Richard Hall's film 'When Madeleine Died?' uploaded to YouTube 19th Feb

[Benice]

do you have confirmation of all this...could just be a simple mistake blown out of all proportion....confirmation please

Whatever the circumstances it doesn't explain why it matters in the slightest  - unless of course you believe that Madeleine disappeared days before the 3rd and all the nannies agreed to become part of a huge conspiracy to deceive the police.    But then you have to come up with  reasons WHY they would do that and IMO there is not a single credible reason to explain such insane - not to mention criminal behaviour.   

On the other hand if you go through life in a state of paranoia believing there is a conspiracy against you around every corner  - then you just invent reasons to suit your own beliefs as you go along IMO.

For example - Amy Tierney's evidence was 'inconvenient' to RH - so he solved that problem by simply dismissing her evidence as fabricated.   If he gave a reason WHY she would agree to lie to the police for the McCanns - then I must have missed it.

 

[ferryman]

Personal  remark about intellgence being ignored, (watch u dont become davel) so....
I agree but tell ferryman the public prosecutor did not declare them innocent as he has stated

Post 1019 on this thread

The prosecutors preferred the term non-involvement (in any crime) to innocence.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

Don't know if that's such a vital semantic distinction ....

[stephen25000]

As to who removed Madeleine from the apartment, that is unlikely to be determined.

As to the 'last' photo...........................

[ferryman]

As to who removed Madeleine from the apartment, that is unlikely to be determined.

As to the 'last' photo...........................

Neither Kate, nor Gerry, nor any of their friends.

After that is guesswork.

Unless the present enquiry has information not in the public domain.

[stephen25000]

Neither Kate, nor Gerry, nor any of their friends.

After that is guesswork.

Unless the present enquiry has information not in the public domain.

Wrong ferryman.

Crime remains unknown, pending evidence, real evidence.

[ferryman]

You continue to entertain malign hope that something (at present not in the public domain) will implicate the McCanns or their friends.

Very sad .....

[stephen25000]

You continue to entertain malign hope that something (at present not in the public domain) will implicate the McCanns or their friends.

Very sad .....

The very sad thing is that what happened to Madeleine will never be determined.

As to your views, irrelevant, as you will say anything to defend the mccanns.

...and never forget, but for what the mccanns failed to do, i.e. keep her safe, she would be with them today.

[G-Unit]

Whatever the circumstances it doesn't explain why it matters in the slightest  - unless of course you believe that Madeleine disappeared days before the 3rd and all the nannies agreed to become part of a huge conspiracy to deceive the police.    But then you have to come up with  reasons WHY they would do that and IMO there is not a single credible reason to explain such insane - not to mention criminal behaviour.   

On the other hand if you go through life in a state of paranoia believing there is a conspiracy against you around every corner  - then you just invent reasons to suit your own beliefs as you go along IMO.

For example - Amy Tierney's evidence was 'inconvenient' to RH - so he solved that problem by simply dismissing her evidence as fabricated.   If he gave a reason WHY she would agree to lie to the police for the McCanns - then I must have missed it.

There is definitely a problem with Amy's evidence. Unless you can explain how she saw something that no-one else saw;

She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

[ferryman]

There is definitely a problem with Amy's evidence. Unless you can explain how she saw something that no-one else saw;

She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

Why?

People spot things others miss all the time; and we don't see all witness statements on-line ....

[pegasus]

Why do people have to doubt what the witness says? She saw the shutter open, that means she arrived before the father closed it.

[Lace]

There is definitely a problem with Amy's evidence. Unless you can explain how she saw something that no-one else saw;

She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

I just read Amy's statement again,  and in my opinion what she said hasn't been interpreted properly.   First she says she saw the window open and the shutters raised,  then later in her statement when she was wondering if Madeleine could have wandered out,  she says that she checked if the window had been open and the shutters raised,  which to me says that she didn't actually see them open.   What she may have said is that she heard them saying the window and shutters were open,  because she later had to check if this was true as probably Gerry had closed the window by the time she arrived.

[G-Unit]

I just read Amy's statement again,  and in my opinion what she said hasn't been interpreted properly.   First she says she saw the window open and the shutters raised,  then later in her statement when she was wondering if Madeleine could have wandered out,  she says that she checked if the window had been open and the shutters raised,  which to me says that she didn't actually see them open.   What she may have said is that she heard them saying the window and shutters were open,  because she later had to check if this was true as probably Gerry had closed the window by the time she arrived.

Her actual words are;

after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

I read that as saying after (she checked) that the window was open she (next) asked the parents...........

She's describing the order of events.

[Lace]

Her actual words are;

after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

I read that as saying after (she checked) that the window was open she (next) asked the parents...........

She's describing the order of events.

Yes, 'after checking'  why would she check if she had seen that they were open?

[G-Unit]

Yes, 'after checking'  why would she check if she had seen that they were open?

The Portuguese word is verificar. It means to check or to confirm.

[mercury]

The prosecutors preferred the term non-involvement (in any crime) to innocence.

Don't know if that's such a vital semantic distinction ....

The non involvement seems to result

They said

(From their not being in the apartment when the child disappeared) as if anyone knew exactly when the child did disappear

The prosecutors' opinion wasnt thoroughly checked before submission either....in the summary Madeleine is called Kate!!