Is there any hard evidence whatsoever in the Madeleine McCann case?

[sadie]

Please note{  I have reposted this because I accidentally left out a few rather vtal words re the Cueta Spanish border inland with Morocco.  Now corrected.



Carrying on from my previous post:....



Then on from there ... abroad ...




I am particularly interested in the name of the owners/ senior crew of the boat that Raymond Hewletts van was craned on to, [?in Faro].  I am wondering, and I emphasize it is only wondering if Madeleine could have been imported into Morocco, via Cueta in Hewletts van.

Cueta is a small Spanish enclave in the North of Morocco.  There would be no Customs to go through when the boat arrived in Cueta Port, because altho it is part of Spain legally, it is also part of the landmass of Morocco.  Rather like the British enclave of Gibralter in Spain

Can you imagine the turmoil with 6 kids crammed in such a tiny claustrophobic, maybe smelly, space + maybe one kid "poorly and sleeping" ?  My bet is that the Spanish Cueta / Morocco inland border, Customs officers would be only too glad to rush them thru

Additionally the van was partly filled with old Mercedes vehicle parts, which Hewlett was intending to sell in Morocco.  In Morocco they have /had two types of Taxis.
1.  The petite taxis = bashed up tiny Fiats
2)  The Grande Taxis = bashed up old Mercedes limousines.  These are shared by a number of often unrelated people and you have to wait until the taxi fills up before departing... or pay extra.

Hewlett says that he could get good money for these parts, if sold in Morocco ... and he probably found them on tips/ scrap yards in Portugal


But all this is only conjecture.  I could very well be wrong. 
It fits however with the day that Madeleine was seen on the wo/mans back with suitcases and the same day it seems Hewlett suddenly packed up and returned home.  Along that very road that the Madeleine on a wo/mans back group were walking towards.  They were surely going to be picked up, cos they couldn't have walked all the way to the airport or the sea port.  Nothing nearby at all.

Hewlett had just received a last minute phone call IIRC and he packed up suddenly and departed.

Also, Raymond Hewlett is reported as having said that he had seen Madeleine.   Now was that twice?  I rather think it was.    Can anyone remember?

To Morocco and back from Morocco? 



Just conjecture, but that almost certainly was Madeleine in Zinat.  It certainly was NOT Bushra.




Sorry Mods, I think I have strayed, but this evolved from remarks on the thread.

Please post elsewhere if you wish.  It would be a shame just to destroy it, I think.

[stephen25000]

Carrying on from my previous post:....



Then on from there ... abroad ...




I am particularly interested in the name of the owners/ senior crew of the boat that Raymond Hewletts van was craned on to, [?in Faro].  I am wondering, and I emphasize it is only wondering if Madeleine could have been imported into Morocco, via Cueta in Hewletts van.

Cueta is a small Spanish enclave in the North of Morocco.  There would be no Customs to go through when the boat arrived in Cueta Port, because altho it is part of Spain legally, it is also part of the landmass of Morocco.  Rather like the British enclave of Gibralter in Spain

Can you imagine the turmoil with 6 kids crammed in such a tiny claustrophobic, maybe smelly, space + maybe one kid "poorly and sleeping" ?  My bet is that the Spanish /Cueta border Customs officers would be only too glad to rush them thru

Additionally the van was partly filled with old Mercedes vehicle parts, which Hewlett was intending to sell in Morocco.  In Morocco they have /had two types of Taxis.
1.  The petite taxis = bashed up tiny Fiats
2)  The Grande Taxis = bashed up old Mercedes limousines.  These are shared by a number of often unrelated people and you have to wait until the taxi fills up before departing... or pay extra.

Hewlett says that he could get good money for these parts, if sold in Morocco ... and he probably found them on tips/ scrap yards in Portugal


But all this is only conjecture.  I could very well be wrong. 
It fits however with the day that Madeleine was seen on the wo/mans back with suitcases and the same day it seems Hewlett suddenly packed up and returned home.  Along that very road that the Madeleine on a wo/mans back group were walking towards.  They were surely going to be picked up, cos they couldn't have walked all the way to the airport or the sea port.  Nothing nearby at all.

Hewlett had just received a last minute phone call IIRC and he packed up suddenly and departed.

Also, Raymond Hewlett is reported as having said that he had seen Madeleine.   Now was that twice?  I rather think it was.    Can anyone remember?

To Morocco and back from Morocco? 



Just conjecture, but that almost certainly was Madeleine in Zinat.  It certainly was NOT Bushra.

Your clutching at straws.

[pathfinder73]

Do you accept FP's recollections of that night as totally honest?
Why do you think the twins did not stir?

Fiona is being honest. Tue - Crying Wed - no crying and they stayed out later that night. Go figure.

Unbelievable

[misty]

Fiona is being honest. Tue - Crying Wed - no crying and they stayed out later that night. Go figure.

Unbelievable

That's OK. I was interested in your perception of her honesty regarding recollections of that night. It's important because of who she remembers being at the scene.

[pathfinder73]

Now on to Thur 3 May morning.

[Brietta]

Now on to Thur 3 May morning.

Why do you persist in posting video after video sometimes without comment sometimes with minimal comment?

It is my understanding that Lizzie Taylor is making a reasonable income from the type of video you are posting. Give me one good reason why I should contribute to that income in any way whatsoever?

[sadie]

Why do you persist in posting video after video sometimes without comment sometimes with minimal comment?

It is my understanding that Lizzie Taylor is making a reasonable income from the type of video you are posting. Give me one good reason why I should contribute to that income in any way whatsoever?

At one stage, it was agreed that Lizzie Taylor, "hideho" videos would not be allowed in this forum.  Because of their biased innacurate content designed to mislead.

A couple of years ago, the wonderful gilet, along with some others, proved their inaccuracies and mis/ disinformation.


Seems mis/ disinformation is allowed now?

[pathfinder73]

Why do you persist in posting video after video sometimes without comment sometimes with minimal comment?

It is my understanding that Lizzie Taylor is making a reasonable income from the type of video you are posting. Give me one good reason why I should contribute to that income in any way whatsoever?

I've posted that information before on here. First time I saw that video today but it agrees with a lot of my posts here. So instead of typing it all out again it was easier to post the vid.

[pegasus]

It is more to do with discussing the hard evidence.
Fingerprints from the window, was a good discussion and Pegasus found some very interesting information on them. 
You are correct in that there is very little in Hard evidence to be found.
However, the Topic heading is what the postings should really be about and not theories.

IMO the PJ photos taken that night are hard evidence.
I posted a description of one of those photos, including facts no-one noticed before.
That photo is hard evidence because it is definite - those items were definitely on those exact shelves when PJ took the photo - indisputably.

[Anna]

IMO the PJ photos taken that night are hard evidence.
I posted a description of one of those photos, including facts no-one noticed before.
That photo is hard evidence because it is definite - those items were definitely on those exact shelves when PJ took the photo - indisputably.

Yes I suppose the photos are hard evidence.  I didn't notice that there cupboards above the wardrobes though. These are usually blanket/pillow cupboards.

[pegasus]

Yes I suppose the photos are hard evidence.  I didn't notice that there cupboards above the wardrobes though. These are usually blanket/pillow cupboards.

The hard evidence about the left top cupboard is that it exists & has doors which hide what if anything is in it (PJ photo).
Anything more, like guessing that anyone searched in it that night, or guessing it was empty, or guessing it had blankets or pillows in, is conjectures and assumptions.

[Brietta]

I've posted that information before on here. First time I saw that video today but it agrees with a lot of my posts here. So instead of typing it all out again it was easier to post the vid.

If you have something to say, I for one would prefer you to say it ... quite simply, I seldom watch any of the videos you post particularly when one is expected to sit through forty five minutes of drivel trying to second guess your point since you seldom bother with indexing.

I have my own opinion of these videos and if at one time the forum disallowed them, I think it might be an idea to have a look at their reintroduction, I see no value in them at all apart from bias and disinformation.

[misty]

IMO the PJ photos taken that night are hard evidence.
I posted a description of one of those photos, including facts no-one noticed before.
That photo is hard evidence because it is definite - those items were definitely on those exact shelves when PJ took the photo - indisputably.

1. Why were those photos of the parents' room not with the PJ Photographic report -18 photos as per the header?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html



2. Have you looked at the photo on page 2564 of the living room area/table? Spot the differences between that one & photo 12 in the official report.

[Brietta]

IMO the PJ photos taken that night are hard evidence.
I posted a description of one of those photos, including facts no-one noticed before.
That photo is hard evidence because it is definite - those items were definitely on those exact shelves when PJ took the photo - indisputably.

A time and date stamp would have been useful and would have made that at least indisputable.

Please don't think I'm saying that to annoy ... I appreciate the intelligent thought behind many of your posts ... just a statement of fact.

[pegasus]

Hard evidence (PJ photo taken that very night)
The large pile of unfolded clothes on the first shelf up above the floor of the left cupboard includes
1. at least one grey item
2. at least one white item
3. at least one red item