UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: G-Unit on December 14, 2021, 01:01:07 PM
-
Len Port has been involved in the story of Madeleine's disappearance from the first day. In fact he actually was the first journalist on the scene, imo, despite Jon Clarke's claims. I find this article from 2014 to be balanced and sensible.
"In the midst of the latest phase in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Sky News presenter Kay Burley entered the fray with an article in the Daily Mirror in which she castigated “conspiracy theorists” and “[ censored word ]s” of Madeleine’s parents.
Burley, a reporter and newsreader of long standing, wrote: “I am absolutely staggered by the number of people on social media who think they know exactly what happened to little Madeleine. Conspiracy theorists believe that it’s only a matter of time before the McCanns are held culpable for their daughter’s disappearance.”
Burley went on to dismiss criticisms of Kate McCann’s refusal to answer questions put to her by Portuguese police, and to belittle what many have read into the findings of cadaver dogs in the McCanns holiday apartment and a hire car they used.
“Easy to dismiss such claims as Looney Tunes, but even a national newspaper was guilty of claiming the McCanns know more than they have told the police,” wrote Burley.
“As a mother I am offended and appalled by such unfounded allegations.
“Every morning the McCann’s must wake up only to be smothered by a blanket of guilt. ‘ If only we’d done this…’
“They have always held on to the hope that Madeleine will be found alive.
“So as the search continues, please ignore the [ censored word ]s and think instead of two desperate parents hundreds of miles away sitting by the phone and hoping against hope that nothing is found this time.”
This heartfelt standpoint exemplifies one of the most contentious features of this extraordinary case. In the absence of indisputable evidence, two conflicting schools of thought have developed about what happened to Madeleine: one that she was abducted, the other that she died inadvertently in the apartment and her parents were somehow involved in a cover-up.
There was no proof either way in 2007 and there is none today, but it is human nature to adopt a preferred line of probability depending on one’s logical and emotional approach.
It is true that many people hiding in the safety of anonymity or pseudonyms make abhorrent, highly abusive comments on internet sites. In the absence of legal options, indeed they should be ignored.
The trouble with Kay Burley’s condemnation, however, is that in its broad sweep it fails to recognize that many of those who do not accept as a given fact that Madeleine was abducted are not “[ censored word ]s.”
Some of the McCann doubters and critics have probably studied this case in more depth and for longer than most mainstream media journalists in Britain.
They are aware, for example, that back in May 2007 no trace was found of a break-in or a burglary, let alone a kidnapping, at the apartment from which Madeleine went missing.
Well-informed sceptics want the truth to emerge so that justice can finally be done. Their reasoned arguments and conclusions are worthy of serious consideration.
Not everyone believes what they hear on television news channels or read in newspapers. ‘Churnalistic’ and seemingly servile coverage of this case gives rise to distrust.
While there is genuine compassion for Madeleine’s devastated parents, a great many Portuguese mothers are offended and appalled by the repercussions in this country of leaving Madeleine and her siblings alone that fateful night.
The reputations of the Portuguese judicial police, the original lead detective and a range of innocent ‘suspects’ have been blackened in the British media over the years.
To cap it all, the Algarve has been cast recently as a hotbed of pedophilia and the ordinary folk dependent on tourism for their livelihood in Praia da Luz have been subjected to the crass timing of the current search operations.
Obviously this case has been a very public and impassioned one, but simplistic rants in the mainstream or social media are not helpful.
One indisputable fact is that no matter how much anyone sympathizes with or is critical of Kate and Gerry McCann, it is still far from clear exactly what happened to their daughter.
Sadly, it is looking increasing unlikely we shall know any time soon.
At the end of a TV interview at the weekend, former Chief Inspector Gonçalo Amaral, who believes Madeleine died in the apartment, was asked: “Will we ever find out what really happened that night?”
He replied: “Yes, we will. When MI5 opens the case files we will find out. Don’t forget that the British secret services followed the case right from the beginning. On location.”
Amaral did not predict how long it might be before that information becomes available.
https://portuguese-american-journal.com/updatethe-mccann-case-divided-opinions-by-len-port/
-
Len Port wrote this 7 years ago and you (and he) now need to move on. Furthermore, citing Amaral’s claim of MI5:involvement in his closing paragraph as if it lends some weight to his argument rather shoots his supposedly balanced approach in the foot. It ends the article on a seriously curly wurly cuckoo note.
-
That information will not exist now. Part of the ongoing cover up. It's over.
-
Len Port wrote this 7 years ago and you (and he) now need to move on. Furthermore, citing Amaral’s claim of MI5:involvement in his closing paragraph as if it lends some weight to his argument rather shoots his supposedly balanced approach in the foot. It ends the article on a seriously curly wurly cuckoo note.
Many of the McCann supporters haven't moved on. They still insist that there's evidence of abduction, they still hurl a variety of accusations at anyone who doesn't share their opinions, and they still give too much credence to media stories in my opinion.
-
There's nasty and there's nasty. Defending the parents of a missing child against whom there is no evidence isn't nasty.
-
There's nasty and there's nasty. Defending the parents of a missing child against whom there is no evidence isn't nasty.
If only that were true. Merely wishing it so doesn't make it so.
-
If only that were true. Merely wishing it so doesn't make it so.
You think you've got evidence? Can we see it please?
Although we have probably done this already and many times when you weren't around.
-
Many of the McCann supporters haven't moved on. They still insist that there's evidence of abduction, they still hurl a variety of accusations at anyone who doesn't share their opinions, and they still give too much credence to media stories in my opinion.
There's certainly evidence that she disappeared from the street outside the apartment but supporters are keen to distance themselves from that scenario as it implies neglect on behalf of the parents.
-
Many of the McCann supporters haven't moved on. They still insist that there's evidence of abduction, they still hurl a variety of accusations at anyone who doesn't share their opinions, and they still give too much credence to media stories in my opinion.
There is evidence of abduction..
-
You think you've got evidence? Can we see it please?
Although we have probably done this already and many times when you weren't around.
Remind us all who Martin Smith identified?
-
Remind us all who Martin Smith identified?
No one. He didn't see the face of the person and he said so. And nor did any of his family. Did you miss that bit?
And 60 to 80% is simply not good enough.
Do you understand anything about the law of identification?
-
No one. He didn't see the face of the person and he said so. And nor did any of his family. Did you miss that bit?
And 60 to 80% is simply not good enough.
Do you understand anything about the law of identification?
So when he saw Gerry McCann walking down the aircraft steps, despite the coincidence, he was thinking of men in general? No, he was pretty sure he saw Gerry McCann. He didn't state that he thought it was Rod Stewart or Denzel Washington, but Gerry McCann.
-
No one. He didn't see the face of the person and he said so. And nor did any of his family. Did you miss that bit?
And 60 to 80% is simply not good enough.
Do you understand anything about the law of identification?
Why don't you just stop obfuscating and tell it as it was. Smith was so sure he had witnessed Gerry McCann carrying his daughter the night Maddie disappeared that he called the Irish police and reported it. That IS evidence whether you like it or not.
-
You think you've got evidence? Can we see it please?
Although we have probably done this already and many times when you weren't around.
Did you forget about the Eddie and Keela alerts in the apartment and to Kate McCanns clothing. Maybe that was imagined too
And why didn't Kate McCann cooperate with the Portuguese detectives if she was innocent?
-
Did you forget about the Eddie and Keela alerts in the apartment and to Kate McCanns clothing. Maybe that was imagined too
And why didn't Kate McCann cooperate with the Portuguese detectives if she was innocent?
All that rubbish as been answered many times.. A cadaver dog that will alert to a coconut.. Some are easily fooled.
The.. Innocent people always answer questions... is more codswallop.
-
So when he saw Gerry McCann walking down the aircraft steps, despite the coincidence, he was thinking of men in general? No, he was pretty sure he saw Gerry McCann. He didn't state that he thought it was Rod Stewart or Denzel Washington, but Gerry McCann.
Can he prove it?
-
Why don't you just stop obfuscating and tell it as it was. Smith was so sure he had witnessed Gerry McCann carrying his daughter the night Maddie disappeared that he called the Irish police and reported it. That IS evidence whether you like it or not.
60 to 80% is so sure is it? Take that one to Court. But no one ever did. Why not, do you think?
I'm not sure what obfuscating means but at least I am here most of the time.
-
Can he prove it?
Wouldn't have thought it was done to Smith to prove anything. He gave a witness statement regarding what he saw.
-
Did you forget about the Eddie and Keela alerts in the apartment and to Kate McCanns clothing. Maybe that was imagined too
And why didn't Kate McCann cooperate with the Portuguese detectives if she was innocent?
As ever, we have done all this many times while you weren't around.
And The McCanns have never been so much as arrested.
-
Can he prove it?
That's how eye witnesses work. You rely on their testimony because you've got little choice sans corroboration.
I would say that him coming forward after the fact as he did could be construed in two ways; either he's an unreliable witness not having noticed earlier, or it's more compelling given account of how he made the connection despite the time delay.
I don't care which it is, but all witnesses should be accounted for.
And let's all pretend that Martin Smith didn't identify Gerry McCann at all, but merely a man carrying a child towards the beach on the night a child goes missing - are we still dismissing that?
Or, he describes a scruffy, lank-haired, wiry character carrying a child towards the beach?
What about of he comes forward last June when CB hit the headlines and says 'I'm 60-80% sure I saw that guy carrying a child towards the beach'?
-
Wouldn't have thought it was done to Smith to prove anything. He gave a witness statement regarding what he saw.
Someone has to prove it and that won't be for The McCanns to prove their Innocence. This is Basic British Law.
-
60 to 80% is so sure is it? Take that one to Court. But no one ever did. Why not, do you think?
I'm not sure what obfuscating means but at least I am here most of the time.
What if an eye witness came forward fingering CB '60 / 80%'? Is that any more compelling?
-
All that rubbish as been answered many times.. A cadaver dog that will alert to a coconut.. Some are easily fooled.
The.. Innocent people always answer questions... is more codswallop.
What if it's established that CB killed MM in situ, then removed her? How will that fit?
-
That's how eye witnesses work. You rely on their testimony because you've got little choice sans corroboration.
I would say that him coming forward after the fact as he did could be construed in two ways; either he's an unreliable witness not having noticed earlier, or it's more compelling given account of how he made the connection despite the time delay.
I don't care which it is, but all witnesses should be accounted for.
And let's all pretend that Martin Smith didn't identify Gerry McCann at all, but merely a man carrying a child towards the beach on the night a child goes missing - are we still dismissing that?
Or, he describes a scruffy, lank-haired, wiry character carrying a child towards the beach?
What about of he comes forward last June when CB hit the headlines and says 'I'm 60-80% sure I saw that guy carrying a child towards the beach'?
What happened to Martin Smith's statement? Any news on that one?
-
What happened to Martin Smith's statement? Any news on that one?
Why not answer the question?
-
What if an eye witness came forward fingering CB '60 / 80%'? Is that any more compelling?
I have no idea about Breuckner and have always said so. You picked on the wrong Supporter. But then you often aren't here either.
-
Why not answer the question?
What is your question?
-
I have no idea about Breuckner and have always said so. You picked on the wrong Supporter. But then you often aren't here either.
The point being, either an eye witness is to be followed up or not.
-
What is your question?
That's how eye witnesses work. You rely on their testimony because you've got little choice sans corroboration.
I would say that him coming forward after the fact as he did could be construed in two ways; either he's an unreliable witness not having noticed earlier, or it's more compelling given account of how he made the connection despite the time delay.
I don't care which it is, but all witnesses should be accounted for.
And let's all pretend that Martin Smith didn't identify Gerry McCann at all, but merely a man carrying a child towards the beach on the night a child goes missing - are we still dismissing that?
Or, he describes a scruffy, lank-haired, wiry character carrying a child towards the beach?
What about of he comes forward last June when CB hit the headlines and says 'I'm 60-80% sure I saw that guy carrying a child towards the beach'?
-
That's how eye witnesses work. You rely on their testimony because you've got little choice sans corroboration.
I would say that him coming forward after the fact as he did could be construed in two ways; either he's an unreliable witness not having noticed earlier, or it's more compelling given account of how he made the connection despite the time delay.
I don't care which it is, but all witnesses should be accounted for.
And let's all pretend that Martin Smith didn't identify Gerry McCann at all, but merely a man carrying a child towards the beach on the night a child goes missing - are we still dismissing that?
Or, he describes a scruffy, lank-haired, wiry character carrying a child towards the beach?
What about of he comes forward last June when CB hit the headlines and says 'I'm 60-80% sure I saw that guy carrying a child towards the beach'?
I can't answer for Martin Smith. But in any event none of his family agreed with him.
But you could try asking Amaral. He might know more than I do.
-
There's nasty and there's nasty. Defending the parents of a missing child against whom there is no evidence isn't nasty.
Defending them by being nasty to others is still nasty, whatever the reason.
-
Many of the McCann supporters haven't moved on. They still insist that there's evidence of abduction, they still hurl a variety of accusations at anyone who doesn't share their opinions, and they still give too much credence to media stories in my opinion.
Given that it’s very clear that stranger abduction is the only explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance being treated seriously by two police forces for the last few years I don’t think McCann supporters have to do any moving on.
-
There's certainly evidence that she disappeared from the street outside the apartment but supporters are keen to distance themselves from that scenario as it implies neglect on behalf of the parents.
They left the kids alone, that’s the “neglect”. Whether she walked or was taken makes no difference to that fact.
-
Why don't you just stop obfuscating and tell it as it was. Smith was so sure he had witnessed Gerry McCann carrying his daughter the night Maddie disappeared that he called the Irish police and reported it. That IS evidence whether you like it or not.
If he was “so sure” why didn’t he say “I am 100% certain”?
-
What if an eye witness came forward fingering CB '60 / 80%'? Is that any more compelling?
No, now you answer the question too.
-
Len Port has been involved in the story of Madeleine's disappearance from the first day. In fact he actually was the first journalist on the scene, imo, despite Jon Clarke's claims. I find this article from 2014 to be balanced and sensible.
"In the midst of the latest phase in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Sky News presenter Kay Burley entered the fray with an article in the Daily Mirror in which she castigated “conspiracy theorists” and “[ censored word ]s” of Madeleine’s parents.
Burley, a reporter and newsreader of long standing, wrote: “I am absolutely staggered by the number of people on social media who think they know exactly what happened to little Madeleine. Conspiracy theorists believe that it’s only a matter of time before the McCanns are held culpable for their daughter’s disappearance.”
Burley went on to dismiss criticisms of Kate McCann’s refusal to answer questions put to her by Portuguese police, and to belittle what many have read into the findings of cadaver dogs in the McCanns holiday apartment and a hire car they used.
“Easy to dismiss such claims as Looney Tunes, but even a national newspaper was guilty of claiming the McCanns know more than they have told the police,” wrote Burley.
“As a mother I am offended and appalled by such unfounded allegations.
“Every morning the McCann’s must wake up only to be smothered by a blanket of guilt. ‘ If only we’d done this…’
“They have always held on to the hope that Madeleine will be found alive.
“So as the search continues, please ignore the [ censored word ]s and think instead of two desperate parents hundreds of miles away sitting by the phone and hoping against hope that nothing is found this time.”
This heartfelt standpoint exemplifies one of the most contentious features of this extraordinary case. In the absence of indisputable evidence, two conflicting schools of thought have developed about what happened to Madeleine: one that she was abducted, the other that she died inadvertently in the apartment and her parents were somehow involved in a cover-up.
There was no proof either way in 2007 and there is none today, but it is human nature to adopt a preferred line of probability depending on one’s logical and emotional approach.
It is true that many people hiding in the safety of anonymity or pseudonyms make abhorrent, highly abusive comments on internet sites. In the absence of legal options, indeed they should be ignored.
The trouble with Kay Burley’s condemnation, however, is that in its broad sweep it fails to recognize that many of those who do not accept as a given fact that Madeleine was abducted are not “[ censored word ]s.”
Some of the McCann doubters and critics have probably studied this case in more depth and for longer than most mainstream media journalists in Britain.
They are aware, for example, that back in May 2007 no trace was found of a break-in or a burglary, let alone a kidnapping, at the apartment from which Madeleine went missing.
Well-informed sceptics want the truth to emerge so that justice can finally be done. Their reasoned arguments and conclusions are worthy of serious consideration.
Not everyone believes what they hear on television news channels or read in newspapers. ‘Churnalistic’ and seemingly servile coverage of this case gives rise to distrust.
While there is genuine compassion for Madeleine’s devastated parents, a great many Portuguese mothers are offended and appalled by the repercussions in this country of leaving Madeleine and her siblings alone that fateful night.
The reputations of the Portuguese judicial police, the original lead detective and a range of innocent ‘suspects’ have been blackened in the British media over the years.
To cap it all, the Algarve has been cast recently as a hotbed of pedophilia and the ordinary folk dependent on tourism for their livelihood in Praia da Luz have been subjected to the crass timing of the current search operations.
Obviously this case has been a very public and impassioned one, but simplistic rants in the mainstream or social media are not helpful.
One indisputable fact is that no matter how much anyone sympathizes with or is critical of Kate and Gerry McCann, it is still far from clear exactly what happened to their daughter.
Sadly, it is looking increasing unlikely we shall know any time soon.
At the end of a TV interview at the weekend, former Chief Inspector Gonçalo Amaral, who believes Madeleine died in the apartment, was asked: “Will we ever find out what really happened that night?”
He replied: “Yes, we will. When MI5 opens the case files we will find out. Don’t forget that the British secret services followed the case right from the beginning. On location.”
Amaral did not predict how long it might be before that information becomes available.
https://portuguese-american-journal.com/updatethe-mccann-case-divided-opinions-by-len-port/
Port has indicated investigative failures which might go some way to indicate why Madeleine's disappearance was unresolved "One indisputable fact is that no matter how much anyone sympathizes with or is critical of Kate and Gerry McCann, it is still far from clear exactly what happened to their daughter."
There is an outstanding record of failure to solve cases of sexual assaults on children in the place where they should be the safest under their own roofs and in their own beds.
The gist of the latest statement from the Met police in London on their investigation also sounded remarkably similar to what has long been in the public domain, but the so-called ‘quality’ press, along with the tabloids, churned it out as if it were not only a hot new lead, but even “a breakthrough.”
The Met statement appealed for further information on “a potential linked series of twelve crimes which occurred between 2004 and 2010, mostly in low season, whereby a male intruder has gained access to mainly holiday villas occupied by UK families on holiday in the Western Algarve.”
In four of the cases, the intruder is alleged to have sexually assaulted five white girls, aged between seven and ten years, in their beds.
Senior ex-police officers, led by former detective inspector Dave Edgar and hired by parents Kate and Gerry, looked into sexual attacks on at least five English girls between 2004 and 2007. Their findings were described in some detail by the News of the World in May 2009.
Kate McCann also wrote about the assaults in her book published in May 2012: “One of the most concerning and upsetting pieces of information to emerge quite early was the record of sexual crimes against children in the Algarve. This discovery made me feel physically sick. I read of five cases of British children on holiday being sexually abused in their beds while their parents slept in another room. In three further incidents, children encountered an intruder in their bedrooms, who was presumably disturbed before he had the chance to carry out an assault.”
Yet even The Times last week felt moved to report that “A sex attacker who preyed on young British girls holidaying with their families on the Algarve is a key suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann seven years ago, police said today.”
https://portuguese-american-journal.com/update-madeleine-case-in-a-right-old-muddle-by-len-port/
Why did it have to wait for the Met and the McCann detectives to attempt to solve these crimes against children.
Why were the Portuguese police not a bit more proactive on behalf of those children to whom they had a duty of care.
-
Why don't you just stop obfuscating and tell it as it was. Smith was so sure he had witnessed Gerry McCann carrying his daughter the night Maddie disappeared that he called the Irish police and reported it. That IS evidence whether you like it or not.
Of course it's evidence.. Just like the open window claim.. The thousands of sightingd of Maddie... It's all evidence... Apart from the dog alerts if course
-
Why is it that Port and sceptics seem to think that actually investigating witness accounts in a missing child case is a reason for criticism or ridicule.
"Other “key” suspects over the past few months have included Gypsies, British cleaners, bogus East European charity workers and two mystery German-speaking men, but according to the latest Met statement, witnesses described the supposedly lone sex attacker as “having dark (as in tanned skin) with short dark unkempt hair.”
https://portuguese-american-journal.com/update-madeleine-case-in-a-right-old-muddle-by-len-port/
Hmmm.
Hold on a minute ~ "two mystery German-speaking men".
Isn't that rather topical at the moment; wonder why no-one in Portugal bothered with it back in 2007 or in the years after.
-
No one. He didn't see the face of the person and he said so. And nor did any of his family. Did you miss that bit?
And 60 to 80% is simply not good enough.
Do you understand anything about the law of identification?
The girl being carried was described by Redwood as "a description very close to that of Madeleine McCann". The only child that night British police made that comment on.
-
As ever, we have done all this many times while you weren't around.
And The McCanns have never been so much as arrested.
Nor has anyone over the disappearance.
-
Nor has anyone over the disappearance.
They don't have to arrest Breuckner.
-
Why is it that Port and sceptics seem to think that actually investigating witness accounts in a missing child case is a reason for criticism or ridicule.
"Other “key” suspects over the past few months have included Gypsies, British cleaners, bogus East European charity workers and two mystery German-speaking men, but according to the latest Met statement, witnesses described the supposedly lone sex attacker as “having dark (as in tanned skin) with short dark unkempt hair.”
https://portuguese-american-journal.com/update-madeleine-case-in-a-right-old-muddle-by-len-port/
Hmmm.
Hold on a minute ~ "two mystery German-speaking men".
Isn't that rather topical at the moment; wonder why no-one in Portugal bothered with it back in 2007 or in the years after.
Operation Grange did seem to be tackling every rumour in sight. I think originally the men seen on a balcony desctibed as blond. German looking/speaking was added later imo.
-
Operation Grange did seem to be tackling every rumour in sight. I think originally the men seen on a balcony desctibed as blond. German looking/speaking was added later imo.
Some call it “tackling every rumour in sight”, others call it following up leads and leaving no stone unturned.
-
Some call it “tackling every rumour in sight”, others call it following up leads and leaving no stone unturned.
Leads? Two men were seen on a balcony wearing shorts. Two men in shorts were known to be on a balcony that afternoon, and they were wearing shorts;
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/R/5_12_VOLUME_XIIa_Processo_Page_3269.jpg)
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/R/10_12_VOLUME_XIIa_Processo_Page_3271.jpg)
-
Some call it “tackling every rumour in sight”, others call it following up leads and leaving no stone unturned.
Was that not on the balcony of an empty appartment?
-
Leads? Two men were seen on a balcony wearing shorts. Two men in shorts were known to be on a balcony that afternoon, and they were wearing shorts;
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/R/5_12_VOLUME_XIIa_Processo_Page_3269.jpg)
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/R/10_12_VOLUME_XIIa_Processo_Page_3271.jpg)
I don’t understand your point.
-
Operation Grange did seem to be tackling every rumour in sight. I think originally the men seen on a balcony desctibed as blond. German looking/speaking was added later imo.
But as Len Port has pointed out quite often things appear to be going round 💫 to be starting at the very beginning and so on and so on.
News of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann seems to be going round in circles. ‘Revelations’ turn out to be old stories recycled. ‘Key suspects’ come and go and are then brought back again. ‘New leads’ seem to be leading nowhere. Len Port
Only that wasn't quite what was actually happening was it!
Len's opinion on events as they were actually happening was as ill informed as yours.
The investigation was all bubbling away quietly under the surface with investigators who were actually doing what they were paid to do - which is investigating.
There was a lot of dross to be checked out before the Met could get their teeth into the nitty gritty of what actually happened in Madeleine's case.
Remember the Ocean Club employee questioned as an arguido ~ looks like the Met weren't a hundred miles off base as far as that notion was concerned ~ it only took until 2020 for 'catch-up' with the arguido burglar team idea to be achieved.
PJ and German police identify an employee who told Brueckner that English couples left valuable goods in their homes.
Christian Brueckner's mobile phone number has been in the process since 2007. It is one of the devices that were triggered in the vicinity of the village where Maddie disappeared, but it was only after Brueckner told a German friend that he knew what had happened to the English girl that the Judiciary police were able to make the contact call.
https://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/empregado-do-ocean-club-denunciava-habitos-dos-mccann-a-suspeito-do-rapto-de-maddie
-
For information re the two German speakers ~
Maddie detectives hunting two 'German-speaking men': E-fit of suspects revealed this week as McCanns pray Crimewatch reconstruction results in a breakthrough- Scotland Yard were aware of the two men when Maddie went missing in 2007
- They were dismissed but the investigation team now want to find them
- E-fits of the suspects will be broadcast on Crimewatch on Monday at 9pm
- Similar appeals will be made on Dutch and German television next week
- Kate and Gerry McCann will fly to Munich to make live appeal on Wednesday
By ABUL TAHER and NICK CRAVEN FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
PUBLISHED: 22:11, 12 October 2013
British detectives hunting for missing Madeleine McCann are looking for two German-speaking men whose computer-generated images will be broadcast on special TV appeals this week.
Scotland Yard says the un-identified men were seen in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz at the time when Madeleine, then aged three, went missing on May 3, 2007.
Witnesses told Portuguese police who originally investigated the case that they saw two German-speaking men at the resort that day, but little or no importance was placed on them at the time.
Now British detectives are keen to trace the two individuals to establish if they are connected to Madeleine’s disappearance or to eliminate them from the investigation, a Scotland Yard spokesman said.
The E-Fit (Electronic Facial Identification Technique) images of individuals based on eyewitness reports will be broadcast on Crimewatch on BBC1 at 9pm.
Similar appeals will be made on Dutch programme Opsporing Verzocht (Investigation Required) on Tuesday night, and on the German version of Crimewatch, Aktenzeichen XY . . . Ungelost (Case Files XY . . . Unsolved) on Wednesday night, as Madeleine’s parents make an international appeal for information.
Kate and Gerry McCann, both 45, will fly to Munich on Wednesday to make a live appeal from the studios of Aktenzeichen, which is watched by five million viewers.
A spokesman for the German programme said: ‘The reviewing and analysis of all available information has led to new insights and leads that, for the first time, point to Germany.
Aktenzeichen shows the photofits of two men, who apparently spoke German, and to whom little or no importance was previously attached.’
The McCanns previously visited Germany in 2007 to make an appeal because a high number of German tourists were in the Algarve region when Madeleine went missing.
The latest mugshots will also be shown on Dutch TV as the two ‘German speakers’ may have been talking Dutch, as the two languages are often confused, said a police source in the Netherlands.
Tomorrow’s Crimewatch programme will feature a dramatic reconstruction of the moment Madeleine went missing, giving the most detailed sequence of events ever made public that led to her disappearance from the holiday apartment where she was sleeping.
The reconstruction – which includes Mr McCann’s 6pm tennis lesson when Madeleine acted as ballgirl – will be accompanied by a moving interview by presenter Kirsty Young with Kate and Gerry McCann.
They talk about how much they miss Madeleine, who would be ten today. They will make a live appeal for members of the public to come forward with information.
In a statement, the McCanns said: ‘We are greatly encouraged by new information coming to light, with the pieces of the jigsaw now fitting together.
‘We are really hopeful that the appeal on Crimewatch will bring further evidence which will take us a step closer to finding Madeleine.’
The Met refused to comment on whether the two men they were looking for were German-speakers, but a family friend said that detectives were on the ‘brink of a breakthrough’.
The Met officer leading the investigation, Detective Inspector Andy Redwood, will make a live appeal for information on the programme.
Since Scotland Yard began reviewing the case in 2011, detectives have interviewed 442 people in 30 different countries and have drawn up a list of 41 potential suspects.
Officers are pursuing 4,920 lines of inquiry, of which 2,123 had been ‘completed’.’
Detectives now believe that their ‘timeline’ holds the key to discovering what happened to Madeleine. Det Insp Redwood said: ‘Our work has significantly changed the accepted version of events and it has allowed us to highlight very specific appeal points.
‘I hope that when the public see our investigative strands drawn together, it will bring in new information that moves our investigation forward.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2456751/Madeleine-McCann-detectives-hunting-German-speaking-men.html
-
The two Germans in 2013 turned into 3 locals in 2014, obviously the German lead led nowhere.
-
For information re the two German speakers ~
snip/
"The Met refused to comment on whether the two men they were looking for were German-speakers"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2456751/Madeleine-McCann-detectives-hunting-German-speaking-men.html
I think 'German speaking' was not what the witnesses said. Unless the men were shouting they wouldn't have heard them from the path anyway.
-
I think 'German speaking' was not what the witnesses said. Unless the men were shouting they wouldn't have heard them from the path anyway.
You really, really do not have a clue.
Neither sister claims to have heard these two men talking. It was their demeanour which attracted their attention.
Although the two sisters contacted Portuguese police within hours of Madeleine's disappearance, their evidence was ignored for six months.
The women met police three times within 24 hours, tried to find out who the strangers were themselves and made several follow-up phone calls to the authorities.
But it was not until six weeks ago that a formal statement was finally taken.
The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence and later met private detectives from Metodo 3, the agency employed by the McCanns to find their daughter.
They intended to remain anonymous but when their names were leaked to a Portuguese newspaper and they found themselves wrongly accused of waiting eight months before coming forward, they decided to reveal the truth.
The sisters said they were immediately struck by the behaviour of the two men on the balcony.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
Quite obviously the referral to German or Dutch speakers in the later report emanates from a witness who actually heard these two men in conversation.
The sisters SAW them.
"It makes you wonder if there are more of us out there who have tried and not succeeded in reporting things they saw but have given up.
"They might not have been as persistent and tenacious as us but we were determined to get the information to the police somehow."
-
I think it is a reasonable viewpoint that the advent of Scotland Yard into the investigation might very well have been the turning point which led the investigation in the right direction.
Whether acting on information received or a shot in the dark - it hit Bullseye!
Behind the scenes a tantalising lead began to emerge.
Stranger kidnaps of children are rare. They tend to involve calculating abusers who have thought carefully about how they will do it. People who have a plan and know the area where they will strike.
Detectives reasoned that if Madeleine was kidnapped, the culprit could be German or Dutch - the two other predominant nationalities in the resort, along with British and Portuguese.
In 2013 the German equivalent of BBC TV's Crimewatch launched an appeal asking for any information about two German-speaking men at Praia da Luz.
That TV appeal led to a tip-off to German federal detectives, although it is not clear what it was or whether an individual was named.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52925553
The rest as they say is history.
-
You really, really do not have a clue.
You said;
"Quite obviously the referral to German or Dutch speakers in the later report emanates from a witness who actually heard these two men in conversation."
I don't think that's obvious at all. If the Met had such a witness why refuse to confirm the rumour that the men were German speakers?
-
You said;
"Quite obviously the referral to German or Dutch speakers in the later report emanates from a witness who actually heard these two men in conversation."
I don't think that's obvious at all. If the Met had such a witness why refuse to confirm the rumour that the men were German speakers?
You are like a wee terrier attacking a bone with all your denial and "Ah - but what ifs"
Scotland Yard are way beyond you and their Portuguese counterparts - despite the fact they began their investigation so late after the event.
The Portuguese were there at the beginning - and obviously missed the glaringly obvious - as you persist in doing.
Scotland Yard were playing 'catch up' - but still managed to forge ahead and carry out diligences ignored back during the golden hours of 2007 by the Portuguese.
THE GERMAN SPEAKERS
Meanwhile, police are still hunting two German-speaking men seen about the resort where she went missing six and a half years ago.
It is not yet apparent if the men are linked to the new e-fits of the man police wish to talk to.
Police have described the men as German-speaking but have stopped short of saying they were directly involved in her disappearance, rather just wanting to identify and interview them. Their presence was known to Portuguese detectives who had been investigating the case years ago but was not pursued until now when British police took over the case.
Police also said that while some witnesses described these men as German speakers, others say the could have been speaking Dutch. To non-native speakers, it can be difficult to distinguish the two languages from one another.
This is perhaps one reason why the McCanns are expected to fly to Munich on Wednesday to coincide with the launch of the program on the German version of Crimewatch. The show will also be broadcast on Dutch television.
https://www.news.com.au/world/search-for-missing-madeleine-mccann-to-widen-as-crimewatch-airs-new-information-about-her-disappearance/news-story/1a58b234a134429f8e5d44d72d65695a
It looks very much to me that Scotland Yard have actually coordinated information received from witnesses. Something which disgracefully just did not happen back in 2007.
Information presented itself to SY which required clarification and they sought that clarification. It could all have resulted in nothing. But in this instance I think it has resulted in pushing the investigation from Groundhog 2007 into present day 2021.
Doesn't matter at all if that situation sits comfortably with you ( and I know it doesn't 😭) but that is how it is; as we await the culmination of the BKA research into the Brueckner material - of which there appears to be an awful lot.
-
You are like a wee terrier attacking a bone with all your denial and "Ah - but what ifs"
Scotland Yard are way beyond you and their Portuguese counterparts - despite the fact they began their investigation so late after the event.
The Portuguese were there at the beginning - and obviously missed the glaringly obvious - as you persist in doing.
Scotland Yard were playing 'catch up' - but still managed to forge ahead and carry out diligences ignored back during the golden hours of 2007 by the Portuguese.
THE GERMAN SPEAKERS
Meanwhile, police are still hunting two German-speaking men seen about the resort where she went missing six and a half years ago.
It is not yet apparent if the men are linked to the new e-fits of the man police wish to talk to.
Police have described the men as German-speaking but have stopped short of saying they were directly involved in her disappearance, rather just wanting to identify and interview them. Their presence was known to Portuguese detectives who had been investigating the case years ago but was not pursued until now when British police took over the case.
Police also said that while some witnesses described these men as German speakers, others say the could have been speaking Dutch. To non-native speakers, it can be difficult to distinguish the two languages from one another.
This is perhaps one reason why the McCanns are expected to fly to Munich on Wednesday to coincide with the launch of the program on the German version of Crimewatch. The show will also be broadcast on Dutch television.
https://www.news.com.au/world/search-for-missing-madeleine-mccann-to-widen-as-crimewatch-airs-new-information-about-her-disappearance/news-story/1a58b234a134429f8e5d44d72d65695a
It looks very much to me that Scotland Yard have actually coordinated information received from witnesses. Something which disgracefully just did not happen back in 2007.
Information presented itself to SY which required clarification and they sought that clarification. It could all have resulted in nothing. But in this instance I think it has resulted in pushing the investigation from Groundhog 2007 into present day 2021.
Doesn't matter at all if that situation sits comfortably with you ( and I know it doesn't 😭) but that is how it is; as we await the culmination of the BKA research into the Brueckner material - of which there appears to be an awful lot.
Your slavish devotion to newspaper stories becomes somewhat boring after a while. Surely you realise that the truth doesn't lie therein?
-
Your slavish devotion to newspaper stories becomes somewhat boring after a while. Surely you realise that the truth doesn't lie therein?
Perhaps you could tell us which bits are untrue then?
-
Your slavish devotion to newspaper stories becomes somewhat boring after a while. Surely you realise that the truth doesn't lie therein?
I agree. Unless it's a direct quote from a named individual, then the information should be taken with a pinch of salt.
IMO
-
I agree. Unless it's a direct quote from a named individual, then the information should be taken with a pinch of salt.
IMO
Isn’t it a bit naive to believe that diect quotes by named individuals are necessarily accurate too? Anyway, twitter and forums are a far more accurate source of information. @)(++(*
-
Perhaps you could tell us which bits are untrue then?
I think you can work out which bits can be relied on. Inventing possible witnesses to support a story is a bit of a desperate move imo.
-
Your slavish devotion to newspaper stories becomes somewhat boring after a while. Surely you realise that the truth doesn't lie therein?
My goodness gracious me. What an absolute hoot your post is.
Might I respectfully point out yet another load of hypocrisy here from you - the instigator of this thread - the first words of the opening post of which start with LEN PORT.
The rest of the post - which YOU posted - consists of a newspaper story written by Len.
The imputation of what you have posted above is - in context - another risible example of your double standards.
The really sad thing is - I don't think you are aware of how revealing posts like that are. A practice of "do as I say ~ not as I do" of which you are quite guilty.
-
I think you can work out which bits can be relied on. Inventing possible witnesses to support a story is a bit of a desperate move imo.
Who "INVENTED" possible witnesses.
-
I think you can work out which bits can be relied on. Inventing possible witnesses to support a story is a bit of a desperate move imo.
Who invented possible witnesses and what is your evidence for making this claim?
-
Who "INVENTED" possible witnesses.
Moreover, to what end? I assume G-Unit js claiming the media manufactured a witness or witnesses to a couple of so-called German-speaking men, the question is why they would bother? It’s hardly going to help them sell more papers being a fairly unsensational detail, is it therefore because all journalists are congenital liars and simply have to make up such details to satisfy their lust for deception? If you’re going to make up a story though why not make it a really good one, like “I saw Gerry stuffing a heavy bag of rubbish in a bin on the night of May 3rd says mystery witness.”
-
Moreover, to what end? I assume G-Unit js claiming the media manufactured a witness or witnesses to a couple of so-called German-speaking men, the question is why they would bother? It’s hardly going to help them sell more papers being a fairly unsensational detail, is it therefore because all journalists are congenital liars and simply have to make up such details to satisfy their lust for deception? If you’re going to make up a story though why not make it a really good one, like “I saw Gerry stuffing a heavy bag of rubbish in a bin on the night of May 3rd says mystery witness.”
In the Crimewatch 2013 programme they said;
"On the day Madeleine disappeared, two men were seen on the balcony of a nearby empty apartment, believed to be 5C, two doors down from the McCanns."
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/crimewatch-2013-in-simple-english/
Jayne Jensen said;
"Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire told how they saw two blond men in their 30s, standing on the balcony of an empty apartment only a couple of doors away from the McCanns' flat in Praia da Luz."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
So where did German-speaking come from?
-
In the Crimewatch 2013 programme they said;
"On the day Madeleine disappeared, two men were seen on the balcony of a nearby empty apartment, believed to be 5C, two doors down from the McCanns."
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/crimewatch-2013-in-simple-english/
Jayne Jensen said;
"Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire told how they saw two blond men in their 30s, standing on the balcony of an empty apartment only a couple of doors away from the McCanns' flat in Praia da Luz."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
So where did German-speaking come from?
I think the problem you may be having is the supposition that everything said and done in 2007 was preserved in aspic and never subject to change.
Your mind is not open to the fact that there were continuing investigations after the Portuguese botched one and the one in which they gave up on Madeleine long before it was appropriate to do so; along with those investigations came changes in attitudes and additional information.
Madeleine's parents had to be the driving force behind this because no one else was bothering.
Real change came about when Scotland Yard adopted Madeleine's case. Again due to Madeleine's parent's persistence and in the teeth of every obstacle sceptics like you could dream up to impede that progress and process.
By 2013 a lot more was known than was the case in 2007 and what was known brought Kate, Gerry and DCI Redwood to appear in appeals in Dutch and German television programmes.
Which brings us to 2020 and information which has been years in coming together.
Christian Hoppe from the BKA was a guest on this German Crime Programme in 2020.
In 2013, Maddie McCann's parents were guests of file number xy.
The ultimate suspicion goes back to a past consignment, file number xy , according to which there were references to the accused.
As early as 2013, references to the man had already been received, said Christian Hoppe.
Even after a report ten years after the girl's disappearance, there were indications.
In the meantime, the suspicion of suspicion has been well founded, but there is no solid evidence in addition to the evidence to convince the 30-year-old at the time of the crime.
Therefore, the BKA is now addressing the population.
Maddie McCann / Case number XY: BKA asks for help
https://newsrnd.com/news/2020-06-05-spectacular-turn-in-the-maddie-case--german-(43)-suspected-of-murder---bka-asks-for-information-on-these-traces-nbsp-.r1tvSMdhL.html
-
In the Crimewatch 2013 programme they said;
"On the day Madeleine disappeared, two men were seen on the balcony of a nearby empty apartment, believed to be 5C, two doors down from the McCanns."
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/crimewatch-2013-in-simple-english/
Jayne Jensen said;
"Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire told how they saw two blond men in their 30s, standing on the balcony of an empty apartment only a couple of doors away from the McCanns' flat in Praia da Luz."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
So where did German-speaking come from?
Well it must have come from somewhere unless you seriously believe the journalist just plucked that detail from thin air for shits and giggles?
-
Well it must have come from somewhere unless you seriously believe the journalist just plucked that detail from thin air for shits and giggles?
I have no idea, but it doesn't appear to have come from the witnesses or the police. By all means believe what you read in the papers, but I don't accept what they say without a direct quote or some other evidence. It wouldn't be the first or last time that incorrect information was printed.
-
I have no idea, but it doesn't appear to have come from the witnesses or the police. By all means believe what you read in the papers, but I don't accept what they say without a direct quote or some other evidence. It wouldn't be the first or last time that incorrect information was printed.
Just because the report doesn’t explicitly state who said the men appeared to be German-speaking doesn’t mean it must automatically be disbelieved. There are news reports every day filled with information gleaned by journalists who don’t find it necessary to name every single source or explain exactly how they came by the information. Journalists by and large have a reputation to uphold and that reputation is made or broken on how truthful, accurate and responsible is their reporting. One has to be exert a modicum of commonsense sometimes and consider why a journalist would invent such a relatively minor detail. It seems highly unlikely that they would simply make it up so I exercise the benefit of the doubt and accept it was reported in good faith.
-
None of this actually matters and won't convict anyone. Just in case some of you hadn't noticed. It is all just an exercise in personal opinion, given the rules of Free Speach. Which happen to carry responsibilities, should some of you have forgotten that.
But it is so nice to see that the level of spoken English has vastly improved of late, mainly down to Brietta, who has taught me a thing or two. Although I doubt that she realises. She just does. As so should the rest of us.
If we can't slag off someone in half decent English then we might as well not bother.
-
Just because the report doesn’t explicitly state who said the men appeared to be German-speaking doesn’t mean it must automatically be disbelieved. There are news reports every day filled with information gleaned by journalists who don’t find it necessary to name every single source or explain exactly how they came by the information. Journalists by and large have a reputation to uphold and that reputation is made or broken on how truthful, accurate and responsible is their reporting. One has to be exert a modicum of commonsense sometimes and consider why a journalist would invent such a relatively minor detail. It seems highly unlikely that they would simply make it up so I exercise the benefit of the doubt and accept it was reported in good faith.
If there weren't so many examples of incorrect reporting in this case you might be justified, but the press have a terrible track record. For example;
"Kate and Gerry McCann are in a legal battle with Amaral at the European Court of Human Rights over the smears.
The McCanns have gone to the ECHR in a final effort to avoid paying Amaral £750,000 in compensation after accusing him of libel - which saw sales of his book banned for six years."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2751442/goncalo-amaral-madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry/
Untrue!
-
If there weren't so many examples of incorrect reporting in this case you might be justified, but the press have a terrible track record. For example;
"Kate and Gerry McCann are in a legal battle with Amaral at the European Court of Human Rights over the smears.
The McCanns have gone to the ECHR in a final effort to avoid paying Amaral £750,000 in compensation after accusing him of libel - which saw sales of his book banned for six years."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2751442/goncalo-amaral-madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry/
Untrue!
So what is true then?
-
So what is true then?
Whatever you choose to be true ?{)(**
-
Whatever you choose to be true ?{)(**
Take that to Court.
-
If there weren't so many examples of incorrect reporting in this case you might be justified, but the press have a terrible track record. For example;
"Kate and Gerry McCann are in a legal battle with Amaral at the European Court of Human Rights over the smears.
The McCanns have gone to the ECHR in a final effort to avoid paying Amaral £750,000 in compensation after accusing him of libel - which saw sales of his book banned for six years."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2751442/goncalo-amaral-madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry/
Untrue!
These are just sloppy interpretations of the facts which aren’t exactly false either. Kate and Gerry are in a legal battle regarding Portugal’s judgement on Amaral’s smears. What exactly is the situation wrt to paying Amaral’s compensation and legal fees then?
And here we go off on another tangent. This thread really should be re-named The Sceptic’s Shopping Trolley as it bashes from one aisle of tedious cheap crap to the other.
-
Amaral did Libel The McCanns and on several occasions since he was totally unable to prove that he was right. And I don't care beyond that.
Whether or not this has anything to do with The ECHR and Portugal is of no importance to me. It was Amaral who impugned The McCanns.
However, I very much doubt that The ECHR has the time or the patience to read it all, or to even care about individuals. This is simply a matter of Law and not actually to do with people.
I suspect that The McCanns will lose, but only because Freedom of Speech appears to be more important at the moment.
This won't necessarily be a good thing. But it won't convict The McCanns.
-
These are just sloppy interpretations of the facts which aren’t exactly false either. Kate and Gerry are in a legal battle regarding Portugal’s judgement on Amaral’s smears. What exactly is the situation wrt to paying Amaral’s compensation and legal fees then?
And here we go off on another tangent. This thread really should be re-named The Sceptic’s Shopping Trolley as it bashes from one aisle of tedious cheap crap to the other.
Hey you. It's still really okay. The McCanns have nothing much to worry about and still enough in The Fund to meet this. And it still won't make them guilty.
I feel as though I have just said something that doesn't matter. But then it doesn't.
I have had such a learning curve for my own sake and how I now deal with society in general. And I know that I will never be so absolutely awful.
And Yes, being a Moderator has helped.
I think that we just have to stagger on if we want to.
-
Just because the report doesn’t explicitly state who said the men appeared to be German-speaking doesn’t mean it must automatically be disbelieved. There are news reports every day filled with information gleaned by journalists who don’t find it necessary to name every single source or explain exactly how they came by the information. Journalists by and large have a reputation to uphold and that reputation is made or broken on how truthful, accurate and responsible is their reporting. One has to be exert a modicum of commonsense sometimes and consider why a journalist would invent such a relatively minor detail. It seems highly unlikely that they would simply make it up so I exercise the benefit of the doubt and accept it was reported in good faith.
That is a reasonable viewpoint.
-
That is a reasonable viewpoint.
Isn't that the whole point?
-
It has crossed my mind that I might not have liked The McCanns all that much. Or perhaps they might not have liked me. I am pretty certain sure that they were better parents than I ever was.
-
I think 'German speaking' was not what the witnesses said. Unless the men were shouting they wouldn't have heard them from the path anyway.
I think this clip from the Dutch "Crimewatch" 2013 sheds some light on the confusion.
https://youtu.be/xyp2Buvv8pM?t=602 (watch to 11m43secs).
My understanding is that ex DCI Redwood was suggesting a link between the 2 men Jayne Jenson & Annie Wilshire saw on the balcony of 5C at around 2.30pm on 3/5/07 & 2 men (one with blond hair) seen in an internet cafe nearby on the previous day & heard to be speaking in German.
The efits shown near the start of the clip may or may not be representative of one of the "German" pair under discussion.
-
I think this clip from the Dutch "Crimewatch" 2013 sheds some light on the confusion.
https://youtu.be/xyp2Buvv8pM?t=602 (watch to 11m43secs).
My understanding is that ex DCI Redwood was suggesting a link between the 2 men Jayne Jenson & Annie Wilshire saw on the balcony of 5C at around 2.30pm on 3/5/07 & 2 men (one with blond hair) seen in an internet cafe nearby on the previous day & heard to be speaking in German.
The efits shown near the start of the clip may or may not be representative of one of the "German" pair under discussion.
Thank you Misty. Different witnesses. Different sightings. Logical.
-
I think this clip from the Dutch "Crimewatch" 2013 sheds some light on the confusion.
https://youtu.be/xyp2Buvv8pM?t=602 (watch to 11m43secs).
My understanding is that ex DCI Redwood was suggesting a link between the 2 men Jayne Jenson & Annie Wilshire saw on the balcony of 5C at around 2.30pm on 3/5/07 & 2 men (one with blond hair) seen in an internet cafe nearby on the previous day & heard to be speaking in German.
The efits shown near the start of the clip may or may not be representative of one of the "German" pair under discussion.
Bingo!
-
These are just sloppy interpretations of the facts which aren’t exactly false either. Kate and Gerry are in a legal battle regarding Portugal’s judgement on Amaral’s smears. What exactly is the situation wrt to paying Amaral’s compensation and legal fees then?
And here we go off on another tangent. This thread really should be re-named The Sceptic’s Shopping Trolley as it bashes from one aisle of tedious cheap crap to the other.
I assure you the story was untrue, not sloppy. Neither am I interested in discussing that fact, it's just one example of the misreporting in the case.
Len Port's article, which is what we should be discussing, says;
"Not everyone believes what they hear on television news channels or read in newspapers. ‘Churnalistic’ and seemingly servile coverage of this case gives rise to distrust."
Unfortunately, some people just swallow whatever journalists choose to write without question.
-
I assure you the story was untrue, not sloppy. Neither am I interested in discussing that fact, it's just one example of the misreporting in the case.
Len Port's article, which is what we should be discussing, says;
"Not everyone believes what they hear on television news channels or read in newspapers. ‘Churnalistic’ and seemingly servile coverage of this case gives rise to distrust."
Unfortunately, some people just swallow whatever journalists choose to write without question.
And some people automatically reach for the excuse that obviously it’s all made up by the media when they read something that challenges their own belief system. Try a bit of nuance, accept that not everything is as black and white as “truth” or “lie”, that things do get misreported is undeniable but it’s rarely outright journalistic invention, as has now been shown wrt the German-speaking suspects.
-
I think this clip from the Dutch "Crimewatch" 2013 sheds some light on the confusion.
https://youtu.be/xyp2Buvv8pM?t=602 (watch to 11m43secs).
My understanding is that ex DCI Redwood was suggesting a link between the 2 men Jayne Jenson & Annie Wilshire saw on the balcony of 5C at around 2.30pm on 3/5/07 & 2 men (one with blond hair) seen in an internet cafe nearby on the previous day & heard to be speaking in German.
The efits shown near the start of the clip may or may not be representative of one of the "German" pair under discussion.
Thank you Misty, that certainly explains the story. A rather tenuous possible connection between these men became 'men on a balcony speaking in German'.
I wonder on what basis Redwood claimed that the man seen by Carol Tranmer was leaving the garden of 5C? She didn't say that afaik.
-
I think you can work out which bits can be relied on. Inventing possible witnesses to support a story is a bit of a desperate move imo.
Perhaps you could retract this claim now?
-
Thank you Misty, that certainly explains the story. A rather tenuous possible connection between these men became 'men on a balcony speaking in German'.
I wonder on what basis Redwood claimed that the man seen by Carol Tranmer was leaving the garden of 5C? She didn't say that afaik.
Sorry, which report claimed the men on the balcony were speaking German?
-
Take that to Court.
Even courts only decide their version of the truth.
-
And some people automatically reach for the excuse that obviously it’s all made up by the media when they read something that challenges their own belief system. Try a bit of nuance, accept that not everything is as black and white as “truth” or “lie”, that things do get misreported is undeniable but it’s rarely outright journalistic invention, as has now been shown wrt the German-speaking suspects.
Journalists have a habit of reporting speculation as fact, which is what this example shows. There was no evidence that the men on the balcony were German speaking, but that's how a journalist chose to describe them.
Not only was this believed by those whose belief systems it supported, more speculation followed;
"Quite obviously the referral to German or Dutch speakers in the later report emanates from a witness who actually heard these two men in conversation.
The sisters SAW them."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12280.msg672558#msg672558
It seems two men were heard speaking in German; in an internet cafe. Were they the same men seen on the balcony? No connection was established afaik.
-
Even speaking German doesn't mean that they were German - it might just have been a common language between them.
-
Journalists have a habit of reporting speculation as fact, which is what this example shows. There was no evidence that the men on the balcony were German speaking, but that's how a journalist chose to describe them.
Not only was this believed by those whose belief systems it supported, more speculation followed;
"Quite obviously the referral to German or Dutch speakers in the later report emanates from a witness who actually heard these two men in conversation.
The sisters SAW them."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12280.msg672558#msg672558
It seems two men were heard speaking in German; in an internet cafe. Were they the same men seen on the balcony? No connection was established afaik.
What on earth are you babbling on about.
There never was any suggestion that these two German or Dutch speakers were overheard by the sisters.
They SAW two blonde men acting suspiciously.
They never claim to have HEARD them - and no-one ever claimed they did.
Thanks to Misty's post we know they were OVERHEARD in an internet café in Luz.
If anyone is demonstrably getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and misinterpreting information I think you are the current prize holder.
-
Does any evidence link the balcony pair to the internet cafe pair ?
-
Does any evidence link the balcony pair to the internet cafe pair ?
Not that I know of, and that's what I was 'babbling on' about. It seems a bit of a leap to assume they were the same men. Certainly Redwood never claimed that they were.
-
Not that I know of, and that's what I was 'babbling on' about. It seems a bit of a leap to assume they were the same men. Certainly Redwood never claimed that they were.
You claimed the media reported that the two witnesses overheard two men on a balcony talikng in German, I can find no such report - perhaps you could supply the cite, or is it possible that you have invented it?
-
Does any evidence link the balcony pair to the internet cafe pair ?
No-one EVER claimed that it did .
-
You claimed the media reported that the two witnesses overheard two men on a balcony talikng in German, I can find no such report - perhaps you could supply the cite, or is it possible that you have invented it?
Did I?
-
No-one EVER claimed that it did .
So there is no evidence that the men on the balcony spoke German, despite the claim by the journalist. I'm glad that's agreed.
-
Not that I know of, and that's what I was 'babbling on' about. It seems a bit of a leap to assume they were the same men. Certainly Redwood never claimed that they were.
There is only one poster assuming anything and posting deliberate misinformation - and that is you.
You introduced this thread apparently to accuse all and sundry of doing exactly what YOU are doing.
Your blindside apropos your own conduct never ceases to be an amazement.
-
So there is no evidence that the men on the balcony spoke German, despite the claim by the journalist. I'm glad that's agreed.
Let me put this to you very, very simply.
Witnesses SAW two men behaving suspiciously on the balcony of an empty apartment which overlooked the McCann's.
Witnesses HEARD two men in an internet café speaking in German or Dutch.
I most certainly DO NOT AGREE with whatever spin you are attaching to that information and DO NOT make such presumptions - concerning anything - on my behalf!
I presume you are not stupid therefore I can only surmise the reason you are stupidly posting deliberately false misinformation on the forum.
The only result from that is that nothing you post can be trusted.
-
Let me put this to you very, very simply.
Witnesses SAW two men behaving suspiciously on the balcony of an empty apartment which overlooked the McCann's.
Witnesses HEARD two men in an internet café speaking in German or Dutch.
I most certainly DO NOT AGREE with whatever spin you are attaching to that information and DO NOT make such presumptions - concerning anything - on my behalf!
I presume you are not stupid therefore I can only surmise the reason you are stupidly posting deliberately false misinformation on the forum.
The only result from that is that nothing you post can be trusted.
All I know is that there's no reason to believe that the two men on the balcony were German or Dutch. I think that statement can be trusted.
-
People knocking about Portugal's holiday hot spots with German or Dutch accents.
Accounts for about 83.2% of the population.
Might as well narrow it down to people wearing shorts.
-
All I know is that there's no reason to believe that the two men on the balcony were German or Dutch. I think that statement can be trusted.
All I know is that no-one other than you has suggested such a thing and and I can think of no sound reason at all for that lie to be promoted and defended so vigorously by you..
-
All I know is that there's no reason to believe that the two men on the balcony were German or Dutch. I think that statement can be trusted.
Who made the statement?
Given the ubiquity of German and Dutch tourists in the Algarve, is it even relevant?
Their presence is relevant. As relevant as all other reported sightings.
-
Did I?
yes you did. Did you not earlier today write this?
"Journalists have a habit of reporting speculation as fact, which is what this example shows. There was no evidence that the men on the balcony were German speaking, but that's how a journalist chose to describe them".
-
All I know is that there's no reason to believe that the two men on the balcony were German or Dutch. I think that statement can be trusted.
The link I posted on another thread talks of these men, no mention of language used.
-
Len Port wrote this 7 years ago and you (and he) now need to move on. Furthermore, citing Amaral’s claim of MI5:involvement in his closing paragraph as if it lends some weight to his argument rather shoots his supposedly balanced approach in the foot. It ends the article on a seriously curly wurly cuckoo note.
Lol. Len Port is on the sceptic side, isn't he? Although I wonder if he was actually serious in mentioning Amaral's MI5 allegation.
-
Lol. Len Port is on the sceptic side, isn't he? Although I wonder if he was actually serious in mentioning Amaral's MI5 allegation.
Len Port said;
"One indisputable fact is that no matter how much anyone sympathizes with or is critical of Kate and Gerry McCann, it is still far from clear exactly what happened to their daughter."
Despite all the arguments and discussion he is correct to say;
"This heartfelt standpoint exemplifies one of the most contentious features of this extraordinary case. In the absence of indisputable evidence, two conflicting schools of thought have developed about what happened to Madeleine: one that she was abducted, the other that she died inadvertently in the apartment and her parents were somehow involved in a cover-up.
There was no proof either way in 2007 and there is none today, but it is human nature to adopt a preferred line of probability depending on one’s logical and emotional approach."
In my opinion he is neither supporter nor sceptic. As he says, neither position can be supported by indisputable evidence.
-
Len Port said;
"One indisputable fact is that no matter how much anyone sympathizes with or is critical of Kate and Gerry McCann, it is still far from clear exactly what happened to their daughter."
Despite all the arguments and discussion he is correct to say;
"This heartfelt standpoint exemplifies one of the most contentious features of this extraordinary case. In the absence of indisputable evidence, two conflicting schools of thought have developed about what happened to Madeleine: one that she was abducted, the other that she died inadvertently in the apartment and her parents were somehow involved in a cover-up.
There was no proof either way in 2007 and there is none today, but it is human nature to adopt a preferred line of probability depending on one’s logical and emotional approach."
In my opinion he is neither supporter nor sceptic. As he says, neither position can be supported by indisputable evidence.
He has never said that stranger abduction in his view was virtually impossible though has he? That’s your view isn’t it? That stranger abduction is the least plausible, logical explanation? That IMO is a very odd view to hold.
-
He has never said that stranger abduction in his view was virtually impossible though has he? That’s your view isn’t it? That stranger abduction is the least plausible, logical explanation? That IMO is a very odd view to hold.
I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.
-
I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.
You started this thread with YOUR opinion. You continue to express YOUR opinion on Len Port. I am commenting on that. How can you think Len Port’s views are reasonable when you have all but dismissed stranger abduction as virtually impossible?
-
I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.
I think commentators become blinded by what they would do in a certain situation. They can’t envision their child dying in their care and them trying to cover it up. That doesn’t, however, mean it can’t or doesn’t happen.
-
I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.
Speaking for myself - I have reached the firm conclusion of the McCann innocence - for the tremendously simple reason that despite their best efforts - the Policia Judiciaria investigation found no evidence against them and conceded that fact clearly in their report to the Portuguese Public Prosecutors.
Also I harbour a firm disregard for evil kangaroo courts motivated only by disregard and contempt for the presumption of innocence.
Except for that of rapists - child molesters - and career criminals.
-
I was discussing Len Port's views, not mine. Compared to Kay Burley's they are factual and unemotional. Her views are based on her belief in the McCann's innocence and her outrage that some people think otherwise. Like so many commentators, she doesn't attempt to explain how and why she reached that conclusion.
Why di you feel she ows you an explanation.. You wouldnt accept it anyway. The whole scientific community accepts that smoking causes cancer but you don't accept it. I'm convinced the McCanns are innocent based in all the available evidence. You have shown that what you beoueve sre facts, are just your opinion... That muddles your opinions and conclusions... All my very well informed opinion
-
I think commentators become blinded by what they would do in a certain situation. They can’t envision their child dying in their care and them trying to cover it up. That doesn’t, however, mean it can’t or doesn’t happen.
Really? Does it happen? I never knew. I thought all parents were loving, good and kind just like me. What a shock. Well, now that you've informed me of this I may have to think again about the McCanns. Wow. Major revelation.
-
I think commentators become blinded by what they would do in a certain situation. They can’t envision their child dying in their care and them trying to cover it up. That doesn’t, however, mean it can’t or doesn’t happen.
That's understandable, but journalists and policemen know that people can do things which seem unthinkable. Yet many of them seem to have decided to ignore that fact.
-
That's understandable, but journalists and policemen know that people can do things which seem unthinkable. Yet many of them seem to have decided to ignore that fact.
This is such a bogus argument IMO. It verges on conspiracy nonsense. You appear to be suggesting that the police and journalists are ignoring the possibility of parental involvement in this case. We know this is nonsense as the papers were full of parental involvement in the early days. As for the police ignoring the possibility of parental involvement you'd really have to ask yourself why two leading police forces have chosen to do so. Perhaps you can come up with a logical, plausible explanation but I very much doubt it!
-
This is such a bogus argument IMO. It verges on conspiracy nonsense. You appear to be suggesting that the police and journalists are ignoring the possibility of parental involvement in this case. We know this is nonsense as the papers were full of parental involvement in the early days. As for the police ignoring the possibility of parental involvement you'd really have to ask yourself why two leading police forces have chosen to do so. Perhaps you can come up with a logical, plausible explanation but I very much doubt it!
Perhaps commentators should begin by offering logical plausible explanations for their positions?
-
Perhaps commentators should begin by offering logical plausible explanations for their positions?
Do you have a 'logical plausible explanation' for why SY - BKA - PJ after only fourteen years of intensive investigation, have settled on Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. Or do you subscribe to the Amaral school of thought that he is a 'patsy'.
-
Do you have a 'logical plausible explanation' for why SY - BKA - PJ after only fourteen years of intensive investigation, have settled on Brueckner as the prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. Or do you subscribe to the Amaral school of thought that he is a 'patsy'.
I'm not convinced they're all agreed on that.
-
I'm not convinced they're all agreed on that.
Some are far better at it than others it has to be said. But I think everyone can see what way the wind is blowing and are adjusting accordingly.
-
Perhaps commentators should begin by offering logical plausible explanations for their positions?
Go on then!
-
Go on then!
Sigh ~ i did ask a question along those lines. Fortunately, to avoid hanging about vainly awaiting response, I considered it a rhetorical one.
-
Go on then!
What makes you think I was referring to myself? What about those like Kay Burley who start with a belief in the parents' innocence? How did she reach that conclusion?
-
What makes you think I was referring to myself? What about those like Kay Burley who start with a belief in the parents' innocence? How did she reach that conclusion?
As far as I'm aware Kay Burley doesn't post here so is unlikely to fulfill your request anytime soon, or even to read it. You however are very well placed as a "commentator" to proffer your logical and plausible reasons for suspecting the parents of involvement, and for believing that stranger abduction is "virtually impossible". You won't of course, you never do.
-
There is nothing logical to be said for Gun It. And no poof either of her meanderings