Author Topic: Sadie's theory.  (Read 126832 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #495 on: June 26, 2018, 09:34:47 PM »
 power    can be a dangerous thing. just saying ... 8(0(* 8(0(*

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #496 on: June 26, 2018, 11:55:34 PM »

No,No. In other words he really had no idea and was hedging his bets.  IMO

Yes like, she is either dead or not as the case maybe.... oh great what insight



But....but... but you have to trust the PJ goddammit !!! Call yourself a sceptic !!  @)(++(*

G is banished from the skeptic forum for such  revelation, I suppose you are not in love with Amaral either huh? Tsk.. shocking.

So the bloodline theory is still in the finishing stages?
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Gertrude

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #497 on: June 27, 2018, 03:59:10 PM »
Police have to ahve evidence to arrest people...they slso base their theories on evidence...according to the PJ there is no evidence against the mccanns...amaral thought he had evidence...he just didnt understand

I think that it's your opinion there's 'no evidence' and Amaral 'didn't understand'. Not having enough evidence or evidence being inclusive is not the same as 'no evidence'.   Yes the PJ didn't have enough evidence to make a case of a criminal act but again, that doesn't equal 'no evidence'. If other evidence should come to light, then the inconclusive evidence could have a different status.

Here is how the police built a case against Adrian Prout ;

"Mr Pixton explained how the prosecution service built its case from Mrs Prout’s disappearance on November 5 2007 to Prout’s trial, which started on January 12 this year.

He said: “We had a case where no body was ever found and therefore no creating of a forensic link between Adrian Prout and his wife’s disappearance.

“What we did have was evidence to show that this crime was premeditated, Adrian Prout had a means of concealing her body and also a reason to do so.."

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/guilty-wealthy-landowner-who-killed-29174

'No forensic link'  but evidence of motive and a means of concealment.  Put this together with a person disappearing off the face of the earth and the dog alerts and they managed to build a strong case.  Amaral was trying to uncover a motive and he had only a few months to work on that where as the Prout case took 3 years to bring to court.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #498 on: June 27, 2018, 04:06:56 PM »
I think that it's your opinion there's 'no evidence' and Amaral 'didn't understand'. Not having enough evidence or evidence being inclusive is not the same as 'no evidence'.   Yes the PJ didn't have enough evidence to make a case of a criminal act but again, that doesn't equal 'no evidence'. If other evidence should come to light, then the inconclusive evidence could have a different status.

Here is how the police built a case against Adrian Prout ;

"Mr Pixton explained how the prosecution service built its case from Mrs Prout’s disappearance on November 5 2007 to Prout’s trial, which started on January 12 this year.

He said: “We had a case where no body was ever found and therefore no creating of a forensic link between Adrian Prout and his wife’s disappearance.

“What we did have was evidence to show that this crime was premeditated, Adrian Prout had a means of concealing her body and also a reason to do so.."

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/guilty-wealthy-landowner-who-killed-29174

'No forensic link'  but evidence of motive and a means of concealment.  Put this together with a person disappearing off the face of the earth and the dog alerts and they managed to build a strong case.  Amaral was trying to uncover a motive and he had only a few months to work on that where as the Prout case took 3 years to bring to court.
Your initial mistake and amarals and the rest of the PJ is, the alerts are not evidence IMO... Amaral got it wrong IMO... The present Portuguese investigation say there is no evidence against the McCann's.... The archiving report said the same... SY and the PJ say the McCanns are not suspects.... I think it's pretty clear?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 04:23:50 PM by Angelo222 »

Offline Gertrude

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #499 on: June 27, 2018, 04:16:07 PM »
Yes Redwood did say he thought Madeleine was alive,   and he did say she may be dead,  in other words IMO whoever abducted her had murdered her.   Not that the McCann's had hidden her body.

The Police were digging the waste ground in Portugal,  but I believe that was because someone came forward and said they heard men talking and one said 'why did you bring the body here'.   So IMO they were digging up the waste ground to see if she had been buried there.   They found nothing.

What risky abduction are you talking about?    The police believe they had been watching 5a they knew the children were alone every evening.   They knew the parents checked and when they checked they had it all planned out.   The only hiccups were that firstly Gerry met Jez and they were talking in the road,  secondly that Jane was going to take over looking after her daughter who was ill   both of these were not planned for. Otherwise they knew they had half an hour before anyone went to 5a again.

So you know that no child is ever taken to be trafficked n Portugal do you?  Without a doubt?   Amaral said no one could have entered the apartment with the door locked.  Yet a man was entering apartments to sexually abuse children,  when the apartments were secured and the parents were in the apartments.  Nothing is ever bullet proof.

I believe she is more likely dead as P.J. have said in 2008 and Redwood and S.Y. were giving this serious thought and investigating it 'systematically'. The whole point of investigating that theory is to figure out who did it and how, something Amaral was attacked for, not when he questioned Murat but at least the McCanns.

   We have no idea what led them to dig on waste ground in 2014 and what's in the papers from anonymous sources is speculation. S.Y. were using cadaver dogs on that search though, which is a fact. They obviously have some amount of faith in them.

A stranger abduction would be 'risky' in my opinion because it was going into a house in between parents and friends checking the house and going up and down the road constantly. Most children are lured away into vehicles or snatched from crowded places. If there was evidence of an abductor in the apartment then of course that trumps a statistic - but there isn't yet.

I didn't say no child has ever been trafficked from Portugal, in fact I mentioned 1 boy was confirmed as trafficked over many years compared to a few hundred being brought into Portugal. What I was saying is that in most cases children are trafficked IN to Portugal and are older, 11 +. I provided evidence. The sexual abuse of children in homes or outside them is not the same as child trafficking.

   

« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 09:19:37 AM by John »

Offline Gertrude

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #500 on: June 27, 2018, 04:21:08 PM »
Your initial mistake and amarals and the rest of the PJ is, the alerts are not evidence IMO... Amaral got it wrong IMO... The present Portuguese investigation say there is no evidence against the McCann's.... The archiving report said the same... SY and the PJ say the McCanns are not suspects.... I think it's pretty clear?

 It's not that clear when some courts have used dog alerts as evidence. So were they mistaken?

  This is from the Bianca Jones trial. Dog alerts accepted as evidence as the court were satisfied with the training and the methods the dog handlers used.

     https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html

« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 04:25:23 PM by Angelo222 »

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #501 on: June 27, 2018, 04:23:28 PM »
I believe she is more likely dead as P.J. have said in 2008 and Redwood and S.Y. were giving this serious thought and investigating it 'systematically'. The whole point of investigating that theory is to figure out who did it and how, something Amaral was attacked for, not when he questioned Murat but at least the McCanns.

   We have no idea what led them to dig on waste ground in 2014 and what's in the papers from anonymous sources is speculation. S.Y. were using cadaver dogs on that search though, which is a fact. They obviously have some amount of faith in them.

A stranger abduction would be 'risky' in my opinion because it was going into a house in between parents and friends checking the house and going up and down the road constantly. Most children are lured away into vehicles or snatched from crowded places. If there was evidence of an abductor in the apartment then of course that trumps a statistic - but there isn't yet.

I didn't say no child has ever been trafficked from Portugal, in fact I mentioned 1 boy was confirmed as trafficked over many years compared to a few hundred being brought into Portugal. What I was saying is that in most cases children are trafficked IN to Portugal and are older, 11 +. I provided evidence. The sexual abuse of children in homes or outside them is not the same as child trafficking.

   
Many criminal types who enter houses illegally or who are sexual predators actually enjoy the risk, you may not be aware of this?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 09:19:55 AM by John »
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #502 on: June 27, 2018, 04:28:40 PM »
Is it acceptable to assume that a pile of cigarette butts on a balcony were connected to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? Perhaps, if there was evidence that they were all left there on 3rd May, but there is no such evidence. Someone in a nearby apartment could have had one cigarette each evening for several evenings. Someone could have stood there smoking on the evening of 3rd watching the events in and around 5A. In my opinion they are not evidence of anything untoward.
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 Angelo222

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #503 on: June 27, 2018, 04:31:53 PM »
Your initial mistake and amarals and the rest of the PJ is, the alerts are not evidence IMO... Amaral got it wrong IMO... The present Portuguese investigation say there is no evidence against the McCann's.... The archiving report said the same... SY and the PJ say the McCanns are not suspects.... I think it's pretty clear?

Same old same old.   The alerts are evidence and will be used as such if further evidence is found which corroborated them.  As for the PJ and SY, only they know what they really think. The Portuguese Supreme Court got it right though, the McCanns have not and never have established their non involvement in Maddie's disappearance.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Gertrude

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #504 on: June 27, 2018, 04:32:08 PM »
Many criminal types who enter houses illegally or who are sexual predators actually enjoy the risk, you may not be aware of this?

yes I am aware of that. It still remains to be something extremely rare with children of that age group. Burglars who like the thrill of breaking and entering are not likely to take a child on a whim , so that theory is far fetched IMO.

  Redwood also mentioned a 'planned abduction'.   Watching a house and planning a stealthy crime that slots perfectly between adults constantly checking would mean they weren't thrill seeking in that case.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #505 on: June 27, 2018, 04:36:45 PM »
Is it acceptable to assume that a pile of cigarette butts on a balcony were connected to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? Perhaps, if there was evidence that they were all left there on 3rd May, but there is no such evidence. Someone in a nearby apartment could have had one cigarette each evening for several evenings. Someone could have stood there smoking on the evening of 3rd watching the events in and around 5A. In my opinion they are not evidence of anything untoward.

I sometimes wonder what supporters expected the PJ to do, pick up every cigarette butt within a mile radius and test it for DNA....just in case ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #506 on: June 27, 2018, 04:45:59 PM »
yes I am aware of that. It still remains to be something extremely rare with children of that age group. Burglars who like the thrill of breaking and entering are not likely to take a child on a whim , so that theory is far fetched IMO.

  Redwood also mentioned a 'planned abduction'.   Watching a house and planning a stealthy crime that slots perfectly between adults constantly checking would mean they weren't thrill seeking in that case.
How do you know?!  Anyone who breaks into a house to steal a child is taking a big risk, even if they are watching the house to avoid being caught.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 04:50:13 PM by slartibartfast »
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Angelo222

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #507 on: June 27, 2018, 04:58:22 PM »
How do you know?!  Anyone who breaks into a house to steal a child is taking a big risk, even if they are watching the house to avoid being caught.

IMO, abducting a child from a communal bedroom raises all sorts of potential problems with screaming distressed children.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #508 on: June 27, 2018, 05:07:11 PM »
It's not that clear when some courts have used dog alerts as evidence. So were they mistaken?

  This is from the Bianca Jones trial. Dog alerts accepted as evidence as the court were satisfied with the training and the methods the dog handlers used.

     https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html

Mark Harrison said no inferences can be drawn from the alerts... No evidential value or reliability... That's how it is

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Sadie's theory.
« Reply #509 on: June 27, 2018, 05:11:44 PM »
IMO, abducting a child from a communal bedroom raises all sorts of potential problems with screaming distressed children.
It’s a risk, but an abductor can easily subdue a 4 year old child if necessary.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".