I've watched sone if the programme... It seems very factual and is, therefore supportive of the mccanns... Amaral claims thr FSS manipulated the results and surprisingly Sandra Figuerras seems now supportive if the mccanns and says her sources in the police lied to her
The PJ's intentions, honest or otherwise, do not affect the material truth concerning the parent's guilt or innocence.
Anyone that holds a different view is deluded imo. As things currently stand, there is no evidence that I'm aware of to prove it is not easily possible that the PJ's intentions were completely dishonest and the parents were still involved.
She will now be crossed off the Christmas Card list by some!!
The PJ's intentions, honest or otherwise, do not affect the material truth concerning the parent's guilt or innocence.
Anyone that holds a different view is deluded imo. As things currently stand, there is no evidence that I'm aware of to prove it is not easily possible that the PJ's intentions were completely dishonest and the parents were still involved.
Wrong, it might effect the material truth of their statements..but that has nothing the do with the material truth of their innocence or guilt. Remember, that's what I was talking about. If you have proof their intentions affected the material truth of their statements I'll be more than happy to consider it.
Wrong, it might effect the material truth of their statements..but that has nothing the do with the material truth of their innocence or guilt. Remember, that's what I was talking about. If you have proof their intentions affected the material truth of their statements I'll be more than happy to consider it.
I simply quoted Figuerras... Whose, statement will Cone as, a surprise to some... The mccans guilt is, decided by the evudence
Wrong, it might effect the material truth of their statements..but that has nothing the do with the material truth of their innocence or guilt. Remember, that's what I was talking about. If you have proof their intentions affected the material truth of their statements I'll be more than happy to consider it.theres a few biased supporters on this forum you will soon learn lol
That's it then,Figuerras has spoken,its a wrap folks its all over.12 longs years for that!
Watching it just now on Netflix. It must be remembered that everything that went on from 5.30 to 10pm in the McCann apartment is wholly uncorroborated.
I know what you said.. you said it twice remember. But what dishonest intentions were the PJ employing on Gerry on May 4th for example when he signed to the fact that his statement was materially true.? Like I say, if you have proof that the PJ's intentions were dishonest and directly affected the material truth of their statements, I'll be more than happy to consider it? But unless you provide proof of what you're talking about, it doesn't affect the material truth to me imo...which as it stands..it doesn't.
For what it’s worth I think this series will satisfy neither the sceptic nor the supporter.
Your feathers, seem ruffled ...no surprise as the programme is true to the facts and dispels the myths of the DNA and the dogsDon't do ruffled old chap,you seem to be hanging onto some reporters words as if they matter,I'll stick with Do Carmo who is open to all possibility's not just abduction in the McCann case.
You need read it again... What did Sandra Felgueiras or your comment have to do with me in the first place?
It was you that replied to my comment..but it's nothing to worrying about.. nice to meet you.
Don't do ruffled old chap,you seem to be hanging onto some reporters words as if they matter,I'll stick with Do Carmo who is open to all possibility's not just abduction in the McCann case.
They do matter... The fact that a, Portuguese journalist is calling the PJ liars is quite significant. ...and PDC said the mccanns are not suspects abd there's no evidence against them... That's, quite ckear
Another point clarified by Amaral is that he did observe the initial interviews with the McCanns. He witnessed the statements being given but didn't ask any questions. He told Kate McCann (through a police interpreter) to take it easy, that they would do everything in their power to find her daughter. Sort of debunks the 'Amaral never met them' rubbish.
Why does it matter,the sun came up again this morning.Its unsolvable imo,confession is what it will take.
Compared to debunking the dogs and the DNA evidence a rather unimportant point
I have seen nothing which debunk the dog alerts. They happened and are open to interpretation.
I have seen nothing which debunk the dog alerts. They happened and are open to interpretation.Or misinterpretation. .it's about episode 4
Episode 1 is filled with old footage and adds very little to the investigation. Can't possibly see how they could have spent the amount of money they claim on putting this together.It's slow starting but... As I've said... Presnts the facts and shows the PJ in a bad light... Even bringing up the cipriano case in some detail... Criticising the PJ there
It's slow starting but... As I've said... Presnts the facts and shows the PJ in a bad light... Even bringing up the cipriano case in some detail... Criticising the PJ there
Slow day Davel ?
Slow day Davel ?
I can see why you are so ascerbic... You must be very disappointed with the programme
Looks like they had the place all to themselves when they done their 'search'. The search they had been 'working too hard really' to do. I was hoping they were going to include David and Gerry's trip to the beach. They are missing all the good bits out imo.
Haven’t watched it.....too busy working for a living.
That's the one. But it's where they were 'searching' before they were seen that would be of some interest imo.
Just finished watching Ep. 1.
Jayne Jenson's recollection places Jez Wilkins on the streets shortly after the alert went out, which does not tally with his statement.
That would be interesting if she was a reliable witness, which, in my opinion is questionable..
I just watched episode 1 & almost lapsed into a coma.
At the start of episode 2, one commentator describes Madeleine as 'a very attractive little girl'.
Who in their right mind finds a 3 year old 'attractive'?!
Can't comment on the content as I cannot view, but was reading a review in the Guardian and came across this comment that I thought was pretty damning @)(++(*
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/mar/15/disappearance-madeleine-mccann-netflix-review-moral-failure
"All of it was padded out with extraneous guff – the history of the Algarve as a holiday resort, accounts from journalists of how they rushed to get to the story and then their breathless accounts of waiting for and not getting any news … The talking heads were frequently drowned out by the sound of barrel-bottoms being scraped."
I just watched episode 1 & almost lapsed into a coma.
At the start of episode 2, one commentator describes Madeleine as 'a very attractive little girl'.
Who in their right mind finds a 3 year old 'attractive'?!
Mummy ?
At least two grown men seemed to.
"So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd,”
Jon Corner, Vanity Fair, 10/1/08
"Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child....She was, you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
Another cheap comment. Of course there is nothing ludicrous about investigating the possibility that a missing young girl is dead and buried in the locale, nor is it ludicrous to believe she may possibly still be alive. Both. are perfectly legitimate possibilities. Abducted by aliens, OD’ed on Calpol or killed the Sunday before the 3rd if May however are not IMO legitimate possibilities.
Do you include SY in the ludicrous when they were digging up the Portuguese countryside whilst there is every possibility or probability according to some the girl is living with a loving family.
I find it difficult to believe given the timeline and the risk. Kate McCann referred to a snall window of opportunity and she was only talking about a small gap in the group's timeline. We know that at least two other guests were around Block 5 that evening; the Moyes and the Totmans. Neither of them came forward to the PJ because neither of them saw anything. There could easily be others we don't know about.So you find stranger abduction difficult to believe, what about CMOMM’s theory - do you find that easier to believe?
So you find stranger abduction difficult to believe, what about CMOMM’s theory - do you find that easier to believe?
Another point clarified by Amaral is that he did observe the initial interviews with the McCanns. He witnessed the statements being given but didn't ask any questions. He told Kate McCann (through a police interpreter) to take it easy, that they would do everything in their power to find her daughter. Sort of debunks the 'Amaral never met them' rubbish.The man’s a proven liar though so...why should we believe him?
The man’s a proven liar though so...why should we believe him?
Neil Berry places maddie at the sailing episode,,...was that on the 3rd..which exposes the CMOMM researchers to ridicule
His memory has improved since 2008 then;
With relation to what I did on Thursday 3rd May 2007.
Given the time that had passed, my memory of this day is relatively vague. I did not leave the resort during my stay. I remember that my oldest daughter did not return to the Mark Warner Childrens Club after lunch and that we spent the afternoon together as a family.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NEIL_BERRY.htm
Did she give an official statement or simply talk to the papers ?
he mentioned the sailing incident...but not the day it happened...are you suggesting hes lyingYeah, he’s probably part of the conspiracy *%87
he mentioned the sailing incident...but not the day it happened...are you suggesting hes lying
According to the McCanns et al and Cat Baker it was Thursday morning. It's oerfectly possible that he forgot it was the day she disappeared. It was planned for Wednesday but apparently it was changed. Did he mention Madeleine jumping or falling in by the way? Did anyone else?So he made it up, is that your opinion?
According to the McCanns et al and Cat Baker it was Thursday morning. It's oerfectly possible that he forgot it was the day she disappeared. It was planned for Wednesday but apparently it was changed. Did he mention Madeleine jumping or falling in by the way? Did anyone else?
So he made it up, is that your opinion?
If he remembers the truth incorrectly, then he can be mistaken... that's not lying. Gerry done just that on May 4th you'll remember.
I find your posting style quite strange. You begin by suggesting I said or thought something I didn't say or think, then ask me if your syggestion is correct. As it's your suggestion I suggest you answer it instead of asking me.I find your posting style quite insinuating and very evasive.
It's rather difficult to comprehend that this Netflix production which is reported to have costs millions, give's us DNA experts Jim Gamble and Robin Swan to explain the DNA evidence. What qualifications have Jim Gamble and Robin Swan got in genetic science.
&%%6
Jim Gamble and Robin Swan explaining the genetic results, come on be serious.
Some folk are easier to satisfy than others. Jim Gamble and Robin Swan @)(++(*
I just watched episode 1 & almost lapsed into a coma.
At the start of episode 2, one commentator describes Madeleine as 'a very attractive little girl'.
Who in their right mind finds a 3 year old 'attractive'?!
I don't know what he would have imagined, but if Gerry can imagine the last time he seen his daughter alive incorrectly, which he did on May 4th, right? Then I don't see how he can't imagine what day it was incorrectly, do you? Don't you think Gerry's imagination proves it's possible to imagine things incorrectly, or was he lying?
Just about to watch it so not holding my breath as regards any major breakthrough. 8(8-))
Has anyone reached the end yet?
I find your posting style quite insinuating and very evasive.
That's why I used the caveat... As he remembers... It's unlikely.. Do you not think... That he would have imagined Maddie rescuing his daughters hat at the sailing day... It's not unlikely he might forget exactly what day it was
Did Madeleine end up in the water when rescuing this hat?
Don't do it..... It will lower your IQ.You were dying of boredom by the end of episode 1 so why are you putting yourself through such obvious discomfort?
I'm halfway through episode 7 & have learned practically nothing I didn't already know. Where is the yawn emoji?!
Perhaps it's not me who's insinuating anything, perhaps its the evidence.No, it’s definitely you.
You were dying of boredom by the end of episode 1 so why are you putting yourself through such obvious discomfort?
Watching the final episode, it is claimed by Swan & Summers that Matt Oldfield heard a noise in the childrens bedroom during his check. As if to suggest an abductor was present.
This is utter horse shit. Nowhere in his statement, during the rogatory interview, nor, during the McCanns own reconstruction, Madeleine Was Here, does Oldfield ever mention such a thing.
Midway through Episode 8, we have Swann describing the note which stated the McCann's & Co were booked to dine in the Tapas & would be leaving their children in the apartments. This note was apparently on display in the restaurant & could serve as a green light for an abductor.
Anyone seen this note in the files?
Wouldn’t she have been wet when returned to her parents ? Surely they would have mentioned this ?
I wonder if Summers or wife ever did a scintilla of research to find if the note actually existed...I mean it wouldn’t be too hard to track down the people who took the booking....it’s all there in the files ( no mention of the note though strangely ).*scintilla klaxon*
Hooray. I've finished watching it all now.As predicted , it’s proper pissed off the sceptics and trolls. At least they have their chart topping podcasts for comfort.
Here is my overall synopsis, It is a load of rehashed guff. If you know about the case & think you may learn more from watching it, I'm here to tell you, you wont.
If you're thinking of watching it, don't. There are better ways to spend 8 hours of your life.
Like reading a good book, going for a long walk in the countryside or perhaps repeatedly inserting red hot pokers into your eyeballs.
I don't know if it happened, that's why I keep asking.Why do you keep asking us?
I've had a sharp spike in my viewing figures on my blog.She was?? Who knew?
As I have not posted anything new for a fortnight, this started some head-scratching.
*%87
An item which has floated to the top of my stats is a very old post I did on Neil Berry. This appears to be related to Netflix.
I don't want to comment on Netflix until I get to the end, and at the moment, I am half-way through.
Members should be aware that Robbyn Swan is, or was, a poster on here, and language should be moderated accordingly.
&^^&*
Midway through Episode 8, we have Swann describing the note which stated the McCann's & Co were booked to dine in the Tapas & would be leaving their children in the apartments. This note was apparently on display in the restaurant & could serve as a green light for an abductor.Well if it’s a bare faced lie the Tapas Staff have the Portuguese media to go to, make a few bucks and expose it as such, not to mention Amaral himself (but then he’s a proven liar so probably best not to rely on him to be truthful).
Anyone seen this note in the files?
Wouldn’t she have been wet when returned to her parents ? Surely they would have mentioned this ?1) What time did the alleged incident occur?
Did the sceptics miss where Sandra Figuerras exposed the PJ as a bunch of liarsWhich episode was that?
Which episode was that?
I will have to check... I'm sure the sceptics can't have missed it.... I can't be accused of PJ bashing or xenophobia now.... I simply quote one if the McCanns biggest critics, who has now revealed that not only did the PJ leak information to her... They leaked liesI thought the interviews with Murat and Malinka were very revealing concerning PJ tactics. Not interested in the truth, only in getting a confession, which pretty much concurs with Kate’s experience.
Please someone do correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise one must wonder why would Summers invent such a thing?
Hooray. I've finished watching it all now.
Here is my overall synopsis, It is a load of rehashed guff. If you know about the case & think you may learn more from watching it, I'm here to tell you, you wont.
If you're thinking of watching it, don't. There are better ways to spend 8 hours of your life.
Like reading a good book, going for a long walk in the countryside or perhaps repeatedly inserting red hot pokers into your eyeballs.
I thought the interviews with Murat and Malinka were very revealing concerning PJ tactics. Not interested in the truth, only in getting a confession, which pretty much concurs with Kate’s experience.It shows the PJs preoccupation with confessions.... And of course supports Kate's claim
It shows the PJs preoccupation with confessions.... And of course supports Kate's claim
'I thought Gerry was guilty': Senior British police officer initially suspected Madeleine McCann’s father over her disappearance and 'tried to get him to confess', new documentary reveals
Did the sceptics miss where Sandra Figuerras exposed the PJ as a bunch of liars
Then we have the Neil Berry statement which bins two years of of CMOMM research... LOL...
And sceptics say there's nothing new in the films
Perhaps they told her the McCanns weren't suspecta when they were.
She commented on the McCanns too didn't she? Something about being 100% certain that they knew more than they were revealing?
Gamble was looking for a confession,he's not of the PJ is he?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6815151/Documentary-reveals-senior-police-officer-suspected-Madeleine-McCanns-father-disappearance.html
I thought the interviews with Murat and Malinka were very revealing concerning PJ tactics. Not interested in the truth, only in getting a confession, which pretty much concurs with Kate’s experience.
Then we have the Neil Berry statement which bins two years of of CMOMM research... LOL...
And sceptics say there's nothing new in the films
Perhaps they told her the McCanns weren't suspecta when they were.
She commented on the McCanns too didn't she? Something about being 100% certain that they knew more than they were revealing?
As predicted , it’s proper pissed off the sceptics and trolls. At least they have their chart topping podcasts for comfort.
ID Investigates Case of Missing Toddler in MADELEINE MCCANN: AN ID MURDER MYSTERY
Did he say Madeleine ended up in the water?Have you not watched it?
Some well respected commentators here believe “the cmomm nonsense “ cannot be ruled out!
Then its nothing new if it bins the cmomm nonsense is it?
Isn't it about time you faced up to what, a, shambles the oj investigation was... Why do you ignore the ckains by Figuerras...
Of course the supporters can still take comfort in the fact its still not been determined what crime as ben committed.
Netfflix are in the business of entertainment anyone who thought this docu would be revealing needs to get some coffee to smell.Its all white noise.Discovery are about to jump on the bandwagon,Madeleine the gift that keeps giving.
https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/ID-Investigates-Case-of-Missing-Toddler-in-MADELEINE-MCCANN-AN-ID-MURDER-MYSTERY-20190313
You choose to ignore a brit officer over a journalist?
You choose to ignore a brit officer over a journalist?
I take some satisfaction that having claimed the PJ didn't understand the evidence the film explained why...
I think it's been established what crime hasn't been committed... No parental involvenent
Sure, wheres that been written up then.You are in denial
Which Brit officer... Do you have a quote or just a claim by a, proven liar
You are in denial
of course gerry and kate are on their high horses and have been binge watching netflix to make sure no one said anything to offend themOh, do you have a camera set up in their lounge?
Yep,the earths flat.That pretty much sums it up I’m afraid.
SF says she made the point about dna report -I wonder how the sceptics will spin this volte face by their fave Portuguese Poster Girl?
“The last paragraph said exactly this ‘this sample is so minimum and is so common that we have plenty of people here with exactly the same mark.’ How can you talk about such a serious thing, a crime, neglecting all these issues that are absolutely important to understanding the case? And he said to me “Look, we have an evidence and our translator didn’t translate everything. He just translated the first paragraphs” “
Amaral: “I never informed Sandra Felgueiras about any of the details of the investigation “
SF: “That was my turning point. And when this happened, I understood that the intention of those cops that were inside the investigation was not honest.”
Didn’t Amaral also say in the programme that the interrogation of Kate only lasted two hours? Another blatant lie methinks.
I agree, she didn't sound well pleased with the PJ at all and who am I to question her.
But she didn't say she followed them around every day, and I wonder what makes think her think people dispose of bodies during the day. Night time when it's dark seems the logical time for that kind of thing to me.
I never heard that exact quote, i must have missed that bit, but I don't understand. Why do I need to listen again if she said that? Until night time, if that's exactly what she said, she confirmed my point exactly?
I agree, she didn't sound well pleased with the PJ at all and who am I to question her.
But she didn't say she followed them around every day, and I wonder what makes think her think people dispose of bodies during the day. Night time when it's dark seems the logical time for that kind of thing to me.
Ofcourse what she may have also said is- I follwed them for 12 hours daytime and sat awake outside their house for another 12 hours.. for months and can verify they did nothing. ^*&&
Ok let us look at what she did say. Now let us who didn't watch this be clear can we espout - "The McCanns are innocent I want to hug them". @)(++(*
It would appear that some 18 months after the release of the files, and at a time when she would have been aware that the PJ had allegedly sold her a pup, SF was still not convinced by the parents.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/11/gerry-mccann-ask-dogs-sandra.html
What she said was the PJ lied to her.. Confirming leajks against judicial secrecy...
She's convinced the PJ sold her a pup
And ?
Everyone was leaking. Gerry talked to Vanity Fair in January 2008, months before judicial secrecy was lifted. It really isn’t news.
It's news that the PJ lied to a Portuguese journalist and that the reason they misunderstood the forensics was because they only bothered to translate the first paragraph if the FSS report
It’s not news that the PJ were exaggerating the significance of the forensics, remember Martin Brunt’s ‘100 %’ DNA match to Madeleine. What is important then even after SF discovered this, once the PJ files were released, she was still asking awkward questions, as my link from 2009 shows.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/11/gerry-mccann-ask-dogs-sandra.html
Have you not watched it?
It's news they only translated the first paragraph
No, I haven't. I was content to hear what was said by others because I didn't think we would learn anything. However. I have learned that Neil Berry appeared in the programme with interesting information but I'm finding it difficult to discover exactly what he said. I may have to watch it myself because no-one seems prepared to enlighten me.
He said that his daughter’s one memory of Madeleine was of them on the boat with the kids club and her jumping off in to the sea to rescue his daughter’s sun hat.
She was?? Who knew?Me.
She's convinced the PJ sold her a pup
I thought the film portrayed rather well, the very very suspicious way imo, in which they all completely destroyed the crime scene. I never have understood the forensic logic by medically trained professionals who believed their apartment had been burgled and were a child down. I felt it followed the template of Panorama and proceeded to let those whom allege they believe an abduction took place, drown the few critical bits they included out, without challenge. The inclusion that Martin Smith had changed his mind, stripped a good deal of it's credibility imo. I find it difficult to believe that the producers where not aware of Gemma O'Doherty's report. I'm well aware that there those who are satisfied with this production but I'm not one of them. Are you allowed to say crap on here?
It all sounds rather remiss of the supervisors to allow a small child to leap out of a boat into the sea.
Presumably it was reported to MW at the time.
It all sounds rather remiss of the supervisors to allow a small child to leap out of a boat into the sea.
Presumably it was reported to MW at the time.
Yes, there doesn't seem to be mention of it in the Nannys statement? could the PJ have forgotten to write that down as well? mabeez mis translated.... Or maybe just made up by Miss Berry or her dad?
The Smiths changed their story? what really? Oh.. pity we couldn't hear that from the Smiths.
Did her father day she leapt out of the boat or is that newspaper hyperbole
Did her father day she leapt out of the boat or is that newspaper hyperbole
We agree on rather a lot. Your right, I'll stick with what Martin Smith said, and ignore that second hand stuff from Richard Bilton. 60 - 80% was it? Similar to Jane Tanner.
Madeleine probably leaned over the edge and got hoiked back.
You did watch the documentary, didn’t you ? That’s exactly what the gentleman said.
The gentleman didn't say that...
Yes, there doesn't seem to be mention of it in the Nannys statement? could the PJ have forgotten to write that down as well? mabeez mis translated.... Or maybe just made up by Miss Berry or her dad?
The Smiths changed their story? what really? Oh.. pity we couldn't hear that from the Smiths.
Did her father day she leapt out of the boat or is that newspaper hyperbole
Didn't it ever dawn on you that if he had seen his face, Martin Smith would have been 100%.
That's why he was only 60-80% I'm assuming. Did Jane Tanner see the man's face? She still told Oakley she was 80% certain that the photo they showed her of the man, was the abductor.
I have now watched Episode One and have listened to Neil Berry's account; something you don't seem to have done. I will eventually listen to everyrhing that was said as your accounts cannot be trusted to be accurate in my opinion.
Didn't it ever dawn on you that if he had seen his face, Martin Smith would have been 100%.
That's why he was only 60-80% I'm assuming. Did Jane Tanner see the man's face? She still told Oakley she was 80% certain that the photo they showed her of the man, was the abductor.
you claimed berry said...... Yes Berry did indeed say Madeleine launched herself off the boat and into the sea, ...faith claimed something similar as his actual words....you are both wrong and faith has now corrected herself.....so in accusing me of not listening youve made a bit of a fool of yourself...as you have not listened properly...LOL....
so as you have accused me of not listening properly to berry's account...could you provide a cite for ANYTHING I have said that is incorrect re his statement...you cant and you owe me an apology
You said
‘Did her father say she leapt out of the boat or is that newspaper hyperbole’
Didn’t realise you were playing semantics. Leapt, launched....it means the same.
you claimed berry said...... Yes Berry did indeed say Madeleine launched herself off the boat and into the sea, ...faith claimed something similar as his actual words....you are both wrong and faith has now corrected herself.....so in accusing me of not listening youve made a bit of a fool of yourself...as you have not listened properly...LOL....
so as you have accused me of not listening properly to berry's account...could you provide a cite for ANYTHING I have said that is incorrect re his statement...you cant and you owe me an apology
If you havent yet realised...her father didnt say either that she leapt or launched herself out of the boat...
so based on gunits own assessment ..nothing you or gunit say can be trusted...
if the paper did say that then its hyperbole...or lies ...whichever you prefer
If you havent yet realised...her father didnt say either that she leapt or launched herself out of the boat...
so based on gunits own assessment ..nothing you or gunit say can be trusted...
if the paper did say that then its hyperbole...or lies ...whichever you prefer
I apologise unreservedly. In my opinion you heard exactly what I heard and saw exactly what I saw (the clip of a child in the sea, added for effect). What you didn't do was report the whole of Berry's story. You missed out the bit about Madeleine launchimg herself into the water to rescue his child's hat. I asked you repeatedly to confirm what he said but you ignored me. So I withdraw ny accusation that you didn't listen properly, but because you missed out some important information I am still of the opinion that your reports are not to be trusted.
Perhaps you need to watch the programme again. Launched is exactly what he said.
So using whichever words you prefer, did Berry say that Madeleine McCann went into the sea off that boat or did he not?
I have finally gone and had a look. Yes Berry did indeed say Madeleine launched herself off the boat and into the sea, "much to the alarm of the Kid's Club Staff". He goes on to say that in the afternoon on the Thursday the kids were particularly tired...."sea air and being out on the boats all day"Whilst I am puzzled by that alleged new photo of Madeleine, from Neil Berry, because I don't recognise the location. Further, I can't fathom why the kids would erect a pool, when there was a perfectly good kid's pool close to block 5.
So what did the alarmed Kid's Club Staff do with this sopping wet child? How did she end up like this at lunchtime?
"Some images are etched for all time on my brain.
Madeleine that lunchtime is one of them. She was
wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday:
a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some
white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon
[madeleine]
In my opinion Neil Berry, Cat Baker and Kate McCann need to explain why none of them ever mentioned the incident he has just decided to reveal.
edited to add...he 100% did not say ,...off the boat...as you and faith have claimed
i think its most probable she leant over the side....into the sea to retrieve the hat...as Eleanor suggested...and was pulled back into the boat by the staff....what I think is without doubt that Maddie sailed on the thursday which bins two years of so called reserach by the so called experts on CMOMM
edited to add...he 100% did not say ,...off the boat...as you and faith have claimed
i think its most probable she leant over the side....into the sea to retrieve the hat...as Eleanor suggested...and was pulled back into the boat by the staff....what I think is without doubt that Maddie sailed on the thursday which bins two years of so called reserach by the so called experts on CMOMM
Exact words.
“.....Much to the alarm of the kids club staff who swiftly grabbed her and dragged her back into the boat.”
Exact words.
“.....Much to the alarm of the kids club staff who swiftly grabbed her and dragged her back into the boat.”
which impliess she was out of the boat.
Greatly exaggerated event and far from the truth I suspect.
which impliess she was out of the boat.it seems a point once described as trivial by you is suddenly important enough to debate
Greatly exaggerated event and far from the truth I suspect.
someone leaning over the side could well be described as being dragged baack into the boat
someone leaning over the side could well be described as being dragged baack into the boat
From the Independent, re the Netflix documentary -
“They were of a similar age and they became thick as thieves,” Berry says on the documentary.
“I remember they had been out sailing, which I thought was quite brave of the kids’ club that they took them out on the sea. They were together in the boat.
“Jessie’s only real recollection of the holiday was Jess lost her straw summer hat in the sea and Madeleine launching herself into the sea to recover it for her — much to the alarm of the kids’ club staff who swiftly grabbed her and dragged her back into the boat.”
Whilst I am puzzled by that alleged new photo of Madeleine, from Neil Berry, because I don't recognise the location. Further, I can't fathom why the kids would erect a pool, when there was a perfectly good kid's pool close to block 5.
*%87
A four year old is hardly likely to launch herself into the sea. Madeleine was on the boat, which seems to be the only point worth noting.
you need to think laterally...first..is it a pool or some other inflatable...second...pools arent always filled with water...sometimes balls
not necessarily completely out...hyprbole as I suggested....but an independent witness places her sailing on the 3rd
It is surely a parachute?
It's very similar to one used in Primary schools.
I used this often in gymn lessons.
The details of the incident are irrelevant.
The fact is that Madeleine was alive and well on this day.
It does rather put paid to the nonsense of the researcher's nonsense on CMOMM.
But then nonsense it always was!
Don't do it..... It will lower your IQ.
I'm halfway through episode 7 & have learned practically nothing I didn't already know. Where is the yawn emoji?!
Watching the final episode, it is claimed by Swan & Summers that Matt Oldfield heard a noise in the childrens bedroom during his check. As if to suggest an abductor was present.
This is utter horse shit. Nowhere in his statement, during the rogatory interview, nor, during the McCanns own reconstruction, Madeleine Was Here, does Oldfield ever mention such a thing.
Hooray. I've finished watching it all now.
Here is my overall synopsis, It is a load of rehashed guff. If you know about the case & think you may learn more from watching it, I'm here to tell you, you wont.
If you're thinking of watching it, don't. There are better ways to spend 8 hours of your life.
Like reading a good book, going for a long walk in the countryside or perhaps repeatedly inserting red hot pokers into your eyeballs.
Watched the first three parts last night which consisted of regurgitated old footage intersprinkled with comments by Summers and Swann, Jim Gamble, Sandra Felgueiras, Gonçalo Amaral and a few others. I thought this was supposed to be a piece of investigative journalism but all it appears to be is a story telling? Red Riding Hood would be off more interest.
Did the sceptics miss where Sandra Figuerras exposed the PJ as a bunch of liars
so you dont think Sandra F telling s the PJ lied to her and their intentions were not honest...thatbthey misunderstoofd the forensics because they only translated the first paragraph....i think thats new information
Is that it then, $20 million dollars down the drain for this? Have they not made any determination as to what really happened or as I suspect they are afraid of potential litigation?
You think this is something new? Cops liars? @)(++(*
The details of the incident are irrelevant.
The fact is that Madeleine was alive and well on this day.
It does rather put paid to the nonsense of the researcher's nonsense on CMOMM.
But then nonsense it always was!
You sound like Dave Edgar, he wasn't a detail person either. How can Madeleine going into the sea be irrelevant? In my opinion it requires clarification if a child went overboard during that sailing exercise. I would have thought a teacher would agree.
Did you think CMOMM were right? I never did, so I didn't need Berry to debunk it.
You sound like Dave Edgar, he wasn't a detail person either. How can Madeleine going into the sea be irrelevant? In my opinion it requires clarification if a child went overboard during that sailing exercise. I would have thought a teacher would agree.
Did you think CMOMM were right? I never did, so I didn't need Berry to debunk it.
You sound like Dave Edgar, he wasn't a detail person either. How can Madeleine going into the sea be irrelevant? In my opinion it requires clarification if a child went overboard during that sailing exercise. I would have thought a teacher would agree.
Did you think CMOMM were right? I never did, so I didn't need Berry to debunk it.
If Madeleine had actually jumped into the sea, wouldn't she have lost her own hat?
If she had fallen overboard, the whole incident would surely have had to be recorded.
Unless the safety procedures were utterly abysmal.
No formal statements were taken from either Alice Stanley or Chris Unsworth, the two sailing instructors - so presumably their accident records weren't checked.
I apologise if my previous reply was not appropriate, that was not it's intention, I'll soon learn. But if you got the chance to read it, I am sure you'll have noticed that I have fully considered that he may have been inebriated. Given that level of consideration, I can't help thinking if he got to the tapas after having a beer shortly before half eight and done his check at a little after nine, I fail to see how he could have possibly have got inebriated enough in that short time to remember the truth about the last time he seen his daughter incorrectly. Don't you feel after careful consideration, the idea that he remembered the truth about his check incorrectly because he was so inebriated, is a little far fetched? A critical point that was completely ignored by the film imo.
Again, I apoligise to everyone, but not for the level of consideration I have given your perfectly reasonable point, I am only sorry I posted it.
Some considerations are best kept to oneself, I understand that now.
I agree, she didn't sound well pleased with the PJ at all and who am I to question her.
But she didn't say she followed them around every day, and I wonder what makes think her think people dispose of bodies during the day. Night time when it's dark seems the logical time for that kind of thing to me.
I haven't viewed the Netflix series yet, did Madeleine retrieve the other little girls hat?
It's not confirmed one way or the other. The whole incident was the recollection of 4 year old J Berry so may not be entirely accurate.
I thought the film portrayed rather well, the very very suspicious way imo, in which they all completely destroyed the crime scene. I never have understood the forensic logic by medically trained professionals who believed their apartment had been burgled and were a child down. I felt it followed the template of Panorama and proceeded to let those whom allege they believe an abduction took place, drown the few critical bits they included out, without challenge. The inclusion that Martin Smith had changed his mind, stripped a good deal of it's credibility imo. I find it difficult to believe that the producers where not aware of Gemma O'Doherty's report. I'm well aware that there those who are satisfied with this production but I'm not one of them. Are you allowed to say crap on here?
Yes, there doesn't seem to be mention of it in the Nannys statement? could the PJ have forgotten to write that down as well? mabeez mis translated.... Or maybe just made up by Miss Berry or her dad?
The Smiths changed their story? what really? Oh.. pity we couldn't hear that from the Smiths.
So this is all going now where. What utter regurgitated crap.
I don't think the nannys would want to say anything which could have reflected badly on their supervision of the children.
I apologise unreservedly. In my opinion you heard exactly what I heard and saw exactly what I saw (the clip of a child in the sea, added for effect). What you didn't do was report the whole of Berry's story. You missed out the bit about Madeleine launchimg herself into the water to rescue his child's hat. I asked you repeatedly to confirm what he said but you ignored me. So I withdraw ny accusation that you didn't listen properly, but because you missed out some important information I am still of the opinion that your reports are not to be trusted.
Davel did admit on the day the documentary was released that he only skim watched the episodes.for the record
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10613.msg515685#msg515685
If Madeleine had fallen into the sea and may have swallowed any sea water, surely the nannies would have been duty bound to tell her parents incase of any complications.
One would have thought so but self preservation usually takes precedence.
Do I sound like Dave Edgar?
Is that a compliment?
Why the need to be so personal?
Just to reassure you that if a pupil of mine had "gone into the sea", there would certainly have been a very detailed report logged
I never suspected for one moment that you would ever believe the nonsense on CMOMM.
I credit you with far more intelligence than to believe such rubbish.
Then she would.have to have to be thoroughly dried, her hair and clothes dried before being returned.to her parents.
I doubt it very much.
IMO she tried to reach over and grab the.hat, was pulled back and that was it.
The.details are irrelevant.
It just proves the irrelevance and stupidity of the.theory promoted elsewhere.
I don't imagine.you ever put any credence to it.either.
Dave Edgar told Jane Tanner it didn't matter where she, Gerry and Jes were located, what mattered was what she saw. From his viewpoint he was right, because he was looking for an abductor, nothing else. I thnk you;re probably coming at things from the same direction.
Schools and holiday companies are, of course, different things. Mark Warner had a good reputation but were exposed as less than perfect by an uncover BBC journalist posing as a Mark Warner nannyl
Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications.
Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-526248/The-shocking-truth-daycare-nurseries-creches.html
Finally, as no-one shares CMOMM's theory I wonder why it gets mentioned?
Dave Edgar told Jane Tanner it didn't matter where she, Gerry and Jes were located, what mattered was what she saw. From his viewpoint he was right, because he was looking for an abductor, nothing else. I thnk you;re probably coming at things from the same direction.
Schools and holiday companies are, of course, different things. Mark Warner had a good reputation but were exposed as less than perfect by an uncover BBC journalist posing as a Mark Warner nannyl
Next, I was asked to supervise the children on the beach. Again, no one had checked if I had any swimming or rescue qualifications.
Even more worrying, I had to take children out on a boat without enough safety gear for all of them. When I raised the issue with my manager, he told me to go ahead with the boat trip anyway.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-526248/The-shocking-truth-daycare-nurseries-creches.html
Finally, as no-one shares CMOMM's theory I wonder why it gets mentioned?
Very good question and the answer, imo is we shouldn't. Kate McCann is a self confessed liar, why should we believe her and her husband?
Then she would.have to have to be thoroughly dried, her hair and clothes dried before being returned.to her parents.
I doubt it very much.
IMO she tried to reach over and grab the.hat, was pulled back and that was it.
The.details are irrelevant.
It just proves the irrelevance and stupidity of the.theory promoted elsewhere.
I don't imagine.you ever put any credence to it.either.
This is how Netflix illustrated Berry's narrative so they seem to think he meant Madeleine went overboard;
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f74/18/78/57/39/screen27.png)
It's mentioned because people like you refer to it as a good source of information... Its the leading sceptic site...it's good to show how misguided these sceptics are
Have you ever been in a small dingy in the sea? Getting wet is a certainty regardless of whether one goes into the water or not.
Surely these kids would have been in swimming wear anyway?
It is a good source of factual information and links, which is what I'm interested in, not theories.
The adults, according to Fiona Payne, wore wetsuits provided by MW. I expect the children were too.
It is a good source of factual information and links, which is what I'm interested in, not theories.
You claimed that SF was now a supporter of the parents now she understood the evidence, yet fail to explain why, if she learned of the PJ’s deception after the files were released, she was still asking awkward questions about the dogs etc some 18 months later ?Perhaps she was still denial at that stage like some of you still are 10 years later. Clearly she has come to her senses now, sometimes it takes a while forthe penny to finally drop.
I have finally gone and had a look. Yes Berry did indeed say Madeleine launched herself off the boat and into the sea, "much to the alarm of the Kid's Club Staff". He goes on to say that in the afternoon on the Thursday the kids were particularly tired...."sea air and being out on the boats all day"@)(++(* Frustrating though it may be for you they don’t actually have to do a damn thing to answer the queries of conspiracy theorists.
So what did the alarmed Kid's Club Staff do with this sopping wet child? How did she end up like this at lunchtime?
"Some images are etched for all time on my brain.
Madeleine that lunchtime is one of them. She was
wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday:
a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some
white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon
[madeleine]
In my opinion Neil Berry, Cat Baker and Kate McCann need to explain why none of them ever mentioned the incident he has just decided to reveal.
Whilst I am puzzled by that alleged new photo of Madeleine, from Neil Berry, because I don't recognise the location. Further, I can't fathom why the kids would erect a pool, when there was a perfectly good kid's pool close to block 5.@)(++(* That was not a pool.
*%87
And anyone with a scintilla of sense knew that.*scintilla klaxon*
You sound like Dave Edgar, he wasn't a detail person either. How can Madeleine going into the sea be irrelevant? In my opinion it requires clarification if a child went overboard during that sailing exercise. I would have thought a teacher would agree.Are you now saying that death before the 3rd can be ruled out, because that’s not what you were saying a few days ago.
Did you think CMOMM were right? I never did, so I didn't need Berry to debunk it.
@)(++(* That was not a pool.According to the Independent, it was.
They have absolutely no sense of irony.
I can't believe people are arguing the intricacies of a quote made, about something that is hearsay and taken from a child aged 4 and a half. If he wasn't on the boat and no statements have been made by the staff on the boats then what's the point of arguing launched or whatever?Well exactly. It now seems to be the most important part of the whole programme but IMO it’s being used as an excuse to deflect from the real issues the Nextflix documentary highlights, eg the appalling stupidity and duplicity and threatening tactics of the PJ.
According to the Independent, it was.&%%6 Why does it not make any sense?
Parachute makes no sense either.
*%87
I think neither side has.
Have Netflix come up with a scenario? of what happened.
Have Netflix come up with a scenario? of what happened.
Hardly - they're an entertainment channel, not investigative journalists.@)(++(*. I am just loving the sour grapes on this thread.
No formal statements were taken from either Alice Stanley or Chris Unsworth, the two sailing instructors - so presumably their accident records weren't checked.They aren't in the released files. I think this incident has been kept hush hush all along.
They aren't in the released files. I think this incident has been kept hush hush all along.
Even if it had been kept quiet, hypothetically why would 2 doctors need to cover up a possible death due to, for example, secondary drowning or head injury? It doesn't make sense.
&%%6 Why does it not make any sense?Would you send up a 3 year old on a parachute that size????
Would you send up a 3 year old on a parachute that size????
*&^^&
Would you send up a 3 year old on a parachute that size????
*&^^&
Even if it had been kept quiet, hypothetically why would 2 doctors need to cover up a possible death due to, for example, secondary drowning or head injury? It doesn't make sense.I think Kate revealed what she knew. It appears all the McCanns knew was that Madeleine was tired that day.
"The dog handler said Eddie didn't alert in any other situation except when he scented that which he was seeking: the scent of a human cadaver."
I see the sun are saying the dogs alerted to cadaver,now a journalist from Portugal seems to have been given some prominence as if her word is her bond,so it must follow that this is the same.Poorly researched article IMO.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8650740/url-madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-blood-praia-da-luz/
Would you send up a 3 year old on a parachute that size????Pardin? *%87
*&^^&
I see the sun are saying the dogs alerted to cadaver,now a journalist from Portugal seems to have been given some prominence as if her word is her bond,so it must follow that this is the same.Is this supposed to be news? I think this journalist had probably not watched beyond episode 4 before filing this copy.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8650740/url-madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-blood-praia-da-luz/
I can't believe people are arguing the intricacies of a quote made, about something that is hearsay and taken from a child aged 4 and a half. If he wasn't on the boat and no statements have been made by the staff on the boats then what's the point of arguing launched or whatever?
I think it may be more than odd imo. We are being asked to accept he got three basic facts wrong. He told us Kate used the key as well remember, given they also told us they had been using the open patio door for previous evenings. How could he forget that as well? Was his recollection of the previous evenings impaired as well? That's four things. Just how he could get all that wrong in such a short space of time is something I'm not prepared to accept without hard physical evidence to the contrary. Circumstantial evidence, is still evidence imo. Anyone who is ignoring that circumstantial evidence is in denial imo.We had two posters today who couldn't read and repeat a simple sentence correctly.. So if a portugues listened to Gerry... Paraphrased what he said the translated it into Portuguese... I'd say anyone who doesn't see the enormous room for error is in denial
Are you now saying that death before the 3rd can be ruled out, because that’s not what you were saying a few days ago.
Things are ruled in or out by evidence, not opinion.Does the evidence not rule out dead before 3rd May?
I'd say anyone who has proof that Gerry cannot read should show us it now. The fact is, he did sign it.He can't read Portuguese...
Things are ruled in or out by evidence, not opinion.
Would you send up a 3 year old on a parachute that size????
*&^^&
I'd say anyone who is asking us to accept that Gerry signed a document that he couldn't read is needing their examined. @)(++(*I'm afraid that's a fact... The document Gerry signed was in portuguese
We had bean bags, but nowadays they have things we've never heard of;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playground_parachute
I can't believe people are arguing the intricacies of a quote made, about something that is hearsay and taken from a child aged 4 and a half. If he wasn't on the boat and no statements have been made by the staff on the boats then what's the point of arguing launched or whatever?
Perhaps you should have a little more respect for the forum and it's members... The forum would not exist if it wasn't for the members, debating topics... Whether you find them important is of no importanceI have little respect for those arguing the finer details of something that is hearsay and was never reported by anyone that was here to witness it. My respect will and is given to those that adhere to the facts and not this that would try to derail with trivial matters.
I have little respect for those arguing the finer details of something that is hearsay and was never reported by anyone that was here to witness it. My respect will and is given to those that adhere to the facts and not this that would try to derail with trivial matters.
You haven't lived if you've never joined in this game, Shining. ?{)(**
https://www.google.com/search?q=parachute+games+for+toddlers&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2ceEsofhAhUBQxUIHWAdAWMQ_AUIECgD&biw=1366&bih=625
They've been part of the gymn equipment in schools for years.
The children loved when the parachute was included in the gymn lesson.
I loved it too.
My children played games with it at Pre-School over 20 years ago and, as a parent volunteer, I was obliged to participate.....the children of today have so much we didn't.
I think it may be more than odd imo. We are being asked to accept he got three basic facts wrong. He told us Kate used the key as well remember, given they also told us they had been using the open patio door for previous evenings. How could he forget that as well? Was his recollection of the previous evenings impaired as well? That's four things. Just how he could get all that wrong in such a short space of time is something I'm not prepared to accept without hard physical evidence to the contrary. Circumstantial evidence, is still evidence imo. Anyone who is ignoring that circumstantial evidence is in denial imo.
I see the sun are saying the dogs alerted to cadaver,now a journalist from Portugal seems to have been given some prominence as if her word is her bond,so it must follow that this is the same.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8650740/url-madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-blood-praia-da-luz/
I'm afraid that's a fact... The document Gerry signed was in portuguese
It would have been read to him in English.
We don't have a record of what was read to him in english
When are you people going to face facts? The McCanns are not guilty, they are not being investigated apart from by self-appointed armchair detectives. You are all wasting your time examining your precious discrepancies and voicing your doubts, but do carry on - you are at least providing me with a certain amount of entertainment.
I am finding it strangely riveting, despite the fact that we have heard most of it all before.I am impressed both by the content and the excellent way in which it has been presented. Initially I scoffed at the notion of eight programmes ... but I stand corrected. In the knowledge that many of the facts outlined could well have benefited from a more in depth look, I now think there would have been enough information to fill many more programmes.
@)(++(*. I am just loving the sour grapes on this thread.I feel the documentary could have gone so much further. Naughty of me I know, but I did approve of the not so subtle way in which they used Amaral's statements to camera against him without any commentator having to say a word ... the film said it all. Condemned from his own mouth?
We don't have a record of what was read to him in english
I feel the documentary could have gone so much further. Naughty of me I know, but I did approve of the not so subtle way in which they used Amaral's statements to camera against him without any commentator having to say a word ... the film said it all. Condemned from his own mouth?
I feel the documentary could have gone so much further. Naughty of me I know, but I did approve of the not so subtle way in which they used Amaral's statements to camera against him without any commentator having to say a word ... the film said it all. Condemned from his own mouth?He certainly comes across very badly and quite sinister too IMO.
I have always found the involvement of the Kennedys curious. Why would the multi millionaire Mr Everest Double Glazing involve himself and his son Patrick to the extent he did. Was he after the publicity?
Doesn't/didn't he have a big villa in Luz?
I think Patrick Kennedy thought he was in the wild west, chasing supposed paedophiles around and kicking doors down, he knew what they were doing was illegal but didn't care anyway. What an idiot! Money sure does inspire arrogance.Arrested by whom?
Brian Kennedy interfering with a material witness and suspect takes the biscuit. Bugging Murat's car should have seen them all arrested, maybe soon.
I have always found the involvement of the Kennedys curious. Why would the multi millionaire Mr Everest Double Glazing involve himself and his son Patrick to the extent he did. Was he after the publicity?He explained why in the programme. He wanted to help. Maybe he is just a kind man with the resources to help a family in distress. Is that so hard to believe, or is everyone associated with the McCanns a complete shit in your book?
He explained why in the programme. He wanted to help. Maybe he is just a kind man with the resources to help a family in distress. Is that so hard to believe, or is everyone associated with the McCanns a complete shit in your book?
I think Kennedy was completely out of his depth and should have concentrated his efforts on rugby and double glazing. All he did was muddy the waters and alienate potential witnesses.I’m sure he would have been grateful of the advice if only you could have given it sooner.
Majorca
Unless you think he can read Portuguese I suggest you accept my post.
That sounds like a great idea, I'll stick with my read, signed and ratified document and you stick with Colin Sutton's suggestion.
Interesting Kennedy section. Kennedy believed that Tanner’s sighting was the most important piece of evidence in the case. Of course we now know that at least one of the parent’s sets of PIs thought Tanner wasn’t a credible witness and that OG has all but debunked the ‘Tannerman as the abductor’ premise.
Kennedy commissioned the Tannerman efit and went all gung-ho to get it out in the media. If there was ever an example of why the public shouldn’t get involved in police work this is it.
Also interesting was when the film of Tanner’s sighting was shown there was absolutely no mention of her seeing Gerry. I think even the producers thought that would be stretching credibility a little too far.
Interesting Kennedy section. Kennedy believed that Tanner’s sighting was the most important piece of evidence in the case. Of course we now know that at least one of the parent’s sets of PIs thought Tanner wasn’t a credible witness and that OG has all but debunked the ‘Tannerman as the abductor’ premise.It’s not important. The programme makes it clear Gerry had alibis at the time of the Smith sighting, do try to accept this.
Kennedy commissioned the Tannerman efit and went all gung-ho to get it out in the media. If there was ever an example of why the public shouldn’t get involved in police work this is it.
Also interesting was when the film of Tanner’s sighting was shown there was absolutely no mention of her seeing Gerry. I think even the producers thought that would be stretching credibility a little too far.
The archiving report report makes it even clearer that Gerry's alibis remain unclarified.Exactly how does it do that?
Midway through Episode 8, we have Swann describing the note which stated the McCann's & Co were booked to dine in the Tapas & would be leaving their children in the apartments. This note was apparently on display in the restaurant & could serve as a green light for an abductor.
Anyone seen this note in the files?
Sorry, it does it imo... and here's why. The report clearly states regarding the reconstruction that the investigation was disturbed because the said facts remain unclarified. Those very same said facts it's referring to, include establishing Gerry's alibi. In light of those facts, the program may make Gerry's alibis clear to you and some others opinion...but my opinion takes much more satisfying. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
What about the Smith family's timeline, given both men placed themselves in Kelly's Bar for 60 mins after they left Dolphin restaurant at 9pm, making sighting of stranger + child as around 10pm? The reality was the family didn't leave Dolphin until 9.29pm as per the till receipt....so what time did Gerry really need an alibi for?
I remember this info from the very early days
Sorry, it does it imo... and here's why. The report clearly states regarding the reconstruction that the investigation was disturbed because the said facts remain unclarified. Those very same said facts it's referring to, include establishing Gerry's alibi. In light of those facts, the program may make Gerry's alibis clear to you and some others opinion...but my opinion takes much more satisfying. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
The three statements taken from the Smiths place their departure from Kelly’s bar anywhere from 21.50 to 22.00. By Gerry’s timeline Kate raised the alarm around 10.13. Even at the later time it wouldn’t take an individual 13 minutes to be seen by the Smiths, dump a body and be back at the tapas bar by 10.13.
They've been part of the gymn equipment in schools for years.
The children loved when the parachute was included in the gymn lesson.
I loved it too.
Welcome back, Vixte. :)
Wasn't it more important to establish the correct time of the sighting before looking at Gerry's alibi? How many drinks did the Smiths have in Kelly's - did no-one ever ask them? Both adult males estimated time spent in Kelly's Bar as around an hour which is considerably longer than the 25mins using Aoife's timings.
The correct time of the sighting, give or take ten minutes, was agreed by all three witnesses.
What about the Smith family's timeline, given both men placed themselves in Kelly's Bar for 60 mins after they left Dolphin restaurant at 9pm, making sighting of stranger + child as around 10pm? The reality was the family didn't leave Dolphin until 9.29pm as per the till receipt....so what time did Gerry really need an alibi for?
Gerry alibi is him telling Kate to leave the table to check at exactly 22:03 and she was gone about 10 minutes. So that rules out Gerry being Smithman. He couldn't be there but that exact time (missing in earlier timelines) is crucial for another reason! They will prove where he really was!
....as was the Tapas 9 timeline. So why does one need to be reconstituted to verify who was where & when but the Smith family timeline & its obvious discrepancies with electronic data doesn't? Surely both were essential to the PJ in the absence of the CCTV which would have shown Smiths returning to Estrela da Luz & possibly the passing abductor. This is pivotal to Amaral's accusations in both his book & the Netflix documentary.
The Smiths returned for a reconstitution.
Bean bags? - luxury. We 'ad a swing made out of a bit of knotted rope and an old plank.
Well that's nearly eight hours I won't get back. So disappointed that what promised to be an investigative documentary is nothing more than an attempted review of everything that has gone before. The entire documentary appears to have a predisposition towards abduction, I don't believe the words woke and wandered were mentioned once? All reference to Marcos Aragão Correia has been conveniently obliterated as has his involvement with Método 3 and Brian Kennedy. The Smith e-fits are mentioned but all reference to them being withheld is again omitted. The refusal by the tapas 7 to take part in a reconstruction is never mentioned but criticisms of the Portuguese police and Amaral is sprinkled freely throughout the documentary. Nil ponts to Netflix for their so-called investigative abilities but good cinematography all the same.
Netflix certainly came up with one very important fact... The PJ did not understand the forensic evidence... And they didn't understand it because they didn't translate, and read the whole of the report... Sheer incompetence.. Neither did they understand the dog alerts.. Amarals teams role in the prosecution of cipriano was, also brought to thevpublics, attention..8@??)(
We've had the Portuguese accusing the mccanns of involvement fir the last, eleven years... I think Netflix showed the PJ for what they were... Incompetent and according to Sandra F... Dishonest... We'll done Netflix
The three statements taken from the Smiths place their departure from Kelly’s bar anywhere from 21.50 to 22.00. By Gerry’s timeline Kate raised the alarm around 10.13. Even at the later time it wouldn’t take an individual 13 minutes to be seen by the Smiths, dump a body and be back at the tapas bar by 10.13.Still clinging to the ludicrous notion that Gerry (a completely untrustworthy and mendacious character by your own assessment) should tell the truth once and once only thus blowing his perfectly constructed alibi out of the water. It’s high time you face reality and own up to the fact that this is complete nonsense. IMO.
I think the biggest and most important question is.. What is, the evidence that the parents, are involved... This is what Netflix chose to investigate and answer.... And I think they did...You only had to listen to what journalist Sandra Felgueiras had to say on the matter bearing in mind the way she went for the jugular in many interviews and articles.
You only had to listen to what journalist Sandra Felgueiras had to say on the matter bearing in mind the way she went for the jugular in many interviews and articles.She also came across as highly earnest and credible (and genuinely remorseful) whereas IMO Amaral came across as shifty and dishonest, and frankly quite repellent.
She believed what her police sources were telling her at the time.
The knowledge that the police consistently lied to her and fed her lies about Kate and Gerry throughout the investigation.
She believed what she was told about the 'strange behaviour'.
She believed what she was told about 'CALPOL'.
She believed what she was told about the dog 'evidence'.
She could not emphasise enough in the Netflix film her embarrassment about the lies she had spread about Kate and Gerry as a direct result of lies the police had fed her.
She demanded answers from Amaral, long suspected of being her informant and therefore the source of the lies, when the truth became apparent.
Still clinging to the ludicrous notion that Gerry (a completely untrustworthy and mendacious character by your own assessment) should tell the truth once and once only thus blowing his perfectly constructed alibi out of the water. It’s high time you face reality and own up to the fact that this is complete nonsense. IMO.Sandra Felgueiras managed to realise the truth immediately she read the FSS report when the files were released.
Jayne Jensen knew Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins because she was in the same tennis coaching group as they were.
She also gives new information. She says she saw and spoke to Jez after the alarm was raised. Jez and his wife both said he didn't go out at all after about 9.30pm. They also say he only learned of Madeleine's disappearance at 1am on 4th.
Jayne Jensen knew Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins because she was in the same tennis coaching group as they were.
She also gives new information. She says she saw and spoke to Jez after the alarm was raised. Jez and his wife both said he didn't go out at all after about 9.30pm. They also say he only learned of Madeleine's disappearance at 1am on 4th.
You only had to listen to what journalist Sandra Felgueiras had to say on the matter bearing in mind the way she went for the jugular in many interviews and articles.
She believed what her police sources were telling her at the time.
The knowledge that the police consistently lied to her and fed her lies about Kate and Gerry throughout the investigation.
She believed what she was told about the 'strange behaviour'.
She believed what she was told about 'CALPOL'.
She believed what she was told about the dog 'evidence'.
She could not emphasise enough in the Netflix film her embarrassment about the lies she had spread about Kate and Gerry as a direct result of lies the police had fed her.
She demanded answers from Amaral, long suspected of being her informant and therefore the source of the lies, when the truth became apparent.
I completely agree, that means he simply cannot be believed, I have no trouble whatsoever with that opinion but it gives me reassurance reading your post that I am in entirely correct to hold the exact same opinion towards Kate and Gerry McCann.
What she said in her book is unequivocal. They lied ... and they knowingly broadcast those lies to a worldwide audience. I believe Kate's book and Gerry's blog confirm that is an established fact.
I completely agree, that means he simply cannot be believed, I have no trouble whatsoever with that opinion but it gives me reassurance reading your post that I am in entirely correct to hold the exact same opinion towards Kate and Gerry McCann.
What she said in her book is unequivocal. They lied ... and they knowingly broadcast those lies to a worldwide audience. I believe Kate's book and Gerry's blog confirm that is an established fact.
Jayne Jensen knew Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins because she was in the same tennis coaching group as they were.1am or 1 pm?
She also gives new information. She says she saw and spoke to Jez after the alarm was raised. Jez and his wife both said he didn't go out at all after about 9.30pm. They also say he only learned of Madeleine's disappearance at 1am on 4th.
I have no problem accepting what Amaral was convicted of. I acknowledge I am not prepared to accept his word as the truth. You can view the lies the parents told to a lesser degree if you wish, but those lies prove beyond any reasonable doubt to me, the very fact they were quite prepared to tell lies in the first place. There should have been no reason to tell lies at all imo. They chose to ignore the honest and dignified option of saying nothing at all, to knowingly tell lies. I take no pleasure from that fact, but it's now an established fact nevertheless. That fact imo, means we may never know what Kate was trying to do. I find that sad.
All I do know is, like Amaral, they lied, so how can I believe a word they say? The fact is, I can't and imo one one can.
I find it astonishing that people who claim to be interested in discovering the truth about what happened to the child, can agree with you. There are lies and there are lies? In this case, not imo. That's yours.
1am or 1 pm?
I had dinner, watched a DVD and went to bed at about 11 pm.And what time did Jayne Jensen say she saw Jez?
The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I learnt to be John and one of Jerry's friends. I think his name was Matt. He is white, slim, and tall with greying hair. From previous conversations I learnt him to be a diabetics specialist. We met him o the way to the destination. Matt said XXXXX to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
Amaral got a prison sentence for some of his lies. Kate hasn't even been arrested, and never will be.He told a couple of whoppers in he Netflix documentary. He just can’t help it IMO.
So you highlight discrepancies in these statements... Are these people lying or is it just the statements, are not accurate
He told a couple of whoppers in he Netflix documentary. He just can’t help it IMO.
Jayne Jensen knew Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins because she was in the same tennis coaching group as they were.It’s not new information, she revealed it in an interview in 2007
She also gives new information. She says she saw and spoke to Jez after the alarm was raised. Jez and his wife both said he didn't go out at all after about 9.30pm. They also say he only learned of Madeleine's disappearance at 1am on 4th.
And what time did Jayne Jensen say she saw Jez?
The time is irrelevant as he and his wife say he didn't go out at any time that night after returning with his son.The time IS relevant because any time she met him next would be after the alarm was raised. Mountains out of molehills time again methinks, to distract from the obvious.
The one thing that did really get driven home to me at the end of episode one and the beginning of episode two, was the true level of danger those children were being abandoned in. It may not be the most popular view, but for the extra fact they allege they left the door unlocked, imo they she should have been. There are enough examples of cases where parents were arrested for far less.
I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm being honest.
A lot of people did the same thing, me included. Abduction?
The children were not Abandoned.
A lot of people did the same thing, me included. Abduction?When all else fails return to the “neglect” issue.
The children were not Abandoned.
Did it claim it would reveal what happened and how?
Just because you did it does it make it right,its subjective,still with the nexflix thing I notice no one has said it identifies what crime was committed and how.
Also, why is thr Smiths sighting given so much attention, but not Jayne Jensens alleged sighting of Robert Murat on the evening of the 3rd?
The one thing that did really get driven home to me at the end of episode one and the beginning of episode two, was the true level of danger those children were being abandoned in. It may not be the most popular view, but for the extra fact they allege they left the door unlocked, imo they she should have been. There are enough examples of cases where parents were arrested for far less.
I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm being honest.
Did it claim it would reveal what happened and how?
Just because you did it does it make it right,its subjective,still with the nexflix thing I notice no one has said it identifies what crime was committed and how.
When all else fails return to the “neglect” issue.We wouldn't be there talking about this today if they had taken the proper parental responsibilities of ensuring the safety of their children. It's the crux of the issue, which is why I imagine people keep returning to it.
We wouldn't be there talking about this today if they had taken the proper parental responsibilities of ensuring the safety of their children. It's the crux of the issue, which is why I imagine people keep returning to it.
If The McCanns had been told that there were Burglars and Paedophiles about, do you think they would have done it?
It’s not new information, she revealed it in an interview in 2007
As they and the other holidaymakers combed the area, Mrs Jensen met another member of her tennis coaching group, TV producer Jez Wilkins.
"Jez told me it was Gerry's daughter we were looking for. I hadn't realised before that moment
"Jez said that he knew Gerry had checked the children because he had met him coming back from the apartment."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
If The McCanns had been told that there were Burglars and Paedophiles about, do you think they would have done it?I've been on many holidays with my children and nobody warned us about potential dangers, that didn't stop me and millions of other parents negating them by being responsible parents.
We wouldn't be there talking about this today if they had taken the proper parental responsibilities of ensuring the safety of their children. It's the crux of the issue, which is why I imagine people keep returning to it.How do you know? Has no child ever been abducted from its bedroom when the parents were home asleep?
Reading that article I get the impression it was the folloeing day when she spoke to Jez, but as he told her who the child belonged to that now seems unlikely because she must have learned that the previous evening.I fail to see what point you are trying to make with this.
MR: That has been one key line of enquiry. The reality is in any urban area, you cast your net wide and you find a whole range of offences and sex offenders who live nearby and those coincidences need to be sifted out; what is a coincidence and what could be linked to the investigation we are currently dealing with and just like we do in London we have been doing in Portugal so offences which could be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out and that’s the work we have been doing.
The circumstances under which those children were left sleeping is not a crime, even in Portugal.
They have something to do with the dissappearence? ,linky if they have.
Smithman remains unidentified, as far as we know.Why is no one seemingly interested in the possibility that Murat was seen outside on the night of October 3rd?
Why is no one seemingly interested in the possibility that Murat was seen outside on the night of October 3rd?
How do you know? Has no child ever been abducted from its bedroom when the parents were home asleep?You do everything you can as a parent to ensure the safety of your child, nobody can protect their child 100% from all risks, obviously. You reduce those risks as much as you can.
I've been on many holidays with my children and nobody warned us about potential dangers, that didn't stop me and millions of other parents negating them by being responsible parents.
They paid the ultimate price for their neglect and I am sure it will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
And you’re surprised by this why?
Then its just as it was expected to be,an entertainment,thats the business of Netflix and the like.
You do everything you can as a parent to ensure the safety of your child, nobody can protect their child 100% from all risks, obviously. You reduce those risks as much as you can.Why do you think that? What do you think would have happened in such a circumstance?
I do think we would be having a much different conversation had Madeline been abducted from the locked apartment while the family slept and I am sure the initial investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner.
It wasn't neglect, and not a crime in Portugal.You putting words in my mouth now?
The time IS relevant because any time she met him next would be after the alarm was raised. Mountains out of molehills time again methinks, to distract from the obvious.
You putting words in my mouth now?
You said, "Neglect." I said it wasn't.
I never mentioned it being a crime, and it was IMO as a parent, neglect. 'fail to care for properly.'
I fail to see what point you are trying to make with this.
Does it matter if Jez Wulkins says he didn't go out and someone says he did? Probably not, but it's worthy of note. Especially when it appears in a supposedly well researched very expensive documentary. Who checked the 'facts' I wonder? No-one imo.
I don't follpw, sorry. Are you suggesting it was the following morning when she learned whose child had gone missing?No, I never said that. What are you suggesting?
Does it matter if Jez Wulkins says he didn't go out and someone says he did? Probably not, but it's worthy of note. Especially when it appears in a supposedly well researched very expensive documentary. Who checked the 'facts' I wonder? No-one imo.Can you provide a cite for Jayne Jensen saying she saw Jez Wilkins that night? Do you think Jane Jensen's account of seeing Robert Murat that night is relevant?
You do everything you can as a parent to ensure the safety of your child, nobody can protect their child 100% from all risks, obviously. You reduce those risks as much as you can.
I do think we would be having a much different conversation had Madeline been abducted from the locked apartment while the family slept and I am sure the initial investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner.
If the abductor had a key then I believe Madeleine could have been taken from her bed when her parents were at home asleep.
You say the investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner if the McCann's had been home when Madeleine disappeared. Are you saying the Police had a different manner of looking for a missing child if the parents weren't there? That's ridiculous.
"Initial investigation'
If you cannot see the differences then I cannot help you. Maybe I see things slightly differently having been in the police, I'm being kind and polite.
"Initial investigation'
If you cannot see the differences then I cannot help you. Maybe I see things slightly differently having been in the police, I'm being kind and polite.
[/quote
No please tell me the difference, this is a child missing the Police should investigate the same whether the parents were home or not. IMO
Re read what I actually said. Until then you don't deserve my time. Here I'll help you.
I do think we would be having a much different conversation had Madeline been abducted from the locked apartment while the family slept and I am sure the initial investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner.
And I stand by that, although I will leave you to work it out as you appear to be misrepresenting what I am saying, so I'll ignore you.
Re read what I actually said. Until then you don't deserve my time.
"Initial investigation'I'd like you to expand on this, what with you being in the police and all. How would the police have investigated this differently if the McCanns had been home at the time of the disappearance?
If you cannot see the differences then I cannot help you. Maybe I see things slightly differently having been in the police, I'm being kind and polite.
I'd like you to expand on this, what with you being in the police and all. How would the police have investigated this differently if the McCanns had been home at the time of the disappearance?
I do think we would be having a much different conversation had Madeline been abducted from the locked apartment while the family slept and I am sure the initial investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner.I know what you wrote and I am now asking you to explain in what way it would have been "far different".
I agree with everything you say. But, just how naive was she? This wasn't the first time that The PJ had done this. How many innocent people finished up convicted by the likes of her believing that they were privileged to receive "True" information by dint of corrupt PJ Officers breaking the sacrosanct Secrecy Laws?
She was used, but she is far from blameless.
I've watched two parts of the Netflix documentary so far. Can't believe Amaral saying that he told the McCann's he would do everything he could to find their daughter. Kate said the first time they met him was at court.
Also the questioning of Murat, he said he wasn't functioning afterwards, found it hard to string a sentence together, curled up in a chair when he got home. Imagine what it was like for Kate, and some wonder why she refused to answer those questions, they were trying to frame her. IMO
Amaral has been caught out in lies, Kate has admitted to lying. Tell me why we should believe either of them ?Kate owned up of her own volition, in her own book, to telling a lie, something she said at the time they did not enjoy doing but that needs must to respect judicial secrecy. When did Amaral EVER admit to lying about anything at all? He is shameless and barefaced.
Here's a few quotes from an ex met detective that pretty much describe it. And I stand by what I said, whether I am misquoted or not.
“The question is do you treat it like a crime scene that needs to be preserved right from the start or is the most likely explanation that she wandered off? The Portuguese police were widely criticised for not sealing off the scene, making it a crime scene.
“But if there is a chance the missing girl could be wandering around lost in the immediate area, then that rightly takes priority. You are prioritising searching the immediate area rather than sealing off the scene.
“If there is sign of a violent struggle or forced entry then it would be different, but that wasn’t the case with Madeleine’s disappearance.
“If there was sign of forced entry, then your thinking starts going down the line of crime rather than just a missing person. But in the absence of any evidence your natural thought is she has wandered off.
“You think, ‘Let’s start looking for her’, rather than thinking of anything as sinister as abduction.
“That would have been the call for the uniformed officers who were first on the scene at the Ocean Club.
“Once she was not found in the immediate area then I would have asked the officers to look for evidence of a crime.
“I can well imagine that the Portuguese police’s initial thoughts were that they were going to find the little girl wandering around in her pyjamas no further than half a mile from the apartment.
“When the searches have proved fruitless I would want to talk to the parents.
“Very quickly there should have been the realisation that this was a crime rather than something more innocent. That should have been realised within 30 minutes, but in Madeleine’s case it clearly wasn’t realised all that quickly."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/6-errors-madeleine-mccann-detectives-10272590
I see you are refusing to answer how the investigation would have differed significantly if the apartment had been locked and the parents sleeping. Oh well.
I do think we would be having a much different conversation had Madeline been abducted from the locked apartment while the family slept and I am sure the initial investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner.
For a 'Justice' forum you don't half misquote people. Another one goes on ignore.
Jon Clarke says he arrived just as the McCanns were leaving for Potimao. He says he went uo onto the balcony of 5A but didn't go in because 'obviously it would have been a crime scene'. Did he reread what he jad said previously? Obviously not.Having read this article, I consider it to be replete with errors.
When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns and told them I would do everything I could to help.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2017/05/11/madeleine-mccann-olive-press-editor-talks-first-journalist-scene-10th-anniversary-disappearance/
He also says that there was an announcement to the press that the McCanns were going to make their first appeal late on 4th. I wonder who announced that? Kate McCann gives the impression that it was a spur of the moment decision by Gerry.
Amaral has been caught out in lies, Kate has admitted to lying. Tell me why we should believe either of them ?
I do think we would be having a much different conversation had Madeline been abducted from the locked apartment while the family slept and I am sure the initial investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner.
For a 'Justice' forum you don't half misquote people. Another one goes on ignore.
Here's a few quotes from an ex met detective that pretty much describe it. And I stand by what I said, whether I am misquoted or not.
“The question is do you treat it like a crime scene that needs to be preserved right from the start or is the most likely explanation that she wandered off? The Portuguese police were widely criticised for not sealing off the scene, making it a crime scene.
“But if there is a chance the missing girl could be wandering around lost in the immediate area, then that rightly takes priority. You are prioritising searching the immediate area rather than sealing off the scene.
“If there is sign of a violent struggle or forced entry then it would be different, but that wasn’t the case with Madeleine’s disappearance.
“If there was sign of forced entry, then your thinking starts going down the line of crime rather than just a missing person. But in the absence of any evidence your natural thought is she has wandered off.
“You think, ‘Let’s start looking for her’, rather than thinking of anything as sinister as abduction.
“That would have been the call for the uniformed officers who were first on the scene at the Ocean Club.
“Once she was not found in the immediate area then I would have asked the officers to look for evidence of a crime.
“I can well imagine that the Portuguese police’s initial thoughts were that they were going to find the little girl wandering around in her pyjamas no further than half a mile from the apartment.
“When the searches have proved fruitless I would want to talk to the parents.
“Very quickly there should have been the realisation that this was a crime rather than something more innocent. That should have been realised within 30 minutes, but in Madeleine’s case it clearly wasn’t realised all that quickly."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/6-errors-madeleine-mccann-detectives-10272590
Well done. Your experience of this forum will be much enhanced by that one simple act.
A bit pointless, don't you think. You finish up just agreeing with those of like mind. Where is the discussion in that?
I do think we would be having a much different conversation had Madeline been abducted from the locked apartment while the family slept and I am sure the initial investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner.
For a 'Justice' forum you don't half misquote people. Another one goes on ignore.
Well done. Your experience of this forum will be much enhanced by that one simple act.Only cowards refuse to debate with me IMO.
Learning fast.A lesson you don't yet appear to have learned! @)(++(*
Theres been no discussion on here for yonks,its all opinion stated as fact in a lot of cases.
Does someone have to point out the need to break into the apartment would have left behind evidence.No need for jemmy if you can open a window or have a key. I do know what a jemmy is btw, but thanks for asking.
Evidence like a jemmied door perhaps. You do know what a jemmy is, don't you?
I think you should all put everyone on ignore, and then no one will be being rude to anyone.
I think you should all put everyone on ignore, and then no one will be being rude to anyone.I have no idea why these stroppy sceptics even post here. They would be far happier grumbling away to each other on their sceptic forums with no nasty supporters to challenge their views or ask awkward questions.
Theres been no discussion on here for yonks,its all opinion stated as fact in a lot of cases.
You're getting there.
I do think we would be having a much different conversation had Madeline been abducted from the locked apartment while the family slept and I am sure the initial investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner.
For a 'Justice' forum you don't half misquote people. Another one goes on ignore.
I see you are refusing to answer how the investigation would have differed significantly if the apartment had been locked and the parents sleeping. Oh well.I understood the answer perfectly well. And, IMO, it is relevant. &^^&*
Welcome, Tortuga.8@??)(
The point of entry was initially believed to have via the window, which was found open & the shutter raised. The front door was locked to outsiders. Only the burglars' favourite, a patio door, was ajar. Why was staging almost immediately suspected?
Had the McCanns not discovered Madeleine missing until morning after a night's sleep, what would the Portuguese police have done differently?
We have cited several cases on this forum of children having been abducted from their beds by strangers when sleeping adults were present , one of which resulted in a father being wrongfully convicted of his daughter's murder. (USA Riley Fox). In all cases the parents were under suspicion, some for months or even years.
We have also cited cases where young children have woken & wandered whilst their parents slept, oblivious to what was happening. Fortunately most of those had a positive outcome.
The Netflix documentary detailed how some children had been targeted whilst sleeping in their beds during a holiday in the Algarve, so there was precedent. The fact that Portugal had no DNA database to any compare DNA harvested from each of those crime scenes to others was surely detrimental to identifying offenders, prosecuting them & maybe preventing a repeat offence.
I would be interested to know what you think PJ would have done differently, especially in the light of the case of a child who reportedly went missing away from home which resulted in the mother/A N Other being convicted of the child's murder within the home, without any forensic evidence whatsoever.
I understood the answer perfectly well. And, IMO, it is relevant. &^^&*See Misty's post. She has perfectly expanded on and articulated my own question. If you think Tortuga's response addresses it perhaps you could explain how and why.
Plain Logic tells me that The McCanns couldn't have done any of the things they were accused of. They simply didn't have the time or resources.
Amaral's ideas got more bizarre as time went by.
A bit pointless, don't you think. You finish up just agreeing with those of like mind. Where is the discussion in that?
See Misty's post. She has perfectly expanded on and articulated my own question. If you think Tortuga's response addresses it perhaps you could explain how and why.It was articulated in reply to your question.
Welcome, Tortuga.
The point of entry was initially believed to have via the window, which was found open & the shutter raised. The front door was locked to outsiders. Only the burglars' favourite, a patio door, was ajar. Why was staging almost immediately suspected?
Had the McCanns not discovered Madeleine missing until morning after a night's sleep, what would the Portuguese police have done differently?
We have cited several cases on this forum of children having been abducted from their beds by strangers when sleeping adults were present , one of which resulted in a father being wrongfully convicted of his daughter's murder. (USA Riley Fox). In all cases the parents were under suspicion, some for months or even years.
We have also cited cases where young children have woken & wandered whilst their parents slept, oblivious to what was happening. Fortunately most of those had a positive outcome.
The Netflix documentary detailed how some children had been targeted whilst sleeping in their beds during a holiday in the Algarve, so there was precedent. The fact that Portugal had no DNA database to any compare DNA harvested from each of those crime scenes to others was surely detrimental to identifying offenders, prosecuting them & maybe preventing a repeat offence.
I would be interested to know what you think PJ would have done differently, especially in the light of the case of a child who reportedly went missing away from home which resulted in the mother/A N Other being convicted of the child's murder within the home, without any forensic evidence whatsoever.
It was articulated in reply to your question, so please get up to speed.
If you are looking for a missing child, you carry out missing child procedures.
If you are thinking of an abducted child, you carry out abduction procedures.
Very simple.
Does it matter if Jez Wulkins says he didn't go out and someone says he did? Probably not, but it's worthy of note. Especially when it appears in a supposedly well researched very expensive documentary. Who checked the 'facts' I wonder? No-one imo.
I have no idea why these stroppy sceptics even post here. They would be far happier grumbling away to each other on their sceptic forums with no nasty supporters to challenge their views or ask awkward questions.
They already have one of those, don't they? Last post was made Jan 11th.....we must be doing something right. :)Haha, yes!
It was articulated in reply to your question.So if the child had disappeared in the middle of the night from a locked apartment in which the parents were present, then abduction would have been the only possible theory? I'm not sure it is that simple.
If you are looking for a missing child, you carry out missing child procedures.
If you are thinking of an abducted child, you carry out abduction procedures.
Very simple.
Jon Clarke says he arrived just as the McCanns were leaving for Potimao. He says he went uo onto the balcony of 5A but didn't go in because 'obviously it would have been a crime scene'. Did he reread what he jad said previously? Obviously not.
When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns and told them I would do everything I could to help.
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2017/05/11/madeleine-mccann-olive-press-editor-talks-first-journalist-scene-10th-anniversary-disappearance/
He also says that there was an announcement to the press that the McCanns were going to make their first appeal late on 4th. I wonder who announced that? Kate McCann gives the impression that it was a spur of the moment decision by Gerry.
It didn’t take much time or resources if you believe they didn’t move the body.
I like a good debate as much as the next man but some members are truly not worth the bother.
It was articulated in reply to your question, so please get up to speed.
If you are looking for a missing child, you carry out missing child procedures.
If you are thinking of an abducted child, you carry out abduction procedures.
Very simple.
He told a couple of whoppers in he Netflix documentary. He just can’t help it IMO.
Without proof, a key is a figment of people's fertile imaginations imo. And the open window (if it was unlocked) comes from the mouth of a self confessed liar. It's not what i call valuable evidence, would you? It's got even less strength than the dog alerts imo unless you can tell me how you know for certain when a self confessed liar is telling the truth? If Peter Hyatt can't do it, why should I believe you can?
Ah...i think you're great. 8(0(*
It's out of Kate's book - it's the me and gerry had never lied about anything blah blah blah but we didn't seem to have a choice. Do I have to dig it out the direct quote?
You do everything you can as a parent to ensure the safety of your child, nobody can protect their child 100% from all risks, obviously. You reduce those risks as much as you can.I doubt very much if the initial investigation would have been conducted any differently from Madeleine's and Joana's disappearances.
I do think we would be having a much different conversation had Madeline been abducted from the locked apartment while the family slept and I am sure the initial investigation would have been carried out in a far different manner.
What does that mean? If I believe they didn't move what body?
I require a Cite for Self Confessed Liar. Otherwise I shall delete this and any other references to it.
You're boss but a lie is a lie and Gerry's blog had it's fair share also.
If people can't accept the truth, what's the point?
For all you know that could have been reiterated but edited out ... he had no editorial say in what ended up on screen.
I doubt very much if the initial investigation would have been conducted any differently from Madeleine's and Joana's disappearances.
Netflix linked them.
Netflix went to the trouble of replicating the reconstitution showing the alleged dismemberment of Joana and the impossibility of the eight year old's body fitting in the fridge.
Fridge ~ pigs ~ publicity ~ unfound children and mothers ... ring any bells?
It means if the body was not moved in the car later.
I have no idea why these stroppy sceptics even post here. They would be far happier grumbling away to each other on their sceptic forums with no nasty supporters to challenge their views or ask awkward questions.
So where did The McCanns stow the body in the meantime?
In the meantime ? There was only one site of disposal.
The same applies to supporters. Stopthemyths is ready and waiting! If, as it claims, it's an Open Forum it does appear pretty quiet, however.I think you misunderstand. I have no problem at all engaging with sceptics, that’s why I’m here. I’m referring to those stroppy sceptics on here who can’t bear to have their posts questioned or to engage in debate about their views by supporters.
“We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice. “Now compare that with Amaral’s lies and his subsequent confession. Oh there wasn’t one. He has never admitted to lying once. The snake!
I shall let this comment go. But this will be the last time on this subject.I was following on behind you Eleanor and removed it before I saw your post, as being inappropriate language for this forum.
A good article in the Sunday Times about the documentary, written by someone with personal insight and a great deal of sense:
Netflix’s Disappearance of Madeleine McCann will be solving nothing
March 17 2019, 12:01am,
A new documentary about the McCanns does little except recycle cruel speculation about them, says David James Smith, who covered the tragedy for The Sunday Times
Kate McCann with Madeleine, who disappeared on a family holiday when she was three
Kate McCann with Madeleine, who disappeared on a family holiday when she was threeTRANSWORLD PUBLISHERS
We still do not know what happened to Madeleine McCann — and a controversial new Netflix documentary about the three-year-old’s disappearance in Portugal in 2007 seems unlikely to get us any closer to an answer.
The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann — all eight episodes of it — was released on Friday. I had hoped the series would provide a corrective to some of the nonsense still put about on Twitter and elsewhere about Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
We see the beleaguered couple in news footage, looking increasingly drawn and haunted as they realise Portugal’s Policia Judiciaria are out to get them.
But the series practises a deception by not making it explicit — so far as I can see — that Gerry and Kate McCann declined to participate. Their friends from the holiday, the so-called Tapas Seven, and Clarence Mitchell, their longstanding PR man, are also conspicuous by their absence.
It took me a while to get to the heart of the story myself, when I set off for the seaside resort of Praia da Luz for The Sunday Times Magazine in the weeks after Madeleine had gone missing. By the time I arrived, British journalists were camped out in a bar that served as an unofficial press room.
I recall the reporter from the Express was always the last to leave, serving the daily demand of his news editor for a banner headline for the morning paper. In those conditions, it seemed to me that a kind of collective madness overtook the press.
Amaral: court battle with the McCanns
Amaral: court battle with the McCannsNEWS GROUP
A prominent role in the documentary is given to Goncalo Amaral, the one-time investigation head, who appears to have convinced himself the couple were guilty. He is still the hero of the social media McCann-[ censored word ], and the McCanns continue to pursue him through the Portuguese courts over claims repeated in his book The Truth of the Lie.
It was only right that the McCanns and their friends be considered as suspects. But we have never been presented with any evidence that any of them had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.
I used to try to imagine how two people, surrounded by friends, and soon after by the police and the world’s press, could have harmed their daughter, kept quiet about it, and somehow shielded everyone from that tragedy and its aftermath, presumably involving the callous disposal of their daughter’s body. Or perhaps the friends were all in on it too, and every one of them has carried that secret in a conspiracy for the past 12 years. Some people actually believe this outlandish theory. Or perhaps, as I came to believe, the terrible events unfolded just as the McCanns always said they had, with all the normal discrepancies and contradictions in time and memory that follow when several people experience the same traumatic event at once.
I have a notebook somewhere, which I lent to Gerry McCann one evening as he explained what happened that night and drew a plan of the apartment where they were staying. I have a memory, too, of returning to his home in Leicestershire, briefly, while waiting for a taxi, and being in the kitchen with him and Mitchell, where Kate McCann had left two plates of food for them, covered in clingfilm. On the fridge — more than six months after her disappearance — was Madeleine’s star chart for going to bed with good behaviour.
I have hated the way social media has facilitated the abuse of Gerry and Kate McCann, and found it hard to fathom the insensitivity of all those who have posted accusations about them.
The truth is out there. I know that Madeleine’s parents cling to the hope that she is alive somewhere, maybe too old now, aged 15, to remember much of her first three years. Sadly, it is more likely she is dead, her body buried or destroyed. Scotland Yard still has an open investigation.
The problem with Netflix’s documentary is that, when it comes to this case, there is currently nothing new to know or to say. There is only speculation.
If true, then neither did anyone else, including Amaral. It seems we can't take anything said in this series as true.Amaral is well used to appearing on camera and putting his point over. The fact his version very often did not concur with what others were also saying directly to camera was one of the very first things I noticed on Netflix.
The McCann's are not pursuing anyone through the Portuguese Courts any more.
The McCann's are not pursuing anyone through the Portuguese Courts any more.
The same applies to supporters. Stopthemyths is ready and waiting! If, as it claims, it's an Open Forum it does appear pretty quiet, however.
I am pleased that they mentioned Joana. Cristovao said that it was human blood in the Cipriano Fridge. I don't know how he thought he knew because No Forensics were done.Another little girl written off by the Portuguese Justice system of the time and unlike Madeleine there was no-one there to keep looking for her.
I was following on behind you Eleanor and removed it before I saw your post, as being inappropriate language for this forum.
I'm going log out and leave you to it. You've lost me on that one
West Highland Way begins for me tomorrow and ruck sack to pack. I'll lock my door before I leave, it's an old Glaswegian habit that we never forgot. Going to leave the internet behind till Friday - I hope.
Hopefully, you can explain what you mean when I get back home. If I get back home. &^&*%
Another little girl written off by the Portuguese Justice system of the time and unlike Madeleine there was no-one there to keep looking for her.
Thank the Lord it all seems to be changing now with the Portuguese search for Madeleine over the past few years.
Cristovao?? words fail me.
We all know about Cristovao. I don't think he has got long in a world of freedom.
Perhaps he is hoping for a sentence of less than five years to be Suspended. Although I can't say that would surprise me.
He already has a 4.5 year suspended sentence hanging over him from 2016 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7267.msg335234#msg335234
I assume Portugal does not allowed a second suspended sentence to run concurrently.
I wouldn't bank on it, Misty.
He spoke in court last week. I get the impression his defence is "a big boy made me do it". Let's just hope he doesn't get off on a technicality.
Yep, I read that somewhere. He could be hoping to delay the start of this trial until his other Suspended Sentence has expired. He hasn't done badly so far.
And this is a man who got off on a Torture Charge. A man that Amaral sort to protect.
This current trial already has dates pencilled in until the end of June. As it's a re-trial I doubt any delays will be permitted.
Jayne Jensen knew Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins because she was in the same tennis coaching group as they were.Is Jayne Jensen or Jez Wilkins or Bridget O'Donnell interviewed in the Netflix Documentary?
She also gives new information. She says she saw and spoke to Jez after the alarm was raised. Jez and his wife both said he didn't go out at all after about 9.30pm. They also say he only learned of Madeleine's disappearance at 1am on 4th.
1am or 1 pm?1 AM when Matt O'Brien and John Hill woke them up.
Not written with such an insight then.Written with far more insight than anything you or G-Unit have to offer by dint of actually having had access to some of the key protagonists.
Written with far more insight than anything you or G-Unit have to offer by dint of actually having had access to some of the key protagonists.
Insight is no replacement for fact checking. The McCanns are not still pursuing Amaral through the Portuguese courts The Supreme Court brought that to a halt ages ago, remember?. We know that the McCanns have not yet given up on their legal challenge and are pursuing the case with the ECHR. Has Amaral had his assets unfrozen yet? You are IMO nitpicking in order to deflect from what was an insightful and others quite accurate IMO appraisal of the Netflix documentary.
Is Jayne Jensen or Jez Wilkins or Bridget O'Donnell interviewed in the Netflix Documentary?
The McCann's are not pursuing anyone through the Portuguese Courts any more.
(ty6e[ Nice to see you misty and all others here again. Unfortunately I did not have time to watch the series but looking forward to watching it.
I have questions ( which to me are the biggest mysteries of this case and I followed it from the day 2):
1. Have they mentioned the Portuguese sniffer dogs?
2. Have they mentioned the doors being 'ajar' then 'wide open'?
3. The fact that Madeleine if she left on her own would need to had opened the shutters, window, open the patio curtain, close the patio curtain, open the patio doors, close the patio doors, open the garden doors, close the garden doors ( unless Gerry missed locking the front door and she left through this door - and they were used by the Portuguese sniffer dogs, too! But then, who opened the shutters and the window?)
4. The missing key?
5. Who usually parked their car in the spot where the Portuguese sniffer dogs lost their trail?
6. We live in 2019 so what about the phone records?
7. Who the 7 new suspects are? Why they are suspects?
8. Why the police never found the guy in Marrakesh with the little blond girl? Why he never came forward?
Everything else is just repeating the old stuff, widely published and insignificant.
So what do we learn from Mr Smith’s rather mawkish opinion piece.David Smith is an investigative journalist who has actually met the McCanns and is firmly convinced of their innocence.http://www.davidjamessmith.net/about/
1. Gerry broke judicial secrecy while claiming he couldn’t talk because of it.
2. Kate must be innocent because she had plated up some food for Gerry and Clarence....a guilty person would surely let everyone fend for themselves.
Everytime anyone here criticises amaral or teh PJ theya re accused of xenophobia and PJ bashing...so it was rather good to see sandra Figuerras putting the record straight...her description of amaral and the PJ as liars and being dishonest was a real coup
A reminder of David Smith’s investigative acumen@)(++(* this post reeks of desperation imo.
‘Gerry had knocked up at the start of the 4.30pm tennis-drills session, but had decided not to exacerbate an injury to his Achilles tendon, so had dropped out and waited around by the courts until the children came back from the kids’ clubs at 5pm for tea. That had been one of the most enjoyable times of the holiday, all the children together for tea, then the adults playing with them afterwards.
Gerry was in his apartment at 7pm’
From Gerry’s May 4th statement.
‘ The deponent and KATE returned to the OCEAN CLUB by the short-cut and at the secondary reception they asked the lady employee if there was a vacant tennis court they could reserve. They were told there was a vacancy between 14H30 to 15H30. As it was already 15h00, they began to play immediately. At 15H30, the tennis instructor arrived, who instructed each of them until 16H30.’
And from Smith
‘Matt went down to the 24-hour reception at the bottom of the hill to raise the alarm. The call to the police went in at 10.15. They arrived 55 minutes later. It is widely believed among the Portuguese media, and perhaps the police too, even now, that the McCanns called Sky News before they called the police. For the record, Sky News picked up the story from GMTV breakfast television, at around 7.30am the following day.’
Where did Smith get 10.15 from ? We know that the police weren’t called until 10.40 and Sky were contacted by email at about 2am.
Smith seems to have accepted what Gerry told him having done little or no research of his own
According to SF her epiphany seems to have occurred after the files were released so why, in Brietta’s words, did she go for the jugular in her ‘ask the dogs’ interview?
. We know that the McCanns have not yet given up on their legal challenge and are pursuing the case with the ECHR. Has Amaral had his assets unfrozen yet? You are IMO nitpicking in order to deflect from what was an insightful and others quite accurate IMO appraisal of the Netflix documentary.
In common with many McCann supporters he is long on opinins and short on knowledge of the facts in my opinion. The two things seem related.
The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance but the assumption of knowledge is something that applies to sceptics.. IMO.. Its ironic you criticise supporters with the debacle that is CMOMM... which you regularly praise..
This film really had hit a nerve when you start to criticise... Many supporters
I will criticise any journalist who spreads fake news. There is no excuse for it imo. If I can find the facts so can they and so can anyone who supports the McCanns.You criticised.. Many skeptics.... IMO your criticism is unjustified and inaccurate... It's sceptics who fit your description imo
More from our very own Sherlock ( Smith ) Holmes.
‘Those who told me about the dogs’ searches say they involved little objective science. It has been suggested that the HRD dog was treated differently in the McCanns’ apartment than in the others. The dog kept sniffing and running off and it was called back on several occasions. Eventually it “alerted”, meaning it went stiff and stayed still.
Then the blood dog was called in and directed to the area where the other dog had alerted ‘
Eddie alerted by going stiff and stayed still ? Eddie ? @)(++(*
Of course a journalist is only ever as good as his source.
In common with many McCann supporters he is long on opinins and short on knowledge of the facts in my opinion. The two things seem related.What rubbish, IMO. There is a difference between having knowledge of the case and fixating on the irrelevant minutiae. By fixating on the irrelevant you neatly avoid having to examine what is staring you in the face. IMO.
More from our very own Sherlock ( Smith ) Holmes.Pathetic, IMO. The dog alerted. Does it matter whether Eddie went stiff or barked? It’s entirely irrelevant. PS your passive aggressive approach to debating with me is also pathetic, IMO. Either truly ignore my posts or address me directly.
‘Those who told me about the dogs’ searches say they involved little objective science. It has been suggested that the HRD dog was treated differently in the McCanns’ apartment than in the others. The dog kept sniffing and running off and it was called back on several occasions. Eventually it “alerted”, meaning it went stiff and stayed still.
Then the blood dog was called in and directed to the area where the other dog had alerted ‘
Eddie alerted by going stiff and stayed still ? Eddie ? @)(++(*
Of course a journalist is only ever as good as his source.
An interesting comment... Confirmed in the files.. That further undermines the alerts.... Good find
To briefly answer your questions:_Thank you so much, misty!
1. No.
2. They touched upon that, more visually than in commentary.
3. Not mentioned at all. Only abduction or Amaral's thesis.
4. Not mentioned.
5. Not mentioned.
6. Not mentioned, apart from call between Murat & Malinka.
7. Only Murat & Malinka - but Metado3 investigated them & couldn't find any new evidence.
8. Morocco sightings feature but no, the man Mari Olli saw was apparently never identified.
Please do try to watch it all soon - I think it was worth watching.
Thank you so much, misty!Just because it wasn’t covered in the documentary doesn’t mean it hasn’t been investigated by the police. Don’t despair.
It seems to me that nothing new has been produced but it is just the summary of all other Madeleine documentaries.
When I think about that route the search dogs followed on the day 2 I feel like banging my head on a wall. When I think about this case over all these years I feel like screaming because to me it feels that this was the only strong thing they had. Maybe others find it unimportant but to me it feels like MAIN. They had a walking child who left on foot and stopped at the car park. Whose car? Which car? Mobile pings? Masts? Who parked there? Was there a car that always parked there? Has anyone seen a car parked there at the time? These questions are always always on my mind whenever I think about this case. And why this lead was neglected? Because someone said "yeah, this child walked here at some point...." But these dogs would definitely pick up the most recent scent? And who is there to say that this was NOT the most recent scent, and actually the scent of that night? And then the dogs on the 8th, different set of dogs, picked up the same scent. The scent of a living child. And then it was not picked up on it because...? Because? I don't know. I had written about this many times but in this case this is the only thing that haunts me personally. And it is better not to mention how many documentaries I had seen, how many posts I had read, how many articles about this case... Still, this still feels like the only lead to me. This is one of the reasons why I stopped reading the posts, fighting about the little lines in articles written by people who don't even know the 10% of this case.. bashing about egos and opinions, grouping..
At the beginning, in first few months, when only one forum existed about Madeleine search everyone was so united and happy to help. Then the forum was divided into two because the moderators started taking sides.. this is when the bashing started and it seems to me never ended.
What was confirmed ? That the McCann apartment was treated differently? Do you have a cite ?
What rubbish, IMO. There is a difference between having knowledge of the case and fixating on the irrelevant minutiae. By fixating on the irrelevant you neatly avoid having to examine what is staring you in the face. IMO.
Well quite. Who cares about the true facts. As long as someone is promoting the 'correct' belief' s/he will be supported and defended. IMO.That is not what I said, well done for putting your own spin on it. This is how holocaust deniers work. They seize on a small detail in a paper or book that is incorrect or partially incorrect, and from that they rubbish the entire paper or book, and use it to reinforce their belief that the holocaust never happened.. It’s a well worn conspiracy theorist tactic.
Well quite. Who cares about the true facts. As long as someone is promoting the 'correct' belief' s/he will be supported and defended. IMO.
v) If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
@JimGamble_INEQE
Follow Follow @JimGamble_INEQE
More
Replying to @nikkiloumaz @SteveMcmullan38 @katelasss
The finest investigators in the world have looked at this case (NSY) & they have not judged the parents to be suspects. Their suspect status was lifted by the PJ & the no credible evidence points to them. Those are facts.
—-
Facts that some people still cannot get their heads around, sadly.
Just because it wasn’t covered in the documentary doesn’t mean it hasn’t been investigated by the police. Don’t despair.
That is not what I said, well done for putting your own spin on it. This is how holocaust deniers work. They seize on a small detail in a paper or book that is incorrect or partially incorrect, and from that they rubbish the entire paper or book, and use it to reinforce their belief that the holocaust never happened.. It’s a well worn conspiracy theorist tactic.
That quote is from an analysis report written in February 2008 by the Central Department of Criminal Investigation. Having no knowledge or experience of the use of these dogs they were seeking to understand, not criticise imo. Grime was never asked those specific questions, although he received rog questons in May 2008. In my opinion the answers are in the files anyway.It's from the files.... The dogs passed bynplaces several times, without alerting... We know from the only study that was, dine... Quoted here before... That handlers do influence the dogs... Although there us next to no scientific research to base, any conclusions on
All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Are you sure you understand what a fact is... Is it fact or opinion that cipriano is guilty of the death of her daughter
It's from the files.... The dogs passed bynplaces several times, without alerting... We know from the only study that was, dine... Quoted here before... That handlers do influence the dogs... Although there us next to no scientific research to base, any conclusions on
Science can't do what dogs can do. Using just their sense of smell dogs can detect deseases, illegal substances, follow the trails of other animals and people and find blood and corpses. All science can do is confirm the sensitivity of a dog's sense of smell.
To decide which dogs and handlers are effective scientific studies aren't needed. Their track records provide the infornation.
I was watching Canadian border police at work on tv,a drug dog was shown working and alerting to a package,it took science to find out what was in the package,the dog handler couldn't smell anything untoward with the package,until the sealed bags inside were opened confirming the dog alert with science telling us the exact contents, Marijuana.
Science can't do what dogs can do. Using just their sense of smell dogs can detect deseases, illegal substances, follow the trails of other animals and people and find blood and corpses. All science can do is confirm the sensitivity of a dog's sense of smell.
To decide which dogs and handlers are effective scientific studies aren't needed. Their track records provide the infornation.
Yes I'm sure.
Yes I'm sure.
Ciprianos guilt is opinion... Not fact
v) If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
Cipriano's guilt is an Opinion even with a Conviction.
So no one who knows what they are talking about have said that 5a was treated differently. I see. Which still begs the question, why did the dogs alert to places and items belonging to only the McCanns ?It's all been explained before. Yawn
It points at no one else either,the finest(really?) can't or won't even confirm if the girl is dead or alive they have no evidence pointing either way(MR),just where do you expect the investigtion to be heading?
I'm finally watching the Netflix series of films.
Gobsmacked at the words of Sandra Figueras.
She certainly pulled no punches in her condemnation of Amaral and the police investigation.
I didn't think I would be upset by these films but found myself tearful at the replaying of those early days, terribly upset by Rui Pedro's mother's pain and by the highlighting of the cruel words posted on social media towards Kate and Gerry and Kate's heartbreaking response.
Yet Sandra knew about the DNA, Amaral and the police investigation when she conducted the ‘ask the dogs’ interview. How do you explain that and don’t you feel her epiphany is rather convenient.....after all her former opinion wouldn’t have flown in this rather McCann-friendly documentary would it ?
Are you making an accusation against her?
No accusation, merely an observation.
Why do you think she did the ‘ask the dogs’ interview after the files were released and at a time when she must have known that she had been duped ?
I don't know why.
Why do you think she did?
Why do you think she has had this "epiphany"
Her embarrassment in her part in the proceedings did seem genuine.
She certainly condemned Amaral and the investigation and said "Thank God" ( I believe those were her words) when the new chief of the investigation was appointed.
I don’t know either but wouldn’t you be a little more convinced of her conversion if she hadn’t conducted that interview, an interview that clearly upset Kate ? Do you think it’s possible that she was paid for her part in the documentary ? She’s had 11 years to voice her doubts about the initial investigation yet has kept silence.
I have to admit that I have my doubts about Sandra. Not what she said, but why she said it.
Paid to say what she said about being fed untruths ?
Paid to say she was embarrassed by her part in the proceedings?
Paid for what?
I have to admit that I have my doubts about Sandra. Not what she said, but why she said it.
The one and only study carried out which was quoted here shows that false alerts are given due to handler bias...the alerts themselves are not reliable...
Perhaps she is trying to disassociate herself from the botched enquiry?
Paid for her participation.
I notice you are avoiding answering any of my questions. SF clearly upset Kate on a number of occasions, and when she was at her most vulnerable, simply to heighten her profile. Do you think she’d baulk at a similarly pragmatic approach this time ?
SF was one of many who upset Kate when she was at her most vulnerable.
Perhaps she had no concern about upsetting Kate
She's had quite some time to reflect and now has publicly expressed her embarrassment.
Perhaps for future career prospects ,trying to dissociate herself from her rather hard nosed, insensitive younger self?
In the end she is a journalist.
The forum appears to be particularly busy today with 550 guests viewing at the same time, has something happened to create this interest?I have had a massive spike in viewing figures on my blog since the Netflix series was released, so I would guess it is simply because viewers want opinions on the 8-parter.
I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure she does want to dissociate herself from younger self....especially if there’s money to be made and her profile to be raised.
Scientists know better than to quote the resuts of a 'one and only study' as proof of anything.
Whatever her motives, it doesn't alter a scintilla the impact of her statements. I M O.
Unless you believe she is lying.
The one and only study shows handler bias to be highly significant... Therefore until further, studies handler bias cannot be ruled out...Do you ever conduct your own practical experiments?
You are simply quoting opinion when you say handler bias is not significant... You are, quoting opinion when you say the alerts are reliable... It's all opinion.... Suddenly you accept opinion... How convenient
I believe that she is pragmatic. If she had voiced the opinion she did in the documentary straight after the release of the files her statements may have had some impact, now not so much. While even us armchair detectives knew in 2008 that the ‘100% DNA’ wasn’t true Sandra ploughed ahead, maligning the parents.
Strangley I don’t remember her categorically saying she thought the McCanns innocent....perhaps she’s still hedging her bets.....just in case.
So you knew she had been lied to by Amaral etc?
I didnt , but then I'm not an "armchair detective"
I would imagine that many watching that episode were also "gobsmacked" by her words.
I'm sure it made an impact on many who aren't as familiar with the "facts" as you and many here.
Do you ever conduct your own practical experiments?
My dog has alerted to two cadavers to date.
The first one I knew about in advance, when signs of life were in evidence, i.e. not dead. The dog did not alert then. The day after, Gonçalo alerted, and sure enough, life had expired.
Perhaps a week or so later, Gonçalo was at the wire-mesh fence to our neighbour. He was barking animatedly. I went over to see if he was barking at one of the neighbours' many cats.
When I peered through the fence, lo and behold, no cat, but another cadaver.
You need to come up with more than a single scientific study. My practical experiments suggest you need to approach such studies with extreme caution.
&^^&*
The one and only study shows handler bias to be highly significant... Therefore until further, studies handler bias cannot be ruled out...
You are simply quoting opinion when you say handler bias is not significant... You are, quoting opinion when you say the alerts are reliable... It's all opinion.... Suddenly you accept opinion... How convenient
When the files were opened everyone who was interested knew that the ‘100% DNA’ result was a fiction. Why you think Sandra wouldn’t I can’t fathom. As to Amaral being the source of the misinformation, did Sandra say that or is that your interpretation?
I think you are overestimating the impact of Sandra’s words. I think those seeing her for the first time would think that she wasn’t a particularly good journalist to have been taken by her source....and her contrition now rather too little, too late.
BTW did you hear Sandra say that she believed the parents to be innocent?
And I think you are underestimating the impact of her words.
Did you know that only one page of the report had been translated?
It's never too late to be contrite and IMO that is exactly how she looked.
Haven't watched all the episodes yet, so I cannot comment on what she now believes.
And I think your overestimating the impact of her words. Do you think that because one journalist claims to have been lied to ( quelle surprise ) it is going to change people’s minds ? We learned that the PJ were leaking, and not always honestly, at Leveson. We also know that Gerry was leaking, and just as dishonestly, to the British press, by way of David Smith’s Beyond the Smears article and the article posted by VS yesterday. It was very much tit for tat.
Once you’ve watched all the episodes I’d be interested in your opinion with regards to Sandra not saying categorically that she believes the parents are innocent
In my opinion it's dispicable to dredge up any informatiion you can find to use in your mission to try to discredit the best dog trainer and handler in the UK in 2007. I have made my points before and am not interested in engaging in further off topic arguments about issues I have already discussed with you previously.
So no one who knows what they are talking about have said that 5a was treated differently. I see. Which still begs the question, why did the dogs alert to places and items belonging to only the McCanns ?Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
And I think your overestimating the impact of her words. Do you think that because one journalist claims to have been lied to ( quelle surprise ) it is going to change people’s minds ? We learned that the PJ were leaking, and not always honestly, at Leveson. We also know that Gerry was leaking, and just as dishonestly, to the British press, by way of David Smith’s Beyond the Smears article and the article posted by VS yesterday. It was very much tit for tat.
Once you’ve watched all the episodes I’d be interested in your opinion with regards to Sandra not saying categorically that she believes the parents are innocent
Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A:
From 8.30pm to 9.20pm, the dogs go through.
8.20pm: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
8.22pm: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes through.
8.10 (should it be 9.10?) The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road. ~ 110minutes
5B: 9.24 to 9.27pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 3minutes
5D: 9.29 to 9.34pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 5minutes
5H : 9.35 to 9.38pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 3minutes
4G : 9.42 to 9.45pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 3minutes
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
9.49 to 10pm: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window. ~ 11minutes
Date: 01 ao? 2007 - 06h00
Inspection of the surrounding areas.
Date: August 1st - 6am
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
The time spent by the dog inspection team in apartment 5A and the garden are in bold red and is recorded in the files as noted above ...
The time spent in the other apartments is in bold and is also recorded in the files.
There is an obvious difference in the amount of time spent in one apartment as opposed to the total amount of time spent in all the others.
The revelation that the PJ had not read the full FSS report was quite damning
Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A:
From 8.30pm to 9.20pm, the dogs go through.
8.20pm: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
8.22pm: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes through.
8.10 (should it be 9.10?) The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road. ~ 110minutes
5B: 9.24 to 9.27pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 3minutes
5D: 9.29 to 9.34pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 5minutes
5H : 9.35 to 9.38pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 3minutes
4G : 9.42 to 9.45pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 3minutes
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
9.49 to 10pm: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window. ~ 11minutes
Date: 01 ao? 2007 - 06h00
Inspection of the surrounding areas.
Date: August 1st - 6am
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
The time spent by the dog inspection team in apartment 5A and the garden are in bold red and is recorded in the files as noted above ...
The time spent in the other apartments is in bold and is also recorded in the files.
There is an obvious difference in the amount of time spent in one apartment as opposed to the total amount of time spent in all the others.
You dont have a cadaver dog....I've got the photos to prove it.
You are assuming that everyone who is watching the series of films has the same in depth knowledge of the case as you do.
Many will still be assuming the torrid newspaper headlines from years ago, ie 100% match, the "blood" found etc all to be facts.
I spoke to someone the other day who didn't even know that NSY were investigating Madeleine's disappearance.My own niece was convinced Madeleine's blood had been found in the hire car.
Folk like will be surprised at the revelation that she was lied to by the police presumably to smear Kate and Gerry,
Decorating at the moment.
Might be back later.
I've got the photos to prove it.
What have you got? *%87
What have I got... Common sense&%%6
You have a dog that Barks... A cadaver is a human corpse... You say you found one on your property ...could you post a photo
I’m sure it was to smear the parents, just as the leaking by the parents was to smear the PJ. All very undignified.
You seem to place a lot of importance on public opinion, mistakenly imo.
&%%6
A cadaver is a corpse. A dead body. Yes, I've still got one on my property.
And yes, I will get around to publishing my cadaver dog, complete with cadaver photos on my blog. When I have finished studying the decomposition.
Hit me with your best shot. What have you got?
Do you not believe that public opinion is important or just not important in this case?
I don’t believe public opinion is relevant in solving any crime and surely the need to solve this crime is something we both agree on ?
If the public are led to believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance, then I believe that, that could have a detrimental effect on the investigation.
The police often require the goodwill and help of the public in solving a crime.
Excellent find Brietta... So about 3 mins in the other appts but 110 in 5a... No wonder the dogs didn't alert in the other apartments... They didn't have time to catch their breath..Probably more to do with the fact that one was a crime scene and the others weren't.
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes throughThe times are as recorded in the files so the timings are entirely down to the PJ or the volunteer translator who in this case is Anna Esse who has taken the trouble to translate the CDs of the files released by the Portuguese from Portuguese to French and from French to English. What could possibly go wrong with that?
AT 9.10pm Keela alerts
110 minutes is obviously a mistake from the incorrect 8.10 time.
It would have no effect at all.
The vast majority of people in this country and abroad have absolutely nothing to bring to this case.
IMO
If the public are led to believe that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance, then I believe that, that could have a detrimental effect on the investigation.
The police often require the goodwill and help of the public in solving a crime.
It wouldn't take " the vast majority of people", only one person who had been influenced by the negative smearing, not to report something which could be important.
The times are as recorded in the files so the timings are entirely down to the PJ or the volunteer translator who in this case is Anna Esse who has taken the trouble to translate the CDs of the files released by the Portuguese from Portuguese to French and from French to English. What could possibly go wrong with that?
We have all seen the videos ... as did the contributor to Netflix ... there was an inordinately disproportionate amount of time spent by the dogs in areas associated with the McCanns than anywhere else.
The dog and the villa ... the dog and the gymnasium ... and the piece de resistance of the dog and the hire car, where far from the newspaper headlines of 100% Madeleine's DNA being found ~ there actually was none.
And I think you are underestimating the impact of her words.
Did you know that only one page of the report had been translated?
It's never too late to be contrite and IMO that is exactly how she looked.
Haven't watched all the episodes yet, so I cannot comment on what she now believes.
The police investigating Claudia Lawrence’s disappearance has classified the case as a murder. Do you think that would stop anyone with pertinent information from going to the police ?
Supporters sneer at the translations done by others yet I have never seen one supporter trying to rectify the situation by doing their own translations.
You ignore what you don’t want to hear. Eddie’s behaviour changed at the doorway of 5a, you hear Grime say that. That is why much more time was spent in 5a. Eddie’s behaviour changes around the Scenic. That is why more time is spent there and I’m not sure what you mean about the gym. As to the DNA, it is an absolute red herring.
Sometimes knowledge of the PJ Files is very useful. The PJ didn't have the FSS report when they were notified by Bob Small that the McCanns were leaving Portugal on 11th September, nor on 3rd September when Ricardo Paiva told them the PJ were going to interview them before they left.
It was on 4th September that they received an email from Stuart Prior with details of Lowe's findings and opinions. That email was translated and it covered three pages.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm#p10p2617-2623
When the email was translated, by whom or for whom isn't clear. In my opinion it's possiblr that the PJ had only a shortened amateur translation in their possession when they interviewed the McCanns due to lack of time.
Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:
5A:
From 8.30pm to 9.20pm, the dogs go through.
8.20pm: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
8.22pm: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes through.
8.10 (should it be 9.10?) The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road. ~ 110minutes
5B: 9.24 to 9.27pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 3minutes
5D: 9.29 to 9.34pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 5minutes
5H : 9.35 to 9.38pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 3minutes
4G : 9.42 to 9.45pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything. ~ 3minutes
Garden belonging to apartment 5A (with access via the balcony and the steps):
9.49 to 10pm: The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window. ~ 11minutes
Date: 01 ao? 2007 - 06h00
Inspection of the surrounding areas.
Date: August 1st - 6am
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
The time spent by the dog inspection team in apartment 5A and the garden are in bold red and is recorded in the files as noted above ...
The time spent in the other apartments is in bold and is also recorded in the files.
There is an obvious difference in the amount of time spent in one apartment as opposed to the total amount of time spent in all the others.
Couldn't wait to get in there, before the law changed and The McCanns left.
Eddie was already pulling at his leash as he was taken down the pathway, and some distance from the front door, which was around a corner.
I think he knew he was going to "Work", engendering some excitement.
Yet that excitement was exhibited at any of the other apartments.
If her family had been smeared by the police, then perhaps it would.
Having seen again in the Netflix programme, the smear campaign against Madeleine's family and the resulting hate filled comments on public forums, then it is impossible for me not to believe any possibility.
Eddie was already well into it by then.
Yet that excitement was exhibited at any of the other apartments.
Couldn't wait to get in there, before the law changed and The McCanns left.
What have I got... Common senseAny dead animal could be described as a cadaver.
You have a dog that Barks... A cadaver is a human corpse... You say you found one on your property ...could you post a photo
Any dead animal could be described as a cadaver.
Not according to the dictionary... I think most of us understand what a cadaver dog is ...by your definition...a dead ant could be described as a cadaverWell of course humans would want to train their cadaver dogs to find human cadavers.
I don't have a belief which needs reinforcung, My motive for highlighting misinformation is merely to highlight the truth. I don't respect the opinions of anyone who can't be bothered to get their facts right.As no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes I guess that probably means you don’t respect anyone, even Amaral, or Mark Saunokoko (or whatever his name is). Fair enough.
Well of course humans would want to train their cadaver dogs to find human cadavers.
"cadaver
noun LITERARY•MEDICINE
plural noun: cadavers
a corpse.
"cadaver-dog. Noun. (plural cadaver dogs) A dog trained to use its sense of smell to locate remains, usually human."
Usually human. SIL's dog appears to find "cadavers" of many different species.
synonyms: corpse, body, dead body, remains, carcass"
It’s interesting that supporters wax lyrical about Sutton not knowing anything about the current investigation yet believe Gamble does when it suits their agenda.What does Sutton claim to know about the current investigation then?
Of course we have to remember that Sutton worked for SY yet Gamble never did so it would be safe to assume that he would have more contacts there.
No accusation, merely an observation.Perhaps because at the time she was still in denial, like so many people still are, about the honesty and integrity of the PJ during the initial investigation. Sometimes it takes a while for thr penny to drop but I’m sure you’ll get there one day. ?{)(**
Why do you think she did the ‘ask the dogs’ interview after the files were released and at a time when she must have known that she had been duped ? You see I’d be more convinced of her ‘ road to Damascus’ conversion if she hadn’t conducted that interview.
I don't have a belief which needs reinforcung, My motive for highlighting misinformation is merely to highlight the truth. I don't respect the opinions of anyone who can't be bothered to get their facts right.
I don’t know either but wouldn’t you be a little more convinced of her conversion if she hadn’t conducted that interview, an interview that clearly upset Kate ? Do you think it’s possible that she was paid for her part in the documentary ? She’s had 11 years to voice her doubts about the initial investigation yet has kept silence.Or perhaps she was paid to grill the McCanns in the first place, she was after all an investigative journalist and sometimes they do play devils advocate to get a reaction, surely you know this??
I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure she does want to dissociate herself from younger self....especially if there’s money to be made and her profile to be raised.I wonder if Sandra is aware she is being smeared by people like you, all over the internet. I expect so, and I’m sure she anticipated it. That makes her especially brave IMO.
Yet that excitement was exhibited at any of the other apartments.Do you have footage of the other searches we could look at to compare the excitement levels?
Well of course humans would want to train their cadaver dogs to find human cadavers.And what use is that I wonder?
"cadaver
noun LITERARY•MEDICINE
plural noun: cadavers
a corpse.
"cadaver-dog. Noun. (plural cadaver dogs) A dog trained to use its sense of smell to locate remains, usually human."
Usually human. SIL's dog appears to find "cadavers" of many different species.
synonyms: corpse, body, dead body, remains, carcass"
SF was one of many who upset Kate when she was at her most vulnerable.
Perhaps she had no concern about upsetting Kate
She's had quite some time to reflect and now has publicly expressed her embarrassment.
Perhaps for future career prospects ,trying to dissociate herself from her rather hard nosed, insensitive younger self?
I've only had a peek at episode 3 and I heard Sandra say that hopefully the truth will come out one day on what happened in apartment 5A before the alarm was raised re dog alerts behind the sofa.
Look the crumpled abnormal curtain behind that sofa in crime scene photos. Most revealing but is it featured in the documentary ? It's amazing how people fail to see the unmissable!
and who decides if the facts are right...you...thats your opinion again
Do you beleive the McCanns are still pursuing Amaral through the Portuguese Courts then?
No... But. They are still persuing amaral indirectly... That's one instance... Do you believe the dogs alerted to cadaver odour
And what use is that I wonder?It is a start but the dog needs to be trained to focus his attention toward human cadavers. Apparently there is very little difference between decomposed piglets (which are really easy to come by) and human cadavers.
No... But. They are still persuing amaral indirectly... That's one instance... Do you believe the dogs alerted to cadaver odour
So my fact is correct and the journalist was wrong.
A minor fact wrong... Doesn't mean the rest is wrong... I think it's far more important amaral and the PJ git the forensics wring because they didn't read them and on TV yesterday a senior ex PJ officer still doesn't understand
It is a start but the dog needs to be trained to focus his attention toward human cadavers. Apparently there is very little difference between decomposed piglets (which are really easy to come by) and human cadavers.
Whether SIL could join a search and rescue club and get some notoriety/experience would be my suggestion.
So the PJ said the DNA was Madeleine’s...that wasn’t proved....and? Even if the DNA was Madeleine’s there could have been an innocent explanation for it, after all she had lived in the apartment and her clothes had been transported in the Scenic.
But amaral decided it was blood that was found that matched maddies... And still claims the FSS manipulated the results... That's because he didn't understand them
A minor fact wrong... Doesn't mean the rest is wrong... I think it's far more important amaral and the PJ git the forensics wring because they didn't read them and on TV yesterday a senior ex PJ officer still doesn't understand
I don't think it's minor to say a court case is ongoing when it has ended.The McCanns are pursuing further court action as a result of the SC ruling, that is a fact. Amaral’s assets are still believed to be frozen, the matter has still not been definitively settled IMO, also whether or not the McCanns are still pursuing legal action against Amaral has no bearing whatsoever on the journalist ‘s opinion of the evidence of the case and of thr McCanns themselves. [deleted ad hom]
And ? It still doesn’t explain why Eddie alerted in the parent’s bedroom and Keela didn’t. It doesn’t explain why Eddie alerted to places and items connected only with the parents. It doesn’t explain the anomalies in the parents and their friend’s statements. It doesn’t explain why Rebelo wanted more questioning and a reconstitution.
Once you explained the above then we can talk about the innocence of the parents.
I don't think it's minor to say a court case is ongoing when it has ended.
Not every dog makes a good cadaver dog... I would have thought specialist training was important... Or do you think anyone can train a cadaver dogGetting the work for it, will be the hardest. The training side of it will be fairly basic. Reward the dog when it gets it right. Getting a range of test samples would be a bit more difficult. There won't be too many places where SIL can get decomposed body parts from.
The ECHR has the power to say the SC judgement is contrary ECHR law and therefore flawed.... So how is the case ended
The ECHR can say anything it lkes, but it can't overturn a judgement issued by the Portuguese Courts. All they can do is order Portugal to pay compensation to the McCanns if they think Portugal breached their human rights.
Do you see Amaral's name in there? No, because he is not a party to the case they are pursuing with the ECHR and will not be penalised by the ECHR.
I've already explained all of them... The parents are obviously innocent.. As none of what you have quoted is evidence against the parents
And then there’s the door moving back and forth even though no one had entered the apartment and Tanner passing by Gerry and Jez without them seeing her. How do you explain those events ?Seriously? This has been explained a thousand times, never to your satisfaction but to the satisfaction of reasonable people, so try not to worry about it too much.
Amarals actions will feature highly in the case... If the ECHR rule the book is libellous ...then I cannot see how the book can continue to be soldciyrt
If the ECHR ruling (as and when it comes) has nothing to do with Amaral why has his book money been frozen?
The ECHR will decide whether the state of Portugal breached the McCann's human rights. In my opinion Duarte will be claiming that an archiving dispatch is equal to an acquital. If the ECHR decide it isn't, game over.
If the ECHR ruling (as and when it comes) has nothing to do with Amaral why has his book money been frozen?
Is it? Do you have a cite please?Yes, “Top Cop” Peter MAC said so to the owner of the forum you view as a valuable source of information, as you well know.
I think you are, seriously mistaken... Having looked at several other cases, which I have already posted the issue will be defamation...article8......did amarals book breach the mccanns human rights....which the state of Portugal has, deemed to be acceptable... I think it's, a, walkover fir the mccanns
You've been saying that from the beginning yet they lost the three appeals which followed the original trial.
Amaral's book was based on the facts available to him after the disappearance, very little if anything evidential-wise has altered since. Not only is Maddie's whereabouts still unknown but it has still never been established what happened to her or even if a crime was committed.
The truth is that the McCanns breached Maddies human rights by failing to reasonably protect her so no doubt the ECHR will take that into account too should they accept the case.
I've finished watching all the episodes.
My over riding feeling at the moment is one of utter sadness.
The only comment for now is one of huge admiration for Jim Gamble for his sincerity, compassion and dedication.
His trying to control his emotions when describing how an abused child had been traced and found was most upsetting.
I also found his obvious distress moving. When you meet him you realise he is not the outright ogre some suspect.
Of course this vulnerability in his character and obvious love of children would no doubt leave him open to manipulation.
The ECHR will look at the law, and take nothing into account apart from the law.. That's the way it works.
The ECHR will simply look at the balance between articles 10 and 8 and having looked at last cases the mccanns will win... The mccanns di not have to show innocence... The revelation that the PJ didn't bother to read the whole if the FSS report is further evidence that amarals claims are not based in evidence
I've finished watching all the episodes.I share your feeling of utmost admiration for Jim Gamble.
My over riding feeling at the moment is one of utter sadness.
The only comment for now is one of huge admiration for Jim Gamble for his sincerity, compassion and dedication.
His trying to control his emotions when describing how an abused child had been traced and found was most upsetting.
The ECHR will look at the law, and take nothing into account apart from the law.. That's the way it works.I think the Netflix revelation that much of the FSS report was not even translated is absolutely shattering when considering how influential the incomplete information was ... particularly in constituting Kate and Gerry as prime suspects.
The ECHR will simply look at the balance between articles 10 and 8 and having looked at last cases the mccanns will win... The mccanns di not have to show innocence... The revelation that the PJ didn't bother to read the whole if the FSS report is further evidence that amarals claims are not based in evidence
Yes, “Top Cop” Peter MAC said so to the owner of the forum you view as a valuable source of information, as you well know.
Unless a cite was provided that was just an opinion.
Try to understand my opinion of that Forum. I find it a useful source of cites and that's all. I have no interest in it's member's opinions or theories.
"Open to being manipulated" by whom?
Who suspect him of being an"ogre"?
Actually, forget it.
I'm not in the mood for reading another character assassination of someone who is supportive of the McCanns.
Q; So why was the McCann's innocence mentioned?
A; Because their lawyer mentioned it.
"Open to being manipulated" by whom?
Who suspect him of being an"ogre"?
Actually, forget it.
I'm not in the mood for reading another character assassination of someone who is supportive of the McCanns.
Hmmm ... I can see how a guy who served in the military police in Germany ... as head of the Special Branch of the RUC in Belfast ... in England as deputy director general of the National Crime Squad dealing with serious and organised crime which entailed working with police teams in Europe ~ Russia ~ Cambodia and parts of Europe ... and working in child exploitation ... would most definitely not be easily manipulated by anyone however persuasive.
To coin a phrase he used ... I think it is "clutching at straws" to suggest he might 🙄
I've finished watching all the episodes.
My over riding feeling at the moment is one of utter sadness.
The only comment for now is one of huge admiration for Jim Gamble for his sincerity, compassion and dedication.
His trying to control his emotions when describing how an abused child had been traced and found was most upsetting.
Remember the judge, involved in the parents case against Leicestershire police I believe, who sent the little girl home to be killed by her dad or the case of Sally Clark who spent years in prison because of the judgement of a so called expert.
Professionals do make mistakes.
I do find it interesting that last week the supporter view was that dogs wouldn’t lick SF’s blood yet this week her judgement is beyond criticism. It’s a funny old case. Interesting though that she didn’t claim the parents were innocent.....perhaps she’s hedging her bets ?
It's just another example of judging a person according to their opinions on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I remember the reluctance of some to condemn a certain person who was convicted of child abuse offenses. The thread on which has been either deleted or buried somewhere I think.
It's just another example of judging a person according to their opinions on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I remember the reluctance of some to condemn a certain person who was convicted of child abuse offenses. The thread on which has been either deleted or buried somewhere I think.I don't remember some posters, refusing to condemn the person... One perhaps.... You really shouldn't make such accusations
It’s the same with Colin Sutton and Jim Gamble. Sutton is regularly lambasted even though he was a long serving officer in the Met and knows how they carry out investigations so his opinion carries weight. Gamble, on the other hand, is also a long serving police officer but his expertise lies in counter terrorism and child exploitation which is not terribly helpful if Madeleine wasn’t kidnapped and exploited.
I did notice in one of his interviews that Gamble said that if some evidence came to light that implicated the parents then he was willing to change his view. Another one hedging their bets it would appear.
I don't discuss my interest in the McCann case with family members because I don't expect others ro share my interest. I have noticed two taking an interest because they watched the Netflix series. One of them was impressed by....Amaral. The other was unimpressed by.....the McCann's stndard of childcare.
If nothing else Netflix has stirred interest. Perhapd because they put everything in one place.
Impressed by amaral... How could anyone be impressed by amaral
Probably just another example of judging a person according to their opinions on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann!
As far as I know they have np opnion themselves about the case , so that's not the reason. It was just the way he came across.
My beloved, whose ear I have bent on this case for around 5 years, has watched the lot.
She found it informative, because it plowed through many things she had not connected together.
As to other Netflix viewers, who knows? *%87
I find that impossible to believe ...are you sure you are not mistaken
One of my grandsons watched the episodes, and his opinion was Amaral should have been in jail before Madeleine ever disappeared.
I suppose opinions will differ.
One of my grandsons watched the episodes, and his opinion was Amaral should have been in jail before Madeleine ever disappeared.
I suppose opinions will differ.
Unless a cite was provided that was just an opinion.Keep on playing “cite” games, I really don’t care. Using my own common sense I can see no reason why either Peter Mac or Jill Havern would lie about Ammaral not having access to his book money, and would expect them to crow from the rafters when he does finally get his hands on his ill gotten gains. From this I can deduce that there is still some outstanding legal matter as far as Amaral is concerned that has not yet been resolved. I don’t require further comment from you on this matter, so please don’t trouble yourself.
Try to understand my opinion of that Forum. I find it a useful source of cites and that's all. I have no interest in it's member's opinions or theories.
My, my you are touchy.Is that a fact? You seem to be calling into question Mr Gamble’s professionalism. Now why would that be I wonder...?
I think you’re being disingenuous by suggesting that you don’t know who suspects Gamble of being an ogre but we’ll move on.
I found Gamble very amenable when I met him. He had a good sense of humour and I found him very approachable. His obvious distress, however, at the suffering of children means he is open to having those emotions manipulated. By whom is irrelevant.
As far as I know they have np opnion themselves about the case , so that's not the reason. It was just the way he came across.Funny that. I watched it with my daughter who believes the McCanns are hiding something and she thought he was vile and shifty. Her words.
So do you agre that someone should be put in prison before being tried ?
Funny that. I watched it with my daughter who believes the McCanns are hiding something and she thought he was vile and shifty. Her words.He was also very restrained in comparison to what I have seen of his performances on Portuguese TV. Also missing was the cohort of like minded pals usually surrounding and supporting him on those occasions with the exception only of the stalwart Cristovao. Oh dear! Speaks volumes.
I agree with your grandson. What Amaral was doing in charge of the case is beyond my comprehension.
He volunteered you know, when he was supposed to go on holiday the next day. Sofia was not at all impressed.
The ECHR will look at the law, and take nothing into account apart from the law.. That's the way it works.
The ECHR will simply look at the balance between articles 10 and 8 and having looked at last cases the mccanns will win... The mccanns di not have to show innocence... The revelation that the PJ didn't bother to read the whole if the FSS report is further evidence that amarals claims are not based in evidence
He was also very restrained in comparison to what I have seen of his performances on Portuguese TV. Also missing was the cohort of like minded pals usually surrounding and supporting him on those occasions with the exception only of the stalwart Cristovao. Oh dear! Speaks volumes.
Amaral's theories are merely that, theories. But theories based on facts. He is entitled to his opinion about the disappearance just as we are.
I've finished watching all the episodes.
My over riding feeling at the moment is one of utter sadness.
The only comment for now is one of huge admiration for Jim Gamble for his sincerity, compassion and dedication.
His trying to control his emotions when describing how an abused child had been traced and found was most upsetting.
I was going to ignore your ridiculous post but have now decided to acknowledge how utterly ridiculous it is.!!
He did acknowledge the whole " praying Arabs" scenario was in his words "exaggerated", so perhaps that myth can be laid to rest.
Impressed by amaral... How could anyone be impressed by amaral
Not ridiculous at all. Amaral was made an arguido on the day Madeleine disappeared. I fail to see how you put someone in prison before they are charged with anything.
Rather selective in what you believe. Are you saying Amaral is to be believed now ?
He did acknowledge the whole " praying Arabs" scenario was in his words "exaggerated", so perhaps that myth can be laid to rest.
Not according to the two GNR officers who witnessed it. As Amaral wasn't there when it happened I know who's version is more likely.
Not ridiculous at all. Amaral was made an arguido on the day Madeleine disappeared. I fail to see how you put someone in prison before they are charged with anything.
Can't resist.
Whose.
Wasn't it in his documentary??
I prefer to go by the original statements by those who witnessed the event.
I think some posters still don't understand what arguido meant back in 2007. If every police officer who was an arguido was suspended there wouldn't have been many left on duty.
I think some posters still don't understand what arguido meant back in 2007. If every police officer who was an arguido was suspended there wouldn't have been many left on duty.
I prefer to go by the original statements by those who witnessed the event.
I don't see any problem with it.. Two very distraught parents
Impressed is an understatement. He took the McCanns on at their own game and won.
Amaral's theories are merely that, theories. But theories based on facts. He is entitled to his opinion about the disappearance just as we are.
And her opinion ?She thought after the first 4 episodes, the McCanns are guilty of much more than neglect. By the end, she wasn't quite so certain.
I think some posters still don't understand what arguido meant back in 2007. If every police officer who was an arguido was suspended there wouldn't have been many left on duty.Why is that? are most Portuguese police officers suspects in a crime? Do you have a cite?
She thought after the first 4 episodes, the McCanns are guilty of much more than neglect. By the end, she wasn't quite so certain.
The producers seem to have lost their nerve half way through.
Lost their nerve to do what?
The producers seem to have lost their nerve half way through.@)(++(* Or come to their senses, depending on your point of view.
To tell the whole story and let the viewer decide.
@)(++(* Or come to their senses, depending on your point of view.
I don't see any problem with it.. Two very distraught parentsI find everything I have heard about the absolute distress of Madeleine's parents when they discovered she was gone totally heartrending.
Can you accept that as the leading detective at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, his "theory" might just have more impact than any of ours??
The McCanns would agree. That's why they expended so much Fund money attempting to silence him.
How many participants in that Netflix production had spent time with the McCanns and had never doubted that Madeleine was abducted?
After virtually every crime the perpetrators family and friends say they had no idea they were planning or capable of x,y or z.Where do you get these ideas from? “Virtually every crime?”. Are you sure?
In my opinion the Netflix documentary may have finally silenced him.
In a misquote of the late Bruce Forsyth.
Didn't he not do well!!
I believe he and several other stalwarts of the case where invited on to a prime time programme over the weekend.
Bruce Forsyth?
Now that would make for interesting, if rather grisly, viewing.He’s got to earn a living somehow. Do you have a cite for his latest mouthings off?
Alas I believe you hope in vain Erngath. It would appear that Amaral hasn’t been cowed but is as vocal as ever.
Now that would make for interesting, if rather grisly, viewing.Excellent!
Alas I believe you hope in vain Erngath. It would appear that Amaral hasn’t been cowed but is as vocal as ever.
Excellent!
I really hope he is.
Will if the parents are so willing to hand over great wodges of money to him he’d be a fool not to encourage them.
There is one word in your post with which I concur..
Good night.
Night Erngath. Don’t let the grinding of your teeth keep you awake ?{)(**What a nasty comment. If anyone’s teeth are grinding it’s surely the sceptics who must be deeply put out by the Netflix series which has massively overshadowed their preferred podcasts.
Night Erngath. Don’t let the grinding of your teeth keep you awake ?{)(**That sounded like good advice I got from my dentist years ago.
That sounded like good advice I got from my dentist years ago.No dentist would say anything so flippant and goading IMO.
What a nasty comment. If anyone’s teeth are grinding it’s surely the sceptics who must be deeply put out by the Netflix series which has massively overshadowed their preferred podcasts.
It has also informed the 'Netflix generation' who don't take much notice of the news. From comments I've seen it wasn't helpful to the McCanns.The McCanns themselves said it wouldn’t help find Madeleine, that said I have seen plenty of supportive comments from people whose minds have been changed by this series. Certainly their FB page has gained many new supporters in the last few days..
Was that him? I thought it was another officer who cancelled his leave which was due to begin the next day.
What a nasty comment. If anyone’s teeth are grinding it’s surely the sceptics who must be deeply put out by the Netflix series which has massively overshadowed their preferred podcasts.
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2016/12/sofia-leals-open-letter-to-kate-mccann.html
It has also informed the 'Netflix generation' who don't take much notice of the news. From comments I've seen it wasn't helpful to the McCanns.
The documentary does seem to have stirred the OFM webmaster into action if nothing else. No more likes but four posts in a fortnight. Something of a record for her recently, when posts frequently numbered one every 3 months.The page has had hundr ds of new likes in the last few days.
If it wasn't helpful to the mccanns why is CMOMM taking the view that it was supportive of the mccanns and are quite angry about it
If it wasn't helpful to the mccanns why is CMOMM taking the view that it was supportive of the mccanns and are quite angry about it
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2016/12/sofia-leals-open-letter-to-kate-mccann.html
Expectations were high before the series that because the McCanns had criticised it and refused to take part that it meant the series would be highly critical if not down right accusatory of the parents. The fact that it wasn’t caused much gnashing of teeth and carpet chomping in certain quarters. IMO.
On one of sceptics Facebook forums, many are angry and declared their decision to stop watching it after a couple of episodes.
Obviously couldn't handle the way the programme was developing in supporting the abduction. IMO
OG asked the McCann's not to talk about Madeleine when it was coming up to the anniversary of 11 years missing. i
I believe that is why they didn't want to take part, it could interfere with the investigation. IMO
I didn’t realise how many supporters the parents Facebook page had lost since 2015. This screenshot from Gerrymccannblogs confirms in 2015 they had over 621,000 ‘likes’ yet now they have little more than 504,000.A figure that is growing again, thankfully. Nice to see you are still reading my posts despite avowing that your forum experience is greatly enhanced by not doing do, @)(++(*
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/screenshots/ofb9115.JPG
I think the series tried to be objective.I think by the end of episode 4 you might well have found yourself being suspicious of the parents, but then i think that was a device to reel you in, the rest of the series made it clear that there was no evidence against the McCanns and that they were victims of incompetence, intimidation and deceit at the hands of the PJ and that in the opinion of the programme makers Madeleine was the victim of a stranger abductor with connections to the paedophile underworld.
I think the series tried to be objective.
I think by the end of episode 4 you might well have found yourself being suspicious of the parents, but then i think that was a device to reel you in, the rest of the series made it clear that there was no evidence against the McCanns and that they were victims of incompetence, intimidation and deceit at the hands of the PJ and that in the opinion of the programme makers Madeleine was the victim of a stranger abductor with connections to the paedophile underworld.
For the first four or five hours it was.I think you are mistaking "painting a picture of the McCanns as guilty in the first 4 hours" for being objective.
As I said, equally balanced. Most of it was a repeat of people's opinions, but it did provide a couple of interesting pieces of information.At the end of the series were you left with the opinion that the series came to no conclusions about whether or not the parents were involved?
For the first four or five hours it was.
At the end of the series were you left with the opinion that the series came to no conclusions about whether or not the parents were involved?
I don't suppose they had in-depth knowledge of the case. All they knew was that opinion is divided and they id reflect that imo.
For the first four or five hours it was.
No.Then it wasn't balanced between the sceptic and the supporter opinions was it?
Yes, after the first five episodes it soon became clear that as far as this programme was concerned the McCanns were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
That's when many sceptics decided to watch no more!!
That’s a shame. To have a balanced opinion of the series you have to watch it all.You hate having your views challenged though...?
I really don’t understand individuals who don’t read, watch or listen to things that don’t chime with their views. It’s comfortable to have your view affirmed, less so to have them challenged but so much more constructive.
Facts aren't all they are made out to be... It's possible to present facts in such avway to prove a fallacy as the PJ did..
Fact... The DNA in the boot matched 15 of maddies 19 markers... That fact could be... And has been presented as proof that maddies, DNA was in the boot....that's a fallacy
As I said, equally balanced. Most of it was a repeat of people's opinions, but it did provide a couple of interesting pieces of information.True. &^^&*
Then it wasn't balanced between the sceptic and the supporter opinions was it?
The results were inconclusive. That means the FSS didn't know.
That doesn't seem to be the opinion of most sceptic comments I have read thus far. There have even some suggesting that the McCanns were secretly behind the documentary, such is the paranoia and conspiracy madness in certain quarters....
Sorry, I misread your post (flipping cateract). I don't think they reached a conclusion.
The results were inconclusive. That means the FSS didn't know.
As I said, equally balanced. Most of it was a repeat of people's opinions, but it did provide a couple of interesting pieces of information.
That doesn't seem to be the opinion of most sceptic comments I have read thus far. There have even some suggesting that the McCanns were secretly behind the documentary, such is the paranoia and conspiracy madness in certain quarters....
It also provided some facts....that the PJ did not read the whole of the preliminary report...thats why they misunderstood teh FSS.....imo....and tahts why amarl stated teh FSS manipulated the results,,...there is no evidence they did...there is proof amarals opinion is based on his own failings
I don't care what 'most sceptics' say. I belong to a group of just three; me, myself and I. I think my pem thoughts and form my own opinions. .
That’s fine, just pointing out that you appear to be in a minority.
I don't care what 'most sceptics' say. I belong to a group of just three; me, myself and I. I think my pem thoughts and form my own opinions. .
That’s fine, just pointing out that you appear to be in a minority.A minority of what?
A minority of what?Off you go then, and be sure to publish the recipe on your blog.
Who is in the majority?
Perhaps I need to look up how to cook cobblers.
It can't be that difficult. Can it?
A minority of what?
Who is in the majority?
Perhaps I need to look up how to cook cobblers.
It can't be that difficult. Can it?
That’s fine, just pointing out that you appear to be in a minority.
I remember many moons ago reading Paul Foot’s book about James Hanratty who, at the time, was thought to have been wrongfully convicted of the murder of Micheal Gregsen. The book was well intentioned well researched and utterly convincing. In fact so convincing that several celebrities took up the fight to have his conviction overturned.Quite, Faithlilly, quite.
Of course we now know that Hanratty’s DNA was all over Valerie Storie’s underwear and he was, of course, guilty.
There was also the book File on the Tsar written by our very own Anthony Summers. In this he argued that the last Tsarina Alexandra and her children had escaped the massacre at the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg and were last seen heading to Perm. Of course we now know that all the russian royal family died that July evening in 1918 as their bodies were found several years ago not far from where they died. Of course Summers didn’t know that when writing the book and obviously set about proving an already formed belief.
The moral to this tail. It’s easy to convince yourself of anything if you’re not privy to the whole story and no matter how well intentioned writers, or even producers, are they aren’t always right.
How is that possible?How is what possible?
How is what possible?
Being 'in a minority' when there's no majority?I don’t know what you are talking about. IMO you are in a minority of sceptics who think the Netflix series was even handed and not biased towards abduction. If you think I’m wrong then that is your opinion to which you are entitled but chatter on the internet seems to suggest I am not.
I don’t know what you are talking about. IMO you are in a minority of sceptics who think the Netflix series was even handed and not biased towards abduction. If you think I’m wrong then that is your opinion to which you are entitled but chatter on the internet seems to suggest I am not.
Those you label 'Sceptics' have only one thing in common imo. They don't believe the abduction theory. Think of it like this; many politicians vored against a no deal Brexit, but they show little sign of agreeing about anything else.Exactly - you all doubt that Madeleine was abducted, however the Netflix series promoted abduction above any other theory and did not give equal weight to other theories, hence why IMO you are in a minority of sceptics who felt it was unbiased and even-handed.
The McCann's were happily eating their meal, laughing and joking, then at about 10o'clock, Kate finds Madeleine missing. The McCann's were then reduced to quivering wrecks, screaming, sobbing Gerry on the floor crying uncontrollably, his friends described him as strong, the Police as cold, yet here he was crying in a heap on the floor, terrible scene they said. Kate screaming lashing out howling with pain. Please tell me how they could fake this IMO
Having now watched the final two episodes I find it hard to believe that ANYONE watching could come away with any other view than that the programme makers believe Maddie had been abducted by a stranger. It is thoroughly sympathetic towards the McCanns.ANYONE who knows the case would know that Pulse Films is based in the UK, that Netflix is based in the US, and that the McCanns threatened litigation if the contents did not meet their expectation.
ANYONE who knows the case would know that Pulse Films is based in the UK, that Netflix is based in the US, and that the McCanns threatened litigation if the contents did not meet their expectation.
It wasn't balanced.
It was constrained. &%%6
ANYONE who knows the case would know that Pulse Films is based in the UK, that Netflix is based in the US, and that the McCanns threatened litigation if the contents did not meet their expectation.
It wasn't balanced.
It was constrained. &%%6
ANYONE who knows the case would know that Pulse Films is based in the UK, that Netflix is based in the US, and that the McCanns threatened litigation if the contents did not meet their expectation.You seem to be getting carried further away and now think you can speak for... ANYONE... how bizarre
It wasn't balanced.
It was constrained. &%%6
They didn’t. That’s exactly the reaction you’d expect from a couple who had just lost their child. Jayne Jensen, another holidaymaker, said that the only time she had ever heard wailing like Kate’s was after two of her relatives had died.
You seem to be getting carried further away and now think you can speak for... ANYONE... how bizarre
And of course that's all your opinion posted as fact
The mccanns did not threaten legal action if the programme did not ...meet their expectations... Cite required
My reply quoted Verti S who said that ANYONE must come away with 'stranger abduction'. Absolute cobblers.
By the way, I am civil to those who are civil to me. But I am not a Christian, so I feel no obligation to turn the other cheek, when that poster thinks a goad per post is about average.
As Jayne Jensen as never heard how parents of a missing child react, she likened it to something she was familiar with the death of two of her relatives.
Good to see you agree they weren't faking their distress.
second request...cite for your untruth that the Mccanns threatened litigatgion if the film did not...meet their expectations...your claim is absurd
You are correct, it was the usual ‘source’ who claimed this though we should know by now the parent’s preference for distancing themselves from any comment by use of a ‘source’.
The McCann's were happily eating their meal, laughing and joking, then at about 10o'clock, Kate finds Madeleine missing. The McCann's were then reduced to quivering wrecks, screaming, sobbing Gerry on the floor crying uncontrollably, his friends described him as strong, the Police as cold, yet here he was crying in a heap on the floor, terrible scene they said. Kate screaming lashing out howling with pain. Please tell me how they could fake this IMO
Robbyn Swan spoke about the DNA resullts. She agreed with me that until 4th September they had nothing from the FSS. She goes further and asserts that when they interviewed the McCanns two days later they omly had a very basic summary. This is what Ricardo Paiva said on 14th Swptember;
The partial results of those forensic analyses were being communicated to this Police force by Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior, member of the Leicestershire Police legation, through e-mails originating in that laboratory and from a partial Forensic Report dated 07 August 2007.[I think he meant 7th September. The samples wern't collected until the end of August]
--- However, it was verified that due to error by that laboratory, in the cited Forensic Report there exist inconsitencies with that previously reported by a forensic specialist in the e-mails received by Superintendent Stuart Prior, the reason for which, it was by the English authorities, suggested that it is awaited for the Final Report of the laboratory, to be delivered to this Police force upon the conclusion of the laboratorial forensic analyses that presently are still in execution.
You are quoting the PJ... Hardly unbiased
You are quoting the PJ... Hardly unbiased
An accusation was made without any evidence being presented. It was accepted without question by some.
Amaral and the PJ have accused the FSS of manipulating evidence... That's the accusation without any evidence presented apart from their claims
When accusations are made my reaction is to check the evidence. Are all the FSS reports in the Files? Are there differences between early reports and later ones? Have you checked or just assumed the PJ are wrong?
They didn’t. That’s exactly the reaction you’d expect from a couple who had just lost their child. Jayne Jensen, another holidaymaker, said that the only time she had ever heard wailing like Kate’s was after two of her relatives had died.When I read your sentence I can only assume that Jayne Jensen had heard Kate and possibly Gerry crying, so they must have known it was Kate and Gerry's child that was missing, so going by their words they had already spoken to Jez.
When I read your sentence I can only assume that Jayne Jensen had heard Kate and possibly Gerry crying, so they must have known it was Kate and Gerry's child that was missing, so going by their words they had already spoken to Jez.
Now that becomes a major discrepancy in the case for Jez reckons he didn't go anywhere other than home.
So amaral and the PJ have made accusations... Theres no evidence to support them... When Sandra F made her statement... Which is evidence.. It did offer a reasonable explanation..a perfict fit for the facts
There is no discrepancy major or otherwise in statements made by Jes Wilkins in comparison with the sisters Annie Wiltshire and Jayne Jensen, neither of whom are on record as having been interviewed by the Judicial police, as far as I can see.
If Jensen's words are to be ignored so are Felgueiras's, of course.
My reply quoted Verti S who said that ANYONE must come away with 'stranger abduction'. Absolute cobblers.Yes, what you’ve written IS absolute cobblers because what I wrote was:
By the way, I am civil to those who are civil to me. But I am not a Christian, so I feel no obligation to turn the other cheek, when that poster thinks a goad per post is about average.
Im sure you would be delighted to ignore sandras words...they are absolutely damning
Im sure you would be delighted to ignore sandras words...they are absolutely damning
Really! have they helped solve the ongoing mystery?
If they are evidence so are Jensen's words.
So Sandra Felgueiras revealed something of importance but Jeyne Jensen didn'r. Why is that, I wonder?
I'm sure if I looked at Jensen's statement I could tell you
We'll never know what effect the lies the police told Sandra Felgueiras might have had on the investigation. As a well respected journalist the tales she was broadcasting from what she thought was an impeccable source carried much weight with her audiences.
Perhaps there would be no "ongoing mystery" to solve if the police had not adopted the strategy of lying to journalists to further their own purposes rather than working the evidence on Madeleine's behalf.
Why do you need a statement from her but not from Sandra?
There is no discrepancy major or otherwise in statements made by Jes Wilkins in comparison with the sisters Annie Wiltshire and Jayne Jensen, neither of whom are on record as having been interviewed by the Judicial police, as far as I can see.Well can you put the various observations in a logical sequence? Why would Jayne and Annie be observing who was hanging around the McCann apartment if they did not know who's child had gone missing?
Do you think Sandra could be mistaken in what she says
My granddaughter has always known of my interest n Madeleine's abduction, and did doubt that her parents were not involved.
She told me tonight that now seeing the the Netflix production and the various interviews that she has totally altered her opinion.
All the myths of the blood in the hire car, and the myth of the DNA match now exposed as being untrue.
Do you think Jayne Jensen could be mistaken in what she says?
The forums been running quite well.. No points or warnings issued for some time.. I've just realised I've had posts removed today... So frankly I can't be bothered to discuss the case if moderators are going to remove posts without explanation
Due entirely to pointless, insulting remarks.
I made a list of what sceptics believe... That has been removed..
No entirely pointless insulting remarks from me... Please stick to the truth... Sil had been isulting myself and others continually... If you want to wreck the forum carry on
You weren't the offender, but replying to insulting remarks sometimes leaves no choice.
Well can you put the various observations in a logical sequence? Why would Jayne and Annie be observing who was hanging around the McCann apartment if they did not know who's child had gone missing?
At what time did they meet up with Jez?
My granddaughter has always known of my interest n Madeleine's abduction, and did doubt that her parents were not involved.
She told me tonight that now seeing the the Netflix production and the various interviews that she has totally altered her opinion.
All the myths of the blood in the hire car, and the myth of the DNA match now exposed as being untrue.
Why did your granddaughter doubt that the McCanns were not involved ? Was it because they were affluent and good looking?Greatest respect?? Do you even know the meaning of the word?
With the greatest respect she sounds rather like the Donald, who it is said, believes the last thing he heard.
Yes, what you’ve written IS absolute cobblers because what I wrote was:As I did not quote you, perhaps you are the one who needs to read posts in greater depth. &%%6
“I find it hard to believe that ANYONE watching could come away with any other view than that the programme makers believe Maddie had been abducted by a stranger.”.
, not that anyone MUST come away with stranger abduction.
Please learn to read my posts properly before commenting. If you don’t understand what I have written I will explain in greater depth.
Why did your granddaughter doubt that the McCanns were not involved ? Was it because they were affluent and good looking?
With the greatest respect she sounds rather like the Donald, who it is said, believes the last thing he heard.
I made a list of what sceptics believe... That has been removed..If a moderator has removed one or more more of my posts, I don't know about it, because I am not pedantic enough to check it. I know for a fact that moderators have to shovel sh*t.
No entirely pointless insulting remarks from me... Please stick to the truth... Sil had been isulting myself and others continually... If you want to wreck the forum carry on
As I did not quote you, perhaps you are the one who needs to read posts in greater depth. &%%6
Why did your granddaughter doubt that the McCanns were not involved ? Was it because they were affluent and good looking?
With the greatest respect she sounds rather like the Donald, who it is said, believes the last thing he heard.
This is what you wrote:
“My reply quoted Verti S who said that ANYONE must come away with 'stranger abduction'.”
Did I say that? No. Did you say I said that? Yes.
Do you understand what I have just written? Probably not!
&%%6As predicted you didn’t understand a word of what I wrote. Never mind.
How slow can someone be?
I put your reply up in a quote, hence I quoted you.
Then I paraphrased you.
How pedantic can you and your wingman get over the fact that you posed the word ANYONE in capitals?
Get over it. I didn't start it. But I never back off.
When I said she doubted the McCanns were NOT involved, did you really not understand my post?
Just to add, she is surrounded by so many intelligent, affluent and good looking family members to even think in such a superficial manner.. @)(++(*
She's fifteen.
Who is Donald?
Do you mean Trump? Lol
As predicted you didn’t understand a word of what I wrote. Never mind.Don't worry. I didn't mind it at the start, and I don't mind it now.
Just because it wasn’t covered in the documentary doesn’t mean it hasn’t been investigated by the police. Don’t despair.
Don't worry. I didn't mind it at the start, and I don't mind it now.
My cadaver dog, Gonçalo, is quite timid. A small, old village scruffbag half his size saw him off this morning. Gonk scruffled back home and we walked around the campo.
Our youngsters own Sky, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and I am much more like her. She is very civil to other dogs that are civil to her. If the other dogs get aggressive only Sky is going to win.
&^^&*
She’s only 15 ? That explains it. 15 year olds believe that even the relationships in Love Island are real.
There is nothing about the Portuguese dog search in the files except for the Dog handler's statements.
Even Kate doesn't put much emphasis on this in her book.
She’s only 15 ? That explains it. 15 year olds believe that even the relationships in Love Island are real.You make gross generalizations about the young, you sneer at the old, what age does someone have to be to have a valid opinion about this case, in your view?
Don't worry. I didn't mind it at the start, and I don't mind it now.I bet Sky doesn’t incorrectly paraphrase people on internet forums though. I think I would prefer to discuss things with her in future, she probably makes more sense.
My cadaver dog, Gonçalo, is quite timid. A small, old village scruffbag half his size saw him off this morning. Gonk scruffled back home and we walked around the campo.
Our youngsters own Sky, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and I am much more like her. She is very civil to other dogs that are civil to her. If the other dogs get aggressive only Sky is going to win.
&^^&*
Anyway, to get back on track I will reiterate my earlier point that I find it hard to believe that anyone would view the Netflix documentary as anything other than completely supportive of the McCanns and the abduction theory.
That is beside the point I was making. This documentary series was entirely supportive of the abduction theory and of the McCanns and I find it hard to believe that anyone could come to a different conclusion. Do you agree or disagree?
Is the theory right though?
Anyway, to get back on track I will reiterate my earlier point that I find it hard to believe that anyone would view the Netflix documentary as anything other than completely supportive of the McCanns and the abduction theory.
So your opinion os the only possible opinion? That seems somewhat arrogant in my opinion.That isn’t what I said is it? In the same way that you find it hard to believe Madeleine was abducted, I find it hard to believe that the Netflix documentary could be viewed as anything other than supportive of the abduction theory and thr McCanns themselves. Is your opinion about abduction the only possible opinion?
That is beside the point I was making. This documentary series was entirely supportive of the abduction theory and of the McCanns and I find it hard to believe that anyone could come to a different conclusion. Do you agree or disagree?
That isn’t what I said is it? In the same way that you find it hard to believe Madeleine was abducted, I find it hard to believe that the Netflix documentary could be viewed as anything other than supportive of the abduction theory and thr McCanns themselves. Is your opinion about abduction the only possible opinion?
There is a difference. You don't understand how anyne could reach a different conclusion about Netflix. I understand why people believe in the anduction.Explain it to me then, seeing as I am obviously deficient in some way. Explain how an 8 part documentary that never once examines in any depth the woke and wandered theory, or questions in any significant way the version of events laid out by the McCanns, that labours the point about child exploitation, sightings of Madeleine around the world, and shifty individuals seen in and around PdL at the time, that has numerous McCann sympathetic talking heads and one erstwhile PJ believer lambasting the PJ as liars was even-handed and impartial. I look forward to being educated by yourself.
Explain it to me then, seeing as I am obviously deficient in some way. Explain how an 8 part documentary that never once examines in any depth the woke and wandered theory, or questions in any significant way the version of events laid out by the McCanns, that labours the point about child exploitation, sightings of Madeleine around the world, and shifty individuals seen in and around PdL at the time, that has numerous McCann sympathetic talking heads and one erstwhile PJ believer lambasting the PJ as liars was even-handed and impartial. I look forward to being educated by yourself.
I bet Sky doesn’t incorrectly paraphrase people on internet forums though. I think I would prefer to discuss things with her in future, she probably makes more sense.
You do have a very low opinion of fifteen year olds.
She doesn't watch the rubbish you mention.
She is a very mature, intelligent fifteen year old who is presently studying entuhusiastically in preparation for her National Five exams.
I do hope this post is not too convoluted for you and that you have no problem understanding it.
Anyway, to get back on track I will reiterate my earlier point that I find it hard to believe that anyone would view the Netflix documentary as anything other than completely supportive of the McCanns and the abduction theory.
Is there any way to get viewing figures for the Netflix series on Madeleine?
According to Angelo, there was a very significant increase in traffic on this forum.
According to me, via Wordpress, there was a 20-fold increase in traffic on my blog. It is now slowing down towards normal. I have written nothing new on my blog since the start of March, making it Netflix-related activity.
So, is there any way to get viewing figures for the Netflix series on Madeleine?
*%87
Is there any way to get viewing figures for the Netflix series on Madeleine?
According to Angelo, there was a very significant increase in traffic on this forum.
According to me, via Wordpress, there was a 20-fold increase in traffic on my blog. It is now slowing down towards normal. I have written nothing new on my blog since the start of March, making it Netflix-related activity.
So, is there any way to get viewing figures for the Netflix series on Madeleine?
*%87
There was a massive increase in interest on my Blog. I have no idea why. Mind you, any increase is massive.20-fold?
No.@)(++(* OK don’t then.
How many barbed messages can you write because you put ANYONE in capitals?*%87
According to GNR officer Lacao he was given the pink blanket for his patrol dog to sniff at about 2.30am on 4th. Kate has no memory of when this was, she gives the inpression it was much later.
She says that according to the files the tracker dogs went out at 11pm on 4th. They did, with a bath towel they must have got from her or her husband, but she doesn't mention that.
Does this really matter who has given what?With regard to the GNR dogs ...
What matters is that they had a trail of a living child walking on this path. Nobody was there to say whether this was "her last known trail" but to dismiss it as "child walked on this route at some point" - I think this is a crime of its own!
At that point of investigation they got into the whole Robert Murat circus and everyone forgot about this lead that needed to be investigated.
It makes me wonder why this was not mentioned in Netflix documentary.
With regard to the GNR dogs ...
The information in the files appears to be dated from when Rebelo was case co-ordinator. Is this correct or are there reports dating from earlier in the investigation?
The original final statement from the dogs team coordinator Antonio Freitas Silva is from 9th May 2007. The dog searches ( that involved 5A) took place on May 4 and May 8 2007.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
And after finally seen it all I wanted to add two things:
1. Poor poor guy from Metodo 3. He must have seen lots of awful stuff. I feel for him. He has the same face expression as Kate McCann. I thought he probably worked close to her when doing some of his delicate investigations. His boss doesn't seem affected at all, I hope Brian Kennedy at least paid the detective if he did not get paid.
2. Re Brian Kennedy, what a wonderful person. And what a nice son he brought up. If you ask me, Brian Kennedy should be a prime minister 8((()*/
But what a bad judge of character. Two absolute chancers pulled the wool firmly over his eyes and the sighting he thought would crack the case has been ruled out by OG.I wonder if he had any other choice!
I wonder if I should offer him this bridge I have to sell @)(++(*
I see Summers and wife are now flogging their wares under the banner ‘as seen on Netflix’.Let’s hope Robbyn (who is apparently a member of this forum) sees your post and responds.
Is there no depth this pair will not stoop to to make a few bob ?
But what a bad judge of character. Two absolute chancers pulled the wool firmly over his eyes and the sighting he thought would crack the case has been ruled out by OG.People who are gullible and easily conned don’t tend to become successful millionaire business men or women, IMO.
I wonder if I should offer him this bridge I have to sell @)(++(*
I wonder if he had any other choice!
And another thing. When you look at this case from this new perspective you realise that Portuguese police from a small town had absolutely no chance of solving this case. The approach from the day one should have been a high tech and they did not have this equipment and work force.
People who are gullible and easily conned don’t tend to become successful millionaire business men or women, IMO.
If he wasn't conned he must have hired them deliberately.Of course he hired them deliberately and of course he was conned, by Halligen at least. If you are the victim of a skillful con artist does that necessarily make you naive, gullible and a bad judge of character? Or does it mean that the con artist was just very good at conning people? Nuance dear, nuance. Not everything is black and white.
Of course he hired them deliberately and of course he was conned, by Halligen at least. If you are the victim of a skillful con artist does that necessarily make you naive, gullible and a bad judge of character? Or does it mean that the con artist was just very good at conning people? Nuance dear, nuance. Not everything is black and white.
Due diligence dear, due diligence. It's the difference between those who hire the first builder they speak to (and get conned) and those who get three quotes and speak to the builder's previous customers (and get a good result).Sorry I’m not quite sure what you are suggesting vis-a-vis Brian Kennedy, perhaps you could explain more clearly what you believe his failings are as a benefactor and businessman.
I suppose you can't be too fussy when the job involves breaking the law in Portugal, although to be fair they did tell the PJ what they were up to; well, to a certain extent.
In February 2008 when ex policeman Antonio Jimenez was arrested on suspicion of helping criminals who stole £25 million of cocaine his links with Metodo 3 and the McCann case were mentioned.
Francisco Marco, the head of Metodo 3 denied Spanish television reports that Jiminez, 53, had worked for Metodo 3 for three years.
Clarence Mitchell agreed;
"He is nothing to do with us. He collaborated with Metodo 3 on a project, but that was two years before the company was hired to find Madeleine.
"We still have faith in the work of Metodo 3"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1579678/Madeleine-McCann-detective-agency-link-held.html
Perhaps Brian Kennedy didn't tell the McCanns that he'd been to see the PJ with Jimenez just three months earlier;
a meeting was held, in this department, with Brian Kennedy, the director of the detective company, Francisco Marco and an advisor of this same company, Antonio Jimenez, ex-chief of the Kidnapping Unit of Catalan.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htm
I think Jimenez was aquitted of the charges; what a sheme his former associates were so quick to deny any connection with him.
I see Summers and wife are now flogging their wares under the banner ‘as seen on Netflix’.
Is there no depth this pair will not stoop to to make a few bob ?
But what a bad judge of character. Two absolute chancers pulled the wool firmly over his eyes and the sighting he thought would crack the case has been ruled out by OG.
I wonder if I should offer him this bridge I have to sell @)(++(*
So what?
So what?Faithlilly would have you believe that S & S are responsible for all the marketing of their book on their tods, and that any mention of Netflix is nothing whatsoever to do with the marketing department at Headline Books. Faithlily also seems to believe that promoting your book in any way shape or form is Satan’s work, unless you’re Amaral of course.
Sorry I’m not quite sure what you are suggesting vis-a-vis Brian Kennedy, perhaps you could explain more clearly what you believe his failings are as a benefactor and businessman.
The more I learn about Metodo 3 the less I understand why anyone would hire them.Didn’t they have a proven record of successes prior to being hired? Didn’t the M3 detective’s investigative work on the case lead to multiple paedophile arrests? Your complete evasion of my question is noted btw.
As the alleged ex head of the Kidnapping Unit of Catalan was Jimenez their selling point?
Didn’t they have a proven record of successes prior to being hired? Didn’t the M3 detective’s investigative work on the case lead to multiple paedophile arrests? Your complete evasion of my question is noted btw.
That's interesting, do you have a cite?A cite for what?
I didn't answer your question because I had already answered it. I don't think Metodo 3 had any relevant experience. and I can only assume Kennedy went for the first PI's in the phone book. Unless they were recomended or they approached him, of course. Perhaps the Spanish police recommended them as they did to the PJ shortly afterwards;
On the 19th of October, we were contacted by the Commissary General, located in Madrid, by the Chief of the Kidnapping Unit, Alberto Carbas, who passed to us the information that the McCann family had contracted a Spanish company known as 'METODO 3'........we were asked if we were available and interested in meeting with a representative of this Spanish business, and also with the Commissary General and Chief of the Kidnapping Unit of the Police of our neighbouring country
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htm
The meeting, when it happened, was with Kennedy, Jimenez and Marco. No mention of these policemen turning up.
That's interesting, do you have a cite?Madeleine McCann private detectives expose child pornography network in Spain
I didn't answer your question because I had already answered it. I don't think Metodo 3 had any relevant experience. and I can only assume Kennedy went for the first PI's in the phone book. Unless they were recomended or they approached him, of course. Perhaps the Spanish police recommended them as they did to the PJ shortly afterwards;
On the 19th of October, we were contacted by the Commissary General, located in Madrid, by the Chief of the Kidnapping Unit, Alberto Carbas, who passed to us the information that the McCann family had contracted a Spanish company known as 'METODO 3'........we were asked if we were available and interested in meeting with a representative of this Spanish business, and also with the Commissary General and Chief of the Kidnapping Unit of the Police of our neighbouring country
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIAN-KENNEDY.htm
The meeting, when it happened, was with Kennedy, Jimenez and Marco. No mention of these policemen turning up.
Madeleine McCann private detectives expose child pornography network in SpainI’m surprised G-Unit needed a cite for this as it was covered by the Netflix documentary. Perhaps she didn’t watch that episode.
Detectives hunting for Madeleine McCann have exposed a child pornography ring in Spain, leading to 13 arrests.
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent 1:53PM GMT 19 Jan 2009
The network was discovered by Metedo 3, a private detective agency based in Barcelona hired by Gerry and Kate McCann to help find Madeleine after she disappeared.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/4289787/Madeleine-McCann-private-detectives-expose-child-pornography-network-in-Spain.html
Madeleine McCann private detectives expose child pornography network in Spain
Detectives hunting for Madeleine McCann have exposed a child pornography ring in Spain, leading to 13 arrests.
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent 1:53PM GMT 19 Jan 2009
The network was discovered by Metedo 3, a private detective agency based in Barcelona hired by Gerry and Kate McCann to help find Madeleine after she disappeared.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/4289787/Madeleine-McCann-private-detectives-expose-child-pornography-network-in-Spain.html
I’m surprised G-Unit needed a cite for this as it was covered by the Netflix documentary. Perhaps she didn’t watch that episode.I don't think she does need a cite ... as you can see, she does like to keep me on my toes.
I wonder if that police success was reported un Spain?
I don't think she does need a cite ... as you can see, she does like to keep me on my toes.
I’m surprised you needed a cite from me as Murat thinking the parent’s friends were shifty was covered in the documentary too.I posted that Murat thought the police were setting him up. I quoted exactly what he said in the Netflix documentary as substantiation.
I posted that Murat thought the police were setting him up. I quoted exactly what he said in the Netflix documentary as substantiation.
I expect no less of any poster when asked for a cite.
If you are expressing your opinion feel free to do so but say it is your opinion ... if you are putting words into someone else's mouth I believe you already know a cite is required if requested.
Please comply.
What I found interesting about the identification of Robert Murat by Rachel Oldfield, Fiona Payne and Russel O'Brien was the manner in which it pulled them all into perfect symmetry.
David Payne - The last independent sighting outwith the parents.
Gerry McCann - The last sighting of the child and the, ahem. fabulous moving door.
Jane Tanner - The sighting of a so called abductor who never existed according to Scotland Yard.
Matt Oldfield - The last check and another eyewitness account of yet another, ahem, fabulous moving door.
Kate McCann - The open window and the fabulous, ahem, jemmied shutter.
That just leaves three people from the four couples who never seen a thing, until, ahem, Rachel Oldfield, Fiona Payne and Russel O'Brien seen Robert Murat.
Perfect symmetry? It all seems very convenient imo. Unless you're Robert Murat, who claims he could never understand why they were all trying to take the focus in the wrong direction.
I have always got the sense from listening to Mr Murat, that he didn't just feel it was the police who were trying to stitch him up.
The Netflix documentary also raised the question of yet another eye witness who saw a man exiting the veranda of of the apartment beneath her on Thursday 3rd May which happened to be that occupied by Madeleine's family and from which she vanished only hours later.
The witness described him as acting surreptitiously and her attention was drawn because of the manner in which he opened and closed the outer gate as quietly as was possible.
Netflix wondered why that information appeared to be ignored?
I take it as you have removed your post you have seen your error Brietta.
So do you now agree that the Netflix documentary got it wrong ?
As G-Unit suggested it’s likely she saw Oldfield.
Anthony Summers tells viewers that Matt Oldfield heard a noise that 'he thought was just somebody turning over in bed' in the children's room during his 9.25 check (around 18 mins episode 8). He goes on to ask viewers if it's possible that this noise he claims Oldfield heard was the abductor in the children's room at the actual moment of Oldfield's check.
Anyone know where Summers got the idea that Matt Oldfield ever mentioned hearing this noise during his check?
Anthony Summers tells viewers that Matt Oldfield heard a noise that 'he thought was just somebody turning over in bed' in the children's room during his 9.25 check (around 18 mins episode 8). He goes on to ask viewers if it's possible that this noise he claims Oldfield heard was the abductor in the children's room at the actual moment of Oldfield's check.
Anyone know where Summers got the idea that Matt Oldfield ever mentioned hearing this noise during his check?
Summers doesn't seem to have noticed MO has completely ommitted telling any police officers about hearing any noise in all of his three witness statements. People can take this guy Summers stories seriously if they like but I'm not gong to be one of them.
The sequence of events document has always intrigued me, did Anthony Summers not notice the same document appears to put Gerry on the wrong side of the road pre May 10th?
Did Gerry not notice?
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A.
We all know where outside the patio gate of 5A is. I'll not be playing silly b....rs with anyone on that one.
The information was very much appreciated Misty, thank you!
Summers doesn't seem to have noticed MO has completely ommitted telling any police officers about hearing any noise in all of his three witness statements. People can take this guy Summers stories seriously if they like but I'm not gong to be one of them.Gerry’s exact whereabouts on the road only troubles sceptics, noone else, because in the scheme of things it’s really not massively important. IMO.
The sequence of events document has always intrigued me, did Anthony Summers not notice the same document appears to put Gerry on the wrong side of the road pre May 10th?
Did Gerry not notice?
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A.
We all know where outside the patio gate of 5A is. I'll not be playing silly b....rs with anyone on that one.
The information was very much appreciated Misty, thank you!
That was in the control risks timeline. No such thing happened. LIES!I do recall there is a PJ photo of the apartment keys on the kitchen counter. Whether they were there all the time from 8:30 PM the day before is impossible to determine from the photograph.
There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, in the kitchen’s counter. Right away, the lies started. (Gonçalo Amaral)
Sums it up "Oh Sandra, let me just say, thank you very much for what you have just told me, I do not know if the people there at home understood exactly, I think so, what we are talking about, ...."
Did you really understand what they were talking about. It makes me feel I'm going to have to view the Netflix documentary.
Sums it up "Oh Sandra, let me just say, thank you very much for what you have just told me, I do not know if the people there at home understood exactly, I think so, what we are talking about, ...."
Did you really understand what they were talking about. It makes me feel I'm going to have to view the Netflix documentary.
Just out of curiosity, I checked to see if the Netflix series has aired in Portugal, and indeed it has.
8((()*/
Some people scoff at Amaral, but are 'England's finest' any better?
I thought Rowley's comment about MBM not being old enough to go and start a new life was crass. Now Gamble has joined in. He says people don't go abroad to kill their child, they do it somewhere familiar and more private.
I just watched that and he went on to say that if a child has been abused they are rather reticent around their abuser but that wasn’t the case with the twins and Gerry. As far as I’m aware the PJ has never accused the parents of either killing or abusing their daughter so I’m not sure why Gamble mentioned either of those scenarios.Covering all possibilities I suppose.
I just watched that and he went on to say that if a child has been abused they are rather reticent around their abuser but that wasn’t the case with the twins and Gerry. As far as I’m aware the PJ has never accused the parents of either killing or abusing their daughter so I’m not sure why Gamble mentioned either of those scenarios.
Perhaps nobody thinks that Madeleine's death was pre-meditated.Why discount it? Accept nothing, believe noone, Blah blah blah
Why do sceptics rule out murder out of interest? There must be a reason but none of them that I’ve asked seem prepared to give an answer to this question. Why did the PJ not seem to consider murder a possibility either?
I haven't.Cool. Tell us more.
Cool. Tell us more.
What do you want to know?Why you haven’t ruled it out and yet not even the PJ appeared to consider it? Why do you think that is?
Why you haven’t ruled it out and yet not even the PJ appeared to consider it? Why do you think that is?
1) I haven't ruled it out because anything is possible.
2) Appearances can deceive
3) I could care less
I haven't.Get the PJ to find the body first.
1) I haven't ruled it out because anything is possible.1) Anything?? Even an abductor?? Surely not!!
2) Appearances can deceive
3) I could care less
If they are actually innocent of all involvement, Mr McCann and his best buddy shouldn't have provided the police with two completely different versions of the last time they allege they seen the missing child alive. Never a good sign imo but I'm sure if definitive evidence emerges that clears them of any involvement they'll be the first to let us all know about it. I'll wait until I see that definitive evidence, if you don't mind.Mr McCann said he last saw Madeleine on his 9pm check. Which best buddy contradicts this?
If their innocent of all involvement, they've only got themselves to blame for how I perceive them. I can't see any apology being required anytime soon.
If they are actually innocent of all involvement, Mr McCann and his best buddy shouldn't have provided the police with two completely different versions of the last time they allege they seen the missing child alive. Never a good sign imo but I'm sure if definitive evidence emerges that clears them of any involvement they'll be the first to let us all know about it. I'll wait until I see that definitive evidence, if you don't mind.
If their innocent of all involvement, they've only got themselves to blame for how I perceive them. I can't see any apology being required anytime soon.
Mr McCann told police he took two completely different routes and used two completely different entry methods = two completely different versions of the last time he alleges he seen Madeleine alive on his 9pm check. Best buddy doesn't contradict this but he tells police he last seen Madeleine at 5pm and Kate and Gerry were there which changes to 6.30 and only Kate was there. Another two completely different versions of when the best buddy alleges he last seen the missing child alive. Never a good sign imo but I'll be sure to look out for word of this definitive evidence that clears them of any involvement. The two current investigations, haven't released any for consideration. I acknowledge that may well change.
Mr McCann told police he took two completely different routes and used two completely different entry methods = two completely different versions of the last time he alleges he seen Madeleine alive on his 9pm check. Best buddy doesn't contradict this but he tells police he last seen Madeleine at 5pm and Kate and Gerry were there which changes to 6.30 and only Kate was there. Another two completely different versions of when the best buddy alleges he last seen the missing child alive. Never a good sign imo but I'll be sure to look out for word of this definitive evidence that clears them of any involvement. The two current investigations, haven't released any for consideration. I acknowledge that may well change.What definitive evidence would clear them of any involvement in your book?
A conviction of someone else responsible for Madeleine's disappearance would be pretty definitive evidence they weren't involved imo.Wouldn’t that probsbly be a stitch up job by the High-Ups to protect the McCanns though?
I don't follow you. I'll give you the opportunity to expand if you like?Sure. If someone else was found guilty of the crime then don’t you think that would be likely to be some sort of cover up perpetuated by the establishment to protect the McCanns and the police’s own reputation? The poor b....r they put away for it would probably be some local simpleton paedo patsy or some such.
I think personally you are travelling into the realms of fantasy with that one. I find it hard to believe that the establishment would be capable of manufacturing compelling evidence that was strong enough to convict any innocent individual. I find it even more unlikely given any defence solicitor will have Kate, Gerry and all their chums in that witness box to testify on behalf of the defence quicker than you could say, where did that abductor go.Of course it’s not what I think, but I’m pretty confident it’s what many people who are convinced the parents are guilty would think in such an eventuality. If and when the case is finally shelved and the Met once again reiterate that they hsve been pusuing the stranger abduction theory but reached a dead end then a conspiracy theory along these lines will be rife amongst the sceptics, mark my words.
So no, I don't think any conviction outwith the McCanns would be a cover up perpetuated by the establishment to protect the McCanns. Is that what you think?
If only!
Of course it’s not what I think, but I’m pretty confident it’s what many people who are convinced the parents are guilty would think in such an eventuality. If and when the case is finally shelved and the Met once again reiterate that they hsve been pusuing the stranger abduction theory but reached a dead end then a conspiracy theory along these lines will be rife amongst the sceptics, mark my words.
It won't be a surprise if OG say they have been investigating the stranger abduction theory; that was their remit.You may not be aware of this but some sceptics actually believe that Operation Grange have spent the last 8 years investigating the McCanns, crazy I know!
This sceptic is starting to believe that whatever they were investigating over the eight years, they might not have been very good at it.
This sceptic is starting to believe that whatever they were investigating over the eight years, they might not have been very good at it.Never mind, I’m sure the PJ are getting ready to pounce on the McCanns, any day now... @)(++(*
You may not be aware of this but some sceptics actually believe that Operation Grange have spent the last 8 years investigating the McCanns, crazy I know!
But as yet.
And it has been a lengthy investigation.
No indicaion yet that Madeleine's parents are involved in her disappearance.
I'm sure you will agree.
Not on the abductor then? I don't know where you got your information but it doesn't make for pleasant reading for the missing child's sake.What are you on about?
Your comment stated the police were about to pounce on the McCanns any day now. It was your comment I was on about.You do realise it was tongue-in-cheek don’t you?
Did you think mine was something else?It sounded like a rebuke designed to try and shame me, perhaps you were just having a laugh, you cheeky little monkey you.
Mr McCann told police he took two completely different routes and used two completely different entry methods = two completely different versions of the last time he alleges he seen Madeleine alive on his 9pm check. Best buddy doesn't contradict this but he tells police he last seen Madeleine at 5pm and Kate and Gerry were there which changes to 6.30 and only Kate was there. Another two completely different versions of when the best buddy alleges he last seen the missing child alive. Never a good sign imo but I'll be sure to look out for word of this definitive evidence that clears them of any involvement. The two current investigations, haven't released any for consideration. I acknowledge that may well change.
Of course another little ickle of confusion was the last sighting by Gerry- he claims she was where he left her on to of the covers as it was a warm night- however- Kate last saw her as she put Maddie to bed all snuggled up under the covers as it was cold!
Then ofcourse there is the Gerry never saw JT and contradicted her even being where she said she was passed she said.. he claimed he was on the other side of the road.. O kAYYYYYYYY
Gerry couldnt have been sure if anyone in the nearby apartments had seen his talk with Jez so if he put himself on the other side of the road and everything went pear shaped I believe he would have thrown Tanner under the proverbial bus.
He had no qualms about telling the crew filming them on a documentary that he was on the other side of the road.. I believe Jane was upset by this remark?
It is something so stupid and could be something of nothing, BUT I just wonder why make a thing of it?
It has some significance i'm sure.
Gerry couldnt have been sure if anyone in the nearby apartments had seen his talk with Jez so if he put himself on the other side of the road and everything went pear shaped I believe he would have thrown Tanner under the proverbial bus.This makes no sense at all. Jez Wilkins saw his talk with Jez Wilkins, no need for any other witnesses who may or may not have actually existed in the first place.
He had no qualms about telling the crew filming them on a documentary that he was on the other side of the road.. I believe Jane was upset by this remark?
It is something so stupid and could be something of nothing, BUT I just wonder why make a thing of it?
It has some significance i'm sure.
Thank you for all of those valuable additions to this Forum.
He had no qualms about telling the crew filming them on a documentary that he was on the other side of the road.. I believe Jane was upset by this remark?
It is something so stupid and could be something of nothing, BUT I just wonder why make a thing of it?
It has some significance i'm sure.
What nonsense you post.
Jane was upset ... terribly upset as she relived the trauma ... that had she known there was an abduction in progress she could have stopped it with one shout. But she didn't know and the man and the child walked into history.
He had no qualms about telling the crew filming them on a documentary that he was on the other side of the road.. I believe Jane was upset by this remark?Is that a belief I see...?
It is something so stupid and could be something of nothing, BUT I just wonder why make a thing of it?
It has some significance i'm sure.
We don’t know that. There was no context to that particular scene so she could have been crying over anything.Yeah, she probably just broke her flipflop.
Is that a belief I see...?
What nonsense you post.
Jane was upset ... terribly upset as she relived the trauma ... that had she known there was an abduction in progress she could have stopped it with one shout. But she didn't know and the man and the child walked into history.
Who identified the person that Tanner saw, to be an allged abductor, please.The only eye witness certainly believed that she saw Madeleine being abducted and I think she had very good reason for thinking that immediately she heard the hue and cry which alerted her that Madeleine was missing from her bed ...
The only eye witness certainly believed that she saw Madeleine being abducted and I think she had very good reason for thinking that immediately she heard the hue and cry which alerted her that Madeleine was missing from her bed ...
Madeleine Was Here
Part 4 of 5
2:35
I was walking up here to do the check … probably got to about here … I saw the man walk across the road there carrying a child …
3:33
... Why the hell didn’t you think there was somebody abducting a child … but its not a thought that somebody is going to go into an apartment and take a child out
I’m probably the one person who could have stopped them … there is that what if … what if …
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY
Jane's distress and trauma is palpable as a direct result of what she witnessed even many months down the line. Which leads me to another sceptic belief which saw her being called "Liar" from one end of the internet to the other.
The only eye witness to a probable abduction being deliberately trolled and traduced in the face of police not bothering to track down Dr Totman until 2013. Verifying that indeed a man had been walking home carrying his daughter around the time Jane saw a man carrying a child.
This makes no sense at all. Jez Wilkins saw his talk with Jez Wilkins, no need for any other witnesses who may or may not have actually existed in the first place.
Jez was on the 5A side of the road, with Gerry, near the gate, but didn't confirm the time Gerry gave.So what?
Jane supplied the time but placed the men above the side gate as if Gerry had been coming from the direction of the car park.
Jez didn't see Jane and didn't think she could have passed them wihout being seen
Gerry said he exited the side gate and crossed the road to speak to Jez at around 9.10
It doesn't match very well in my opinion.
The only eye witness certainly believed that she saw Madeleine being abducted and I think she had very good reason for thinking that immediately she heard the hue and cry which alerted her that Madeleine was missing from her bed ...
Madeleine Was Here
Part 4 of 5
2:35
I was walking up here to do the check … probably got to about here … I saw the man walk across the road there carrying a child …
3:33
... Why the hell didn’t you think there was somebody abducting a child … but its not a thought that somebody is going to go into an apartment and take a child out
I’m probably the one person who could have stopped them … there is that what if … what if …
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY
Jane's distress and trauma is palpable as a direct result of what she witnessed even many months down the line. Which leads me to another sceptic belief which saw her being called "Liar" from one end of the internet to the other.
The only eye witness to a probable abduction being deliberately trolled and traduced in the face of police not bothering to track down Dr Totman until 2013. Verifying that indeed a man had been walking home carrying his daughter around the time Jane saw a man carrying a child.
The only eye witness certainly believed that she saw Madeleine being abducted and I think she had very good reason for thinking that immediately she heard the hue and cry which alerted her that Madeleine was missing from her bed ...
Madeleine Was Here
Part 4 of 5
2:35
I was walking up here to do the check … probably got to about here … I saw the man walk across the road there carrying a child …
3:33
... Why the hell didn’t you think there was somebody abducting a child … but its not a thought that somebody is going to go into an apartment and take a child out
I’m probably the one person who could have stopped them … there is that what if … what if …
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY
Jane's distress and trauma is palpable as a direct result of what she witnessed even many months down the line. Which leads me to another sceptic belief which saw her being called "Liar" from one end of the internet to the other.
The only eye witness to a probable abduction being deliberately trolled and traduced in the face of police not bothering to track down Dr Totman until 2013. Verifying that indeed a man had been walking home carrying his daughter around the time Jane saw a man carrying a child.
Strangely the person whom indentified by Redwood as being in being in the excat same area at that time never saw anything,ref timeline moved on.
Unfortunately Dr. Totman would have been walking in the wrong direction. We all know this, of course, as we all have a greater knowledge of Luz Locations, which Andy Redwood doesn't appear to have had.
Was this a crying shame? I think so. But I doubt that it matters all that much anyway.
Andy Redwood didn't do enough research, which has probably now gone into the annals of time. But no one is perfect.
I believe that Jane Tanner saw the abduction, unbeknown to her at the time, and I am able to Follow the path that would have been taken, down to The Smith Sighting, and heading for The Beach of Light. From whence Madeleine was picked up by someone with a boat.
I believe that it was a planned Abduction by someone who wanted to adopt a girl child of Madeleine's age, but I suspect that any such middle class girl child would have done.
Sadly, I believe that Amaral thought that all of his birthdays had come at once. This for him was going to prove that Mothers kill their daughters, and consequently absolve him from the appalling handling of the disappearance of Joanna Cipriano.
Fortunately, Kate McCann never fell down any stairs, but don't think she might not have done, given the opportunity.
So you believe Redwood when he said the parents were not suspects but not that OG had identified Tannerman ?
If he and his team could make this huge error due to bad research imagine what else they’ve missed.
whats the provenace for totman walking in the wrong direction...is it just the crimewatch recon
Yes, it is all a bit of a bad one. Was it Andy Redwood, or was it Operation Grange? Who actually said that The Mccanns weren't suspects?
As far as I know Andy Redwood just got Dr. Totman wrong, which pretty nearly left me gobsmacked. I very nearly lost my faith in British Detectives. Sheesh, I should have become a British Police Detective many moons ago. But then they probably wouldn't have had me. I am much too logical. I don't have a gut instinct.
Are The McCanns still suspects? I don't know. But they would have a mighty hard time proving it. In fact, it is never going to happen.
On balance of logic, I think not. But you don't want to know why anymore. It has all been said too many times.
I no longer have any real anger against Sceptics. But it has been a hard road, and ultimately taught me more about myself.
whats the provenace for totman walking in the wrong direction...is it just the crimewatch recon
Just his apartment, and from where he was supposedly coming.
I should think not, too. You can disagree with a point of view without getting angry.
And you are that good when you contemplate twelve years of unfounded accusations. I salute you, Madame.
Fortunately, I am not emotionally involved in any of this.Something must keep you coming back.
Yes, it is all a bit of a bad one. Was it Andy Redwood, or was it Operation Grange? Who actually said that The Mccanns weren't suspects?
As far as I know Andy Redwood just got Dr. Totman wrong, which pretty nearly left me gobsmacked. I very nearly lost my faith in British Detectives. Sheesh, I should have become a British Police Detective many moons ago. But then they probably wouldn't have had me. I am much too logical. I don't have a gut instinct.
Are The McCanns still suspects? I don't know. But they would have a mighty hard time proving it. In fact, it is never going to happen.
On balance of logic, I think not. But you don't want to know why anymore. It has all been said too many times.
I no longer have any real anger against Sceptics. But it has been a hard road, and ultimately taught me more about myself.
Something must keep you coming back.
I havent looked at the details but if thats the case the Jayne tanners sighting could well be the abductor
Fortunately, I am not emotionally involved in any of this.
Davel. Good God. You didn't know that Dr. Totman's apartment was to the left of 5a, and that The Night Creche was to the right of 5a? There is no way Dr. Totman could have been carrying his child from left to right from The Night Creche. He would have been coming from right to left. This is a simple fact. And not what Jane Tanner saw.
Jeezuz, I despair if even you didn't catch that. No wonder Redwood got it wrong.
Not that I think it matters all that much.
Do you honestly think that any of us are?
Curiosity and plenty of time. What's your excuse?So. boredom and nosiness then. For me it’s a displacement activity mainly, though I never post when I’m at work, only while I’m at home, between doing other stuff. I do find some of the members posts here inadvertently very amusing, and good entertainment value. 8((()*/
So. boredom and nosiness then. For me it’s a displacement activity mainly, though I never post when I’m at work, only while I’m at home, between doing other stuff. I do find some of the members posts here inadvertently very amusing, and good entertainment value. 8((()*/
Something must keep you coming back.
Indeed I do.
Then you don't know anything about any of us.
Oh no, not boredom - I could watch TV if I were bored, but I do agree about the entertainment valueAs trolls go he’s quite good value.
I find Spammy particularly good.
Do you feel emotionally attached?To you...? 8**8:/:
Quite right, we are all anonymous.
Do we know if Totman was going straight home ? Perhaps the family had run out of milk, tea, nappies and he said he’d go to the shop and pick some up on the his way home from picking up his daughter.There's no shop in that direction.
I am not, and never have been. I am Maureen Eleanor Eccles Lang. Nee Mitchell.
There's no shop in that direction.
Isn’t there one quite near the Millennium restaurant?Not that I am aware of.
Not that I am aware of.
I thought I may have misremembered as it’s a few years since I’ve been to Luz so I asked my other half and he remembers the shop to. Whether it’s there now I’ve no idea but it certainly would have been in 2007.The only commercial business near the Millennium is the Mirage, located just south. The Mirage is mentioned several times in the PJ-Files. It is a restaurant/pub, hardly the place Totman would carry a child to.
The only commercial business near the Millennium is the Mirage, located just south. The Mirage is mentioned several times in the PJ-Files. It is a restaurant/pub, hardly the place Totman would carry a child to.
Baptista was shut, due to the lateness of the hour. That leaves two Ali Super mini markets, and O Celeiro mini market, none in the direction that Tannerman was heading.
My info comes from someone who has documented facilities in Luz (shops, bars, cafes, restaurants) from before the time Madeleine disappeared.
If you still believe there was a shop near the Millennium, you will be able to find it on Google StreetView.
By the way. It's a fair old trek from block 4 to the Millennium. So why was Totman toting his child? Much easier just to leave the child at 'home', surely?
There are several shops near the Millennium though not sure if they would sell milk etc but you are right, it is a bit of a trek.
The problem is that we don’t know anything about Totman. Was he in Luz with friends ? We’re those friends staying in the direction Totman was walking ? Had has wife gone there already and he was going to meet her? Had he left her at a restaurant and was on his way back to her ? So many possibilities and until we have more information any of them could explain his direction of travel.
If, as we've been told, he picked up the child from the night creche she had already been carried about in the cold night air for about ten minutes. Would he really get close to or reach his apartment and then turn round and head off in a different direction? Not, imo, if the rest of his family were at home. If they weren't, why was he going home in the first place? Why not join them wherever they were?
To pick something up ?
As I said until we know more it’s hard to guess Totman’s motives for walking the way he was, if indeed we are being told the truth. To suppose that OG hadn’t done their research before airing the information is simply ridiculous.
Where he was heading lay the Mirage and the Millenium. His family could have been in either of them, so if he needed something from his apartment it would have made sense to drop his child off first then nip to the apartment unencumbered imo.
True but maybe the child cried so she was taken too then fell asleep ?
I suppose anything is possible.
Exactly.......anything is more believable than that Redwood and his officers missed that Totman was going in the wrong direction.Anything?
I think it is time Netflix or Mark Suanokonoko interviews Julian Totman.
I think it is time Netflix or Mark Suanokonoko interviews Julian Totman.Why? SY never identified him by name.
Why? SY never identified him by name.If it wasn't him, well we'll be back to the drawing board.
If it wasn't him, well we'll be back to the drawing board.
Not at all,just don't beleive everthing a journalist's writes.'That's why I'm here trying to figure it out.
'That's why I'm here trying to figure it out.
The important part about Redwoods revelation moment was not, in indentifying who Tanner saw but that this person saw nothing suspicious after passing in front of 5a,how is this known? Redwood moving the timeline on and focusing on Smithman.Any person walking past the apartment is only in the area for a quarter of a minute or so. I don't accept what you say. You might be questioning it too when you ask ".... how is this known?"
Any person walking past the apartment is only in the area for a quarter of a minute or so. I don't accept what you say. You might be questioning it too when you ask ".... how is this known?"
DCI Redwood said: 'Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.
'It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms.'
I'll leave it to Redwood.
Smithman still remains the key,always as done imo.
Yet his efit is no longer on SY’s website. Perhaps he’s been found.
Yet his efit is no longer on SY’s website. Perhaps he’s been found.Could well be that they have identified him.There's nothing on the MET site pertaining to grange now,all wrapped up with no where else to go? Smithson is the key.
Watching it just now on Netflix. It must be remembered that everything that went on from 5.30 to 10pm in the McCann apartment is wholly uncorroborated.By the nature of only one person doing the checks at any one time. Matt and Russell appear to walk together around 9:30 PM.
Just finished watching Ep. 1.I fully agree with you Misty. Problems here for Jez someday soon IMO. Documentary makers don't seem to notice the major discrepancy.
Jayne Jenson's recollection places Jez Wilkins on the streets shortly after the alert went out, which does not tally with his statement.
Did she give an official statement or simply talk to the papers ?The statements taken by the UK police did not get published when the PJ archived the case. I believe they gave a statement. I wonder if they mentioned Jez in their original statement.
At least two grown men seemed to.Both come with question marks IMO.
"So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd,”
Jon Corner, Vanity Fair, 10/1/08
"Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child....She was, you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
I find that bit from David Jones that the Lagos Marina was shut down because everyone had gone to look for the child strange. The marina is a long way from the Tapas Bar area of PdL. How did the message get across to there so soon?They may have used an advanced telecommunications device called a 'telephone'.
Were they looking for the same child? Around 18:30 into the video episode 1.
I find that bit from David Jones that the Lagos Marina was shut down because everyone had gone to look for the child strange. The marina is a long way from the Tapas Bar area of PdL. How did the message get across to there so soon?I thought it had been established on this forum that the normal closing time for Lagos Marina was 8pm? By that I mean no boats in or out.
Were they looking for the same child? Around 18:30 into the video episode 1.
They may have used an advanced telecommunications device called a 'telephone'.No one rang David Jones.
I thought it had been established on this forum that the normal closing time for Lagos Marina was 8pm? By that I mean no boats in or out.But there could be a time when they turn out the lights. It doesn't make sense.
I'm not sure you could close the marina to prevent owners getting on/off their boats at any time. It strikes me as making no sense.
I read somewhere that a boat left Lagos Marina not long before it closed. I don't know if this is true.
From memory, is this not connected to the tale of the Brazilian couple who wanted a child?
If so, there is a flaw. The Brazilian woman was allegedly seen by the video shop owner in the commercial centre on Rua Batista as he closed up for the night, driving past his shop, apparently concerned with something on the rear seat.
Unless he closed up early, his 'statement' places the woman in Luz later than the Lagos Marina closed to boats. And before the McCanns went out that night. Plus Rua Batista was at that time dug up for civil improvements, so it would have made more sense to use one of the many undug roads nearby.
That's the one. How long does it take to motor a boat from Lagos to Luz?I tried last year to get my beloved out for a local boat trip for her birthday present. I have a particularly interesting photo from 1947 depicting a family day out and I had hoped to re-create it in 2018 with our family.
I tried last year to get my beloved out for a local boat trip for her birthday present. I have a particularly interesting photo from 1947 depicting a family day out and I had hoped to re-create it in 2018 with our family.
She declined, as she has a significant spine condition, so she felt it would be impossible to get into and out of the boat.
Consequently, I have no first-hand knowledge of the time a Lagos to Luz trip might have taken.
However without being certain, I would venture it could be done in a little over an hour. But I'm no sailor.
From memory, is this not connected to the tale of the Brazilian couple who wanted a child?
If so, there is a flaw. The Brazilian woman was allegedly seen by the video shop owner in the commercial centre on Rua Batista as he closed up for the night, driving past his shop, apparently concerned with something on the rear seat.
Unless he closed up early, his 'statement' places the woman in Luz later than the Lagos Marina closed to boats. And before the McCanns went out that night. Plus Rua Batista was at that time dug up for civil improvements, so it would have made more sense to use one of the many undug roads nearby.
Thanks for your opinion. It sounds about right.
I have this theory that whoever has Madeleine now doesn't actually know who she is.
Do you have any evidence to support this theory?
Do you have any evidence to support this theory?I know about certain countries which were involved in a blaze of publicity at the time.
I know about certain countries which were involved in a blaze of publicity at the time.
What I don't know about is whether large chunks of the once Portuguese empire, such as Brasil, Angola, Goa or Macao, publicised it.
Nor do I know if countries like Romania, Latvia, Russia, China or Japan publicised it.
My eldest son lives and works in the US. I had a phone conversation with him perhaps 2 years ago when I said I was 'tracking' Madeleine McCann. He replied "Who is Madeleine McCann?"
Don't assume that the whole world knows about Madeleine. My 'evidence' suggests otherwise.
I know about certain countries which were involved in a blaze of publicity at the time.
What I don't know about is whether large chunks of the once Portuguese empire, such as Brasil, Angola, Goa or Macao, publicised it.
Nor do I know if countries like Romania, Latvia, Russia, China or Japan publicised it.
My eldest son lives and works in the US. I had a phone conversation with him perhaps 2 years ago when I said I was 'tracking' Madeleine McCann. He replied "Who is Madeleine McCann?"
Don't assume that the whole world knows about Madeleine. My 'evidence' suggests otherwise.
30 minutes in it describes the arguido interviews
31 minutes in it goes onto describe what was thought to be a plea deal.
https://archive.org/stream/The_Portugal_News-970/The_Portugal_News-970_djvu.txtSounds like a bit of the old nudge nudge wink wink, you're in a right pickle, etc, etc.
2 Aug 2008 • Edition N- 970
*snipped* (TPN=The Portugal News, interview of Amaral by Brendan de Beer)
TPN: Did the police offer a plea
bargain to Kate McCann ?
GA:No.
TPN : But did you not suggest she
consider a plea bargain ?
GA : We only explained the nature
of certain crimes. Her lawyer was
there, you can ask him.
___________________________________
You can understand why Kate & maybe her lawyer believed a plea bargain was on the table.
In my opinion most policemen will inform suspects of the possible consequences they face. I'm sure it helps to concentrate minds.
If that was the case, why didn't the PJ offer the same menu of prison sentences to Gerry during his arguido interview?Always try to make the weaker one crack - SOP.
If that was the case, why didn't the PJ offer the same menu of prison sentences to Gerry during his arguido interview?
Always try to make the weaker one crack - SOP..
Cue the 'stoical Kate, refusing to bow to the evil policemen, good on yer girl' posts.
.'
Gerry's rights as an arguido were breached too. As an arguido he was entitled by law to see the evidence against him. When he asked to see the DNA evidence ... it was refused.
The whole thing was a shambles.
'
How do you know he asked for the DNA evidence.
I remeber hearing this remark...may be in kates bookLet's see Brietta's cite or memory of the occasion.
Let's see Brietta's cite or memory of the occasion.
'
How do you know he asked for the DNA evidence.
As Davel says ... Kate made reference to it in her book. She continued by expressing relief that despite all the rumours put about the police they had no evidence she wasn't alive.
Oh well if Kate said it it must be true....she has no axe to grind, does she !Kate would even tell us if she was lying about that.
This man is reviewing the Nerflix series. His knowledge of the case isn't complete but I agree with a lot of what he says. No-one can say they know what happened to Madeleine McCann in my opinion.One thing he does repeat often is that the Portuguese police messed up the investigation from the beginning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qADoUpzEOu8&feature=youtu.be
One thing he does repeat often is that the Portuguese police messed up the investigation from the beginning.
Do agree with that? What I understand is that there was no evidence of a break in. OK GA accepts that the window was open, whether opened by Kate or other.
So is manipulating a crime scene not a crime?
I can see the difficulty in closing down the Ocean Club business. Should the area of the crime scene include the whole Tapas area?
I don't see why unless a crime was thought to be committed there.The tracker dogs on the first search had tracked Madeleine back to the car park opposite the secondary reception. If the secondary reception office becomes part of the crime scene, wouldn't that be closing the Tapas area? Was there another way in?
One thing he does repeat often is that the Portuguese police messed up the investigation from the beginning.
Do agree with that? What I understand is that there was no evidence of a break in. OK GA accepts that the window was open, whether opened by Kate or other.
So is manipulating a crime scene not a crime?
I can see the difficulty in closing down the Ocean Club business. Should the area of the crime scene include the whole Tapas area?
The tracker dogs on the first search had tracked Madeleine back to the car park opposite the secondary reception. If the secondary reception office becomes part of the crime scene, wouldn't that be closing the Tapas area? Was there another way in?
IMO The street outside the McCann apartment needed to be closed off. How many of the apartments would be affected if that road was closed to the public?
One thing he does repeat often is that the Portuguese police messed up the investigation from the beginning.
Do agree with that? What I understand is that there was no evidence of a break in. OK GA accepts that the window was open, whether opened by Kate or other.
So is manipulating a crime scene not a crime?
I can see the difficulty in closing down the Ocean Club business. Should the area of the crime scene include the whole Tapas area?
It's easy to criticise the Portuguese police with hindsight. What I don't know is if any other police force would have reacted as quickly and as comprehensively as he's recommending in the same circumstances.
I think the confusion was, perhaps deliberate, they were looking for a missing child that may have wandered, not an 'abducted' one. Ther was no seperating of the tapas /parents to interview-they managed to run up a collaberated time line- when was this done exactly?
IF as they claim they were checking every 20/30 minutes they had no need to write up a time line now did they.
left apartment at 8.00
1st check 8.30
second check 9.00
third check 9.30
next check 10.00
...and IF it was that simple why all the erm um yeah like you know erm um yeah err um err um um um you know.
they all became very bloody forgetful- in order for the police to assist them with their memory they offered a walk through... this was declined. In my opinion it was declined as it would show up a huge hole in the story they so ridgidly stuck to.
There is no independant evidence of the checking at all.
The McCann's didn't write the timeline. The timeline showed the comings and goings of them all. Whether or not they ermed and ahed is of no importance either, most people would come across like that if they were taped or every word was written down, people don't realise they are doing it. The waiters noticed the checking system.
There is no independent corroberation of the checking. The Tapas staff certainly didn't confirm anything except someone being missng when their meal was ready. Who cleared off for 30 minutes, I wonder?
Mark Rowley gives a ringing endorsement of the first investigation.Well you missed my point entirely. Look have you listened to the commentary on the link? If you haven't you are not really qualified to comment.
Firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the
original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation.
Wonder why the PJ didn't pick up on that at the time? More utter incompetence ??
I expect it was noticed but the police can't arrest people because no-one corroberates their story, afaik.
It will be mentioned in the files then ... I wonder whereabouts ... any ideas?
We know that the checks weren't corroberated; that's why the reconstitution was required.Who would have corroborated them? Did the members of the group take independent witnesses with them each time they went on a check? A reconstitution would not have provided any corroboration or confirmation IMO.
Well you missed my point entirely. Look have you listened to the commentary on the link? If you haven't you are not really qualified to comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qADoUpzEOu8&feature=youtu.be
The ex-detective seems to be saying the area of the crime scene was set too small IMO.
Who would have corroborated them? Did the members of the group take independent witnesses with them each time they went on a check? A reconstitution would not have provided any corroboration or confirmation IMO.
BTW note the correct spelling of corroborated.
Well you missed my point entirely. Look have you listened to the commentary on the link? If you haven't you are not really qualified to comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qADoUpzEOu8&feature=youtu.be
The ex-detective seems to be saying the area of the crime scene was set too small IMO.
You seem to think I'm criticising them because their checks were uncorroborated (thanks for the spell check). All I;m doing is pointing out a fact. The other fact is that the parents were insisting that an abduction had taken place..In the opinion of the investigators the events of the evening as described by the group needed confirming abd they thought a reconstitution would help.I don't think you're criticising the group just pointing out that no amount of reconstituting the events will corroborate or confirm them, so a completely pointless exercise. IMO.
One interesting point raised by Mark Goldbridge is when was Madeleine last seen by anyone ither than her oarents and their friends. That led me back to the files and I noticed that her nanny, Cat Baker, wasn't asked about 3rd May in her first interview on 6th May. Her colleague says that Madeleine attended the Mini Club on the afternoon of 3rd, but she doesn't remember what time she arrived or whether she was there when the children were taken to the Tapas for high tea. Clearly she and Cat took all the children together. Each nanny had up to seven children in their care, but on 3rd Cat only had three to take to the Tapas; two boys and Madeleine.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EMMA_WILDING.htm
It's only durimg her rogatory interview that Cat speaks about High Tea. She says;
Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm
Although Cat was interviewed at the request of the McCanns, her account seems vague and it's phrased oddly imo. Saying that Kate went to get Madeleine isn't saying Kate actually collected her.
That's an awfully wide time span. Are those figures correct?
It even says that in the Portuguese piece.Wonder if it should be 5:25 to 18:00,using 12hr and 24 hr speak.
Whatever was meant we don't have what we need to see; Cat Baker saying that Kate McCann came to collect Madeleine from the Tapas area at 5.30 or 17.30.
It even says that in the Portuguese piece.Wonder if it should be 5:25 to 18:00,using 12hr and 24 hr speak.That is rather ridiculous where the two times are mentioned in different units. (If it was supposed to be 5:30 to 6:00 PM it should have been 17h.30 to 18h.00. What is the correct way of writing the 24 hour clock times?
Would depend on the context. Historians might view them to be dates.It is hard not to say "hours" or if oner is talking about years say in the year 1800 AD to be precise.
So which was it?
5.30 = 17.30 isn't it?
5.30 = 17.30 isn't it?
I don't know. Some people don't seem to think so. I mentioned this several page ago but no one was interested.Statements are taken verbally and then written down by the interviewer. Errors happen if times are said in the 12 hour clock and converted and written to the 24 hour clock, especially by people like myself you don't use the 24 hour clock often
Statements are taken verbally and then written down by the interviewer. Errors happen if times are said in the 12 hour clock and converted and written to the 24 hour clock, especially by people like myself you don't use the 24 hour clock often
The 24 Hour clock is no mystery to me. Ex Navy and living in France where they use it all of the time. So I don't understand what the bother is all about.You might not but others do.
You might not but others do.
Then it's time they sorted out the 24 Hour Clock. This time thing has been going on for nigh on 12 years.Did no one proof read the statements?
Did no one proof read the statements?
I was referring to members of this Forum and other Forums. The Police won't have had a problem.What they read that and accept it? Would the police not question it if they read: "It was around 15h25/18h00" in a statement?
What they read that and accept it? Would the police not question it if they read: "It was around 15h25/18h00" in a statement?
Who wrote that and in what context?As I understand it was in Cat Baker's statement, she was English so she'd need a translator to take her statement. We have really no idea how that process worked i.e. who actually determined what was written as a statement in Portuguese. Those times are in the Portuguese statement (someone told us this, I haven't checked myself).
As I understand it was in Cat Baker's statement, she was English so she'd need a translator to take her statement. We have really no idea how that process worked i.e. who actually determined what was written as a statement in Portuguese. Those times are in the Portuguese statement (someone told us this, I haven't checked myself).
If we think the time range is too large the problem happened in Portugal.
If what is written is what she meant then the problem is ours.
As I understand it was in Cat Baker's statement, she was English so she'd need a translator to take her statement. We have really no idea how that process worked i.e. who actually determined what was written as a statement in Portuguese. Those times are in the Portuguese statement (someone told us this, I haven't checked myself).
If we think the time range is too large the problem happened in Portugal.
If what is written is what she meant then the problem is ours.
But what was it referring to?You were right to question me. This is what is recorded in the rogatory:
Sorry, that sounds rude. I didn't mean it to.
You were right to question me. This is what is recorded in the rogatory:
"On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis."
So what is she referring to was it the time Kate went to the Tapas area to pick up the kids? Or was it the period of time Gerry was playing tennis.
In the majority of the rogatories we start with a verbatim statement as it is recorded but here we have a Portuguese transcription of what she said in English already translated to Portuguese.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm
Could be either. And could be the Translator. But hardly earth shattering.When does a discrepancy become a deception.
When does a discrepancy become a deception.When vindictive and ill informed members of internet fora decide it is. IMO
Whatever was going on there's no definite statement from Cat Baker that she took Madeleine to the Tapas area for her tea and handed her over to her mother at 5.30.Who signs out Madeleine on the creche attendance forms? Kate McCann signs her out at 17.30 The sheets are not counter signed by the nanny present. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CRECHE/Processo-pdf01-pages-107-111[105-109]/processopdf01page107-CrecheRecords3.jpg
Whatever was going on there's no definite statement from Cat Baker that she took Madeleine to the Tapas area for her tea and handed her over to her mother at 5.30.
She said they went swimming in the afternoon session - I think, but she is somewhat vague over timings and days.
Anyway, this would be the small pool within the Tapas compound, the pool featured in the 'last picture'.
Is it likely that she would march the children from their play area above main reception to the pool, then back again for some other activity AND then back to the Tapas for Teatime ?
I think it more likely that the swimming session would be the last activity of the day and the children would remain in the Tapas area awaiting collection by a parent.
That being so, how reliable would the afternoon signing-out procedure be?
I don't think they would have put the children in that freezing cold pool, they would have used the indoor one near main reception.
It could be any of the three.
It could have been the LP officer attempting to reformat it for his PT colleagues and made a mistake, but I find it just as likely that whoever translated the LP statement into PT could equally have made a mistake in converting what may have been written in English to Portguese: she could have said "between five twenty-five and six", and the translator reformatted it, but missed correcting "5" to "7". Easily done in a rush.
If Cat had broadened the time frame, there's no explanation given, which would have been a point to clarify.
Some people simply don't understand the 24 Hour Clock. If you do you tend to wing the mistakes.
Easy to do though. It's relatively easy to read "five" and type "5" without thinking.
Easy to do though. It's relatively easy to read "five" and type "5" without thinking.
Why do I get the feeling supporters are trying to re write any errors the Team McCann made...
making up excuses for them is hilarious!
I have explained- it was deleted- UK citizens use the 12 hour clock stiil more often, and EU citizens More than likely use metric measures and and 24 hr Clock.
Why do I get the feeling supporters are trying to re write any errors the Team McCann made...
making up excuses for them is hilarious!
I have explained- it was deleted- UK citizens use the 12 hour clock stiil more often, and EU citizens More than likely use metric measures and and 24 hr Clock.
Why do I get the feeling supporters are trying to re write any errors the Team McCann made...
making up excuses for them is hilarious!
I have explained- it was deleted- UK citizens use the 12 hour clock stiil more often, and EU citizens More than likely use metric measures and and 24 hr Clock.
I do not think "supporters" are the least bit bothered ... as I see it no-one is at all interested in the minutiae of twelve years ago least of all the police ... the focus is on the here and now and the continuing live investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
I do not think "supporters" are the least bit bothered ... as I see it no-one is at all interested in the minutiae of twelve years ago least of all the police ... the focus is on the here and now and the continuing live investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
Who isn't in "Team McCann" in your view?
Would nannies of her age specify a time in that way?
It was a laid-back holiday resort, not an emergency ward.
Some sceptics cling to the irrelevant minutiae of details from the files much like fundamentalist religious zealots cling to the Old Testament.
Do these sceptics never consider that twelve years on these irrelevant details will have been considered and discarded by the.current police investigation
This is an on-going case. In the absence of a culprit, I doubt anything has been discarded, merely put to one side.
Some of the minor details which cause concern to some sceptics must have been decided as irrelevant by now.
The circumstances of the disappearnce and the claims made by the parents is cause for concern, so much so 12 million pounds worth of reasons say it is worth discussing.
Of course you don't have to take part in the discussion, but could you stop your moaning because others care.
Thanks.
Thank you for your reply to my post.
I disagree. The supporters spend an awful lot of time 'not bothering' and making excuses to justify the parents behaviour is bizzare IMO. Especially as it is Madeliene who is the eral victim in this discussion.
Of course it is.Are you saying there is no 00.00?
Incidentally, there is no midnight in the Naval Clock. It is 23.59 and 00.01. I thought you all would like to know that. Woe betide anyone who wasn't back on board by 23.59. You had to walk the plank. This was difficult on a shore station.
Not sure what you mean by "eral"... but, yes, of course, she's the principal victim, if that's what you meant.
And so far, she hasn't been found.
What I don't understand is why Amaral & co., have kept insisting that she died in the flat, when he doesn't know either.
Maybe she did, maybe she didn't.
New keyboard and bandaged hand! Real is what was meant. Feel free to make fun of it I do Myself.
The thing is the dogs alerted in some areas. Now this can mean anything. she dies out side was brought in OR she dies in the apartment at the hands of an attacker or an accident.
So many scenarios to dismiss the dogs entirely. However If it were my daughter and I was told a VRD had identified a scnent (not saying it was my daughters scent) I would be very upset thinking something bad happened to her. The last thing I would do is laugh off the dogs, why would I do that?
I don't know why you are bothering what Amaral is insisting, the parents are on the other side of the argument- claiming an abduction from a window in a very short timespan.
I like the way you are thinking, but what would it mean if you did "laugh off the dogs"? What would it mean then?
In what situations would you laugh it off?
The circumstances of the disappearnce and the claims made by the parents is cause for concern, so much so 12 million pounds worth of reasons say it is worth discussing.
Of course you don't have to take part in the discussion, but could you stop your moaning because others care.
Thanks.
Oh, but Erngath has so much well thought out and well researched stuff to share. You could see how she does it, if you made the effort. Then with the research needed, you could get all your posts right
Well you have sort of answered the question in the negative. I was asking in what situation would they laugh it off?
To be brutally honest Rob- feel free to delete or close your eyes- The parents claimed an abductor got in via a small window- saying it could be a paedophile gang. Now we don't need pictures to see what Paedophiles do to children- some of us don't even want to think about it- However, thinking that is what happened why would I not think that b str must have killed her- hid her body, came back for it as his DNA was all over her.
In that scenario WHY would I laugh off the dogs, Well I wouldn't , I would be too distraught thinking what has happened to my daughter to crack jokes...
And Kate at least WAS thinking what was happening to her daighter, as she describes in detail her daughters genetalia in her 'book'. I have to say that was very disturbing thing to hear from my friend who read it. I was horrified.
Are you saying there is no 00.00?
Not on The Royal Naval Clock, there isn'tOK as I understand it you are right there is no 0000 hour like if you were trying to describe midnight, Midnight is described as 2400,
Not on The Royal Naval Clock, there isn't
Well you have sort of answered the question in the negative. I was asking in what situation would they laugh it off?
I have given this some thought Rob, and to be very honest I can see nothing to laugh about being told cadaver dogs alerted to a scent in the apartment.
The fun those parents had about this is, IHMO quite macbre. Joking and laughing with CF about it...disgraceful.
Who or what is CF ?
Who was "joking and laughing?"
CF= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/15/police-were-told-two-years-ago-about-clement-freuds-madeleine-mc/
Kate tells us in her book the CF joked about the dogs... it is in another thread.
And the smirking sniggering Gerry here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vh5ObkBM3c
I remember Gerry’s sister making a joke too.
You mean the one about 'Lassie'?
CF= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/15/police-were-told-two-years-ago-about-clement-freuds-madeleine-mc/
Kate tells us in her book the CF joked about the dogs... it is in another thread.
And the smirking sniggering Gerry here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vh5ObkBM3c
You are absolutely wrong that there was any such instance in Kate's book where Sir Clement Freud 'joked' with Kate and Gerry about 'the dogs'.
I hardly imagine they found it much of a laughing matter.
Please quote what Kate is alleged to have said ...
I'll look up the actual cite if anyone really wants to be so pedantic.
Will this do? https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/05/kate-mccanns-book-references.html
Even seems to quote the relevant pages.
p234 of 'madeleine'. "One bark for yes, two for no?"Snip
Snip
His response to our catalogue of horrors was merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of making everything seem a little less terrible.
When he heard about the dogs, he remarked laconically, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’ He was right, of course; it was ridiculous. Madeleine
And that is what has got everyone in a tizzy ... UNBELIEVABLE !!! Forgive me ... not really unbelievable when recognising the lengths gone to in the demonising of Kate and Gerry McCann ... it is really just desperately very sad and concerned for the people who find solace in such nonsense.
The immediate background to that was that Ricardo Paiva had just informed them that they were about to become arguidos ... so they were laughing and joking about the dogs !!!
In my opinion that has to rank as one of the sickest of the sick grievances made as usual out of absolutely nothing and taken entirely out of context.
Snip
His response to our catalogue of horrors was merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of making everything seem a little less terrible.
When he heard about the dogs, he remarked laconically, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’ He was right, of course; it was ridiculous. Madeleine
And that is what has got everyone in a tizzy ... UNBELIEVABLE !!! Forgive me ... not really unbelievable when recognising the lengths gone to in the demonising of Kate and Gerry McCann ... it is really is just desperately concerning and desperately sad for the individuals who find solace in such nonsense.
The immediate background to that was that Ricardo Paiva had just informed them that they were about to become arguidos ... so they were laughing and joking about the dogs !!! I think not.
In my opinion ... that has to rank as one of the sickest of the sick grievances made as usual out of absolutely nothing and taken entirely out of context with no other intention than to defame a bereft couple.
You asked pedantically for a cite. You got your cite. I don't need to add an IMO to my post, do I?
What is unbelievable is that any parent would find it acceptable behaviour for anyone to be flippant about dogs who may have alerted to the death of their daughter’s death in their holiday apartment. Most parents would be horrified.
What is unbelievable is that any parent would find it acceptable behaviour for anyone to be flippant about dogs who may have alerted to the death of their daughter’s death in their holiday apartment. Most parents would be horrified.
Where does it say on your membership application to the forum that you are exempt from the protocol of exercising plain old good manners when addressing others.
If you think that passes as a cite for anything other than bizarre malice ... in my opinion the problem is yours , not mine ... I see no-one, least of all Kate and Gerry rolling about in mirth.
The paucity of using it as such is way beyond my understanding. It illustrates only that there is no sceptic case if that is the best evidence there is in support.
Being pedantic about a cite is certainly one way of hanging onto the reputation for integrity this forum once enjoyed ... since it enables the baseness of assertions to be challenged ... and I think your opinion on that fails the test. When read in context that is not a cite which supports the allegation made.
I was asked for a cite for what I had posted.
I provided a cite for what I had posted.
(&^&
The full quote from Kate McCann's book...
At 9.50pm, I rang Clement. ‘Come on round,’ he said. ‘It’ l be nice to see you. But you’l have to forgive my night-time attire.’ We found Clement watching a cookery programme, dressed, as promised, in his nightshirt. It was so ordinary and comforting, a bit like going to see your grandad after a horrible day at school. He gave me one of his looks and a giant glass of brandy, and managed to get a smile out of me with his greeting: ‘So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?’ His response to our catalogue of horrors was merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of making everything seem a little less terrible. When he heard about the dogs, he remarked laconicaly, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’ He was right, of course; it was ridiculous. A couple of hours later, fortified by our brandies (it was my first-ever taste of the stuff), some useful snippets of advice and several amusing anecdotes, we left our friend feeling quite a bit better than we had when we’d arrived. The shock of that day, and of what we were now facing, on top of the trauma of Madeleine’s absence, never left us for a second, but it was interludes like this that gave us just enough strength to carry on.
you didnt provide a cite for CF joking...his expression was described as laconicQuite. Apparently the cite supports the assertion that the McCanns were “joking and laughing “. I would describe the cite as pure dross.
Quite. Apparently the cite supports the assertion that the McCanns were “joking and laughing “. I would describe the cite as pure dross.
you didnt provide a cite for CF joking...his expression was described as laconic
Expression?
The description used was "laconically" which does not mean flippant ... and given that Sir Clement Freud probably knew as much about dogs as you do ... at the time was a terribly prescient conclusion to have reached.
Not a single thing approaching flippancy or hilarity. Nothing more or less than a statement of fact.
The full quote from Kate McCann's book...
At 9.50pm, I rang Clement. ‘Come on round,’ he said. ‘It’ l be nice to see you. But you’l have to forgive my night-time attire.’ We found Clement watching a cookery programme, dressed, as promised, in his nightshirt. It was so ordinary and comforting, a bit like going to see your grandad after a horrible day at school. He gave me one of his looks and a giant glass of brandy, and managed to get a smile out of me with his greeting: ‘So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?’ His response to our catalogue of horrors was merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of making everything seem a little less terrible. When he heard about the dogs, he remarked laconicaly, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’ He was right, of course; it was ridiculous. A couple of hours later, fortified by our brandies (it was my first-ever taste of the stuff), some useful snippets of advice and several amusing anecdotes, we left our friend feeling quite a bit better than we had when we’d arrived. The shock of that day, and of what we were now facing, on top of the trauma of Madeleine’s absence, never left us for a second, but it was interludes like this that gave us just enough strength to carry on.
I’m afraid that is the most disingenuous comment I have ever seen you post. Freud’s comment was flippant in the extreme and in awful taste when you consider that, even if the parents weren’t involved, the dog may have been alerting to the tragic demise of a 3 year old child.
The mccanns have enough intelligence to know that IMO the dogs did not alert to cadaver odour in the apartmnet.
You forgot...unless they were involved.
yes..its an english word
How does it relate to laconic?
I havent forgot anything...i think suggesting they are involved is ridiculous...based on teh evidence
How does it relate to laconic?
And I disagree....based on the evidence.
What’s important is not the way Freud spoke but the words he said.
its waht SY and teh PJ think thats important and not surprisingly everything points to them supporting my opinion
We don’t know what SY and the PJ think.
we have a very good idea.... no evidence...no supects...abduction....Of course I may be wrong and the flat earth is 6000 years old...but that would be ridiculous
You forgot...unless they were involved.Either the parents are psychopaths who did away with their child’s body and were having a laugh and a joke with Clement about the dogs or they weren’t and they did n’t and would therefore know that the dog alerts were rubbish. Which is it in your view?
Is it too pedantic to point out the Kate in that quote admitted to breaking judicial secrecy ?Please explain?
CF= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/15/police-were-told-two-years-ago-about-clement-freuds-madeleine-mc/There is another video of Gerry laughing in doors a couple of days after Madeleine went missing. I find that difficult to explain.
Kate tells us in her book the CF joked about the dogs... it is in another thread.
And the smirking sniggering Gerry here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vh5ObkBM3c
Either the parents are psychopaths who did away with their child’s body and were having a laugh and a joke with Clement about the dogs or they weren’t and they did n’t and would therefore know that the dog alerts were rubbish. Which is it in your view?
I would suggest that Clement's witty laconic comment was an attempt to reassure the parents and to put them at their ease at which must have been an extremely stressful time.I would suggest you’re bang on the money there John.
I would suggest that Clement's witty laconic comment was an attempt to reassure the parents and to put them at their ease at which must have been an extremely stressful time.
Along with several amusing anecdotes.
There is another video of Gerry laughing in doors a couple of days after Madeleine went missing. I find that difficult to explain.
that was the expression used...you and others are making an assumption it was a jokeA stand up comedian will sometimes make a joke but the audience doesn't laugh. Was that still a joke?
A stand up comedian will sometimes make a joke but the audience doesn't laugh. Was that still a joke?
Saying "will they put the dogs on the stand" etc is a joke in my way of thinking. Whether Kate found it funny or laconic is up to her.
What’s important is not the way Freud spoke but the words he said.
Either the parents are psychopaths who did away with their child’s body and were having a laugh and a joke with Clement about the dogs or they weren’t and they did n’t and would therefore know that the dog alerts were rubbish. Which is it in your view?IMO it is not a clear cut choice as you make out. In my theory I introduce the cadaver dog alerts to another body. So the choice had another option
Was Kate McCann accused of nymphomania? Where did Freud get that from?
IMO it is not a clear cut choice as you make out. In my theory I introduce the cadaver dog alerts to another body. So the choice had another option
1. Either the parents are psychopaths who did away with their child’s body and were having a laugh and a joke with Clement about the dogs
2. or they weren’t and they did n’t and would therefore know that the dog alerts were rubbish.
3. the cadaver dog alerted to another body.
They are the choices as I see it. Not just two choices but three.
you can think it was joke but you have no right to assume kate saw it as a joke...or CF intended it as a jokeDo I need permission to make assumptions? No I don't think so I just do.
Do I need permission to make assumptions? No I don't think so I just do.
where did you get it fromIt is from Kate's book.
It is from Kate's book.
you can make as amny assumptions as you like ....but conclusions based on assunptions have no valueYet you agreed with John didn't you. He made an assumption and someone agreed with him. Did that agreement have no value?
kate doesnt talk about joking...you need to stick to the factsWe are now discussing her being described as a "nymphomaniac".
Yet you agreed with John didn't you. He made an assumption and someone agreed with him. Did that agreement have no value?
We are now discussing her being described as a "nymphomaniac".
by whom
by whomWasn't that the question. Who raised the issue of Kate being described as a nymphomaniac first? CF had never met Kate before so it can't be from personal experience.
CF
Wasn't that the question. Who raised the issue of Kate being described as a nymphomaniac first? CF had never met Kate before so it can't be from personal experience.
lets see the cite firstThe paragraph from her book has been cited several times already.
The paragraph from her book has been cited several times already.
when and whereHere is John citation of the part of the book under discussion http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10613.msg532703#msg532703
Here is John citation of the part of the book under discussion http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10613.msg532703#msg532703
ive read it now...he asks a question...that is not a statementThe question asked was one from him trying to determine the facts: "‘So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?’"
The question asked was one from him trying to determine the facts: "‘So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?’"
Which of those is a fact or what was just rumour. But who started those rumours? Did he formulate those concepts from reading the Portuguese papers? I surely hope he wasn't also a confidant of Amaral.
why is taht importantAre you being serious or just being facetious? Being a depressed mother could easily be important to the case.
Are you being serious or just being facetious? Being a depressed mother could easily be important to the case.I'm serious....if you are serious send your concerns to the PJ.. I'm sure they will laugh at them
I'm serious....if you are serious send your concerns to the PJ.. I'm sure they will laugh at themWhat! My concerns about you would be a joke to the PJ. Well that tells us something doesn't it?
The question asked was one from him trying to determine the facts: "‘So, Kate, which of the devout Catholic, alcoholic, depressed, nymphomaniac parts is correct?’"
Which of those is a fact or what was just rumour. But who started those rumours? Did he formulate those concepts from reading the Portuguese papers? I surely hope he wasn't also a confidant of Amaral.
I don't recall any speculation or rumours about nymphomania, so I wondered why it entered Freud's mind, that's all.The internet was rife with it.
I don't recall any speculation or rumours about nymphomania, so I wondered why it entered Freud's mind, that's all.Swingers
Swingers
More like...Is that a quote from her book?
“Younger and carefree, she was nicknamed “Hot Lips Healy” by her fellow classmates at Dundee University.”
More like...Which obviously means (in the minds of the McCann dislikers) that she was a nymphomaniac.
“Younger and carefree, she was nicknamed “Hot Lips Healy” by her fellow classmates at Dundee University.”
The internet was rife with it.
Swingers
Was it? Have you any evidence?No, it’s all long gone. The Mirror Forum, the 3 Arguidos, countless libellous allegations all lost in the mists of time. Are you doubting my word again?
No, it’s all long gone. The Mirror Forum, the 3 Arguidos, countless libellous allegations all lost in the mists of time. Are you doubting my word again?
Are the two things related?They could be a cause of confusion. Hence the need for CF asking the question in the first place.
Is it too pedantic to point out the Kate in that quote admitted to breaking judicial secrecy ?Can someone in authority demand that Faithlilly address this unevidenced accusation with a cite please.
Can someone in authority demand that Faithlilly address this unevidenced accusation with a cite please.I can't see that there.
I can't see that there.
The cite has already been provided.There was a whole month for the rumours about the dogs to spread around PdL.
The parents visited Freud before their arguido interviews and, as no one at that time knew about the dogs, must have talked to Freud about them for Freud to make his dog remark. The parents must therefore have broken judicial secrecy laws. QED.
The cite has already been provided.What date did the McCanns visit Freud, with cites please - Rob please ask Faithlilly to provide, thanks
The parents visited Freud before their arguido interviews and, as no one at that time knew about the dogs, must have talked to Freud about them for Freud to make his dog remark. The parents must therefore have broken judicial secrecy laws. QED.
What date did the McCanns visit Freud, with cites please - Rob please ask Faithlilly to provide, thanks
I can't remember, but I do know that everybody knew about The Dogs almost immediately afterwards.I’ve checked with the source document and the comment Faithlilly claims prove that Kate broke judicial secrecy was made in early September, several weeks after thr PJ allegedly broke their own judicial secrecy.
And how is this rubbish going to prove that The McCanns are guilty?
I can't remember, but I do know that everybody knew about The Dogs almost immediately afterwards.
And how is this rubbish going to prove that The McCanns are guilty?
It doesn’t but with does dilute accusations of the breaking of judicial secrecy by others.
But surely The PJ were by honour bound should not have done this?
And surely the parents of a missing child would not seek to jeopardise the investigation into their child’s disappearance? Surely they would do everything to insure the integrity of that investigation?
But surely The PJ were by honour bound should not have done this?
I think it was already too late by then, don't you?
I am following a very interesting, active murder case in Portugal. It has only tenuous connections to MBM, and none to do with the thread title, so I will keep this short and simple.
One of the defendants has been writing extensively to the media.
The media always seem to know when and where said defendant is turning up for a hearing. AKA photo opportunity. And more.
Judicial secrecy is not a one-way street.
I’ve checked with the source document and the comment Faithlilly claims prove that Kate broke judicial secrecy was made in early September, several weeks after thr PJ allegedly broke their own judicial secrecy.
I’ve checked with the source document and the comment Faithlilly claims prove that Kate broke judicial secrecy was made in early September, several weeks after thr PJ allegedly broke their own judicial secrecy.I'm trying to find the actual dates. What document do you refer to as the "source document".
Sorry, I can't provide a cite, cos I don't know where I found it
BUT
About 4 days ago when I was wandering about the internet, I read that the TV interviewer who gave Kate and Gerry such a bad time, Sandra Felgueiras, is now very angry. Because now she knows that she had been told lies about the dogs 'findings' and the DNA results and she based her, imo, very aggressive interviews upon the so called 'facts' presented to her by the authorities.
I would love to find the article/report because I would like confirming what I think I remember. Which was that she now believes the Mccanns innocent and that she no longer trusts Amaral
And surely the parents of a missing child would not seek to jeopardise the investigation into their child’s disappearance? Surely they would do everything to insure the integrity of that investigation?
It should be for those who are employed to uphold The Law. What do you expect the hoi poloi to do if The Judicial System is leaking like a sieve?
And surely the parents of a missing child would not seek to jeopardise the investigation into their child’s disappearance? Surely they would do everything to insure the integrity of that investigation?It had been front page headlines weeks before, how do you know they even brought the subject up with CF?
I’ve checked with the source document and the comment Faithlilly claims prove that Kate broke judicial secrecy was made in early September, several weeks after thr PJ allegedly broke their own judicial secrecy.Wll are we going to get a retraction and an apology for misleading the forum or not?
I'm trying to find the actual dates. What document do you refer to as the "source document".Kate’s book.
The interview was given as part of the Netflix documentary.
I saw it but am unsure of which episode it was in.
SF said she had been misled over the DNA results. She didn’t at any time say she thought the parents innocent.
Kate’s book.
Wll are we going to get a retraction and an apology for misleading the forum or not?If the person has you on ignore she might not be seeing your request.
If the person has you on ignore she might not be seeing your request.
Look I read what you wrote, but I thought that unless you provide evidence that what you are saying was true I really can't do anything about asking Faithlilly for an apology etc.I already provided a cite. It’s in Kate’s book which shows that the meeting at which the dogs were discussed was in early September. Like SIL I can’t be bothered to actually post the page reference or cite but I am right. I have also posted a link to an article which shows that the media were reporting the dog alerts at the end of the first week in August. Faithlilly is wrong but you don’t seem to care enough, but someone seems to think I have done wrong for drawing attention to it as I now have a warning. Very reasonable I’m sure. @)(++(*
I already provided a cite. It’s in Kate’s book which shows that the meeting at which the dogs were discussed was in early September. Like SIL I can’t be bothered to actually post the page reference or cite but I am right. I have also posted a link to an article which shows that the media were reporting the dog alerts at the end of the first week in August. Faithlilly is wrong but you don’t seem to care enough, but someone seems to think I have done wrong for drawing attention to it as I now have a warning. Very reasonable I’m sure. @)(++(*
Sorry, I can't provide a cite, cos I don't know where I found it
BUT
About 4 days ago when I was wandering about the internet, I read that the TV interviewer who gave Kate and Gerry such a bad time, Sandra Felgueiras, is now very angry. Because now she knows that she had been told lies about the dogs 'findings' and the DNA results and she based her, imo, very aggressive interviews upon the so called 'facts' presented to her by the authorities.
I would love to find the article/report because I would like confirming what I think I remember. Which was that she now believes the Mccanns innocent and that she no longer trusts Amaral
I can't remember which part of the Netflix documentary gives time to Sandra Felgueiras (possibly part 5) but she certainly has changed her position based on the final results provided by the British FSS. Amaral claims however that the results were manipulated after he was told that a positive match had been found.
I already provided a cite. It’s in Kate’s book which shows that the meeting at which the dogs were discussed was in early September. Like SIL I can’t be bothered to actually post the page reference or cite but I am right. I have also posted a link to an article which shows that the media were reporting the dog alerts at the end of the first week in August. Faithlilly is wrong but you don’t seem to care enough, but someone seems to think I have done wrong for drawing attention to it as I now have a warning. Very reasonable I’m sure. @)(++(*Well if you can't be bothered why should I spend my time trying to locate the right reference in Kate's book either?
The cite has already been provided.
The parents visited Freud before their arguido interviews and, as no one at that time knew about the dogs, must have talked to Freud about them for Freud to make his dog remark. The parents must therefore have broken judicial secrecy laws. QED.
Well if you can't be bothered why should I spend my time trying to locate the right reference in Kate's book either?Faithlilly is the person who should be providing a cite to back up her claim, but conveniently she doesn’t have to as I am the only one asking and she doesn’t have to respond to me because she has me on ignore. Is that fair? How about I put all sceptics on ignore and just post whatever I like without providing cites?
There appeared to be a lot of law breaking going on, Patrick Kennedy was almost boasting of his own exploits in conjunction with Método 3.The McCanns did not tell CF about the dogs before the media, so Faithlilly has made that up. Is that OK with you? You seem to be agreeing with her.
It had been front page headlines weeks before, how do you know they even brought the subject up with CF?
That was the thing unless an argument is properly presented - case dismissed. I'm not taking sides unless someone presents a comprehensive argument.I have asked Fathlilly for a cite to back up her claim. Why should I now have to provide the information?
It seems to have been included in the catalogue of horrors they told him about;
His response to our catalogue of horrors was
merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of
making everything seem a little less terrible. When
he heard about the dogs....
[madeleine, Kate McCann]
It seems to have been included in the catalogue of horrors they told him about;Can you supply a cite for the date when he heard about the dogs and a cite for how he learned about them.
His response to our catalogue of horrors was
merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of
making everything seem a little less terrible. When
he heard about the dogs....
[madeleine, Kate McCann]
It seems to have been included in the catalogue of horrors they told him about;
His response to our catalogue of horrors was
merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of
making everything seem a little less terrible. When
he heard about the dogs....
[madeleine, Kate McCann]
According to Kate's book, this was Monday 3rd September,In which case the news about the dog alerts was approximately three weeks old having been plastered all over the international media. Now canwe have a retraction and apology from Faithlilly for her libellous comment and for misleading the forum?
In which case the news about the dog alerts was approximately three weeks old having been plastered all over the international media. Now canwe have a retraction and apology from Faithlilly for her libellous comment and for misleading the forum?
Faiths comment was quite specific and is technically correct. The McCanns revealed information which Freud was not then aware of.
The actual reference from Kate's book...
"When he heard about the dogs, he remarked laconicaly, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’ He was right, of course; it was ridiculous."
Faiths comment was quite specific and is technically correct wrt judicial secrecy. The McCanns revealed information which Freud was not then aware of.Absolute nonsense. The whole world knew about the dog alerts by the time of this meeting (thanks to the PJ) so please explain to us all how the McCanns broke judicial secrecy?
The actual reference from Kate's book...
"When he heard about the dogs, he remarked laconicaly, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’ He was right, of course; it was ridiculous."
Exactly, any targeted harassment of posters for cites already given is a no no.What cite has been given that the McCanns told CF about the dogs and thus broke judicial secrecy?
Absolute nonsense. The whole world knew about the dog alerts by the time of this meeting (thanks to the PJ) so please explain to us all how the McCanns broke judicial secrecy?
so you dont object to the lies of never been wrong in 200 cases...100 record...he wasnt belittling but telling the truth
I'm talking about why Freud seemed to think the McCanns needed reassurance. Were they worried about the dogs? They knew, of course, that the PJ suspected them. That had been clear since their encounter with Encarnacao and Neves on 8th August. Now they had had it confirmed; they were to be made arguido.
Of course they needed reassurance... What's wrong with that
About the dogs in particular?
When the deception comes with full admission, like say, "We'd never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. BUT NOW we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice... As it happened, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip."It’s logical to assume the McCanns did not fake the shutter and window being open a) because it’s not the first thing you’d think to do if you believed your child may have left the building under her own steam and b) because if you were faking it by staging a break in you wouldn’t close the window again before the police arrived. LOGIC.
That is a clear admission of deception in anyone's book, even Davel's!
Here's my problem:
Now knowing as I do, that they have admitted they were prepared to deceive everyone about things when they were in tricky situations, how can we know they never done it more than this once? Is the jemmied shutter an innocent discrepancy for example? Because it was none of the sort. How can we know if that was an innocent discrepancy by four people who all relayed identical discrepancies, or a deception that the McCanns deliberately got them to innocently pass on to us because they were 'in another tricky situation'?
If there is no way for Peter Hyatt to know when they're lying, how have the supporters on here been able to know if the jemmied shutter was an innocent discrepancy, or a deliberate deception on the part of the parents because they were in another tricky situation?
I don't see why you think it's so significant.... With the PJ falsely promoting the dogs as being infallible... Some balance and truth was needed
john and others are assuming the maccanns told CF about the dogs...why would they have to...it wa scommon knowledge courtesy of the breach of judicial secrecy by the pj
Is thinking to delete your cell phone data a logical thing to think of when you're daughter goes missing?Yes deleting call phone data is logical if your phone memory is near capacity and you are expecting a high volume of texts and messages. As for Gerry “tampering “ with the shutter, the logical explanation is he was checking to see if and how the shutter had been lifted, it’s a natural reaction to a virtually incomprehensible situation, to try and make sense of it, and to try and get some clarity about events.
Gerry tampering with the shutter was anything but logical if one believed, as he claims he did, that an abductor had entered or exited the apartment via the missing child's bedroom window, was it? Contaminating the crime scene was completely ILLOGICAL for a man with a vast understanding of biological science, IMO.
I fail to see what's logical about the content of your answer, in light of the facts.
It is self-evident from Kate's own account of what occurred that CF was unaware of what had taken place with the dogs until the McCanns enlightened him.No it is not self-evident. Freud was fully aware of what was going on from media reports which is why he reached out to them in the first place. The idea that he, by now a friend of the McCanns, stopped being aware of media stories about the case including the dog alerts three weeks earlier is quite ludicrous. IMO. Why are you sticking up for Faithlilly’s false accusation?
No it is not self-evident. Freud was fully aware of what was going on from media reports which is why he reached out to them in the first place. The idea that he, by now a friend of the McCanns, stopped being aware of media stories about the case including the dog alerts three weeks earlier is quite ludicrous. IMO. Why are you sticking up for Faithlilly’s false accusation?
What are the rules of judicial secrecy? We are asking whether Kate broke the rules but has anyone defined what it means yet?
"The Secrecy of Justice rule applies only during the investigation of the crime. Article 86 of the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code states that all parties to the investigation are bound by a duty of secrecy."
https://www.portugalresident.com/2007/05/16/the-rule-of-secrecy-of-justice-explained/
I would find it odd if a suspect in a case is not allowed to talk about what has happened to another friend, or family or to a lawyer.
No it is not self-evident. Freud was fully aware of what was going on from media reports which is why he reached out to them in the first place. The idea that he, by now a friend of the McCanns, stopped being aware of media stories about the case including the dog alerts three weeks earlier is quite ludicrous. IMO. Why are you sticking up for Faithlilly’s false accusation?
The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.
Therefore logic dictates that a private conversation ... the subject of which no longer fell under the secrecy law because it had been officially released under the auspices of a named police spokesperson ... and which we would not have known about but for Kate's book which was published well after Madeleine's case was archived ... could not possibly be construed as breaking the secrecy laws.
It defies logic to promote that it does ... in my opinion ~just something else dreamt up to keep up the harassment on the family of a missing child.
The information was no longer secret immediately the police spokesperson released it to the public domain a full three weeks before the fluid nonsense of hilarity was promoted ... and when that hit the skids ... replaced by falsely accusing Kate of an impossibility using the same material.
Nothing if not inventive.
No it is not self-evident. Freud was fully aware of what was going on from media reports which is why he reached out to them in the first place. The idea that he, by now a friend of the McCanns, stopped being aware of media stories about the case including the dog alerts three weeks earlier is quite ludicrous. IMO. Why are you sticking up for Faithlilly’s false accusation?
“The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.”
Do you have a cite for this claim ?
The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.
Therefore logic dictates that a private conversation ... the subject of which no longer fell under the secrecy law because it had been officially released under the auspices of a named police spokesperson ... and which we would not have known about but for Kate's book which was published well after Madeleine's case was archived ... could not possibly be construed as breaking the secrecy laws.
It defies logic to promote that it does ... in my opinion ~just something else dreamt up to keep up the harassment on the family of a missing child.
The information was no longer secret immediately the police spokesperson released it to the public domain a full three weeks before the fluid nonsense of hilarity was promoted ... and when that hit the skids ... replaced by falsely accusing Kate of an impossibility using the same material.
Nothing if not inventive.
Quite simply, anyone involved in the investigation should not be revealing information related to said investigation to outsiders.the police broke their own judicial secrecy law by revealing the dog alerts to the media. The whole world knew about them (apart from CF you seem to think). Are you telling me that technically the McCanns could have been arrested, charged and imprisoned for referring to this breach of judicial secrecy by the police? Oh my days, Portuguese justice just gets crazier the more I discover about it!
Quite simply, anyone involved in the investigation should not be revealing information related to said investigation to outsiders.How can you reveal secret information that has already been revealed by the police and the world’s media?
“The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.”I provided a link to a newspaper article dated 7th August which proves it. The CF meeting took place 3rd September. Do keep up (as you are fond of saying!)
Do you have a cite for this claim ?
just another pathetic ridiculous stick with which to beat the mccanns...if posters calim they have broken the law could the post the law with the precise wording. Are thye not allowed to discuss DNA or cadaver dogs...these are not specific to their case.Isn’t it ironic that the Portuguese Police flagrantly break their own law, but it’s the McCanns who get it in the neck for a private discussion about cadaver dogs. *%87
Was Rowley breaking secfecy when he said they had not been questioned under caution...was PDC guilty when he said they were not suspects and no evidence.
so any accusaytion of breaking the law...a criminal act and therefore libellous needs to be backed with evidence.
So what precisely is the law...have SY and the PJ broke it
Isn’t it ironic that the Portuguese Police flagrantly break their own law, but it’s the McCanns who get it in the neck for a private discussion about cadaver dogs. *%87
What claim is that?
Did Martin Grime break Portuguese Judicial Secrecy by showing the dog video to Lenny Harper which caused the latter to perform a volte-face on the use of cadaver dogs in Haute de la Garrenne, Jersey?
Did Martin Grime break Portuguese Judicial Secrecy by showing the dog video to Lenny Harper which caused the latter to perform a volte-face on the use of cadaver dogs in Haute de la Garrenne, Jersey?When did Martin Grime do this? The date is important.
When did Martin Grime do this? The date is important.
The integrity of the investigation involving almeida... Convicted of torture...amaral convicted if false testimony... Perjury... I think the integrity of the investigation was, already compromisedThe ****** Police in *********, UK, are renowned for dealing with the criminal underworld and stopping at nothing and using just about any means necessary. 'Torture', or a good pasting, as it's known colloquially, is just part of the routine. Constant harassment, coercion, threats and corruption are commonplace.
the police broke their own judicial secrecy law by revealing the dog alerts to the media. The whole world knew about them (apart from CF you seem to think). Are you telling me that technically the McCanns could have been arrested, charged and imprisoned for referring to this breach of judicial secrecy by the police? Oh my days, Portuguese justice just gets crazier the more I discover about it!
Sir Clement Freud reaches out to the parents of a missing child.You edit the post so it now makes no sense? There was nothing contentious about calling Clement Freud a paedophile; it's a well established FACT.
You edit the post so it now makes no sense? There was nothing contentious about calling Clement Freud a paedophile; it's a well established FACT.
At least substitute the naughty word with an 'acceptable' one.
The police revealed very little about the dog searches so not in the least surprised that Freud knew little about it. The McCanns were only too glad to fill in the gaps though them being all innocent and that. Would love to have been a fly on the wall the night the McCanns found out they had been sharing investigation secrets with a paedophile who liked to abuse young girls. Oh my...the irony of it all.Why would you revel in such a horrifying moment for the parents? Do you really hate them that much?
You used the terms 'creepy old nonce' which was objectionable.So replace it with paedophile then. Makes sense at least.
That information re the dogs was in the public domain three weeks prior to the meeting with Freud.Why was the cite I provided for Faithlilly removed? Here it is again, as I can so no reason whatsoever why it should have been removed and can only assume it was deleted by mistake..
Did Martin Grime break Portuguese Judicial Secrecy by showing the dog video to Lenny Harper which caused the latter to perform a volte-face on the use of cadaver dogs in Haute de la Garrenne, Jersey?
If it was before the archiving yes.
If it was before the archiving yes.Was he even in a country covered by the Portuguese jurisdiction?
Didn't Mark Harrison shoot some video footage on his phone of the dogs working in Luz? Is that what Grime showed Harper, being the property of UK police & therefore lawfully shared?There definitely was mobile phone footage of Eddie in Haute de la Garenne Misty, but I've no idea if any was taken in Luz.
Accusations of sexual misconduct were not levelled against Sir Clement Freud until after his death. Consequently no criminal charges were brought against him and he never faced trial.I suppose Jimmy Saville should be given the benefit of the doubt too.
Being dead he was never given the opportunity to defend himself against these allegations. Unlike the other celebrity Algarve property owner Sir Cliff Richard who was also accused of sexual impropriety; being alive Sir Cliff would have been in the situation to be able to defend his good name should he have been charged and brought to trial.
Which he would have been unable to do had the accusation been made post mortem.
That did not happen because despite a wide ranging two year investigation no criminal charges could be brought against him ...
Snip
""After careful consideration of the evidence provided to them, the CPS has concluded that no further action should be taken against the man due to there being insufficient evidence to prosecute."____________________
Sir Cliff made a statement which has relevance to the situation Madeleine McCann's parents are in despite there being no evidence against them ...
Snip
""I know the truth and in some people's eyes the CPS' announcement today doesn't go far enough because it doesn't expressly state that I am innocent; which of course I am. There lies the problem.
"My reputation will not be fully vindicated because the CPS' policy is to only say something general about there being 'insufficient' evidence.
"How can there be evidence for something that never took place!"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/sir-cliff-richard-cleared-of-sex-assault-claims-after-prosecutor/
I suppose Jimmy Saville should be given the benefit of the doubt too.Maybe so. What actual evidence is there against him apart from accounts of his alleged victims? Are they all truthful? What evidence for him interfering with corpses? Has this been proved beyond all reasonable doubt? Should society simply accept as truth all allegations made against dead people? Apparently there is a law against it in Portugal...
I suppose Jimmy Saville should be given the benefit of the doubt too.
Of course he should.Despite Jeremy Hunt, the then Heath Secretary, apologised on behalf of the Government and the NHS to all Savile’s victims. Describing Savile as a “callous, opportunistic, wicked predator”, he said systems had been “too weak” to deal with their complaints and that “little or no action” had been taken at the time.
Despite Jeremy Hunt, the then Heath Secretary, apologised on behalf of the Government and the NHS to all Savile’s victims. Describing Savile as a “callous, opportunistic, wicked predator”, he said systems had been “too weak” to deal with their complaints and that “little or no action” had been taken at the time.
Despite there being over 500 accounts spanning 5 decades?
Still now? Still the benefit of the doubt?
Too many liars making complaints for my liking.All 500+?
There definitely was mobile phone footage of Eddie in Haute de la Garenne Misty, but I've no idea if any was taken in Luz.
Snip
As the emails to Coupland demonstrate, at first Harper displayed a healthy scepticism. So what made him change his mind? According to a senior detective who worked on Harper's team, one factor was sniffer dog Eddie's handler, Martin Grime.
'Grime made a presentation, showing him [Harper] a video of the dog finding the "scent of death" in Kate and Gerry McCann's car,' the detective said.
'They were still formal suspects and the case had got worldwide publicity. It seemed to get Lenny very excited. I think Grime kind of bewitched him.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html
A lingering question: would Grime have got that contract in the absence of any alerts by Eddie in PDL?
All 500+?
So you don't believe any of it? Or are a few rapes OK?
A lingering question: would Grime have got that contract in the absence of any alerts by Eddie in PDL?
A lingering question: would Grime have got that contract in the absence of any alerts by Eddie in PDL?
The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.
Therefore logic dictates that a private conversation ... the subject of which no longer fell under the secrecy law because it had been officially released under the auspices of a named police spokesperson ... and which we would not have known about but for Kate's book which was published well after Madeleine's case was archived ... could not possibly be construed as breaking the secrecy laws.
It defies logic to promote that it does ... in my opinion ~just something else dreamt up to keep up the harassment on the family of a missing child.
The information was no longer secret immediately the police spokesperson released it to the public domain a full three weeks before the fluid nonsense of hilarity was promoted ... and when that hit the skids ... replaced by falsely accusing Kate of an impossibility using the same material.
Nothing if not inventive.
If the alerts were manufactured and Grime knew that no evidence would be found to corroborate them, and remember Grime said that the alerts needed to be corroborated by forensic evidence, then I don’t see the point. Please explain ?i have many times
i have many times
And that information would be useful if id asked you.
A cite still needed, re forum rules, for this part of the above postI saw an article that confirmed this view today and then it was removed for some reason.
‘The fact that the police released the information about the dogs into the public domain three weeks prior to Clement Freud commiserating with Kate about her horrendous treatment at the hands of the press, demonstrates that secrecy of justice was no longer in force as far as that information was concerned.’
I suppose Jimmy Saville should be given the benefit of the doubt too.
Did he ever go through the process of being investigated ... charged ... prosecuted and subsequently convicted?A little matter of Premature Existence Curtailment (PEC) saw to that.
A lingering question: would Grime have got that contract in the absence of any alerts by Eddie in PDL?The evidence is that Lenny Harper was dead set that no digs for bodies would take place saying "In all the statements and intelligence we have not even a suggestion that there may be or have been bodies.' But that changed after watching Martin Grime's promotional video showing Eddie's alerts to the McCann rental vehicle.
A little matter of Premature Existence Curtailment (PEC) saw to that.
I cant' believe the resounding support he's receiving. I'm not going to start poking around the internet to 'provide cites' or 'prove my point', as the detail, volume, longevity and variety of modes of enabled abuse is sickening. Suffice to say, just about every man and his cat who were able to 'apologise' retrospectively, have, including the Government. That's good enough for me, irrespective of your cherished 'rule of law'; he was apparently above the law for so long, enabled by a retinue of sycophantic miscreants.
Clement Freud's PEC also got in the way of him being processed by law - and it's usually the way, with victims of high status / protected figures speaking out when it's safe.
If this is some ham-fisted attempt to somehow explain away the actions or judgement of the McCann's post the event, it's extremely misguided. In My Opinion.
I saw an article that confirmed this view today and then it was removed for some reason.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560443/Madeleine-sniffer-dogs-detect-scent-of-body.html
Did his alleged victims benefit financially after his death?So monetary gain is the driver for all of these reports? Bandwagon jumping, putting themselves through needless scrutiny, reliving the horror through police interview, sacrificing a part of their soul for beer tokens? 500+ alleged victims who are alive, perhaps many others who have passed?
I saw an article that confirmed this view today and then it was removed for some reason.Thank you Rob, that was my cite that Faithlilly keeps pretending not to have seen.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560443/Madeleine-sniffer-dogs-detect-scent-of-body.html
So monetary gain is the driver for all of these reports? Bandwagon jumping, putting themselves through needless scrutiny, reliving the horror through police interview, sacrificing a part of their soul for beer tokens? 500+ alleged victims who are alive, perhaps many others who have passed?How can you do that?
I can give you a boiler plate guarantee that all of the alleged defiled deceased didn't gain financially.
Thank you Rob.
There were quite a few cites posted after Faithlilly's previous request for one ... perhaps she missed reading any or all of them ?
I did miss them, as I did Rob’s. So you think that the fact that the details of the dog’s searches gave the parents the go ahead to break judicial secrecy as well ?Once a secret is published on the front page of every newspaper in the world it is no longer a secret.
How can you do that?Due to their collective, adverse state of mortality, they were unaware that they were being defiled by an alleged necrophilic paedophile serial sex case. Ergo, they were too super dead to notice, ergo, they would not have benefited financially from this most heinous of post mortem defilements.
Due to their collective, adverse state of mortality, they were unaware that they were being defiled by an alleged necrophilic paedophile serial sex case. Ergo, they were too super dead to notice, ergo, they would not have benefited financially from this most heinous of post mortem defilements.Ah, I missed the word “deceased” in your post but now find it an unnecessary and somewhat irrelevant observation to make.
So monetary gain is the driver for all of these reports? Bandwagon jumping, putting themselves through needless scrutiny, reliving the horror through police interview, sacrificing a part of their soul for beer tokens? 500+ alleged victims who are alive, perhaps many others who have passed?
I can give you a boiler plate guarantee that all of the alleged defiled deceased didn't gain financially.
"Nick" got 22,000 Pounds for starters.I'll guarantee there's bandwagon jumpers seeking to profit from the situation. That happens quite routinely, such as homeless dudes robbing victims post the Manchester Arena bomb, but playing the hero - it happens.
I'll guarantee there's bandwagon jumpers seeking to profit from the situation. That happens quite routinely, such as homeless dudes robbing victims post the Manchester Arena bomb, but playing the hero - it happens.
But it shouldn't be allowed to cast aspersions on the many hundreds of genuine alleged victims. In this case the evidence is overwhelming - you're defending the indefensible with a staunch adhesion to 'innocent until proven guilty', or 'they're too dead to defend themselves'. Sometimes there are cases that we can safely assume that the majority of the reports are accurate; there's dozens that have been corroborated simply by recalling of dates / times / locations / accounts being confirmed. I'm not providing cites for the reason I mentioned earlier.
Incidentally, Adolph Hitler and Martin Bormann never got to stand trial at Nuremberg (Bormann was found guilty in absentia), but there's plenty of contemporaneous accounts of their atrocities that were subsequently borne out by the prosecutions of his appointees. Sometimes they just did it.
I'll guarantee there's bandwagon jumpers seeking to profit from the situation. That happens quite routinely, such as homeless dudes robbing victims post the Manchester Arena bomb, but playing the hero - it happens.Godwin’s Law, tsk.
But it shouldn't be allowed to cast aspersions on the many hundreds of genuine alleged victims. In this case the evidence is overwhelming - you're defending the indefensible with a staunch adhesion to 'innocent until proven guilty', or 'they're too dead to defend themselves'. Sometimes there are cases that we can safely assume that the majority of the reports are accurate; there's dozens that have been corroborated simply by recalling of dates / times / locations / accounts being confirmed. I'm not providing cites for the reason I mentioned earlier.
Incidentally, Adolph Hitler and Martin Bormann never got to stand trial at Nuremberg (Bormann was found guilty in absentia), but there's plenty of contemporaneous accounts of their atrocities that were subsequently borne out by the prosecutions of his appointees. Sometimes they just did it.
Godwin’s Law, tsk.My comparison is valid, apart from the sheer scale I suppose.
If we accept that all of Jimmy Savile’s accusers are telling the truth then it proves beyond doubt that some sexual predators don’t have a type, and will target girls and boys, men and women, therefore dismissing a potential suspect in the McCann case on the premise that their known victims have all been one type may be a mistake.The concept, with the assumption, I can concur with.
The Police believed "Nick" initially, and said so. They raided the homes of what were innocent people, and caused great distress.But you're seemingly willing to safely assume that Saville may be the innocent victim of a monetarily driven witch-hunt, despite overwhelming evidence and testimony to the contrary.
I never safely assume anything.
But you're seemingly willing to safely assume that Saville may be the innocent victim of a monetarily driven witch-hunt, despite overwhelming evidence and testimony to the contrary.
No I am not. You are assuming what you think I think. But then you are quite good at that.Thank you. Correctly assuming what I think people think is a gift.
Thank you. Correctly assuming what I think people think is a gift.
I'll guarantee there's bandwagon jumpers seeking to profit from the situation. That happens quite routinely, such as homeless dudes robbing victims post the Manchester Arena bomb, but playing the hero - it happens.
But it shouldn't be allowed to cast aspersions on the many hundreds of genuine alleged victims. In this case the evidence is overwhelming - you're defending the indefensible with a staunch adhesion to 'innocent until proven guilty', or 'they're too dead to defend themselves'. Sometimes there are cases that we can safely assume that the majority of the reports are accurate; there's dozens that have been corroborated simply by recalling of dates / times / locations / accounts being confirmed. I'm not providing cites for the reason I mentioned earlier.
Incidentally, Adolph Hitler and Martin Bormann never got to stand trial at Nuremberg (Bormann was found guilty in absentia), but there's plenty of contemporaneous accounts of their atrocities that were subsequently borne out by the prosecutions of his appointees. Sometimes they just did it.
My comparison is valid, apart from the sheer scale I suppose.The comparison is not valid because not only did Hitler have millions of victims there were also millions of witnesses to his war crimes. The buck stopped with him and therefore he was responsible for them all, ultimately. It’s offensive to suggest he was in any way shape or form innocent as the evidence is overwhelming, documented and backed up by millions of eye-witnesses. The same cannot be said for individual sex predators whose crimes are mostly carried out in secret with no witnesses, so ultimately one person’s word against another.
Godwin can go f*** himself. Up until Hitler's demise people used to compare with Atilla the Hun, He needs to get over himself.
The only valid use for the nation of Wales is to provide a frame of reference for area (rainforest destroyed in a day, ice melting at the polar ice caps in a month, game reserve size).
The concept, with the assumption, I can concur with.What???
But I see where you're going with this.....it's a thinly disguised 'a sphincter says what' again, isn't it? I won't oblige.
What?
What???
So monetary gain is the driver for all of these reports? Bandwagon jumping, putting themselves through needless scrutiny, reliving the horror through police interview, sacrificing a part of their soul for beer tokens? 500+ alleged victims who are alive, perhaps many others who have passed?Jimmy Savile victims’ compensation scheme approved by appeal court
I can give you a boiler plate guarantee that all of the alleged defiled deceased didn't gain financially.
I did miss them, as I did Rob’s. So you think that the fact that the details of the dog’s searches were in the public domain gave the parents the go ahead to break judicial secrecy as well ?On issues pertaining to the dogs yes.
On issues pertaining to the dogs yes.
has anyone posted the law on judicial secrecy...no...so we dont know its precise limitsWhen I looked it up it seems more to do with what is published in the papers, not so much about what is said in private conversations.
When I looked it up it seems more to do with what is published in the papers, not so much about what is said in private conversations.
Thanks Rob..the law cannot legistlate to control private conversationsSome countries could but policing that becomes a nightmare - police state situation.
Some countries could but policing that becomes a nightmare - police state situation.
I dont know but surely a country taht says it supports free speech so strongly would not limit private conversationsI was thinking of East Germany when it existed as a country.
Despite Jeremy Hunt, the then Heath Secretary, apologised on behalf of the Government and the NHS to all Savile’s victims. Describing Savile as a “callous, opportunistic, wicked predator”, he said systems had been “too weak” to deal with their complaints and that “little or no action” had been taken at the time.
Despite there being over 500 accounts spanning 5 decades?
Still now? Still the benefit of the doubt?
I'll guarantee there's bandwagon jumpers seeking to profit from the situation. That happens quite routinely, such as homeless dudes robbing victims post the Manchester Arena bomb, but playing the hero - it happens.
But it shouldn't be allowed to cast aspersions on the many hundreds of genuine alleged victims. In this case the evidence is overwhelming - you're defending the indefensible with a staunch adhesion to 'innocent until proven guilty', or 'they're too dead to defend themselves'. Sometimes there are cases that we can safely assume that the majority of the reports are accurate; there's dozens that have been corroborated simply by recalling of dates / times / locations / accounts being confirmed. I'm not providing cites for the reason I mentioned earlier.
Incidentally, Adolph Hitler and Martin Bormann never got to stand trial at Nuremberg (Bormann was found guilty in absentia), but there's plenty of contemporaneous accounts of their atrocities that were subsequently borne out by the prosecutions of his appointees. Sometimes they just did it.
Danny Shaw’ BBC’s Home Affairs correspondent
“Don’t agree with critics of Netflix doc on #MadeleineMcCann. I wonder if they’ve watched all 8 hours. Though over-long it is a thorough & rounded account of the case with many interviews I’ve not seen before. Explains & exposes police & PI failings & defamatory media coverage”.
Re Danny Shaw has today tweeted a link to an article written for the times - it’s behind a paywall - if anyone has access to it could they pls post a copyCan you post the link here and I will copy the article and post it here.
Interestingly an Adrian Shaw also apparently witnessed the Aunt incident.
Have asked Danny Shaw if Adrian Shaw is a relation, also asked him he remembers seeing Adrian Shaw & whether incident happened inside or outside the court?
Can you post the link here and I will copy the article and post it here.Make sure you are not breaking copyright rules.
Make sure you are not breaking copyright rules.It’s a bit late for worrying about that!
It’s a bit late for worrying about that!Never too late for redemption.
The ECHR can say anything it lkes, but it can't overturn a judgement issued by the Portuguese Courts. All they can do is order Portugal to pay compensation to the McCanns if they think Portugal breached their human rights.
Do you see Amaral's name in there? No, because he is not a party to the case they are pursuing with the ECHR and will not be penalised by the ECHR.
Were you aware that the McCanns could apply to the Portuguese court to reopen the case when you wrote the above
Obviously not, I would say. But then G Unit is so often wrong.
When will we ever learn!
I went with the spin of what we know now to be a false claim. As a rule of thumb I take nothing posted on sceptic fora at face value. But I fell for that one. mea culpa
Were you aware that the McCanns could apply to the Portuguese court to reopen the case when you wrote the above
I don't think I would be frightfully keen on trusting The Portuguese Court. But, whatever.
And I certainly wouldn't be keen on trusting a convicted perjurer to tell the truth.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7QC7jAXMAQZpTB?format=jpg&name=medium)Behind the scenes setting up for interview this morningTweet ~ Mark Williams-Thomas
Official looking premises; wonder who the interviewee was.
Probably that bloke who was silenced by Bruckner's brilliantly witty cartoon.(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7QC7jAXMAQZpTB?format=jpg&name=medium)Behind the scenes setting up for interview this morningTweet ~ Mark Williams-Thomas
Official looking premises; wonder who the interviewee was.
I knew that they could apply for the judgement to be annulled, because they tried and were refused. I didn't know that they could ask for the case to be reopened, did you?
Ive regularly posted that should the mccanns bbr successful at thhr ECHR they could go back to a Portuguese court and take Amaral back to court. Ive said this is why imo Amaral has been so quiet and no longer promotes his theory.
Other posters including you have said the ECHR csse had nothing to do with Amaral and the SC decision is final.
It now turns out I was right and the outcome of the ECHR csse could be a serious problem for Amaral.
One can but hope after all these years.
I don't know what is wrong with Amaral, although I have got some ideas on the subject. But his investivigating skills were abysmal and centred only around himself.
However, there should be a few bob left in the kitty. Even if any other of his creditors have been paid anything at all.