A Thread To Discuss Alfred's Theory in detail.

[faithlilly]

Madeleine would have been at the crèche so what, or who, do you think the 'watcher' was looking at ?

[sadie]

Madeleine would have been at the crèche so what, or who, do you think the 'watcher' was looking at ?

What time did it happen?  Where did you get any information on that?

An answer would be appreciated.



Anyway, it could have been that he was staring to assess the best route in /escape route

One man was staring at 5A from close by.  There is no denying that ... and a lot of staring happened from a little further away.

[Alice Purjorick]

Madeleine would have been at the crèche so what, or who, do you think the 'watcher' was looking at ?

Not wishing to appear flash but, corrupting  Juvenal's famous satirical line about guards we wind up with:

Who was the watcher who was watching the watcher and why did he think the watcher he was watching was more shifty than himself?

[stephen25000]

It's you who are wrong Sadie.

Unfortunately, since you are so wrapped up in supporting the McCann's, common sense is simply eluding you.

Now let's try one more time.

How does standing outside a building provide evidence of a potential burglar,paedophile or abductor ?

I await a logical answer.

P.S.  How do you know the 'person' wasn't a drug dealer or a pimp touting for business ?

[Brietta]

She phoned Paiva & told him of this Maddie on a hillside dream she had.

He has stated as much in court.

Lying was he?


Topic:

Ricardo Paiva, "Kate McCann had a dream where she saw Maddie on a hillside"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1739.0

There is no doubt he mentioned it in court.

There is no doubt that Dr McCann denies any such conversation took place.

There is no doubt that there is no independent corroboration of either assertion.



There is no doubt that he also said the following in court ...

4:12-- Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html

There is no doubt that statement ... is corroborated ... by the extensive work which has had to be carried out by Operation Grange and the PJ to follow the evidence ignored by the original investigation.

There is no doubt that the information about the case they are chasing up  was available to investigators in 2007.

There is no doubt much of it was collected by PJ officers in 2007.

There is no doubt the lead detectives in the original investigation neglected to collate and follow it as Operation Grange and the PJ are presently doing.

There is no doubt that was because, as Ricardo Paiva has stated in court ... only Dr Amaral's flawed theory was being pursued to the exclusion of all others ... and not the evidence.

There is no doubt that whatever the outcome of the present investigation ... the failures and incompetence of the original investigation will rank as one of the biggest failures and disgraces ever of the Portuguese justice system.


There is no doubt that Alfred's theory has much more mileage in it than Dr Amaral's ... particularly since SY and the PJ are following the evidence and are looking into stranger abduction.

[Wonderfulspam]

There is no doubt he mentioned it in court.

There is no doubt that Dr McCann denies any such conversation took place.

There is no doubt that there is no independent corroboration of either assertion.



There is no doubt that he also said the following in court ...

4:12-- Paiva: amaral's thesis has prevented other theories from being investigated.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id297.html

There is no doubt that statement ... is corroborated ... by the extensive work which has had to be carried out by Operation Grange and the PJ to follow the evidence ignored by the original investigation.

There is no doubt that the information about the case they are chasing up  was available to investigators in 2007.

There is no doubt much of it was collected by PJ officers in 2007.

There is no doubt the lead detectives in the original investigation neglected to collate and follow it as Operation Grange and the PJ are presently doing.

There is no doubt that was because, as Ricardo Paiva has stated in court ... only Dr Amaral's flawed theory was being pursued to the exclusion of all others ... and not the evidence.

There is no doubt that whatever the outcome of the present investigation ... the failures and incompetence of the original investigation will rank as one of the biggest failures and disgraces ever of the Portuguese justice system.


There is no doubt that Alfred's theory has much more mileage in it than Dr Amaral's ... particularly since SY and the PJ are following the evidence and are looking into stranger abduction.

Ahh, I see, so, you do reckon Paiva just invented or imagined it then.

Right'O!

[Alfred R Jones]

Isn't it amazing that witness statements which do not meet the requisite criteria to implicate the Drs McCann or their friends are dismissed as irrelevant despite standing up to scrutiny and never disproved. 
Isn't it truly astounding that witness statements which are apparently detrimental to Madeleine and her parents are leapt on to become holy writ despite subsequently being proved erroneous.

Equally astounding is the clamour insisting on the absolute innocence of anyone currently questioned or due to be questioned in connection with Madeleine's case either as a material witness or suspect ...  and the insistence on the disgraceful behaviour of SY and the PJ in daring to disrupt criminality by carrying out interviews in the attempt to solve a crime perpetrated on a child of three in 2007.

When or where has it ever been known for such hostility to law enforcement trying to solve the case of a missing child?

Alfred has suggested a theory which is possible.

No-one has as yet come back at him saying, " ... that did not happen because ..." and giving an alternative account of their pet theory which is within the bounds of being probable or even possible. 

As far as I can see the alternative for a viable counter proposal does not exist leading to the tried and tested last resort tactic when there is no argument capable of being put forward, of getting the boot into sadie.

IMO really quite pathetic.

This.

[Alfred R Jones]

I'd just like to point out that this is a thread to discuss my theory which differs somewhat from Sadie's theory, which now seems to be of far greater interest to the "sceptics" for some reason.  Isn't there already a thread on here somewherefor Sadie's theory? 

[Wonderfulspam]

This.

Remind me Alf, how does the yards prime suspect fit in with your theory?

[stephen25000]

This.

So are you into sadie's bloodline theory ?

[Alice Purjorick]

In case Alf and Brietta hadn't noticed, being too busy giving each other high fives and all we are still awaiting an explanation a bit better than "well 'e got in frough the winnder or may be the front door or p'raps the patio, well it 'd to be one of 'em didn't it 'em cos 'e got in didn't 'e; and we know 'e got in cos the little girl is missing"

And all the time the fuzz say there was no sign of a forced entry, or much sign of any unauthorised entry ...........go on from there Alf.

[pathfinder73]

This.

1. How did the abductor enter the apartment and at what time?

2. Who moved the door before Gerry's check at 9? Gerry said Madeleine was asleep and in the same position.

3. Who moved the door a second time after Gerry left and before Matt's check at 9:30?

4. Who opened the window before Kate's check? Was it opened from the inside or outside and for what reason?

5. Why were no glove marks found?

6. What time did Madeleine leave the apartment?

7. Which exit?

8. What happened next?

[Alfred R Jones]

In case Alf and Brietta hadn't noticed, being too busy giving each other high fives and all we are still awaiting an explanation a bit better than "well 'e got in frough the winnder or may be the front door or p'raps the patio, well it 'd to be one of 'em didn't it 'em cos 'e got in didn't 'e; and we know 'e got in cos the little girl is missing"

And all the time the fuzz say there was no sign of a forced entry, or much sign of any unauthorised entry ...........go on from there Alf.

Just one question.  Is this the only case of a break-in with no sign of a forced entry?

[slartibartfast]

Just one question.  Is this the only case of a break-in with no sign of a forced entry?

Logically it wouldn't be a break in...

[sadie]

It's you who are wrong Sadie.

Unfortunately, since you are so wrapped up in supporting the McCann's, common sense is simply eluding you.

Now let's try one more time.

How does standing outside a building provide evidence of a potential burglar,paedophile or abductor ?

I await a logical answer.

P.S.  How do you know the 'person' wasn't a drug dealer or a pimp touting for business ?

Bwahahaha !

A drug dealer or pimp touting for business  !!!

 *&*%£

You have surpassed yourself with that answer.



Come on Stephen.  Stop denying the fact that 5A was being watched