australian article by Mark Saunokonoko who supports amaral discussion

[G-Unit]

Is there some reason why Tannerman must be planned?  Is there some reason it is 'people', rather than 'person'?

I am telling you where the nearest 'safe' escape route is.  Start.  End.

Because that was Sadie's assertion, which I was discussing.

[sadie]

Because that was Sadie's assertion, which I was discussing.

Wrong word.  Suitable words are observations and theory based on facts

Try and address some of them please

I have worked  hard at addressing yours.

Your turn

[G-Unit]

Wrong word.  Suitable words are observations and theory based on facts

Try and address some of them please

I have worked  hard at addressing yours.

Your turn

OK.

There are at least three ways an intruder could have entered the apartment. You have chosen to suggest a front door key was used but there's nothing which points to that being true. As you say, there's no evidence of it happening.

There's very little evidence that the window and shutters were open, and none to suggest who may have done it or how. There's no way to verify if the door position changed.

There is evidence of Kate McCann touching the window. There's no evidence that anyone else did.

Cigarette ends on a balcony are not evidence of a watcher'. The PJ had an operations base in block 6 and they could have used the balcony for smoking.

A man standing in a street looking in a certain direction? it's not against the law and it doesn't mean he was planning any wrong-doing.

On 3rd May there was a lot of vegetation near 5A which isn't on your photo, so it's not a fact that the door and window could be seen from block 6.

So what 'facts' do we end up with?

It was said that a door moved and that a shutter and window were open. The fact is 'it was said'.
Kate McCann touched the window.
A man was seen in the street looking in the direction of 5A.
Some cigarette ends were seen on a balcony.

[sadie]

OK.
 
There are at least three ways an intruder could have entered the apartment. You have chosen to suggest a front door key was used but there's nothing which points to that being true. As you say, there's no evidence of it happening.

The reason  for that is it is so hidden way from sight, virtually pitch black and nobody passes it.  So easy to get in using a key and so many ways of getting a key.  Also no finger prints if a key is used to enter and exit ... no need to touch the door.   also other apartments had been entered by mysterious means.  Keys are so useful to go in and out ... but windows need opening to escape in an emergency (Mrs Fenns apartment)
 

There's very little evidence that the window and shutters were open, and none to suggest who may have done it or how. There's no way to verify if the door position changed.

If kate thinks the door position changed and Gerry too, that is good enough for me.  How come youi believe every word that Amaral says when he is a Court proven liar = Perjurer. 
We dont know who used that window and maybe it was open for escaping in emergency, but also maybe for instructions to the lifter from Tannerman.  TYhere are several reasons why the window could be open.  I have listed them elsewhere
 

There is evidence of Kate McCann touching the window. There's no evidence that anyone else did.

It would be amazing if there were no fingerprints from Kate on that window.   Seems someone wiped all the prints off, knowing that Kate and family would likely touch them as they inevitably, IMO, looked out to try and spot Madeleine outside.
 

Cigarette ends on a balcony are not evidence of a watcher'. The PJ had an operations base in block 6 and they could have used the balcony for smoking.

Is that so?  Cite please.   Another guest at OC thought that the pile of cigarette ends was significant.
 

A man standing in a street looking in a certain direction? it's not against the law and it doesn't mean he was planning any wrong-doing.

Three different groups of people NOTICED him and observed that he appeared to be watching 5A.  Ignore that if you wish, but by ignoring it you are showing yourself to be NOT very discerning.
 

On 3rd May there was a lot of vegetation near 5A which isn't on your photo, so it's not a fact that the door and window could be seen from block 6.

There was a gap between the trees and 5A in the right place and plenty wide enouigh for a watcher on the balcony to see and direct an abductor on the pathway outside the front door and Madeleines bedroom window
 

So what 'facts' do we end up with?

Lots for you to chose from in my posts.  Suggest you do a bit of work yourself and save me typing unnecessarily.

 

It was said that a door moved and that a shutter and window were open. The fact is 'it was said'.

Well you can disbelieve everything the Mccanns and tapas group said if that rocks your boat, but none of them have a record for dishonesty as Amaral does.   Yet you believe everything he says.  I wonder why?
 

Kate McCann touched the window.
A man was seen in the street looking in the direction of 5A.
Some cigarette ends were seen on a balcony.

Why do you have a need to demean these things?  Dismissing everything that goes against your agenda.  How about taking them seriously for a change?  Think a little deeper Gunit.  We might make a good detective of you yet !
 

[/quote][/size]

Now I wonder how come you didn't see this photo ?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/bw/img_0152_small.jpg




Shows the balconies clearly doesn't it ?  And your photo shows that there was a gap through at the time, cos you can see the conifer tree, but the balconies are just off the picture in your image.

Time to concede, Gunit ?   

[G-Unit]

I have not insulted you Sadie so why do you feel the need to question my judgement, my work rate,and my intellectual capacity? You may feel you're superior in all those departments, but that's a matter of opinion.

There's no need to wonder why I believe everything Amaral says because I've never said I do. I'm under no obligation to believe everything the McCanns have said either. Unlike some, I have no agenda.

In my opinion you have taken some unrelated facts, added some inventions of your own and created a theory from them. The photo of 5A you insist on using does not show the overgrown vegetation around the car park on 3rd May, so it doesn't give an accurate representation of what could be seen. 

If you want me to provide a cite for the PJ being based in block 6 you might like to provide cites for 3 groups of people seeing the same man watching 5A first.

[stephen25000]

The reason  for that is it is so hidden way from sight, virtually pitch black and nobody passes it.  So easy to get in using a key and so many ways of getting a key.  Also no finger prints if a key is used to enter and exit ... no need to touch the door.   also other apartments had been entered by mysterious means.  Keys are so useful to go in and out ... but windows need opening to escape in an emergency (Mrs Fenns apartment)
 If kate thinks the door position changed and Gerry too, that is good enough for me.  How come youi believe every word that Amaral says when he is a Court proven liar = Perjurer. 
We dont know who used that window and maybe it was open for escaping in emergency, but also maybe for instructions to the lifter from Tannerman.  TYhere are several reasons why the window could be open.  I have listed them elsewhere
 It would be amazing if there were no fingerprints from Kate on that window.   Seems someone wiped all the prints off, knowing that Kate and family would likely touch them as they inevitably, IMO, looked out to try and spot Madeleine outside.
 Is that so?  Cite please.   Another guest at OC thought that the pile of cigarette ends was significant.
 
Three different groups of people NOTICED him and observed that he appeared to be watching 5A.  Ignore that if you wish, but by ignoring it you are showing yourself to be NOT very discerning.
 There was a gap between the trees and 5A in the right place and plenty wide enouigh for a watcher on the balcony to see and direct an abductor on the pathway outside the front door and Madeleines bedroom window
 
Lots for you to chose from in my posts.  Suggest you do a bit of work yourself and save me typing unnecessarily.

 Well you can disbelieve everything the Mccanns and tapas group said if that rocks your boat, but none of them have a record for dishonesty as Amaral does.   Yet you believe everything he says.  I wonder why?
 Why do you have a need to demean these things?  Dismissing everything that goes against your agenda.  How about taking them seriously for a change?  Think a little deeper Gunit.  We might make a good detective of you yet !
 



Now I wonder how come you didn't see this photo ?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/bw/img_0152_small.jpg




Shows the balconies clearly doesn't it ?  And your photo shows that there was a gap through at the time, cos you can see the conifer tree, but the balconies are just off the picture in your image.

Time to concede, Gunit ?

I suggest you rephrase your post Sadie, before it is done for you.

You are implying other people views, intelligence and observational skills are less than your own. That is not on.

All you have is your opinions.

[sadie]

I suggest you rephrase your post Sadie, before it is done for you.

You are implying other people views, intelligence and observational skills are less than your own. That is not on.


All you have is your opinions.

In the past couple of posts, I have given a list of facts that Gunit prefers not to acknowledege.  They are facts and she will not acknowledge them.  Why?

I have proved that a man watching /directing on the middle balcony had direct vision into the lounge and kitchen of 5A.  He also had direct vision of the patio balcony where the rear entrance and exit is ... and partly of the steps up and down. 
A watcher on that balcony can also see the area immediately in front of the front door and Madeleines window at a fairly close distance.   Gunit, herself has put up two photographs that prove there is a gap between 5A and the trees through which these areas can be seen by the watcher.   

Of course this means that an abductor could see the watcher and receive signals from him.  These things are FACT and can be seen by all on the photographs in previous posts


I have also pointed out that there was a pile of cigarette butts on that balcony that was noticed by a fellow guest at OC .  And that three people/groups of people noticed a man staring at 5A and have mentioned it   [Cutting Edge Video IIRC.]   Tasmin Silence noticed a man actually leaning on the back wall of 5A garden and peering into the place.   Yet Gunit choses to ignore all these facts/pointers. 

Is she ignoring because it cuts across what she is trying to promote  .... or can she not understand?    I have never found Gunit uinintelligent so I am forced to believe it is the later.

Hows about if she had the good grace to acknowledge that i am correct.  A man on that balcony could see and communicate with someone both near the front door and Madeleines window ... and could also see someone coming and going, up the steps and over the balcony to the patio door.  So back and front entrances, both, could have been watched

Furthermore a watcher could see straight into the apartment sitting room and kitchen, [even possibly see Gerry at the loo]


If Gunit could not see the possible revelance of these things then I would think that I am justified in thinking that she wasn't thinking very deeply.   However, it seems that she is more keen to deny these facts that are staring her in the face ... and this makes me wonder if she has an agenda of some sort.  Have you Gunit ?

I have explained just how hidden the front door is and how dark it was around that area ... with additional points illustrating that the best route in and out would be via the front door with a key. 
With a key, it would be possible to get in and out without touching the door or surround.


There were a number of other points that I made but Gunit has not acknowledged any of them.  Why?   Is she frightened to, because it increases the chances of there being an abduction?   And for some reason she doesn't want that to be the case?



Finally Gunits question,  "why do you feel the need to question my judgement, my work rate,and my intellectual capacity? " is simply a diversionary tactic.   That is becos she must know that most of what I am saying is fact.  I have proved it. 
The rest is logical deduction on my part and as I have stated has helped form part of my mini theory.


Where have i questioned any of these things she, and You stephen, accuse me of?   Where?
Many is the time that you have talked down to me and others in a very strong manner.


The only way that I would consider myself superior to Gunit is in my observation skills, but then I am trained in those and have practiced them all my life.  And i am extemely keen for Justice to prevail, which is something that not everyone seems to care about.

[stephen25000]

In the past couple of posts, I have given a list of facts that Gunit prefers not to acknowledege.  They are facts and she will not acknowledge them.  Why?

I have proved that a man watching /directing on the middle balcony had direct vision into the lounge and kitchen of 5A.  He also had direct vision of the patio balcony where the rear entrance and exit is ... and partly of the steps up and down. 
A watcher on that balcony can also see the area immediately in front of the front door and Madeleines window at a fairly close distance.   Gunit, herself has put up two photographs that prove there is a gap between 5A and the trees through which these areas can be seen by the watcher.   

Of course this means that an abductor could see the watcher and receive signals from him.  These things are FACT and can be seen by all on the photographs in previous posts


I have also pointed out that there was a pile of cigarette butts on that balcony that was noticed by a fellow guest at OC .  And that three people/groups of people noticed a man staring at 5A and have mentioned it   [Cutting Edge Video IIRC.]   Tasmin Silence noticed a man actually leaning on the back wall of 5A garden and peering into the place.   Yet Gunit choses to ignore all these facts/pointers. 

Is she ignoring because it cuts across what she is trying to promote  .... or can she not understand?    I have never found Gunit uinintelligent so I am forced to believe it is the later.

Hows about if she had the good grace to acknowledge that i am correct.  A man on that balcony could see and communicate with someone both near the front door and Madeleines window ... and could also see someone coming and going, up the steps and over the balcony to the patio door.  So back and front entrances, both, could have been watched

Furthermore a watcher could see straight into the apartment sitting room and kitchen, [even possibly see Gerry at the loo]


If Gunit could not see the possible revelance of these things then I would think that I am justified in thinking that she wasn't thinking very deeply.   However, it seems that she is more keen to deny these facts that are staring her in the face ... and this makes me wonder if she has an agenda of some sort.  Have you Gunit ?

I have explained just how hidden the front door is and how dark it was around that area ... with additional points illustrating that the best route in and out would be via the front door with a key. 
With a key, it would be possible to get in and out without touching the door or surround.


There were a number of other points that I made but Gunit has not acknowledged any of them.  Why?   Is she frightened to, because it increases the chances of there being an abduction?   And for some reason she doesn't want that to be the case?



Finally Gunits question,  "why do you feel the need to question my judgement, my work rate,and my intellectual capacity? " is simply a diversionary tactic.   That is becos she must know that most of what I am saying is fact.  I have proved it. 
The rest is logical deduction on my part and as I have stated has helped form part of my mini theory.


Where have i questioned any of these things she, and You stephen, accuse me of?   Where?
Many is the time that you have talked down to me and others in a very strong manner.


The only way that I would consider myself superior to Gunit is in my observation skills, but then I am trained in those and have practiced them all my life.  And i am extemely keen for Justice to prevail, which is something that not everyone seems to care about.

You are only giving your views Sadie.

Never forget that.

You have often stated you have theories and/or evidence, that you cannot place on here.

There is no onus on here for people to believe you.

By the way Sadie, you have proved nothing.

The case remains unsolved.

[G-Unit]

In the past couple of posts, I have given a list of facts that Gunit prefers not to acknowledege.  They are facts and she will not acknowledge them.  Why?

I have proved that a man watching /directing on the middle balcony had direct vision into the lounge and kitchen of 5A.  He also had direct vision of the patio balcony where the rear entrance and exit is ... and partly of the steps up and down. 
A watcher on that balcony can also see the area immediately in front of the front door and Madeleines window at a fairly close distance.   Gunit, herself has put up two photographs that prove there is a gap between 5A and the trees through which these areas can be seen by the watcher.   

Of course this means that an abductor could see the watcher and receive signals from him.  These things are FACT and can be seen by all on the photographs in previous posts


I have also pointed out that there was a pile of cigarette butts on that balcony that was noticed by a fellow guest at OC .  And that three people/groups of people noticed a man staring at 5A and have mentioned it   [Cutting Edge Video IIRC.]   Tasmin Silence noticed a man actually leaning on the back wall of 5A garden and peering into the place.   Yet Gunit choses to ignore all these facts/pointers. 

Is she ignoring because it cuts across what she is trying to promote  .... or can she not understand?    I have never found Gunit uinintelligent so I am forced to believe it is the later.

Hows about if she had the good grace to acknowledge that i am correct.  A man on that balcony could see and communicate with someone both near the front door and Madeleines window ... and could also see someone coming and going, up the steps and over the balcony to the patio door.  So back and front entrances, both, could have been watched

Furthermore a watcher could see straight into the apartment sitting room and kitchen, [even possibly see Gerry at the loo]


If Gunit could not see the possible revelance of these things then I would think that I am justified in thinking that she wasn't thinking very deeply.   However, it seems that she is more keen to deny these facts that are staring her in the face ... and this makes me wonder if she has an agenda of some sort.  Have you Gunit ?

I have explained just how hidden the front door is and how dark it was around that area ... with additional points illustrating that the best route in and out would be via the front door with a key. 
With a key, it would be possible to get in and out without touching the door or surround.


There were a number of other points that I made but Gunit has not acknowledged any of them.  Why?   Is she frightened to, because it increases the chances of there being an abduction?   And for some reason she doesn't want that to be the case?



Finally Gunits question,  "why do you feel the need to question my judgement, my work rate,and my intellectual capacity? " is simply a diversionary tactic.   That is becos she must know that most of what I am saying is fact.  I have proved it. 
The rest is logical deduction on my part and as I have stated has helped form part of my mini theory.


Where have i questioned any of these things she, and You stephen, accuse me of?   Where?
Many is the time that you have talked down to me and others in a very strong manner.


The only way that I would consider myself superior to Gunit is in my observation skills, but then I am trained in those and have practiced them all my life.  And i am extemely keen for Justice to prevail, which is something that not everyone seems to care about.

I think you have a different opinion than I about facts.

Someone using a front door key is not a fact.
People taking M from the bedroom is not a fact.
Someone watching from the balcony of Block 6 is not a fact.
There could be a perfectly innocent reason why men appeared to be watching 5A before M disappeared.

Once again the insults are appearing.

I am promoting nothing, unlike some.
I have no agenda, unlike some.
I do not use diversionary tactics, unlike some.

You have proved nothing, Sadie. You have woven a story which pleases you but the facts you based your story on either don't exist or have other possible interpretations.

You say you care about justice and suggest that others don't. Justice is handed down by the courts and is sometimes wrong. I care about truth whatever it is. I suspect you would be very unhappy if the truth didn't fit with your theories. 

It is you who refuses to accept that your facts can be interpreted in other ways.

[jassi]

I think you have a different opinion than I about facts.

Someone using a front door key is not a fact.
People taking M from the bedroom is not a fact.
Someone watching from the balcony of Block 6 is not a fact.
There could be a perfectly innocent reason why men appeared to be watching 5A before M disappeared.

Once again the insults are appearing.

I am promoting nothing, unlike some.
I have no agenda, unlike some.
I do not use diversionary tactics, unlike some.

You have proved nothing, Sadie. You have woven a story which pleases you but the facts you based your story on either don't exist or have other possible interpretations.

You say you care about justice and suggest that others don't. Justice is handed down by the courts and is sometimes wrong. I care about truth whatever it is. I suspect you would be very unhappy if the truth didn't fit with your theories. 

It is you who refuses to accept that your facts can be interpreted in other ways.

    

[stephen25000]

Posters are reminded, not to post their opinions as fact.

[Robittybob1]

A question isn't a fact. 

[slartibartfast]

A question isn't a fact.

Questions can be libellous.

[Robittybob1]

Questions can be libellous.

I suppose if you asked "Isn't it true that Trump is a liar" that could libellous.

[sadie]

I think you have a different opinion than I about facts.

Someone using a front door key is not a fact.
People taking M from the bedroom is not a fact.
Someone watching from the balcony of Block 6 is not a fact.
There could be a perfectly innocent reason why men appeared to be watching 5A before M disappeared.

Once again the insults are appearing.

I am promoting nothing, unlike some.
I have no agenda, unlike some.
I do not use diversionary tactics, unlike some.

You have proved nothing, Sadie. You have woven a story which pleases you but the facts you based your story on either don't exist or have other possible interpretations.

You say you care about justice and suggest that others don't. Justice is handed down by the courts and is sometimes wrong. I care about truth whatever it is. I suspect you would be very unhappy if the truth didn't fit with your theories. 

It is you who refuses to accept that your facts can be interpreted in other ways.

I have never claimed that the actual abduction happened as i believe likely ... so please do not put words in my mouth.

However, with that balcony so perfectly sited, it is very possible it did happen the way i am suggesting.
FACT:  From that middle balcony immediately opposite a watcher director could see

1)  anyone walking up or down that street like Jane and Matt and Russel etc checking the children

2)  Anyone going into or out of 5A via the patio door at the back.  The gate of the steps up and the patio area which had to be crossed were in full view

3)  Anyone going into or out of the front door of 5A, or anyone standing close to Madeleines window.


Additionally, by leaning out of the balcony or moving to its northern end he could also see anyone leaving the Tapas restaurant and up and down much of the western side of Rua Dr Francisco Gentil martins (Dr FGM).


However with the balcony being set back and the building blocking his view, even leaning out, it was impossible to see Jez arriving on the eastern footpath of Dr FGM, opposite the Tapas reception.

The balcony was perfect for someone watching 5A . FACT.  Full stop



I have presented a theory to you with many pointers to its likely possibility

You have scorned everything Gunit ... and I wonder why?

You haven't yet acknowledged that everywhere of importance to a man directing an abduction was visible from that middle balcony.

Why are you avoiding it?   You asked the questions way back and I answered them.  why haven't you acknowledged that I am correct?