Author Topic: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case  (Read 99391 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #285 on: February 09, 2016, 09:27:26 PM »
Why would they reveal them to be suspects if they haven't got the evidence to charge them. What would that achieve? That would be a dumb move IMO.
why did the PJ do it then?

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #286 on: February 09, 2016, 09:29:09 PM »
why did the PJ do it then?

Because the McCanns were leaving days later so they rushed it.
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 10 years later.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #287 on: February 09, 2016, 09:43:28 PM »
The dogs were brought in because death on the apartment was a possibility.... So it was a ossibility before the dogs were brought in
I too think SY do not have faith in the alerts
How else could redwood consider Maddie might still be alive

That doesn't make any sense. SY brought the death scenting dogs back to Portugal and were searching areas Eddie didn't in 2007.
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 10 years later.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #288 on: February 09, 2016, 09:45:17 PM »
That doesn't make any sense. SY brought the death scenting dogs back to Portugal and were searching areas Eddie didn't in 2007.

the value in the dogs goes not lie in the alerts...it lies in evidence found...the dogs were brought in to find evidence

Offline pegasus

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #289 on: February 09, 2016, 09:56:33 PM »
the value in the dogs goes not lie in the alerts...it lies in evidence found...the dogs were brought in to find evidence
What sort of evidence of a live abduction did Mr Redwood think Tito and Muzzy might find?

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #290 on: February 09, 2016, 10:06:37 PM »
Because the McCanns were leaving days later so they rushed it.
i thought the McCanns scarpered because they'd been made arguidos, isn't that the "sceptic" view?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #291 on: February 09, 2016, 10:08:09 PM »
What sort of evidence of a live abduction did Mr Redwood think Tito and Muzzy might find?

I would hope you could answer that question yourself

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #292 on: February 09, 2016, 10:18:10 PM »
i thought the McCanns scarpered because they'd been made arguidos, isn't that the "sceptic" view?

They were accused privately in early August so it's no wonder they arranged to leave before being made arguidos.

p.s. not suspects but victims the PJ repeated to the public in August
« Last Edit: February 09, 2016, 10:21:12 PM by pathfinder73 »
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 10 years later.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #293 on: February 09, 2016, 10:24:21 PM »
what rot.

Would you care to attempt a more meaningful comment? Nine people agreed the alarm was raised at around 10pm. Five people independently stated other times, all before 10pm. Therefore a time of 10pm for the alarm being raised cannot be described as a 'fact'.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #294 on: February 09, 2016, 10:26:51 PM »
Would you care to attempt a more meaningful comment? Nine people agreed the alarm was raised at around 10pm. Five people independently stated other times, all before 10pm. Therefore a time of 10pm for the alarm being raised cannot be described as a 'fact'.

there are very few facts...but one is that SY declared the McCanns not suspects...thus ruling them out

Offline pegasus

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #295 on: February 09, 2016, 10:40:55 PM »
I would hope you could answer that question yourself
I could and here's the answer: None.
Tito and Muzzy were not trained to alert to live abduction.


Offline pathfinder73

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #296 on: February 09, 2016, 10:41:48 PM »
there are very few facts...but one is that SY declared the McCanns not suspects...thus ruling them out

Like the PJ did?
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 10 years later.

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #297 on: February 09, 2016, 10:43:22 PM »
They were accused privately in early August so it's no wonder they arranged to leave before being made arguidos.

p.s. not suspects but victims the PJ repeated to the public in August
If they were privately accused in early August then why didn't they leave then?

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #298 on: February 09, 2016, 10:48:45 PM »
Would you care to attempt a more meaningful comment? Nine people agreed the alarm was raised at around 10pm. Five people independently stated other times, all before 10pm. Therefore a time of 10pm for the alarm being raised cannot be described as a 'fact'.
Tell it to the PJ in whose final report the following is written (if you disagree with their version of reality it must be because you know better, eh?)

Quote
According to that police force, the disappearance would have occurred at 22H40 (later on it was verified that the detection and the subsequent alarm of the same, in reality happened, between 22H00 and 22H10 of the day 3 of May of 2007, in one of the apartments of the tourist resort 'Ocean Club', located at Vila da Luz, Lagos, where a family composed by a couple and 3 children under aged were staying.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #299 on: February 09, 2016, 10:52:47 PM »
If they were privately accused in early August then why didn't they leave then?

Run away quickly with the world watching? Why are they running away? Maybe the press reports are right.
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 10 years later.