gill]. Sandy and Trish Cameron had friends in Portugal and they had transport. They stayed in 4I which was the 'office'. Sandy and Michael Wright helped with the 'campaign' and Trish with childcare and cooking. There's an interesting comment about a 'dump' from Michael Wright.

We arrived in Portugal on Saturday morning, where a friend lent us a car to use and we went to Praia da Luz.

Sandy and I stayed in an apartment that also served as an office. Sandy dealt with the correspondence and I helped in the kitchen and with cleaning.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm

We had a separate apartment on the same floor and close to two doors somewhat of a distance. During part of this time, our days had similar routines. During the day we would leave the apartment to meet with Kate and Gerry in order to care for the twins Sean and Amelie, and also to cook for all of us. Kate and Gerry would use our apartment as an office in order to have meetings and to effect search plans for Madeleine. This continued until the end of June, at a time when Mark Warner required that we leave the complex and at a time when tourist high season was about to begin.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A-J-CAMERON.htm

I frequently helped Sandy with with mundane tasks such as opening the mail. We received many e-mails relating to the campaign and there was much in them to talk about......

I am absolutely certain that Kate and Gerry were not capable of hiding Madeleine's body and later transporting it to a dump.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MICHAEL_WRIGHT.htm

We stayed in an apartment on the top floor of the same block where Kate and Gerry were staying.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NICKY_GILL.htm

During the first week that I was in Portugal Kate and Gerry were transported [driven] by representatives of Mark Warner. Sandy Cameron was also there and possessed a hire car, but it was not the Renault Scenic
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/L-R-MCQUEEN.htm


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2016, 02:27:49 AM
The third apartment was on the top floor of Block 4 (snip)
Brilliant work G-Unit.
"We stayed in an apartment on the top floor of the same block where Kate and Gerry were staying" [NG statement].

So the third apartment was 4-O or 4-P or 4-Q or 4-R.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 18, 2016, 11:43:19 PM
Apartment 4-G (1st floor) was provided on Fri 4th May.
Apartment 4-I (1st floor), and a Penthouse apartment (split-level 3rd and 4th floors), were both provided on Sat 5th May. 

The penthouse apartment was either 4-O or 4-P or 4-Q or 4-R.
These penthouse apartments are upside down.
The entry door, living and dining areas, and the kitchen, are on the 4th floor.
But the 2 bedrooms and bathroom are then down an internal staircase, on the 3rd floor.
Both levels have balconies.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 19, 2016, 07:14:27 AM
Well, here's an interesting article.


' Growing trend: Last year it was revealed that parents in England and Wales were being arrested every day on suspicion of leaving one or more of their children at home alone '

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3592641/Would-leave-10-month-old-home-Mother-causes-outrage-saying-pops-shop-baby-sleeping-surprising-number-women-agree.html#ixzz48tmQCaoZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Interesting that story being written after the Portuguese said they didn't charge the McCanns with neglect out of compassion. I always thought leaving their children was counter-productive. It's nice to go for a meal with friends, but my mind would have been on the children all the time I was out, which would have spoiled the evening for me.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2016, 01:48:56 AM
@Heri, Shining, etc, have you ever been to the top of the stairs in either block?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 20, 2016, 07:02:50 AM
@Heri, Shining, etc, have you ever been to the top of the stairs in either block?
I have never been inside block 4 or block 5.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 20, 2016, 07:31:15 AM
Gerry McCann wrote in his blog on 11th July;

The Portuguese police interviewed three of our friends again today, to clarify points in their initial statements.

Which friends were they? There's nothing in the files that I can see.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on May 20, 2016, 08:20:23 AM
Gerry McCann wrote in his blog on 11th July;

The Portuguese police interviewed three of our friends again today, to clarify points in their initial statements.

Which friends were they? There's nothing in the files that I can see.

The confrontation with Murat. The one in which Amaral manages to confuse Fiona with Jane.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2016, 12:08:41 PM
Gerry McCann wrote in his blog on 11th July;

The Portuguese police interviewed three of our friends again today, to clarify points in their initial statements.

Which friends were they? There's nothing in the files that I can see.
FP RO ROB
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 20, 2016, 12:52:32 PM
I have never been inside block 4 or block 5.
Thanks Shining. I had questions about whether or not there are doors on 3rd floor. And about the 5th floor door.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 20, 2016, 01:07:13 PM
Thanks Shining. I had questions about whether or not there are doors on 3rd floor. And about the 5th floor door.

There was access either by stairs or lift as far as the Moyes' apartment ... Mrs Moyes detailed in a Radio Stoke interview being wakened by someone at the door ...

SUSAN MOYES Sure. We went out for a meal about seven o’clock down in the town. We walked back about nine o’clock, round past, erm, the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment. Went out on the balcony about quarter past nine. Everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely. We then went to bed. We were woken up at half past eleven at night by one of the friends of the McCanns to say a little girl had been abducted. Those were the words she used. So we got dressed and joined in the search. We were out till about four in the morning with, oooh, about I dont know, thirty people, thirty other people maybe. The Mark Warner team were out with other guests at the Ocean Club.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 20, 2016, 01:25:37 PM
Thanks Shining. I had questions about whether or not there are doors on 3rd floor. And about the 5th floor door.
If you would like to jot down your questions I can visit forearmed when I go walkabout.  It's easier than me simply having a look and possibly finding I didn't get the info you want.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 20, 2016, 01:44:52 PM
There was access either by stairs or lift as far as the Moyes' apartment ... Mrs Moyes detailed in a Radio Stoke interview being wakened by someone at the door ...

SUSAN MOYES Sure. We went out for a meal about seven o’clock down in the town. We walked back about nine o’clock, round past, erm, the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment. Went out on the balcony about quarter past nine. Everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely. We then went to bed. We were woken up at half past eleven at night by one of the friends of the McCanns to say a little girl had been abducted. Those were the words she used. So we got dressed and joined in the search. We were out till about four in the morning with, oooh, about I dont know, thirty people, thirty other people maybe. The Mark Warner team were out with other guests at the Ocean Club.

Yes that fits with my theory. She was taken away before 9:15 and seen at just past 10. Work it out.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 20, 2016, 02:49:22 PM
There was access either by stairs or lift as far as the Moyes' apartment ... Mrs Moyes detailed in a Radio Stoke interview being wakened by someone at the door ...

SUSAN MOYES Sure. We went out for a meal about seven o’clock down in the town. We walked back about nine o’clock, round past, erm, the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment. Went out on the balcony about quarter past nine. Everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely. We then went to bed. We were woken up at half past eleven at night by one of the friends of the McCanns to say a little girl had been abducted. Those were the words she used. So we got dressed and joined in the search. We were out till about four in the morning with, oooh, about I dont know, thirty people, thirty other people maybe. The Mark Warner team were out with other guests at the Ocean Club.

I wonder who that was then? Not Kate or Fiona, they were in the apartment. Dianne was babysitting, and Jane had a child who was awake. It must have been Rachael. She went up all the stairs with Gerry, but that was at 10.30pm and she never mentioned knocking on doors. In fact the reason she went upstairs, she said, was to see if Madeleine had wandered up there.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 20, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
I wonder who that was then? Not Kate or Fiona, they were in the apartment. Dianne was babysitting, and Jane had a child who was awake. It must have been Rachael. She went up all the stairs with Gerry, but that was at 10.30pm and she never mentioned knocking on doors. In fact the reason she went upstairs, she said, was to see if Madeleine had wandered up there.

If the PJ had thought to interview Mr and Mrs Moyes we would have been able to ascertain exactly who raised the alarm with them.  The fact is, they were not interviewed or asked questions about the events of that evening.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 21, 2016, 12:40:13 AM
The third apartment was on the top floor of Block 4 (snip)
one of these 4 duplex penthouse apartments
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 21, 2016, 03:25:08 PM
Observant viewers will have noticed that the 3rd floor (using UK convention) has no entry doors into apartments, and no walkways leading from the stairwell. From this can be deduced that the lift possibly skips that floor, stopping only at floors G 1 2 and 4.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 21, 2016, 07:25:10 PM
In photo (above) the stairs continue up one floor higher than the highest accomodation floor.
Here must be a utility room, not part of any apartment, which must contain at minimum the lift motor and gearbox.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 21, 2016, 11:24:02 PM
The front door was probably not/not locked according to the mccann statements, so all it would take is the child to open the door usng the handle, I must add I find this also irresponsible and bizarre if you dont mind me saying!
Yes you are right Merc, the child was certainly capable of getting out of bed, opening the main wooden door, going outside, and closing the door behind her.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 21, 2016, 11:33:44 PM
Thanks pegasus but i must make an appointment with my optician on monday as my post to which you replied seems to have vanshed in the ether for some obscure reason and of course it cant be because i was "off topic"

 &%+((£
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 22, 2016, 01:29:00 AM
Thanks pegasus but i must make an appointment with my optician on monday as my post to which you replied seems to have vanshed in the ether for some obscure reason and of course it cant be because i was "off topic"

 &%+((£
Your post is on the optician tapas booking thread Merc.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 22, 2016, 01:46:38 AM
A big issue for all wandering theories is - no shoes were missing.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 22, 2016, 02:07:09 AM
Re the penthouse apartment made available for use, and mentioned by NG.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7060.0;attach=6742;image
Can now probably rule out 4-Q, and the most likely is 4-O
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 24, 2016, 07:49:13 AM
I see the names and comments of some supporters are now appearing in the comments section of the Sun and Express.

Excellent.

It shows the other half of the coin.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 24, 2016, 07:54:05 AM
I see the names and comments of some supporters are now appearing in the comments section of the Sun and Express.

Excellent.

It shows the other half of the coin.

who is really interested
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 24, 2016, 09:47:04 AM
who is really interested

The same sort of people who were interested in drawing up "The Dossier" I expect.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 24, 2016, 09:48:31 AM
The same sort of people who were interested in drawing up "The Dossier" I expect.

Very little doubt about it.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 24, 2016, 01:13:08 PM
There is a rumour circulating that the mccanns have submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 24, 2016, 01:16:25 PM
Should we be surprised? They have nothing to lose by doing so.
I wonder how long we need to wait to see if it is accepted or rejected?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 24, 2016, 01:18:03 PM
Should we be surprised? They have nothing to lose by doing so.
I wonder how long we need to wait to see if it is accepted or rejected?

Well they can't even try going to the ECHR, without having gone to the highest court in Portugal.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 24, 2016, 01:33:55 PM
I know it is difficult to be Off Topic on this thread ... how about bumping this topic to the appropriate thread for discussion there? ... probably ...  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7160.0 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on May 25, 2016, 11:42:42 PM
I am sure if SY need to take action they will do.

Meanwhile Richard Hall and Heriberto, whom I believe you are fond of dave and have communicated with, or so you claim, are both into U.F.O.'s.

Quite a curious coincidence, isn't it ? 8)-)))

I was not "into ufos". I was into DEBUNKING ufos ... Do not know if you understand the difference.

For example this book:

AVISTAMIENTOS OVNI EN LA ANTÁRTIDA EN 1965
by Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, Manuel Borraz Aymerich, Heriberto Janosch González y Juan Carlos Victorio Uranga

ABSTRACT A team of four researchers from Spain and Argentina has devoted six years to analyze the rush of UFO sightings occurred in the Antarctica between June and August 1965. To this end, an unprecedented documentation has been collected, even contacting with surviving witnesses, and it has undergone profound examination, based on a rigorous scientific appraisal and using the best available supporting technology. None of the reviewed observations have a significant level of strangeness. The information generated originally is insufficient and even contradictory. When there are not conclusive explanations, conventional models have been found that fit the empirical data, which eliminates or considerably reduces its value as evidence that they were anomalous phenomena. It turned out that the three key sightings of July 3, 1965 in the Laurie and Deception Islands could have been caused, most probably, by observations of a meteor, the Echo II artificial satellite and astronomical stimuli like planet Mars or the stars Spica and Arcturus.

(BTW this book was very well received by the British Antarctic Survey)

http://www.ceticismoaberto.com/research/fotocat/avistamientos_ovni_antartida_1965.pdf (http://www.ceticismoaberto.com/research/fotocat/avistamientos_ovni_antartida_1965.pdf)

I like to study conspiracy theories like ufos, chemtrails, and McCann did it ...  8(0(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 25, 2016, 11:53:50 PM
Thanks for that
People assume and judge
Your theory of entry of burglar or abductor  is ok
But it doesnt really matter
What matters is real evidence in a police investigation
And the uk og have found NOTHING
So mr anarals thesis is as good as any theory
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on May 26, 2016, 09:00:56 AM
Thanks for that
People assume and judge
Your theory of entry of burglar or abductor  is ok
But it doesnt really matter
What matters is real evidence in a police investigation
And the uk og have found NOTHING
So mr anarals thesis is as good as any theory

You are wrong Mercury. There is a difference about "burglary that went wrong" vs. other theories.

At least three pevious burglaries on 5G, 5L and 4A and same modus operandi.

On the other hand Amaral theory physical impossible plus Tapas9 relaxed dining until 22:00.

The independent sighting of man with jacket in cold night with Madeleine like barefoot toddler in pyjamas discards wandering off theory.

Of course there is no enough evidence for Justice ... yet. Meanwhile consider it like "theory priorization".


 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 26, 2016, 09:09:32 AM
You are wrong Mercury. There is a difference about "burglary that went wrong" vs. other theories.

At least three pevious burglaries on 5G, 5L and 4A and same modus operandi.

On the other hand Amaral theory physical impossible plus Tapas9 relaxed dining until 22:00.

The independent sighting of man with jacket in cold night with Madeleine like barefoot toddler in pyjamas discards wandering off theory.

Of course there is no enough evidence for Justice ... yet. Meanwhile consider it like "theory priorization".

Just a man carrying his daughter Heri, that's all.

The accounts of the Tapas 9 were inconsistent and what happened with the mccanns in the apartment unverifiable, as with the window being open before 10 pm.

The case will remain unsolved as I said beforeon several occasions, bar a confession.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 26, 2016, 11:22:43 AM
You are wrong Mercury. There is a difference about "burglary that went wrong" vs. other theories.

At least three pevious burglaries on 5G, 5L and 4A and same modus operandi.

On the other hand Amaral theory physical impossible plus Tapas9 relaxed dining until 22:00.

The independent sighting of man with jacket in cold night with Madeleine like barefoot toddler in pyjamas discards wandering off theory.

Of course there is no enough evidence for Justice ... yet. Meanwhile consider it like "theory priorization".

Why (once again) is Amaral's theory or similar 'physically impossible'? Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the T9 dined until 22.00?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Heriberto Janosch on May 26, 2016, 11:25:51 AM
Why (once again) is Amaral's theory or similar 'physically impossible'? Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the T9 dined until 22.00?

How i like conspiracy theories!!!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 26, 2016, 11:35:39 AM
How i like conspiracy theories!!!

You should know about that Heriberto.

That is what the abduction scenario is ?

Oh , by the way, are you still investigating U.F.O. sightings ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2016, 01:05:17 PM
(snip) on the other hand Amaral theory physical impossible plus Tapas9 relaxed dining until 22:00 (snip).
IMO Amaral's main theory has discovery at about 10 therefore is consistent with relaxed dining until 10.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 26, 2016, 01:28:33 PM
You should know about that Heriberto.

That is what the abduction scenario is ?

Oh , by the way, are you still investigating U.F.O. sightings ?

You were left with egg on your face with that one first time round ... were I you I would either acknowledge error or I would stop drawing attention to it.

Despite slavish adherence to Mr Amaral's thesis regarding what happened to Madeleine on 3rd May 2007 ... I have never seen anyone going into great detail to show exactly how it was accomplished, which shows that there is no rational which supports it.

There is actually a lot of evidence pointing towards the reality of abduction.  Starting with Madeleine's absence ... and continuing to the PJ and SY actively investigating abduction.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 26, 2016, 01:41:36 PM
You were left with egg on your face with that one first time round ... were I you I would either acknowledge error or I would stop drawing attention to it.

Despite slavish adherence to Mr Amaral's thesis regarding what happened to Madeleine on 3rd May 2007 ... I have never seen anyone going into great detail to show exactly how it was accomplished, which shows that there is no rational which supports it.

There is actually a lot of evidence pointing towards the reality of abduction.  Starting with Madeleine's absence ... and continuing to the PJ and SY actively investigating abduction.

How do you know that?
The PJ investigated abduction the first time round and found no evidence to support the theory.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 26, 2016, 01:55:37 PM
How do you know that?
The PJ investigated abduction the first time round and found no evidence to support the theory.

Sigh ...  &%+((£
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2016, 02:02:57 PM
(snip) ... At least three pevious burglaries on 5G, 5L and 4A and same modus operandi ...(snip)
The aim of those petty burglary attempts (5G 5L 4A and others) was to steal cash, mobiles, cameras, electronic equipment, etc. Therefore the aim of the 5A burglary attempt was also to steal the same items. The 5A attempt was inevitably interrupted before entry (it is three times absolutely impossible that it wasn't interrupted), and the burglar fled completely empty handed. I don't see any other possible outcome.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2016, 02:21:38 PM
What if a burglary attempt is interrupted and the burglar flees empty handed but the person who interrupted the burglar has an accident as a result of fleeing the burglary attempt?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 26, 2016, 02:28:40 PM
What if a burglary attempt is interrupted and the burglar flees empty handed but the person who interrupted the burglar has an accident as a result of fleeing the burglary attempt?

Are you suggesting this accident happened in the apartment or outside ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 26, 2016, 02:31:26 PM
You were left with egg on your face with that one first time round ... were I you I would either acknowledge error or I would stop drawing attention to it.

Despite slavish adherence to Mr Amaral's thesis regarding what happened to Madeleine on 3rd May 2007 ... I have never seen anyone going into great detail to show exactly how it was accomplished, which shows that there is no rational which supports it.

There is actually a lot of evidence pointing towards the reality of abduction.  Starting with Madeleine's absence ... and continuing to the PJ and SY actively investigating abduction.

What egg on the face are you referring to ?

Perhaps Heriberto should contact Nick Pope on that, who has worked for the Ministry of Defense.

Oh, by the way Brietta, do you know who Heriberto was working for when he was 'debunking' ?

It seems Heriberto has 1 dimension on both the McCann case and U.F.O.'s.

As to abduction, a story without proof.

P.S. Brietta, almost forgot. I did check on Heriberto's background and Richard Hall's as well, both from opposite sides of the fence on U.F.O.'s, (Pope by the way is an 'expert' in his field, the other two aren't), on both cases.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2016, 02:48:39 PM
Are you suggesting this accident happened in the apartment or outside ?
In hypothetical cases it could be either. Keeping it hypothetical, an example by adapting another case - what if a pensioner interrupts a burglar climbing in her bedroom window, the burglar flees straight back out the window, and the pensioner as a result of fear and fleeing in the opposite direction has a serious fall or accident or medical event? This would leave an open window, open shutter, open bedroom door, and nothing stolen. Anyone deducing from the open window that the burglar had stolen the pensioner would be completely wrong. Basically burglars never steal pensioners or children.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 26, 2016, 02:50:41 PM
In hypothetical cases it could be either. Keeping it hypothetical, an example by adapting another case - what if a pensioner interrupts a burglar climbing in her bedroom window, the burglar flees straight back out the window, and the pensioner as a result of fear and fleeing in the opposite direction has a fall or heart attack? This would leave an open window, open shutter, open bedroom door, and nothing stolen. Anyone deducing from the open window that the burglar had stolen the pensioner would be completely wrong. Basically burglars never steal pensioners or children.

Did the pensioner go missing following this hypothetical incident?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2016, 03:02:24 PM
Did the pensioner go missing following this hypothetical incident?
In cases were a resident has a serious health event after disturbing a burglar and after the burglar has fled, the resident is normally found straight away because they are in a visible location.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 26, 2016, 03:35:31 PM
Of course, but as this didn't happen, perhaps not such a good analogy. There is a missing child to explain. A dead pensioner doesn't come near.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 26, 2016, 03:54:46 PM
You were left with egg on your face with that one first time round ... were I you I would either acknowledge error or I would stop drawing attention to it.

Despite slavish adherence to Mr Amaral's thesis regarding what happened to Madeleine on 3rd May 2007 ... I have never seen anyone going into great detail to show exactly how it was accomplished, which shows that there is no rational which supports it.

There is actually a lot of evidence pointing towards the reality of abduction.  Starting with Madeleine's absence ... and continuing to the PJ and SY actively investigating abduction.

'.. I have never seen anyone going into great detail to show exactly how it was accomplished, which shows that there is no rational which supports it...'

Rubbish.

The forum owner would not permit that on here, for risk of 'libel'.

..and we know how much the mccanns like that word, don't we.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 26, 2016, 04:37:16 PM
'.. I have never seen anyone going into great detail to show exactly how it was accomplished, which shows that there is no rational which supports it...'

Rubbish.

The forum owner would not permit that on here, for risk of 'libel'.

..and we know how much the mccanns like that word, don't we.
There are ways of phrasing ideas that explore possibilities without wandering into the libel zone.  And if it is better kept from Google, there is the members-only area.

Unless I am missing something major, Mr Amaral has never got near to explaining the logistics of his theory, with regards to what happened after Madeleine supposedly had an accident.

And that, in fact, is why I would advise the McCanns to allow the book to be published in the UK.  The book 'suggests' various logistical solutions that, frankly, are hilarious.

My favourite is the secret tunnels under Luz one.  The children of Luz allegedly use these to get to the sea, for some reason not using the roads or pavements.  Then, somehow, the tunnels seem to be forgotten as the children grow into adults, thus becoming secret, though presumably the next generation of children mysteriously is aware of them.

If the reader of the book just thinks about this idea, how did Gerry McCann, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know of them?  And how did Mr Amaral, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know about them?  And if Mr Amaral knew of these, why were they not searched during Mr Amaral's time in charge?  Why were the dogs not deployed in them?

Getting the book banned in the UK increases its appeal to those who think it must be damaging to the McCanns.  Whereas that book is such a soft target, that publishing it and exposing the weakness of its content, would show it adds very little to the case.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 26, 2016, 04:46:52 PM
There are ways of phrasing ideas that explore possibilities without wandering into the libel zone.  And if it is better kept from Google, there is the members-only area.

Unless I am missing something major, Mr Amaral has never got near to explaining the logistics of his theory, with regards to what happened after Madeleine supposedly had an accident.

And that, in fact, is why I would advise the McCanns to allow the book to be published in the UK.  The book 'suggests' various logistical solutions that, frankly, are hilarious.

My favourite is the secret tunnels under Luz one.  The children of Luz allegedly use these to get to the sea, for some reason not using the roads or pavements.  Then, somehow, the tunnels seem to be forgotten as the children grow into adults, thus becoming secret, though presumably the next generation of children mysteriously is aware of them.

If the reader of the book just thinks about this idea, how did Gerry McCann, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know of them?  And how did Mr Amaral, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know about them?  And if Mr Amaral knew of these, why were they not searched during Mr Amaral's time in charge?  Why were the dogs not deployed in them?

Getting the book banned in the UK increases its appeal to those who think it must be damaging to the McCanns.  Whereas that book is such a soft target, that publishing it and exposing the weakness of its content, would show it adds very little to the case.

I have said before Luz, I don't hold with all of Amaral's views and I have said he made mistakes.

I do not know the area so I can't comment on 'tunnels'.

If you don't mind me asking , how long have you lived there. I do understand if you don't wish to answer.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 26, 2016, 05:03:14 PM
I have said before Luz, I don't hold with all of Amaral's views and I have said he made mistakes.

I do not know the area so I can't comment on that.

If you don't mind me asking , how long have you lived there. I do understand if you don't wish to answer.
About 4 years now.

Please note, an awful lot of what I know about Luz was gathered solely because I became interested in the case (around the time of the OG dig).  Otherwise, frankly, I wouldn't have an inkling about the most of the workings of Luz.

It's a combination of free time, an interest in the case, and the ability to wander into Luz to check small but important details.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 26, 2016, 05:08:05 PM
About 4 years now.

Please note, an awful lot of what I know about Luz was gathered solely because I became interested in the case (around the time of the OG dig).  Otherwise, frankly, I wouldn't have an inkling about the most of the workings of Luz.

It's a combination of free time, an interest in the case, and the ability to wander into Luz to check small but important details.

Thanks for that.

I am going to the AlGarve on  holiday in  2018.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 26, 2016, 06:49:02 PM
There are ways of phrasing ideas that explore possibilities without wandering into the libel zone.  And if it is better kept from Google, there is the members-only area.

Unless I am missing something major, Mr Amaral has never got near to explaining the logistics of his theory, with regards to what happened after Madeleine supposedly had an accident.

And that, in fact, is why I would advise the McCanns to allow the book to be published in the UK.  The book 'suggests' various logistical solutions that, frankly, are hilarious.

My favourite is the secret tunnels under Luz one.  The children of Luz allegedly use these to get to the sea, for some reason not using the roads or pavements.  Then, somehow, the tunnels seem to be forgotten as the children grow into adults, thus becoming secret, though presumably the next generation of children mysteriously is aware of them.

If the reader of the book just thinks about this idea, how did Gerry McCann, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know of them?  And how did Mr Amaral, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know about them?  And if Mr Amaral knew of these, why were they not searched during Mr Amaral's time in charge?  Why were the dogs not deployed in them?

Getting the book banned in the UK increases its appeal to those who think it must be damaging to the McCanns.  Whereas that book is such a soft target, that publishing it and exposing the weakness of its content, would show it adds very little to the case.

That would have to be about the worst piece of advice the McCanns have ever been given.....
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 26, 2016, 07:31:31 PM
That would have to be about the worst piece of advice the McCanns have ever been given.....
Hardly given to the McCanns, or their friends, unless you believe they read this forum.  I don't.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 26, 2016, 07:35:02 PM
Hardly given to the McCanns, or their friends, unless you believe they read this forum.  I don't.

Have you not heard of 'Monitor Mickey'?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 26, 2016, 07:36:31 PM
Hardly given to the McCanns, or their friends, unless you believe they read this forum.  I don't.

Semantics
It is a totally ridiculous suggestion
Would you want to allow amaral to appear on TVs to spread his lies too
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 26, 2016, 07:37:35 PM
Have you not heard of 'Monitor Mickey'?

Is he a (w)right one ? %£5&%
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 26, 2016, 07:38:50 PM
Is he a (w)right one ? %£5&%

Nah, he's definitely a wrong 'un 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 26, 2016, 07:42:13 PM
Nah, he's definitely a wrong 'un

...and remember Jassi , one of the purely 'imaginary' people 'monitoring' the 'net on behalf of the mccanns.

 8(>((
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 26, 2016, 07:44:24 PM
...and remember Jassi , one of the purely 'imaginary' people 'monitoring' the 'net on behalf of the mccanns.

 8(>((

Not imaginary according to Levenson
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 26, 2016, 07:53:44 PM
Semantics
It is a totally ridiculous suggestion
Would you want to allow amaral to appear on TVs to spread his lies too
His lies?  Now you are wandering into defamation territory.

Mr Amaral is free to spread his opinion within Portugal, which happens to be the scene of the incident.

The UK is not the centre of the universe in this case.

Perhaps the most important battleground for the McCanns is Portugal, where the battle happens to be going very poorly for the McCanns.

How many times does Gonçalo Amaral have to turn up on Portuguese TV before this simple fact gets through?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on May 26, 2016, 07:59:22 PM
His lies?  Now you are wandering into defamation territory.

Mr Amaral is free to spread his opinion within Portugal, which happens to be the scene of the incident.

The UK is not the centre of the universe in this case.

Perhaps the most important battleground for the McCanns is Portugal, where the battle happens to be going very poorly for the McCanns.

How many times does Gonçalo Amaral have to turn up on Portuguese TV before this simple fact gets through?

I (respectfully) differ.

Straight comparison of the book with the files demonstrates that Amaral's account is markedly at variance with the truth.

Particularly since Amaral was coordinator of the investigation (until October 2007) he ought to have had a much better handle of the facts (up to the point of his removal) than his book suggests.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 26, 2016, 08:01:22 PM
His lies?  Now you are wandering into defamation territory.

Mr Amaral is free to spread his opinion within Portugal, which happens to be the scene of the incident.

The UK is not the centre of the universe in this case.

Perhaps the most important battleground for the McCanns is Portugal, where the battle happens to be going very poorly for the McCanns.

How many times does Gonçalo Amaral have to turn up on Portuguese TV before this simple fact gets through?

#you are making suggestions re the book but do not seem to be aware of what it conrtains
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on May 26, 2016, 08:03:30 PM
To convince us of their capability and the extraordinary work carried out by these very special detectives in the course of over 200 investigations, he screens a video for us, showing their training and their intervention on the ground

the dogs have not been involved in 200 investigations.....there are more

Of course, there, Amaral was (accurately) citing the figure Grime cited, which Portuguese libel law would (probably) allow him to get away with (on the basis that he was entitled to believe what Grime said).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 26, 2016, 08:06:35 PM
Of course, there, Amaral was (accurately) citing the figure Grime cited, which Portuguese libel law would (probably) allow him to get away with (on the basis that he was entitled to believe what Grime said).

Grime cited over 200 case searches, dont twist his words, Amaral merely quoted him, nothng wrong done,no lies at all by either of them, unless amaral misunderstood,which is not a crime, just numbers
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 26, 2016, 08:07:56 PM
So do you - to no avail .
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 26, 2016, 08:14:40 PM
All this drivel, and what difference will it make.

ZERO.  8)--))
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 26, 2016, 08:16:41 PM
All this drivel, and what difference will it make.

ZERO.  8)--))


is that the best you can come up with...of course it makes no difference...the only difference would be if evidence had been found
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 26, 2016, 08:53:21 PM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA2hk_CIZeo
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 26, 2016, 09:17:18 PM
yes lies... have you read any of the book...i have posted several excerpts that are plainly untrue
That they are untrue is not the point.  Amaral is not supposed to be the god of truth.

I have read the book around 3 times.

I have posted some of the nonsense in the book.

But you are still in defamation territory.  It is simple.  It is the difference between Amaral got it wrong (which I believe the book does on multiple occasions) and Amaral lied in the book (for which you have no evidence).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 26, 2016, 09:33:23 PM
That they are untrue is not the point.  Amaral is not supposed to be the god of truth.

I have read the book around 3 times.

I have posted some of the nonsense in the book.

But you are still in defamation territory.  It is simple.  It is the difference between Amaral got it wrong (which I believe the book does on multiple occasions) and Amaral lied in the book (for which you have no evidence).


 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 26, 2016, 09:37:39 PM
An error is where one gets it wrong.  A statement that is not true but is presented as the truth.

A lie is quite different.  It is when one knows the truth and deliberately and knowingly tells an untruth.

Unless you have evidence Amaral knew the truth but deliberately told an untruth, you are still in defamation territory.

The book is replete with errors.  I have yet to see any evidence of lies.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 26, 2016, 10:04:17 PM
An error is where one gets it wrong.  A statement that is not true but is presented as the truth.

A lie is quite different.  It is when one knows the truth and deliberately and knowingly tells an untruth.

Unless you have evidence Amaral knew the truth but deliberately told an untruth, you are still in defamation territory.

The book is replete with errors.  I have yet to see any evidence of lies.
If they are errors why has he not corrected them

Amaral has read the files
He has read what grime said
Are you saying he did not understand it
It's quite simle
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2016, 10:10:41 PM
Which block 4 apartment were the contents taken to?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 26, 2016, 11:14:28 PM
If they are errors why has he not corrected them

Amaral has read the files
He has read what grime said
Are you saying he did not understand it
It's quite simle
Maybe because he has not read my blog, but I very much doubt that is the reason.

Mr Amaral claims in his book that on the evening of Friday 4 May 2007 he criss-crossed Luz, and basically found it was shut.  Furthermore, that he was told that Luz was also shut on the evening of 3 May 2007.  That is his opinion.

After digging about on the Internet, I have come up with sufficient evidence to convince me that Luz was not shut on Thursday evening, albeit the restaurants and pubs were far from packed.

I have not specifically checked on Friday 4 May, but the general evidence leads me to believe that Luz was not shut that evening either.

So, we have a situation.  I am right, and Mr Amaral is in error.  This does not make Mr Amaral a liar.  Or Mr Amaral is right, and I am in error.  This does not make me a liar. 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 26, 2016, 11:22:47 PM
An error is where one gets it wrong.  A statement that is not true but is presented as the truth.

A lie is quite different.  It is when one knows the truth and deliberately and knowingly tells an untruth.

Unless you have evidence Amaral knew the truth but deliberately told an untruth, you are still in defamation territory.

The book is replete with errors.  I have yet to see any evidence of lies.
How hilarious that we may not accuse Amaral of lying in his book in which he accuses the parents of a missing child of lying!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 26, 2016, 11:26:54 PM
Maybe because he has not read my blog, but I very much doubt that is the reason.

Mr Amaral claims in his book that on the evening of Friday 4 May 2007 he criss-crossed Luz, and basically found it was shut.  Furthermore, that he was told that Luz was also shut on the evening of 3 May 2007.  That is his opinion.

After digging about on the Internet, I have come up with sufficient evidence to convince me that Luz was not shut on Thursday evening, albeit the restaurants and pubs were far from packed.

I have not specifically checked on Friday 4 May, but the general evidence leads me to believe that Luz was not shut that evening either.

So, we have a situation.  I am right, and Mr Amaral is in error.  This does not make Mr Amaral a liar.  Or Mr Amaral is right, and I am in error.  This does not make me a liar.
Hope you don't mind me using your post Shining to illustrate something about the smith sighting.
After passing the Smith group, which direction was taken by the man carrying a girl?
a) Past the large windows of the Chinese restaurant on Rua 25 Abril?
b) Past the Calheta bar (down the steps) and then past the Dolphin restaurant?
And do you agree all three were open that night?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 26, 2016, 11:39:31 PM
How hilarious that we may not accuse Amaral of lying in his book in which he accuses the parents of a missing child of lying!
Feel free to accuse Mr Amaral of lying as long as you can back it up with evidence of said lie.

If you can't, it's defamation.

Think about this.  If one was to accuse the McCanns of lying, and one could not provide supporting evidence, it would be defamation.

What works for the McCanns works for Amaral.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 26, 2016, 11:49:47 PM
Hope you don't mind me using your post Shining to illustrate something about the smith sighting.
After passing the Smith group, which direction was taken by the man carrying a girl?
a) Past the large windows of the Chinese restaurant on Rua 25 Abril?
b) Past the Calheta bar (down the steps) and then past the Dolphin restaurant?
And do you agree all three were open that night?
We know from the PJ Files that the Dolphin was open that night.  The evidence supports the idea that the Royal Garden and Fernando's aka Café bar Calhete were open that night.

I think, but cannot prove by a mile, that Tractorman aka Euclides Monteiro was in Fernando's that night.

As to where Smithman went, the evidence supports going down towards the Dolphin/Calheta, but does not prove it.

I happen to be of the opinion the Smiths could provide enough evidence to decide this issue, even to this day.  But that is just IMO.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 26, 2016, 11:50:57 PM
Feel free to accuse Mr Amaral of lying as long as you can back it up with evidence of said lie.

If you can't, it's defamation.

Think about this.  If one was to accuse the McCanns of lying, and one could not provide supporting evidence, it would be defamation.

What works for the McCanns works for Amaral.

The McCanns are accused of lying on here day in.. Day out
And no action is taken
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 27, 2016, 12:06:24 AM
Hope you don't mind me using your post Shining to illustrate something about the smith sighting.
After passing the Smith group, which direction was taken by the man carrying a girl?
a) Past the large windows of the Chinese restaurant on Rua 25 Abril?
b) Past the Calheta bar (down the steps) and then past the Dolphin restaurant?
And do you agree all three were open that night?

There is no doubt he crossed the road before approaching Aoife face to face, passing on her left and going down the steps she and the rest of her family had just come up.

Had the mystery man not wanted to go down the steps he would have cut diagonally across the main road passing in front of and to the right of the Smiths.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 27, 2016, 12:12:28 AM
Feel free to accuse Mr Amaral of lying as long as you can back it up with evidence of said lie.

If you can't, it's defamation.

Think about this.  If one was to accuse the McCanns of lying, and one could not provide supporting evidence, it would be defamation.

What works for the McCanns works for Amaral.

We know the McCanns lied to throw off the Press pack.  That must make them liars too according to davels philosophy.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Angelo222 on May 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
The McCanns are accused of lying on here day in.. Day out
And no action is taken

One man's lie is another man's truth!!  Fcuking tossers!!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: carlymichelle on May 27, 2016, 12:19:19 AM
One man's lie is another man's truth!!  Fcuking tossers!!

that was very unladylike of kate wasnt it!!!!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2016, 06:32:51 AM
How i like conspiracy theories!!!

Most academics accept that unsupported assertions count for nothing. It seems you can't explain why it's physically impossible for the McCanns to be involved in their daughter's disappearance. Therefore you cannot, as you have claimed, rule them out.

Similarly you assert that the alarm was raised at 10pm despite various statements by strangers which suggest it was earlier. Perhaps you should perform another 'analysis' counting the T9 statements as one statement, because it was actually agreed between them. 

PS. I have no idea what the relevance of your remark about conspiracy theories is meant to convey.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 07:18:03 AM
Most academics accept that unsupported assertions count for nothing. It seems you can't explain why it's physically impossible for the McCanns to be involved in their daughter's disappearance. Therefore you cannot, as you have claimed, rule them out.

Similarly you assert that the alarm was raised at 10pm despite various statements by strangers which suggest it was earlier. Perhaps you should perform another 'analysis' counting the T9 statements as one statement, because it was actually agreed between them. 

PS. I have no idea what the relevance of your remark about conspiracy theories is meant to convey.


the ruling out of the parents is not an unsupported assertion...there is a lot to support the parents being ruled out
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 07:22:40 AM
There are ways of phrasing ideas that explore possibilities without wandering into the libel zone.  And if it is better kept from Google, there is the members-only area.

Unless I am missing something major, Mr Amaral has never got near to explaining the logistics of his theory, with regards to what happened after Madeleine supposedly had an accident.

And that, in fact, is why I would advise the McCanns to allow the book to be published in the UK.  The book 'suggests' various logistical solutions that, frankly, are hilarious.

My favourite is the secret tunnels under Luz one.  The children of Luz allegedly use these to get to the sea, for some reason not using the roads or pavements.  Then, somehow, the tunnels seem to be forgotten as the children grow into adults, thus becoming secret, though presumably the next generation of children mysteriously is aware of them.

If the reader of the book just thinks about this idea, how did Gerry McCann, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know of them?  And how did Mr Amaral, an adult, and one who did not grow up in Luz, know about them?  And if Mr Amaral knew of these, why were they not searched during Mr Amaral's time in charge?  Why were the dogs not deployed in them?

Getting the book banned in the UK increases its appeal to those who think it must be damaging to the McCanns.  Whereas that book is such a soft target, that publishing it and exposing the weakness of its content, would show it adds very little to the case.

The book is not banned in the UK and amaral is free to publish it........giving him immunity from defamation as you are suggesting is a rather ridiculous idea for obvious reasons
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 07:27:53 AM
What does it say for amaral's abilities as a detective that many of his conclusions are just plainly wrong...would he have written his book and would his book have sold if his book had been truthful to the facts...the book is called the truth...yet it plainly isn't
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 07:32:02 AM
Take this statement...

Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred.

it simply isn't true....amaral got it wrong


I am not accusing amaral of lying....perhaps he just didn't understand
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 07:38:01 AM
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann.

again his conclusions are not correct...Grime makes it perfectly clear that an alert can be due to contamination
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2016, 07:41:53 AM
How hilarious that we may not accuse Amaral of lying in his book in which he accuses the parents of a missing child of lying!

Perhaps this will help you to understand. It's from the Appeal Judgment on the book banning injunction. It says that interpreting the facts of the investigation in a different way is legitimate in a literary work so long as it doesn't affect anyone's rights, and it didn't. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, so the question of the book damaging the McCann's rights is dead in the water since 2010. That's why the re-banning was so strange, as it contradicted the earlier findings of both the Appeal and Supreme Courts.

 it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 07:51:29 AM
Perhaps this will help you to understand. It's from the Appeal Judgment on the book banning injunction. It says that interpreting the facts of the investigation in a different way is legitimate in a literary work so long as it doesn't affect anyone's rights, and it didn't. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, so the question of the book damaging the McCann's rights is dead in the water since 2010. That's why the re-banning was so strange, as it contradicted the earlier findings of both the Appeal and Supreme Courts.

 it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.


Thank you G-Unit for that.

It was abundantly clear what the recent judgement entailed, so why are certain  parties protesting otherwise ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 27, 2016, 07:55:13 AM
You are wrong Mercury. There is a difference about "burglary that went wrong" vs. other theories.

At least three pevious burglaries on 5G, 5L and 4A and same modus operandi.

On the other hand Amaral theory physical impossible plus Tapas9 relaxed dining until 22:00.

The independent sighting of man with jacket in cold night with Madeleine like barefoot toddler in pyjamas discards wandering off theory.

Of course there is no enough evidence for Justice ... yet. Meanwhile consider it like "theory priorization".

Let's see your evidence of 10pm. One with a watch said Kate left to check at 9:50. According to others present at the table she wasn't gone long. The waiter who served Russell his steak said they were gone before 10pm. He is a reliable witness because he said Russell arrived back at 9:45 and Russell confirmed that time!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on May 27, 2016, 08:51:36 AM
Perhaps this will help you to understand. It's from the Appeal Judgment on the book banning injunction. It says that interpreting the facts of the investigation in a different way is legitimate in a literary work so long as it doesn't affect anyone's rights, and it didn't. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, so the question of the book damaging the McCann's rights is dead in the water since 2010. That's why the re-banning was so strange, as it contradicted the earlier findings of both the Appeal and Supreme Courts.

 it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants’ constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry’s Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants’ rights.


"...as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved."

Why is the presumption of innocence not a fundamental right in this case?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 08:53:06 AM
"...as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved."

Why is the presumption of innocence not a fundamental right in this case?

The mccanns were not on trial Carana.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Benice on May 27, 2016, 09:37:35 AM
Indeed.

Due to a misconception on the part of the Portuguese, they got away with charges on child abandonment.

If Portuguese residents had done the same , they would have been in court.

No doubt about it.

That's not what the Portuguese Attorney General  said  - he said their actions did not meet the 'Intent to Abandon' criterium required for them to be charged with 'abandonment'.        IOW -  the AG applied the law - and found they had not broken it.    Are you claiming he didn't know what he was talking about and was under a misconception?  Surely not - I was under the impression the Portuguese judiciary could do no wrong in your opinion.

To claim 'they got away with it' when it has been officially stated that they did not break the law is libelous IMO.


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 09:47:10 AM
The mccanns were not on trial Carana.

they dont have to be on trial

Article 2 confirms that the Directive will apply at “all stages from the moment when a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, or an alleged criminal offence, until the final determination of the question whether the person has committed the offence concerned and that decision has become definitive”
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 09:48:49 AM
That's not what the Portuguese Attorney General  said  - he said their actions did not meet the 'Intent to Abandon' criterium required for them to be charged with 'abandonment'.        IOW -  the AG applied the law - and found they had not broken it.    Are you claiming he didn't know what he was talking about and was under a misconception?  Surely not - I was under the impression the Portuguese judiciary could do no wrong in your opinion.

To claim 'they got away with it' when it has been officially stated that they did not break the law is libelous IMO.

Do keep up.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7115564/Revealed-The-reason-Kate-and-Gerry-werent-charged-over-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html


AND TAKE NOTE.

This link and others have been provided before.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 09:57:57 AM
Do keep up.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7115564/Revealed-The-reason-Kate-and-Gerry-werent-charged-over-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html


AND TAKE NOTE.

This link and others have been provided before.

the person who needs to keep up is you...the Sun is not regarded as a reliable source...the archiving report is and explains why the mccanns were not charged
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Benice on May 27, 2016, 09:59:09 AM
Do keep up.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7115564/Revealed-The-reason-Kate-and-Gerry-werent-charged-over-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html


AND TAKE NOTE.

This link and others have been provided before.


So you believe Sun reporters know better than the Portuguese Attorney General about PT law -  and that an article in the Sun supersedes the statement made by the Attorney General in his Final report.   LOL - there's no answer to that.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
they dont have to be on trial

Article 2 confirms that the Directive will apply at “all stages from the moment when a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, or an alleged criminal offence, until the final determination of the question whether the person has committed the offence concerned and that decision has become definitive”

Which only became applicable in February 2016, countries have until April 2018 to apply it. It is to clarify;

The presumption of innocence (set out in Article 6 (2) ECHR and Article 48 (1) EU Charter) is the cornerstone of the right to a fair trial.

and;

Recital 6 confirms that it applies “only to criminal proceedings, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice), without prejudice to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

I will provide the cite for you;
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-new-directive-on-presumption-
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 10:18:49 AM
Which only became applicable in February 2016, countries have until April 2018 to apply it. It is to clarify;

The presumption of innocence (set out in Article 6 (2) ECHR and Article 48 (1) EU Charter) is the cornerstone of the right to a fair trial.

and;

Recital 6 confirms that it applies “only to criminal proceedings, as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice), without prejudice to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

I will provide the cite for you;
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-new-directive-on-presumption-

are you contesting that the mccanns have the right to be considered innocent...you probably are...that is quite a disgraceful stance to take
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 27, 2016, 10:39:59 AM
are you contesting that the mccanns have the right to be considered innocent...you probably are...that is quite a disgraceful stance to take

Posting partial information with no cite isn't exactly ethical in my opinion. Am I under any obligation to presume them innocent? Cite please.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: lordpookles on May 27, 2016, 10:43:41 AM
Let's see your evidence of 10pm. One with a watch said Kate left to check at 9:50. According to others present at the table she wasn't gone long. The waiter who served Russell his steak said they were gone before 10pm. He is a reliable witness because he said Russell arrived back at 9:45 and Russell confirmed that time!

Interesting if true. What time did SY/crimewatch say kate went to check?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 11:11:44 AM
What are the mccanns innocent of ?

The left their children and should have bee brought to court in Portugal for abandonment, just as any other Portuguese citizen would have happened to them in the same situation.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 11:16:34 AM
What are the mccanns innocent of ?

The left their children and should have bee brought to court in Portugal for abandonment, just as any other Portuguese citizen would have happened to them in the same situation.

its explained in the archiving report..read it...not the sun
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 11:24:43 AM
its explained in the archiving report..read it...not the sun

No it isn't.

The mccanns deliberately and repeatedly, as did the others, leave their children for hours on end, for 5 nights, with largely unverified checks, and pray to a variety of dangers.


The mccanns escaped criminal charges, of that there is no doubt at all.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 11:25:51 AM
No it isn't.

The mccanns deliberately and repeatedly, as did the others, leave their children for hours on end, for 5 nights, with largely unverified checks, and pray to a variety of dangers.


The mccanns escaped criminal charges, of that there is no doubt at all.

its explained in the archiving report...very simply...very clearly
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 12:06:56 PM
Incorrect.

It is abundantly clear, as would have  Portuguese residents who did the same, they should have been charged with abandonment.

It is appalling they were not.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 12:09:19 PM
Incorrect.

It is abundantly clear, as would have  Portuguese residents who did the same, they should have been charged with abandonment.

It is appalling they were not.

according to the sun
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 12:16:06 PM
Dear oh dear.

It was in nearly every newspaper.

Try reading posts before you type.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 27, 2016, 12:16:28 PM
Incorrect.

It is abundantly clear, as would have  Portuguese residents who did the same, they should have been charged with abandonment.

It is appalling they were not.

From a legal perspective, it would have been a waste of time and would have resulted in an acquittal.  The reason being that the children were not abandoned, as there was a process of checks in place.  And there was no intent to abandon or recklessly expose the children to danger.  So there was no crime. 

You may not like it, but it is the legal position. 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 12:18:36 PM
From a legal perspective, it would have been a waste of time and would have resulted in an acquittal.  The reason being that the children were not abandoned, as there was a process of checks in place.  And there was no intent to abandon or recklessly expose the children to danger.  So there was no crime. 

You may not like it, but it is the legal position.

Tell me how many of thew checks were verified.

and the children were left to their own devices

It was disgraceful behaviour , not just the mccanns either.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 12:22:51 PM
Tell me how many of thew checks were verified.

and the children were left to their own devices.

It was disgraceful behaviour , not just the mccanns either.

You may not like it, but it is the legal position.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on May 27, 2016, 12:29:13 PM
Tell me how many of thew checks were verified.

and the children were left to their own devices.

It was disgraceful behaviour , not just the mccanns either.

In Your Opinion ... which has no standing in law. Unlike the opinion of the Portuguese Attorney General.  Let's face it Stephen you are on a hiding to nothing following this tack ... as well as sailing too close to the wind regarding defamation for my liking.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 12:31:34 PM
In Your Opinion ... which has no standing in law. Unlike the opinion of the Portuguese Attorney General.  Let's face it Stephen you are on a hiding to nothing following this tack ... as well as sailing too close to the wind regarding defamation for my liking.

Sailing close to the wind ?

The case happened in Portugal, and the report from Former minister of internal affairs Rui Pereira stands.

Get over it.

Still waiting for you to admit the mccanns did anything wrong.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 27, 2016, 12:32:06 PM
Tell me how many of thew checks were verified.

and the children were left to their own devices

It was disgraceful behaviour , not just the mccanns either.

It may have been foolish, and had tragic consequences.

However, from a legal point of view there was no crime of abandonment committed by the McCanns.

In order to secure a conviction, the onus would be on the PP to prove intent, and to prove that no checks were actually made.  This would not be possible to do. 

As I said before, you may not like it, but it is the cold legal position.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 12:33:19 PM
You need to refer to the  Former minister of internal affairs in Portugval, Rui Pereira .
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on May 27, 2016, 12:36:44 PM
Grime cited over 200 case searches, dont twist his words, Amaral merely quoted him, nothng wrong done,no lies at all by either of them, unless amaral misunderstood,which is not a crime, just numbers

Quote
P In six years operational deployment in over 200 cases the dog has never

alerted to meat based foodstuffs.

Martin Grime.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on May 27, 2016, 12:44:34 PM
From a legal perspective, it would have been a waste of time and would have resulted in an acquittal.  The reason being that the children were not abandoned, as there was a process of checks in place.  And there was no intent to abandon or recklessly expose the children to danger.  So there was no crime. 

You may not like it, but it is the legal position.

With the exception of 'statutory offences' (forget them!) it seems to be an identical requirement of both penal codes (our own, adversarial and the Portuguese inquisitorial) that the commission of any crime requires both of two elements; guilty conduct and guilty intent.

The absence of either element means no crime (in either penal code).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 12:47:49 PM
With the exception of 'statutory offences' (forget them!) it seems to be an identical requirement of both penal codes (our own, adversarial and the Portuguese inquisitorial) that the commission of any crime requires both of two elements; guilty conduct and guilty intent.

The absence of either element means no crime (in either penal code).

Abandonment and intent, as the former Minister of Internal Affairs makes quite clear.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on May 27, 2016, 12:48:42 PM
Abandonment and intent, as the former Minister of Internal Affairs makes quite clear.

Intent to what?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on May 27, 2016, 04:32:49 PM
With the exception of 'statutory offences' (forget them!) it seems to be an identical requirement of both penal codes (our own, adversarial and the Portuguese inquisitorial) that the commission of any crime requires both of two elements; guilty conduct and guilty intent.

The absence of either element means no crime (in either penal code).

Must let guy sent down for 4.5 years for causing death by dangerous driving today know.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 04:39:33 PM
Intent to what?

Intent ???

Leaving the children ALONE, REPEATEDLY, whilst they drank free wine and ate.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on May 27, 2016, 05:08:49 PM
Must let guy sent down for 4.5 years for causing death by dangerous driving today know.

http://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/stage/study-help/criminal-law-actus-reus-mens-rea
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 27, 2016, 05:19:14 PM
Intent ???

Leaving the children ALONE, REPEATEDLY, whilst they drank free wine and ate.
The McCanns intended to enjoy a relaxed evening a few dozen metres from where their children slept and to check on them at regular intervals, they did not intend for one of their kids to be abducted, it's very simple to understand really when you think about it.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 05:37:50 PM
The McCanns intended to enjoy a relaxed evening a few dozen metres from where their children slept and to check on them at regular intervals, they did not intend for one of their kids to be abducted, it's very simple to understand really when you think about it.

Ah, abduction.

What abduction alf, and please give the proof of abduction.

There is no excuse for what the mccanns did, and don't try pretending there was.

They weren't in the back garden.

They were in a foreign country, with a language they did not know. etc., etc.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 27, 2016, 05:42:59 PM
Ah, abduction.

What abduction alf, and please give the proof of abduction.

There is no excuse for what the mccanns did, and don't try pretending there was.

They weren't in the back garden.

They were in a foreign country, with a language they did not know. etc., etc.
We were talking about intent weren't we?  What did the McCanns intend to do that caused Madeleine to disappear then in your view?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 27, 2016, 05:52:42 PM
We were talking about intent weren't we?  What did the McCanns intend to do that caused Madeleine to disappear then in your view?

Tut , tut.

If you has been reading and comprehending my and others posts.

You would know that already.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: John on May 27, 2016, 06:24:40 PM
A reminder to keep posts amiable please. TY
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 27, 2016, 06:57:02 PM
We were talking about intent weren't we?  What did the McCanns intend to do that caused Madeleine to disappear then in your view?

They intended to leave their children alone every night before they even booked the holiday. Think about the risks involved .. or not, if you are a supporter of such parenting behaviour.

 If the flat had caught fire for instance...who would be to blame ... not the parents because they were no where near the kids!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 27, 2016, 06:57:50 PM
(snip) a few dozen metres from where their children slept (snip)
a few   seven

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 27, 2016, 07:17:05 PM
They intended to leave their children alone every night before they even booked the holiday. Think about the risks involved .. or not, if you are a supporter of such parenting behaviour.

 If the flat had caught fire for instance...who would be to blame ... not the parents because they were no where near the kids!
They did not intend to leave them unchecked all evening long, and they didn't.  If the flat had caught fire I have no doubt that they would have been in attendance within 60 seconds, assuming the apartments contained working fire alarms, which I believe is a statutory requirement of such apartments.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 27, 2016, 07:26:11 PM
Interesting if true. What time did SY/crimewatch say kate went to check?

They are being smart - around 10 but the suspicious phone calls report revealed it matching mine. 9:51 Kate left to check. Alarm raised by 9:54/55. Smithman was spotted later - it all fits.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 27, 2016, 07:28:53 PM
They did not intend to leave them unchecked all evening long, and they didn't.  If the flat had caught fire I have no doubt that they would have been in attendance within 60 seconds, assuming the apartments contained working fire alarms, which I believe is a statutory requirement of such apartments.

I never said "They did not intend to leave them unchecked all evening long". I clearly stated they intended to leave the children alone every night before they went on holiday, without doing a risk assessment . Do you have any idea how long it takes to survive smoke inhilation? anyway no matter, they did not do a risk assessment.
 
Re the checking you mention. There was no set schedule ie every 15 or 20 or 30 minute intervals. these were NOT physical checks just 'listening at doors' IF the checking was as often as you and they try to make out, there would have been no time for  an'abductor' . someone would have bumped into him/her/ they surely.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 27, 2016, 07:47:47 PM
Martin Grime.

Martin Grime said in his other report

...in over 200 [case searches [/b]the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption.


It is rather obvious MG was not talking about individual police cases, but the number of searches the cadaver dog had done. If people call them cases or investigations, it matters not a jot, GA did not lie, neither did he lie that MH said in his report if the dogs alerted a body may have been removed. They were police investigating a mssing chld case, did you expect them to not think the obvious or did you expect them to make a long list of, "it could have been this, it could have been that" ie discarded bloody plasters, mushrooms and gardeners wet boots! Especially when the elephant was for them in the room, or should I say just the one room amngst many. Please do not forget that Portugal had had no experience at the time with cadaver dogs so they would go where they were led by their more experienced foreign colleagues.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 27, 2016, 09:28:51 PM
(snip)... If the flat had caught fire I have no doubt that they would have been in attendance within 60 seconds, assuming the apartments contained working fire alarms, which I believe is a statutory requirement of such apartments.
How would they have heard the firealarm? That lounge balcony door looks double-glazed.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 27, 2016, 09:31:00 PM
With the amount of noise that the Tapas bar would have been generating, they may not have heard any alarm - at least not at first.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 27, 2016, 09:36:08 PM
a few   seven

New world record Afie claiming McCanns could be there in 60 seconds. wow, it's not like I don't believe you or anything ( I don't) but how would they 'see' this fire if it was in the childrens room or just out side blocking the enterance to the room. smoke inhilation...

Do I hear 'damage limitation' being used -well there was no fire and only one child was 'abducted' could have been much worse it could have been all three...

The sad truth is  the parents could not see the apartment or hear their children crying from where they were sitting.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 27, 2016, 09:38:52 PM
Intent ???

Leaving the children ALONE, REPEATEDLY, whilst they drank free wine and ate.
Wine, beer, sangria, and almond liqueurs, if you read the rogs Steve

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 27, 2016, 09:46:56 PM
A waiter destroying many statements

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 27, 2016, 09:49:07 PM
With the amount of noise that the Tapas bar would have been generating, they may not have heard any alarm - at least not at first.
If a fire started in the kitchen it would only take a few minutes to spread to the lounge and then it would be visible from the restaurant so what's all the fuss about?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on May 27, 2016, 09:51:26 PM
If a fire started in the kitchen it would only take a few minutes to spread to the lounge and then it would be visible from the restaurant so what's all the fuss about?

Agreed, what's a bit of smoke between friends.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 09:53:28 PM
If a fire started in the kitchen it would only take a few minutes to spread to the lounge and then it would be visible from the restaurant so what's all the fuss about?

The apartments are mainly concrete
Where the fire risk
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 27, 2016, 10:01:06 PM
The apartments are mainly concrete
Where the fire risk
Last time I checked, sofas and mattresses and bedclothes and people are not made out of concrete Davel.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 27, 2016, 10:05:07 PM
If a fire started in the kitchen it would only take a few minutes to spread to the lounge and then it would be visible from the restaurant so what's all the fuss about?

If a fire started it would probably be anyone seeing it seeing as the tapas group werent eye fixed on the flats all night if at all
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 10:08:21 PM
Last time I checked, sofas and mattresses and bedclothes and people are not made out of concrete Davel.

All these are fire retardent
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 27, 2016, 10:11:55 PM
With the amount of noise that the Tapas bar would have been generating, they may not have heard any alarm - at least not at first.

When the alarm sounds the idea is to get out not go running to. Sixty seconds could prove to be just in the nick of too late.

https://www.gov.uk/workplace-fire-safety-your-responsibilities/fire-safety-and-evacuation-plans

http://www.firesafe.org.uk/fire-emergency-evacuation-plan-or-fire-procedure/

Before some smart arse says "you are quoting work place" yeah well spotted that's because it is the nearest relevant.
In private residences you have no legal restrictions on how you can you can kill yourself.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 27, 2016, 10:14:21 PM
All these are fire retardent
If you were  in a concrete building and there was a fire inside your apartment would you silence the alarm and ignore the flames and continue posting, safe in the knowledge that you are fire-retardant Davel?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 10:16:08 PM
If you were  in a concrete building and there was a fire inside your apartment would you silence the alarm and ignore the flames and continue posting, safe in the knowledge that you are fire-retardant Davel?

The point you want to ignore is that these apartments seem to be a very low fire risk
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 27, 2016, 10:25:45 PM
The point you want to ignore is that these apartments seem to be a very low fire risk
Every fireman in the world who has seen the victims of fires in concrete buildings would disagree with you Davel.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 27, 2016, 10:38:42 PM
Every fireman in the world who has seen the victims of fires in concrete buildings would disagree with you Davel.

Davel just wants to point out, a fire could never kill any of those kids, a fall onto a sharp object or surface coukdnt kill a kid, a fall over a balcony or stairs couldnt kill a knetc etc

All designed to promote nothing could possibly have happened in the parents absence



IN sharon osbournes words, insane
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on May 27, 2016, 10:43:45 PM
Every fireman in the world who has seen the victims of fires in concrete buildings would disagree with you Davel.

Do you have any figures for the number of fires in Luz holiday apartments over the last 10 years please, Pegasus?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on May 27, 2016, 10:44:35 PM
Davel just wants to point out, a fire could never kill any of those kids, a fall onto a sharp object or surface coukdnt kill a kid, a fall over a balcony or stairs couldnt kill a knetc etc

All designed to promote nothing could possibly have happened in the parents absence



IN sharon osbournes words, insane

Maybe Gerry is really Clark Kent...
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 10:47:55 PM
Every fireman in the world who has seen the victims of fires in concrete buildings would disagree with you Davel.

perhaps we could have the opinion of a real fireman who I am sure would agree the apartments were not a fire risk
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 27, 2016, 10:54:50 PM
perhaps we could have the opinion of a real fireman who I am sure would agree the apartments were not a fire risk

Perhaps you can give your considered opinion why they are not a fire risk.
Is one side of the combustion triangle missing?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 10:57:09 PM
Perhaps you can give your considered opinion why they are not a fire risk.
Is one side of the combustion triangle missing?

concrete doesn't burn
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on May 27, 2016, 11:01:23 PM
concrete doesn't burn

I'm glad the twin towers didn't burn.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 27, 2016, 11:01:54 PM
Maybe Gerry is really Clark Kent...

Well yes never denied it but kate boasted how quickly she could sprint...why sprint when 30 mns or more or more have lapsed

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 11:03:01 PM
I'm glad the twin towers didn't burn.

the steel burnt in the twin towers...were there any low flying aircraft around 5a

Concrete does not burn, but somewhere around 1200 degrees it will produce steam to become calcium oxide.

Ca(OH)2 -> CaO + H2O

Calcium oxide is a white powder which melts at nearly 3000 C
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 27, 2016, 11:07:25 PM
The patio door was left open
Davel thinks there was no possibility a groggy chikd coukd go out and fall over the balcony or downthe stairs

Same with front door, unlocked, easy fir a toddler to open and go wonderng


Unsafe measures davel dear by the parents, totally irresponsible
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 11:09:22 PM
The patio door was left open
Davel thinks there was no possibility a groggy chikd coukd go out and fall over the balcony or downthe stairs

Same with front door, unlocked, easy fir a toddler to open and go wonderng


Unsafe measures davel dear by the parents, totally irresponsible

not me...the archiving report felt maddie could not have physically left the apartment...read it...in the morning
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 27, 2016, 11:10:46 PM
concrete doesn't burn

True because concrete is fully oxidised but heat of burning contents is sufficient to reduce the structural strength to the point of collapse. Differences in the coefficients of thermal expansion between the shit and the hairpins cause collapse.
Then when the contents are burning there will be a depletion of oxygen which will be replaced causing drafts.........
Now you did S level physics you should be able to work it it all out from there.
So again which side of the combustion triangle is missing?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 27, 2016, 11:13:10 PM
True because concrete is fully oxidised but heat of burning contents is sufficient to reduce the structural strength to the point of collapse. Differences in the coefficients of thermal expansion between the shit and the hairpins cause collapse.
Then when the contents are burning there will be a depletion of oxygen which will be replaced causing drafts.........
Now you did S level physics you should be able to work it it all out from there.
So again which side of the combustion triangle is missing?

and what temperature is required for this to take place. In the twin towers their was aircraft fuel...what fuel would be present in the apartment to reach the required temp
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 27, 2016, 11:38:05 PM
Contents burn Davel.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 01:06:46 AM
Looks like the winter snow has finally melted and the search for Deorr Kunz is resuming. Police have done a 3 day search. Next the private investigators KIC will be doing a search (or maybe are now), reportedly with the assistance of cadaver dogs from Georgia state.
 
Klein Investigations and Consulting. Public Statement : “KIC Texas has received media requests regarding the search for Deorr Kunz, Jr. The citizens of Lemhi County should be very proud of the men and women searchers who worked the case in hard conditions this past week. As the evidence obtained is reviewed by Law Enforcement the KIC team will be preparing their search. We will not announce the date or time of such search as we want to insure that we are not interrupted and can fully concentrate on the areas to which we will be searching. We want to continue to encourage anyone camping in the area of the Timber Creek Camp Ground to keep their eyes open and report anything out of place. We again thank the wonderful people of Idaho for their cooperation and tips.”  24 May at 17:40

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on May 28, 2016, 01:17:13 AM
Looks like the winter snow has finally melted and the search for Deorr Kunz is resuming. Police have done a 3 day search. Next the private investigators KIC will be doing a search (or maybe are now), reportedly with the assistance of cadaver dogs from Georgia state.
 
Klein Investigations and Consulting. Public Statement : “KIC Texas has received media requests regarding the search for Deorr Kunz, Jr. The citizens of Lemhi County should be very proud of the men and women searchers who worked the case in hard conditions this past week. As the evidence obtained is reviewed by Law Enforcement the KIC team will be preparing their search. We will not announce the date or time of such search as we want to insure that we are not interrupted and can fully concentrate on the areas to which we will be searching. We want to continue to encourage anyone camping in the area of the Timber Creek Camp Ground to keep their eyes open and report anything out of place. We again thank the wonderful people of Idaho for their cooperation and tips.” 

Topic has been moved to http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7045.0, Pegasus.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 01:29:34 AM
In the Fort one night there was a fire attended by more than 21 fire officers and 7 fire engines, and three residents were evacuated. It took hours to put out the blaze. A fourth resident Fernando Da Vel refused evacuation, claiming that because stone doesn't burn there was no fire risk.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on May 28, 2016, 02:24:07 AM
In the Fort one night there was a fire attended by more than 21 fire officers and 7 fire engines, and three residents were evacuated. It took hours to put out the blaze. A fourth resident Fernando Da Vel refused evacuation, claiming that because stone doesn't burn there was no fire risk.

You are absolutely wicked, Pegasus!

Was that the Fortazela - is it a restaurant/guest house? What happened there - I can't find anything on google.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 02:44:27 AM
You are absolutely wicked, Pegasus!

Was that the Fortazela - is it a restaurant/guest house? What happened there - I can't find anything on google.
It was a Sunday night in 2006 Misty (same night as a white van was torched outside the laundrette).
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 09:40:32 AM
the steel burnt in the twin towers...were there any low flying aircraft around 5a

Concrete does not burn, but somewhere around 1200 degrees it will produce steam to become calcium oxide.

Ca(OH)2 -> CaO + H2O

Calcium oxide is a white powder which melts at nearly 3000 C

Some ones been Googling again  @)(++(*
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 28, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
Some ones been Googling again  @)(++(*

It's just over 2,550 degrees Celsius.

I wonder if dave knows why Magnesium Oxide has a higher melting point, almost 300 degrees higher ?

Without googling of course.

 %£5&%
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 09:51:38 AM
and what temperature is required for this to take place. In the twin towers their was aircraft fuel...what fuel would be present in the apartment to reach the required temp
I don't recall mentioning the Twin Towers.
In the combustion triangle "fuel" is a generic term. In the presence of pure oxygen pretty well everything is a fuel.
What do you think furnishings hard and soft and clothing are made of? Insulation to electric cables etc etc.
What temperature do you think needs to be reached such that the rebar expands enough to spall off the concrete?
To educate yourself look at some Building Research videos on fire hazards.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 02:01:42 PM
I don't recall mentioning the Twin Towers.
In the combustion triangle "fuel" is a generic term. In the presence of pure oxygen pretty well everything is a fuel.
What do you think furnishings hard and soft and clothing are made of? Insulation to electric cables etc etc.
What temperature do you think needs to be reached such that the rebar expands enough to spall off the concrete?
To educate yourself look at some Building Research videos on fire hazards.

It was Slarti who mentioned the towers
I don't se the concrete building as a particular fire risk
Furnishings are usually fire retardant
I can see the s level bothered you and Stephen
It seems you had not even heard of them despite being educated at a similar time and both taking GCEs governed by the JMB...
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 28, 2016, 02:59:42 PM
Incorrect again.

Neither me or Alice feel the need to boast as what we did at point in our education.

Meanwhile , we only have your unsubstantiated word for what you did.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 03:22:04 PM
It was Slarti who mentioned the towers
I don't se the concrete building as a particular fire risk
Furnishings are usually fire retardant
I can see the s level bothered you and Stephen
It seems you had not even heard of them despite being educated at a similar time and both taking GCEs governed by the JMB...

Try looking at Building Research stuff re fire risks and how it all works. Then you may be in a position to make a  cogent argument.
Otherwise it's back the old.
"I don't see how it is a fire risk ergo it isn't cos I is clever"

p.s the GCE's I took were Cambridge not J.M.B.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 06:19:59 PM
Here's a building which is made from concrete and steel and therefore according to Davel Fire Consultancy has no fire risk.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/images_export/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/windsor.gif

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 06:23:55 PM
A later photo of the same concrete and steel building
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/images_export/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/buildingFire.gif
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 28, 2016, 06:31:01 PM
In a holiday apartment in which there are very few electrical items in use, and no smokers present, no electrical storm and no jihadists with jets aimed at the apartment what would be the likely main cause of a fire in such a situation? 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on May 28, 2016, 06:32:38 PM
In a holiday apartment in which there are very few electrical items in use, and no smokers present, no electrical storm and no jihadists with jets aimed at the apartment what would be the likely main cause of a fire in such a situation?

Spontaneous combustion, silly ...
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 28, 2016, 06:38:18 PM
Spontaneous combustion, silly ...

I thought that was the reaction of the mccanns to the recent judgement in Portugal.

Metaphorically of course. %£5&% %£5&%
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on May 28, 2016, 06:42:29 PM
I thought that was the reaction of the mccanns to the recent judgement in Portugal.

Metaphorically of course. %£5&% %£5&%

I think you might be mistaking that with righteous outrage.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 06:43:07 PM
In a holiday apartment in which there are very few electrical items in use, and no smokers present, no electrical storm and no jihadists with jets aimed at the apartment what would be the likely main cause of a fire in such a situation?
Hob left on. Child turning grill on. Hair dryer. Matches. Lighter. Electrical wiring fault. Faulty toaster. Faulty tumble dryer. Cigarette end on sofa. Arson. Phone charger.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 28, 2016, 06:46:40 PM
I think you might be mistaking that with righteous outrage.

Nah.

You mean righteous outrage about leaving children unprotected, with infrequent visits, whilst out drinking ?

Hold on there, that was what the mccanns did.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 28, 2016, 06:49:49 PM
Hob left on. Grill. Hair dryer. Matches. Lighter. Electrical wiring fault. Faulty toaster. Faulty tumble dryer. Cigarette end on sofa. Arson. Phone charger.
Was there a hob / grill with a naked flame?  Was there a hair dryer left on?  Were there matches in the apartment?  A Lighter?  Do toasters spontaneously combust when not being used?  Was there a tumble dryer?  Did the McCanns smoke? 
Phone charger is a possibility and electrical wiring fault I'll grant you.  So, how many holiday makers staying in similar apartments have had their holidays curtailed by fires in their apartments caused by electrical wiring or phone chargers in the last 10 years? If it's a relatively high likelihood then there must be plenty of examples. 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 06:51:40 PM
Concrete building rated no-fire-risk by Davel
Probably started started by an electrical fault.
That is not the concrete building burning, it is the contents burning.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ferryman on May 28, 2016, 06:52:54 PM
Nah.

You mean righteous outrage about leaving children unprotected, with infrequent visits, whilst out drinking ?

Hold on there, that was what the mccanns did.

Righteous outrage.

That a book accusing Madeleine's parents of killing Madeleine, disposing of her body, concocting a ruse of 'abduction' and launching a (fraudulent) 'appeal' in their (dead) daughter's name is adjudged something (other than) libellous!

Only inhabitants of a species other than human would dissent from that analysis.   
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 06:54:06 PM
Concrete building rated no-fire-risk by Davel Fire Consultancy.

I have never used the words no fire risk
Looks like the McCanns have appealed despite your assertion they would not
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 07:00:24 PM
So what was the risk from a fire
How many fires have there been involving this sort of building in Europe and how many fatalities have there been
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 07:01:39 PM
I have never used the words no fire risk
(snip)
Was it someone disguised as you who posted "the apartments were not a fire risk" Dave?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 07:03:18 PM
Was it someone disguised as you who posted "the apartments were not a fire risk" Dave?

And you have interpreted thAt as no fire risk
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 07:04:52 PM
(snip)
Looks like the McCanns have appealed despite your assertion they would not
Yes I admit my prediction was totally wrong.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 07:14:00 PM
The point I am making is that the apartments seem to be made entirely of concrete with no wooden floors
The roof to 5a also seems to be solid concrete. There are therefore fewer combustible materials
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 07:18:11 PM

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456652/Fire_Statistics_Great_Britain_2013-14___PDF_Version_.pdf

http://blog.sdfirealarms.co.uk/fire-safety/which-are-the-most-common-house-fire-causes-and-how-to-prevent-them/

http://www.patlabelsonline.co.uk/blog/10-common-causes-house-fires/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33124925
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 07:19:31 PM
The point I am making is that the apartments seem to be made entirely of concrete with no wooden floors
The roof to 5a also seems to be solid concrete. There are therefore fewer combustible materials
Any fireman would tell you that it is unsafe to leave toddlers home alone even in a concrete apartment.
 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 07:20:48 PM
Was there a hob / grill with a naked flame?  Was there a hair dryer left on?  Were there matches in the apartment?  A Lighter?  Do toasters spontaneously combust when not being used?  Was there a tumble dryer?  Did the McCanns smoke? 
Phone charger is a possibility and electrical wiring fault I'll grant you.  So, how many holiday makers staying in similar apartments have had their holidays curtailed by fires in their apartments caused by electrical wiring or phone chargers in the last 10 years? If it's a relatively high likelihood then there must be plenty of examples.

Was a smoke alarm fitted in the apartment?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 28, 2016, 07:22:21 PM
Any fireman would tell you that it is unsafe to leave toddlers home alone even in a concrete apartment.
 

Exactly Pegasus.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 07:23:24 PM
Any fireman would tell you that it is unsafe to leave toddlers home alone even in a concrete apartment.
 

much of what we do every day is unsafe....i dont think fire rates highly as a possible danger..in this particular instance
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 07:27:58 PM


https://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=2788

Your mission Jim should you choose to accept it is :
For fire risks take the advice of Fire Research or Davel and Alfie Pyrotechnics.
This tape will self combust in 60 seconds.................... @)(++(*



Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 07:31:48 PM
(snip) ... If it's a relatively high likelihood then there must be plenty of examples.
Here's a photo of a fire at a concrete apartment building in Portugal
A news report said people were "scooping up children in pyjamas and running into the street in fear for their lives".
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 28, 2016, 07:39:59 PM
Was a smoke alarm fitted in the apartment?
I don't know about 5A, but after passing through dozens of homes in Portugal, I have yet to see one fitted with a smoke alarm. 

Hmmm.  Must check the DIY shop to see if they stock them.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 07:40:38 PM
much of what we do every day is unsafe....i dont think fire rates highly as a possible danger..in this particular instance
A fire would be visible from the restaurant after a few minutes when all contents were really blazing.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 28, 2016, 07:43:10 PM
By which time it would be a bit late for parental intervention.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 07:55:31 PM
I don't know about 5A, but after passing through dozens of homes in Portugal, I have yet to see one fitted with a smoke alarm. 

Hmmm.  Must check the DIY shop to see if they stock them.

It is properties let out for rental through organisations like MW  that I am interested in.
But specifically was 5A let out by Mark Warner or who ever without a smoke alarm fitted ?
That's a yes or no or I don't know not a "well if a sewing machine had bigger wheels it might be a car".
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 28, 2016, 08:06:11 PM
Was a smoke alarm fitted in the apartment?
I would think Mark Warners would have had to comply to fire safety regulations wouldn't you?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 08:06:18 PM
Here's a photo of a fire at a concrete apartment building in Portugal
A news report said people were "scooping up children in pyjamas and running into the street in fear for their lives".

a building where no doubt many smoke...light candles ...overload plug sockets. Those are the three top causes of fires
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 28, 2016, 08:06:59 PM
Here's a photo of a fire at a concrete apartment building in Portugal
A news report said people were "scooping up children in pyjamas and running into the street in fear for their lives".
What caused it? 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 08:08:52 PM
Here's a photo of a fire at a concrete apartment building in Portugal
A news report said people were "scooping up children in pyjamas and running into the street in fear for their lives".

be interesting to know the cause of the fire...the concrete won't be on fire
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 28, 2016, 08:09:25 PM
a building where no doubt many smoke...light candles ...overload plug sockets. Those are the three top causes of fires
These are the 8 top causes of fire - number one is cooking, also
candles
smoking
electrical and lighting
Tumble dryer and waching machine
Lightning
children playing with lighters and matches
Christmas trees.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 08:12:54 PM
Here's a photo of a fire at a concrete apartment building in Portugal
A news report said people were "scooping up children in pyjamas and running into the street in fear for their lives".

these sorts of fores often start in rubbish chutes
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 08:24:18 PM
What caused it?
A TV on the fifth floor.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 08:25:28 PM
A TV on the fifth floor.

how much damage was caused
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 28, 2016, 08:32:32 PM
I would think Mark Warners would have had to comply to fire safety regulations wouldn't you?
What fire safety regulations?

I'm in a villa with a 100% legal, fully registered for tax purposes, contract.

There are NO smoke detectors.  Ditto our first main place of stay.

Anyone suggesting a smoke detector in 5A needs to go beyond 'would', 'should' and 'ought to have'.

The MW complex 'should' have had decent security.

Did it?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 08:34:16 PM
What fire safety regulations?

I'm in a villa with a 100% legal, fully registered for tax purposes, contract.

There are NO smoke detectors.  Ditto our first main place of stay.

Anyone suggesting a smoke detector in 5A needs to go beyond 'would', 'should' and 'ought to have'.

The MW complex 'should' have had decent security.

Did it?

#so 5a did not have a smoke detector?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 28, 2016, 08:37:39 PM
#so 5a did not have a smoke detector?
I said earlier that I don't know.

I still don't know.

If the photos show a smoke detector, then we will have an answer.  But if they don't .......
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 09:06:38 PM
Was an American company?

Might well have had?

Bog standard Portugal?

bog standard...no standards...smoke alarms wont be the only lack of statndards
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 09:08:13 PM
how much damage was caused
Damage to the TV? Probably few of the channels worked after that inferno.
Damage to the apartments? - basically ruined by fire and water.
More seriously, 6 people taken to hospital with smoke inhalation.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 09:09:51 PM
Damage to the TV? Probably few of the channels worked after that inferno.
Damage to the apartments? - basically ruined by fire and water.
More seriously, 6 people taken to hospital with smoke inhalation.

not serious then
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 09:18:18 PM
not serious then
Smoke inhalation is very serious Davel.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 09:19:26 PM
Smoke inhalation is very serious Davel.

can be fatal...depends how serious...how serious was it
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 09:27:36 PM
can be fatal...depends how serious...how serious was it
Serious enough for 6 people to be taken to hospital Davel.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 09:28:39 PM
Serious enough for 6 people to be taken to hospital Davel.

I just do not see fire as even a moderate risk...it certainly didn't happen
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 09:31:56 PM
I just do not see fire as even a moderate risk...it certainly didn't happen
Fire is a much lower risk to children than asphyxiation.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on May 28, 2016, 09:36:16 PM
I just do not see fire as even a moderate risk...it certainly didn't happen

So which way do you want it? Ignore things that didn't happen but may have or discount things that did happen because they were unlikely.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 28, 2016, 09:45:19 PM
So which way do you want it? Ignore things that didn't happen but may have or discount things that did happen because they were unlikely.

ignore what we know didn't happen...there was no fire
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 10:18:07 PM
I would think Mark Warners would have had to comply to fire safety regulations wouldn't you?

I replied to this. I wonder where the reply went ?
It went along the lines of:
Why do you think smoke detectors are fitted ?
Hint: because there is a perceived risk of fire. QED


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 10:25:20 PM
Serious enough for 6 people to be taken to hospital Davel.

Get a good fire going and death can be by asphyxiation due to the fire using all the O2.


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 28, 2016, 10:51:45 PM
bog standard...no standards...smoke alarms wont be the only lack of statndards
Make your mind up.

Was MW an American company requiring smoke alarms?

Or were there no smoke alarms required?

Can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on May 28, 2016, 11:22:00 PM
Get a good fire going and death can be by asphyxiation due to the fire using all the O2.
Yes fire can cause asphyxiation but there are far commoner causes for example accidental strangulation, object inhalation, liquid inhalation.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 28, 2016, 11:28:44 PM
Yes fire can cause asphyxiation but there are far commoner causes for example accidental strangulation, object inhalation, liquid inhalation.

True Peggy.
I was just flagging it up to the "We know naff all about fire risks and building construction" brigade. The pics you put up on the other thread of the apartment interior were interesting.
 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 28, 2016, 11:58:08 PM
A TV on the fifth floor.
Was the TV left on when the McCanns left the apartment?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 28, 2016, 11:59:31 PM
I said earlier that I don't know.

I still don't know.

If the photos show a smoke detector, then we will have an answer.  But if they don't .......
Something to investigate on one of your next investigative missions then...
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on May 29, 2016, 01:01:08 AM
Anecdotal evidence that Portugal was hot on fire regulations (pardon the pun) at least as far back as 2006

Fire Safety Regulations
Post Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:31 am

I just wanted to know if any one has experienced the same as we have? We are opening a small business in Lagos, we are renting two rooms in a large building and have had to have some fire plans drawn up to enable us to get our commercial license. The amount of fire safety equippment that we have had to have is unbelievable. We have a fire extinguisher in both rooms, a smoke detector in both rooms, a manual alarm button in one room, a siren and a control panel that controls the whole system! It seems that the only thing we haven't got is a fireman on standby!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 29, 2016, 01:27:25 AM
Anecdotal evidence that Portugal was hot on fire regulations (pardon the pun) at least as far back as 2006

Fire Safety Regulations
Post Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:31 am

I just wanted to know if any one has experienced the same as we have? We are opening a small business in Lagos, we are renting two rooms in a large building and have had to have some fire plans drawn up to enable us to get our commercial license. The amount of fire safety equippment that we have had to have is unbelievable. We have a fire extinguisher in both rooms, a smoke detector in both rooms, a manual alarm button in one room, a siren and a control panel that controls the whole system! It seems that the only thing we haven't got is a fireman on standby!
Small business.

My enquiries have confirmed that a small business, aka a pub, installed fire alarms in said pub in 2014.  I have not yet been able to work out whether this was a new regulation, or whether the previous tenant simply ignored regulations.

I do believe a scouting expedition to Kelly's and The Bull might be on the cards.

But does it matter a jot?  Any photos of 5A with a single smoke alarm?   That is the question.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 29, 2016, 08:36:03 AM
another interesting case re portuguese justice..

A Briton held in a Portuguese jail for almost two years has acted as an under-cover agent for the United States authorities investigating a serious international crime, it was claimed yesterday.

A Portuguese judge will this week deliver her verdict in the case of Professor David Lowry, 54, a British civil rights lawyer accused of an alleged pounds 10 million fraud.

He has told The Observer that he would rather remain in Lisbon's notorious Caxias prison than accept any verdict short of acquittal.

Yesterday his American associate Craig Heesch, who has fought to establish his innocence, issued a statement in Lisbon saying he and Lowry had 'assisted US and international law enforcement agencies in a high profile criminal case as undercover agents - even while the professor is in prison.'

Heesch claimed last year that they had worked as for the FBI in investigations into white-collar crime. This was corroborated by former FBI agent Don Rogers, who gave evidence on Lowry's behalf after the FBI headquarters was unable to confirm it.

If Judge Teresa Feria finds Lowry guilty on Friday friends say it will finish his career.

The case against him is that he ran a Lisbon-based firm selling shares in non-existent firms. He did not deal in Portuguese shares.


He has told The Observer that he would rather remain in Lisbon's notorious Caxias prison than accept any verdict short of acquittal....he got his wish...he was sentenced to 17 years in prison and in portugal 17 years means 17 years


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 29, 2016, 09:00:22 AM
1999.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on May 29, 2016, 09:06:41 AM
that's right.....not sure if he has been released yet despite questions being asked in Parliament
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 29, 2016, 09:15:18 AM
'Portugal no haven for offshore shark'

LIVERPOOL-BORN David Lowry, 54, a lawyer and specialist in what one regulatory spokesman called "the less establishment end of the financial market", looked remarkably chipper, considering he had spent 23 months sharing a Portuguese prison cell with 13 others.
But that was before the judge at Lisbon's criminal court sent him down on Friday for nine years for fraud and conspiracy over the operations of his share telesales company, Paramount Portugal, and banished him from the country for another 10 years. At this, Lowry crumpled sideways, while his supporters in the curlicued, tiled courtroom murmured and huddled together in shock at the unexpectedly harsh verdict.

Lowry's crime was to have set up an unregistered operation in Lisbon from which scores of employees cold-called investors around the world and persuaded them to buy shares in small companies in Florida and New Zealand. Following investors' complaints, police closed the company in April 1997 and the judge found him guilty of fraud, criminal association, forgery and illegal use of a database containing potential investors' names and numbers.

Lowry insisted throughout his five-month trial that he was only following standard US business procedure. "I took Portuguese legal advice that said if I didn't deal in Portuguese stock or seek clients in Portugal, I needn't register the company," he said when I visited him in Lisbon's Caxias jail, where the former dictator Antonio Salazar used to lock up his political opponents.

Lowry has slightly faded blond good looks and a gently persuasive manner. "The Portuguese authorities are just inexperienced in telephone share- dealing," he said before the verdict. "They concocted this case against me on the basis of pure suspicion." He did not deny the activities of which he was accused. "I just did not believe I had done anything wrong. Where's the crime?"

The Portuguese judge, however, decided Lowry had mounted a calculated swindle. He had set up a "boiler-room" dealing operation to persuade investors to buy shares that were worthless, defrauding them of millions of pounds. The raid on Paramount was launched after disappointed Irish and Danish investors complained to Portugal's financial regulators that they had lost vast sums.

The twin-track career of David Lowry, as lawyer and businessman, lies in ruins: he can now neither run a business nor practise law. It is a humiliating blow for a man of charm and intelligence who has mobilised to his cause some of Britain's most eminent lawyers, several of whom testified at length in his favour.

"I'm a professional trustee. I look after other people's money. I cannot afford to be tainted with even the hint of fraud," he said during the trial. But the judge condemned him as "one of those people who play with millions".

David Lowry graduated in law in 1969 from Queen's University, Belfast. In a lengthy report submitted by the defence, his former jurisprudence professor, William Twining, rated his former student "a person of great potential". Lowry moved to the US with Prof Twining's blessing and prospered as an academic lawyer specialising in civil liberties, environmental protection and labour law, before moving into the telecommunications business. From the start "Lowry adopted the assertive and entrepreneurial style of American lawyers and businessmen", Prof Twining said.

Mr Lowry told me: "I used to teach students the law on white-collar crime." He became expert in international finance and tax havens, and set up worldwide consultancies that, in his words, "designed and managed offshore trusts and private corporations taking advantage of tax and fiscal opportunities, while ensuring anonymity for the client".

Domiciled in Switzerland, Lowry's British business connections amounted to a three-month stint in 1996 as director of a media company called Cable Road UK, and manager of Videotron UK, a company whose process of dissolution began last month.

The buccaneering world of transnational share-dealings boomed in the US in the 1980s, punting unquoted shares in high-risk startup companies by telephone or, latterly, on the internet. Operators used high-tech telecoms equipment to dodge national jurisdictions by being registered nowhere. Calls to numbers in one tax haven would be re-routed by satellite to another, so that neither investors nor the authorities knew exactly where to appeal when problems arose.

So renowned did Lowry's expertise become that the US authorities even sought his advice in tracking down tax fraudsters, according to Craig Heesch, a retired Los Angeles policeman and former undercover FBI operative, and Don Rogers, a former FBI special agent. Each testified that Mr Lowry had helped US investigations into racketeering on several occasions, the latest just months ago from his prison cell.

But British and US efforts to stamp out this form of white-collar crime have now spread to Portugal, and David Lowry is by far their biggest catch.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/portugal-no-haven-for-offshore-shark-1079044.html
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on May 29, 2016, 09:43:22 AM
Small business.

My enquiries have confirmed that a small business, aka a pub, installed fire alarms in said pub in 2014.  I have not yet been able to work out whether this was a new regulation, or whether the previous tenant simply ignored regulations.

I do believe a scouting expedition to Kelly's and The Bull might be on the cards.

But does it matter a jot?  Any photos of 5A with a single smoke alarm?   That is the question.

There was an interesting item on the news a couple of weeks ago. Some large UK shops had been selling mattresses made in China which didn't meet UK safety regulations, they were much too flammable. It turned out the Chinese company had sent the wrong mattresses and no-one had noticed. The mattresses met European safety standards but not UK ones, which are much stricter. It can't be assumed that other countries have the same standards as the UK, or that they are enforced.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 29, 2016, 10:39:20 AM
There was an interesting item on the news a couple of weeks ago. Some large UK shops had been selling mattresses made in China which didn't meet UK safety regulations, they were much too flammable. It turned out the Chinese company had sent the wrong mattresses and no-one had noticed. The mattresses met European safety standards but not UK ones, which are much stricter. It can't be assumed that other countries have the same standards as the UK, or that they are enforced.

For all the talk of unnecessary 'red tape', EU regulations set the  minimum standards that have to be met.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on May 29, 2016, 10:57:01 AM
So davel, any response to the article I cited on David Lowry ?

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on May 29, 2016, 03:24:35 PM
Just in case the Bank Holiday turns wet and people are at a loose end - The Mirror Forum, courtesy of the Wayback machine.  8)--))

http://web.archive.org/web/20071023045635/http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=31
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: carlymichelle on May 29, 2016, 03:32:36 PM
Just in case the Bank Holiday turns wet and people are at a loose end - The Mirror Forum, courtesy of the Wayback machine.  8)--))

http://web.archive.org/web/20071023045635/http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=31

wow i know lots of names there
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Carana on May 29, 2016, 04:49:41 PM
Just in case the Bank Holiday turns wet and people are at a loose end - The Mirror Forum, courtesy of the Wayback machine.  8)--))

http://web.archive.org/web/20071023045635/http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=31

Thanks Jassi.

I can understand why people were discussing the myths circulating as troo facts back then, but I have trouble with certain people who continue to perpetuate them even today.

Their motivations remain a mystery...

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 29, 2016, 07:08:08 PM
Thanks Jassi.

I can understand why people were discussing the myths circulating as troo facts back then, but I have trouble with certain people who continue to perpetuate them even today.

Their motivations remain a mystery...

A bit of a trip down memory lane.  Not much has changed, really.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on May 31, 2016, 11:54:54 PM
A bit of a trip down memory lane.  Not much has changed, really.

Alot has changed actually, alot of those posts on mirror forums were free for all in absence of info
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 04, 2016, 01:54:43 AM
from another thread
Well this gentleman did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9470638/Tia-Sharp-Father-speaks-of-horror-at-being-yards-from-her-body-during-search.html. Came all the way from Nottingham I believe.
Re that south London case there is a video interview by a crime expert of one of the family and if you watch carefully here is a question - was that interview conducted in the lounge of the residence?
If so it demonstrates the incredible power of false assumption - completely overriding logical investigation - how else would it be possible to have a televised expert interview conducted at a distance of about 7 metres vertically from what would eventually be found to be the solution?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on June 04, 2016, 02:12:09 AM
from another threadRe that south London case there is a video interview by a crime expert of one of the family and if you watch carefully here is a question - was that interview conducted in the lounge of the residence?
If so it demonstrates the incredible power of false assumption - completely overriding logical investigation - how else would it be possible to have a televised expert interview conducted at a distance of about 7 metres vertically from what would eventually be found to be the solution?

The interviewee said "we was here....".
"They'd been under house arrest for 7 days" at time of interview.
I wonder where the FLO was?

ETA I also wonder why MWT had been drafted in at such an early stage?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 04, 2016, 02:45:15 AM
The interviewee said "we was here....".
"They'd been under house arrest for 7 days" at time of interview.
I wonder where the FLO was?
If that interview is in the lounge, as seems very likely, it's interesting to watch it in that context.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on June 04, 2016, 02:50:55 AM
If that interview is in the lounge, as seems very likely, it's interesting to watch it in that context.

I've just added above - I wonder why MWT was drafted in at such an early stage?
It's the posters - in a family lounge - which bothered me....it all looks so staged, which it was as it turned out.
Clearly the police did not think the missing child was still on the premises and the interviewee (like a few others I could mention) seemed to revel in the presence of the cameras.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 04, 2016, 02:59:20 AM
I've just added above - I wonder why MWT was drafted in at such an early stage?
It's the posters - in a family lounge - which bothered me....it all looks so staged, which it was as it turned out.
Clearly the police did not think the missing child was still on the premises and the interviewee (like a few others I could mention) seemed to revel in the presence of the cameras.
It demonstrates that an entire investigation can, within a minute of arriving at the scene, go off in every direction except the correct one - just by making one drastically false assumption.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on June 04, 2016, 03:15:22 AM
It demonstrates that an entire investigation can, within a minute of arriving at the scene, go off in every direction except the correct one - just by making one drastically false assumption.

I don't think it was an assumption. I think it was a huge error, which was repeated on more than one occasion by the investigating force. They knew his history - that should have set alarm bells ringing straight away.
I wonder why the cadaver dog didn't alert in the bedroom?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: jassi on June 04, 2016, 09:26:38 AM
I don't think it was an assumption. I think it was a huge error, which was repeated on more than one occasion by the investigating force. They knew his history - that should have set alarm bells ringing straight away.
I wonder why the cadaver dog didn't alert in the bedroom?

Would you believe that alert if it had?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on June 08, 2016, 11:21:44 PM
interesting story.......backs up what i have said


Ben Butler, 36, denies murdering his daughter Ellie by causing the "catastrophic" injuries.
She may have fallen and hit her head as she watched the popular children's cartoon, the Old Bailey heard.
The pathologist who carried out the post-mortem test said he had never seen someone die from similar injuries.
During his cross-examination of Prof Anthony Risdon, Mr Butler's defence counsel Icah Peart QC said Ellie had been a fan of the cartoon, and there were "Peppa Pig artefacts about her room".
'Considerable impact'
He asked the pathologist if he knew a rhyme from the show, where Peppa jumps and falls from a bed.
"What I am talking about is someone jumping up and down on the bed and, as Peppa Pig does, jumps over backwards, falls down and hits her head on the concrete floor," he said.
Mr Peart QC then asked Prof Risdon if such momentum may have resulted in Ellie's injuries.
He replied: "I have seen a large number of head injuries in children.
"I have never come across a scenario like that and I have never come across a short distance fall that results in a similar injury."
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 10, 2016, 01:02:36 AM
I don't think it was an assumption. I think it was a huge error, which was repeated on more than one occasion by the investigating force. They knew his history - that should have set alarm bells ringing straight away.
I wonder why the cadaver dog didn't alert in the bedroom?
What an interesting and important question you have raised Misty.
This is a sign that the CSST study may be correct - it found that a PM interval of at least 85 minutes is required to produce a cadaver dog alert. IMO based on the CSST study we can deduce that in the London case, relocation to attic occurred at a PM interval of less than 85 minutes.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 10, 2016, 01:58:46 AM
"The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes ..."
http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html

I think that answers your question Misty (why no alert in bedroom in London case).




Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 10, 2016, 11:26:46 AM
Everyone has read the contradictions of 6:30 which is way over 85 minutes before she was reported missing.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on June 10, 2016, 09:10:47 PM
Everyone has read the contradictions of 6:30 which is way over 85 minutes before she was reported missing.

Even if there werent contradictiins 6.30 to 10 is 3.5 hours = 210mins of no independent sighting
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on June 10, 2016, 09:15:25 PM
Even if there werent contradictiins 6.30 to 10 is 3.5 hours = 210mins of no independent sighting

Didn't JT see her around 9
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on June 10, 2016, 09:16:11 PM
Didn't JT see her around 9

Did she? I thought she saw a pair of feet
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on June 10, 2016, 09:21:59 PM
"The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes ..."
http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html

I think that answers your question Misty (why no alert in bedroom in London case).

Exact time of death is unknown, Pegasus. I just wonder how long she was dead on the bed while he did what he did & took photos. I presume the cadaver dogs used in that case did not alert to dried blood.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alice Purjorick on June 10, 2016, 09:51:30 PM
Did she? I thought she saw a pair of feet

Or in the case of Sadies theory :
"What did you see? two feet ; but to you my girl one foot ten inches".
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on June 10, 2016, 10:15:37 PM
Or in the case of Sadies theory :
"What did you see? two feet ; but to you my girl one foot ten inches".
LOL
Jane tanners description in statements on 4 and 10  may went from two bare feet and bottom of pyjamas and magically by 10 may another jont statement appeared  where she also saw a pinky top (i dont believe this appears in her roggy nterview either) but at no time did she ever say she saw Madeleine so davel still needs to cme up with a cite if he believes she ever said any such thing...others have said it, but that doesnt count

Ergo

This leaves 210 mins at least from an independent witness statement of Maddie being seen that evening which allows for a death scent to develop
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 10, 2016, 11:27:33 PM
In the CSST experiment the pad contact duration was 20 minutes.
So maybe the shortest PM interval alerted was actually 85+20 = 125 minutes?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on June 10, 2016, 11:51:58 PM
In the CSST experiment the pad contact duration was 20 minutes.
So maybe the shortest PM interval alerted was actually 85+20 = 125 minutes?

Yes, and?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on June 11, 2016, 12:02:08 AM
In the CSST experiment the pad contact duration was 20 minutes.
So maybe the shortest PM interval alerted was actually 85+20 = 125 minutes?

Maybe, I don't know. I just find the lack of firm alerts in locations where a body had definitely been present very disturbing when compared to the way Eddie's alerts were taken as positive indication of death by the PJ.
One wonders what extra charges K & G would have faced had they falsely confessed to discovering an apparent accidental death during that 90 minute dinner period. Quite clearly the PJ would have been made aware of minimum PM interval for alert. 
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 11, 2016, 12:46:42 AM
Yes, and?
Last sighting + 125 mins makes about 23:10 earliest
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on June 11, 2016, 12:55:21 AM
Last sighting + 125 mins makes about 23:10 earliest

The prime suspcts evidence cant count for obvious reasns
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 11, 2016, 01:40:37 AM
Exact time of death is unknown, Pegasus. I just wonder how long she was dead on the bed while he did what he did & took photos. I presume the cadaver dogs used in that case did not alert to dried blood.

Two people said she was in bed. One said she was on top of the covers, the other under. Damn this is a hard one. Tell a lie I don't believe either!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Brietta on June 11, 2016, 01:47:25 AM
Two people said she was in bed. One said she was on top of the covers, the other under. Damn this is a hard one.

Just to be clear, pathfinder, Misty's post is not in reference to Madeleine McCann.  It refers to the failure of cadaver dogs to alert to the bed of a heinously murdered child where it is known without a shadow of doubt her remains lay.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on June 11, 2016, 01:49:42 AM
Two people said she was in bed. One said she was on top of the covers, the other under. Damn this is a hard one.

As Brietta has just explained, Pegasus & I were talking about the TS case.

I've already explained the other issue to you.
MM was under the covers when KM put her to bed.
At the time of the GM check, she was on top of the covers because he had inadvertently interrupted the abduction.
MM was quickly placed back on the bed so the abductor could hide. (Door move 1)
She was removed from the apartment after GM left, via the front door after the shutters had been raised. (Door move 2)
When MO checked at 9.35pm the blue bedroom curtains appeared green - amber light shining through blue.
It's really quite easy, even if it is just a thesis.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pathfinder73 on June 11, 2016, 02:07:05 AM
Because they said so. Kate couldn't remember nowt about who checked on her before they left. I think it was Gerry. Yeah thinks not know. They have shown the truth.

"Doesn't know if the story was finished, but thinks she was sitting on the sofa."

"She thinks that Gerry entered the room, but does not recall him sitting on the bed."

"She thinks that Gerry was in the room, and each (Kate and Gerry) placed a twin in its crib at the same time, between Madeleine's bed and the bed next to the window."

"She was under the covers, she thinks because she was a bit cold.."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

WTF!
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: G-Unit on June 11, 2016, 07:18:24 AM
As Brietta has just explained, Pegasus & I were talking about the TS case.

I've already explained the other issue to you.
MM was under the covers when KM put her to bed.
At the time of the GM check, she was on top of the covers because he had inadvertently interrupted the abduction.
MM was quickly placed back on the bed so the abductor could hide. (Door move 1)
She was removed from the apartment after GM left, via the front door after the shutters had been raised. (Door move 2)
When MO checked at 9.35pm the blue bedroom curtains appeared green - amber light shining through blue.
It's really quite easy, even if it is just a thesis.

How did the 'abductor' pick MM up from under the covers? They looked very tidy she must have been lifted in such a way that she emerged from the top. Why was she still in a deep sleep?

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Alfie on June 11, 2016, 08:26:01 AM
How did the 'abductor' pick MM up from under the covers? They looked very tidy she must have been lifted in such a way that she emerged from the top. Why was she still in a deep sleep?
Do you think the way he covers were left indicate it's unlikely she woke and wandered?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on June 11, 2016, 08:44:09 AM
Do you think the way he covers were left indicate it's unlikely she woke and wandered?

The bed did not look slept in.

Barely disturbed.

IMO of course.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Lace on June 11, 2016, 05:26:58 PM
The bed did not look slept in.

Barely disturbed.

IMO of course.

The Police Officer said there was a dent in the bed as if a form had been lying there,  quite easy to just put your arms under a small child and lift it out without leaving much disturbance.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: Davel on June 11, 2016, 05:34:35 PM
The bed did not look slept in.

Barely disturbed.

IMO of course.

were you there then...did you get a good look
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on June 11, 2016, 05:46:30 PM
The Police Officer said there was a dent in the bed as if a form had been lying there,  quite easy to just put your arms under a small child and lift it out without leaving much disturbance.

Like I said, the bed looked barely disturbed.

Almost as if, the cover sheet had been turned over for effect
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2016, 05:48:28 PM
As Brietta has just explained, Pegasus & I were talking about the TS case.

I've already explained the other issue to you.
MM was under the covers when KM put her to bed.
At the time of the GM check, she was on top of the covers because he had inadvertently interrupted the abduction.
MM was quickly placed back on the bed so the abductor could hide. (Door move 1)
She was removed from the apartment after GM left, via the front door after the shutters had been raised. (Door move 2)
When MO checked at 9.35pm the blue bedroom curtains appeared green - amber light shining through blue.
It's really quite easy, even if it is just a thesis.
Or it could be as simple as Madeleine became too hot under the covers and flapped them over, sleeping on top of them.   

Madeleine was virtually 4 years old and quite capable of doing that.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on June 11, 2016, 05:53:08 PM
Or it could be as simple as Madeleine became too hot under the covers and flapped them over, sleeping on top of them.   

Madeleine was virtually 4 years old and quite capable of doing that.

...and opening the patio doors and child gate...
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2016, 06:01:33 PM
...and opening the patio doors and child gate...

Maybe the patio door, maybe not.

Depending on how child safe the lock on the child gate she may or may not be able to open it.


BUT had she managed the patio doors, the minute she came out on to that patio area, she would have seen and heard her parents and their friends in the Tapas Restaurant just 50 metres away.

She would have been visible to them and she would have yelled

... and Madeleine was quite capable of making a mighty noise for such a little one.   They would have heard her and seen the change of light, from the lamp left lit, as the curtains were pulled back.  They would have seen her as well.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on June 11, 2016, 06:22:27 PM
Maybe the patio door, maybe not.

Depending on how child safe the lock on the child gate she may or may not be able to open it.


BUT had she managed the patio doors, the minute she came out on to that patio area, she would have seen and heard her parents and their friends in the Tapas Restaurant just 50 metres away.

She would have been visible to them and she would have yelled

... and Madeleine was quite capable of making a mighty noise for such a little one.   They would have heard her and seen the change of light, from the lamp left lit, as the curtains were pulled back.  They would have seen her as well.

Pure supposition Sadie.

So Madeleine could see clearly in the dark then ?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2016, 06:44:53 PM
Pure supposition Sadie.

So Madeleine could see clearly in the dark then ?

Had you failed to notice that the Tapas restaurant had huge windows and was well lit?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on June 11, 2016, 06:46:29 PM
Had you failed to notice that the Tapas restaurant had huge windows and was well lit?

It was night time sadie, and she was a small girl.

Get real.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2016, 06:49:11 PM
It was night time sadie, and she was a small girl.

Get real.
Even small girls can see and hear Stephen.

The Mccanns and friends group were well lit and she could directly see the place where they sat at only 50 metres away.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: misty on June 11, 2016, 06:51:44 PM
Madeleine never made it onto the patio so her night vision is irrelevant. She would not have closed the patio door behind her.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on June 11, 2016, 06:52:20 PM
Even small girls can see and hear Stephen.

The Mccanns and friends group were well lit and she could directly see the place where they sat at only 50 metres away.

How well could she see Sadie, approx 164 feet away in  the dark ?

You need to do a lot better than that.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: sadie on June 11, 2016, 07:03:53 PM
How well could she see Sadie, approx 164 feet away in  the dark ?

You need to do a lot better than that.

FGS Stephen, have you never sat in a lit room and looked across a dark area at another lit room?  You can see everything.  Try another tack.

Yep 50 metres is approx. 164 feet and also less than 55 yards. 
Pace it out.  It is not far to recognise your friends and her parents.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: stephen25000 on June 11, 2016, 07:06:34 PM
FGS Stephen, have you never sat in a lit room and looked across a dark area at another lit room?  You can see everything.  Try another tack.

Yep 50 metres is approx. 164 feet and also less than 55 yards. 
Pace it out.  It is not far to recognise your friends and her parents.

FGS Sadie, get a grip.


She was a small child.

Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on June 11, 2016, 08:20:17 PM
Maybe the patio door, maybe not.

Depending on how child safe the lock on the child gate she may or may not be able to open it.


BUT had she managed the patio doors, the minute she came out on to that patio area, she would have seen and heard her parents and their friends in the Tapas Restaurant just 50 metres away.

She would have been visible to them and she would have yelled

... and Madeleine was quite capable of making a mighty noise for such a little one.   They would have heard her and seen the change of light, from the lamp left lit, as the curtains were pulled back.  They would have seen her as well.

Rather than yell, she would more likely of headed off to see them and once out of sight of the tapas, who knows where she would go.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 11, 2016, 09:29:02 PM
FGS Stephen, have you never sat in a lit room and looked across a dark area at another lit room?  You can see everything.  Try another tack. ...(snip)
0% of the restaurant is visible from the north bedroom.
0% of the north bedroom is visible from the restaurant.


Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 11, 2016, 09:30:33 PM
(snip) ...Yep 50 metres is approx. 164 feet and also less than 55 yards. 
Pace it out.  It is not far to recognise your friends and her parents.
Pace it out and you will find the walking distance is 85 metres Sadie.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on June 11, 2016, 09:37:05 PM
Maybe the patio door, maybe not.

Depending on how child safe the lock on the child gate she may or may not be able to open it.


BUT had she managed the patio doors, the minute she came out on to that patio area, she would have seen and heard her parents and their friends in the Tapas Restaurant just 50 metres away.

She would have been visible to them and she would have yelled

... and Madeleine was quite capable of making a mighty noise for such a little one.   They would have heard her and seen the change of light, from the lamp left lit, as the curtains were pulled back.  They would have seen her as well.

This cant be stated as a fact or even a probable event unless you thnk the tapas party had their eyes glued on the apartment all night, why on earth would they do that?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 11, 2016, 09:38:07 PM
Rather than yell, she would more likely of headed off to see them and once out of sight of the tapas, who knows where she would go.
If she headed towards the tapas restaurant would she know how to open the tapas reception outer door?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: slartibartfast on June 11, 2016, 09:39:08 PM
If she headed towards the tapas restaurant would she know how to open the tapas reception outer door?

Would she even find them...?
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: pegasus on June 11, 2016, 09:43:33 PM
This cant be stated as a fact or even a probable event unless you thnk the tapas party had their eyes glued on the apartment all night, why on earth would they do that?
Precisely Merc. How many people at the table saw GM enter or leave, or saw MO enter or leave, or saw KM enter or leave the balcony door? Zero. None. The diners at the table completely missed all 6 balcony door openings.
Title: Re: Wandering Off Topic
Post by: mercury on June 11, 2016, 09:47:30 PM