The timeline revisited

[Vertigo Swirl]

If they intervened the crying would have stopped imo.

That's just your opinion so we've established it's not a fact. 

[barrier]

We are either dealing with Fact or Opinion here.  Which is it?

Good question, its not been established as a fact the girl was abducted .

[Vertigo Swirl]

They may have intervened by giving her a slap, so Vertigo has a valid point.

Thanks.  Also, they may have intervened and the crying may have subsided and returned once they had left.  Did Mrs Fenn say the crying was uninterrupted for 90 solid minutes?  I would have gone down there and slapped them myself had that been the case.  The parents I mean, not the children.

[Lace]

Kate didn't say she was on her way to the bedroom.

When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room. She says that before Madeleine appeared in their room, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine went to the room almost at the same time she head the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she or Gerry went to the childrens' room, however she states that Amelie cried for a short time.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm



The crying and shouting heard by Mrs Fenn stopped at 11.45, when the patio doors were used, so crying after midnight is a different matter.

Well Kate said it wasn't true so ...

[G-Unit]

Well Kate said it wasn't true so ...

Was she there?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was she there?

Was Mrs Fenn?  Did she actually see the children crying?  Were they the only children staying within hearing distance of her apartment? 

[Brietta]

Was she there?

I raised the issue that the Portuguese Police didn't appear to be too fussed about following up on criminals who were residents of Luz and who had a recorded timeline of activity on the night Madeleine disappeared.

There has been a deafening silence on that one.

A more pertinent question than yours is where these guys were and what were they doing.  Why is it with all the "research 😁" carried out over the intervening years sceptics remain reliant on Mrs Fenn's Levy posted statement taken on 20th August, while totally ignoring that men with a profile like Brueckner's were ignored.

[Snowgirl]

I raised the issue that the Portuguese Police didn't appear to be too fussed about following up on criminals who were residents of Luz and who had a recorded timeline of activity on the night Madeleine disappeared.

There has been a deafening silence on that one.

A more pertinent question than yours is where these guys were and what were they doing.  Why is it with all the "research 😁" carried out over the intervening years sceptics remain reliant on Mrs Fenn's Levy posted statement taken on 20th August, while totally ignoring that men with a profile like Brueckner's were ignored.

Are you suggesting by asking what these guys were doing , that the crying Mrs Fenn alleged came from the apt. below hers that they were perhaps in  that apt.  Just asking because wouldn't Madeleine have told her parents that someone was in her bedroom ?

[Brietta]

Are you suggesting by asking what these guys were doing , that the crying Mrs Fenn alleged came from the apt. below hers that they were perhaps in  that apt.  Just asking because wouldn't Madeleine have told her parents that someone was in her bedroom ?

Sorry - I find your post incoherent.  I haven't the slightest idea what it is you are trying to say.

[Mr Gray]

Good question, its not been established as a fact the girl was abducted .

That's your opinion.. I would say it has

[barrier]

That's your opinion.. I would say it has

IYO

[Mr Gray]

IYO

I've made it quite clear it's my opinion... You should do the same.

[faithlilly]

Sorry - I find your post incoherent.  I haven't the slightest idea what it is you are trying to say.

It’s perfectly understandable. I believe you were being asked whether you were suggesting that the crying heard by Mrs Fenn was as a result of the criminals you had previously posted about being in the apartment. Further that if they were in the apartment why hadn't Madeleine relayed information to her parents?

Perfectly simple and a salient point.

[Brietta]

Sorry - I find your post incoherent.  I haven't the slightest idea what it is you are trying to say.

Your post has been helpfully ‘interpreted’ which makes it crystal clear why it was unintelligible in the first instance.
Having reread your post it would seem that my post which you were answering was as unintelligible to you as was yours to me.
 
I said in the post you answered
"I raised the issue that the Portuguese Police didn't appear to be too fussed about following up on criminals who were residents of Luz and who had a recorded timeline of activity on the night Madeleine disappeared.

There has been a deafening silence on that one.

That was in response to the fact that Amaral announced without a blush on Portuguese television that Brueckner was on a list at the time to be interviewed in connection with Madeleine's abduction but that hadn't been done.
It refers also to the 'burglars' later questioned by SY and their phone activity on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.

A more pertinent question than yours is where these guys were and what were they doing.  Why is it with all the "research 😁" carried out over the intervening years sceptics remain reliant on Mrs Fenn's Levy posted statement taken on 20th August, while totally ignoring that men with a profile like Brueckner's were ignored."

That is in reference to the fact that known criminals whose phones placed them in the relevant time and in the relevant place were overlooked until Scotland Yard looked at them:
the fact that Mrs Fenn was ignored until four months after the event:
the fact that the internet files to which we have access are by the grace of a 'disgraceful' rogue:
the fact that individuals such as Brueckner and the 'burglars' later interviewed under rogatory conditions by SY showed a lack of diligence on behalf of the investigators of 2007.

From that you may note that you are not actually answering my post.  You are making reference to your own invention.
In my post I referring to proven facts.  In your post you are asking me to respond to sceptic shibboleths which did not feature in what I said.

Is it any wonder I had not the slightest idea what you were on about in your post for the simple reason you addressed nothing I said in mine.

[Eleanor]

Your post has been helpfully ‘interpreted’ which makes it crystal clear why it was unintelligible in the first instance.
Having reread your post it would seem that my post which you were answering was as unintelligible to you as was yours to me.
 
I said in the post you answered
"I raised the issue that the Portuguese Police didn't appear to be too fussed about following up on criminals who were residents of Luz and who had a recorded timeline of activity on the night Madeleine disappeared.

There has been a deafening silence on that one.

That was in response to the fact that Amaral announced without a blush on Portuguese television that Brueckner was on a list at the time to be interviewed in connection with Madeleine's abduction but that hadn't been done.
It refers also to the 'burglars' later questioned by SY and their phone activity on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.

A more pertinent question than yours is where these guys were and what were they doing.  Why is it with all the "research 😁" carried out over the intervening years sceptics remain reliant on Mrs Fenn's Levy posted statement taken on 20th August, while totally ignoring that men with a profile like Brueckner's were ignored."

That is in reference to the fact that known criminals whose phones placed them in the relevant time and in the relevant place were overlooked until Scotland Yard looked at them:
the fact that Mrs Fenn was ignored until four months after the event:
the fact that the internet files to which we have access are by the grace of a 'disgraceful' rogue:
the fact that individuals such as Brueckner and the 'burglars' later interviewed under rogatory conditions by SY showed a lack of diligence on behalf of the investigators of 2007.

From that you may note that you are not actually answering my post.  You are making reference to your own invention.
In my post I referring to proven facts.  In your post you are asking me to respond to sceptic shibboleths which did not feature in what I said.

Is it any wonder I had not the slightest idea what you were on about in your post for the simple reason you addressed nothing I said in mine.

This is what it is largely all about these days, as people become more accustomed to the use of words.  Some of us are better at it than others, but it is often a crock of shite.  I even do it myself sometimes, although I do try not to.

But I am delighted to note that the use of The English Language has improved vastly on this Forum, although I do so often fall about laughing.

So we are all improving intellectually.  And this is a very good thing.