UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: icabodcrane on April 06, 2013, 04:58:59 PM
-
What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on ?
-
What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on ?
Logistics.
-
What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on ?
Logistics.
I'm really interested in what evidence exists to lead people into thinking the missing child was abducted
-
There is no forensic evidence that we know of which confirms an abduction but it's the ONLY plausible exlanation when all is said and done. It's also the conclusion of the Scotland Yard review team as we already know.
Two independent sets of witnesses saw a man carrying a young child through the streets of PdL at around the time Madeleine was taken. Nobody has ever come forward to say it was he who was seen by JT / The Smiths. It's the strongest circumstantial evidence in my opinion, but there is other stuff such as the spate of break-ins, the suspicious looking people seen around the resort in the days leading up to the abduction, etc. I also find it uncomfortably coincindental that 2 young girls have both disappeared without trace from the same spar..ly populated area of the world within a couple of years of each other. What are the odds of that happening I wonder?
I believe the Scotland Yard review is still in progress, and a remark made by Inspector Redwood a year ago cannot be presented as a conclusion
Thankyou for the additional information you base your opinion on ( that Madeleine was abducted ) ... not evidence as such ... more a case of 'she must have been abducted because there is no other explanation'
Speculation really then ?
-
There is no forensic evidence that we know of which confirms an abduction but it's the ONLY plausible exlanation when all is said and done. It's also the conclusion of the Scotland Yard review team as we already know.
Two independent sets of witnesses saw a man carrying a young child through the streets of PdL at around the time Madeleine was taken. Nobody has ever come forward to say it was he who was seen by JT / The Smiths. It's the strongest circumstantial evidence in my opinion, but there is other stuff such as the spate of break-ins, the suspicious looking people seen around the resort in the days leading up to the abduction, etc. I also find it uncomfortably coincindental that 2 young girls have both disappeared without trace from the same spar..ly populated area of the world within a couple of years of each other. What are the odds of that happening I wonder?
Have you ever worked out what happened to the missing hairs taken by the PT forensic police and which never seem to have been received by the PT forensic lab? There were 10 markers on the bed indicating where the hairs were, but only 4 received by the lab.
A total mystery to me...
-
What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on ?
Hello, icabodcrane - this is a good point which I'm sure will make for some interesting debate. I go with the sightings of a man seen carrying a child, neither of whom have ever come forward if I am not mistaken? I also have a theory that Madeleine may have woke and wandered, and been hit by a car - driver had been drinking, panics and takes her away for burial. Apologies if this sounds gruesome, or takes the thread off topic. Just adding my thoughts to the mix.
-
All possibilities need to be considered. The Portuguese Prosecutor did this with full access to the evidence, and concluded that there was no evidence to indicate any crime.
People who insist on abduction are speculating above their pay grade.
People who deny abduction are speculating above their pay grade.
All options remain unproved and un-disproved.
Really the end of any rational and productive argument.
Speculation generally is a waste of time. Speculation that it was the McCans is a waste of time and a tort in law (defamation) and potentially a criminal offence (harrassment).
-
What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on ?
Hello, icabodcrane - this is a good point which I'm sure will make for some interesting debate. I go with the sightings of a man seen carrying a child, neither of whom have ever come forward if I am not mistaken? I also have a theory that Madeleine may have woke and wandered, and been hit by a car - driver had been drinking, panics and takes her away for burial. Apologies if this sounds gruesome, or takes the thread off topic. Just adding my thoughts to the mix.
Hi Rachel
Your theory, that Madeleine may have woken and wandered ( and met some sad fate ) actually has more supporting evidence than the abductor theory
We have evidence, for instance that Madeleine was prone to waking up at night ( the star chart at home ) and thatb she had woken several times during the holiday in Portugal ... when Gerry says she had gotten into their bed one night saying her sister had woken her up, when Mrs Fenn says she heard two children crying for over an hour, and again when Kate says Madeline asked her in the morning why she hadn't come when she and Sean were crying the night before ... so three out of five nights she had woken
Plenty of supporting evidence there, then, to the suggestion that she may have woken again on that fateful night
As to the 'wandering' part of your theory, again it is supported by evidence, in as much as we know the patio doors had been left unlocked, and it was certainly possible for Madeleine to have left the apartment that night, looking for mum and dad
-
And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.
As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.
An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.
The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).
I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.
As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.
It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.
-
And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.
As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.
An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.
The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).
I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.
As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.
It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.
We are all, indeed, speculating about what may have happened to cause a three year old to disappear
I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted could be based on
-
What evidence have those who believe an abduction took place based their opinion on ?
Hello, icabodcrane - this is a good point which I'm sure will make for some interesting debate. I go with the sightings of a man seen carrying a child, neither of whom have ever come forward if I am not mistaken? I also have a theory that Madeleine may have woke and wandered, and been hit by a car - driver had been drinking, panics and takes her away for burial. Apologies if this sounds gruesome, or takes the thread off topic. Just adding my thoughts to the mix.
Hi Rachel
Your theory, that Madeleine may have woken and wandered ( and met some sad fate ) actually has more supporting evidence than the abductor theory
We have evidence, for instance that Madeleine was prone to waking up at night ( the star chart at home ) and thatb she had woken several times during the holiday in Portugal ... when Gerry says she had gotten into their bed one night saying her sister had woken her up, when Mrs Fenn says she heard two children crying for over an hour, and again when Kate says Madeline asked her in the morning why she hadn't come when she and Sean were crying the night before ... so three out of five nights she had woken
Plenty of supporting evidence there, then, to the suggestion that she may have woken again on that fateful night
As to the 'wandering' part of your theory, again it is supported by evidence, in as much as we know the patio doors had been left unlocked, and it was certainly possible for Madeleine to have left the apartment that night, looking for mum and dad
Hi icabodcrane - some thought-provoking points from you there. I must admit that I have really considered the woke, wandered, met with an accident theory. But that's all it is of course - a theory. At the end of the day, none of us know what happened on that fateful night of course. I am pinning my hopes on the Scotland Yard Review turning up something that may lead to Madeleine being found.
-
And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.
As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.
An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.
The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).
I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.
As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.
It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.
We are all, indeed, speculating about what may have happened to cause a three year old to disappear
I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted could be based on
The particular evidence that there were witnesses to an unexplained man (who has never come forward) carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine went missing on that very evening.
Till that evidence is completely explained then it remains a vital lead to a potential abduction.
-
And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.
As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.
An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.
The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).
I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.
As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.
It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.
We are all, indeed, speculating about what may have happened to cause a three year old to disappear
I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted could be based on
The particular evidence that there were witnesses to an unexplained man (who has never come forward) carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine went missing on that very evening.
Till that evidence is completely explained then it remains a vital lead to a potential abduction.
I think this needs to be clarified
The implication seems to be that these witnesses saw the same man carrying a child that night
There is no evidence to prove the man seen by Jane Tanner at 10.15pm was the same man seen by the Smith family 45 minutes later ... indeed the very fact that there is a 45 minute gap between the two, suggests they were not the same man ( unless he had aimlessly been wandering around Priai da Luz for nearly an hour with an abducted child in his arms )
This one belongs on the myth thread I think
-
And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.
As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.
An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.
The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).
I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.
As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.
It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.
We are all, indeed, speculating about what may have happened to cause a three year old to disappear
I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted could be based on
The particular evidence that there were witnesses to an unexplained man (who has never come forward) carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine went missing on that very evening.
Till that evidence is completely explained then it remains a vital lead to a potential abduction.
I think this needs to be clarified
The implication seems to be that these witnesses saw the same man carrying a child that night
There is no evidence to prove the man seen by Jane Tanner at 10.15pm was the same man seen by the Smith family 45 minutes later ... indeed the very fact that there is a 45 minute gap between the two, suggests they were not the same man ( unless he had aimlessly been wandering around Priai da Luz for nearly an hour with an abducted child in his arms )
This one belongs on the myth thread I think
Were did I mention Jane Tanner?
I said "witnesses to an unexplained man". You are leaping to conclusions there I fear.
However, now you have mentioned Jane Tanner, that is a second reason to believe in a potential abduction.
There are two separate incidents reported of men carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine disappeared both within one hour or so of that disappearance.
Until those two separate claims are fully explained then they remain as evidence of a potential abduction.
-
And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.
As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.
An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.
The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).
I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.
As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.
It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.
We are all, indeed, speculating about what may have happened to cause a three year old to disappear
I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted could be based on
The particular evidence that there were witnesses to an unexplained man (who has never come forward) carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine went missing on that very evening.
Till that evidence is completely explained then it remains a vital lead to a potential abduction.
I think this needs to be clarified
The implication seems to be that these witnesses saw the same man carrying a child that night
There is no evidence to prove the man seen by Jane Tanner at 10.15pm was the same man seen by the Smith family 45 minutes later ... indeed the very fact that there is a 45 minute gap between the two, suggests they were not the same man ( unless he had aimlessly been wandering around Priai da Luz for nearly an hour with an abducted child in his arms )
This one belongs on the myth thread I think
Were did I mention Jane Tanner?
I said "witnesses to an unexplained man". You are leaping to conclusions there I fear.
However, now you have mentioned Jane Tanner, that is a second reason to believe in a potential abduction.
There are two separate incidents reported of men carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine disappeared both within one hour or so of that disappearance.
Until those two separate claims are fully explained then they remain as evidence of a potential abduction.
Men seen 'carrying away a child ?
That is not factual, is it ?
Two men were seen carrying a child that night ... in itself not noteworthy at all ... in the context of a child having gone missing that night, of significance/interest, certainly ( but not, in any way 'evidence' of an abduction )
Your statement that both men were walking away from the area where Madeleine disappeared is also entirely speculative ... the man seen by the Smith family was seen some distance away from the McCann apartment, and could have been coming from any direction
-
If an abduction had taken place, if in fact Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child ( I am excluding the Smith's sighting for now),…why on earth didn’t she tell everyone as soon as the alarm was given and why didn’t they all run outside looking for that man? Why did they keep in the apartment with Kate and Gerald too busy calling people in the UK?
And if the testimony of those nine people were truthful, that they checked the children as frequently as they said, then the hypothesis of an abduction was practically almost impossible. It would mean that 7 persons were going to and from the apartment complex 14 times in 2 hours. That would leave about 2 to 3 minutes for an abductor to take a child. And furthermore, there were buildings in front of the apartment with windows opened and people inside that didn’t see any suspicious movement.
Besides, who believes that an abductor would take a child and instead of having a car parked outside the ap would just walk out the street with the said child in his arms and instead of going the other way (to the left) where there are no houses, he would walk right towards the centre of the village?!
Come on!
-
And however unlikely you may consider it, it was certainly possible that an abductor opened the window.
As someone else has said speculation will never solve the case.
An abduction is a possible explanation.
A cover-up by the McCanns is a possible explanation.
A wandering scenario is perfectly possible.
The reality is that people are just speculating. No-one here (I presume) has all the evidence to hand. No-one (I presume) has questioned the witnesses. No-one (I presume) has examined the apartment in detail (though I am aware some have visited PDL).
I would hope we could all agree that definitive statements as to what happened can only be made after a full examination of all the evidence, after close questioning of the witnesses and after proper examination of the crime scene.
As none of us (I presume) has achieved any of those then it is wrong for any of us, in my opinion, to state categorically what happened.
It is also wrong for people to present information and to continue presenting that information as fact when it has been shown to be only speculation or even worse to be false.
We are all, indeed, speculating about what may have happened to cause a three year old to disappear
I am asking what particular evidence the speculation that she was abducted could be based on
The particular evidence that there were witnesses to an unexplained man (who has never come forward) carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine went missing on that very evening.
Till that evidence is completely explained then it remains a vital lead to a potential abduction.
I think this needs to be clarified
The implication seems to be that these witnesses saw the same man carrying a child that night
There is no evidence to prove the man seen by Jane Tanner at 10.15pm was the same man seen by the Smith family 45 minutes later ... indeed the very fact that there is a 45 minute gap between the two, suggests they were not the same man ( unless he had aimlessly been wandering around Priai da Luz for nearly an hour with an abducted child in his arms )
This one belongs on the myth thread I think
Were did I mention Jane Tanner?
I said "witnesses to an unexplained man". You are leaping to conclusions there I fear.
However, now you have mentioned Jane Tanner, that is a second reason to believe in a potential abduction.
There are two separate incidents reported of men carrying away a child from the very area where Madeleine disappeared both within one hour or so of that disappearance.
Until those two separate claims are fully explained then they remain as evidence of a potential abduction.
Men seen 'carrying away a child ?
That is not factual, is it ?
Two men were seen carrying a child that night ... in itself not noteworthy at all ... in the context of a child having gone missing that night, of significance/interest, certainly ( but not, in any way 'evidence' of an abduction )
Your statement that both men were walking away from the area where Madeleine disappeared is also entirely speculative ... the man seen by the Smith family was seen some distance away from the McCann apartment, and could have been coming from any direction
Having looked again at the Smith sighting he was moving south away from the McCann location towards the beach.
You appear to have missed a vital word in my post.
"Unexplained"
It is noteworthy that a man carrying a child away from the McCann apartment and less than 500m on foot from that apartment within one hour of the disappearance has not come forward.
Until that sighting has been fully explained it is potential evidence of abduction.
-
Here you have a reconstruction made by Paulo Sargento and Luis Gamito based on the accounts given by the Tapas 9 about their movements since the time The McCann got the children from the creche until the alarm that shows how difficult an abduction could take place.
http://blip.tv/joana-morais-tv/tapas-3d-reconstruction-time-line-2776255 (http://blip.tv/joana-morais-tv/tapas-3d-reconstruction-time-line-2776255)
-
Here you have a reconstruction made by Paulo Sargento and Luis Gamito based on the accounts given by the Tapas 9 about their movements since the time The McCann got the children from the creche until the alarm that shows how difficult an abduction could take place.
http://blip.tv/joana-morais-tv/tapas-3d-reconstruction-time-line-2776255 (http://blip.tv/joana-morais-tv/tapas-3d-reconstruction-time-line-2776255)
Isn't Paulo Sargento the very good friend of Mr Amaral?
Do you expect us to take Paulo Sargento as an unbiased individual? Seriously?
-
Having looked again at the Smith sighting he was moving south away from the McCann location towards the beach.
You appear to have missed a vital word in my post.
"Unexplained"
It is noteworthy that a man carrying a child away from the McCann apartment and less than 500m on foot from that apartment within one hour of the disappearance has not come forward.
Until that sighting has been fully explained it is potential evidence of abduction.
[/quote]
You forgot to mention that Mr. Smith believed that the man he saw was Mr. Gerald McCann.
-
Having looked again at the Smith sighting he was moving south away from the McCann location towards the beach.
You appear to have missed a vital word in my post.
"Unexplained"
It is noteworthy that a man carrying a child away from the McCann apartment and less than 500m on foot from that apartment within one hour of the disappearance has not come forward.
Until that sighting has been fully explained it is potential evidence of abduction.
You forgot to mention that Mr. Smith believed that the man he saw was Mr. Gerald McCann.
[/quote]
Please get your facts right. He said he believed there was a possibility it was Gerry McCann.
None of the other Smiths who gave statements reported any such possibility.
-
Here you have a reconstruction made by Paulo Sargento and Luis Gamito based on the accounts given by the Tapas 9 about their movements since the time The McCann got the children from the creche until the alarm that shows how difficult an abduction could take place.
http://blip.tv/joana-morais-tv/tapas-3d-reconstruction-time-line-2776255 (http://blip.tv/joana-morais-tv/tapas-3d-reconstruction-time-line-2776255)
Isn't Paulo Sargento the very good friend of Mr Amaral?
Do you expect us to take Paulo Sargento as an unbiased individual? Seriously?
Why not? Paulo Sargento and Luis Gamito are University investigators and if Paulo Sargento became friends with Mr. Amaral I don't know, but I know that he respects him.
Should I question your opinions because of your connection with the McCann front group?!
-
Having looked again at the Smith sighting he was moving south away from the McCann location towards the beach.
You appear to have missed a vital word in my post.
"Unexplained"
It is noteworthy that a man carrying a child away from the McCann apartment and less than 500m on foot from that apartment within one hour of the disappearance has not come forward.
Until that sighting has been fully explained it is potential evidence of abduction.
You forgot to mention that Mr. Smith believed that the man he saw was Mr. Gerald McCann.
Please get your facts right. He said he believed there was a possibility it was Gerry McCann.
None of the other Smiths who gave statements reported any such possibility.
[/quote]
Ok. According to his testimony he was 80% certain. Does it sound better?!
The other Smith'es were not so certain but they also corroborated the possibility of...
You are really precious, for someone who doesn't care about facts when it means defending your darlings. But alright, let's have it your way.
-
Hello Luz. What are your thoughts on the McCanns not being charged with anything?
-
Hello Luz. What are your thoughts on the McCanns not being charged with anything?
I am outraged. Because if they did in fact leave their children alone in an apartment during their dinner time they should have been imprisoned for at least 5-10 years. There was a case very close in time to the McCann's, where a very poor mother with 3 children from 3 to 9 years old had to leave them alone at home while she went to a Court hearing concerning parental rights, and as she didn't have anyone nor money to pay a person to babysit them she left them alone. This woman lost her children and was sent to prison for 2 years.
-
Hello Luz. What are your thoughts on the McCanns not being charged with anything?
I am outraged. Because if they did in fact leave their children alone in an apartment during their dinner time they should have been imprisoned for at least 5-10 years. There was a case very close in time to the McCann's, where a very poor mother with 3 children from 3 to 9 years old had to leave them alone at home while she went to a Court hearing concerning parental rights, and as she didn't have anyone nor money to pay a person to babysit them she left them alone. This woman lost her children and was sent to prison for 2 years.
I see. Thanks for your response, Luz.
-
Hello Luz. What are your thoughts on the McCanns not being charged with anything?
I am outraged. Because if they did in fact leave their children alone in an apartment during their dinner time they should have been imprisoned for at least 5-10 years. There was a case very close in time to the McCann's, where a very poor mother with 3 children from 3 to 9 years old had to leave them alone at home while she went to a Court hearing concerning parental rights, and as she didn't have anyone nor money to pay a person to babysit them she left them alone. This woman lost her children and was sent to prison for 2 years.
But that case was very different and both the distance from the parent to the children and the time which the children were left were significantly longer.
Your own Attorney General stated that the question of neglect or abandonment had been investigated with regard to the McCanns and was dismissed.
Do you not accept the results of police and judicial investigations in Portugal?
-
Additionally, very powerful evidence is the way that kate and Gerry have made every effort to get high powered police involved.
If they were guilty of any misdemenor, then after a suitable period, they would have quietly vanished off the scene.
Not Kate and Gerry . They pressed to get what is reputed to be the best investigative team in the world involved
That is not the behaviour of a guilty party. By opening the biggest investigation in the world with the best team, they have proved their innocence
QED
-
Hello Luz. What are your thoughts on the McCanns not being charged with anything?
I am outraged. Because if they did in fact leave their children alone in an apartment during their dinner time they should have been imprisoned for at least 5-10 years. There was a case very close in time to the McCann's, where a very poor mother with 3 children from 3 to 9 years old had to leave them alone at home while she went to a Court hearing concerning parental rights, and as she didn't have anyone nor money to pay a person to babysit them she left them alone. This woman lost her children and was sent to prison for 2 years.
But that case was very different and both the distance from the parent to the children and the time which the children were left were significantly longer.
Your own Attorney General stated that the question of neglect or abandonment had been investigated with regard to the McCanns and was dismissed.
Do you not accept the results of police and judicial investigations in Portugal?
That Attorney General was a disgrace. he accepted being influenced by the British Ambassador and made a mess of this case.
If there wasn't for the political interference they would have been imprisoned immediately after the child went missing. But as time went by that became impossible because there is a 6 months timing to act after the fact is known, and that's why all that shitty discourse about "the poor McCann".
-
Additionally, very powerful evidence is the way that kate and Gerry have made every effort to get high powered police involved.
If they were guilty of any misdemenor, then after a suitable period, they would have quietly vanished off the scene.
Not Kate and Gerry . They pressed to get what is reputed to be the best investigative team in the world involved
That is not the behaviour of a guilty party. By opening the biggest investigation in the world with the best team, they have proved their innocence
QED
Excuse me, are you kidding me?!
Those two avoided any possibility of a full investigation. As soon as they started being questioned, as they should have from the beginning and not six months later, they escaped like rabbits.
Those cowards couldn't face the police even to save their child.
As Amaral said in 2007 about Kate McCann, "I wouldn't want her to be my mother".
-
The physical evidence of an abduction.
As I said before Amaral CHOSE to ignore Jane Tanners sighting. He CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT!
He also ignored the audio evidence of Mrs Stephen Carpenter. She was in the right place at the right time and she heard "Madeleine, Madeleine" whispered. I am 75 and have NEVER met a Madeleine in my life ... so that is quite a co-incidence
He also chose to ignore the evidence of the Smith family, altho when he thought that he might be able to "get" The McCanns he showed interest. Must have been sad for him that none of the other Smiths agreed with Mr Smith senior about the way Gerry was carrying Sean down the aeroplane steps.
So several Smiths were against what Mr Smith was saying !
In fact he CHOSE to ignore the evidence of all the Brits.
-
The physical evidence of an abduction.
As I said before Amaral CHOSE to ignore Jane Tanners sighting. He CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT!
He also ignored the audio evidence of Mrs Stephen Carpenter. She was in the right place at the right time and she heard "Madeleine, Madeleine" whispered. I am 75 and have NEVER met a Madeleine in my life ... so that is quite a co-incidence
He also chose to ignore the evidence of the Smith family, altho when he thought that he might be able to "get" The McCanns he showed interest. Must have been sad for him that none of the other Smiths agreed with Mr Smith senior about the way Gerry was carrying Sean down the aeroplane steps.
So several Smiths were against what Mr Smith was saying !
In fact he CHOSE to ignore the evidence of all the Brits.
Stop reciting your bible and think.
How could Amaral or any other police search for an egg shaped man?! Are you joking?
He didn't ignore any clue, don't play the clown. There were hundreds of police men working towards the search of that child, it was not only Mr. Amaral. They worked night and day, they didn't take their vacations, they didn't ignore clues, but they couldn't produce what was not there to obtain. The child was probably dead and according to her father: "Find the corpse" indicated that it had been either very well hidden or destroyed.
-
Additionally, very powerful evidence is the way that kate and Gerry have made every effort to get high powered police involved.
If they were guilty of any misdemenor, then after a suitable period, they would have quietly vanished off the scene.
Not Kate and Gerry . They pressed to get what is reputed to be the best investigative team in the world involved
That is not the behaviour of a guilty party. By opening the biggest investigation in the world with the best team, they have proved their innocence
QED
Excuse me, are you kidding me?!
Those two avoided any possibility of a full investigation. As soon as they started being questioned, as they should have from the beginning and not six months later, they escaped like rabbits.
Those cowards couldn't face the police even to save their child.
As Amaral said in 2007 about Kate McCann, "I wouldn't want her to be my mother".
Would that be the same Amaral whose wife allegedly wrote to Guilhermino Encarnacao about him threatening her?
The same Amaral who was later convicted of trying to cover up the torture of a woman?
I wouldn't want him to be my father!
-
The physical evidence of an abduction.
As I said before Amaral CHOSE to ignore Jane Tanners sighting. He CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT!
He also ignored the audio evidence of Mrs Stephen Carpenter. She was in the right place at the right time and she heard "Madeleine, Madeleine" whispered. I am 75 and have NEVER met a Madeleine in my life ... so that is quite a co-incidence
He also chose to ignore the evidence of the Smith family, altho when he thought that he might be able to "get" The McCanns he showed interest. Must have been sad for him that none of the other Smiths agreed with Mr Smith senior about the way Gerry was carrying Sean down the aeroplane steps.
So several Smiths were against what Mr Smith was saying !
In fact he CHOSE to ignore the evidence of all the Brits.
Stop reciting your bible and think.
How could Amaral or any other police search for an egg shaped man?! Are you joking?
He didn't ignore any clue, don't play the clown. There were hundreds of police men working towards the search of that child, it was not only Mr. Amaral. They worked night and day, they didn't take their vacations, they didn't ignore clues, but they couldn't produce what was not there to obtain. The child was probably dead and according to her father: "Find the corpse" indicated that it had been either very well hidden or destroyed.
Am I right in thinking that there was a particular reason for the poor quality of the initial Jane Tanner police image? Wasn't there a problem finding some method of creating an image from the side? Wasn't it a resources issue in the PJ?
-
Additionally, very powerful evidence is the way that kate and Gerry have made every effort to get high powered police involved.
If they were guilty of any misdemenor, then after a suitable period, they would have quietly vanished off the scene.
Not Kate and Gerry . They pressed to get what is reputed to be the best investigative team in the world involved
That is not the behaviour of a guilty party. By opening the biggest investigation in the world with the best team, they have proved their innocence
QED
Excuse me, are you kidding me?!
Those two avoided any possibility of a full investigation. As soon as they started being questioned, as they should have from the beginning and not six months later, they escaped like rabbits.
Those cowards couldn't face the police even to save their child.
As Amaral said in 2007 about Kate McCann, "I wouldn't want her to be my mother".
I wonder if they were being fitted up .. and they had been warned?
What happened to Michael Cook and Leonor and Joao Cipriano was appalling. All three of them beaten up and a confession tortured out of the Ciprianos. I believe that even tho he was hung upside down out of a window and his feet beaten, his teeth smashed in, a gun put in his mouth, and left in his clothes without a toilet Michael Cook refused to confess. Brave man. he went to court in his stinky clothes and with broken teeth.
Cook was only 5 feet tall and he spent years in a PT jail, was abused and stabbed several times. I think that in the circumstances Kate was VERY wise NOT to answer questions. Ones that were designed NOT to find Madeleine but to try and get her locked away.
Their solicitor advised them not to answer questions altho Gerry did.
Lets not forget that Amaral is a convicted perjurer. Cristovao has been tried for torture and is currently on trial for (is it?) seven major crimes. Both ex Ch Inspectors have been relieved of their positions.
Says it all!
Do you condone this Luz?
ETA : one letter added to word "say"
Oh, and both Amaral and Cristovao have made considerable sums of money from selling books perportedly about the cases of Madeleine and Joana Cipriano
-
Of Course there is physical evidence of an abduction
1. Jane Tanners GOLDEN EVIDENCE and that of
2. Caroline Carpenter
3. Collaborated by that of the Smiths sighting
That Amaral CHOSE to ignore does NOT mean that it was not evidence. Most abduction investigations would not be able to believe their luck with such sightings. BUT Amaral CHOSE to IGNORE the sightings ... >@@(*&)
--------------=---
And then lets not forget the History of abductions of prepubescent children in mainland PT .. ones with no family or friend involvement and NO bodies found
Five months before Madeleines abduction there was a witnessed and definite attempted abduction of Carolina Santos from nearby Silves.
And less than 3 years before, Joana Cipriano was abducted from Figueira .. only seven miles away from PdL
This abductor had an established pattern of abductions roughly once every 2 years. 8 Children missing and one nearly gone, but thankfully just saved.
Seems he had a 'need' for a different child every two years. His abduction of Carolina was thwarted, but his 'need' was still there.
Less than 5 months later he spotted Madeleine.
-------------------------------------
The abductions started in Oporto in 1991 and every two years, roughly, there was another abduction. This man had a regular 'need'. Sorry this is not a nice topic.
About 1999 the authorities took in a man and from memory they charged him. However he is the son of an Elite and somehow someone managed to get him off charges. [ Pls correct me if the charging bit is incorrect cos all details have now been whitewashed off the internet. However, there is another independant witness to this.]
There is a trail of sightings straight up to Oporto in the 15 hours after the abduction took place ... and the one sighting is less than 2 miles away from the place of the first abduction way back in 1991
Yep the day after her abduction ?Madeleine was right where the series of abductions started.
Please dont tell me that there are no pointers to an abduction!
-
The physical evidence of an abduction.
As I said before Amaral CHOSE to ignore Jane Tanners sighting. He CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT!
He also ignored the audio evidence of Mrs Stephen Carpenter. She was in the right place at the right time and she heard "Madeleine, Madeleine" whispered. I am 75 and have NEVER met a Madeleine in my life ... so that is quite a co-incidence
He also chose to ignore the evidence of the Smith family, altho when he thought that he might be able to "get" The McCanns he showed interest. Must have been sad for him that none of the other Smiths agreed with Mr Smith senior about the way Gerry was carrying Sean down the aeroplane steps.
So several Smiths were against what Mr Smith was saying !
In fact he CHOSE to ignore the evidence of all the Brits.
Stop reciting your bible and think.
How could Amaral or any other police search for an egg shaped man?! Are you joking?
He didn't ignore any clue, don't play the clown. There were hundreds of police men working towards the search of that child, it was not only Mr. Amaral. They worked night and day, they didn't take their vacations, they didn't ignore clues, but they couldn't produce what was not there to obtain. The child was probably dead and according to her father: "Find the corpse" indicated that it had been either very well hidden or destroyed.
Dont be trite LUZ. It was better to have the figure of a man showing his style of figure and hair along with the outfit he wore, than not at all. The energy of his walk too. That was quite unusual.
Are you suggesting LUZ that a figure should have been put out with a false face?
The statement you have made astounds me. Sorry but "Trite" it is ... and it is in bad taste tbh.
We are talking about a missing child here, FGS
Think again.
-
The physical evidence of an abduction.
As I said before Amaral CHOSE to ignore Jane Tanners sighting. He CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT!
He also ignored the audio evidence of Mrs Stephen Carpenter. She was in the right place at the right time and she heard "Madeleine, Madeleine" whispered. I am 75 and have NEVER met a Madeleine in my life ... so that is quite a co-incidence
He also chose to ignore the evidence of the Smith family, altho when he thought that he might be able to "get" The McCanns he showed interest. Must have been sad for him that none of the other Smiths agreed with Mr Smith senior about the way Gerry was carrying Sean down the aeroplane steps.
So several Smiths were against what Mr Smith was saying !
In fact he CHOSE to ignore the evidence of all the Brits.
Stop reciting your bible and think.
How could Amaral or any other police search for an egg shaped man?! Are you joking?
He didn't ignore any clue, don't play the clown. There were hundreds of police men working towards the search of that child, it was not only Mr. Amaral. They worked night and day, they didn't take their vacations, they didn't ignore clues, but they couldn't produce what was not there to obtain. The child was probably dead and according to her father: "Find the corpse" indicated that it had been either very well hidden or destroyed.
Dont be trite LUZ. It was better to have the figure of a man showing his style of figure and hair along with the outfit he wore, than not at all. The energy of his walk too. That was quite unusual.
Are you suggesting LUZ that a figure should have been put out with a false face?
The statement you have made astounds me. Sorry but "Trite" it is ... and it is in bad taste tbh.
We are talking about a missing child here, FGS
Think again.
What is astounding is that you think it is possible to search for a faceless man/person!
YES, we are talking about a MISSING GIRL, why the F--K didn't those adults in the Tapas group go out looking for her?!
My brother that is a portuguese executive and works in Faro took a week to search for that girl. He arrived in Praia da Luz at 2:00 a.m on the 4th of May and only left on the 10th. My brother spent the night searching with many other people from the village, but not one single memebr of the group (Tapas) ever joined them.
The parents claim they went looking at 5:30-6:00 a.m., well, maybe they did, but my brother and the others that were there never saw them. And they claim that people weren't looking, that's a fat ugly lie. People kept looking for 72 hours at a row (as my brother) or at least 24x24. It was them that didn't care.
-
Of Course there is physical evidence of an abduction
1. Jane Tanners GOLDEN EVIDENCE and that of
2. Caroline Carpenter
3. Collaborated by that of the Smiths sighting
That Amaral CHOSE to ignore does NOT mean that it was not evidence. Most abduction investigations would not be able to believe their luck with such sightings. BUT Amaral CHOSE to IGNORE the sightings ... >@@(*&)
--------------=---
And then lets not forget the History of abductions of prepubescent children in mainland PT .. ones with no family or friend involvement and NO bodies found
Five months before Madeleines abduction there was a witnessed and definite attempted abduction of Carolina Santos from nearby Silves.
And less than 3 years before, Joana Cipriano was abducted from Figueira .. only seven miles away from PdL
This abductor had an established pattern of abductions roughly once every 2 years. 8 Children missing and one nearly gone, but thankfully just saved.
Seems he had a 'need' for a different child every two years. His abduction of Carolina was thwarted, but his 'need' was still there.
Less than 5 months later he spotted Madeleine.
-------------------------------------
The abductions started in Oporto in 1991 and every two years, roughly, there was another abduction. This man had a regular 'need'. Sorry this is not a nice topic.
About 1999 the authorities took in a man and from memory they charged him. However he is the son of an Elite and somehow someone managed to get him off charges. [ Pls correct me if the charging bit is incorrect cos all details have now been whitewashed off the internet. However, there is another independant witness to this.]
There is a trail of sightings straight up to Oporto in the 15 hours after the abduction took place ... and the one sighting is less than 2 miles away from the place of the first abduction way back in 1991
Yep the day after her abduction ?Madeleine was right where the series of abductions started.
Please dont tell me that there are no pointers to an abduction!
You do, of course, have evidence to back up this startling series of revelations ? I look forward to seeing it.
-
Welcome C.Edwards !
-
Welcome C.Edwards !
Thankyou. I think. But is it really me...?
-
I cant help it if your brother didn't see them looking. They did. No doubt they had to deal with the GNR, giving accounts etc. and deal with OC and produce photos etc, but they searched.
Sorry but more myths.........
I doubt that Kate went out. No husband would expect that. She was destroyed by it all and someone had to stay with Sean and Amelie and deal with the police etc. Be there in case Madeleine returned.
Why were the PJ so late coming?
Why wasn't the crime scene taped off?
Why did Amaral NEVER EVER interview Kate and Gerry
Why did Amaral NEVER EVER come to the scene?
Why has Amaral been relieved of his duty as a police Odfficer?
Why has Amaral got a conviction for perjury?
Btw. Many a criminal has been caught from his clothes and his physical shape from the back. So what is different about this? Far better to have a drawing showing most of it, even if his face is not there, than have nothing to go on
Surely even you can see that, LUZ ?
-
Welcome C.Edwards !
Thankyou. I think. But is it really me...?
I have seen one post that leads me to doubt it.
TIme will tell.
-
Of Course there is physical evidence of an abduction
1. Jane Tanners GOLDEN EVIDENCE and that of THIS ONE IS TO ROLF
2. Caroline Carpenter THAT DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE FILES, but ok
3. Collaborated by that of the Smiths sighting [DAMAGING TO mr.mccann, RIGHT?!
That Amaral CHOSE to ignore does NOT mean that it was not evidence. Most abduction investigations would not be able to believe their luck with such sightings. BUT Amaral CHOSE to IGNORE the sightings ... >@@(*&) [PRAY, TELL US, WHICH SIGHTINGS DID HE IGNORE? THE LITTLE BLOND GIRL FROM NORTH AFRICA WHOSE MUM WAS BELGIUM? THE BOY WHOSE FATHER WAS A FOOTBALL STAR? THE INDIAN GIRL; THE NEOZELANDESE GIRL??????
Amaral chose nothing, it was a team work silly person. And only an irresponsible leader would put his forces towards every single shitty silly cryout. Even so, thousands of stupid leads were followed and it involved not only Portuguese police but many countries and the Interpol and Europol
--------------=---
And then lets not forget the History of abductions of prepubescent children in mainland PT .. ones with no family or friend involvement and NO bodies found
Five months before Madeleines abduction there was a witnessed and definite attempted abduction of Carolina Santos from nearby Silves.
And less than 3 years before, Joana Cipriano was abducted from Figueira .. only seven miles away from PdL
This abductor had an established pattern of abductions roughly once every 2 years. 8 Children missing and one nearly gone, but thankfully just saved.
Seems he had a 'need' for a different child every two years. His abduction of Carolina was thwarted, but his 'need' was still there.
Less than 5 months later he spotted Madeleine.
-------------------------------------
The abductions started in Oporto in 1991 and every two years, roughly, there was another abduction. This man had a regular 'need'. Sorry this is not a nice topic.
About 1999 the authorities took in a man and from memory they charged him. However he is the son of an Elite and somehow someone managed to get him off charges. [ Pls correct me if the charging bit is incorrect cos all details have now been whitewashed off the internet. However, there is another independant witness to this.]
There is a trail of sightings straight up to Oporto in the 15 hours after the abduction took place ... and the one sighting is less than 2 miles away from the place of the first abduction way back in 1991
Yep the day after her abduction ?Madeleine was right where the series of abductions started.
Please dont tell me that there are no pointers to an abduction!
You do, of course, have evidence to back up this startling series of revelations ? I look forward to seeing it.
Shame on you. You obviously have no idea about what you are talking about.
If there was an abduction then that was in collusion with the parents.
-
I cant help it if your brother didn't see them looking. They did. No doubt they had to deal with the GNR, giving accounts etc. and deal with OC and produce photos etc, but they searched.
Sorry but more myths.........
I doubt that Kate went out. No husband would expect that. She was destroyed by it all and someone had to stay with Sean and Amelie and deal with the police etc. Be there in case Madeleine returned.
Why were the PJ so late coming?
Why wasn't the crime scene taped off?
Why did Amaral NEVER EVER interview Kate and Gerry
Why did Amaral NEVER EVER come to the scene?
Why has Amaral been relieved of his duty as a police Odfficer?
Why has Amaral got a conviction for perjury?
Btw. Many a criminal has been caught from his clothes and his physical shape from the back. So what is different about this? Far better to have a drawing showing most of it, even if his face is not there, than have nothing to go on
Surely even you can see that, LUZ ?
How do you know they did? Were you there?!
What I see is two criminals getting off with a disgusting crime, and being pampered for it.
-
I am beginning to find Luz's postings a little xenophobic
-
I cant help it if your brother didn't see them looking. They did. No doubt they had to deal with the GNR, giving accounts etc. and deal with OC and produce photos etc, but they searched.
Sorry but more myths.........
I doubt that Kate went out. No husband would expect that. She was destroyed by it all and someone had to stay with Sean and Amelie and deal with the police etc. Be there in case Madeleine returned.
Why were the PJ so late coming?
Why wasn't the crime scene taped off?
Why did Amaral NEVER EVER interview Kate and Gerry
Why did Amaral NEVER EVER come to the scene?
Why has Amaral been relieved of his duty as a police Odfficer?
Why has Amaral got a conviction for perjury?
Btw. Many a criminal has been caught from his clothes and his physical shape from the back. So what is different about this? Far better to have a drawing showing most of it, even if his face is not there, than have nothing to go on
Surely even you can see that, LUZ ?
I agree Sadie, Amaral has been thoroughly discredited, his conviction really says something as such convictions of policemen rarely occur in the Iberian peninsula..
-
I am beginning to find Luz's postings a little xenophobic
I'm beginning to find Sadie's posts a little hysterical and full of "pro" myths.
For one - why the heck would Amaral interview the McCanns and why would it be an issue anyway? Sadie flings out the accusation as though it's a flaming dagger of proof of corruption/incompetence.
He was the coordinator.
Also the whole "convicted perjuror" thing is getting old. We've just seen convicted child killer leonor cipriano get another 7 months for lying. The court found that there was no truth in her accusations.
What oh what will you do if Amaral successfully gets his conviction overturned on the basis of Cipriano's lies? He'll just be "incompetent and non-convicted perjuror amaral" then, will he?
-
Warning. Fake C Edwards
-
I agree Sadie, Amaral has been thoroughly discredited, his conviction really says something as such convictions of policemen rarely occur in the Iberian peninsula..
Thoroughly discredited? By a technical conviction because the story given by his men was found to be untrue at the time and therefore his statement corroborating their words had to be false? And since then Leonor Cipriano has been jailed for another 7 months for lying about the whole thing? And you state he's been discredited?
Wow...
So let's just wait and see on what happens to his conviction then...!
-
I agree Sadie, Amaral has been thoroughly discredited, his conviction really says something as such convictions of policemen rarely occur in the Iberian peninsula..
Thoroughly discredited? By a technical conviction because the story given by his men was found to be untrue at the time and therefore his statement corroborating their words had to be false? And since then Leonor Cipriano has been jailed for another 7 months for lying about the whole thing? And you state he's been discredited?
Wow...
So let's just wait and see on what happens to his conviction then...!
Do you not think he should have found out if the words were false or not before lying? Yes he was discredited. Either he did not know what was going on under his authority or he lied. Whichever hardly credit to him.
Also utterly discredited as a policeman when he was thrown off the case for talking to journalists (as he tells us in his own book). Breaking the Judicial Secrecy law and discrediting the PJ at the same time. Not very clever.
-
Yes, it takes something special for the Portuguese authorities to prosecute one of their own.
-
All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral. I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns. So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works? I think you're sadly mistaken about that.
With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?
-
All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral. I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns. So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works? I think you're sadly mistaken about that.
With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?
Yes, it takes something special for the Portuguese authorities to prosecute one of their own.
Unfortunately that is happening quite frequently now. Even one of Amaral's own friends Cristovao is being investigated over serious charges.
-
All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral. I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns. So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works? I think you're sadly mistaken about that.
With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?
Well as he used the book to describe his own dismissal from the case there are good reasons to say the book itself discredits the man. I am only quoting what he wrote in his own book.
I don't think Amaral gives much evidence for a large number of claims in that book though and some of his claims are directly in opposition to the reality which is found in the official files. As you say, lets wait and see.
-
All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral. I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns. So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works? I think you're sadly mistaken about that.
With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?
Well as he used the book to describe his own dismissal from the case there are good reasons to say the book itself discredits the man. I am only quoting what he wrote in his own book.
I don't think Amaral gives much evidence for a large number of claims in that book though and some of his claims are directly in opposition to the reality which is found in the official files. As you say, lets wait and see.
Which begs the question
... why did the McCanns pull out of their libel action against him on the eve of the trial ?
-
All I see is a whole lot of people rather desperate to discredit Amaral. I'm not really sure why other than it's because he's written a book condemning the McCanns. So is the idea that if you discredit Amaral, you discredit the book? Is that how it works? I think you're sadly mistaken about that.
With the Amaral/McCann libel trial still pending, you'll forgive me if I do something as rash as say, "wait and see before believing it's all done and dusted," won't you?
Well as he used the book to describe his own dismissal from the case there are good reasons to say the book itself discredits the man. I am only quoting what he wrote in his own book.
I don't think Amaral gives much evidence for a large number of claims in that book though and some of his claims are directly in opposition to the reality which is found in the official files. As you say, lets wait and see.
Which begs the question
... why did the McCanns pull out of their libel action against him on the eve of the trial ?
DId they or are you lying.
-
@C Edwards
1. Carolina Santos. The police didn't even bother to investigate who walked her off. 18 miles from Pdl and less than 5 months before Madeleine went. Had carolinas abduction been successful then madeleine probably would not have been taken. Carolina was also a pretty 3 year old blonde girl
http://metro.co.uk/2007/05/25/snatch-attempt-of-girl-who-looks-like-maddy-398445/
2. Joana Cipriano. Mother and uncle severely tortured into confessing to a crime it seems they diid not commit. Mother, Leonor Cipriano, bruised all over her head and torso . Also blinded by blood running into her eyes for one month.
That she was tortured has been proven in Court at least twice.
The only "witness" Leandro was also tortured into being a "witness" allegedly by Amaral. Leandro rescinded his witness statemebt as soon as he could, and uis I believe sueing Amaral for torture
No Forensics were done on blood found in their fridge... no forensics done on anything No body has been found, yet both are in jail for supposed murder, because the PJ made up a cock and Bull story that Leonor and her brother were caught having sex together ... so they had to murder her. The story went on that L and Joao had cut up her body and kept it in the fridge, gradually gfeeding it to their pigs. Amaral and Cristavao allowed (put out?) this wicked story to the media and the pair were the most reviled peeps in PT
There were three judges and three jurors IIRC and the one Judge stated that it was a miscarriage of Justice and refused to sign the commital.
The PJ have it on all their records that it was a murder. That is their official line ... but absolutely NO evidence was produced ... just tortured out stuff and an appalling story from Amaral and Cristovao. It was a total miscarriage of Justice. Cristavao was got rid of at that time. Both PJ Officers were on trial as a result of this case ... in a torture trial. He now faces a further seven charges. Amaral faces at least one more trial. Both "officers have been found guilty already of crimes.
Of course such a story ... illicit sex between brother and sister .. "evil" mother and Uncle killing the youngster because "she found them at it", and the cutting up of the body to store in their fridge and feed to their pigs was JUST THE TITILATING STUFF to sell mega numbers of books. A fortune was made
The above two abductions, were in less than 3 years before Madeleine went and both within about 18 miles of PdL
Then there was little Rene Hassees abducted on the Atlantic Coast of the Algarve .. just 18 miles away from PdL. That happened during the period of the Northern abductions. After the suspect was taken in by the Authorities in about !999, there were no mainland PT prepubescent stranger abductions for five years until Joana went in 2004
You can pick up all the details of Jorge Sepulveda (1991), Claudia Silves de Santos (1994), Rene Hasse (1996) Rui Pedro (1998) anf Rui Perreira (1999) from the PJ official missing children pages. All of these were in a small group clustered to the north and East of Oporto. The group was in an area no more than 32 miles across.
The Southern group [Rene, Joana, Carolina and Madeleine] was in a cluster of about 25 miles across
The two areas are about 300 miles apart. There were no other prepubescent stranger abductions in the whole of PT
Read up C Edwards and kindly apologise.
SY are aware of these abductions and their very definite pattern. Also of other pointers which I do not propose to make public.
Both men have made a mint out of writing stories about these missing girls Joana and Madeleine
Remember TORTURED OUT EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE. It is Fascism at its worst.
-
In the two timelines written by Russell O'Brien the partner of Jane Tanner he fails to mention that she relieved him of his Childcare duties yet the claim was that Jane was in the apartment when the alarm was raised, in the first timeline he also fails to mention his claimed joint check with Mathew Oldfield; of course in the third timeline written by the group six days later (minus Dianne Webster) they attempt to remedy these discrepences!
-
In the two timelines written by Russell O'Brien the partner of Jane Tanner he fails to mention that she relieved him of his Childcare duties yet the claim was that Jane was in the apartment when the alarm was raised, in the first timeline he also fails to mention his claimed joint check with Mathew Oldfield; of course in the third timeline written by the group six days later (minus Dianne Webster) they attempt to remedy these discrepences!
How are these discrepancies relevant to a thread about abduction?
Why not start a new topic about this issue?
-
I agree Sadie, Amaral has been thoroughly discredited, his conviction really says something as such convictions of policemen rarely occur in the Iberian peninsula..
Thoroughly discredited? By a technical conviction because the story given by his men was found to be untrue at the time and therefore his statement corroborating their words had to be false? And since then Leonor Cipriano has been jailed for another 7 months for lying about the whole thing? And you state he's been discredited?
Wow...
So let's just wait and see on what happens to his conviction then...!
This, of course seems to be Amarals ACE .. and probably why he has kept putting off his libel trial?
.
Like Pat Browns fiasco this seems to be a complete perversion of Justice. An altering of the facts.
Since when has a woman been tried for giving evidence in Court? She wasn't even able to identify her torturers because a bag was put over her head as she was forced to kneel on ashtrays and be beaten up.
Just how could such an injustice take place? How could a woman who didn't identify any of the torturers be given a further jail sentence for Amarals lies and whatever the other officer did? Fill in false statements IIRC.
And why was this case behind closed doors. Why was it at Faro, which almost always seems to find in favour of the PJ? ... even against all the evidence as in Michael Cooks case
What is Cristavao being taken thru the Courts for? Am i right in thinking that he has "files" on everyone of importance? Files about peoples unsavoury habits? I wonder why he would want them?
Jeez PT justice system s***ks. Nothing short of Fascism at its worst. Democracy has come into Portugal in name only, it seems
Fascism in sheeps clothing.
Perversion of Justice. Since when has a woman been jailed for giving evidence which she believes true? She could not identify her torturers so did no harm there. It was proven in two Courts that she was tortured.
This case ius Not about any wrong doing by Leonor. It is about trying to get Amaral off his conviction ... so that he can be the "badly mistreated" innocent who has ben harmed .. so that he gets the PT peeps behind hin and so that he can fight the Mccanns off. Please note this is only my opinion, but I cant think why else Leonor was taken thru the courts again.
Will there be another Court of "Justice" there in the Mccann v Amaral case Jeez!
-
Because the timelines are an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction to have taken place driven by the Smith sighting.
-
Because the timelines are an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction to have taken place driven by the Smith sighting.
WHich timelines?
-
peter
have you been drinking?
My apologies. I am old and tired now. i must retire to bed. I am a one finger typist having learned to type when this case started and am slow with lots of errors.
I have Swedish visitors coming but they will be leaving late Monday, so i doubt that i will be able to post before Tuesday
I would just like to say that I am staggerd that so many of you have not heard about the series of stranger pre pubescent child abductions in PT before.
I think you should think very carefully about what these point to
Good night
sadie
-
Because the timelines are an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction to have taken place driven by the Smith sighting.
What is your evidence for stating so categorically that these timelines are "an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction"? Isn't it true that is a pure guess on your part and not something you can support with evidence?
Isn't it perfectly possible that they were a perfectly normal attempt to give the police the most accurate possible details that could be remembered about events leading up to the disappearance?
Notice, I don't claim this is what they were, merely that it is just as likely a reason for them as the guess you made.
-
peter
have you been drinking?
My apologies. I am old and tired now. i must retire to bed. I am a one finger typist having learned to type when this case started and am slow with lots of errors.
I have Swedish visitors coming but they will be leaving late Monday, so i doubt that i will be able to post before Tuesday
I would just like to say that I am staggerd that so many of you have not heard about the series of stranger pre pubescent child abductions in PT before.
I think you should think very carefully about what these point to
Good night
sadie
Thank you Sadie for those reminders.
I haven't replied to you before now but they are well worth a read and wholly discredit those Portuguese commentators on the McCann case who have claimed in the past that there is no child abuse/crime in the area.
-
One has to wonder what really is going on in some of those Portuguese villages? 8(8-))
-
Because the timelines are an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction to have taken place driven by the Smith sighting.
What is your evidence for stating so categorically that these timelines are "an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction"? Isn't it true that is a pure guess on your part and not something you can support with evidence?
Isn't it perfectly possible that they were a perfectly normal attempt to give the police the most accurate possible details that could be remembered about events leading up to the disappearance?
Notice, I don't claim this is what they were, merely that it is just as likely a reason for them as the guess you made.
Totally transparent fabrications, no guessing required.
-
Because the timelines are an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction to have taken place driven by the Smith sighting.
What is your evidence for stating so categorically that these timelines are "an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction"? Isn't it true that is a pure guess on your part and not something you can support with evidence?
Isn't it perfectly possible that they were a perfectly normal attempt to give the police the most accurate possible details that could be remembered about events leading up to the disappearance?
Notice, I don't claim this is what they were, merely that it is just as likely a reason for them as the guess you made.
Totally transparent fabrications, no guessing required.
I challenge you to prove that claim or be seen to be posting utter nonsense. Anyone reading here can see both the scenarios I offered are possible. Your dismissal of one without evidence would be certain proof of your inabilty to see both sides of the coin. Lets see your evidence.
-
Because the timelines are an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction to have taken place driven by the Smith sighting.
What is your evidence for stating so categorically that these timelines are "an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction"? Isn't it true that is a pure guess on your part and not something you can support with evidence?
Isn't it perfectly possible that they were a perfectly normal attempt to give the police the most accurate possible details that could be remembered about events leading up to the disappearance?
Notice, I don't claim this is what they were, merely that it is just as likely a reason for them as the guess you made.
What makes you think they were writing the evolving timelines for the police ?
There is a statement somewhere in the police files ( David Payne's I think ) where he speaks of how they gave the police nic-names ... the one they called 'baby face' saw that they were writing on the book covers and said "That's what we want" ... Payne's response ? "eh, OK, fair enough"
-
Because the timelines are an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction to have taken place driven by the Smith sighting.
What is your evidence for stating so categorically that these timelines are "an attempt to create a scenario for an abduction"? Isn't it true that is a pure guess on your part and not something you can support with evidence?
Isn't it perfectly possible that they were a perfectly normal attempt to give the police the most accurate possible details that could be remembered about events leading up to the disappearance?
Notice, I don't claim this is what they were, merely that it is just as likely a reason for them as the guess you made.
Totally transparent fabrications, no guessing required.
I challenge you to prove that claim or be seen to be posting utter nonsense. Anyone reading here can see both the scenarios I offered are possible. Your dismissal of one without evidence would be certain proof of your inabilty to see both sides of the coin. Lets see your evidence.
You've been given the evidence, O'Brien misses out two critical events directly related to him.
By the way Jane Tanner didn't see anyone and Mathew Oldfield didn't carry out any checking!
-
@ Peter Claridge:
By the way Jane Tanner didn't see anyone and Mathew Oldfield didn't carry out any checking!
Do you have evidence for this catagorical statement? I suspect not and that it's just a biased opinion.
-
One has to wonder what really is going on in some of those Portuguese villages? 8(8-))
Perhgaps a better comparison would be the level of paedophilia in the UK, which of course has been largely exposed in the Saville case, and that and associated cases is far from over.
As to the number of 'disappearances in the UK and Portugal, the scales don't match. In a BBC radio5 program it was revealed over 100,000 went missing in the UK every year. In Portugal a few hundred.
-
One has to wonder what really is going on in some of those Portuguese villages? 8(8-))
Perhgaps a better comparison would be the level of paedophilia in the UK, which of course has been largely exposed in the Saville case, and that and associated cases is far from over.
As to the number of 'disappearances in the UK and Portugal, the scales don't match. In a BBC radio5 program it was revealed over 100,000 went missing in the UK every year. In Portugal a few hundred.
SExual predation on minors is a universal problem across societies. Collected figures for abuse are determined by time and culture bound strictures on the authorities. What we have seen in theUK over the past 60 years is the uncovering of child abuse, first physical and two decades later sexual, as social views changed and actions were differently assessed. This revealing of the repressed problem has happened first in those countries with common law, and then followed by northern European countries. The tide of realization is reaching Mediterranean countries several decades on, and has yet to have had any effect in Eastern Europe or the Arab world where individual and institutional child abuse is a major hidden problem.
-
I must admit that I am left in utter amazement about the recent trial of Leonor Cipriano.
Two Courts have accepted proof of Torture of this woman while in Police Custody. Two PJ Officers have been convicted of Perjury and Falsifying Evidence. Three PJ Officer were Acquitted of the actual Torture, which wasn't all that surprising as Leonor couldn't identify them due to having a bag over her head. But she is then convicted of False Accusation.
This is indeed a disgrace.
The PJ Hierarchy are currently pursuing all five PJ and Ex PJ Officers for removal of their Pensions.
-
I must admit that I am left in utter amazement about the recent trial of Leonor Cipriano.
Two Courts have accepted proof of Torture of this woman while in Police Custody. Two PJ Officers have been convicted of Perjury and Falsifying Evidence. Three PJ Officer were Acquitted of the actual Torture, which wasn't all that surprising as Leonor couldn't identify them due to having a bag over her head. But she is then convicted of False Accusation.
This is indeed a disgrace.
The PJ Hierarchy are currently pursuing all five PJ and Ex PJ Officers for removal of their Pensions.
1970s Britain was as bad. It took years to prove who beat up the Birmingham 6.
Agreed. But that was over 40 years ago. And they weren't charged or convicted of making false allegations.
They were convicted by popular opinion, paranoia, misinterpreted forensic science, determ inflation to pin it on someone, police prejudice and [ censored word ].
RIng any bells?
THis sort of case is why I am such a skeptic about police methods and ill founded suspicions.
-
@ Eleanor
Perhaps that is because no serving police officer in the UK was ever charged with a single offence in relation to their maltreatment of the men they had in custody.
-
Hi
a fewthings i would like to pick up on in the previous posts regarding the sightings [smith and j/t]
1....the j/t sighting gives credability to the abduction..
2...the smith sighting gives credability to g mcc being involved...or the so called abductor resembling g mcc
3...either way why would this meticulous planned [not one shread of evidence]...abductor walk the streets for 45 min's with maddie in his arms in different positions yet she did not wake....[why did he/she take the older chid and not one of the younger one's]
would anyone seriously also leave the twins back in the creche thinking it safe [when this abductor could have been staff or any one in the complex etc] and even travel out of Portugal....IMO...they did know it was safe ..because there was no abduction in the first place
-
Hello,
Maybe you find this two links of any help regarding the abduction theories.
No physical evidence. Yes eyewitness independent testimonies evidence. Abduction by stranger to the McCanns and their vacation group are the only plausible theories.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/could-madeleine-mccann-be-abducted-in.html (http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/could-madeleine-mccann-be-abducted-in.html)
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2012/10/the-abduction-of-madeleine-mccann-report.html (http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2012/10/the-abduction-of-madeleine-mccann-report.html)
Heri.
-
Xtina. Thank you for your post, please introduce yourself in the new members section.
In relation to your post, lets be clear, the sighting by Mr Smith at 10pm has been proven to have nothing to do with Mr McCann as he could not have been in two places at the same time. Mr McCann was eating his main course at the Tapas Bar at 10pm when Mr Smith made the sighting of a man carrying a child in his arms some distance away.
Is there independent verification G. Mccann was at the tapas bar at that time, i.e. by waiters or other people there ?
-
Xtina. Thank you for your post, please introduce yourself in the new members section.
In relation to your post, lets be clear, the sighting by Mr Smith at 10pm has been proven to have nothing to do with Mr McCann as he could not have been in two places at the same time. Mr McCann was eating his main course at the Tapas Bar at 10pm when Mr Smith made the sighting of a man carrying a child in his arms some distance away.
Is there independent verification G. Mccann was at the tapas bar at that time, i.e. by waiters or other people there ?
The prosecutor summary accepts that independent witnesses gave Gerry an alibi.
-
Xtina. Thank you for your post, please introduce yourself in the new members section.
In relation to your post, lets be clear, the sighting by Mr Smith at 10pm has been proven to have nothing to do with Mr McCann as he could not have been in two places at the same time. Mr McCann was eating his main course at the Tapas Bar at 10pm when Mr Smith made the sighting of a man carrying a child in his arms some distance away.
Is there independent verification G. Mccann was at the tapas bar at that time, i.e. by waiters or other people there ?
The prosecutor summary accepts that independent witnesses gave Gerry an alibi.
Which ones ?
I would not include the Mccanns associates as independent.
-
Xtina. Thank you for your post, please introduce yourself in the new members section.
In relation to your post, lets be clear, the sighting by Mr Smith at 10pm has been proven to have nothing to do with Mr McCann as he could not have been in two places at the same time. Mr McCann was eating his main course at the Tapas Bar at 10pm when Mr Smith made the sighting of a man carrying a child in his arms some distance away.
Is there independent verification G. Mccann was at the tapas bar at that time, i.e. by waiters or other people there ?
The prosecutor summary accepts that independent witnesses gave Gerry an alibi.
Which ones ?
I would not include the Mccanns associates as independent.
If it was good enough for the prosecution, it is good enough for me.
-
Xtina. Thank you for your post, please introduce yourself in the new members section.
In relation to your post, lets be clear, the sighting by Mr Smith at 10pm has been proven to have nothing to do with Mr McCann as he could not have been in two places at the same time. Mr McCann was eating his main course at the Tapas Bar at 10pm when Mr Smith made the sighting of a man carrying a child in his arms some distance away.
Is there independent verification G. Mccann was at the tapas bar at that time, i.e. by waiters or other people there ?
The prosecutor summary accepts that independent witnesses gave Gerry an alibi.
Which ones ?
I would not include the Mccanns associates as independent.
If it was good enough for the prosecution, it is good enough for me.
That's a fair question, and you have not answered it
You stated that 'independent witnesses' placed Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
... who were they ?
-
That's a fair question, and you have not answered it
You stated that 'independent witnesses' placed Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
... who were they ?
I did not say that. Go check.
-
I did not say that. Go check.
When you say that Gerry McCann's presence at the table, at 10pm, was confirmed by 'independant witnesses' ... do you mean his mates ?
It's a simple question ... yes or no will do
-
I did not say that independent witnesses saw Gerry (although there is no evidence placingGerry away from the table at the supposed time of thesighting by the Smiths.)
I said the prosecutor was happy that Gerry was alibied.
-
Mates? Are they his mates?
His presence has been verified by everyone who was sat there at 10pm and the waiters and the Club nanny. Not even a NASA satellite can help with this one! 8(0(*
-
So when Kate came running back to the Tapas Bar at 10pm howling "Gerry...Madeleine's' gone or words to that effect", was she speaking to a ghost. Come on guys ...get real!
Gerry was at the bar and Mr Smith is mistaken...end off!
-
So when Kate came running back to the Tapas Bar at 10pm howling "Gerry...Madeleine's' gone or words to that effect", was she speaking to a ghost. Come on guys ...get real!
Gerry was at the bar and Mr Smith is mistaken...end off!
UNless Smith was wrong about the time.
-
Mates? Are they his mates?
His presence has been verified by everyone who was sat there at 10pm and the waiters and the Club nanny. Not even a NASA satellite can help with this one! 8(0(*
The only truely independant witness statements I can find in the police files that refer to the table being unoccupied ( the McCann group having already left ) are from the waiter who took O Briens steak back to keep warm, and a chef who was leaving work through the Tapas bar
Both say that the table was already empty by 9.45pm ( apart from Diane Webster )
I can reference the statements if you wish
Can you give me a reference to the waiters and Nanny who placed Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm ?
thanks
-
Times are given very approximately in eyewitness testimony. Except for those which have a reason to be more precise. It is the case of MMMS http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm or the Smiths ...
In MMMS statement we read "that on the night 03-05-07, she left the apartment at around 21H58. She remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge" [...] "that it wasn't yet summer given the movement on the roads, and at that hour movement was nill" [...] "Next to the tree, she did not detect any movement of people or vehicles, and nothing struck her as abnormal in that zone that would have raised her suspicions" ...
So at 22:00 the alarm was not probably raised yet ... And most of the McCann group were at the Tapas Bar table ...
Heri.
-
Xtina. Thank you for your post, please introduce yourself in the new members section.
In relation to your post, lets be clear, the sighting by Mr Smith at 10pm has been proven to have nothing to do with Mr McCann as he could not have been in two places at the same time. Mr McCann was eating his main course at the Tapas Bar at 10pm when Mr Smith made the sighting of a man carrying a child in his arms some distance away.
thank you for the welcome..have now introduced my self...[have also seen the correction in the mcann files]about g mcc being at the table at 10 pm..
this is the thing though about all this no one actually knows who was where or doing what ...like the time line that first said the children were being checked every fifteen minuets ..then it was half an hour ...yet the check from 9 15 turned out to be 45 min's [10 0clock]
there is two things here what happened ...either maddie was abducted ..or she wasn't..
why should the abduction be the only one that is true ...when there is nothing to support it ..not one shread of evidence ...apart from j/t reporting she had seen a child being carried away ..five ....hours later yet k mcc knew straight away maddie had been abducted [why]...yet she let no end of people into the apartment
-
So when Kate came running back to the Tapas Bar at 10pm howling "Gerry...Madeleine's' gone or words to that effect", was she speaking to a ghost. Come on guys ...get real!
Gerry was at the bar and Mr Smith is mistaken...end off!
Come on debunker. You've had ages to address this post and you're failing to do so. Where is John's supporting evidence. You say nothing is valid or up for discussion without said evidence. Where is the nanny statement he's referring to in his previous post?
"Neutral"? yeah, 'course you are.
-
I did not say that independent witnesses saw Gerry (although there is no evidence placingGerry away from the table at the supposed time of thesighting by the Smiths.)
I said the prosecutor was happy that Gerry was alibied.
To be honest if 8 or 9 people say something is so then it would be very hard for the PJ to prove otherwise. The bald fact is that there is no independent witnesses who place Gerry at the tapas table from 9.30 onwards which certainly leaves own the possibility that the Smith family did indeed see Gerry.
-
So when Kate came running back to the Tapas Bar at 10pm howling "Gerry...Madeleine's' gone or words to that effect", was she speaking to a ghost. Come on guys ...get real!
Gerry was at the bar and Mr Smith is mistaken...end off!
silly thing to do then don't you think.....running out to the bar when you think your child has been abducted what if abductor/abductors had still been in the apartment...[they could have lost another child...
if they were so near the apartment wouldn't she have been better yelling for help
-
So when Kate came running back to the Tapas Bar at 10pm howling "Gerry...Madeleine's' gone or words to that effect", was she speaking to a ghost. Come on guys ...get real!
Gerry was at the bar and Mr Smith is mistaken...end off!
silly thing to do then don't you think.....running out to the bar when you think your child has been abducted what if abductor/abductors had still been in the apartment...[they could have lost another child...
if they were so near the apartment wouldn't she have been better yelling for help
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1126.msg32623#msg32623
-
Why do you think Amaral discounted this possibility at the time?
How do you know he did?
Why was Gerry McCann never asked by police if he had been carrying a child around PdL at around 10pm that evening?
How do you know he wasn't?
You seem to assume that the police have revealed every single bit of information they have.
There are things that have come to light since Amaral was removed from the investigation that may, for all we know, have changed his angle of questioning/beliefs about the case.
I will state again that the police (certainly in this country and I have no reason to believe it's different abroad) even though they may pretty much know full well what's happened will not prosecute whilst there is insufficient evidence to do so. As has been pointed out by none other than debunker, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because the McCanns have not, as yet, been charged with anything does not mean they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Yes, it *might* mean that, but it's not a logical conclusion to continually say, "well why haven't they been charged yet if they dunnit?" The police have plenty of evidence of all sorts which point the finger firmly at a coverup of sorts. What they don't have is admissible evidence that implicates the McCanns to a point whereby a prosecution would be successful.
What is clear to all but you blinkered sorts is that there are all sorts of discrepancies and bits of odd, if not inexplicable, behaviour that leaves a far from clean slate for the McCanns. That you are unable to separate this point of view from that of what you would call a "[ censored word ]" or "[ censored word ]" says more about your mental faculties than it does for anyone that doubts them.
-
I will state again that the police (certainly in this country and I have no reason to believe it's different abroad) even though they may pretty much know full well what's happened will not prosecute whilst there is insufficient evidence to do so. As has been pointed out by none other than debunker, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because the McCanns have not, as yet, been charged with anything does not mean they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Yes, it *might* mean that, but it's not a logical conclusion to continually say, "well why haven't they been charged yet if they dunnit?" The police have plenty of evidence of all sorts which point the finger firmly at a coverup of sorts. What they don't have is admissible evidence that implicates the McCanns to a point whereby a prosecution would be successful.
This is simply a cop-out - an excuse to continue hounding the family of a missing child, to suggest that the police have evidence against the McCanns, but insufficient to bring a prosecution. You are overlooking the basic legal tenent of the presumption of innocence.
Scotland Yard are currently doing a review. I cannot believe that they would continue to spend taxpayers' money on this review if they already had some evidence pointing to the parents, even if insufficient to take to court. The exercise would simply have been wound down by now.
-
My own experience of the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese prosecution authorities is that if in doubt...PROSECUTE.
The fact that they did not do so in the Madeleine McCann case speaks volumes....they just had no way of securing any conviction against anyone.
Please enlighten us Chinagirl, what is this evidence of a cover-up?
-
Please moderate the language folks...thank you.
-
@ John:
Please enlighten us Chinagirl, what is this evidence of a cover-up?
Where have I talked of a cover-up???
-
I did not say that independent witnesses saw Gerry (although there is no evidence placingGerry away from the table at the supposed time of thesighting by the Smiths.)
I said the prosecutor was happy that Gerry was alibied.
To be honest if 8 or 9 people say something is so then it would be very hard for the PJ to prove otherwise. The bald fact is that there is no independent witnesses who place Gerry at the tapas table from 9.30 onwards which certainly leaves own the possibility that the Smith family did indeed see Gerry.
Why are you insisting with this nonsense when it is factually incorrect?
The entire tapas bar including the 'friends', the staff and the nanny but to mention a few evidenced Gerry McCann's presence at the table in the tapas bar where they were at various stages in their main course meal.
When Kate returned to the table after finding Maddie gone her first words were "Gerry...Madeleine's gone" Was Kate speaking to a ghost? If Gerry was hundreds of yards away and being seen by Mr Smith, who was eating his dinner?
A bit of common sense please!
-
@ John:
Please enlighten us Chinagirl, what is this evidence of a cover-up?
Where have I talked of a cover-up???
I do apologise...I misread. 8(8-))
Can you forgive me?? ?{)(**
-
I did not say that independent witnesses saw Gerry (although there is no evidence placingGerry away from the table at the supposed time of thesighting by the Smiths.)
I said the prosecutor was happy that Gerry was alibied.
To be honest if 8 or 9 people say something is so then it would be very hard for the PJ to prove otherwise. The bald fact is that there is no independent witnesses who place Gerry at the tapas table from 9.30 onwards which certainly leaves own the possibility that the Smith family did indeed see Gerry.
Why are you insisting with this nonsense when it is factually incorrect?
The entire tapas bar including the 'friends', the staff and the nanny but to mention a few evidenced Gerry McCann's presence at the table in the tapas bar where they were at various stages in their main course meal.
When Kate returned to the table after finding Maddie gone her first words were "Gerry...Madeleine's gone" Was Kate speaking to a ghost? If Gerry was hundreds of yards away and being seen by Mr Smith, who was eating his dinner?
A bit of common sense please!
I believe it is you who is being factually incorrect John
I have asked, earlier in the thread, that you reference the evidence you base your statement that staff and a nanny place Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
Unless you can, you might think about adding it to your 'Myth' thread
-
I believe it is you who is being factually incorrect John
I have asked, earlier in the thread, that you reference the evidence you base your statement that staff and a nanny place Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
Unless you can, you might think about adding it to your 'Myth' thread
Have you not read the statements by now? They are widely available.
Do you honestly believe for one second that the staff at the tapas bar would not be aware if they had served Gerry McCann at the table and have given statements to that effect? There is speculation and then there is just simple fantasy and wishful thinking!
-
I believe it is you who is being factually incorrect John
I have asked, earlier in the thread, that you reference the evidence you base your statement that staff and a nanny place Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
Unless you can, you might think about adding it to your 'Myth' thread
Have you not read the statements by now? They are widely available.
Do you honestly believe for one second that the staff at the tapas bar would not be aware if they had served Gerry McCann at the table and have given statements to that effect? There is speculation and then there is just simple fantasy and wishful thinking!
Are you retracting your statement that waiters and a nanny placed Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm ?
-
Scotland Yard are currently doing a review. I cannot believe that they would continue to spend taxpayers' money on this review if they already had some evidence pointing to the parents, even if insufficient to take to court. The exercise would simply have been wound down by now.
You are entirely mistaken about how the UK police force works then. What if they were busily narrowing down the wriggle room in some way? Closing off potential avenues of escape, as it were? I'm saying nothing more as we've been here on STM and those of you from there know what I'm getting at. I entirely expect you not to believe me as it doesn't fit in with your required world view but it doesn't make it any less true. 8)-)))
-
I believe it is you who is being factually incorrect John
I have asked, earlier in the thread, that you reference the evidence you base your statement that staff and a nanny place Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
Unless you can, you might think about adding it to your 'Myth' thread
Have you not read the statements by now? They are widely available.
Do you honestly believe for one second that the staff at the tapas bar would not be aware if they had served Gerry McCann at the table and have given statements to that effect? There is speculation and then there is just simple fantasy and wishful thinking!
Oh so it's alright for you to post something factually incorrect and claim "it's in the files" and flounce off? Great, that showed us [ censored word ]s, eh?
-
Scotland Yard are currently doing a review. I cannot believe that they would continue to spend taxpayers' money on this review if they already had some evidence pointing to the parents, even if insufficient to take to court. The exercise would simply have been wound down by now.
You are entirely mistaken about how the UK police force works then. What if they were busily narrowing down the wriggle room in some way? Closing off potential avenues of escape, as it were? I'm saying nothing more as we've been here on STM and those of you from there know what I'm getting at. I entirely expect you not to believe me as it doesn't fit in with your required world view but it doesn't make it any less true. 8)-)))
Yes, I suppose it's possible that SY are busily beavering away building up a case against the McCanns, and that Andy Redwood's public announcement that this is a rare case of stranger abduction was a deliberate red herring designed to give the McCanns a false sense of security.
I rather doubt it though.
-
I believe it is you who is being factually incorrect John
I have asked, earlier in the thread, that you reference the evidence you base your statement that staff and a nanny place Gerry McCann at the table at 10pm
Unless you can, you might think about adding it to your 'Myth' thread
Have you not read the statements by now? They are widely available.
Do you honestly believe for one second that the staff at the tapas bar would not be aware if they had served Gerry McCann at the table and have given statements to that effect? There is speculation and then there is just simple fantasy and wishful thinking!
Oh so it's alright for you to post something factually incorrect and claim "it's in the files" and flounce off? Great, that showed us [ censored word ]s, eh?
This appears a little like nit picking. Do YOU doubt that Gerry was in the tapas bar at the relevant time?
Why would all of Gerrys 'mates' conceal the death of a child?
It really is a laughable suggestion.
-
Can anyone think of a case where the investigating officer has come out with an announcement of the findings prior to the end of the review?
Why are they still investigating if the review is over and they've decided the outcome? Hmm?
-
This appears a little like nit picking. Do YOU doubt that Gerry was in the tapas bar at the relevant time?
Why would all of Gerrys 'mates' conceal the death of a child?
It really is a laughable suggestion.
a) depends on what the "relevant time" is and
b) who said anything about his mates concealing a death?
-
Can anyone think of a case where the investigating officer has come out with an announcement of the findings prior to the end of the review?
Why are they still investigating if the review is over and they've decided the outcome? Hmm?
Perhaps they are trying to trace the abductor .......
For crying out loud ....
-
What is the relevant time in your view?
What do you think the involvement of the McCanns' friends is, if not part of a cover-up into the death of a child?
Whoa whoa whoa Mon Cheri. Don't try the old switcheroo on me. I was asking for independent corroboration of a claim made and explaining why those involved don't count as independent. I don't have to have any views whatsoever on this!
-
This appears a little like nit picking. Do YOU doubt that Gerry was in the tapas bar at the relevant time?
Why would all of Gerrys 'mates' conceal the death of a child?
It really is a laughable suggestion.
a) depends on what the "relevant time" is and
b) who said anything about his mates concealing a death?
a) The time of the Smith sighting
b) Poor use of grammar! I should have said...why would Gerrys mates lie about his whereabouts? Or were they simply mistaken?
-
Scotland Yard are currently doing a review. I cannot believe that they would continue to spend taxpayers' money on this review if they already had some evidence pointing to the parents, even if insufficient to take to court. The exercise would simply have been wound down by now.
You are entirely mistaken about how the UK police force works then. What if they were busily narrowing down the wriggle room in some way? Closing off potential avenues of escape, as it were? I'm saying nothing more as we've been here on STM and those of you from there know what I'm getting at. I entirely expect you not to believe me as it doesn't fit in with your required world view but it doesn't make it any less true. 8)-)))
Yes, I suppose it's possible that SY are busily beavering away building up a case against the McCanns, and that Andy Redwood's public announcement that this is a rare case of stranger abduction was a deliberate red herring designed to give the McCanns a false sense of security.
I rather doubt it though.
I remember him saying that
I thought at the time that the review must be over ... for him to have announced what appeared to be a 'conclusion' like that
But no
The review, at that time was only a year in ... we are now at two years in, and the review is still ongoing
During the last year, what has Scotland Yard had to say about the progression of the review ? ... has Redwood updated the public on his his earlier ( and rather presumptive ) opinion ? ... do you know ?
-
I understand the point you are making but I find it quite irrelevant. I was just making the point , that I think the idea that all those people, friends or not, would lie in order to protect Gerry, ridiculous.
Just out of interest, do you think they all lied?
-
My own experience of the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese prosecution authorities is that if in doubt...PROSECUTE.
That's interesting John
Do you feel able to share ? ... what experience of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese prosecution authorities do you have ?
-
When conducting a review it is not necessary to come to the end of it before being able to draw some logical conclusions along the way. These then enable the investigation to focus on what is relevant for the remainder of the review.
What? A bit like the investigating PJ force deciding to concentrate on the parents of a missing child maybe?
-
My own experience of the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese prosecution authorities is that if in doubt...PROSECUTE.
That's interesting John
Do you feel able to share ? ... what experience of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese prosecution authorities do you have ?
Most of continental European countries worked a system of law based on Roman/ Napoleonic Law not Common Law. This affects attitudes in police and justice operations.
The common law system is based on scepticism and led to an ethic that included presumption of innocence, habeus corpus, individua freedom being more important than the dominance of the state. It also includes policing by consent.
The continental system is based on dominance by the state which made individual rights subservient to the state. Policing was by coercion.
The last 70 years have seen considerable moves towards a common law ethic by continental countries but there is a hangover of attitudes. This is especially apparent in those countries who were ruled by totalitarian ( fascist and state socialist- communist) countries).
Police procedures in those states tend to be more coercive, less by consent and less skeptical.
-
In Portugal the principle is if in doubt dismiss/ archive/ acquit. That is what happened with the Mccs. No Judge of the Public Ministry will ever risk taking a case to court unless they have full proof to condemn a person/persons.
Unfortunately that's why we have so many criminals playing as innocent just because there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.
-
In Portugal the principle is if in doubt dismiss/ archive/ acquit. That is what happened with the Mccs. No Judge of the Public Ministry will ever risk taking a case to court unless they have full proof to condemn a person/persons.
Unfortunately that's why we have so many criminals playing as innocent just because there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.
Your reaction is typical of someone educated in a Napoleonic Law Country. A person without enough evidence to convict is innocent in the eyes of the law.
I suspect the test is what is used in the UK- better than 50% chance of a conviction. If people were regualrly prosecuted with less than 50% chance, that would be oppressive.