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: j.rob on November 07, 2013, 11:48:53 AM
Title: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 07, 2013, 11:48:53 AM
Hopefully no news is good news - as in the police are carrying out a proper investigation and the media circus has stopped. In my opinion the key to this case is going right back to the beginning and investigating the days around Madeleine's disappearance. What the key witnesses did and said. Looking at the inconsistencies and so on.
There are some key facts that have been ignored or distorted by all the media frenzy.
1. The apartment was not broken in to - there was no evidence of a break in. 2. There is no evidence of an abduction by a stranger. 3. There are conflicting accounts of what happened on the days around Madeleine's disappearance from the key witnesses. 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children are inaccurate/conflicting. 5. The parents did not join in the search for their daughter on the evening of her disappearance. 6. The parents criticized the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. 8. The parents alerted the media at a very early stage. They employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. 9. the parents started up a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who do not support their abduction by a stranger theory 11. The detective on the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old. 12. The McCann's and their friends did not take part in a reconstruction of the evening which could have helped jog people's memories. 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - she changed her story. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 11:55:48 AM
Hopefully no news is good news - as in the police are carrying out a proper investigation and the media circus has stopped. In my opinion the key to this case is going right back to the beginning and investigating the days around Madeleine's disappearance. What the key witnesses did and said. Looking at the inconsistencies and so on.
There are some key facts that have been ignored or distorted by all the media frenzy.
1. The apartment was not broken in to - there was no evidence of a break in. 2. There is no evidence of an abduction by a stranger. 3. There are conflicting accounts of what happened on the days around Madeleine's disappearance from the key witnesses. 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children are inaccurate/conflicting. 5. The parents did not join in the search for their daughter on the evening of her disappearance. 6. The parents criticized the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. 8. The parents alerted the media at a very early stage. They employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. 9. the parents started up a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who do not support their abduction by a stranger theory 11. The detective on the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old. 12. The McCann's and their friends did not take part in a reconstruction of the evening which could have helped jog people's memories. 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - she changed her story. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant.
Most of the above post is bollox. And the rest is twisted to suit.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 07, 2013, 11:57:20 AM
Please specify which points are incorrect.
Twisted to suit who, exactly?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 12:18:51 PM
Can't be bothered. All of what you have posted has been gone over many times on this Forum. Do you actually know anything about this case? Or are you doing it on purpose to deliberately mislead?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 07, 2013, 12:21:19 PM
Can't be bothered. All of what you have posted has been gone over many times on this Forum. Do you actually know anything about this case? Or are you doing it on purpose to deliberately mislead?
It seems like a fair request Eleanor. You've just rubbished a members post, you should back up your assertion that it's 'rubbish' and 'twisted to suit'.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 12:28:48 PM
Hopefully no news is good news - as in the police are carrying out a proper investigation and the media circus has stopped. In my opinion the key to this case is going right back to the beginning and investigating the days around Madeleine's disappearance. What the key witnesses did and said. Looking at the inconsistencies and so on.
There are some key facts that have been ignored or distorted by all the media frenzy.
1. The apartment was not broken in to - there was no evidence of a break in. 2. There is no evidence of an abduction by a stranger. 3. There are conflicting accounts of what happened on the days around Madeleine's disappearance from the key witnesses. 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children are inaccurate/conflicting. 5. The parents did not join in the search for their daughter on the evening of her disappearance. 6. The parents criticized the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. 8. The parents alerted the media at a very early stage. They employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. 9. the parents started up a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who do not support their abduction by a stranger theory 11. The detective on the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old. 12. The McCann's and their friends did not take part in a reconstruction of the evening which could have helped jog people's memories. 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - she changed her story. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant.
The media have been immediately launched on the trail of poignant loss and innocence of victim vs guilty monstrosity and evil offender. None of their narratives takes into account the crucial facts of this case, the truth about what happened isn't their purpose, they're investing in emotion. Nothing more. And they find it justified since it keeps the case in the public eye.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 12:31:34 PM
It seems like a fair request Eleanor. You've just rubbished a members post, you should back up your assertion that it's 'rubbish' and 'twisted to suit'.
Absolutely. This is a rule, a common sense one, of this forum.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 12:32:00 PM
It seems like a fair request Eleanor. You've just rubbished a members post, you should back up your assertion that it's 'rubbish' and 'twisted to suit'.
cariad you should be able to see that quite a few of those points are just untrue...the Mccanns didn't search mantra ...when everyone knows they did. do you really think that everytime someone joins the forum we should have to go over the same things again and again just for the poster to disappear. As far as Im concerned if posters want to believe lies , then they may as well do that. Nothing we say will change their mind. Whats important is the truth... The MccANNS are not suspects
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 12:40:36 PM
Absolutely. This is a rule, a common sense one, of this forum.
I think you have got this back to front...surely the rule of the forum is that if posters post things as facts then THEY have to back them up with evidence...perhaps you should correct your post
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 12:44:22 PM
I think you have got this back to front...surely the rule of the forum is that if posters post things as facts then THEY have to back them up with evidence...perhaps you should correct your post
Thank you, Davel. I would certainly like to see proof of what was posted as fact.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 07, 2013, 12:49:54 PM
cariad you should be able to see that quite a few of those points are just untrue...the Mccanns didn't search mantra ...when everyone knows they did. do you really think that everytime someone joins the forum we should have to go over the same things again and again just for the poster to disappear. As far as Im concerned if posters want to believe lies , then they may as well do that. Nothing we say will change their mind. Whats important is the truth... The MccANNS are not suspects
Whats important is the truth... The MccANNS are not suspects
So they say, but Redwood saying they are not suspects(when asked) is not proof that they had no involvement whatsoever in their daughters disappearance.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Candi on November 07, 2013, 12:50:09 PM
cariad you should be able to see that quite a few of those points are just untrue...the Mccanns didn't search mantra ...when everyone knows they did. do you really think that everytime someone joins the forum we should have to go over the same things again and again just for the poster to disappear. As far as Im concerned if posters want to believe lies , then they may as well do that. Nothing we say will change their mind. Whats important is the truth... The MccANNS are not suspects
Hi Dave, didn't the McCanns admit that they didn't search when questioned in one of their interviews ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 12:51:18 PM
Thank you, Davel. I would certainly like to see proof of what was posted as fact.
According to Cariad and Anne ...a poster could post hundreds of totally untrue claims and it would be down to others to trawl through masses of information to counter them... then the poster disappears...what a stupid idea
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 12:54:34 PM
Hi Dave, didn't the McCanns admit that they didn't search when questioned in one of their interviews ?
No they didn't...another myth.....I've seen the clip and they did not say they hadn't searched...this is the sort of lies told that make so many people question the MCcanns.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 12:55:35 PM
According to Cariad and Anne ...a poster could post hundreds of totally untrue claims and it would be down to others to trawl through masses of information to counter them... then the poster disappears...what a stupid idea
Well, you can't can you. So don't put the cart before the horse. Prove that these "Facts" are true.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 07, 2013, 12:56:04 PM
Hopefully no news is good news - as in the police are carrying out a proper investigation and the media circus has stopped. In my opinion the key to this case is going right back to the beginning and investigating the days around Madeleine's disappearance. What the key witnesses did and said. Looking at the inconsistencies and so on.
There are some key facts that have been ignored or distorted by all the media frenzy.
1. The apartment was not broken in to - there was no evidence of a break in. EXACTLY so was it an INSIDE JOB? 2. There is no evidence of an abduction by a stranger. EXACTLY so was it someone she knew? 3. There are conflicting accounts of what happened on the days around Madeleine's disappearance from the key witnesses. Yes and these are all DOCUMENTED in the POLICE FILES.... 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children are inaccurate/conflicting. Yes and these are all DOCUMENTED in the POLICE FILES. 5. The parents did not join in the search for their daughter on the evening of her disappearance. I believe they did but a little later, Kate stayed in the apartment. 6. The parents criticized the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. They criticized the police yes. 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. Yes as stated in the POLICE FILES. 8. The parents alerted the media at a very early stage. They employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. Yes I agree they did go on T.V. very early on but then so have others. Yes they employed detectives from a fund, and they came up with NOTHING EITHER. 9. the parents started up a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. Yes I found this all very odd, and smiling and advertising and selling TSHIRTS, it made me cringe...the last thing i would have felt like was to do all that... 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who do not support their abduction by a stranger theory, YES this has been documented as happening. 11. The detective on the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old. You cant get people to understand that the women LIED they use this case everytime they start to loose the argument that the McCanns might have done it. Let us vilify the lead detective and drag out Cipriano case again lol.... 12. The McCann's and their friends did not take part in a reconstruction of the evening which could have helped jog people's memories. Yes totally agree it was important they did so, the declined they were too busy... 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - she changed her story. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant. She pointed to Murat look what happened there poor guy.
Yes I agree with all of the above...shock horror I must be a McCann [ censored word ] lol, no i am not, but there are a lot of things that dont add up or make sense.
And before someone jumps in I have watched this case since the first minute it hit the Sky news and the first interview from the McCanns.
I am still unsure of what happened but there are a lot of things that NEVER added up for me anyway and for a lot of other people, that is why it is constantly talked about....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 12:56:08 PM
Whats important is the truth... The MccANNS are not suspects
So they say, but Redwood saying they are not suspects(when asked) is not proof that they had no involvement whatsoever in their daughters disappearance.
theres no proof that Obama isn't involved
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 12:58:10 PM
Yes I agree with all of the above...shock horror I must be a McCann [ censored word ] lol, no i am not, but there are a lot of things that dont add up or make sense.
And before someone jumps in I have watched this case since the first minute it hit the Sky news and the first interview from the McCanns.
I am still unsure of what happened but there are a lot of things that NEVER added up for me anyway and for a lot of other people, that is why it is constantly talked about....
OK..So is number 11 true...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 01:03:52 PM
Yes I agree with all of the above...shock horror I must be a McCann [ censored word ] lol, no i am not, but there are a lot of things that dont add up or make sense.
And before someone jumps in I have watched this case since the first minute it hit the Sky news and the first interview from the McCanns.
I am still unsure of what happened but there are a lot of things that NEVER added up for me anyway and for a lot of other people, that is why it is constantly talked about....
?{)(** They never added up to many and there is no reason for that to change, unless the supporters started to be rigorous and fair.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 01:05:16 PM
Yes I agree with all of the above...shock horror I must be a McCann [ censored word ] lol, no i am not, but there are a lot of things that dont add up or make sense.
And before someone jumps in I have watched this case since the first minute it hit the Sky news and the first interview from the McCanns.
I am still unsure of what happened but there are a lot of things that NEVER added up for me anyway and for a lot of other people, that is why it is constantly talked about....
well you cant answer the question so you may have been following the case but obviously haven't understood whats been going on
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Candi on November 07, 2013, 01:05:30 PM
No they didn't...another myth.....I've seen the clip and they did not say they hadn't searched...this is the sort of lies told that make so many people question the MCcanns.
Yes they searched very briefly, although staff, police and even holiday makers searched through the night.. The parents admitted that they didn't. I could never understand that..
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 07, 2013, 01:12:56 PM
Most of the above post is bollox. And the rest is twisted to suit.
Thank you. I was about to post exactly the same. This poster claims to be a recent convert from fence to sceptic, but is spouting 'lies' and myths disproved years ago. It is a wum probably trolling for attention.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 07, 2013, 01:20:50 PM
Yes they searched very briefly, although staff, police and even holiday makers searched through the night.. The parents admitted that they didn't. I could never understand that..
Time and time again it has been proved that initially they searched. After that they were being interviewed by the police and being asked to support the investigation by providing photos and information. Normal police procedure is to discourage families from active searching and leave it to the professionals.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Eleanor on November 07, 2013, 01:26:22 PM
Thank you. I was about to post exactly the same. This poster claims to be a recent convert from fence to sceptic, but is spouting 'lies' and myths disproved years ago. It is a wum probably trolling for attention.
I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. There are so many recent smart arses who really don't know anything about anything. But I suspect that you are right. It would be hard to be that ignorant, bearing in mind the content.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 07, 2013, 01:27:47 PM
cariad you should be able to see that quite a few of those points are just untrue...the Mccanns didn't search mantra ...when everyone knows they did. do you really think that everytime someone joins the forum we should have to go over the same things again and again just for the poster to disappear. As far as Im concerned if posters want to believe lies , then they may as well do that. Nothing we say will change their mind. Whats important is the truth... The MccANNS are not suspects
Normally I'd agree that it's up to posters to provide cites for there facts, but in this case the poster is very new and it was followed up with a post by an experienced member who just dismissed it as rubbish. When J.rob asked very politely which bits were rubbish, s/he was told 'can't be bothered'.
I completely agree that the truth is important . Bare in mind that guest read this forum too, so even if the OP decides not to post anymore, all those who see the post and replies may be influenced.
I'll go and have a look at the OP gain and see what I can come up with based on known evidence. If you do to we can get it done in half the time!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 07, 2013, 01:34:55 PM
Time and time again it has been proved that initially they searched. After that they were being interviewed by the police and being asked to support the investigation by providing photos and information. Normal police procedure is to discourage families from active searching and leave it to the professionals.
Madeleine Was Here
Kate McCann
"I did my check about 10.00 o'clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually, and I thought, 'oh, all quiet', and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we'd left it. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, 'I'll just look at the children' and I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine's bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, 'is that Madeleine or is that the bedding?', and I couldn't quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn't want to put the light on cos I didn't wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, errr... been taken, you know."
knew straight away that she had, errr... been taken, you know."
So no need to search anyway because she knew an abductor had taken her, just phone the police immediately. Which she didn't.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 01:35:50 PM
Yes they searched very briefly, although staff, police and even holiday makers searched through the night.. The parents admitted that they didn't. I could never understand that..
Imagine you enter in a strange bedroom with open window, shutters and curtains and see your daughter isn't in her bed. Can you imagine yourself not crying her name regardless of other children sleeping nearby ? Not screaming her name through the window ? Not sobbing her name all the way along to launch the alarm ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 07, 2013, 01:36:47 PM
Given my own knowledge of the case I suggest this version...
1. The apartment was not broken into - there was no evidence of a break in. 2. The police found no evidence of abduction by a stranger. 3. There were conflicting accounts of what happened on the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance from some of the tapas group members. 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children were inaccurate/conflicting. 5. Gerry searched outside for Madeleine the moment it was discovered she was missing. The parents did not join searchers but went out on their own at first light. 6. The parents criticised the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. 8. The parents friends and family alerted the media at a very early stage. They later employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. 9. The parents gave permission for a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who have abused and defamed them. 11. The lead detective on the case, Amaral, was convicted of falsifying police documents in the case of another missing 8-year-old. 12. The McCann's and their friends for various reasons failed to take part in a reconstruction of events which could have helped jog people's memories. 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - her story was inconsistent. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant.
Feel free to comment on these points.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Candi on November 07, 2013, 01:37:24 PM
Time and time again it has been proved that initially they searched. After that they were being interviewed by the police and being asked to support the investigation by providing photos and information. Normal police procedure is to discourage families from active searching and leave it to the professionals.
Not sure about that Aiofe.. I would have been out all night searching despite being advised not to, i would have to have been dragged back in. But everyone's different i suppose, i just don't understand them!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 07, 2013, 01:41:31 PM
Hopefully no news is good news - as in the police are carrying out a proper investigation and the media circus has stopped. In my opinion the key to this case is going right back to the beginning and investigating the days around Madeleine's disappearance. What the key witnesses did and said. Looking at the inconsistencies and so on.
There are some key facts that have been ignored or distorted by all the media frenzy.
1. The apartment was not broken in to - there was no evidence of a break in. 2. There is no evidence of an abduction by a stranger. 3. There are conflicting accounts of what happened on the days around Madeleine's disappearance from the key witnesses. 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children are inaccurate/conflicting. 5. The parents did not join in the search for their daughter on the evening of her disappearance. 6. The parents criticized the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. 8. The parents alerted the media at a very early stage. They employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. 9. the parents started up a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who do not support their abduction by a stranger theory 11. The detective on the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old. 12. The McCann's and their friends did not take part in a reconstruction of the evening which could have helped jog people's memories. 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - she changed her story. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant.
1, I believe to be correct. 2, I believe to be correct. 3, Definitely true. 4, Definitely true. 5, This is debatable. Kate searched the apartment before alerting anyone to Madeleine's disappearance and Gerry searched the immediate area so after. They didn't search through the night, but went out at 5 or 6 in the morning to look. 6, The criticism came from family members, but it's fair to assume that they got the information from K &G 7, I don't know. It's a matter of opinion rather that something which is either true or false. 8, True. 9, True. 10, I don't know. Apparently Cater Ruck works on a no win no fee basis. 11, I don't think Amaral was ever accused of actually beating LC up. Just of signing paperwork to do with it, which he was found guilty of. 12, Definitely true. 13, Again, it's more a matter of opinion rather than something we could state is true or false.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Candi on November 07, 2013, 01:41:59 PM
Imagine you enter in a strange bedroom with open window, shutters and curtains and see your daughter isn't in her bed. Can you imagine yourself not crying her name regardless of other children sleeping nearby ? Not screaming her name through the window ? Not sobbing her name all the way along to launch the alarm ?
Not at all Anne..and i cannot believe how she could have left those babies alone to get help, why couldn't she have shouted from the balcony ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 07, 2013, 01:53:29 PM
if you cant back this up as fact! it shouldn't be allowed on here ...forums rules dontcha know ... 8-)(--)
this thread is nothing but a stick to beat the mccanns with .... and admin im surprised at you for allowing it ...well no actually im not surprised seeing as all admin/mods are anti ...
Members are entitled to their views the last time I looked. It is up to others to educated them as to the facts though.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 07, 2013, 01:54:03 PM
Given my own knowledge of the case I suggest this version...
1. The apartment was not broken into - there was no evidence of a break in. 2. The police found no evidence of abduction by a stranger. 3. There were conflicting accounts of what happened on the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance from some of the tapas group members. 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children were inaccurate/conflicting. 5. Gerry searched outside for Madeleine the moment it was discovered she was missing. The parents did not join searchers but went out on their own at first light. 6. The parents criticised the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. 8. The parents friends and family alerted the media at a very early stage. They later employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. 9. The parents gave permission for a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who have abused and defamed them. 11. The lead detective on the case, Amaral, was convicted of falsifying police documents in the case of another missing 8-year-old. 12. The McCann's and their friends for various reasons failed to take part in a reconstruction of events which could have helped jog people's memories. 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - her story was inconsistent. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant.
Feel free to comment on these points.
?{)(**
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 07, 2013, 01:56:06 PM
Does this version please you Benita?
1. The apartment was not broken into - there was no evidence of a break in. 2. The police found no evidence of abduction by a stranger. 3. There were conflicting accounts of what happened on the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance from some of the tapas group members. 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children were inaccurate/conflicting. 5. Gerry searched outside for Madeleine the moment it was discovered she was missing. The parents did not join searchers but went out on their own at first light. 6. The parents criticised the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. 8. The parents friends and family alerted the media at a very early stage. They later employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. 9. The parents gave permission for a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who have abused and defamed them. 11. The lead detective on the case, Amaral, was convicted of falsifying police documents in the case of another missing 8-year-old. 12. The McCann's and their friends for various reasons failed to take part in a reconstruction of events which could have helped jog people's memories. 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - her story was inconsistent. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant.
Feel free to comment on these points.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 07, 2013, 02:01:28 PM
i'll stick with the known facts thank you ...you really love to stir the pot don't you john ...watch out though cos one day it will come back and bite you on the arse! ... ?>)()<
So whats not correct then? I would love to be educated about what is missing on this post....
Thanks. 8((()*/
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 02:09:14 PM
"I did my check about 10.00 o'clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually, and I thought, 'oh, all quiet', and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we'd left it. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, 'I'll just look at the children' and I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine's bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, 'is that Madeleine or is that the bedding?', and I couldn't quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn't want to put the light on cos I didn't wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, errr... been taken, you know."
knew straight away that she had, errr... been taken, you know."
So no need to search anyway because she knew an abductor had taken her, just phone the police immediately. Which she didn't.
When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they stayed inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way. While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom. 7th September the deponent (Mr McCann) having asked MATHEW who went to the secondary reception [where] the event was communicated to the local police, since he had no doubt that his daughter had been kidnapped [abducted]. 10th May
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 02:16:25 PM
5. Gerry searched outside for Madeleine the moment it was discovered she was missing[/b]. The parents did not join searchers but went out on their own at first light.[/b]
He himself never pretended he searched, the only "outside" he went immediately was to experiment the shutters. He wasn't at home, though, when Dianne went to the flat five minutes after the alarm was launched. Where was he ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Rachel Granada on November 07, 2013, 02:28:58 PM
i'll stick with the known facts thank you ...you really love to stir the pot don't you john ...watch out though cos one day it will come back and bite you on the arse! ... ?>)()<
You claimed that the original post by a new member was flawed so I offered an alternative which you haven't even bothered to respond to.
So instead of making spurious comments about stirring pots together with making veiled threats, let have those facts.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 07, 2013, 02:34:58 PM
Unfortunately one of the mods deleted your post Benita but I can still respond to it.
You claimed that the original post by a new member was flawed so I offered an alternative which you haven't even bothered to respond to.
So instead of making spurious comments about stirring pots together with making veiled threats, let have those facts.
I asked for clarification too, quite politely I am happy to be educated about the facts, but I find that sadly people are happy to try and rail road posts but have nothing positive to say.
Its sad really as I am not convinced the McCanns harmed their daughter but so far no one has given me any proof, or scenario that would prove she was abducted.
So what did happen to her... 8-)(--)
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 07, 2013, 02:40:07 PM
I asked for clarification too, quite politely I am happy to be educated about the facts, but I find that sadly people are happy to try and rail road posts but have nothing positive to say.
Its sad really as I am not convinced the McCanns harmed their daughter but so far no one has given me any proof, or scenario that would prove she was abducted.
So what did happen to her... 8-)(--)
I totally agree, there is a middle ground, a truth, so let's try and find it.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benita on November 07, 2013, 02:42:59 PM
Unfortunately one of the mods deleted your post Benita but I can still respond to it.
You claimed that the original post by a new member was flawed so I offered an alternative which you haven't even bothered to respond to.
So instead of making spurious comments about stirring pots together with making veiled threats, let have those facts.
veiled threats ..? and the facts are ... "THE McCANN'S AND THEIR FRIENDS ARE NEITHER PERSONS OF INTEREST NOR SUSPECTS IN THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE"
DCI REDWOOD
8)--))
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 07, 2013, 02:46:48 PM
I am not here to play games. I know what is rude and what is not and emphasing a point in bold is not always considered RUDE.
I stated quickly that Amaral never did not beat anyone up certainly not the mother who commited filicide.
I try to write clearly but I do have MS and sometimes my posts might not be 100percent but the gist was there, and anyone who had intelligence would know what I was saying.
Its a shame that people are happier to just sit and nit pick posts, but never give any ideas as to what happened to the child on the 3rd May.
If your intention was not to make fun of me, then I apologise.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benita on November 07, 2013, 02:50:15 PM
I am not here to play games. I know what is rude and what is not and emphasing a point in bold is not always considered RUDE.
I stated quickly that Amaral never did not beat anyone up certainly not the mother who commited filicide.
I try to write clearly but I do have MS and sometimes my posts might not be 100percent but the gist was there, and anyone who had intelligence would know what I was saying.
Its a shame that people are happier to just sit and nit pick posts, but never give any ideas as to what happened to the child on the 3rd May.
If your intention was not to make fun of me, then I apologise.
why would Rachel Granada make fun of you ..shes not a mind reader .. 8-)(--)
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Rachel Granada on November 07, 2013, 02:53:04 PM
I am not here to play games. I know what is rude and what is not and emphasing a point in bold is not always considered RUDE.
I stated quickly that Amaral never did not beat anyone up certainly not the mother who commited filicide.
I try to write clearly but I do have MS and sometimes my posts might not be 100percent but the gist was there, and anyone who had intelligence would know what I was saying.
Its a shame that people are happier to just sit and nit pick posts, but never give any ideas as to what happened to the child on the 3rd May.
If your intention was not to make fun of me, then I apologise.
Hi, no I wasn't making fun of you - just trying to be helpful as I don't follow what you mean - I'm not nit-picking but you've just made the same statement again:
I stated quickly that Amaral never did not beat anyone up
Is English not your first language?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Carana on November 07, 2013, 03:10:32 PM
Hopefully no news is good news - as in the police are carrying out a proper investigation and the media circus has stopped. In my opinion the key to this case is going right back to the beginning and investigating the days around Madeleine's disappearance. What the key witnesses did and said. Looking at the inconsistencies and so on.
There are some key facts that have been ignored or distorted by all the media frenzy.
1. The apartment was not broken in to - there was no evidence of a break in. 2. There is no evidence of an abduction by a stranger. 3. There are conflicting accounts of what happened on the days around Madeleine's disappearance from the key witnesses. 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children are inaccurate/conflicting. 5. The parents did not join in the search for their daughter on the evening of her disappearance. 6. The parents criticized the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. 8. The parents alerted the media at a very early stage. They employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. 9. the parents started up a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who do not support their abduction by a stranger theory 11. The detective on the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old. 12. The McCann's and their friends did not take part in a reconstruction of the evening which could have helped jog people's memories. 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - she changed her story. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant.
Welcome. I'm guessing that this is a summary of your thoughts?
I was trying to look back on your previous posts to see the reasoning leading up to those questions, as sometimes the answers are already there.
So far, you've made 31 posts, but I can only now find 30.
In your earliest on: October 16, 2013, 11:15:49 AM, you stated:
You would not instantly jump to the conclusion that your child had been abducted by a p.a.e.dophile group. You would hope upon hope that there was a more innocent explanation. It is arguably the least likely scenario of what might have happened - although obviously it is the most dramatic and horrific. But, as I wrote before, if they considered that to be a risk then why leave young children unattended?
Was your initial post deleted? If not, what did you state before that?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Candi on November 07, 2013, 04:13:52 PM
how would anyone on here know ...why don't you ask kate ....shes the only one that can answer your pathetic question ... 8-)(--)
Don't be silly Benita, i was thinking out loud and you know i was, your just being rude. Kate McCann immediately thought her little girl had been taken, why would she leave her babies and not shout from the balcony, I'll never understand that ... And please don't make those stupid faces at me !
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 07, 2013, 04:20:57 PM
Hi, no I wasn't making fun of you - just trying to be helpful as I don't follow what you mean - I'm not nit-picking but you've just made the same statement again:
I stated quickly that Amaral never did not beat anyone up
Is English not your first language?
No it isnt its Afro-Caribbean actually originally from France.
Well as long as your not making fun of me, I am happy with that. 8((()*/
Leonora Cipriano was allegedgly beaten up by police officers who were interrogating her.
Amaral was not actually one of the officers in the room at the time, and was never implicated in her beating. He was however charged with falsifying documents and has served his time.
The mother who committed filiacide was eventually found to have lied and had an extra 7 months added to her sentence.
I surely hope that clears up what I was trying to say. I must try the harder with my eeeeenglish lessons..... 8)><(
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 07, 2013, 04:28:42 PM
Don't be silly Benita, i was thinking out loud and you know i was, your just being rude. Kate McCann immediately thought her little girl had been taken, why would she leave her babies and not shout from the balcony, I'll never understand that ... And please don't make those stupid faces at me !
The point of the exercise is not to find out what happened to Madeliene but to disrupt as many posts and threads as people can. Their agenda I have no idea, but you cant have a sensible debate with them Candi.
I totally AGREE with you.
The one thing I know of that EVERYONE HAVES (sorry not shouting using for emphasis lol), is a MOBILE PHONE.
Even 4 and 5 year olds have a mobile phone, some have Ipads too lol. I dont know of anyone actually who hasnt got a mobile phone, even my mum has a mobile phone and she is 91, and my mother in law had one too and she was 92 when she died.
So the obvious thing would be to pick your phone up and ring your hubby or even dial a friend at the table....
Maddy isnt here, I cant find her come quick or similar or even TEXT, its so obvious.
Now you are thinking your daughter has been abducted what do you do?
1. Run out of the door leaving 2 young vulnerable children ALONE in the bedroom or 2. Use your mobile phone to get help (even ring reception), or shout as loud as you can to get help.
You would NEVER leave your children on their own with the knowledge that your other child could have been snatched.
Well most normal people wouldnt anyway. And we are not talking about just anyone here, we are talking about a trained doctor who is trained to act in a crisis even if they are mothers they would still protect the children that were still in the room.
No I too found it very odd, and actually wondered if it wasnt another forum myth.....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 04:29:55 PM
Most of the above post is bollox. And the rest is twisted to suit.
Agreed.
For instance
quote 11. The detective on the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old. Unquote
Totally untrue. Amaral has a criminal conviction for perjury - not for beating up anyone.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benita on November 07, 2013, 04:32:31 PM
lol i would swop your TS any day for my MS lol.....Mother Sucker.......is what I call it.
Do you find it hard to talk in front of people then, it must be awful to have that. Does it give you a favorite swear word, like bollox or similar as I note you use that a lot.
Ah that explains why you TIC so many people off on the forum lol...poor thing it must be hard to always have the TIC, and the vocal swearing I think i have decided I would rather keep my MS thanks, it seems to be a much friendlier disease lol.
excuse me ..you must have me mixed up with another poster I never use ..b*ll*x ...and I don't know what your health problems have to do with posting on a forum ...you are either capable or your not ...simples ...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 07, 2013, 04:33:13 PM
The point of the exercise is not to find out what happened to Madeliene but to disrupt as many posts and threads as people can. Their agenda I have no idea, but you cant have a sensible debate with them Candi.
I totally AGREE with you.
The one thing I know of that EVERYONE HAVES (sorry not shouting using for emphasis lol), is a MOBILE PHONE.
Even 4 and 5 year olds have a mobile phone, some have Ipads too lol. I dont know of anyone actually who hasnt got a mobile phone, even my mum has a mobile phone and she is 91, and my mother in law had one too and she was 92 when she died.
So the obvious thing would be to pick your phone up and ring your hubby or even dial a friend at the table....
Maddy isnt here, I cant find her come quick or similar or even TEXT, its so obvious.
Now you are thinking your daughter has been abducted what do you do?
1. Run out of the door leaving 2 young vulnerable children ALONE in the bedroom or 2. Use your mobile phone to get help (even ring reception), or shout as loud as you can to get help.
You would NEVER leave your children on their own with the knowledge that your other child could have been snatched.
Well most normal people wouldnt anyway. And we are not talking about just anyone here, we are talking about a trained doctor who is trained to act in a crisis even if they are mothers they would still protect the children that were still in the room.
No I too found it very odd, and actually wondered if it wasnt another forum myth.....
Ah, but not as dramatic.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 07, 2013, 04:38:12 PM
Hopefully no news is good news - as in the police are carrying out a proper investigation and the media circus has stopped. In my opinion the key to this case is going right back to the beginning and investigating the days around Madeleine's disappearance. What the key witnesses did and said. Looking at the inconsistencies and so on.
There are some key facts that have been ignored or distorted by all the media frenzy.
1. The apartment was not broken in to - there was no evidence of a break in. None was found 2. There is no evidence of an abduction by a stranger. Doesnt seem to be 3. There are conflicting accounts of what happened on the days around Madeleine's disappearance from the key witnesses. Most definitely, many of them, some quite bizarre 4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children are inaccurate/conflicting.It ranged from 10/15 minutes to half an hour and sometimes more 5. The parents did not join in the search for their daughter on the evening of her disappearance. Gerry did some searching, Kate stayed in all night 6. The parents criticized the police investigation from a very early stage, despite not joining in to look for their daughter. Not publically..... 7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group - is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. Gerry was overheard on the phone at 11 pm that night saying thats what he thought had happened......I dont believe this could have been thought of in advance....obviously!! 8. The parents alerted the media at a very early stage. They employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. Their friends did for sure....yes they employed loads of PIs ..some of them motley crews 9. the parents started up a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. People were donating initially into buckets being put around in PDL and people in Rothley stuffing cash into their uncles hands....they set up a fund to manage them....it grew..and there were legitimate criticism of it....for instance, why just a month after the childs disappearance and over a million in the bank did they start an online store selling gear 10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who do not support their abduction by a stranger theory...the mCcanns used the fund to pay Isabel Duarte, their Portuguese libel trial lawyer... also used the fund to hire image consultants in Portugal.....some argue it was their perogative as money in the fund included non donated money...ie dmages paid to them via the uk newspapers 11. The detective on the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old. he was accused by a couple people of doing that, namely Leonor Cipriano and her (later) lawyer but he was never charged with that 12. The McCann's and their friends did not take part in a reconstruction of the evening which could have helped jog people's memories. the reconstruction they couldnt be bothered to attend was not to jog the publics memory.....it was to be a closed PJ exercise to try and establish the details of the evening and movements...but yes, doing so may have thrown up something new to go on 13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - she changed her story. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant. I think her description of what she saw was altered time to time but not in any major way.....more embelishment..
Replies in quote in red.....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 07, 2013, 04:41:35 PM
number 13. She identified Murat as the person she saw carrying a child away....which wasted tons of police time.....surprised she didnt finger David Payne as they could be twins lol.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 04:47:20 PM
Yes they searched very briefly, although staff, police and even holiday makers searched through the night.. The parents admitted that they didn't. I could never understand that..
Unlike the McCanns - staff and other holiday makers didn't have to spend time that night talking to the police. Neither did they have to do that most of the next day.
The parents have described when they searched and have not said they never searched. They have not claimed to have searched once the media arrived on 4th May - as no doubt the police advised them not to - as they would have been mobbed by scores of reporters if they had tried.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 07, 2013, 04:58:31 PM
number 13. She identified Murat as the person she saw carrying a child away....which wasted tons of police time.....surprised she didnt finger David Payne as they could be twins lol.
i forgot about that! was going more with her description of man and child....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 07, 2013, 05:01:57 PM
i forgot about that! was going more with her description of man and child....
For me Redblossom it was one of the biggest waste of police time and from her original statments about the description Robert Murat looked NOTHING like her description where did she get him from, it was very odd.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 07, 2013, 05:05:07 PM
For me Redblossom it was one of the biggest waste of police time and from her original statments about the description Robert Murat looked NOTHING like her description where did she get him from, it was very odd.
she fingered murat......on the way he walked.....according to mr amarals book......round about the same time as three of the other tapas group fingered him as being there that night....if their dreadful memories are anything to go by reading their rogatory interviews they would have said humpty dumpty was there too.....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: ferryman on November 07, 2013, 05:09:11 PM
she fingered murat......on the way he walked.....according to mr amarals book......round about the same time as three of the other tapas group fingered him as being there that night....if their dreadful memories are anything to go by reading their rogatory interviews they would have said humpty dumpty was there too.....
Yet more falsehoods. Jane Tanner never said anything about Robert Murat.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 07, 2013, 05:10:35 PM
To the poster who asked about one of my messages - I'm not sure what happened to it.
However, with regard to Amaral, it was widely reported in the UK press that he was 'discredited' as he had become a suspect after a woman claimed he beat her up to get a confession. This cannot be denied - look up the media reports on the McCann files. It had the effect of weakening his case against the McCanns which presumably was the intention.
Yes - the points made by me are my opinions based on what I have read from the police files, mostly.
The management of the resort stated very clearly there was no evidence of a break in to the apartment.
There is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.
The McCanns considered the risk of abduction from the apartment to be so low that they left the children alone every evening in an unlocked apartment. Therefore their very early conclusion that she was abducted by a stranger is inconsistent with their belief system. That alone is a massive red flag.
There are so many others in this case.
There are media interviews where the interviewer asks Kate why she didn't join the searches - she gave a very strange reply.
Their very early conviction that they KNEW what had happened to Madeleine is really only consistent with with one conclusion - that they really DID know what had happened to her. But they didn't want to tell the truth about it. So they made up another version of events.
They have told many lies, in my opinion. And so have their friends. It's interesting that they lumbered Jane Tanner with the dodgy statement about her having seen the abductor.
To my mind their story is weak as it contradicts with their own belief system about the very low risk of stranger abduction. None of the parents were worried about it as they all left their children without babysitters every evening that week. (Even after Madeleine supposedly asked why no-one came when the twins cried. Even after Madeleine was heard crying for an hour and a quarter.)
So why would they all reach that very early conclusion that she had been abducted?! I smell a giant rat.
The early involvement of the press, their own dodgy detectives, a lawyer skilled in extradition........a spin doctor, a reputation manager.
The whole thing is completely nuts.
I am not sure what I am twisting in order to suit whom?
The 'only' evidence for abduction was the 'sighting' by Jane Tanner which has now been ruled out.
Kate running out of the apartment where abductors could still be hidden, for instance, is also inconsistent with her 'belief' that Madeleine had been stolen. You would want to check that the other children were okay and had not been molested (don't forget - they thought it might have been a paedophile abduction). The other two children were also, potentially, very important witnesses. If an abductor had stolen Maddie from her bed, it is possible that s/he or they could have woken up one of other of the twins. In any case, Kate stated that she thought the abductor may have drugged the children, so why did she not insist of toxicology tests?
Why did she also not insist on appropriate medical intervention to rule out the drugging plus rule out any kind of molestation?
That would surely be critical.
In cases of missing children, the parents and caretakers and those who last saw the child always have to be ruled out as having something to do with the disappearance.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 07, 2013, 05:12:05 PM
Yet more falsehoods. Jane Tanner never said anything about Robert Murat.
yes she did....source is amarals book and her rogatory interview.....chew over them....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 07, 2013, 05:17:14 PM
[When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they stayed inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way. While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom. 7th September the deponent (Mr McCann) having asked MATHEW who went to the secondary reception [where] the event was communicated to the local police, since he had no doubt that his daughter had been kidnapped [abducted]. 10th May]
An important part of the case.
Helder Jorge Samaio Luis
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.
JOHN ELLIOT HILL
Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007.
----------------------------------- John Hill wasn't informed of Madeleine's disappearance until 10.28pm. Therefore we can conclude that Gerry and Mr Hill never went to reception until 10.30pm at the earliest. First phone call to police is logged at 10.40pm. So from 10-10.25pm Gerry's whereabouts are unknown. Matt Oldfield went to reception earlier but was told by Fiona Payne to go.
"So Fiona, I think, asked me to go and phone the Police, so I actually went down the route to where she would have gone for Nursery drop off, which his back to the, to the main reception essentially, so I went down that route looking for her at that time and I asked the reception to phone the Police, and that must have been about five past, it's difficult to know what time it was at that time, but maybe about ten past ten, five past ten, ten past ten'."
"I think it's Stuart HILL or, well the Manager, the sort of Manager got involved, that might have been when it occurred. Erm, so there was plenty of running around through the back streets and back to the apartment and then, you know, where's the, where are the Police, where are the Police, erm, and so went back down to the reception, this would have been about thirty minutes or so later, erm, back to reception, erm, and at that point, Gerry had come down as well."
"about thirty minutes or so later" 10.30pm. Where people were actually searching in this 10-10.15pm time period is going to be very important in solving this case and the connection to Smithman and Madeleine. The net is closing in!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: ferryman on November 07, 2013, 05:30:49 PM
The point of the exercise is not to find out what happened to Madeliene but to disrupt as many posts and threads as people can. Their agenda I have no idea, but you cant have a sensible debate with them Candi.
I totally AGREE with you.
The one thing I know of that EVERYONE HAVES (sorry not shouting using for emphasis lol), is a MOBILE PHONE.
Even 4 and 5 year olds have a mobile phone, some have Ipads too lol. I dont know of anyone actually who hasnt got a mobile phone, even my mum has a mobile phone and she is 91, and my mother in law had one too and she was 92 when she died.
So the obvious thing would be to pick your phone up and ring your hubby or even dial a friend at the table....
Maddy isnt here, I cant find her come quick or similar or even TEXT, its so obvious.
Now you are thinking your daughter has been abducted what do you do?
1. Run out of the door leaving 2 young vulnerable children ALONE in the bedroom or 2. Use your mobile phone to get help (even ring reception), or shout as loud as you can to get help.
You would NEVER leave your children on their own with the knowledge that your other child could have been snatched.
Well most normal people wouldnt anyway. And we are not talking about just anyone here, we are talking about a trained doctor who is trained to act in a crisis even if they are mothers they would still protect the children that were still in the room.
No I too found it very odd, and actually wondered if it wasnt another forum myth.....
In 2007 many payasyougo phones did not work abroad. I have always bought a local disposable (and still do when in the US). also six years ago people were reluctant to use phones abroad as it was complicated and expensive.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 07, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
The McCann group obviously had some some that night, else how could they have been phoning all and sundry as they did.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 07, 2013, 06:29:37 PM
In 2007 many payasyougo phones did not work abroad. I have always bought a local disposable (and still do when in the US). also six years ago people were reluctant to use phones abroad as it was complicated and expensive.
Do you think Kate didn't use her mobile to alert the police of her daughters 'abduction' on account of expense?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 06:36:49 PM
Its not true Amaral NEVER BEAT anyone up, he wasnt even in the room when the err mother who commited Filicide was being interrogated.
He was however, charged for changing and falsifying documentation, got a suspended sentence, and has served his time, HE WAS NEVER SACKED for this...
ALSO all the officers who were accused were ABSOLVED as it was proven in a court that the mother who commited Filicide LIED about the beating.
Is that enough information.
I am just fed up of the same thing being dragged up and used to beat Amaral with....
just to let you know that Leonor Cipriano was tortured by members of the PJ who have not been identified. This has been proved in court..its a fact. Amaral was charged with covering up the torture and convicted
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 06:47:14 PM
i forgot about that! was going more with her description of man and child....
No she didn't. Because if she had there would be witness statement to prove it - and it would have been mentioned in the AG's final report - as a positive identification of Murat as the abductor would have been a prime reason for making him an arguido. In fact it would have been top of the list of reasons given in the AG's report for why he was made an Arguido. It isn't there.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 07, 2013, 06:52:58 PM
Kate said she knew straight away that Madeleine was abducted - let me think - yeah the window was open in Madeleine's bedroom and she was gone. So you phone the police straight away if you know it's abduction! There was no need to start examining and contaminating the crime scene. There was no need for her to bide her time in phoning the police if she knew it was abduction unless of course it was for another reason.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 06:55:49 PM
Kate said she knew straight away that Madeleine was abducted - let me think - yeah the window was open in Madeleine's bedroom and she was gone. So you phone the police straight away if you know it's abduction! There was no need to start examining and contaminating the crime scene. There was no need for her to bide her time in phoning the police if she knew it was abduction unless of course it was for another reason.
I cant understand why SY have not worked ...could it be that your assumption is totally wrong
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 07, 2013, 06:57:41 PM
That's not an assumption. That's what Kate said. She knew it was abduction but they were more concerned about examining the windows and shutters instead of phoning the police. We know SY are investigating Smithman.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 06:58:05 PM
Jane's rogatory interview says that at the moment she was about to try to make an identification, a car pulled out and blocked her view.
It does not say that she identified Robert Murat as the man she saw.
The whole identity parade failed miserably as for one reason or another she never got a clear view of Murat at any time - and wasn't even able to recognise him as the man she and Russell had met half an hour previously on their way to the meeting place to take part in the identity parade. After it failed the PJ officers rang Amaral to ask if she needed to sign anything. The answer was no - so she went home. If she had identified him, it stands to reason that she would have been taken immediately to the police station to make a signed statement to that effect.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 07, 2013, 07:01:24 PM
Do you think Kate didn't use her mobile to alert the police of her daughters 'abduction' on account of expense?
Wonderful case of going beyond the point of an argument. I would not think of trying to phone within a complex in a foreign country- taliking on the phone in another language is trying and often night staff have a poor command of English. Also the phones may not have been registered for outgoing calls. I never did that with by British phones- allowing incoming calls and texts, but not registering with local networks for access out, using local throwaways.
Jumping on little points like that just makes you look a fool.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 07:01:50 PM
That's not an assumption. That's what Kate said. She knew it was abduction but they were more concerned about examining the windows and shutters instead of phoning the police. We know SY are investigating Smithman.
we know SY have clearly stated the MCCanns are not suspects... fact
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 07, 2013, 07:04:24 PM
They are still investigating - FACT.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 07, 2013, 07:06:29 PM
Kate said she knew straight away that Madeleine was abducted - let me think - yeah the window was open in Madeleine's bedroom and she was gone. So you phone the police straight away if you know it's abduction! There was no need to start examining and contaminating the crime scene. There was no need for her to bide her time in phoning the police if she knew it was abduction unless of course it was for another reason.
Yes of course, when you think your daughter has just been abducted you immediately morph into a policeman and behave logically and rationally - your first thought being not to contaminate the crime scene. FGS - she would be scared stiff and panicking like mad - why can't people understand that?
There have a been few posters (Im not one of them I'm glad to say) who have experienced losing their child - for a few moments or even a little longer. I do not remember one of them saying how cool, calm and collected they remained.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 07:18:26 PM
SY have now said more than once that they are not suspects or even persons of interest in their investigations. The McCanns are being kept updated with events by SY. They have met with the Oporto team.
Anyone who can turn that into meaning 'the McCanns are still suspects' is seriously clutching at straws IMO.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Lyall on November 07, 2013, 07:21:25 PM
SY have now said more than once that they are not suspects or even persons of interest in their investigations. The McCanns are being kept updated with events by SY. They have met with the Oporto team.
Anyone who can turn that into meaning 'the McCanns are still suspects' is seriously clutching at straws IMO.
They are if/when nothing else turns up. And it hasn't so far.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 07, 2013, 07:34:40 PM
SY have now said more than once that they are not suspects or even persons of interest in their investigations. The McCanns are being kept updated with events by SY. They have met with the Oporto team.
Anyone who can turn that into meaning 'the McCanns are still suspects' is seriously clutching at straws IMO.
Scotland Yard commenting on the review in an FOI response, October 2011
"High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless."
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Rachel Granada on November 07, 2013, 07:37:34 PM
No it isnt its Afro-Caribbean actually originally from France.
Well as long as your not making fun of me, I am happy with that. 8((()*/
Leonora Cipriano was allegedgly beaten up by police officers who were interrogating her.
Amaral was not actually one of the officers in the room at the time, and was never implicated in her beating. He was however charged with falsifying documents and has served his time.
The mother who committed filiacide was eventually found to have lied and had an extra 7 months added to her sentence.
I surely hope that clears up what I was trying to say. I must try the harder with my eeeeenglish lessons..... 8)><(
No not making fun, colosto ! I love France, which part were you born in? I spent 6 months in Montpellier in the 80s.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 07, 2013, 07:38:33 PM
Scotland Yard commenting on the review in an FOI response, October 2011
"High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless."
Thanks. The way it should be.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 07:46:30 PM
Scotland Yard commenting on the review in an FOI response, October 2011
"High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless."
Scotland Yard commenting on the review in an FOI response, October 2011, in context.
Evidence of Harm
In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.
Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals, or any possible criminal and/or civil process.
Information of this nature needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity, as it could have a detrimental effect on a review and the operational effectiveness of the MPS and it's ability to fulfil its core function of law enforcement.
High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 07, 2013, 08:12:57 PM
It's only ridiculous to you as an unquestioning defender of the parents.
The rest of us live amongst the majority of the population who will wonder if police find nothing down the route they have chosen to take.
And what they will do if they don't find anything. Give up or look elsewhere?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 07, 2013, 08:17:36 PM
Well, nothing I have seen or read about the case would lead me to believe that the McCanns have been ruled out as suspects. Nothing whatsoever. Well, obviously Clarence Mitchell would want to say that - and he is paid huge sums of money to put stories and PR into the media.
Leonor Cipriano was tortured?! Well, she is a convicted child murderer and that does tend to happen in prison to those people who are convicted of murdering their children (the child was also probably sexually abused by Leonor's brother who she was having an incestuous relationship with - they were both dangerous, cruel and horrible people. The 8 year old who was murdered was treated like a slave - there was woeful neglect.)
Yes, I can see why there are people who would want to throw dirt onto Amaral - after all, child murderers are not exactly known for their integrity - and those who defend them - well, that must be a strange world to be in.....
And, back to basics - Kate KNEW straight away that it was an abduction - but abduction had been the one thing that they had not worried about - not at all. They are quoted as saying: 'it's so rare...it was the last thing on our minds.....if we had thought that they were at risk <from an abduction> we would not have done what we did.....
So why, given it was the 'last thing on their minds' did it suddenly become 'the first thing on their minds'.......
The manager of the resort put the 'missing child' operation into process and was operating on the assumption that Madeleine would be found - so clearly children have gone missing before. And usually they are found.
As for remaining calm when your child goes missing - yes, on the few times one of my children went missing I remained exceptionally calm. I was entirely focused on where they might have gone and I realized I had to act fast and decisively.
There is no way I would have done what Kate McCann did - leave the other children unattended (if I thought it had been an abduction) then not sought to wake up the twins and assess their safety.
The whole thing stinks.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Lyall on November 07, 2013, 08:18:36 PM
It's only ridiculous to you as an unquestioning defender of the parents.
The rest of us live amongst the majority of the population who will wonder if police find nothing down the route they have chosen to take.
you assume I am unquestioning....you are wrong... I would say I am more questioning than you . You accept any evidence WITHOUT QUESTION that suits your agenda. I have come to my decision by questioning all the evidence.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 08:25:58 PM
you assume I am unquestioning....you are wrong... I would say I am more questioning than you . You accept any evidence WITHOUT QUESTION that suits your agenda. I have come to my decision by questioning all the evidence.
The PJ did the same....
From all that was presented, the process results in the following:
A) the child Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007;
B) an abduction was simulated;
C) in order to make the child's death impossible before 10 p.m., a situation of checking the McCann couple's children while they slept, was made up;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter, Madeleine McCann;
E) at this moment, there seem to be no strong indications yet, that the child's death didn't result from a tragic accident;
F) from what was established until now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self defence, don't want to hand the cadaver over in an immediate and voluntary manner, and there is a strong probability that said cadaver was moved from its initial location. This situation is susceptible of raising questions about the circumstances under which the child's death happened."
***
Therefore, we suggest that the case files are sent to the Republic’s Prosecutor, in the Lagos legal district, for:
G) a possible new questioning of the arguidos Kate and Gerald McCann;
H) an evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;
During the house search at the McCann couple’s residence, a diary style manuscript was found, already photocopied, possibly authored by Kate McCann; admitting that it may contain information that may help to reach the material truth of facts, WE PROPOSE THAT:
I) the photocopies of said document are presented to the illustrious Judge for the purpose of its apprehension, if legal, its translation and eventual collection of information to be included in the process files, as necessary for the investigation.
At this date, I subject the case files to your appreciation, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient, hence I open:
CONCLUSION
On the tenth of September, two thousand and seven
Chief Inspector
(Tavares de Almeida)
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 07, 2013, 08:29:07 PM
From all that was presented, the process results in the following:
A) the child Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007;
B) an abduction was simulated;
C) in order to make the child's death impossible before 10 p.m., a situation of checking the McCann couple's children while they slept, was made up;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter, Madeleine McCann;
E) at this moment, there seem to be no strong indications yet, that the child's death didn't result from a tragic accident;
F) from what was established until now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self defence, don't want to hand the cadaver over in an immediate and voluntary manner, and there is a strong probability that said cadaver was moved from its initial location. This situation is susceptible of raising questions about the circumstances under which the child's death happened."
***
Therefore, we suggest that the case files are sent to the Republic’s Prosecutor, in the Lagos legal district, for:
G) a possible new questioning of the arguidos Kate and Gerald McCann;
H) an evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;
During the house search at the McCann couple’s residence, a diary style manuscript was found, already photocopied, possibly authored by Kate McCann; admitting that it may contain information that may help to reach the material truth of facts, WE PROPOSE THAT:
I) the photocopies of said document are presented to the illustrious Judge for the purpose of its apprehension, if legal, its translation and eventual collection of information to be included in the process files, as necessary for the investigation.
At this date, I subject the case files to your appreciation, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient, hence I open:
CONCLUSION
On the tenth of September, two thousand and seven
Chief Inspector
(Tavares de Almeida)
if you read the archiving report it says all the evidence that was used to make the McCanns arguidos was basically wrong
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 08:33:37 PM
From all that was presented, the process results in the following:
A) the child Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, on the evening of the 3rd of May 2007;
B) an abduction was simulated;
C) in order to make the child's death impossible before 10 p.m., a situation of checking the McCann couple's children while they slept, was made up;
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter, Madeleine McCann;
E) at this moment, there seem to be no strong indications yet, that the child's death didn't result from a tragic accident;
F) from what was established until now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self defence, don't want to hand the cadaver over in an immediate and voluntary manner, and there is a strong probability that said cadaver was moved from its initial location. This situation is susceptible of raising questions about the circumstances under which the child's death happened."
***
Therefore, we suggest that the case files are sent to the Republic’s Prosecutor, in the Lagos legal district, for:
G) a possible new questioning of the arguidos Kate and Gerald McCann;
H) an evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case;
During the house search at the McCann couple’s residence, a diary style manuscript was found, already photocopied, possibly authored by Kate McCann; admitting that it may contain information that may help to reach the material truth of facts, WE PROPOSE THAT:
I) the photocopies of said document are presented to the illustrious Judge for the purpose of its apprehension, if legal, its translation and eventual collection of information to be included in the process files, as necessary for the investigation.
At this date, I subject the case files to your appreciation, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient, hence I open:
CONCLUSION
On the tenth of September, two thousand and seven
Chief Inspector
(Tavares de Almeida)
Secondly ...and I would like an answer but wont get one... WHAT EVIDENCE did the pj have to make these accusations
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 07, 2013, 08:48:46 PM
Hello there! I am fencesitter with this case but trying to be fair to all but I am just thinking about point 12 about the reconstruction, I don't think they refused?
No. nothing as definite as a direct refusal. I think ( am open to correction) that they said they were willing to go back if the others did, but the rest of their friends declined.
added. Logically, a reconstruction should have been carried out right at the begining while the whole group were still there
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 08:52:11 PM
Hello there jassi! I will read up a bit more on this but I did think that the police in PDL said no to a recon in the days after the little girl went missing?
That may be so. I was referring to later when all the Tapas group were back in UK.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 08:55:00 PM
Scotland Yard commenting on the review in an FOI response, October 2011
"High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless."
So do you think it's all a big conspiracy then - and the UK police and the Portuguese team are simply lulling the McCanns and their friends into a false sense of security before they pounce? And we the public have been made unwitting participants in this ginormous conspiracy by SY? Pull the other one.
As far as I'm concerned the above statement is saying they are not going to give a running commentary to publicise their findings to the general public - for obvious reasons.
The McCanns are not part of the general public in this instance and as a result of their investigations SY have been able to eliminate them as suspects or persons of interest. IMO It really is that simple.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 07, 2013, 09:01:59 PM
. My opinion is that we really won't know just what is going on until SY announce their findings. In the meantime, people can assert what they like, as its meaningless.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Candi on November 07, 2013, 09:03:17 PM
The point of the exercise is not to find out what happened to Madeliene but to disrupt as many posts and threads as people can. Their agenda I have no idea, but you cant have a sensible debate with them Candi.
I totally AGREE with you.
The one thing I know of that EVERYONE HAVES (sorry not shouting using for emphasis lol), is a MOBILE PHONE.
Even 4 and 5 year olds have a mobile phone, some have Ipads too lol. I dont know of anyone actually who hasnt got a mobile phone, even my mum has a mobile phone and she is 91, and my mother in law had one too and she was 92 when she died.
So the obvious thing would be to pick your phone up and ring your hubby or even dial a friend at the table....
Maddy isnt here, I cant find her come quick or similar or even TEXT, its so obvious.
Now you are thinking your daughter has been abducted what do you do?
1. Run out of the door leaving 2 young vulnerable children ALONE in the bedroom or 2. Use your mobile phone to get help (even ring reception), or shout as loud as you can to get help.
You would NEVER leave your children on their own with the knowledge that your other child could have been snatched.
Well most normal people wouldnt anyway. And we are not talking about just anyone here, we are talking about a trained doctor who is trained to act in a crisis even if they are mothers they would still protect the children that were still in the room.
No I too found it very odd, and actually wondered if it wasnt another forum myth.....
Yes strange regarding the phones, is this the night that the whole group decided not to use their phones.. aww and well done to your mother in law being able to use a mobile at 92 because they can be fiddly little things ! :)
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 09:11:21 PM
And, back to basics - Kate KNEW straight away that it was an abduction - but abduction had been the one thing that they had not worried about - not at all. They are quoted as saying: 'it's so rare...it was the last thing on our minds.....if we had thought that they were at risk <from an abduction> we would not have done what we did.....
So why, given it was the 'last thing on their minds' did it suddenly become 'the first thing on their minds'.......
This would be an excellent point, hadn't the McCanns smartly claimed the shutters/window were broken/open. Nobody saw them open nor broken, but these words went around the world as the signature of an exceptionnal (i.e from bed) abduction.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:15:36 PM
This would be an excellent point, hadn't the McCanns smartly claimed the shutters/window were broken/open. Nobody saw them open nor broken, but these words went around the world as the signature of an exceptionnal (i.e from bed) abduction.
Do you have any evidence that no one saw the shutters open...sounds like another myth to me...evidence please
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Candi on November 07, 2013, 09:19:00 PM
Unlike the McCanns - staff and other holiday makers didn't have to spend time that night talking to the police. Neither did they have to do that most of the next day.
The parents have described when they searched and have not said they never searched. They have not claimed to have searched once the media arrived on 4th May - as no doubt the police advised them not to - as they would have been mobbed by scores of reporters if they had tried.
I respect what you are saying Benice but after they had given their statement they could have joined the search for their little girl and i very much doubt they were shy of the media/reporters, what about all the jogging and playing tennis they were doing just days after she went missing... No if the police advised them of anything i doubt very much they would of listened..
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 07, 2013, 09:21:47 PM
No they didn't...another myth.....I've seen the clip and they did not say they hadn't searched...this is the sort of lies told that make so many people question the MCcanns.
This one I will not allow to pass.
Listen carefully, especially 00:47
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:23:45 PM
Secondly ...and I would like an answer but wont get one... WHAT EVIDENCE did the pj have to make these accusations
A missing child
No sign of forced entry
A trace of blood (which at that time had not been fully analysed) In the apartment where the child was last seen alive.
Conflicting witness testimonies by the group who last saw the child alive. (Total incoherence results from the GROUP’s statements, which makes it easy to verify that everyone lies.)
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:31:33 PM
I have listened again... the mccanns..both of them...searched on the night Maddie wnt missing..that is documented..after that they didn't ...what person would expect them to..to say they never searched is untrue
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 07, 2013, 09:31:54 PM
Do you have any evidence that no one saw the shutters open...sounds like another myth to me...evidence please
It's you that must show that there is evidence that the shutters were broken and/or the window broken, since there is not a single testimony supporting it, on the contrary - even Mitchel had to admit in an interview that the shutters had not been jemmied.
But I'll help you. As I know you detest this videos I'll point the essentials.
First a reporter after contacting Mark Warners: 1:10 - 1:23
After, Mitchel acknowledges there was no forced entry: 1:40 - 2:00
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:34:59 PM
A trace of blood (which at that time had not been fully analysed) In the apartment where the child was last seen alive.
Conflicting witness testimonies by the group who last saw the child alive. (Total incoherence results from the GROUP’s statements, which makes it easy to verify that everyone lies.)
Its taken a long time for you to come up with this..
missing child....evidence of abduction as well no sign forced entry..patio doors open conflicting testimonies...language barrier ...translations
Very good...basically they had nothing...thanks for the confirmation
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 09:36:22 PM
She knew the child had been abducted and was like in fairy tales out the UE borders, so why would one expect her to scream A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 07, 2013, 09:36:35 PM
Hi Caraid and thanks for the welcome, yes Barbados rocks and we try and get over there at least once a year to see the family.
I just don't know what to make of this case surely some of the people in the group would have confessed by now if there was wrongdoing. The Scotland Yard guy said that they are not suspects or of interest.
Read everything you can and question everything you're told at least twice 8)--)) It's possible we'll never find out what happened, but you'll form your own opinions over time too.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:38:31 PM
She knew the child had been abducted and was like in fairy tales out the UE borders, so why would one expect her to scream A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse ?
another post that makes absolutely no sense
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 07, 2013, 09:39:21 PM
davel got it. He just likes to pretend he's obtuse. He's a teddy bear really.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 07, 2013, 09:45:40 PM
Okay. Let's read their various versions about their "searches" given to the PJ.
With a special thanks to www.mccannfiles.com
Gerry McCann
Overview
In Gerry's 4th May and 10th May statements, he appears to be describing search activities in which he was personally involved but his statement of 7th September makes it clear that he is actually describing the activities of other people.
On 4th May, he describes how 'the group' searched in various locations.
On 10th May, he describes how 'they' continued their searches outside.
On 7th September, he describes how 'guests and resort workers' were searching, whilst he 'went to the main reception to check whether they had called the police'. Gerry states that he 'looked for her all over the apartment' and 'particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms'. After returning from the reception 'he went back into the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom'.
04 May 2007 statement
'Faced with this altered scenario, KATE checked that the twins were in their respective beds, unlike MADELEINE, who had disappeared. After thoroughly searching the apartment, his wife, quite scared and upset, went to the restaurant to alert the deponent and the others about the disappearance. Immediately, the group headed for the club and searched across all the facilities, swimming pool, tennis etc., as well as in the apartment, with the help of Ocean Club employees, while at the same time they contacted the authorities, that would later appear.'
10 May 2007 statement
'Then he closed the shutters, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside. They continued with searches outside, around the various apartment blocks, the deponent having asked MATHEW to go to the secondary reception in order to communicate the fact to the local police, since he had no doubt that his daughter had been abducted. He refutes, peremptorily, the possibility that MADELEINE could have left the apartment by her own means.' 07 September 2007 statement
'He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere already.'
---
'When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they remained inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way. While the guests and resort workers were searching, he went to the main reception to check whether they had called the police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After returning from the reception he went back into the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom.'
Kate McCann
Overview
Kate has made no official police statement related to the external searches (or, indeed, any events after the moment she entered the apartment at 10pm), other than, on 4th May, to echo Gerry's statement of the same day. This is, in itself, not surprising given it is clear that she did not participate in any external searches that night.
On 4th May, she describes how 'the group' searched in various locations - although, like Gerry, claims no direct involvement.
On 10th May, Kate was not interviewed.
On 6th September, Kate's statement only describes events up to the point where she enters the apartment at 10pm. The interview was suspended, as it was late, with the intention that it 'be continued on the next morning'. The next day, Kate declined to answer any questions.
Kate's diary entry for 4th May only mentions that 'Gerry and I started looking through the streets around 06.00 as it was starting to get light', whilst admitting that there was 'Nobody around' to witness this.
04 May 2007 statement
'Faced with this altered situation, she verified that the twins were in their beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared. The cover was neatly pulled back and the toys were on the pillow as usual. After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, and already quite scared and unnerved, she returned to the restaurant, and alerted her husband and the rest of the group to the disappearance. The group immediately headed to the club [apartment], and set about searching in all the buildings, swimming pool, tennis courts etc... as well as in the apartment with the help of employees. At the same time, they contacted the authorities, which would later arrive.'
04 May 2007 - Kate's diary
'FRIDAY, MAY 4: No sleep, Gerry and I started looking through the streets around 06.00 as it was starting to get light. Nobody around. Why not? Desperate.'
10 May 2007 statement
Not interviewed. Gonçalo Amaral has stated, to this website, that: "The decision was made not to question her at that time, in order not to increase the pain of a mother who had lost a daughter."
06 September 2007 statement
This statment only describes events up to the point where Kate enters the apartment at 10pm. The interview was suspended, as it was late, with the intention that it 'be continued on the next morning'.
07 September 2007 'arguida' statement
Kate declined to answer any questions, which included the following:
'When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled, she did not reply.'
'When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.'
'When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply.'
'When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply.'
'When asked, during the searches, and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply.'
'When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving, she did not reply.'
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:45:49 PM
They are investigating abduction...they are not making anyone arguidos for abduction ...do you see the difference
They are investigating abduction.
Does that prove an abduction actually took place?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 07, 2013, 09:50:13 PM
Of course not. Merely the only option they are currently considering.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 07, 2013, 09:51:33 PM
The Scotland Yard is investigating abduction, according to Redwood's declarations to the Media. But the PJ has not made any declaration and it has not been disclosed either by their National Director nor by the Attorney General what will be investigated.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 07, 2013, 09:52:25 PM
'In marketing terms, it is a good ploy'
???
Why would any parent who was desperate about the alleged abduction of their child in the possible hands of paedophiles (according to the parents) be thinking about 'marketing terms' or even 'a good ploy'........
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:52:43 PM
davel got it. He just likes to pretend he's obtuse. He's a teddy bear really.
Cariad..perhaps you could explain what this means.
.was like in fairy tales out the UE borders...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 09:53:07 PM
Quote from: AnneGuedes on Today at 09:11:21 PM This would be an excellent point, hadn't the McCanns smartly claimed the shutters/window were broken/open. Nobody saw them open nor broken, but these words went around the world as the signature of an exceptionnal (i.e from bed) abduction. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any evidence that no one saw the shutters open...sounds like another myth to me...evidence please
It's certainly not true Davel - here is part of Amy Tierney's statement relating to the open window and shutters.
Witness Statement
Amy Tierney Date: 2007-05-06 Place: P da L
Occupation: Head of the Baby Club and Mini Club
Place of Work: Ocean Club
She comes to the process as a witness.
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
However there was a bed against the window, which could have enabled the girl to climb up onto it and then up to the window, the witness thinks it would not be possible as she would not be able to open the shutters and even if she had done so she would have fallen outside as the window is too high for a child of that age to be able to descend without falling.
End quote.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:55:02 PM
of course it doesn't..but we were talking about the pathetic excuse for evidence that the pj had to make the MCcanns arguidos and accuse them of a crime
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 07, 2013, 09:56:04 PM
Quote from: AnneGuedes on Today at 09:11:21 PM This would be an excellent point, hadn't the McCanns smartly claimed the shutters/window were broken/open. Nobody saw them open nor broken, but these words went around the world as the signature of an exceptionnal (i.e from bed) abduction. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly not true Davel - here is part of Amy Tierney's statement relating to the open window and shutters.
Witness Statement
Amy Tierney Date: 2007-05-06 Place: P da L
Occupation: Head of the Baby Club and Mini Club
Place of Work: Ocean Club
She comes to the process as a witness.
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
However there was a bed against the window, which could have enabled the girl to climb up onto it and then up to the window, the witness thinks it would not be possible as she would not be able to open the shutters and even if she had done so she would have fallen outside as the window is too high for a child of that age to be able to descend without falling.
End quote.
You seem to have forgotten that Kate McCann's fingerprints were the only ones found in the window. Since Anie went into the room after the alarm it's obvious she would see the window open, but she didn't see it broken, did she?!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:57:29 PM
You seem to have forgotten that Kate McCann's fingerprints were the only ones found in the window. Since Anie went into the room after the alarm it's obvious she would see the window open, but she didn't see it broken, did she?!
MccANNS never said it was broken...another myth
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Lyall on November 07, 2013, 09:59:17 PM
Quote from: AnneGuedes on Today at 09:11:21 PM This would be an excellent point, hadn't the McCanns smartly claimed the shutters/window were broken/open. Nobody saw them open nor broken, but these words went around the world as the signature of an exceptionnal (i.e from bed) abduction. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly not true Davel - here is part of Amy Tierney's statement relating to the open window and shutters.
Witness Statement
Amy Tierney Date: 2007-05-06 Place: P da L
Occupation: Head of the Baby Club and Mini Club
Place of Work: Ocean Club
She comes to the process as a witness.
She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.
However there was a bed against the window, which could have enabled the girl to climb up onto it and then up to the window, the witness thinks it would not be possible as she would not be able to open the shutters and even if she had done so she would have fallen outside as the window is too high for a child of that age to be able to descend without falling.
End quote.
Guys, it's irrelevant who saw the window open after the alarm was raised. Nobody knows who opened it.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 09:59:39 PM
She knew the child had been abducted and was like in fairy tales out the UE borders, so why would one expect her to scream A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse ?
So it looks like the post makes no sense to lyall or cariad either
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 10:01:05 PM
You seem to have forgotten that Kate McCann's fingerprints were the only ones found in the window. Since Anie went into the room after the alarm it's obvious she would see the window open, but she didn't see it broken, did she?!
What has Kate's fingerprints got to do with Amy Tierney saying she saw the window and shutters open?
Anne G. claimed that nobody saw them open. She was wrong.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 10:14:13 PM
Why would any parent who was desperate about the alleged abduction of their child in the possible hands of paedophiles (according to the parents) be thinking about 'marketing terms' or even 'a good ploy'........
Why ? See the state of the McCann case after 6,5 years !
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 10:18:14 PM
What has Kate's fingerprints got to do with Amy Tierney saying she saw the window and shutters open?
Anne G. claimed that nobody saw them open. She was wrong.
No, Benice, I'm right. Ms Tierney saw what you yourself can see on the scientific police's picture : a shutter open about 10 cm. Ms Tierney came by only when she heard what happened at the night creche. This was after Mr McCann closed the window and lowed down the shutters, the first because of the cold on the twins and the second to experiment from the outside.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Lyall on November 07, 2013, 10:19:55 PM
So it looks like the post makes no sense to lyall or cariad either
Davel, why don't you read Richard the Third again ? I'm obviously not comparing the "deformed and unfinished" one to the beautiful Mrs McCann. Is it so difficult to imagine that if you saw a burglar take your Van Gogh you'd give anything for a horse ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 10:40:15 PM
It is quite scary when you consider that there are (some) people out there who profit from crime...
This is the dubious part. Who profits here, apart from the media (who would find another bone to gnaw, like the tribulations of Rebekah Brooks and Co) ? My feeling is that it's a loose/loose story. Portugal digested it its way (fado/fatum), but the UK ? My only hope is that at least freedom of speech improved.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 10:46:15 PM
Davel, why don't you read Richard the Third again ? I'm obviously not comparing the "deformed and unfinished" one to the beautiful Mrs McCann. Is it so difficult to imagine that if you saw a burglar take your Van Gogh you'd give anything for a horse ?
I understand the horse but what does..........was like in fairy tales out the UE borders..mean.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 07, 2013, 10:49:23 PM
Freedom of speech - WOW - that would be amazing.....but the reality is that this case is an unresolved crime....the crime of a child abduction....or a child missing.......
....and it's more than creepy that the parents and friends are so........
Freedom of speech - WOW - that would be amazing.....but the reality is that this case is an unresolved crime....the crime of a child abduction....or a child missing.......
....and it's more than creepy that the parents and friends are so........
Freedom of speech - WOW - that would be amazing.....but the reality is that this case is an unresolved crime....the crime of a child abduction....or a child missing.......
....and it's more than creepy that the parents and friends are so........
As long as they let people think how they feel like, as long as they don't impose their doxa to others, it's fair to me. The rest is the job of Justice, not ours.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 10:54:49 PM
As long as they let people think how they feel like, as long as they don't impose their doxa to others, it's fair to me. The rest is the job of Justice, not ours.
Well spoken
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 10:55:18 PM
Well, do I have a problem with doctors....no ....not really...
I cant understand why you find the whole group so awful
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: drummer on November 07, 2013, 11:10:16 PM
We can't possibly go over every point raised by a new poster, or some one new to the case. Think admin should ask new posters to skim read existing threads to see if the topic has been discussed then perhaps add to it.
Many people have been led to believe falsehoods/myths started by various admins of face book pages/websites etc and they will no doubt bring these questions/topics here to discuss, which is okay, but to go over material that has been proved to be incorect or totally inaccurate by means of starting a new thread is quite unnecessary. It takes long enough to catch up on threads anyway, they are moving so quickly.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 07, 2013, 11:12:38 PM
We can't possibly go over every point raised by a new poster, or some one new to the case. Think admin should ask new posters to skim read existing threads to see if the topic has been discussed then perhaps add to it.
Many people have been led to believe falsehoods/myths started by various admins of face book pages/websites etc and they will no doubt bring these questions/topics here to discuss, which is okay, but to go over material that has been proved to be incorect or totally inaccurate by means of starting a new thread is quite unnecessary. It takes long enough to catch up on threads anyway, they are moving so quickly.
As I have said in this thread...next week someone else asks exactly the same questions..very silly...but perhaps as it is very critical of the McCanns it is acceptable
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 07, 2013, 11:19:21 PM
We can't possibly go over every point raised by a new poster, or some one new to the case. Think admin should ask new posters to skim read existing threads to see if the topic has been discussed then perhaps add to it.
Many people have been led to believe falsehoods/myths started by various admins of face book pages/websites etc and they will no doubt bring these questions/topics here to discuss, which is okay, but to go over material that has been proved to be incorect or totally inaccurate by means of starting a new thread is quite unnecessary. It takes long enough to catch up on threads anyway, they are moving so quickly.
Good post Drummer. My sentiments entirely.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 07, 2013, 11:43:29 PM
Well ...the group are liars...which is not great.....but we all knew that........
...serriously....we all know they are lying.....
I guess it would not be so bad, were it not for the fact that a lovely sweet girl had not gone missing...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 07, 2013, 11:45:43 PM
We can't possibly go over every point raised by a new poster, or some one new to the case. Think admin should ask new posters to skim read existing threads to see if the topic has been discussed then perhaps add to it.
Many people have been led to believe falsehoods/myths started by various admins of face book pages/websites etc and they will no doubt bring these questions/topics here to discuss, which is okay, but to go over material that has been proved to be incorect or totally inaccurate by means of starting a new thread is quite unnecessary. It takes long enough to catch up on threads anyway, they are moving so quickly.
Who is this "WE" you speak of drummer ?
Speaking for myself, I have no problem at all with new members ( or established members who are not familiar with the case ) asking as many questions as they wish
You don't have to reply to their questions, of course, ... you could, instead, politely, allow those of us who are prepared to reply, to do so
What you can't do, is to tell new members ( or those unfamiliar with the case ) that thier questions are tiresome and they should not be posing them
Admin will decide what is tolerated on this forum
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 08, 2013, 01:01:39 AM
Well ...the group are liars...which is not great.....but we all knew that........
...serriously....we all know they are lying.....
I guess it would not be so bad, were it not for the fact that a lovely sweet girl had not gone missing...
You would think that if they were all such liars they would definitely all be persons of interest or even suspects - and yet none of them are. Not a single one. But then what do experienced police officers who are used to observing and sussing out liars know compared to the 'we all' whom you mention.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 08, 2013, 01:25:38 AM
It's daft if we have to go over the same ground time and time again. Imagine if Hi de liars members join here or controversy members, we'll have about 20,000 new members starting myth threads. Or 20 socks perhaps??? 8)-)))
Indeed it will be Groundhog Day all over again (no pun intended) - in fact IMO it's beginning to get like that just lately.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 08, 2013, 04:09:54 AM
A trace of blood (which at that time had not been fully analysed) In the apartment where the child was last seen alive.
Conflicting witness testimonies by the group who last saw the child alive. (Total incoherence results from the GROUP’s statements, which makes it easy to verify that everyone lies.)
Once again I will point out that there is a difference between lying and being in error.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 08, 2013, 04:14:20 AM
I doubt that there is any room in any house in the world that does not have a trace of blood! Shaving, children, accidents, falls, toe stubs, scratching mosquito bites, nose bleeds etc.
Similarly the claim that there was no evidence of an intruder from DNA. There was probably considerable DNA in the room from the multiple occupancy. Many hundreds of people would have left trace DNA. How were the police to know which was an innocent holiday maker and which was a criminal intruder?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 08, 2013, 04:17:52 AM
Note the anti dishonesty where they now always say open/broken- eliding the truth with a lie to make it look bad for the McCanns.
The news reports that morning .... less than twelve hours after the little girl disappeared ... told us that someone had broken in through the window and spirited her away into the darkness
... where do you think that narrative came from ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 08, 2013, 05:45:20 AM
The news reports that morning .... less than twelve hours after the little girl disappeared ... told us that someone had broken in through the window and spirited her away into the darkness
... where do you think that narrative came from ?
Misinterpretation and creativeness by the Press following a game of chinese whispers getting the news to the presses.
And full reference for that newspaper story please.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 08, 2013, 05:46:29 AM
Not Icabod's avoidance of the truth- there is no evidence that Kate and Gerry McCann ever said the window was broken.
Throw enough [ censored word]hit and hope it will stick!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 07:30:45 AM
Not Icabod's avoidance of the truth- there is no evidence that Kate and Gerry McCann ever said the window was broken.
Throw enough [ censored word]hit and hope it will stick!
I said six years ago before the case was archived what would happen..shame I didn't save the post. Amaral couldn't solve the case..so why not throw as much mud as possible...say the parents did it...and everyone will believe it..well I didn't fall for it.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 07:33:23 AM
Well ...the group are liars...which is not great.....but we all knew that........
...serriously....we all know they are lying.....
I guess it would not be so bad, were it not for the fact that a lovely sweet girl had not gone missing...
How can you speak for all of us..just shows how wrong you are... I don't think they have lied at all..and neither do a lot of people. Now amaral has been proved to be a liar in court...so I presume you must find him awful
You have believed too many lies yourself..and that's why all your conclusions are wrong
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: ferryman on November 08, 2013, 07:38:43 AM
Not Icabod's avoidance of the truth- there is no evidence that Kate and Gerry McCann ever said the window was broken.
Throw enough [ censored word]hit and hope it will stick!
True, but Gerry did express surprise that he was able to open the window from the outside, which might have led to an honestly held (but mistaken) assumption.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 08, 2013, 08:02:01 AM
True, but Gerry did express surprise that he was able to open the window from the outside, which might have led to an honestly held (but mistaken) assumption.
But dontcha know, any lack of truth is a lie ( unless your name is Amaral.)
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 08, 2013, 08:22:00 AM
But dontcha know, any lack of truth is a lie ( unless your name is Amaral.)
The analogy I always use is the shooting dead of Jean Paul de Menezes oin the London Underground.
Witnesses "saw" de Menezes wearing a heavyweight, knee-length coat with leads trailing underneath. He is supposed to have pole-vaulted barriers before sprinting into a carriage of the train, only to be pinned to the floor and shot.
The only true part was the last.
For the rest (revealed by analysis of CCTV footage of actual events), JP DeMenezes made a leisurely entrance to the station, wearing a light-weight denim jacket, stopped to buy a paper, boarded the train in an orthodox manner, was pinned to the floor and shot.
What price a reconstruction of uncovering the truth of that sequence of events?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 08:29:58 AM
Speaking for myself, I have no problem at all with new members ( or established members who are not familiar with the case ) asking as many questions as they wish
You don't have to reply to their questions, of course, ... you could, instead, politely, allow those of us who are prepared to reply, to do so
What you can't do, is to tell new members ( or those unfamiliar with the case ) that thier questions are tiresome and they should not be posing them
Admin will decide what is tolerated on this forum
I agree with Icabod. If you find answering new member's questions annoying, just don't. We were all new once and helping to dispel the myths is important.
I consider myself fairly well versed in this case, but it was only last week that I found out something I'd been innocently quoting as part of the PJ files was actually a note added to it by a forum member! If Carena hadn't taken the time to tell me that, I'd probably never have known. (thank you Carena)
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 08, 2013, 10:10:46 AM
I said six years ago before the case was archived what would happen..shame I didn't save the post. Amaral couldn't solve the case..so why not throw as much mud as possible...say the parents did it...and everyone will believe it..well I didn't fall for it.
Well six years down the road and you still don't understand how police investigations are carried out in Portugal and you still insist in the idea that Gonçalo Amaral ran the investigation all by himself.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 08, 2013, 10:44:48 AM
Well six years down the road and you still don't understand how police investigations are carried out in Portugal and you still insist in the idea that Gonçalo Amaral ran the investigation all by himself.
He was the Lead investigator in charge of the rest of the PJ team who were his subordinates. IMO It is not unreasonable to assume that it would be down to him to decide and co-ordinate which direction his investigatory team went in.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 10:55:48 AM
do you know for fact they didn't..if so please post that fact..thank you.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
"they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did"
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 08, 2013, 11:28:46 AM
do you know for fact they didn't..if so please post that fact..thank you.
Perhaps you should read through some of the threads on here where evidence has been provided that they didn't tell the truth.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 08, 2013, 11:45:25 AM
.... off topic deleted ....
Anyway, back to the pertinent points, as I see them.
In my opinion the McCanns have lied from beginning to end.
When Kate ran out of the apartment and raised the alarm, it was a show. That is not what you would do in that situation before you had more facts. She is a doctor so she understands that you do not immediately reach conclusions. Unless, of course, you have prior knowledge. In which case you might want someone/people to come to a particular conclusion, for whatever reason.
In my opinion, she was staging a show. And she has continued to do so. As has Gerry. Just watch some of the interviews - their body language and their use of language is dripping with symbolism, evasion and a host of other clues. It is staring you in the face. The Emperor has no clothes on.
At the beginning I actually had a lot of sympathy for them. I believed that their story and I felt they got a lot of flak about their babysitting arrangements.
However, as time has gone on, and as I have gained more knowledge about the case, I believe that Amaral came pretty close to the truth. Maybe not completely what happened, but he was a lot closer to the truth than the whole abduction theory with sightings all over the world. In any case, if someone had stolen Madeleine, as claimed by the parents, and she was still alive then presumably they would have changed her appearance - or they would keep her hidden. So all the 'sightings' are pretty ridiculous. Maybe right at the beginning - but even then the McCanns were not that interested - look through the police files, there is CCTV footage of a child that could have been Madeleine at a petrol station a few days after her disappearance and the police wanted Kate to come to the police station to see it. What was her reaction - she was irritated.
Now, why would she react like that? There is only one reason.
Amaral was framed - I certainly believe that. You can understand why that could and can happen when you are dealing with criminals who would prefer not to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Plus the whole mechanism behind them. Not that I am suggesting that the police are always squeaky clean, far from it. But in this case, I think Amaral is not the bad guy. But one can see why the McCann's would not be inviting him to their cocktail parties.
And, whatever else is true or not, the McCanns did expose their children to danger by leaving them alone at night without a babysitter. I presume this is how Madeleine was harmed although you cannot rule out someone losing their temper and striking out or a drug overdose/adverse reaction. Or even something more sinister. They are possibilities. The children were alone in an unlocked apartment. But then again, sometimes the danger is not from outside but from those who are close. A fact which cannot be disputed, unfortunately.
In fact, if you watch the account of what Amaral believes happened, which is widely available on the internet, you will see that he comes across as quite a measured person. He is a detective who has used his skills to reach a conclusion.
By contrast, the McCanns are all puff and bluster. Plus they have firmly ensconsed themselves in the victim role and are playing on public sympathy. Their arrogance is extraordinary.Well, I have used the term before and I will use it again - chutzpa - it is highly appropriate in this case.
The McCanns hired a massive team to arrange their PR. And the used public money in order to influence the media. These are facts that cannot be disputed.
The 'sightings' of Madeleine are, unfortunately,
I will certainly not be shedding any tears for the convicted child murderers Leonor and Joao Ciprriano. Even if that hadn't been convicted of the child's murder, they were neglectful and abusive towards an innocent child. Nor for their lawyer Correla who sounds completely nuts with his so-called 'psychic' powers.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 08, 2013, 11:54:21 AM
Anyway, back to the pertinent points, as I see them.
In my opinion the McCanns have lied from beginning to end.
When Kate ran out of the apartment and raised the alarm, it was a show. That is not what you would do in that situation before you had more facts. She is a doctor so she understands that you do not immediately reach conclusions. Unless, of course, you have prior knowledge. In which case you might want someone/people to come to a particular conclusion, for whatever reason.
In my opinion, she was staging a show. And she has continued to do so. As has Gerry. Just watch some of the interviews - their body language and their use of language is dripping with symbolism, evasion and a host of other clues. It is staring you in the face. The Emperor has no clothes on.
At the beginning I actually had a lot of sympathy for them. I believed that their story and I felt they got a lot of flak about their babysitting arrangements.
However, as time has gone on, and as I have gained more knowledge about the case, I believe that Amaral came pretty close to the truth. Maybe not completely what happened, but he was a lot closer to the truth than the whole abduction theory with sightings all over the world. In any case, if someone had stolen Madeleine, as claimed by the parents, and she was still alive then presumably they would have changed her appearance - or they would keep her hidden. So all the 'sightings' are pretty ridiculous. Maybe right at the beginning - but even then the McCanns were not that interested - look through the police files, there is CCTV footage of a child that could have been Madeleine at a petrol station a few days after her disappearance and the police wanted Kate to come to the police station to see it. What was her reaction - she was irritated.
Now, why would she react like that? There is only one reason.
Amaral was framed - I certainly believe that. You can understand why that could and can happen when you are dealing with criminals who would prefer not to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Plus the whole mechanism behind them. Not that I am suggesting that the police are always squeaky clean, far from it. But in this case, I think Amaral is not the bad guy. But one can see why the McCann's would not be inviting him to their cocktail parties.
And, whatever else is true or not, the McCanns did expose their children to danger by leaving them alone at night without a babysitter. I presume this is how Madeleine was harmed although you cannot rule out someone losing their temper and striking out or a drug overdose/adverse reaction. Or even something more sinister. They are possibilities. The children were alone in an unlocked apartment. But then again, sometimes the danger is not from outside but from those who are close. A fact which cannot be disputed, unfortunately.
In fact, if you watch the account of what Amaral believes happened, which is widely available on the internet, you will see that he comes across as quite a measured person. He is a detective who has used his skills to reach a conclusion.
By contrast, the McCanns are all puff and bluster. Plus they have firmly ensconsed themselves in the victim role and are playing on public sympathy. Their arrogance is extraordinary.Well, I have used the term before and I will use it again - chutzpa - it is highly appropriate in this case.
The McCanns hired a massive team to arrange their PR. And the used public money in order to influence the media. These are facts that cannot be disputed.
The 'sightings' of Madeleine are, unfortunately,
I will certainly not be shedding any tears for the convicted child murderers Leonor and Joao Ciprriano. Even if that hadn't been convicted of the child's murder, they were neglectful and abusive towards an innocent child. Nor for their lawyer Correla who sounds completely nuts with his so-called 'psychic' powers.
Excellent post.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 11:57:51 AM
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
"they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did"
Doesn't show anything of the kind..we would have to look at mrs fenns exact statement
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 01:04:24 PM
Anyway, back to the pertinent points, as I see them.
In my opinion the McCanns have lied from beginning to end.
When Kate ran out of the apartment and raised the alarm, it was a show. That is not what you would do in that situation before you had more facts. She is a doctor so she understands that you do not immediately reach conclusions. Unless, of course, you have prior knowledge. In which case you might want someone/people to come to a particular conclusion, for whatever reason.
In my opinion, she was staging a show. And she has continued to do so. As has Gerry. Just watch some of the interviews - their body language and their use of language is dripping with symbolism, evasion and a host of other clues. It is staring you in the face. The Emperor has no clothes on.
At the beginning I actually had a lot of sympathy for them. I believed that their story and I felt they got a lot of flak about their babysitting arrangements.
However, as time has gone on, and as I have gained more knowledge about the case, I believe that Amaral came pretty close to the truth. Maybe not completely what happened, but he was a lot closer to the truth than the whole abduction theory with sightings all over the world. In any case, if someone had stolen Madeleine, as claimed by the parents, and she was still alive then presumably they would have changed her appearance - or they would keep her hidden. So all the 'sightings' are pretty ridiculous. Maybe right at the beginning - but even then the McCanns were not that interested - look through the police files, there is CCTV footage of a child that could have been Madeleine at a petrol station a few days after her disappearance and the police wanted Kate to come to the police station to see it. What was her reaction - she was irritated.
Now, why would she react like that? There is only one reason.
Amaral was framed - I certainly believe that. You can understand why that could and can happen when you are dealing with criminals who would prefer not to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Plus the whole mechanism behind them. Not that I am suggesting that the police are always squeaky clean, far from it. But in this case, I think Amaral is not the bad guy. But one can see why the McCann's would not be inviting him to their cocktail parties.
And, whatever else is true or not, the McCanns did expose their children to danger by leaving them alone at night without a babysitter. I presume this is how Madeleine was harmed although you cannot rule out someone losing their temper and striking out or a drug overdose/adverse reaction. Or even something more sinister. They are possibilities. The children were alone in an unlocked apartment. But then again, sometimes the danger is not from outside but from those who are close. A fact which cannot be disputed, unfortunately.
In fact, if you watch the account of what Amaral believes happened, which is widely available on the internet, you will see that he comes across as quite a measured person. He is a detective who has used his skills to reach a conclusion.
By contrast, the McCanns are all puff and bluster. Plus they have firmly ensconsed themselves in the victim role and are playing on public sympathy. Their arrogance is extraordinary.Well, I have used the term before and I will use it again - chutzpa - it is highly appropriate in this case.
The McCanns hired a massive team to arrange their PR. And the used public money in order to influence the media. These are facts that cannot be disputed.
The 'sightings' of Madeleine are, unfortunately,
I will certainly not be shedding any tears for the convicted child murderers Leonor and Joao Ciprriano. Even if that hadn't been convicted of the child's murder, they were neglectful and abusive towards an innocent child. Nor for their lawyer Correla who sounds completely nuts with his so-called 'psychic' powers.
You can believe what you like.. I happen to believe you are wrong on many points...but its up to ypu
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 01:08:41 PM
Anyway, back to the pertinent points, as I see them.
In my opinion the McCanns have lied from beginning to end.
When Kate ran out of the apartment and raised the alarm, it was a show. That is not what you would do in that situation before you had more facts. She is a doctor so she understands that you do not immediately reach conclusions. Unless, of course, you have prior knowledge. In which case you might want someone/people to come to a particular conclusion, for whatever reason.
In my opinion, she was staging a show. And she has continued to do so. As has Gerry. Just watch some of the interviews - their body language and their use of language is dripping with symbolism, evasion and a host of other clues. It is staring you in the face. The Emperor has no clothes on.
At the beginning I actually had a lot of sympathy for them. I believed that their story and I felt they got a lot of flak about their babysitting arrangements.
However, as time has gone on, and as I have gained more knowledge about the case, I believe that Amaral came pretty close to the truth. Maybe not completely what happened, but he was a lot closer to the truth than the whole abduction theory with sightings all over the world. In any case, if someone had stolen Madeleine, as claimed by the parents, and she was still alive then presumably they would have changed her appearance - or they would keep her hidden. So all the 'sightings' are pretty ridiculous. Maybe right at the beginning - but even then the McCanns were not that interested - look through the police files, there is CCTV footage of a child that could have been Madeleine at a petrol station a few days after her disappearance and the police wanted Kate to come to the police station to see it. What was her reaction - she was irritated.
Now, why would she react like that? There is only one reason.
Amaral was framed - I certainly believe that. You can understand why that could and can happen when you are dealing with criminals who would prefer not to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Plus the whole mechanism behind them. Not that I am suggesting that the police are always squeaky clean, far from it. But in this case, I think Amaral is not the bad guy. But one can see why the McCann's would not be inviting him to their cocktail parties.
And, whatever else is true or not, the McCanns did expose their children to danger by leaving them alone at night without a babysitter. I presume this is how Madeleine was harmed although you cannot rule out someone losing their temper and striking out or a drug overdose/adverse reaction. Or even something more sinister. They are possibilities. The children were alone in an unlocked apartment. But then again, sometimes the danger is not from outside but from those who are close. A fact which cannot be disputed, unfortunately.
In fact, if you watch the account of what Amaral believes happened, which is widely available on the internet, you will see that he comes across as quite a measured person. He is a detective who has used his skills to reach a conclusion.
By contrast, the McCanns are all puff and bluster. Plus they have firmly ensconsed themselves in the victim role and are playing on public sympathy. Their arrogance is extraordinary.Well, I have used the term before and I will use it again - chutzpa - it is highly appropriate in this case.
The McCanns hired a massive team to arrange their PR. And the used public money in order to influence the media. These are facts that cannot be disputed.
The 'sightings' of Madeleine are, unfortunately,
I will certainly not be shedding any tears for the convicted child murderers Leonor and Joao Ciprriano. Even if that hadn't been convicted of the child's murder, they were neglectful and abusive towards an innocent child. Nor for their lawyer Correla who sounds completely nuts with his so-called 'psychic' powers.
What facts do you base that statement on...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 08, 2013, 01:14:21 PM
He was the Lead investigator in charge of the rest of the PJ team who were his subordinates. IMO It is not unreasonable to assume that it would be down to him to decide and co-ordinate which direction his investigatory team went in.
Why, in spite of being informed, do you go on pretending the MP has not the leading role in any investigation ? You don't have the excuse of ignorance any more.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 08, 2013, 01:17:11 PM
Not Icabod's avoidance of the truth- there is no evidence that Kate and Gerry McCann ever said the window was broken.
Throw enough [ censored word]hit and hope it will stick!
No, there's evidence. Or do you think that their own family and friends lied ? All those who spoke to the media had been individually called on the phone by the McCanns. There's a whole thread here about this topic. The rumour of abduction was only supported by the myth of the broken shutters. And everybody knows how rumours have a long life.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Carana on November 08, 2013, 01:24:05 PM
The analogy I always use is the shooting dead of Jean Paul de Menezes oin the London Underground.
Witnesses "saw" de Menezes wearing a heavyweight, knee-length coat with leads trailing underneath. He is supposed to have pole-vaulted barriers before sprinting into a carriage of the train, only to be pinned to the floor and shot.
The only true part was the last.
For the rest (revealed by analysis of CCTV footage of actual events), JP DeMenezes made a leisurely entrance to the station, wearing a light-weight denim jacket, stopped to buy a paper, boarded the train in an orthodox manner, was pinned to the floor and shot.
What price a reconstruction of uncovering the truth of that sequence of events?
Very valid point, Ferryman.
As a former poster was at pains to point out (I'm paraphrasing what I believe to have understood), it's the cross-referencing of all types of evidence and the analysis of the whole that helps to either dismiss certain lines of enquiry (or keep them on a back-burner) or to build a case.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 08, 2013, 01:25:12 PM
Why, in spite of being informed, do you go on pretending the MP has not the leading role in any investigation ? You don't have the excuse of ignorance any more.
IIRC The judge at the libel trial seems to think Amaral was in charge. She describes TdA as his No. 2 - and Ricardo Paiva describes himself as subordinate to Amaral. At least one of the witnesses describes Amaral as the person in charge (words to that effect) and was not challenged. If any of that is wrong I am happy to be corrected.
IMO Someone on the ground had to be in charge of the case - it stands to reason that someone in the team had to make the final decision on which direction it would be recommended that the investigation should go - otherwise if opinions differed and everyone was on a level footing they would never get anywhere. That's just common sense.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 08, 2013, 01:34:35 PM
Not Icabod's avoidance of the truth- there is no evidence that Kate and Gerry McCann ever said the window was broken.
Throw enough [ censored word]hit and hope it will stick!
Icab didnt write that the window was broken, they wrote, someone broke in through the window.....and yes at least KM is on official police record via one of her relatives saying the blind had been forced....which means exactly what Icab was referring to....someone breaking in...as you dont need to force your way out from inside...so I see no avoidance of any truth here by Icab...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 08, 2013, 01:36:56 PM
No, there's evidence. Or do you think that their own family and friends lied ? All those who spoke to the media had been individually called on the phone by the McCanns. There's a whole thread here about this topic. The rumour of abduction was only supported by the myth of the broken shutters. And everybody knows how rumours have a long life.
Please reference the evidence that the McCann's said that the window was broken.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 01:37:40 PM
Icab didnt write that the window was broken, they wrote, someone broke in through the window.....and yes at least KM is on official police record via one of her relatives saying the blind had been forced....which means exactly what Icab was referring to....someone breaking in...as you dont need to force your way out from inside...so I see no avoidance of any truth here by Icab...
If the blind had been forced up that does not necessarily indicate any damage...If you think of the police forcing a crowd back..that does not indicate damage
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 01:38:41 PM
If the blind had been forced up that does not necessarily indicate any damage...If you think of the police forcing a crowd back..that does not indicate damage
I was replying to Aiofes erroneous post....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 08, 2013, 03:25:18 PM
The newspapers reporting the friends and the family's claims about the broken shutters/window, in an obvious attempt to be as objective as possible, weren't all tabloids. Some of them rapidly mentioned in their articles John Hill saying there was no sign of breaking-in... But they put these 2 lines before the end of the article, a part readers read rarely. Tabloids take care not to tell lies. They dress up facts, that's different.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 08, 2013, 03:35:45 PM
IIRC The judge at the libel trial seems to think Amaral was in charge. She describes TdA as his No. 2 - and Ricardo Paiva describes himself as subordinate to Amaral. At least one of the witnesses describes Amaral as the person in charge (words to that effect) and was not challenged. If any of that is wrong I am happy to be corrected.
IMO Someone on the ground had to be in charge of the case - it stands to reason that someone in the team had to make the final decision on which direction it would be recommended that the investigation should go - otherwise if opinions differed and everyone was on a level footing they would never get anywhere. That's just common sense.
This is the MP's job, Benice. The team executes.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 03:53:45 PM
Please reference the evidence that the McCann's said that the window was broken.
The reference was to the shutter being forced, jemmied etc...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: ferryman on November 08, 2013, 04:00:49 PM
For me, the key point is that Tavares Almeida, who wrote the interim report, and relied on slip-shod journalism as his source for the scurrilous accusation against Kate's father that Mr Healy "confirmed" Kate and Gerry used sedatives with the children (Mr Healey did no such thing!), said nothing about forced shutters.
And Almeida thought the McCanns were guilty.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 08, 2013, 04:15:25 PM
For me, the key point is that Tavares Almeida, who wrote the interim report, and relied on slip-shod journalism as his source for the scurrilous accusation against Kate's father that Mr Healy "confirmed" Kate and Gerry used sedatives with the children (Mr Healey did no such thing!), said nothing about forced shutters.
And Almeida thought the McCanns were guilty.
Brian Healy, (Guardian 05 May 2007)
"Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone,"
For me, the key point is that Tavares Almeida, who wrote the interim report, and relied on slip-shod journalism as his source for the scurrilous accusation against Kate's father that Mr Healy "confirmed" Kate and Gerry used sedatives with the children (Mr Healey did no such thing!), said nothing about forced shutters.
And Almeida thought the McCanns were guilty.
Of course TdA said nothing about forced shutters, Ferryman, this wasn't the narrative for the PJ, but for the family/friends who were 3000 km away. How could the PJ be offered an obviously erroneous claim ? Now, for your peace of mind, I don't think that there was, behind the forced shutters narrative, an intention to have it released to the media by proxy (at least consciously).
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 08, 2013, 04:20:38 PM
Of course TdA said nothing about forced shutters, Ferryman, this wasn't the narrative for the PJ, but for the family/friends who were 3000 km away. How could the PJ be offered an obviously erroneous claim ? Now, for your peace of mind, I don't think that there was, behind the forced shutters narrative, an intention to have it released to the media by proxy (at least consciously).
So why was scurrilous and unfounded accusations about "sedative use" part of the "narrative" as you put it?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 08, 2013, 04:24:07 PM
The more I read these forums the more I despair about some off these arguments.
Evidence does not equal proof and conjecture does not equal evidence.
Proof is better than evidence and evidence is better than conjecture. If some of you understood that then these discussions would be a lot more productive and interesting.
So, on topic;
There is evidence that the McCanns said the window had been forced open. The statements from their friends and family are evidence that they said it. It doesn't prove they did but it is certainly evidence.
There is evidence that Madeline came to harm in the appartment. Again, its not proof, its evidence and that evidence comes from the sniffer dogs and other forensics.
However, nether of these are particularly good evidence. They certainly wouldn't stand on their own in court.
As for Madeline being abducted. Well, this is pure conjecture. I'm not saying she wasn't abducted but there is no evidence or proof. No one saw her being taken, no forensics exist for her being taken. Nothing. The only thing there is Kate saying she knows Madeline was taken (conjecture) and others saying they saw a girl being carried through the streets (proof only that people carry their kids through the streets in a holiday resort)
Its also worth pointing out, as I did on another thread, that forensics can be both evidence and it can be proof. depending upon the quality of the forensics. Finding human blood is evidence that Madeline was hurt. Finding her DNA would be proof that she was hurt.
So in this case there's bucket loads of conjecture, a hand full of evidence and zero proof.
So can people please try and post with this in mind because I'm really finding this bickering is putting me off reading half of the things posted.
There is evidence that Madeline came to harm in the apartment
A useful starting-point might be to educate yourself on what is evidence,
An even better follow-up might be to rid yourself of the misnomer "open-minded".
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benita on November 08, 2013, 04:33:15 PM
We don't know whos blood it was. It might have been hers, it might have been someones elses. Thats why its evidence and not proof!!!!
ETA:
Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Proof - evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
chill man!! ok so it was inconclusive ..not evidence nor proof same thing really ..
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 08, 2013, 04:36:13 PM
The Portugese police were baffled by some of the behaviours of the McCanns. For instance, when they arrived Kate and Gerry made strange gestures, as though praying. They also reported that Kate became irritated when they contacted her about a sighting at a nearby petrol station and they wanted her to go to the police station. She behaved in a way that suggested she had no hope of finding Madeleine.
The Portugese police were there. They saw the couple. They did not believe in the abduction theory. They found no evidence for it. They thought the McCanns acted strangely.
And they did. It's nuts to immediately assume your child has been abducted (by a paedophile, no less). There were many other possibilities for Madeleine not being in her bed - like wandering off. Mark Warner even had a 'lost child' procedure which they immediately put into place. So this had happened before.
It's strange to run out of an apartment where an abductor might be hiding, leaving two other children in there. That makes no sense. It's strange to make an immediate assumption about what had happened without considering other possibilities. It's strange to conclude that the one thing that you thought would not happen (abduction by a stranger) was the only thing that did happen. I mean, that is more than strange. It makes no sense at all. I'm sure it made no sense to the police either.
On the few occasions when I have found one of my children missing, the last thing I would do would be to start wailing and behaving hysterically. I became very focused on an outcome - the outcome of finding my child. No doubt the Portugese police found it quite extraordinary that the McCanns appeared to have developed telepathic insight into exactly what had happened to Madeleine.
She could have wandered off to find her parents. She could have gone to the creche or to another person's apartment. Or should could have been found by someone either in or out of the resort. Someone could have heard commotion in the apartment and gone inside to check everything was ok and maybe taken Madeleine out if she had hurt herself, for instance.
The McCanns were very quick to criticize the Portugese police......but perhaps this was more to do with the fact that they had been unable to pull the wool over their eyes with the abduction theory and Jane Tanner's sighting of a man carrying a sleeping child. They simply didn't find it credible.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benita on November 08, 2013, 04:37:51 PM
Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Proof - evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
There are indications she came to harm. There is no proof she came to harm. Its really not hard to understand. Well, obviously some of you do find it hard to understand.Proof > Evidence > Conjecture. Basic logic.
are you posting this as fact!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 08, 2013, 04:42:49 PM
I think they likened the police to Tweedledum and Tweedledee or something - I think that was Kate's description of the early police response. A lot of people went off searching for Madeleine that night but Kate and Gerry had other things on their mind that night and the ones that followed, what with lining up the world's media, hiring extradition lawyers and a reputation manager.
The Portugese police found that the massive media response hampered the enquiry as well it might. Things turned into a media circus very early on and it must have been a nightmare for them.
It must have been more than annoying for the McCanns and their friends to have their version of events not believed by the Portugese police. But why would they - it had more holes in it than a colander.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 08, 2013, 04:51:05 PM
And, as I have repeatedly posted, I also think it is beyond strange that the twins were not woken up. Firstly, to check they were okay (an abductor had been in the apartment, remember?) and had not been molested and secondly to ascertain whether they had been disturbed and had seen anything. An intruder might have disturbed them enough to wake them up. And in actual fact I am pretty sure it is reported that the twins did not wake up at all which is amazing when you consider the amount of commotion in that apartment once the alarm had been raised.
Why did they not wake up? Were they exceptionally heavy sleepers? If, as Kate later suggested, the abductor could have drugged Madeleine to facilitate an abduction, then presumably the abductor could also have drugged the twins, so why not get toxicology tests done? You would also most definitely want to rule out any molestation possibility for the twins but this does not seem to have occurred to Kate which again is incredibly odd.
So it is possible that the twins had been drugged but if not by an abductor then by whom?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benita on November 08, 2013, 04:54:26 PM
And, as I have repeatedly posted, I also think it is beyond strange that the twins were not woken up. Firstly, to check they were okay (an abductor had been in the apartment, remember?) and had not been molested and secondly to ascertain whether they had been disturbed and had seen anything. An intruder might have disturbed them enough to wake them up. And in actual fact I am pretty sure it is reported that the twins did not wake up at all which is amazing when you consider the amount of commotion in that apartment once the alarm had been raised.
Why did they not wake up? Were they exceptionally heavy sleepers? If, as Kate later suggested, the abductor could have drugged Madeleine to facilitate an abduction, then presumably the abductor could also have drugged the twins, so why not get toxicology tests done? You would also most definitely want to rule out any molestation possibility for the twins but this does not seem to have occurred to Kate which again is incredibly odd.
So it is possible that the twins had been drugged but if not by an abductor then by whom?
answer to the latter part of your post ..this has been done to death ...the twins were tested and no they were not drugged ...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: sadie on November 08, 2013, 04:57:05 PM
And, as I have repeatedly posted, I also think it is beyond strange that the twins were not woken up. Firstly, to check they were okay (an abductor had been in the apartment, remember?) and had not been molested and secondly to ascertain whether they had been disturbed and had seen anything. An intruder might have disturbed them enough to wake them up. And in actual fact I am pretty sure it is reported that the twins did not wake up at all which is amazing when you consider the amount of commotion in that apartment once the alarm had been raised.
Why did they not wake up? Were they exceptionally heavy sleepers? If, as Kate later suggested, the abductor could have drugged Madeleine to facilitate an abduction, then presumably the abductor could also have drugged the twins, so why not get toxicology tests done? You would also most definitely want to rule out any molestation possibility for the twins but this does not seem to have occurred to Kate which again is incredibly odd.
So it is possible that the twins had been drugged but if not by an abductor then by whom?
Simples j.rob.
Quite possible that they slept thru naturally. Some kids do.
But if they were drugged to a lesser extent than Madeleine, then it could have happened via a cup of hot chocolate or in a sarnie or in a sweetie at their teatime.
Madeleine was so tired that she had to be carried back to 5A. Now that seems to me to point to a drug. What do you think
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 08, 2013, 05:03:07 PM
Quite possible that they slept thru naturally. Some kids do.
But if they were drugged to a lesser extent than Madeleine, then it could have happened via a cup of hot chocolate or in a sarnie or in a sweetie at their teatime.
Madeleine was so tired that she had to be carried back to 5A. Now that seems to me to point to a drug. What do you think
So are you saying the 'abductor' entered the apartment before they had tea, drugged the food & drinks (which the abductor somehow knew the children were going to consume) and then left the apartment to return later & abduct Madeleine?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: sadie on November 08, 2013, 05:13:42 PM
So are you saying the 'abductor' entered the apartment before they had tea, drugged the food & drinks (which the abductor somehow knew the children were going to consume) and then left the apartment to return later & abduct Madeleine?
NO i am NOT saying that at all.
Haven't you botherede to read any of the PJ or Rog Statements?
It ios quite clear from them that the kids had their tea at the outside tapas restaurant and that Madeleine dropped so tired that they had to carry her the 70 odd metres back to 5A.
It is also quite clear from the statements that after bathing, the children usually went in the evening, in their jimjams, for a last play together at the play area near the tapas. That night they were too tired to go.
I think it quite probable that someone at the tapas restaurant slipped some drugs in somehow. Into the hot chocolate?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 05:14:04 PM
Quite possible that they slept thru naturally. Some kids do.
But if they were drugged to a lesser extent than Madeleine, then it could have happened via a cup of hot chocolate or in a sarnie or in a sweetie at their teatime.
Madeleine was so tired that she had to be carried back to 5A. Now that seems to me to point to a drug. What do you think
children this age will often fall into a very deep sleep from which it is difficult to wake them. Particularly when on holiday and have played all day and are shattered. absolutely not in the slightest suspicious to me
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 05:18:27 PM
I think the forum risks being spoilt by new posters who post long posts of what is in my opinion absolute tripe. in the past it has always been the practice that posters should be able to back up what they say with evidence but this now seems not to be the case.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Lyall on November 08, 2013, 05:20:48 PM
children this age will often fall into a very deep sleep from which it is difficult to wake them. Particularly when on holiday and have played all day and are shattered. absolutely not in the slightest suspicious to me
It's possible people only mention it because the children's own father did so too.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 05:21:01 PM
The Portugese police were baffled by some of the behaviours of the McCanns. For instance, when they arrived Kate and Gerry made strange gestures, as though praying. They also reported that Kate became irritated when they contacted her about a sighting at a nearby petrol station and they wanted her to go to the police station. She behaved in a way that suggested she had no hope of finding Madeleine.
The Portugese police were there. They saw the couple. They did not believe in the abduction theory. They found no evidence for it. They thought the McCanns acted strangely.
And they did. It's nuts to immediately assume your child has been abducted (by a paedophile, no less). There were many other possibilities for Madeleine not being in her bed - like wandering off. Mark Warner even had a 'lost child' procedure which they immediately put into place. So this had happened before.
It's strange to run out of an apartment where an abductor might be hiding, leaving two other children in there. That makes no sense. It's strange to make an immediate assumption about what had happened without considering other possibilities. It's strange to conclude that the one thing that you thought would not happen (abduction by a stranger) was the only thing that did happen. I mean, that is more than strange. It makes no sense at all. I'm sure it made no sense to the police either.
On the few occasions when I have found one of my children missing, the last thing I would do would be to start wailing and behaving hysterically. I became very focused on an outcome - the outcome of finding my child. No doubt the Portugese police found it quite extraordinary that the McCanns appeared to have developed telepathic insight into exactly what had happened to Madeleine.
She could have wandered off to find her parents. She could have gone to the creche or to another person's apartment. Or should could have been found by someone either in or out of the resort. Someone could have heard commotion in the apartment and gone inside to check everything was ok and maybe taken Madeleine out if she had hurt herself, for instance.
The McCanns were very quick to criticize the Portugese police......but perhaps this was more to do with the fact that they had been unable to pull the wool over their eyes with the abduction theory and Jane Tanner's sighting of a man carrying a sleeping child. They simply didn't find it credible.
I am asking again... do you have any evidence of this or do you feel you can post any rubbish and claim its true
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 08, 2013, 05:31:44 PM
Op probably thought the dogs were evidence but not proof..hes wrong. Our dog expert martin grime said that the dogs responses had no evidential value..the clue is in the word evidential OP...Ive been talking about the difference between evidence and proof for years
You don't know nothing. Let's finish that false statement shall we "No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." Martin Grime
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 06:55:51 PM
You don't know nothing. Let's finish that false statement shall we "No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." Martin Grime
That's called a double negative and means I know something
I know the whole quote... the alerts were not confirmed..fact.. therefore have no evidential value
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 07:00:34 PM
Open minded has gone and so are the inappropriate posts.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 08, 2013, 07:00:40 PM
To be honest Im sick of posters making posts that are lies and then getting upset when I ask for evidence. this forum is going down the pan because posters are able to post absolute drivel which they cant back up. You cant use lies to get to the truth
Sometimes you can come off as a little abrupt davel. Maybe we should all make a special effort to not upset new posters?
Maybe if next time someone new posts 'rubbish' or drivel, you could say something like 'I respect your opinion, however I would like to point out that x y and z are not factually accurate, a b and c are, and here is a link for you to check for yourself'
What do you think?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 08, 2013, 07:05:41 PM
I think the forum risks being spoilt by new posters who post long posts of what is in my opinion absolute tripe. in the past it has always been the practice that posters should be able to back up what they say with evidence but this now seems not to be the case.
Were you never a newbie Dave? Let and let live mate eh? 8(0(*
After all, its up to mature members to set an example.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 07:06:08 PM
Sometimes you can come off as a little abrupt davel. Maybe we should all make a special effort to not upset new posters?
Maybe if next time someone new posts 'rubbish' or drivel, you could say something like 'I respect your opinion, however I would like to point out that x y and z are not factually accurate, a b and c are, and here is a link for you to check for yourself'
What do you think?
I didn't make either of those comments to OP in fact I was quite polite. I have made those comments to posters who have posted facts and when I have questioned them or asked for cites I have been ignored. Please see if you can get your facts right before criticising me. I was polite to Op and merely said there was no evidence that maddie came to harm in the apt . He responded by calling me stupid..and then we had the rest. as I said...best if you get your facts right before you criticise me
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 07:07:20 PM
Sometimes you can come off as a little abrupt davel. Maybe we should all make a special effort to not upset new posters?
Maybe if next time someone new posts 'rubbish' or drivel, you could say something like 'I respect your opinion, however I would like to point out that x y and z are not factually accurate, a b and c are, and here is a link for you to check for yourself'
What do you think?
Was that post after I was called a f..ing retard by a new poster who you are defending.. It is typical that you have no criticism for the poster , but do have for me..speaks volumes
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 08, 2013, 07:12:56 PM
Was that post after I was called a f..ing retard by a new poster who you are defending.. It is typical that you have no criticism for the poster , but do have for me..speaks volumes
I don't support anyone using that kind of language on a open forum. I do understand his frustration though.
I wasn't meaning to be critical of you.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 08, 2013, 07:14:42 PM
Was that post after I was called a f..ing retard by a new poster who you are defending.. It is typical that you have no criticism for the poster , but do have for me..speaks volumes
I'm afraid I missed that little spat, but I guess he only called it as he saw it. Obviously now an ex-member, so we shall hear no more from him.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 08, 2013, 07:17:19 PM
So why was it Amaral who was removed from the case?
He said, allegedly off the record, in an interview to the Diario de Noticias that his British colleagues (the LC police officers) were investigating informations elaborated and provided by the McCanns, forgetting that they were arguidos. The decision to remove him was obviously politically correct.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 08, 2013, 09:50:00 PM
j.rob They also reported that Kate became irritated when they contacted her about a sighting at a nearby petrol station and they wanted her to go to the police station. She behaved in a way that suggested she had no hope of finding Madeleine.
I am asking again... do you have any evidence of this or do you feel you can post any rubbish and claim its true
Mrs McCann was scared, being in an accelerating car. I can understand that. I like to drive fast (when needed), but I hate to be driven fast. However, in dramatic circumstances, one would think that the idea of Madeleine being found would have overwhelmed her and her fears.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 08, 2013, 10:07:56 PM
Open minded got a bit hot under the collar earlier today & got banned.
Wasn't it enough ? No comments should be the rule. Let me explain. Nobody likes to be banned, it's humiliating. I was banned from two forums (for being neither pro nor anti or may be for being both !). One stopped existing for years, the other still exists and... copies my trial reports ! Lol !
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 08, 2013, 11:37:58 PM
My opinions on the case are mostly based on the Portugese police reports plus also based on the reactions of the McCanns.
The Portugese police reported that the McCanns both made a very strange gesture - as in bowing down as if in prayer, when they arrived. There is no particular reason for them to have lied about this. They had just arrived in a sleepy little village and a child had wandered off somewhere, as far as they were concerned.
Who cares whether I am a new member, an old member or any other member? I am giving an opinion based on my reading of the files plus my observations of the behaviour of the McCanns.
My opinions have been informed by the files released by the Portugese police, partly. I find their 'evidence' much more persuasive than the McCanns evidence which is, frankly, non-existent.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 09, 2013, 09:31:25 AM
Open Minded asked for his account to be deleted as he felt members were not discussing issues in the spirit of proper debate.
This post is for information only and will be removed shortly. Do not respond to this post. TY
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 09:57:42 AM
My opinions on the case are mostly based on the Portugese police reports plus also based on the reactions of the McCanns.
The Portugese police reported that the McCanns both made a very strange gesture - as in bowing down as if in prayer, when they arrived. There is no particular reason for them to have lied about this. They had just arrived in a sleepy little village and a child had wandered off somewhere, as far as they were concerned.
Who cares whether I am a new member, an old member or any other member? I am giving an opinion based on my reading of the files plus my observations of the behaviour of the McCanns.
My opinions have been informed by the files released by the Portugese police, partly. I find their 'evidence' much more persuasive than the McCanns evidence which is, frankly, non-existent.
What they did was bowed down and prayed...nothing starnge
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 09:59:22 AM
Mrs McCann was scared, being in an accelerating car. I can understand that. I like to drive fast (when needed), but I hate to be driven fast. However, in dramatic circumstances, one would think that the idea of Madeleine being found would have overwhelmed her and her fears.
I have asked for evidence of this claim several times and none has been given I have read kates account in her book and fro this can quite understand why she reacted and spoke the way she did
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 10:03:02 AM
Mrs McCann was scared, being in an accelerating car. I can understand that. I like to drive fast (when needed), but I hate to be driven fast. However, in dramatic circumstances, one would think that the idea of Madeleine being found would have overwhelmed her and her fears.
Below are Kate's and Amarals descriptions of that event. .
Which version is most likely to be true - considering this was the very next day after Madeleine had disappeared and hopes would still be relatively high that she would be found - and also considering that Amaral wasn't there to see how they reacted.
From Kates book
It was seven thirty by the time one of the PJ officers drove us away from the polilce station. Angela Morado came with us. Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he'd been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn't allowed to tell us why. Already driving at quite a scary speed, he suddenly swung the car into a U turn, floored the accelerator and drove us at a life-threatening 120mph plus back towards Portimao. I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleline been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.
Back at the police station we endured at least another ten minutes of torture in the waiting area before somebody showed us a photograh,clearly taken from CCTV, of a blond child with a woman in a petrol-station shop. We weren't told anything about this, just asked whether the little girl was Madeleine. . She wasn't. And that was that. Again we were sent on our way, utterly devastated.
From Amarals book
FIRST EYE WITNESS STATEMENTS; KATE HEALY'S SURPRISING REACTION
Madeleine's parents are already back in Vila da Luz when we receive photos taken on an area of the motorway: you can make out the figure of a little girl, who looks like Madeleine, accompanied by a couple. These images come from a CCTV camera on the motorway linking Lagos to the Spanish border. The McCanns are asked to come to Portimao in order to proceed to an identification. It's the end of the day. Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back. The identification turns out negative. End quote
---------------- IMO opinion in those circumstances - to call them back like that with no explanation, even if it was unintentional, bordered on the sadistic. It would appear that even the driver thought something extremely important had happened - hence the speed at which he drove them back to the police station imo.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 10:11:52 AM
Below are Kate's and Amarals descriptions of that event. .
Which version is most likely to be true - considering this was the very next day after Madeleine had disappeared and hopes would still be relatively high that she would be found - and also considering that Amaral wasn't there to see how they reacted.
From Kates book
It was seven thirty by the time one of the PJ officers drove us away from the polilce station. Angela Morado came with us. Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he'd been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn't allowed to tell us why. Already driving at quite a scary speed, he suddenly swung the car into a U turn, floored the accelerator and drove us at a life-threatening 120mph plus back towards Portimao. I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleline been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.
Back at the police station we endured at least another ten minutes of torture in the waiting area before somebody showed us a photograh,clearly taken from CCTV, of a blond child with a woman in a petrol-station shop. We weren't told anything about this, just asked whether the little girl was Madeleine. . She wasn't. And that was that. Again we were sent on our way, utterly devastated.
From Amarals book
FIRST EYE WITNESS STATEMENTS; KATE HEALY'S SURPRISING REACTION
Madeleine's parents are already back in Vila da Luz when we receive photos taken on an area of the motorway: you can make out the figure of a little girl, who looks like Madeleine, accompanied by a couple. These images come from a CCTV camera on the motorway linking Lagos to the Spanish border. The McCanns are asked to come to Portimao in order to proceed to an identification. It's the end of the day. Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back. The identification turns out negative. End quote
---------------- IMO opinion in those circumstances - to call them back like that with no explanation, even if it was unintentional, bordered on the sadistic. It would appear that even the driver thought something extremely important had happened - hence the speed at which he drove them back to the police station imo.
Well done for sorting out these two conflicting accounts of the incident. it shows the truth as told by Kate and the misinterpretation by amamral.. Its a shame people want to peddle false accounts of incidents like this..If you want to find the truth about what happened to maddie....its no good starting with lies, as many seem to do unfortunately
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 09, 2013, 10:27:48 AM
Well done for sorting out these two conflicting accounts of the incident. it shows the truth as told by Kate and the misinterpretation by amamral.. Its a shame people want to peddle false accounts of incidents like this..If you want to find the truth about what happened to maddie....its no good starting with lies, as many seem to do unfortunately
Thankyou Davel. Note the nasty innuendo in this following extract from his account. Also note the use of the word 'WE' - imo to give the reader the impression that he personally witnessed their reactions.
Quote Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back
Unquote
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Lace on November 09, 2013, 02:03:29 PM
Thankyou Davel. Note the nasty innuendo in this following extract from his account. Also note the use of the word 'WE' - imo to give the reader the impression that he personally witnessed their reactions.
Quote Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back
Unquote
I noticed that too Benice and the 'as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back' in other words he is saying that he believed they knew she was dead and not coming back.
Twisted for the reader.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 02:05:17 PM
I noticed that too Benice and the 'as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back' in other words he is saying that he believed they knew she was dead and not coming back.
Twisted for the reader.
It is on misrememberings and distortions like this that the libel case will be decided.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 02:10:50 PM
Very interesting. I find Amaral's account more convincing than Kate's account. He noted that she appeared to already have prior knowledge that her daughter would not be coming back.
I read her book - this extract is interesting in terms of the language used for dramatic effect. 'I cannot overstate how terrifying this was'.........but why would anything now be more terrifying than the knowledge (according to Kate) that your daughter had been abducted by a paedophile? I'm not sure why this incident in the car would be so terrifying...surely there would be some hope?
'The McCanns are asked to come to an identification'........that suggests to me that the police or someone had found a child who looked like Madeleine.....so surely Kate would be holding out some hope........
Notice the words she used after the identification: 'and that was that'. If you were a mother whose child had recently gone missing and you were called at a relatively early stage to identify a child that might be yours, there would be a flow of emotions surrounding this event. But no - 'that was that'. Sure, she throws in the 'utterly devasted' phrase but it sounds like an empty phrase, there for effect.
I find Amaral's version of events more authentic: 'we were somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back.'
This would be consistent with a mother that had some prior knowledge of what had really happened.
Amaral is a detective - it's his job to observe how people behave. He made an observation about finding her behaviour inconsistent with a mother who is trying to locate a mssing child.
Kate and Gerry's behaviour was extraordinary from the word go. And the bowing incident is weird. Again, it suggests some kind of supplication or atonement, as though they had some prior knowledge of what had happened.
I'm neither pro Amaral or anti McCann. I am just laying out my opinion based on my observations of what I have read and seen. I simply do not find the McCann's convincing and the media circus around the 'sightings' is verging on offensive. How would she be recognizable, apart from anything else?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 02:12:37 PM
Very interesting. I find Amaral's account more convincing than Kate's account. He noted that she appeared to already have prior knowledge that her daughter would not be coming back.
I read her book - this extract is interesting in terms of the language used for dramatic effect. 'I cannot overstate how terrifying this was'.........but why would anything now be more terrifying than the knowledge (according to Kate) that your daughter had been abducted by a paedophile? I'm not sure why this incident in the car would be so terrifying...surely there would be some hope?
'The McCanns are asked to come to an identification'........that suggests to me that the police or someone had found a child who looked like Madeleine.....so surely Kate would be holding out some hope........
Notice the words she used after the identification: 'and that was that'. If you were a mother whose child had recently gone missing and you were called at a relatively early stage to identify a child that might be yours, there would be a flow of emotions surrounding this event. But no - 'that was that'. Sure, she throws in the 'utterly devasted' phrase but it sounds like an empty phrase, there for effect.
I find Amaral's version of events more authentic: 'we were somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back.'
This would be consistent with a mother that had some prior knowledge of what had really happened.
Amaral is a detective - it's his job to observe how people behave. He made an observation about finding her behaviour inconsistent with a mother who is trying to locate a mssing child.
Kate and Gerry's behaviour was extraordinary from the word go. And the bowing incident is weird. Again, it suggests some kind of supplication or atonement, as though they had some prior knowledge of what had happened.
I'm neither pro Amaral or anti McCann. I am just laying out my opinion based on my observations of what I have read and seen. I simply do not find the McCann's convincing and the media circus around the 'sightings' is verging on offensive. How would she be recognizable, apart from anything else?
I suppose what it comes down to is that people with nasty minds have nasty thoughts!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 09, 2013, 02:18:02 PM
Below are Kate's and Amarals descriptions of that event. .
Which version is most likely to be true - considering this was the very next day after Madeleine had disappeared and hopes would still be relatively high that she would be found - and also considering that Amaral wasn't there to see how they reacted.
From Kates book
It was seven thirty by the time one of the PJ officers drove us away from the polilce station. Angela Morado came with us. Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he'd been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn't allowed to tell us why. Already driving at quite a scary speed, he suddenly swung the car into a U turn, floored the accelerator and drove us at a life-threatening 120mph plus back towards Portimao. I cannot overstate how terrifying this was. Had Madeleline been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth.
Back at the police station we endured at least another ten minutes of torture in the waiting area before somebody showed us a photograh,clearly taken from CCTV, of a blond child with a woman in a petrol-station shop. We weren't told anything about this, just asked whether the little girl was Madeleine. . She wasn't. And that was that. Again we were sent on our way, utterly devastated.
From Amarals book
FIRST EYE WITNESS STATEMENTS; KATE HEALY'S SURPRISING REACTION
Madeleine's parents are already back in Vila da Luz when we receive photos taken on an area of the motorway: you can make out the figure of a little girl, who looks like Madeleine, accompanied by a couple. These images come from a CCTV camera on the motorway linking Lagos to the Spanish border. The McCanns are asked to come to Portimao in order to proceed to an identification. It's the end of the day. Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back. The identification turns out negative. End quote
---------------- IMO opinion in those circumstances - to call them back like that with no explanation, even if it was unintentional, bordered on the sadistic. It would appear that even the driver thought something extremely important had happened - hence the speed at which he drove them back to the police station imo.
Poor little Kate didn't have a mouth to ask if, as she wrote, she was not informed??! Poor excuses for obnoxious behaviour that had been revealed long before.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 02:20:34 PM
Presumably, the police were trying to respond with urgency to the possibility that Madeleine had been found, hence the breakneck speed. They were feeling under pressure.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 09, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
Presumably, the police were trying to respond with urgency to the possibility that Madeleine had been found, hence the breakneck speed. They were feeling under pressure.
Something that Mrs. McCann was not, according with her written words. She only felt pressure about her own safety. As always.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 02:28:44 PM
Indeed. Why would been driven by police to an identification of your potentially missing child be more terrifying than discovering that your child had been abducted by a paedophile (as believed by the McCanns despite an absence of evidence?
'People with nasty minds have nasty thoughts'.......I am pondering on that phrase..........it appears to be quite apt in this particular case........
It's interesting how people eventually hang themselves with their own words.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 09, 2013, 02:30:52 PM
Well done for sorting out these two conflicting accounts of the incident. it shows the truth as told by Kate and the misinterpretation by amamral.. Its a shame people want to peddle false accounts of incidents like this..If you want to find the truth about what happened to maddie....its no good starting with lies, as many seem to do unfortunately
No, Davel, it doesn't "show the truth as told by Mrs McCann and misinterpretation by Mr Amaral". The only common fact is that Mrs McCann was scared by the accelerating car. You have no evidence to assume that this was deliberate "torture" as suggested by Mrs McCann. From what I know of the Portuguese and their absolute adoration for kids, I very much doubt that the speed was intended to frighten the parents. I think they thought they found Madeleine and the speed betrayed that hope.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 02:40:46 PM
There's another miconception about this case - that doctors are over-anxious about their childrens' safety. On the contrary, my parents were doctors and they most definitley were not over-anxious.
Quite the opposite. They were incredibly lax about our health and safety - verging on the point of neglect, actually. We were the kids running around with no shoes on at 11pm.
In actual fact, I am often astounded by how cavalier medical professionals can be about other people's health and safety. I suppose it is because they are dealing with sick or injured people (or worried well) all day so there is a risk of complacency.
They are worried about their own health, though, and make sure they get the best treatment. That has been my observation.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 09, 2013, 02:41:49 PM
Wawwww
That's news for me: "doctor's thoughts"!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 09, 2013, 02:44:35 PM
Medical staff are usually less hung up about bodies than general members of the public for obvious reasons. They are also freer from many societal taboos about speech. Additionally they often share a rather dour graveside type humour to discomfort, loss, injury and death ("I'm not here to f..king enjoy myself!") and use irony quite freely.
They are also freer from many societal taboos about speech.
While the McCanns oppose freedom of it.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 02:44:44 PM
There's another miconception about this case - that doctors are over-anxious about their childrens' safety. On the contrary, my parents were doctors and they most definitley were not over-anxious.
Quite the opposite. They were incredibly lax about our health and safety - verging on the point of neglect, actually. We were the kids running around with no shoes on at 11pm.
In actual fact, I am often astounded by how cavalier medical professionals can be about other people's health and safety. I suppose it is because they are dealing with sick or injured people (or worried well) all day so there is a risk of complacency.
They are worried about their own health, though, and make sure they get the best treatment. That has been my observation.
There is definitely a class issue here. Educated professionals tend to take more risks with children than less educated people. This is partly because better educated people tend to live in safer areas, and partly a matter of social attitudes.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 02:48:06 PM
They are also freer from many societal taboos about speech.
While the McCanns oppose freedom of it.
When have the McCanns opposed Freedom of Speech?
The right to Free Speech ends at the legal boundary of Defamation unless a defence is available. The Express Group and Tony Bennett were well beyond thos limits and suffered accordingly.
Where do you get the idea that the McCanns have been against free speech.
They have been advised to leave the snake pit fora alone, but may move on Twitter shortly, but this is their right under the law. Free speech is not totally free- at some point it becomes a legal problem for the author.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 09, 2013, 02:49:06 PM
There is definitely a class issue here. Educated professionals tend to take more risks with children than less educated people. This is partly because better educated people tend to live in safer areas, and partly a matter of social attitudes.
The question is not about taking risks with the children, it's about lying about what happened to them.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 09, 2013, 02:51:22 PM
The right to Free Speech ends at the legal boundary of Defamation unless a defence is available. The Express Group and Tony Bennett were well beyond thos limits and suffered accordingly.
Where do you get the idea that the McCanns have been against free speech.
They have been advised to leave the snake pit fora alone, but may move on Twitter shortly, but this is their right under the law. Free speech is not totally free- at some point it becomes a legal problem for the author.
When have the McCanns opposed Freedom of Speech?
The former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral said today that it was a "victory for democracy" - the decision of the Supreme Court to allow distribution of his book "The Truth of the Lie" about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
"This decision was a victory for democracy. What was at issue was freedom of speech,"
"From that couple, I already expect everything. Nonetheless, if in fact they are looking for their daughter, it is not in the Portuguese civil courts that they will find her"
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id347.html
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 02:53:23 PM
The question is not about taking risks with the children, it's about lying about what happened to them.
On that topic, education is certainly an issue. See poor Shannon Mathews' mum copy catting so ridiculously Mrs McCann with a teddy bear !
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 02:53:29 PM
Again - I have to ponder on the Kate's use of words in that particular context. 'Torture' is an incredibly emotive word. I just wonder why she has used that word at this particular point. For instance, the detectives told her that they wanted her to come to the police station to identify a child that might be hers.
At that point, trying to put myself into the situation where my child had gone missing and I did not know what had happened (although Kate, mysteriously, appeared to have reached a conclusion) I think I would be experiencing some hope. I would probably temper that with realism (not wanting to get hopes too high). Would it be 'torture' waiting to identify what might be your child? I'm not sure.....surely the 'torture' would be afterwards, for instance, if you had got your hopes too high.
And, still, why would that be more 'torture' than believing that your child had been abducted by a paedophile?
And now, I come back to ponder on Kate's own phrase: 'people with dirty minds have dirty thoughts'. I cannot ever imagine using that phrase or even really thinking it.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 09, 2013, 02:55:54 PM
On that topic, education is certainly an issue. See poor Shannon Mathews' mum copy catting so ridiculously Mrs McCann with a teddy bear !
The McCann only have education in a formal sense, as they graduated from University. In social terms they are at the level of that Mathews woman. And I would risk that morally they are even lower (my opinion).
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 09, 2013, 02:59:19 PM
Again - I have to ponder on the Kate's use of words in that particular context. 'Torture' is an incredibly emotive word. I just wonder why she has used that word at this particular point. For instance, the detectives told her that they wanted her to come to the police station to identify a child that might be hers.
At that point, trying to put myself into the situation where my child had gone missing and I did not know what had happened (although Kate, mysteriously, appeared to have reached a conclusion) I think I would be experiencing some hope. I would probably temper that with realism (not wanting to get hopes too high). Would it be 'torture' waiting to identify what might be your child? I'm not sure.....surely the 'torture' would be afterwards, for instance, if you had got your hopes too high.
And, still, why would that be more 'torture' than believing that your child had been abducted by a paedophile?
And now, I come back to ponder on Kate's own phrase: 'people with dirty minds have dirty thoughts'. I cannot ever imagine using that phrase or even really thinking it.
After all these years you should be used to the extremes of language used in the context of the McCann case. We now are used to the media adjectives where the McCann were frequently "in rage", "anger", "devastated", etc, etc...so "torture" is just a small word to describe their "overwhelming" state of mind, poor souls!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 03:02:48 PM
And, still, why would that be more 'torture' than believing that your child had been abducted by a paedophile?
And now, I come back to ponder on Kate's own phrase: 'people with dirty minds have dirty thoughts'. I cannot ever imagine using that phrase or even really thinking it.
Would you stay at home thinking a predator might have left your child 500m away, hurt, terrified and waiting for the sound of mum's or dad's voice ? You wouldn't use such a phrase because it has no meaning whatsoever.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 03:02:53 PM
Like immediately assuming your daughter has been taken be paedophiles rather than wandered off to find you?
Its called mothers intuition...im amazed at the tiny details posters use to build up there bigger picture
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 03:04:18 PM
But I agree about getting de-railed on the issue of taking risks. I always cut the McCanns a lot of flak for their babysitting arrangements (although they were extraordinarily relaxed about leaving such young children for quite long periods of time).
But even on this issue, they get themselves into a bit of a clef stick. Because you could argue that what they did (leaving children alone without adult supervision) exposed them to the risk of abduction, among other risks.
But the McCann's are quoted as saying that abduction was 'incredibly rare' the 'last thing on their mind'.......which is fair enough. It is very rare. Children are more likely to come to harm/disappear for other reasons. I do agree with them on that score.
So why did abduction go from being the last thing on their minds to the first thing on their minds?
People with dirty minds have dirty thoughts?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 09, 2013, 03:04:37 PM
Its called mothers intuition...im amazed at the tiny details posters use to build up there bigger picture
K: I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding. and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html
I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken,( by paedophiles) you know.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Luz on November 09, 2013, 03:06:33 PM
But I agree about getting de-railed on the issue of taking risks. I always cut the McCanns a lot of flak for their babysitting arrangements (although they were extraordinarily relaxed about leaving such young children for quite long periods of time).
But even on this issue, they get themselves into a bit of a clef stick. Because you could argue that what they did (leaving children alone without adult supervision) exposed them to the risk of abduction, among other risks.
But the McCann's are quoted as saying that abduction was 'incredibly rare' the 'last thing on their mind'.......which is fair enough. It is very rare. Children are more likely to come to harm/disappear for other reasons. I do agree with them on that score.
So why did abduction go from being the last thing on their minds to the first thing on their minds?
People with dirty minds have dirty thoughts?
Since 2007 I keep saying that the so easily announced "neglect" is an alibi for something more serious.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 03:10:43 PM
Davel, don't make me laugh! Mother's intuition that your child has been abducted by a paedophile when abduction was 'the last thing on your mind'.
The McCanns' minds are curious little beasts - they know things before they have happened. They don't know things when they have happened.
'I knew straight away she had been taken'. Yes, I think this statement should be taken at face value. Kate DID know she had been taken - but by who?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 09, 2013, 03:13:25 PM
Davel, don't make me laugh! Mother's intuition that your child has been abducted by a paedophile when abduction was 'the last thing on your mind'.
The McCanns' minds are curious little beasts - they know things before they have happened. They don't know things when they have happened.
'I knew straight away she had been taken'. Yes, I think this statement should be taken at face value. Kate DID know she had been taken - but by who?
Your dislike of the McCanns is getting in the way of you making logical conclusions...you say both your parents were doctors and reading between the lines did not give you the care you may have expected...see your previous post...is this clouding your judgement
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 09, 2013, 03:19:38 PM
Again - I have to ponder on the Kate's use of words in that particular context. 'Torture' is an incredibly emotive word. I just wonder why she has used that word at this particular point. For instance, the detectives told her that they wanted her to come to the police station to identify a child that might be hers.
At that point, trying to put myself into the situation where my child had gone missing and I did not know what had happened (although Kate, mysteriously, appeared to have reached a conclusion) I think I would be experiencing some hope. I would probably temper that with realism (not wanting to get hopes too high). Would it be 'torture' waiting to identify what might be your child? I'm not sure.....surely the 'torture' would be afterwards, for instance, if you had got your hopes too high.
And, still, why would that be more 'torture' than believing that your child had been abducted by a paedophile?
And now, I come back to ponder on Kate's own phrase: 'people with dirty minds have dirty thoughts'. I cannot ever imagine using that phrase or even really thinking it.
But that is the whole point - the police did NOT tell them why they wanted them to go back to the police station - hence Kates words:-
Quote Had Madeleline been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? Gerry and I clung on to each other for dear life. I was crying hysterically and praying for all I was worth. Unquote
How anyone can interpret that as she was 'annoyed' and that she didn't expect her daughter to be found is incomprehensible to me. It's obvious she was hoping that Madeleine had been found - and having to wait even longer at the police station to find out would be torture - every second would seem like hours. Anyone who can't understand that must be incapable of putting themselves in someone else's shoes IMO.
Amaral wasn't there - so was in no position to make any judgements on them.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: BigFatBlonde on November 09, 2013, 03:23:20 PM
Amaral wasn't there - so was in no position to make any judgements on them.
I would argue that Amaral was one of only a few people who had access to all of the information arising from the investigation; which would put him in a fairly strong position to make judgements.
N
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 03:25:19 PM
Yes - I would take this statement at face value. Madeleine was gone - whether at that point alive, dead, injured, drugged.
Kate herself raised the paedophile references. I find that deeply disturbing.
The Gaspers statement to police is pretty disturbing too. They must have examined their consciences before they did that. It's not great for your professional reputation, apart from anything else, to be suspected of being interested in child pornography. And when they knew which adults were there when Madeleine went missing, they were concerned enough to contact the police.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 03:25:43 PM
But that is the whole point - the police did NOT tell them why they wanted them to go back to the police station - hence Kates words:-
You can't state "the police did not tell them why they wanted them to go back to the police station", because it's not a fact, Benice, just the words of Mrs McCann. Perhaps she's not inventing this in order to denigrate the PJ, though, perhaps nobody spoke English in the car ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 03:28:26 PM
Yes - I would take this statement at face value. Madeleine was gone - whether at that point alive, dead, injured, drugged.
Kate herself raised the paedophile references. I find that deeply disturbing.
The Gaspers statement to police is pretty disturbing too. They must have examined their consciences before they did that. It's not great for your professional reputation, apart from anything else, to be suspected of being interested in child pornography. And when they knew which adults were there when Madeleine went missing, they were concerned enough to contact the police.
have you ever seen the gaspar statement....remember it was given in English..transalted into Portuguese...then translated back into english
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: BigFatBlonde on November 09, 2013, 03:34:32 PM
have you ever seen the gaspar statement....remember it was given in English..transalted into Portuguese...then translated back into english
I'm a bit confused about why you always bring up translation regarding slightly negative comments about the McCanns. I mean the european Parliament / United Nations etc rely on translators every day and they discuss areas of much more complexity.
N
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 03:36:21 PM
Your dislike of the McCanns is getting in the way of you making logical conclusions...you say both your parents were doctors and reading between the lines did not give you the care you may have expected...see your previous post...is this clouding your judgement
Haha! You make me laugh. This is a little ad hominem! I shouldn't really respond but I will because my judgement, rather than being clouded, is in fact quite clear.
I simply make the point that doctors can be lax about health and safety.
Looking through the lens of a politically correct, health and safety obsessed 2013, one can see that the parenting methods of the 1960s were verging on neglectful. Attitudes towards children were completely different and children had much more freedom than they do now.
I merely mentioned my parents jobs and attitude towards child-rearing as it supports my view that doctors are not necessarly hyper-vigilent about their childrens health and safety.
There's a balance, isn't there - as a parent one is trying to achieve balance between allowing children some freedom and not being paraoid, but also ensuring they are reasonably safe.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 03:51:06 PM
I'm a bit confused about why you always bring up translation regarding slightly negative comments about the McCanns. I mean the european Parliament / United Nations etc rely on translators every day and they discuss areas of much more complexity.
N
Yes ! And as translating costs a lot of money, they often use English (bad idea) or French (better) as pivot language, which is one chance more of lost in translation.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 03:55:05 PM
I really should do something else - but this is another oddity (there are so many I could write a book about it - ops, I might be sued!)
"Had Madeleline been found? Please God. Was she alive? Was she dead? "
Isn't the wording odd? Surely it should read: 'Has Madeleine been found alive? Please God."
Surely the 'please god' reference should refer to her being found alive. But it refers equally to her being found dead. That's just so bizarre. Those two little questions posed after the 'please god' - almost like a flippant after thought - both given equal weight - almost as though it was a game or Russian roulette - where will the dice fall?
The Gaspers statement. Yes, I have read it. So what if it was translated? I am sure they made sure that what they said was recorded correctly. You wouldn't want to make a wrong accusation, would you? I mean, the Gaspers would have thought carefully about making that statement. They made it because they thought it might be relevant to the police investigation.
There is no reason to suppose they were not telling the truth. I imagine after that holiday the would have avoided socialising with the McCanns and Dr Payne, at least certainly if there were children around.
They were worried about leaving their daughter around Gerry or Dr Payne after that. That's what they said.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 09, 2013, 03:59:07 PM
You can't state "the police did not tell them why they wanted them to go back to the police station", because it's not a fact, Benice, just the words of Mrs McCann. Perhaps she's not inventing this in order to denigrate the PJ, though, perhaps nobody spoke English in the car ?
I can state it because it is in Kate's book and no-one including Amaral, or the PJ officer or Angela Marado have disputed that fact. It was Angela Morado who interpreted the message from the PJ.
QUOTE from Kate's book
Ten or fifteen minutes into our journey the police officer had a call from his station. He said something to Angela, who explained that he'd been ordered to return us to the police station straight away. He wasn't allowed to tell us why.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 04:00:41 PM
If you are saying that they lied, that is defamation.
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
Total incoherence results from the GROUP’s statements, which makes it easy to verify that everyone lies. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id315.html
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 09, 2013, 04:18:37 PM
If people stopped libelling them there would be no need for any legal action. Simples.
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.
Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: ferryman on November 09, 2013, 04:24:25 PM
Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html
Total incoherence results from the GROUP’s statements, which makes it easy to verify that everyone lies. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id315.html
Pamela Fenn clarified that she didn't even know the holiday apartment was occupied.
The purpose of her being interviewed (months after the crime of Madeleine's abduction) was to report an attempted burglary of her own flat.
That crime (just) gets a mention right at the end of her (apparent!) statement about events in the holiday apartment below.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 04:31:41 PM
Surely the fund can't cope with many more legal actions? What will the McCanns do when they run out of money?
N
Carter Ruck are working on a contingency fee basis or pro bono depending on the respondent's financial situation. That gives the McCanns effective deep pockets aside from the fund.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 04:32:23 PM
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.
Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
Portuguese Law ineffective in the UK.
Just Spam.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 09, 2013, 04:32:44 PM
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.
Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
I don't know why you keep posting this. It's nothing to do with libel. Libel had not been established in a court of law and so could not be used as evidence. That is why the present libel trial is taking place. If Libel had been ruled out at the Appeal hearing there would be no point in having the present trial.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 09, 2013, 04:35:11 PM
Hi! I've not read much about this have they accused people of lying?
We may find out. If they answer!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 05:27:55 PM
"Several times, the McCann couple said that the attention of the police should be maintained focussing on the abduction hypothesis, which, in the couple's opinion, was the only scenario that occurred and that the police should not forget to continue to investigate the suspect Robert Murat."
So the McCanns get to lead the police investigation, do they?
"More recently, and even before Kate's interrogation, during a telephone call between Gerald McCann and the undersigned, he made a reference regarding the investigation, that he was certain that the police did not have any proof that could incriminate them with regard to the death of Madeleine McCann and he said that the police were wasting their time in directing the investigation around the parents."
Her death? He is supposed to have thought that she is still 'out there' - hence all the mystics and sightings.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 05:29:36 PM
I'm a bit confused about why you always bring up translation regarding slightly negative comments about the McCanns. I mean the european Parliament / United Nations etc rely on translators every day and they discuss areas of much more complexity.
N
Nothing to get confused about..UN use top class translators PJ didn't. in her book Kate tells how her statements were read back to her in English having been translated to Portuguese and how many mistakes there were. Then you have unofficial translations on the McCann files.. the McCann were never asked to prove their innocence in the archiving report..it was a bad translation
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 05:30:58 PM
Are you being serious? Anyone that does not believe the abduction theory is called a liar. They are mighty busy silencing people who don't believe their version of events.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 05:33:57 PM
Hi! I've not read much about this have they accused people of lying?
For instance, they said that Madeleine didn't cry on the 1st May. They were at the Tapas... however they said that Mrs Fenn, who heard a child crying and calling Daddy for 75 minutes, was wrong.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:34:02 PM
"Several times, the McCann couple said that the attention of the police should be maintained focussing on the abduction hypothesis, which, in the couple's opinion, was the only scenario that occurred and that the police should not forget to continue to investigate the suspect Robert Murat."
So the McCanns get to lead the police investigation, do they?
"More recently, and even before Kate's interrogation, during a telephone call between Gerald McCann and the undersigned, he made a reference regarding the investigation, that he was certain that the police did not have any proof that could incriminate them with regard to the death of Madeleine McCann and he said that the police were wasting their time in directing the investigation around the parents."
Her death? He is supposed to have thought that she is still 'out there' - hence all the mystics and sightings.
That seems to be a statement by the police bound by their belief that she was dead. At the time the McCanns were very insistent that she was alive.
This is how myths start- Police ideas and words put into Gerry's mouth.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:34:28 PM
For instance, they said that Madeleine didn't cry on the 1st May. They were at the Tapas... however they said that Mrs Fenn, who heard a child crying and calling Daddy for 75 minutes, was wrong.
And how is that a lie?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:35:10 PM
Are you being serious? Anyone that does not believe the abduction theory is called a liar. They are mighty busy silencing people who don't believe their version of events.
We are talking here of the Mccanns themselves.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 05:35:32 PM
Using money from the fund to silence critics. It's all documented. Carter Ruck are mighty busy.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:35:58 PM
Are you being serious? Anyone that does not believe the abduction theory is called a liar. They are mighty busy silencing people who don't believe their version of events.
They have made limited attacks on people who have defamed them and proved that in court. That is not 'calling people liars', it is demanding that they prove they were telling the truth. Neither the Express Group not Bennett were able to do so and hence were found to have defamed them illegally.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 05:41:49 PM
Nothing to get confused about..UN use top class translators PJ didn't. in her book Kate tells how her statements were read back to her in English having been translated to Portuguese and how many mistakes there were. Then you have unofficial translations on the McCann files.. the McCann were never asked to prove their innocence in the archiving report..it was a bad translation
You're spreading a myth suggested by Mrs McCann ! Don't you think that after 5 years she had time to rectify those mysterious "mistakes" in a translation she signed ? Translating isn't just substituting a word in language A to a word with the same meaning in language B, even the very insufficient Google translator does better than that.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 05:42:01 PM
Carter Ruck, the lawyers who work for the McCanns to shut up anyone who doesn't believe their theory. You know perfectly well what I am talking about.
All these expensive professionals they are using to manage their reputations and silence their critics. It all costs money - where does the money come from?
The fund that is supposed to be looking for Madeleine.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 05:44:41 PM
They have made limited attacks on people who have defamed them and proved that in court. That is not 'calling people liars', it is demanding that they prove they were telling the truth. Neither the Express Group not Bennett were able to do so and hence were found to have defamed them illegally.
?{)(** The Express Group was proved in Court to have libelled them ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: BigFatBlonde on November 09, 2013, 05:46:09 PM
They have made limited attacks on people who have defamed them and proved that in court. That is not 'calling people liars', it is demanding that they prove they were telling the truth. Neither the Express Group not Bennett were able to do so and hence were found to have defamed them illegally.
So if they lose against amaral is he telling the truth in his book?
N
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 05:46:59 PM
Carter Ruck, the lawyers who work for the McCanns to shut up anyone who doesn't believe their theory. You know perfectly well what I am talking about.
All these expensive professionals they are using to manage their reputations and silence their critics. It all costs money - where does the money come from?
The fund that is supposed to be looking for Madeleine.
Be fair and admit the fund is supposed to carry out their well-being and their well-being depends on their public image..
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:47:14 PM
Carter Ruck, the lawyers who work for the McCanns to shut up anyone who doesn't believe their theory. You know perfectly well what I am talking about.
All these expensive professionals they are using to manage their reputations and silence their critics. It all costs money - where does the money come from?
The fund that is supposed to be looking for Madeleine.
Carter Ruck have stated that they work either Pro Bono or use other methods to work for the Mccanns and have charged them nothing.
If you believe differently, please provide evidence.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:47:36 PM
Be fair and admit the fund is supposed to carry out their well-being and their well-being depends on their public image..
That is one of the aims. There is no evidence that Carter Ruck have claimed any money from the fund. I suspect the fund is being used in Portugal, but this is perfectly legal. Given that over half the money was donated by the McCanns from their own money, I do not find this to be a problem.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:50:58 PM
Well think about it. He could be making fair comment and still not be telling the truth. It may be that Portuguese Law will find that his right to speculate and tell other than the truth is protected speech.
The case will tell us little.
People will keep on calling it a libel trial. It is much wider than that!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 05:51:49 PM
You're spreading a myth suggested by Mrs McCann ! Don't you think that after 5 years she had time to rectify those mysterious "mistakes" in a translation she signed ? Translating isn't just substituting a word in language A to a word with the same meaning in language B, even the very insufficient Google translator does better than that.
She Would have signed a portuguese statement that she had no knowledge of as she had to rely on the translator..thats one of the reasons that none of these statements could be used in court...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 05:52:52 PM
That seems to be a statement by the police bound by their belief that she was dead. At the time the McCanns were very insistent that she was alive.
This is how myths start- Police ideas and words put into Gerry's mouth.
'Police ideas and words put into Gerry's mouth' - hmmmm. Interesting phrase which is conjuring up some amusing images for me.
A lot of words have also come out of Gerry's mouth, some of them his own, presumably. Where is the evidence that the words that came out of his mouth were all the truth?
Or indeed the words that came out of Kate's mouth - were they her words, or did someone put them there?
If they were her words, how do we know for sure that they are true? If someone else put the words there, does that mean that they are lies? Or perhaps they are true, even if planted in her mouth by a third party....
All those words coming out of Kate and Gerry's mouths.....plus their friends.... How can we know what words might be true and what words might be planted and what words might be lies.
It's all a giant puzzle - let's get Mystic Meg to unravel it for us and report it in The Star.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 05:53:38 PM
For instance, they said that Madeleine didn't cry on the 1st May. They were at the Tapas... however they said that Mrs Fenn, who heard a child crying and calling Daddy for 75 minutes, was wrong.
And how is that a lie?
Had they been in the flat, one could consider that it's their word against Mrs Fenn's one. But there's evidence they were not in the flat. They couldn't possibly claim that Mrs Fenn was wrong. Yet they did it.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 06:01:10 PM
She Would have signed a portuguese statement that she had no knowledge of as she had to rely on the translator..thats one of the reasons that none of these statements could be used in court...
No. She signed after the statement in portuguese was carefully translated in English. And no, the statement is as valid as a statement made and signed by a Portuguese.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
No. She signed after the statement in portuguese was carefully translated in English. And no, the statement is as valid as a statement made and signed by a Portuguese.
So to confirm..she signed a statement written in portuguese
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 06:16:46 PM
Do the McCanns live in a different world to the rest of us? They have beliefs while other people tell lies. The police have even planted lies in Garry's mouth, according to Aiofe. And this has lead to myths.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 09, 2013, 06:21:03 PM
Your knowledge of the correct uses of English words is abysmal.
It was a belief. It is not a lie.
Why is it you never pick up on anyone else's use of English? There are posters on this forum who have English as their first language who struggle to put a sentence together, yet I only ever see you criticising Anne, whose intelligence and articulate manner shine out of every post.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 09, 2013, 06:29:13 PM
So to confirm..she signed a statement written in portuguese
There's a big difference between listening to a statement being read out to you at the reader's pace and having the statement in front of you written in your own language, which you can read at your own pace and anything untoward would leap out at you. After long hours of interviewing - it would also be easy to miss something being read to you.
The accents wouldn't help either IMO - from both parties point of view. The McCanns listening to English being spoken in a Portuguese accent and the Portuguese interpreter having to listen to English being spoken in a Scottish accent.
It's always been my opinion that apart from having their daughter abducted, the next worst thing that happened to them was the language barrier. That whole situation was wide open for errors and misunderstandings on both sides IMO.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 06:31:05 PM
Your despising my knowledge of English reveals abysmally your lack of arguments.
I only correct your English when the misunderstanding affect the meanings o sentences. When it is simple errors I ignore it, but the verb 'to lie' has a specific meaning which is unknown to you
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 06:31:13 PM
Have you noticed how people are always 'doing things' to the McCanns? Putting words in their mouths, planting ideas on the internet, writing books that are mean about them. Libelling them, defaming them. Hurting their feeling. Making up myths then spreading them, almost like a virus that is out of control. All these nasty, mean people have to be silenced and brought under control by the mighty Carter Ruck. It's just not fair.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 09, 2013, 06:33:10 PM
Have you noticed how people are always 'doing things' to the McCanns? Putting words in their mouths, planting ideas on the internet, writing books that are mean about them. Libelling them, defaming them. Hurting their feeling. Making up myths then spreading them, almost like a virus that is out of control. All these nasty, mean people have to be silenced and brought under control by the mighty Carter Ruck. It's just not fair.
It's OK now though, they have Aiofe now too. He will protect them from all those mean bullies!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: BigFatBlonde on November 09, 2013, 06:34:00 PM
I only correct your English when the misunderstanding affect the meanings o sentences. When it is simple errors I ignore it, but the verb 'to lie' has a specific meaning which is unknown to you
Ah, here we are back to pesky semantics - what is the truth, what is a lie? What is the truth of the lie as Amaral might say?
But - when in doubt watch the body language. Watch the body language of the McCanns in the media interviews. Listen to Kate's account of what she thought and saw when she went into Madeleine's room and found her missing? Rich in clues. There are some excellent analyses of her witness statements on the web which explore the nuances behind the words used, sentence structure, phrases and so on.
Fascinating.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 06:41:12 PM
Ah, here we are back to pesky semantics - what is the truth, what is a lie? What is the truth of the lie as Amaral might say?
But - when in doubt watch the body language. Watch the body language of the McCanns in the media interviews. Listen to Kate's account of what she thought and saw when she went into Madeleine's room and found her missing? Rich in clues. There are some excellent analyses of her witness statements on the web which explore the nuances behind the words used, sentence structure, phrases and so on.
Fascinating.
you are making sense now..you rely on body language...no wonder you have everything back to front
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 09, 2013, 06:44:06 PM
It certainly helped Lord McAlpine's image; and his bank balance.
And no-one has dared repeat the attacks. Effective!
Do you think so? I imagine he's just glad to have slid back into relative obscurity.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 06:52:24 PM
Yes - the body doesn't lie, or at least it is more difficult to lie. It is rich in clues. Glad I am making sense because sense is something that is conspicuously absent in the McCann case what with all the mystic 'sightings' around the world. I am sure the detectives working on the case were interested in body language - what the McCanns did and didn't do.
Everything back to front - yes, everything about the case is now back to front, thanks to the media spin which has sold a lot of papers. And the confusion which seemed to please Gerry when he said something like 'no-one one knows what is true and what isn't.' Keep 'em guessing!
Oh, back to truth and lies....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 07:12:30 PM
So to confirm..she signed a statement written in portuguese
No, Davel, she signed a statement written in portuguese after hearing its translation into current english by the same interpret who had translated her statement into portuguese, phrase after phrase, slowly and with the constant possibility to go backwards, to ask for changes or to deny totally.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 07:18:58 PM
No, Davel, she signed a statement written in portuguese after hearing its translation into current english by the same interpret who had translated her statement into portuguese, phrase after phrase, slowly and with the constant possibility to go backwards, to ask for changes or to deny totally.
Not No..Yes..she signed a statement written in Portuguese and has to take the interpreters word for what she was signing...Kate said in her book the interpreter made lots of mistakes..so she couldn't have been that good
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 07:23:17 PM
It's always been my opinion that apart from having their daughter abducted, the next worst thing that happened to them was the language barrier. That whole situation was wide open for errors and misunderstandings on both sides IMO.
As there is no evidence for the first, there's also no evidence for the second "worst". The British FLO arrived on the 5th.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: drummer on November 09, 2013, 07:25:17 PM
I would imagine that word after word was more appropriate than phrase after phrase.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 07:30:13 PM
Not No..Yes..she signed a statement written in Portuguese and has to take the interpreters word for what she was signing...Kate said in her book the interpreter made lots of mistakes..so she couldn't have been that good
Doubting Mrs McCann is a sin and believing the interpreter another one ! Mrs McCann may tell all what she feels like, I don't mind it at all. What I do mind is her will to be believed and to threaten the rebels.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benita on November 09, 2013, 07:32:42 PM
Ah, here we are back to pesky semantics - what is the truth, what is a lie? What is the truth of the lie as Amaral might say?
But - when in doubt watch the body language. Watch the body language of the McCanns in the media interviews. Listen to Kate's account of what she thought and saw when she went into Madeleine's room and found her missing? Rich in clues. There are some excellent analyses of her witness statements on the web which explore the nuances behind the words used, sentence structure, phrases and so on.
Fascinating.
hi j.rob ...you change your socks a lot dontcha ....oh dear ?>)()<
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 07:33:21 PM
Why is it that everyone else gets it wrong? But Kate and Gerry always get it right. Any witnesses that do not support their version of events are wrong, or have made mistakes or are lying? Or are being mean to them or hate them?
And our press have been gagged over this.....but the truth must out, eventually.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 07:36:40 PM
Why is it that everyone else gets it wrong? But Kate and Gerry always get it right. Any witnesses that do not support their version of events are wrong, or have made mistakes or are lying? Or are being mean to them or hate them?
And our press have been gagged over this.....but the truth must out, eventually.
Sects function this way. There's in the background a very strong will to believe.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 07:36:50 PM
Doubting Mrs McCann is a sin and believing the interpreter another one ! Mrs McCann may tell all what she feels like, I don't mind it at all. What I do mind is her will to be believed and to threaten the rebels.
Well I believe her..
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 09, 2013, 07:45:02 PM
At least no one castigates you for it.....whereas......anyone who doesnt is a bad person and all the other ridiculous and irrational accusations...and disgusting name calling dor holding a belief or a view or informed decision on any aspect of this case.......last time I looked the thought police were not a reality....except in a novel and some sci fi films.....its made doubly worse with the quasi religious pontificating language.....yes cult like I would say in many instances....
@)(++(*
Edited for afterthought
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 09, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
Are you personally acquainted with Mrs McCann davel? (Genuine question, not criticising or having a pop at you about anything, just plain old curiosity and more than happy to accept a 'none of your business as a reply)
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 09, 2013, 08:47:24 PM
Yes sects and cults do function in this way. And there is more than a whiff of both in this case encompassing as it does religion, medicine, professionals working in a large politicized institution - the NHS and so on. I also think the fact that the McCanns and their friends are doctors is highly significant to this case. In all sorts of ways.
My other opinion is that I do believe the McCanns were telling the truth (or at least partially) with respect to 'she was taken' 'we know what happened'. 'I immediately knew'.........that is because I do believe they DID know what happened........only they chose to give a different version of the events......
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 09, 2013, 08:52:54 PM
Yes sects and cults do function in this way. And there is more than a whiff of both in this case encompassing as it does religion, medicine, professionals working in a large politicized institution - the NHS and so on. I also think the fact that the McCanns and their friends are doctors is highly significant to this case. In all sorts of ways.
My other opinion is that I do believe the McCanns were telling the truth (or at least partially) with respect to 'she was taken' 'we know what happened'. 'I immediately knew'.........that is because I do believe they DID know what happened........only they chose to give a different version of the events......
Theyve taken her...quoted by david payne and charlotte penningtin the nanny The b........s took her...apparently said by KM according ti a newspaper article recently by a couple who were staying two floors above on the night A couple took her..said to social worker yvonne martin the next morning
what did KM have in her mind to utter those words..who was she referring to? you got me thnking now...
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 10, 2013, 01:43:04 AM
Yes sects and cults do function in this way. And there is more than a whiff of both in this case encompassing as it does religion, medicine, professionals working in a large politicized institution - the NHS and so on. I also think the fact that the McCanns and their friends are doctors is highly significant to this case. In all sorts of ways.
My other opinion is that I do believe the McCanns were telling the truth (or at least partially) with respect to 'she was taken' 'we know what happened'. 'I immediately knew'.........that is because I do believe they DID know what happened........only they chose to give a different version of the events......
Yes, a scientific formation and religious feeling but combined, surprisingly, with a highly irrational thinking : Mrs McCann asking to investigate a certain boat because a friend of a friend of an aunt or uncle had a vision.. the insistence in the magic hairbox hunter... her calling inspector Sigmund Paiva to tell a dream... Madeleine's photo presented to the pope for benediction.. and all sorts of sombre clairvoyantes whose e-mails were piously sent to the PJ..
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 03:07:11 AM
Why is it that everyone else gets it wrong? But Kate and Gerry always get it right. Any witnesses that do not support their version of events are wrong, or have made mistakes or are lying? Or are being mean to them or hate them?
And our press have been gagged over this.....but the truth must out, eventually.
How exactly have the Press been gagged?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 03:09:01 AM
Sects function this way. There's in the background a very strong will to believe.
The beliefs and behaviours of both Pros and [ censored word] are sect like.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 10, 2013, 07:53:09 AM
Hehe - I wonder what cult I am in - oh, I know the 'anti-McCann cult' I suppose.
Except I am not. I am interested in the facts of the case......but the facts disappeared very early on.....and became myths and words came out of peoples' mouths that were.....oh, here we go again! Were they truth, were they lies, or even were they other peoples' words.......
But what about Carter Ruck........upthread I think Aiofe mentioned something about how little they had had to do with the McCanns.....really, they were just little pussy-cats, tinkering around on the edges., trying to protect the McCanns' feelings.
But - what about the Express case - that was quite a biggy for them, wasn't it? I mean, the McCanns too, right? Then you have Tony Bennett - that was quite a biggy too, right? . And what about Amaral - now whether you love him or not, he is a detective with many years experience. He did a pretty good job of convicting those nasty child killers in the Joanna case, despite the mother making up a pack of lies about him.
So Carter Ruck are working pro-bono are they? How fascinating! Why would they do that? What is the Fund money for?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 10, 2013, 08:01:21 AM
The beliefs and behaviours of both Pros and [ censored word] are sect like.
You guys crack me up - really, you are hilarious!
So now we have two camps, do we? The Pros and the [ censored word].....haha! And both camps are operating like sects.......
Hilarious!
Okay - what about people who switch sides - once they believed the McCanns and now they don't? Where do they fit in. You know, people whose minds are not fixed into a certain belief system. There must be a few around.
I don't know - all these words, myths, truths, lies and sects - they float around in the air like clouds of dust, confusing people, poisoning their minds.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 10, 2013, 08:05:44 AM
oooops!! But maybe my mind is already poisoned - I do not believe the McCanns - so that must make me a person with a dirty mind.....
Oh, SIGH!!
At least I can cling on to my belief system, when all else fails!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 10, 2013, 08:11:23 AM
It appears that the webmaster for rthe 'OFFICIAL' missing Madeleine site on facebook is refusing to answer questions about the latest 'sighting', i.e. the Smith one.
Now why is that ?
and since they apparently withheld the 'sighting' for 5 years, how can the mccanns or their representatives be trusted ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 08:15:03 AM
Why is it that everyone else gets it wrong? But Kate and Gerry always get it right. Any witnesses that do not support their version of events are wrong, or have made mistakes or are lying? Or are being mean to them or hate them?
And our press have been gagged over this.....but the truth must out, eventually.
You say the press has been gagged...you say you go with the evidence..what evidence do you have that the press has been gagged
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 10, 2013, 08:18:47 AM
Oh I know, there are naughty people who don't believe the mccanns.
How terrible.
The important thing to do is look at the evidence..and I know whats coming next
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 08:52:27 AM
I find that life becomes much easier if one just accepts that there are believers , non-believers and some in between. and just don't get uptight about it. This constant attempt to refute anything and everything is just tiresome.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 09:00:31 AM
I find that life becomes much easier if one just accepts that there are believers , non-believers and some in between. and just don't get uptight about it. This constant attempt to refute anything and everything is just tiresome.
Isnt that what this forum is about...discussing what is..and isn't true
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Isnt that what this forum is about...discussing what is..and isn't true
It should be, but it often goes far beyond that, sometimes to the point of being ridiculous. A sensible discussion shouldn't end up in exchanges of abuse.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 09:21:06 AM
It should be, but it often goes far beyond that, sometimes to the point of being ridiculous. A sensible discussion shouldn't end up in exchanges of abuse.
I would agree with that
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:26:30 AM
Re McCann's relationship with Carter Ruck:
No-Win, No-Fee – No More? Posted on January 13, 2012 by Isabel Martorell In 1999, changes to the rules on litigation funding opened up the possibility of bringing a wide range of cases under Conditional Fee Agreements (or ‘no-win, no-fee agreements’ as they are colloquially known). At a time of legal aid cuts, the changes were intended to ensure access to justice for all; not just for the wealthy.
Carter-Ruck was one of the firms which pioneered a CFA scheme which over the years has allowed us to act for hundreds of litigants who would not otherwise have been able to afford to bring an action.
Initially, the majority of these cases were for libel, but we have acted on a no-win, no-fee basis in a number of other types of claim. Merely by way of example:
> A class action by 45 individual claimants against two multi-national Banks for their part in the negligent mis-selling of a pension product that the claimants had purchased. The claim concerned a failed UK pension liberation scheme and offshore trust and administration services and was worth in excess of £20 million.
> A privacy claim for a soldier’s wife whose photograph was used by the Daily Mirror – entirely misleadingly – to illustrate a story about women being unfaithful to their husbands while serving in Iraq.
> A local councillor on incapacity benefits, who suffered serial libel and harassment over several years by a multi-millionaire businessman who accused her of theft and corruption.
> A breach of contract claim against a company which had failed to pay commissions earned by a sales agent.
> A claim for a retired academic against a record company, for breaching copyrights he held in four music editions and for refusing to acknowledge his rights or to pay him royalties.
> A (defendant) Danish radiologist sued for libel by US conglomerate GE Healthcare over allegations concerning one of its products.
> A Muslim IT worker whom the Daily Mail falsely alleged was to be suspected of unlawfully stabbing a man at his house and of being a supporter of Al Qaeda.
> A comprehensive school teacher, falsely accused in an internal Memorandum of inappropriate contact with female pupils.
> Kate and Gerry McCann.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=180
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:29:12 AM
The McCanns gave evidence to Leveson that it was their Conditional Fee agreement with Carter Ruck that allowed them to Sue the Express Group:
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:33:25 AM
Gary Tudor of carter Ruck giving evidence to Parliament regarding their use of a Conditional Fee arrangement to fund the action against Express Group and others:
No-Win, No-Fee – No More? Posted on January 13, 2012 by Isabel Martorell In 1999, changes to the rules on litigation funding opened up the possibility of bringing a wide range of cases under Conditional Fee Agreements (or ‘no-win, no-fee agreements’ as they are colloquially known). At a time of legal aid cuts, the changes were intended to ensure access to justice for all; not just for the wealthy.
Carter-Ruck was one of the firms which pioneered a CFA scheme which over the years has allowed us to act for hundreds of litigants who would not otherwise have been able to afford to bring an action.
Initially, the majority of these cases were for libel, but we have acted on a no-win, no-fee basis in a number of other types of claim. Merely by way of example:
> A class action by 45 individual claimants against two multi-national Banks for their part in the negligent mis-selling of a pension product that the claimants had purchased. The claim concerned a failed UK pension liberation scheme and offshore trust and administration services and was worth in excess of £20 million.
> A privacy claim for a soldier’s wife whose photograph was used by the Daily Mirror – entirely misleadingly – to illustrate a story about women being unfaithful to their husbands while serving in Iraq.
> A local councillor on incapacity benefits, who suffered serial libel and harassment over several years by a multi-millionaire businessman who accused her of theft and corruption.
> A breach of contract claim against a company which had failed to pay commissions earned by a sales agent.
> A claim for a retired academic against a record company, for breaching copyrights he held in four music editions and for refusing to acknowledge his rights or to pay him royalties.
> A (defendant) Danish radiologist sued for libel by US conglomerate GE Healthcare over allegations concerning one of its products.
> A Muslim IT worker whom the Daily Mail falsely alleged was to be suspected of unlawfully stabbing a man at his house and of being a supporter of Al Qaeda.
> A comprehensive school teacher, falsely accused in an internal Memorandum of inappropriate contact with female pupils.
> Kate and Gerry McCann.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=180
Sterling work indeed by Carter Ruck!
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:34:24 AM
Anyone now saying that the McCanns used the fund in the UK for Libel actions?
It was all a myth.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 10, 2013, 09:40:22 AM
I am not saying that Carter Ruck are wonderful. Just that they are effective. And that they worked pro bono and CFA which cost the fund nothing.
I understand that.
However, in the case of 'Bennett', the costs incurred I believe were in excess of £200,000, yet if reports are true Bennett's payments are minimalistic.
So how would Carter-Ruck recoup their 'expenses' ?
I read somewhere Bennett was selling his house, though whether that is true I don't know.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:53:57 AM
However, in the case of 'Bennett', the costs incurred I believe were in excess of £200,000, yet if reports are true Bennett's payments are minimalistic.
So how would Carter-Ruck recoup their 'expenses' ?
I read somewhere Bennett was selling his house, though whether that is true I don't know.
They worked pro bono on Bennett becaue he had no funds.
They worked CFA on the Exprss Group because they did.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:56:12 AM
You at least have seen the list that I provided! Just ignoring it, or not really reading, just scatter gun responding.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:57:35 AM
Lazy, lazy lazy.
It is only a few posts down.
I repeat it:
Re McCann's relationship with Carter Ruck:
No-Win, No-Fee – No More? Posted on January 13, 2012 by Isabel Martorell In 1999, changes to the rules on litigation funding opened up the possibility of bringing a wide range of cases under Conditional Fee Agreements (or ‘no-win, no-fee agreements’ as they are colloquially known). At a time of legal aid cuts, the changes were intended to ensure access to justice for all; not just for the wealthy.
Carter-Ruck was one of the firms which pioneered a CFA scheme which over the years has allowed us to act for hundreds of litigants who would not otherwise have been able to afford to bring an action.
Initially, the majority of these cases were for libel, but we have acted on a no-win, no-fee basis in a number of other types of claim. Merely by way of example:
> A class action by 45 individual claimants against two multi-national Banks for their part in the negligent mis-selling of a pension product that the claimants had purchased. The claim concerned a failed UK pension liberation scheme and offshore trust and administration services and was worth in excess of £20 million.
> A privacy claim for a soldier’s wife whose photograph was used by the Daily Mirror – entirely misleadingly – to illustrate a story about women being unfaithful to their husbands while serving in Iraq.
> A local councillor on incapacity benefits, who suffered serial libel and harassment over several years by a multi-millionaire businessman who accused her of theft and corruption.
> A breach of contract claim against a company which had failed to pay commissions earned by a sales agent.
> A claim for a retired academic against a record company, for breaching copyrights he held in four music editions and for refusing to acknowledge his rights or to pay him royalties.
> A (defendant) Danish radiologist sued for libel by US conglomerate GE Healthcare over allegations concerning one of its products.
> A Muslim IT worker whom the Daily Mail falsely alleged was to be suspected of unlawfully stabbing a man at his house and of being a supporter of Al Qaeda.
> A comprehensive school teacher, falsely accused in an internal Memorandum of inappropriate contact with female pupils.
> Kate and Gerry McCann.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=180
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 10:06:54 AM
Thank you, but there was no need to re-post it, a simple referral to a post number would have sufficed.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 10, 2013, 10:10:36 AM
Given that it was only a few posts before your post with doubts about CR having other pro bono and CFA agreements, I felt that as you missed it the first time, I would repeat it. Anyway, who made you a mod?
And being as contrary as you are, if I had provided the post number you would have probably asked for the text. Go away.
Why so touchy ? I was being courteous in thanking you. Just because I disagree with your views does not make me contrary.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 10:29:35 AM
Scatter gun again. CR are not acting for them in the Portuguese Case.
Slight mistake there. I didn't mean to refer to Carter-Ruck.
I just meant the legal proceedings there.
Also , why would CR act on a pro-bono basis against Bennett, when they knew trey would win, and he clearly had no assets of any worth ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 11:52:55 AM
you do realise Stephen that the McCanns have put around one and a half million into the fund...book and express payout...that they could have put into their own private bank account
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 11:59:29 AM
Slight mistake there. I didn't mean to refer to Carter-Ruck.
I just meant the legal proceedings there.
Also , why would CR act on a pro-bono basis against Bennett, when they knew trey would win, and he clearly had no assets of any worth ?
because they are Humanitarian and see injustices, quite probably. They had taken the Madeleine case to heart, as many of us have.
We have a lawyer friend, in Germany, who regularly used to take on pro Bono cases. He is retired now. He was not interested in publicity or overly in money, just in Justice and helping the abused.
He is Not a rich man, but he is a happy man. ?{)(**
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 11:59:33 AM
you do realise Stephen that the McCanns have put around one and a half million into the fund...book and express payout...that they could have put into their own private bank account
In fact with the Tapas 7 money over half of the fund was from sources other than public donations. Cultish blindness forgets that.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 12:06:22 PM
you do realise Stephen that the McCanns have put around one and a half million into the fund...book and express payout...that they could have put into their own private bank account
and the book serialization rights ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 12:42:27 PM
because they are Humanitarian and see injustices, quite probably. They had taken the Madeleine case to heart, as many of us have.
We have a lawyer friend, in Germany, who regularly used to take on pro Bono cases. He is retired now. He was not interested in publicity or overly in money, just in Justice and helping the abused.
He is Not a rich man, but he is a happy man. ?{)(**
Well he certainly didn't work for Carter-Ruck.
As to Carter-Ruck, research their activities.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 10, 2013, 12:45:30 PM
Precisely, and kept to their word, they would only leave Portugal once Madeleine was found.
Do you know the real facts about that situation
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 12:59:52 PM
I will tell you the facts and you can decide what a reasonable person would do.
when they made the statement they would not leave Portugal as afr as they were concerned they were not suspects in maddies disappearance.
They were then made arguidos. The pj lied to them and told them that maddies dna and blood had been found in the hire car etc. the mccannns new this couldn't be true and I understand that Gerry thought the pj could have planted evidence. They realised that they could be arrested and held on remand for anything up to a year. They had to gat out fast..simple as that
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 01:00:18 PM
That was before they were made arguidos and facing a year in prison held on remand....
And when a different investigator was put on the case they still apparently believed they were being stitched up, so they didn't return for a reconstruction & abandoned their daughter to her fate.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 01:10:14 PM
And when a different investigator was put on the case they still apparently believed they were being stitched up, so they didn't return for a reconstruction & abandoned their daughter to her fate.
So now you are moving to another question which has been answered many times before...the mccanns didn't refuse to return..they couldnt
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 01:11:45 PM
And when a different investigator was put on the case they still apparently believed they were being stitched up, so they didn't return for a reconstruction & abandoned their daughter to her fate.
Mrs McCann tried the seduction letter with inspector Rebelo, though she should have learnt some lesson from her relation with inspector Paiva. As she never got an answer, they understood that a new coordinator didn't mean the adoption of their perspective. Vol XV pp. 3887-90
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 10, 2013, 01:25:28 PM
Posting information which could in any way identify members attracts an automatic suspension.
Likewise, anyone posting private messages without the senders permission will also be sanctioned.
Such conduct will not be tolerated. Please report any posts which breach these rules. TY
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Cariad on November 10, 2013, 01:28:42 PM
I thought it was an automatic account deletion for posting personal information?
I suppose not every member knows this so a warning in such cases together with a short suspension will apply. A repeat will undoubtedly result in account deletion.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 01:46:33 PM
I suppose not every member knows this so a warning in such cases together with a short suspension will apply. A repeat will undoubtedly result in account deletion.
well I do hope this applies to the anti brigade john ...as a anti already posted private pms on the board and didn't even get a warning ...double standards john double standards..... 8((()*/
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 10, 2013, 01:51:13 PM
I suppose not every member knows this so a warning in such cases together with a short suspension will apply. A repeat will undoubtedly result in account deletion.
Ignoring a basic feature of respect for others ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: John on November 10, 2013, 02:08:42 PM
well I do hope this applies to the anti brigade john ...as a anti already posted private pms on the board and didn't even get a warning ...double standards john double standards..... 8((()*/
You are quite correct, they have done now though. 8((()*/
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Joanne on November 10, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
Any behaviour seen as offensive either via the boards or pm route, please report it via the usual channels and it will be seen too. Thank you.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 03:57:00 PM
You say the press has been gagged...you say you go with the evidence..what evidence do you have that the press has been gagged
The influence of Clarence Mitchell on the media. That is a massive conflict of interest in my opinion. The McCanns were made suspects by the Portugese police. That is a fact.
The McCanns are using teams of lawyers to try to silence people who think that the Portugese police were on the right track. The Portugese Police did not believe their theory on why Madeleine died.
Amaral's book in which he gives his version of what he thinks happened is available in this country. Why not? You can get it in other countries.
Why would the Portugese police necessarily be wrong? Provide the evidence that the Portuguese police investigation is wrong. Impartial evidence that is.
In any cases of missing children/harmed children the last people who saw the child and the primary caregivers have to be completely ruled out as having had any hand in the disappearance.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 10, 2013, 04:04:49 PM
That should read Amaral's book is NOT available in this country. But in other countries it is. Why would that be?
Why should the British public not be allowed to understand why the Portugese police made the McCanns suspects? I think that is quite important.
Why was the case shelved? IN whose interests was that?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 04:05:30 PM
The influence of Clarence Mitchell on the media. That is a massive conflict of interest in my opinion. The McCanns were made suspects by the Portugese police. That is a fact.
The McCanns are using teams of lawyers to try to silence people who think that the Portugese police were on the right track. The Portugese Police did not believe their theory on why Madeleine died.
Amaral's book in which he gives his version of what he thinks happened is available in this country. Why not? You can get it in other countries.
Why would the Portugese police necessarily be wrong? Provide the evidence that the Portuguese police investigation is wrong. Impartial evidence that is.
In any cases of missing children/harmed children the last people who saw the child and the primary caregivers have to be completely ruled out as having had any hand in the disappearance.
Presumably because he couldn't get a publisher or distributor to handle it. Didn't Amazon offer it for sale for a short while and then withdrew it?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 10, 2013, 04:09:46 PM
In actual fact, in my opinion it was our own police who initially bungled the case - the Leicestershire police force were far too chummy with the McCanns and accepted their version of events as the the only possible version of events. Which is quite extraordinary for a police investigation - to accept as truth the version of events given by people who were the last people to see the child?
Does that sound like a good piece of detective work? What would child protection experts say about that?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 04:10:51 PM
That should read Amaral's book is NOT available in this country. But in other countries it is. Why would that be?
Why should the British public not be allowed to understand why the Portugese police made the McCanns suspects? I think that is quite important.
Why was the case shelved? IN whose interests was that?
quite simply amarals book is not available in the uk because it would fall foul of the laws of our country..ie the libel laws. Do you think we should change our laws so that amaral can print his book.. Change the laws of the UK to suit amaral..please
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 04:33:44 PM
quite simply amarals book is not available in the uk because it would fall foul of the laws of our country..ie the libel laws. Do you think we should change our laws so that amaral can print his book.. Change the laws of the UK to suit amaral..please
@)(++(*
Are you saying all published books inthe UK are not libellous in any way? Besides, it has not been deemed libellous by anyone in any authority.....Mitchell does not count.....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 04:35:49 PM
The thing is that no one is prepared to take the risk
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 04:36:32 PM
Are you saying all published books inthe UK are not libellous in any way? Besides, it has not been deemed libellous by anyone in any authority.....Mitchell does not count.....
Do you really not understand the basics....
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 04:38:29 PM
The thing is that no one is prepared to take the risk
It isn't a matter of risk...amaral makes defamatory comments in his book...and he does not have the evidence to support them..no one would touch a book that is so obviously libellous
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Eleanor on November 10, 2013, 04:39:30 PM
Amaral's book isn't just a little bit Libellous. It's a big bit Libellous. And no British Publisher was prepared to commit Hari Kiri. Besides, it was translated and up on The Net before you could say hit me with a writ, baby.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 04:40:19 PM
no one is gagged...that's ridiculous..but comment is governed by the law
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 04:41:39 PM
It isn't a matter of risk...amaral makes defamatory comments in his book...and he does not have the evidence to support them..no one would touch a book that is so obviously libellous
I've no doubt if the return was considered greater than the risk, it would have been printed.
Am I correct in assuming that one could buy an English version copy from another country ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 04:49:24 PM
Are you saying all published books inthe UK are not libellous in any way? Besides, it has not been deemed libellous by anyone in any authority.....Mitchell does not count.....
ok..do you think the book would not be libellous in the uk
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 04:50:39 PM
Presumably because he couldn't get a publisher or distributor to handle it. Didn't Amazon offer it for sale for a short while and then withdrew it?
Amazon always had it in Spanish, Dutch, Italian, German and up to recently in French... But suppressed the Portuguese original from its sales after the injunction as likely Mr Mitchell threatened to carterruck them (as he did in the case of Pat Brown's booklet). Mr Mitchell only understands English. "Madeleine" was never translated in French.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 04:52:39 PM
Well you can avoid twist and spin and derail and avoid debate, just go do it with someone else now who is willing to waste their time 8((()*/
what was the debate again
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 05:24:15 PM
oh yes ...are the press gagged
no they just have to obey the law......
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 10, 2013, 10:00:27 PM
The version of events that the Portugese police believed in conflicts with the McCann's theory. You could argue that what the McCann's are getting into the media via Clarence Mitchell is libellous.
There is no evidence to support the McCann version of events - there are masses of contradictions in the stories given. Yet the version of events is deemed as the only 'true' version. Given that the were not in the room when their daughter disappeared (or so they claim) then by definition they do not know what happened to her.
So by definition they are not telling the truth - as they cannot KNOW what happened unless they were there when it happened......
.....or unless they had a hand in the manner of her disappearance.......apart from leaving her unattended.
And given that the felt an abduction was so unlikely, whey did they reach that conclusion?
What they say does not make sense.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 10, 2013, 10:07:20 PM
Other people can also seek protection under libel laws - that is not a privilege reserved for the McCanns. Their insistence that their version of events is the only true version suggests that the think everyone else is lying. But they have no evidence that everyone else is lying.
Apart from anything, there are plenty of people who do not believe them who have no vested interests whatsoever and have simply reached that conclusion after listening to them and reading their witness statements and other witness statements.
A lot of people who have said things that didn't support their version of events have no ulterior motive. They have simply reported what they saw/heard/witnessed.
Of course, if the Portugese police were on the right track, then one can see why the McCanns would be so insistent that they messed up the case. And so keen to get coverage into the press that supports their version of events.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Lyall on November 10, 2013, 10:13:39 PM
Well said j.rob ?>)()<
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 10, 2013, 10:18:52 PM
Yes, there are libel laws to protect people but most people can't afford to use them as it costs so much money. But obviously, if you hire a massive law firm like Carter Ruck then you can afford to. Where is that fund money has not been used in legal costs by the McCanns. What money is being used to pay for Clarence Mitchell? Who is footing the bill for all the high profile visits that the McCanns have carried out which got extensive media coverage. How exactly have those visits helped in the search for Madeleine?
Why did the McCann's not search for Madeleine on the night she is alleged to have been abducted? Kate herself in media interviews did not dispute that they did not join the search that night. Why?
What were they doing between the time Madeleine was reported abducted and the time that the police were called/actually arrived? This would have been a critical few hours, if it had been an abduction.
Why did the McCanns have so little faith in the lost child procedure which was put into effect by Mark Warner and which clearly would have served a useful function in the case of a missing child?
Most people also cannot afford to hire expensive spin doctors and media experts to influence the media.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 10, 2013, 10:20:56 PM
The version of events that the Portugese police believed in conflicts with the McCann's theory. You could argue that what the McCann's are getting into the media via Clarence Mitchell is libellous.
There is no evidence to support the McCann version of events - there are masses of contradictions in the stories given. Yet the version of events is deemed as the only 'true' version. Given that the were not in the room when their daughter disappeared (or so they claim) then by definition they do not know what happened to her.
Absolutely, it simply libels the PJ and the MP who orientates it.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: j.rob on November 10, 2013, 10:21:23 PM
What were they doing between the time Madeleine was reported abducted and the time that the police were called/actually arrived? This would have been a critical few hours, if it had been an abduction.
There are two different versions : Mr McCann went to the creche, according to "Madeleine" (2010) and Mr McCann went to the main reception according to himself (sept 2007). Those two variants don't fit well with Mr McCann asking Mr Oldfield to go to the main reception in order to ask them to call the police. Mrs Payne says SHE asked Mr Oldfield to go and ask to call the police. No wonder the MP wanted a reconstruction..
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 10:49:41 PM
There are two different versions : Mr McCann went to the creche, according to "Madeleine" (2010) and Mr McCann went to the main reception according to himself (sept 2007). Those two variants don't fit well with Mr McCann asking Mr Oldfield to go to the main reception in order to ask them to call the police. Mrs Payne says SHE asked Mr Oldfield to go and ask to call the police. No wonder the MP wanted a reconstruction..
It is quite clear from the statements that Matt went to the reception immediately the realisation that an abduction had happened sunk in. This was in the first 15 minutes or so after finding Madeleine gone.
Taking the back route it was under 250 metres and running it would have taken under a minute.
It was worked out accurately by gilet on a previous thread.
When Gerry went later then he may well have gone both into the creche and the main reception, cos I believe they were in the same building. Please correct me if I am wrong in saying that.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 10, 2013, 11:49:42 PM
When Gerry went later then he may well have gone both into the creche and the main reception, cos I believe they were in the same building. Please correct me if I am wrong in saying that.
They're in the same building, but Mr McCann stated only that he went to the Main Reception (where he allegedly had sent Mr Oldfield) and nothing more. He likely knows better than any one else what he did, doesn't he ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 01:39:11 AM
Yes, there are libel laws to protect people but most people can't afford to use them as it costs so much money. But obviously, if you hire a massive law firm like Carter Ruck then you can afford to. Where is that fund money has not been used in legal costs by the McCanns. What money is being used to pay for Clarence Mitchell? Who is footing the bill for all the high profile visits that the McCanns have carried out which got extensive media coverage. How exactly have those visits helped in the search for Madeleine?
Why did the McCann's not search for Madeleine on the night she is alleged to have been abducted? Kate herself in media interviews did not dispute that they did not join the search that night. Why?
What were they doing between the time Madeleine was reported abducted and the time that the police were called/actually arrived? This would have been a critical few hours, if it had been an abduction.
Why did the McCanns have so little faith in the lost child procedure which was put into effect by Mark Warner and which clearly would have served a useful function in the case of a missing child?
Most people also cannot afford to hire expensive spin doctors and media experts to influence the media.
For goodness sake - all the above has been done to death.
Carter Ruck have been paid no money for their services - on a no win no fee basis.
IIRC Clarence Mitchell was paid for by a benefactor (Kennedy?) . The McCann did search on the first night - but they also spent time back at 5A waiting for the police and then talking to the police. They went out again at dawn.
Kate was talking about the later searches involving locals etc in her interview - not the first night.
The alarm was raised at 10.00 the police arrived at 11.00 - in that hour the McCanns searched, were waiting for the police and were NOT coping with what had happened.
What evidence do you have that the McCanns criticised the MW search procedure?
There was no way the McCanns could have dealt with hundreds of reporters and other media. CM was sent out to help them with that massive problem. They didn't ask for him to come.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 07:47:11 AM
Stephen have you forgotten already you just made that statement to support your post we don't need evidence any more..if it walks like a duck etc ..its true..you said so
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 11, 2013, 08:14:53 AM
Stephen have you forgotten already you just made that statement to support your post we don't need evidence any more..if it walks like a duck etc ..its true..you said so
I am referring to the Met Chief.
Now what did he say davel ?
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 08:18:36 AM
And the pj are able to sue for libel if they wanted to..as they made such a mess of the investigation they would lose though IMO
What evidence are you bringing to the table that they made a mess of the investigation Dave?? Very few people know what really happened to Madeleine and I do not count the McCanns among them.
The abduction from the bed theory is dead in the water according to all the evidence which only leaves the awoke and wandered alternative if abduction is to be believed. If that is what happened it puts the parents firmly in the frame as far a culpability is concerned and that is not libel but fact!!
That is their real fear...that by their negligence they were directly responsible for facilitating an abduction.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 11, 2013, 11:02:42 AM
What evidence are you bringing to the table that they made a mess of the investigation Dave?? Very few people know what really happened to Madeleine and I do not count the McCanns among them.
The abduction from the bed theory is dead in the water according to all the evidence which only leaves the awoke and wandered alternative if abduction is to be believed. If that is what happened it puts the parents firmly in the frame as far a culpability is concerned and that is not libel but fact!!
That is their real fear...that by their negligence they were directly responsible for facilitating an abduction.
Facilitating an abduction isn't the worst. I really don't believe that a potential abductor, going through the car park, saw Madeleine and decided to abduct. The unbearable is the reason why eventually Madeleine went out : she was scared, needed her parents and searched for them. The reason for denying could be just this.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 11, 2013, 12:25:59 PM
What evidence are you bringing to the table that they made a mess of the investigation Dave?? Very few people know what really happened to Madeleine and I do not count the McCanns among them.
The abduction from the bed theory is dead in the water according to all the evidence which only leaves the awoke and wandered alternative if abduction is to be believed. If that is what happened it puts the parents firmly in the frame as far a culpability is concerned and that is not libel but fact!!
That is their real fear...that by their negligence they were directly responsible for facilitating an abduction.
McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Moita Flores.
SO – What reason did you have to comment on this case?
MF says that first it is his job. He does it professionally because he has experience of being a police inspector and has connections with the police. In this particular case he says that very early he claimed that the police were making errors.
SO – Why?
MF Because they should have considered all the possible hypotheses instead of restricting the investigation to the prefabricated idea of abduction.
What evidence are you bringing to the table that they made a mess of the investigation Dave?? Very few people know what really happened to Madeleine and I do not count the McCanns among them.
The abduction from the bed theory is dead in the water according to all the evidence which only leaves the awoke and wandered alternative if abduction is to be believed. If that is what happened it puts the parents firmly in the frame as far a culpability is concerned and that is not libel but fact!!
That is their real fear...that by their negligence they were directly responsible for facilitating an abduction.
What evidence do you have top support that statement
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2013, 01:22:57 PM
[Why did the McCann's not search for Madeleine on the night she is alleged to have been abducted? Kate herself in media interviews did not dispute that they did not join the search that night. Why?]
They did start searching the streets at 6am when it was all quiet and all other searchers had finished and gone home to bed.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 01:23:48 PM
[Why did the McCann's not search for Madeleine on the night she is alleged to have been abducted? Kate herself in media interviews did not dispute that they did not join the search that night. Why?]
They did start searching the streets at 6am when it was all quiet and all other searchers had finished and gone to bed.
they did
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2013, 01:24:44 PM
According to Kate's diary.
"FRIDAY, MAY 4: No sleep, Gerry and I started looking through the streets around 06.00 as it was starting to get light. Nobody around. Why not? Desperate."
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 01:25:49 PM
according to kates book..perhaps you just want to assume its all lies
That would be going a bit far, but its only the truth as she sees it - it may not be the whole truth.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2013, 01:32:02 PM
Lies No I don't think so!
Fiona Payne
"by Kate knocking on the door and just you know, as I said earlier, suggesting they, they couldn’t sleep, they couldn’t, they couldn’t rest and they were just, it was driving them up the wall, just sitting there and not doing anything and they wanted to go out and look and would we just keep an eye on the twins”. 1485 “Can you remember what sort of time that was roughly?” Reply “Erm it was still very cold and, and dark, erm I think it was you know, between five and six, I say"
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2013, 01:37:37 PM
Fiona said it was cold and dark. Kate said it was getting light.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 01:40:33 PM
"by Kate knocking on the door and just you know, as I said earlier, suggesting they, they couldn’t sleep, they couldn’t, they couldn’t rest and they were just, it was driving them up the wall, just sitting there and not doing anything and they wanted to go out and look and would we just keep an eye on the twins”. 1485 “Can you remember what sort of time that was roughly?” Reply “Erm it was still very cold and, and dark, erm I think it was you know, between five and six, I say"
If you read elsewhere in the book this refers to when they went out AGAIN...makes a change from posters claiming they never searched at all
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2013, 01:44:24 PM
An unusual time to want to start searching when everyone else had gone and in the dark. Some may think it's a little bit suspicious.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 01:46:07 PM
An unusual time to want to start searching when everyone else had gone and in the dark. Some may think it's a little bit suspicious.
and some might not
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2013, 01:59:37 PM
Agreed but I think when individuals add up the many suspicions people will start to question what they really know. What happened in these missing hours? The missing hours on the car trip. Between 6.30pm and 8.30pm, keys to the church, boot being left open, dog alerts, putting the blame on Murat etc.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 11, 2013, 02:00:34 PM
Agreed but I think when individuals add up the many suspicions people will start to question what they really know. What happened in these missing hours? The missing hours on the car trip. Between 6.30pm and 8.30pm, Keys to the church, boot being left open, dog alerts, putting the blame on Murat etc.
well I suppose when there is no evidence posters looking for guilt have to rely on the car boot being left open
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 11, 2013, 02:14:20 PM
You should go straight to the source. Examine first witness statements and compare them.
MO "At around 21h25, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom quarters, that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots." (4 May)
GM "Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation." (4 May)
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 11, 2013, 02:17:43 PM
And the pj are able to sue for libel if they wanted to..as they made such a mess of the investigation they would lose though IMO
The PJ could not sue easily in the UK for libel. The law requires malice to be shown rather than just error in cases where a public body is involved. Same for Amaral as he was a public servant.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 11, 2013, 02:20:38 PM
What evidence are you bringing to the table that they made a mess of the investigation Dave?? Very few people know what really happened to Madeleine and I do not count the McCanns among them.
The abduction from the bed theory is dead in the water according to all the evidence which only leaves the awoke and wandered alternative if abduction is to be believed. If that is what happened it puts the parents firmly in the frame as far a culpability is concerned and that is not libel but fact!!
That is their real fear...that by their negligence they were directly responsible for facilitating an abduction.
There is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove any scenario.
The belief that abduction was impossible is shared by a few fanatic but is unprovable.
Currently two police teams seem to be investigating abduction from the room.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 11, 2013, 04:42:21 PM
"FRIDAY, MAY 4: No sleep, Gerry and I started looking through the streets around 06.00 as it was starting to get light. Nobody around. Why not? Desperate."
FRIDAY, MAY 4 : No sleep, no Dad or Mum looking through the streets, it's so dark. Lots of people around but I'm afraid to be hurt again. Why don't they come ? Desperate".
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: faithlilly on November 11, 2013, 04:50:47 PM
FRIDAY, MAY 4 : No sleep, no Dad or Mum looking through the streets, it's so dark. Lots of people around but I'm afraid to be hurt again. Why don't they come ? Desperate".
I really can't understand why the men of the group weren't out searching all night. There really is no logical excuse for not doing so.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: Aiofe on November 11, 2013, 04:54:36 PM
I really can't understand why the men of the group weren't out searching all night. There really is no logical excuse for not doing so.
Faithlilly, I think it is understandable. They all had been told Madeleine had been snatched, the proof being the shutters/window and later Tannerman. So they searched for a while because they couldn't believe what in fact was unbelievable. But then, as Madeleine wasn't found, they focused on the shutters/window and had to admit the unbelievable had occurred. What I don't understand is that at least one parent didn't scream "Madeleine" all night, because if a paedophile had taken and abused her, there was a tiny chance she had been left somewhere, as Mr McCann thought it possible since he went to the creche in case Madeleine had gone there after being taken and left alone.
Title: Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 11, 2013, 05:13:39 PM