UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Moderator on March 10, 2014, 02:52:10 PM
-
Much has been written about the half hour visual checks allegedly undertaken by certain members of the tapas group but was this a convenient invention after the disappearance intended to cover up any parental shortcomings?
There is evidence including the statements from the upstairs resident Mrs Fenn that an older child had cried and called for her father for over an hour two nights before the event.
Were the parents lulled into a false sense of security as the McCanns later claimed?
26
-
Was there any reason any of them had to expect any harm to come to their child?
When your child has dropped off to sleep, do you keep going in and looking cos I didn't generally. No sounds outside the door and that was good enough for me and most parents.
My bet is that Gerry carried out a visual that night cos the door had opened slightly since they left.
A visual check took place every half hour that night. Plus the listening one.
To remind you an audio check from outside, every half hour, was considerd enough for decades at holiday camps and hotels across the world.
THe Mccanns did visual ones
-
Was there any reason any of them had to expect any harm to come to their child?
When your child has dropped off to sleep, do you keep going in and looking cos I didn't generally. No sounds outside the door and that was good enough for me and most parents.
My bet is that Gerry carried out a visual that night cos the door had opened slightly since they left.
A visual check took place every half hour that night. Plus the listening one.
To remind you an audio check from outside, every half hour, was considerd enough for decades at holiday camps and hotels across the world.
THe Mccanns did visual ones
Not quite true.
gm did not look in the room.
If I remember correctly, the ONLY time either of them visited the children to check was on that night.
-
Was there any reason any of them had to expect any harm to come to their child?
When your child has dropped off to sleep, do you keep going in and looking cos I didn't generally. No sounds outside the door and that was good enough for me and most parents.
My bet is that Gerry carried out a visual that night cos the door had opened slightly since they left.
A visual check took place every half hour that night. Plus the listening one.
To remind you an audio check from outside, every half hour, was considerd enough for decades at holiday camps and hotels across the world.
THe Mccanns did visual ones
You still keep trotting this stuff out!..............Listening outside the BEDROOM door of an UNLOCKED apartment open to the street is not the same as either a Butlins listening service or your own house.
"No sounds outside the door" might be good enough for you, but from an unlocked apartment, you could be listening to an empty room with the child already gone.
The McCanns had reason to suspect that Madeleine might wake distressed.........not sleep peacefully through the night. They discussed it..
They seemed to expect that there was a chance she might get out and find them and it is stated that they thought this might be "better" than waking and finding herself securely locked in. How "safe" is that?
On crimewatch, Gerry mentioned increasing the checks due to the possibility that Madeleine might wake distressed.
Never-the-less only one "checker,".......Gerry..... actually said he looked in and saw her in her bed the night she disappeared from an open apartment.
No-one else actually looked at her!
........and yet you still insist that this arrangement was somehow "superior"
Why?
Edited to add the omitted word BEDROOM.....
-
Hmmm.........not all peculiar experiences are to be glad about.
Now nip back to post 817 and remove this Sadie- style misinformation .......
"A visual check took place every half hour that night. Plus the listening one. "
No, it didn`t.
Only one "visual check" of Madeleine took place on the night she disappeared.
No misinformation there.
Three visual checks took place, one every half hour.
- They arrived at about 8.30 -8.35
- Matt listened at the window at about 9 pm
- Gerry wasn't happy with that . He visually checked at about 9.05
- Matt visually checked, saw the twins and saw the bottom of Madeleines bed. No agitation /noise, so he accepted that she too was ok, rather than go into the bedroom and posibly desturb them. At about 9.30 ish
- Kate checked visually at about 10.pm. Madeleine was GONE
EVERY HALF AN HOUR there was a visual check. Madeleine was missed from Matts visual check, unfortunately, but he saw her bed was quiet and quite naturally, imo, assumed she was OK
[... moderated ...]
-
No misinformation there.
Three visual checks took place, one every half hour.
- They arrived at about 8.30 -8.35
- Matt listened at the window at about 9 pm
- Gerry wasn't happy with that . He visually checked at about 9.05
- Matt visually checked, saw the twins and saw the bottom of Madeleines bed. No agitation /noise, so he accepted that she too was ok, rather than go into the bedroom and posibly desturb them. At about 9.30 ish
- Kate checked visually at about 10.pm. Madeleine was GONE
EVERY HALF AN HOUR there was a visual check. Madeleine was missed from Matts visual check, unfortunately, but he saw her bed was quiet and quite naturally, imo, assumed she was OK
[... moderated ...]
A visual check is a visual check, not an assumption by you or Matt or anyone else that a child is there because all is quiet.
Madeleine was checked visually only once the whole time she was left alone on the night she disappeared.
Enough is enough.
You are wrong and you know you are wrong.
[... moderated ...]
-
A visual check is a visual check, not an assumption by you or Matt or anyone else that a child is there because all is quiet.
Madeleine was checked visually only once the whole time she was left alone on the night she disappeared.
Enough is enough.
You are wrong and you know you are wrong.
[... moderated ...]
Erm...
She was gone by Kates check at 10pm , that leaves two possibilities for visually seeing her doesn't it?
Gerry did his. He went in and visually checked all three. He possibly went in, becos the door had moved a little
Matt had no reason to notice the door was open wider, cos he hadn't seen its position before. He looked in and thought all was fine.
I suggest that to most people, that would be exactly what they would do. Look in and NOT go in, unless they were worried for some reason.
Perhaps you are over protective, Carew?
-
No misinformation there.
Three visual checks took place, one every half hour.
- They arrived at about 8.30 -8.35
- Matt listened at the window at about 9 pm
- Gerry wasn't happy with that . He visually checked at about 9.05
- Matt visually checked, saw the twins and saw the bottom of Madeleines bed. No agitation /noise, so he accepted that she too was ok, rather than go into the bedroom and posibly desturb them. At about 9.30 ish
- Kate checked visually at about 10.pm. Madeleine was GONE
EVERY HALF AN HOUR there was a visual check. Madeleine was missed from Matts visual check, unfortunately, but he saw her bed was quiet and quite naturally, imo, assumed she was OK
[... moderated ...]
That's funny Gerry said that was the first visual check he did of the week - I thought you'd seen that Cutting Edge doc? That first check is an important part of solving the case. Kate said she wasn't even going to do a visual check after entering the apartment 8-)(--)
-
That's funny Gerry said that was the first visual check he did of the week - I thought you'd seen that Cutting Edge doc? That first check is an important part of solving the case. Kate said she wasn't even going to do a visual check after entering the apartment 8-)(--)
Pathfinder had I been in a similar position, I can honestly say that unless I was worried for some reason, I wouldn't have gone into my kids bedroom.
My son was an horrendous sleeper. At home, we crept upstairs, went to the loo and washed but we didn't dare flush the loo, cos it would waken him. And then he would lie awake most of the night crying. Even without flushing the loo it seemed that he sensed that we had gone to bed and started demanding attention.
I believe thta we were very good parents but we didn't check every night. Our daughter was different cos she slept quite well but needed lifting for quite a while to potty her. Otherwise, generally, like most parents of toddlers I imagine, we left them to sleep peacefully unless we were aware of any problem.
Any probs and we were there like a shot.
Tbh, I think you are over reacting, compared to normal behaviour.
And they did check visually anyhow..
-
Pathfinder had I been in a similar position, I can honestly say that unless I was worried for some reason, I wouldn't have gone into my kids bedroom.
My son was an horrendous sleeper. At home, we crept upstairs, went to the loo and washed but we didn't dare flush the loo, cos it would waken him. And then he would lie awake most of the night crying. Even without flushing the loo it seemed that he sensed that we had gone to bed and started demanding attention.
I believe thta we were very good parents but we didn't check every night. Our daughter was different cos she slept quite well but needed lifting for quite a while to potty her. Otherwise, generally, like most parents of toddlers I imagine, we left them to sleep peacefully unless we were aware of any problem.
Any probs and we were there like a shot.
Tbh, I think you are over reacting, compared to normal behaviour.
And they did check visually anyhow..
What? You'd go inside the apartment and you wouldn't walk another 10 feet to see if they're there 8-)(--) I don't believe such ridiculous nonsense. They said Madeleine would never wake up until 2 or 3am and nothing could wake the twins that night. Kate was about to leave again after entering through the patio door but she notices the door wide open (that door can't stop moving!). So she goes to the door but still doesn't check if the kids are there 8-)(--) She just goes to shut the door and starts to close it and it slams shut on her. Then she opens it and finally does a visual check to see if the kids are there. Talk about beating around the bush flowerbed.
-
What? You'd go inside the apartment and you wouldn't walk another 10 feet to see if they're there 8-)(--) I don't believe such ridiculous nonsense. They said Madeleine would never wake up until 2 or 3am and nothing could wake the twins that night. Kate was about to leave again after entering through the patio door but she notices the door wide open (that door can't stop moving!). So she goes to the door but still doesn't check if the kids are there 8-)(--) She just goes to shut the door and starts to close it and it slams shut on her. Then she opens it and finally does a visual check to see if the kids are there. Talk about beating around the bush flowerbed.
Make up what you wish and believe what you wish. They visually checked. Full stop.
If all was quiet, i probably would not have done for fear of waking my little boy
But they did. THEY VISUALLY CHECKED
THEY VISUALLY CHECKED EVERY HALF HOUR. FULL STOP!
[..... moderated ....]
-
Make up what you wish and believe what you wish. They visually checked. Full stop.
If all was quiet, i probably would not have done for fear of waking my little boy
But they did. THEY VISUALLY CHECKED
THEY VISUALLY CHECKED EVERY HALF HOUR. FULL STOP!
[..... moderated ....]
Ok, let's pretend that you're not just making up crap and a half hour visual check was performed. Fine.
So Madeleine could not have been taken till after Matt's visual check at 9:30. So where does that leave Sadie's theory now?
-
Ok, let's pretend that you're not just making up crap and a half hour visual check was performed. Fine.
So Madeleine could not have been taken till after Matt's visual check at 9:30. So where does that leave Sadie's theory now?
why?
-
How twee Cariad to still be going over and over the same stuff and trying to change the times, the evidence, it seems
As you well know, Matt saw the twins and seeing the end of Madeleines bed all quiet, he didn't enter the room.
He behaved the same as you or I would have done.
However somewhere he says that some light in the bedroom seemed to be coming from somewhere else than from the table lamp.
Now where could that source be? Makes sense that it was coming from under the lifted shutters, doncha think?
There was very little light outside, the street lamps were all masked by heavy foliage and the moon had not yet risen IIRC. There were also light weight curtains across the window.
It is quite possible that he didn't even see the window area thru the little over 45* door opening, but he recognised the slight glow. Through thta door opening he would see the twins and the bottom of Madeleines bed, but depending on where he was standing. not necessarily the window.
I think that the abduction took place between Gerrys visit at about 9.05 - 9.10 ish and Matts visit at about 9.30.
This ties up really nicely with Jane Tanners sighting .... and I haven't found it necessary to fiddle with,/change any of the times in the statements.
I think JT witnessed the abductor carrying Madeleine away
Now, if you will excuse me, I must get on with real life.
Wow! Is it possible to OD on patronisation? I certainly feel a little queasy...
I don't have a theory Sadie, so I don't need to alter times/ checks to fit in with anything.
As for doing as you or I would do, just to be absolutely clear, I would never, ever leave small children out of sight/ hearings in an unsecured apartment for half an hour. Be it day or night, home or abroad. So whether I would actually make sure that they were still in the unlocked apartment on my 'check' is academic.
The point I was making is that you can't have it both ways. Either Matt saw her and the alleged abduction took place later or there wasn't a visual check.
I think you'll find that the man JT saw has been identified now anyway and SY think the 'abduction' took place at about ten.
-
I've just looked at the layout of the room, as Matthew Oldfield would have seen it when he looked in
Whilst one of the cots has a 'see through' netting on the end, the other cot end is covered
Oldfield couldn't have 'seen' the child asleep in that cot unless he walked into the room and looked down into it ... could he ?
Yet he said he saw the twins breathing from his position at the door ... how could that be ?
-
Look at it this way and assuming the statements are true, the last person that we know of to see Madeleine was Gerry and that was just after 9.10pm. So again assuming the statements are true then Madeleine must have left the apartment between this time and 10.00pm when Kate did her first check of the evening. Now that is quite a big window of opportunity to cover.
-
Look at it this way and assuming the statements are true, the last person that we know of to see Madeleine was Gerry and that was just after 9.10pm. So again assuming the statements are true then Madeleine must have left the apartment between this time and10.00pm when Kate did her first check of the evening. Now that is quite a big window of opportunity to cover.
Yes it makes sense that whatever happened to cause her to not be in the apartment IMO must have happened after about 9.10pm which was the last actual visual sighting, so that's the start anyway of the period of interest IMO
-
Visual checks mean different things to different people. There is a big difference between making a visual check of the apartment and possibly the children's bedroom as against visually checking that one's children are where they are supposed to be.
-
Visual checks mean different things to different people. There is a big difference between making a visual check of the apartment and possibly the children's bedroom as against visually checking that one's children are where they are supposed to be.
It seems that the interpretation of "visual check" is used as a convenience.
Question: were you conducting a visual check to ensure you car remained in your garage what would you do?
Listen at the door? or open door or look through the window to ensure it was there by actually seeing it.
Wait for the ducking and diving!
-
The problem with the 'window of opportunity' is that we have to take GM's word for it that he did actually make a visual check. What if he didn't? If there were no visual checks then that would widen the window of opportunity to pretty much the whole evening?
-
Much has been written about the half hour visual checks allegedly undertaken by certain members of the tapas group but was this a convenient invention after the disappearance intended to cover up any parental shortcomings?
There is evidence including the statements from the upstairs resident Mrs Fenn that an older child had cried and called for her father for over an hour two nights before the event.
Were the parents lulled into a false sense of security as the McCanns later claimed?
A comment made on another thread reminded me of this half hour checks claim which was blown out of the water by Mrs Fenn's counter claim to the effect that the crying in the apartment below her went on for over an hour on the Tuesday night just two days prior to the disappearance.
-
Look at it this way and assuming the statements are true, the last person that we know of to see Madeleine was Gerry and that was just after 9.10pm. So again assuming the statements are true then Madeleine must have left the apartment between this time and10.00pm when Kate did her first check of the evening. Now that is quite a big window of opportunity to cover.
And plenty of time for an abduction to occur
-
The problem with the 'window of opportunity' is that we have to take GM's word for it that he did actually make a visual check. What if he didn't? If there were no visual checks then that would widen the window of opportunity to pretty much the whole evening?
True.
-
Much has been written about the half hour visual checks allegedly undertaken by certain members of the tapas group but was this a convenient invention after the disappearance intended to cover up any parental shortcomings?
There is evidence including the statements from the upstairs resident Mrs Fenn that an older child had cried and called for her father for over an hour two nights before the event.
Were the parents lulled into a false sense of security as the McCanns later claimed?
20
Dear Mr Moderator, there are three possible answers to your question, one of which is clearly libellous and therefore not permitted, so only "don't know" (which implies doubt of the McCanns and their friends' honesty, so on dodgy ground) and "no" are permitted answers. Why are you inviting your members to make libellous speculations?
-
2 3/4 years to wake up?
Better than Rip van Winkle I guess; he slept for 20.
-
Dear Mr Moderator, there are three possible answers to your question, one of which is clearly libellous and therefore not permitted, so only "don't know" (which implies doubt of the McCanns and their friends' honesty, so on dodgy ground) and "no" are permitted answers. Why are you inviting your members to make libellous speculations?
Actually, depending on how it is worded it is not libellous to express doubt over a statement as long as you cite justifiable reasons for your doubt.
-
Actually, depending on how it is worded it is not libellous to express doubt over a statement as long as you cite justifiable reasons for your doubt.
Clearly the half hour checks didn't always materialise.
-
Clearly the half hour checks didn't always materialise.
Without ploughing through the rogatory statements yet again ... I believe it was said that the McCanns were punctilious in their checking of the children.
-
Without ploughing through the rogatory statements yet again ... I believe it was said that the McCanns were punctilious in their checking of the children.
Cite?
-
Without ploughing through the rogatory statements yet again ... I believe it was said that the McCanns were punctilious in their checking of the children.
Well they would say that wouldn't they when the Portuguese were baying for blood. Unfortunately for them Mrs Fenn experienced a somewhat different reality on the Tuesday night. But then that was a mere one off, a blip in an otherwise well oiled procedure.
-
Actually, depending on how it is worded it is not libellous to express doubt over a statement as long as you cite justifiable reasons for your doubt.
Can you give us an example?
-
Well they would say that wouldn't they when the Portuguese were baying for blood. Unfortunately for them Mrs Fenn experienced a somewhat different reality on the Tuesday night. But then that was a mere one off, a blip in an otherwise well oiled procedure.
Did Mrs Fenn state that the McCanns did not check on their children every 30 minutes?
-
Clearly the half hour checks didn't always materialise.
If what you say is correct then clearly the visual checks were a convenient invention after the fact - is that a permitted statement to make on this forum? That the McCanns and their friends invented their checks? Please clarify.
-
Cite?
I haven't checked the other rogs ... but Fiona Payne's seems to cover most of the bases in relation to the checking of the children.
Her statement is very concise as to the reasoning behind the suitability of the tapas restaurant as opposed to the difficulties associated with dining at the Millenium restaurant as far as the children were concerned.
It can be seen that they considered the proximity to be a bonus and felt safe to leave their children ... unfortunately no-one factored in the possibility of a stranger entering and stealing one.
She also reiterates the feeling of security given by the shutters in her apartment and the assumption that the windows were locked.
The statement I referred to in my post made it plain the the McCanns were clock watchers when it came to carrying out checks; Fiona confirms not only that but that the other couples were also punctillious when it came to carrying out their checks.
However, she states that Gerald and Kate went with regularity, as did the other couples to ensure that their children were well. On one of these occasions, upon returning, Kate, very scared and nervous, in a panic, told them in the restaurant that Madeleine had gone missing, screaming and frightened.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
'Because I don't think it started until sort of half six, seven, the actual, you know, the food. Erm, so that wasn't, it, you know, we were sort of thought well this isn't going to work particular well sort of taking them there every night. Erm, and so it wasn't really until the Sunday, I think, that we, we sort of realised you could eat at the Tapas Bar. Erm, and I think, you know, we just looked at it and it, it did feel like you were kind of across, in your back garden, admittedly, a large back garden, but a back garden, erm, and we just thought well that's great, we can just sort of, you know, easily nip across and check the children on a regular basis and, erm, everyone felt sort of quite happy and comfortable with, with that,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
'The windows, erm, to be honest, in Lily's room, we didn't ever check the window. Erm, another thing that you think of. I mean, when we arrived, we assumed it was sort of locked and closed and the shutter was down. And I think we only ever sort of slightly opened, it was one of these shutters where, erm, sort of graded, erm, you can open it a little bit and it just opens up with a few holes to let a little bit of light in but the whole shutter is still actually down.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
'So I can only say, you know, I was quite conscious other people were doing that, erm, but I wasn't part of that. Erm, but, you know, people were very stringent about getting, you know, as I say, clock watching and making sure they went'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
-
Well they would say that wouldn't they when the Portuguese were baying for blood. Unfortunately for them Mrs Fenn experienced a somewhat different reality on the Tuesday night. But then that was a mere one off, a blip in an otherwise well oiled procedure.
"Sometimes we would sit out on our balcony and their laughter would float up around us." Bridget O'Donnell
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Sound carries, particularly on a quiet night and the source can be difficult to pin point. Bridget's child was difficult to settle. There were many other children of all ages in the holiday apartments.
There is absolutely no certainty that the child Mrs Fenn heard crying was either Madeleine or her siblings.
-
Was there any reason any of them had to expect any harm to come to their child?
When your child has dropped off to sleep, do you keep going in and looking cos I didn't generally. No sounds outside the door and that was good enough for me and most parents.
My bet is that Gerry carried out a visual that night cos the door had opened slightly since they left.
A visual check took place every half hour that night. Plus the listening one.
To remind you an audio check from outside, every half hour, was considered enough for decades at holiday camps and hotels across the world.
THe Mccanns did visual ones
Just this one line had me wondering how they ever mad it as doctors! The child protection documents and NHS Training on this subject is borderline intrusive and cases are built on very shifty comments ...
But for those of you who don't have access to that training expertise here are a few child injury admissions
1 95% burns from bath- parent forgot to increase cold water in mixer taps
2 severe injuries including broken coller bone dislocated shoulder etc- one parent left baby seat at rear of car, the other parent accidentally ran onto baby seat at the rear of the car
3 alcoholic poisoning- due to parents leaving alcohol in unlocked cupboard reachable by 3 year old child
4 Strangled to death by blinds cord- parent left the child unattended in a room
5 poison by accessable liquids to children under 4 years old
6 burned by falling into a BBQ while it was unattended by an adult
7 drowned in small garden fish pond- left unattended by an adult
and we also hear of house fires which result in death... all of these things could have occurred in the absence of parents.. Just saying... AND those Doctors all knew of these due to their mandatory training!
-
With Regularity? OK this time please and anwer the question yes or no... did you all physically check all the children at half hourly intervals.
What kind of answer is this?
'Because I don't think it started until sort of half six, seven, the actual, you know, the food. Erm, so that wasn't, it, you know, we were sort of thought well this isn't going to work particular well sort of taking them there every night. Erm, and so it wasn't really until the Sunday, I think, that we, we sort of realised you could eat at the Tapas Bar. Erm, and I think, you know, we just looked at it and it, it did feel like you were kind of across, in your back garden, admittedly, a large back garden, but a back garden, erm, and we just thought well that's great, we can just sort of, you know, easily nip across and check the children on a regular basis and, erm, everyone felt sort of quite happy and comfortable with, with that,
In fact what was the bloody question?
nip and check on a regular basis no mention of what kind of check, no mention of a written schedule they all adhered to.
So lets see what Kate N Gerry say...
We went into the childrens room to check themat preciely half hourly intervals, We had our watches set by it- on one such occasion, I went in and saw Maddie missing.
No it just didn't happen like that or Kate and the rest would have said, wouldn't they or would they have said yeah , but , no , but ,yeah and then umm we errr well you know...
-
I haven't checked the other rogs ... but Fiona Payne's seems to cover most of the bases in relation to the checking of the children.
Her statement is very concise as to the reasoning behind the suitability of the tapas restaurant as opposed to the difficulties associated with dining at the Millenium restaurant as far as the children were concerned.
It can be seen that they considered the proximity to be a bonus and felt safe to leave their children ... unfortunately no-one factored in the possibility of a stranger entering and stealing one.
She also reiterates the feeling of security given by the shutters in her apartment and the assumption that the windows were locked.
The statement I referred to in my post made it plain the the McCanns were clock watchers when it came to carrying out checks; Fiona confirms not only that but that the other couples were also punctillious when it came to carrying out their checks.
However, she states that Gerald and Kate went with regularity, as did the other couples to ensure that their children were well. On one of these occasions, upon returning, Kate, very scared and nervous, in a panic, told them in the restaurant that Madeleine had gone missing, screaming and frightened.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE.htm
'Because I don't think it started until sort of half six, seven, the actual, you know, the food. Erm, so that wasn't, it, you know, we were sort of thought well this isn't going to work particular well sort of taking them there every night. Erm, and so it wasn't really until the Sunday, I think, that we, we sort of realised you could eat at the Tapas Bar. Erm, and I think, you know, we just looked at it and it, it did feel like you were kind of across, in your back garden, admittedly, a large back garden, but a back garden, erm, and we just thought well that's great, we can just sort of, you know, easily nip across and check the children on a regular basis and, erm, everyone felt sort of quite happy and comfortable with, with that,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
'The windows, erm, to be honest, in Lily's room, we didn't ever check the window. Erm, another thing that you think of. I mean, when we arrived, we assumed it was sort of locked and closed and the shutter was down. And I think we only ever sort of slightly opened, it was one of these shutters where, erm, sort of graded, erm, you can open it a little bit and it just opens up with a few holes to let a little bit of light in but the whole shutter is still actually down.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
'So I can only say, you know, I was quite conscious other people were doing that, erm, but I wasn't part of that. Erm, but, you know, people were very stringent about getting, you know, as I say, clock watching and making sure they went'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
So only the last one comes close if we could decipher the English.
-
So only the last one comes close if we could decipher the English.
Oh 'we' can decipher the English just fine. Only some of 'us' fail to comprehend that when seven people are attesting in police witness statements to the checking system they used for their children they are going to do so to the best of their ability. Not to mention independent witnesses who noticed them leaving the table periodically without being able to go into any great detail in their police statements.
Some of 'us' may not like the fact that the children were regularly checked but in the lack of any information which proves the contrary perhaps 'we' should have more care about libelling witnesses n'est–ce pas?
-
Oh 'we' can decipher the English just fine. Only some of 'us' fail to comprehend that when seven people are attesting in police witness statements to the checking system they used for their children they are going to do so to the best of their ability. Not to mention independent witnesses who noticed them leaving the table periodically without being able to go into any great detail in their police statements.
Some of 'us' may not like the fact that the children were regularly checked but in the lack of any information which proves the contrary perhaps 'we' should have more care about libelling witnesses n'est–ce pas?
But Mrs Fenn seems to be fair game?
-
I only made 3 or 4 posts yesterday but one of them presumably on this thread constituted libel apparently. Could someone kindly explain what libel I committed? This is the biggest joke ever!
-
But Mrs Fenn seems to be fair game?
In what manner is Mrs Fenn "fair game" on this forum?
-
In their 4th May statements Kate says Gerry went to check at 9.00pm with Russell. Gerry says he went at 9.05pm. David, Fiona and Dianne don't remember. Matthew says he went at 9.05 [after the Paynes arrived] and that Gerry went after his return. It seems Kate may have been asked by Gerry to check before 30 minutes had passed.
Then Gerry came back at around 9.25/9.30 and they started to eat the first course.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm
After placing their orders, at around 9.15pm, Gerry McCann went to check, only his apartment. He was held up for nearly 10 minutes because, he said, he had been chatting with Jes about tennis.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD.htm
She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
-
Oh 'we' can decipher the English just fine. Only some of 'us' fail to comprehend that when seven people are attesting in police witness statements to the checking system they used for their children they are going to do so to the best of their ability. Not to mention independent witnesses who noticed them leaving the table periodically without being able to go into any great detail in their police statements.
Some of 'us' may not like the fact that the children were regularly checked but in the lack of any information which proves the contrary perhaps 'we' should have more care about libelling witnesses n'est–ce pas?
No, many can't decipher that English. The claim is made by Tapas and parents and supporters, they checked their children every half hour. THEY quite clearly didn't, and the 'checking' they did do was listening at a door, as and when, not physical checks, and we know this because Kate told us that Maddie had questioned why they were not there the night before when Sean was crying , also heard by Mrs Fen who claimed it lasted more than half an hour.
The reason for the 'erms' 'um' 'rrr' 'you knows' is quite clearly an excersise to stop them telling the truth- they did not do physical checks on those children at half hourly intervals on ANY evening. and this was, discussed, planned before they even left the UK. The reason for not addmitting this is : They didn't want to be proscecuted for neglect and they didn't want people to hate them...yes their precious reputation more important that telling actual time lines to help police find a child...
-
No, many can't decipher that English. The claim is made by Tapas and parents and supporters, they checked their children every half hour. THEY quite clearly didn't, and the 'checking' they did do was listening at a door, as and when, not physical checks, and we know this because Kate told us that Maddie had questioned why they were not there the night before when Sean was crying , also heard by Mrs Fen who claimed it lasted more than half an hour.
The reason for the 'erms' 'um' 'rrr' 'you knows' is quite clearly an excersise to stop them telling the truth- they did not do physical checks on those children at half hourly intervals on ANY evening. and this was, discussed, planned before they even left the UK. The reason for not addmitting this is : They didn't want to be proscecuted for neglect and they didn't want people to hate them...yes their precious reputation more important that telling actual time lines to help police find a child...
... and you presume to know better than the police forces of two nations the significance of witness statements ... in what way?
Just as the police took statements from Murat and other witnesses ... collated and investigated them ... to their satisfaction and to be able to report back to the Prosecutors that there was no evidence linking him to Madeleine's disappearance ... they did the same with all other witness statements.
They didn't take witness statements for fun.
They were gathering evidence and they found no evidence against Murat ... or any of the other main players.
It is incomprehensible to me why some do not find it incompatible with reason ... that the tale of one cop desperate for justification of his own incompetent handling of Madeleine's ... is preferred to the results of the proper investigation carried out by the Brits and the Policia Judiciaria.
In my opinion your last sentence constitutes libel in so many ways and it says a lot more about you than it does about those you libel.
-
... and you presume to know better than the police forces of two nations the significance of witness statements ... in what way?
Just as the police took statements from Murat and other witnesses ... collated and investigated them ... to their satisfaction and to be able to report back to the Prosecutors that there was no evidence linking him to Madeleine's disappearance ... they did the same with all other witness statements.
They didn't take witness statements for fun.
They were gathering evidence and they found no evidence against Murat ... or any of the other main players.
It is incomprehensible to me why some do not find it incompatible with reason ... that the tale of one cop desperate for justification of his own incompetent handling of Madeleine's ... is preferred to the results of the proper investigation carried out by the Brits and the Policia Judiciaria.
In my opinion your last sentence constitutes libel in so many ways and it says a lot more about you than it does about those you libel.
Let's look at this closely
1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking' the children.
2. The statements claim to see them leave the table so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?
My statement is not liable at all- they did claim there were concerned what people would say, their parents etc. Kate did say she was concerned for their reputation in her claim against Amara... and they were worried they would be charged with something in Portugal.
-
Let's look at this closely
1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking' the children.
2. The statements claim to see them leave the table so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?
My statement is not liable at all- they did claim there were concerned what people would say, their parents etc. Kate did say she was concerned for their reputation in her claim against Amara... and they were worried they would be charged with something in Portugal.
You truly must move on.
The police have fully investigated these sworn witness statements to the nth degree. In fact they are probably the most scrutinised statements of any witness statement of all time.
They have withstood that scrutiny from people slightly better qualified to evaluate statements than anyone posting their uneducated opinion on the internet.
You are unqualified both morally and legally to make assessments which are at variance with what witnesses have stated under oath and which have been subject to police investigation.
If you contradict what a person ... any person has said in a sworn statement ... you are traducing that person
by accusing them of dishonesty. That is libel.
-
You truly must move on.
The police have fully investigated these sworn witness statements to the nth degree. In fact they are probably the most scrutinised statements of any witness statement of all time.
They have withstood that scrutiny from people slightly better qualified to evaluate statements than anyone posting their uneducated opinion on the internet.
You are unqualified both morally and legally to make assessments which are at variance with what witnesses have stated under oath and which have been subject to police investigation.
If you contradict what a person ... any person has said in a sworn statement ... you are traducing that person
by accusing them of dishonesty. That is libel.
You opine as a moderator my morality? well, well. forgive me for falling over laughing.
Well, exactly how much do you know about how much I know about this case exactly, to offer your own opinion.?
The answer is nothing.
So not moving on at all as these are pertinant issues. I note you cannot answer any of the above notes I have provided. and the answer is simple YOU cannot.
So what part in all these statements have I commited libel exactly? Well, ofcourse I havn't. however, if you want to pursue this in a court of law then please get on with it...
1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking' the children.
Libel or not libel?
2. The statements claim to see them leave the table so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
libel or not libel
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
libel or not libel?
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
Libel or not libel
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?
Now do tell which bits you don't like. Personally, I don't like any of it, but it is what it is, and it isnt libel!.
All the statements, all scrutinised by people with better morality and experience them me can't find a child who went missing not proved to have been abducted as claimed by the parents.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
"It is extracted from the files that the McCanns and their friends checked to verify if all was well with their children, as can be concluded from what the members of this group declared, and also derives from the testimony of Jerónimo Tomás Rodrigues Salceda, a waiter at the Tapas [24], who stated that he "noticed, because it was evident, that some of the group's members sometimes went outside of the restaurant to do something, which by and by he realised was to "check" on the children. Nevertheless, he was always convinced that those children were in a space that belonged to the Luz Ocean Club. . ."
Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files, which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.
In effect, this group of friends was enjoying a short holiday period, therefore perfectly relaxed and it would be normal that, having dinner, inclusively with an entertainment service available [25], they were not very concerned with anything that might happen to their children during that dinner period.
-
Let's look at this closely
1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking' the children.
2. The statements claim to see them leave the table so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?
My statement is not liable at all- they did claim there were concerned what people would say, their parents etc. Kate did say she was concerned for their reputation in her claim against Amara... and they were worried they would be charged with something in Portugal.
You are calling the Tapas nine liars aren't you? Why would these friends of the McCann's lie?
-
Let's look at this closely
1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking' the children.
2. The statements claim to see them leave the table so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?
My statement is not liable at all- they did claim there were concerned what people would say, their parents etc. Kate did say she was concerned for their reputation in her claim against Amara... and they were worried they would be charged with something in Portugal.
So are you saying that unless some total stranger or someone totally unconnected to them walked along with each and every parent and stood next to them while they checked their children - or unless there are people who witnessed every check made by every member of the group - it is reasonable to assume they could be lying?
The only way any of them could have given totally accurate times of their checking would be if they had checked and kept notes of those times each and every time they left and returned to the table.
To most people that would be a very strange thing for anyone to do - not to mention a totally unrealistic expectation.
Meanwhile, back in the real world......
SY have stated that they believe Madeleine disappeared at some time between Gerry's 9.05 visit and Kate's 10.00'clock check. I can find no reason to believe SY are lying.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
"It is extracted from the files that the McCanns and their friends checked to verify if all was well with their children, as can be concluded from what the members of this group declared, and also derives from the testimony of Jerónimo Tomás Rodrigues Salceda, a waiter at the Tapas [24], who stated that he "noticed, because it was evident, that some of the group's members sometimes went outside of the restaurant to do something, which by and by he realised was to "check" on the children. Nevertheless, he was always convinced that those children were in a space that belonged to the Luz Ocean Club. . ."
Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files, which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.
In effect, this group of friends was enjoying a short holiday period, therefore perfectly relaxed and it would be normal that, having dinner, inclusively with an entertainment service available [25], they were not very concerned with anything that might happen to their children during that dinner period.
Jeronimo was the wine waiter, wasn't he?
He would spend most of his time in the tapas bar and NOT in the tapas restaurant. They do adjoin, but are completely seperate buildings. He came in as wine waiter, but would not be in a position to see everything that went on from next door.
-
You opine as a moderator my morality? well, well. forgive me for falling over laughing.
Well, exactly how much do you know about how much I know about this case exactly, to offer your own opinion.?
The answer is nothing.
So not moving on at all as these are pertinant issues. I note you cannot answer any of the above notes I have provided. and the answer is simple YOU cannot.
So what part in all these statements have I commited libel exactly? Well, ofcourse I havn't. however, if you want to pursue this in a court of law then please get on with it...
1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking' the children.
Libel or not libel?
2. The statements claim to see them leave the table so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
libel or not libel
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
libel or not libel?
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
Libel or not libel
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?
Now do tell which bits you don't like. Personally, I don't like any of it, but it is what it is, and it isnt libel!.
All the statements, all scrutinised by people with better morality and experience them me can't find a child who went missing not proved to have been abducted as claimed by the parents.
You still haven't got it.
The police do the questioning. The police take the statements. The police do the cross referencing for evaluation purposes. The police enable prosecutors to decide whether or not proceedings ensue.
What is it you or anyone else on the internet can do that hasn't been done already by the police.
Or is it your contention that the Policia Judiciaria were so remiss and incompetent in detective work that I will be so much better at answering your questions than they were at the time with all the information there was to hand?
You appear not to have a clue what constitutes defamation ~ or is it that you do know but just don't give a damn?
-
You are calling the Tapas nine liars aren't you? Why would these friends of the McCann's lie?
You seem to be assuming lying. There are lots of reasons that the recall of timings and actions may be incorrect.
-
Jeronimo was the wine waiter, wasn't he?
He would spend most of his time in the tapas bar and NOT in the tapas restaurant. They do adjoin, but are completely seperate buildings. He came in as wine waiter, but would not be in a position to see everything that went on from next door.
I thought he was an Apache Chief but there you go.
I was merely highlighting what the signatories to the archiving report thought.
-
You seem to be assuming lying. There are lots of reasons that the recall of timings and actions may be incorrect.
All of which would, I imagine, have been thoroughly checked out by the investigating authorities at the time. To suggest otherwise questions their professionalism and expertise.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
"It is extracted from the files that the McCanns and their friends checked to verify if all was well with their children, as can be concluded from what the members of this group declared, and also derives from the testimony of Jerónimo Tomás Rodrigues Salceda, a waiter at the Tapas [24], who stated that he "noticed, because it was evident, that some of the group's members sometimes went outside of the restaurant to do something, which by and by he realised was to "check" on the children. Nevertheless, he was always convinced that those children were in a space that belonged to the Luz Ocean Club. . ."
Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files, which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.
In effect, this group of friends was enjoying a short holiday period, therefore perfectly relaxed and it would be normal that, having dinner, inclusively with an entertainment service available [25], they were not very concerned with anything that might happen to their children during that dinner period.
Jeronimo had a lot to say, didn't he? Not all of it helpful. His first words were;
He did not notice if from the group of British citizens (in number 8 or 9) that yesterday dined in restaurant (which was partly made up of the parents of the missing [child]), someone left [absented themself] during such dinner;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
He had seen them leaving the restaurant earlier in the week;
He noticed, because it was obvious, that some of the members of the group would regularly leave the restaurant to do something, which he gradually came to realise was 'controlling' the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm
Moving on to 3rd May;
Referring to the day of 3rd May when Madeleine disappeared, the witness says that he was working.
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm
On the table booking, the time again, and was that Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja? He left the Tapas at 9.40pm, didn't he?
The table was booked then for 19H30 to 20H00......Frequently, when I served the table I noticed that one or two elements of the group had left the restaurant. I could not imagine where they had gone to. After seeing the news stories, I figured that they had gone to check on their children.......I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? ........I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty. .... I saw the head of the Milenium Restaurant in the Tapas and asked him to telephone the restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
-
All of which would, I imagine, have been thoroughly checked out by the investigating authorities at the time. To suggest otherwise questions their professionalism and expertise.
A reconstitution was suggested.
-
A reconstitution was suggested.
Why didn't Amaral do that at the time, when the 'iron was hot?'
The Mccanns wanted it but his excuse was something of the order that it would be impossible because of the media intrusion. What Tommy Rot !
Was he trying to persuade the critical 'audience that the PJ were not capable of doing it at the time? That they were incapable of denying public access to a relatively small area ?
I dont believe that. From all that he has said, he had made up his mind within hours that madeleine had not been abducted, so no point in searching for her. The way forward in his mind was to find anything he could to incriminate The Mccanns.
Another notch to his gun, so to speak
-
A reconstitution was suggested.
The motives for refusing being open to interpretation.
-
Why didn't Amaral do that at the time, when the 'iron was hot?'
The Mccanns wanted it but his excuse was something of the order that it would be impossible because of the media intrusion. What Tommy Rot !
Was he trying to persuade the critical 'audience that the PJ were not capable of doing it at the time? That they were incapable of denying public access to a relatively small area ?
I dont believe that. From all that he has said, he had made up his mind within hours that madeleine had not been abducted, so no point in searching for her. The way forward in his mind was to find anything he could to incriminate The Mccanns.
Another notch to his gun, so to speak
Remind us who were the investigating authority. It is not usual for those connected with a crime or victims to dictate how an investigation proceeds.
-
Remind us who were the investigating authority. It is not usual for those connected with a crime or victims to dictate how an investigation proceeds.
Amaral has said that he couldn't do it because of media intrusion, which is Tommy Rot.
He just didn't want it that stage. Was the reason for that because he had already made up his mind that the Mccanns were involved? He did that overnight, just a few hours after Madeleine going missing.
Was he fearful that a reconstruction might publicly prove his theory wrong ?
I can't think of any other reason, can you ?
-
Amaral has said that he couldn't do it because of media intrusion, which is Tommy Rot.
He just didn't want it that stage. Was the reason for that because he had already made up his mind that the Mccanns were involved? He did that overnight, just a few hours after Madeleine going missing.
Was he fearful that a reconstruction might publicly prove his theory wrong ?
I can't think of any other reason, can you ?
You are calling the investigating officer a liar, please provide cites or remove.
-
You are calling the investigating officer a liar, please provide cites or remove.
I am not calling him a liar, altho I do wonder.
I am saying that his judgement was very weak and was that because of his over-riding conviction that the Mccanns were involved?
-
I am not calling him a liar, altho I do wonder.
I am saying that his judgement was very weak and was that because of his over-riding conviction that the Mccanns were involved?
So what does...
Amaral has said that he couldn't do it because of media intrusion, which is Tommy Rot.
Mean.
Still no cites on his decision then. Creating myths Sadie?
-
So what does...
Mean.
Still no cites on his decision then. Creating myths Sadie?
Yep his judgement was totally wrong about the reasons for not organising a reconstruction and I repeat I do wonder if he feared that a reconstruction at the time might publicly prove his extraordinarly rapidly formed theory had great big holes in it.
As for calling him a liar. We all know that he is a liar because of his perjury. The Courts found him guilty of lying .... but in this instance I give him the benefit of the doubt .... but I do wonder.
BTW could you think of any other reasons ? :
Was he fearful that a reconstruction might publicly prove his theory wrong ?
I can't think of any other reason, can you ?
Can you think of any other reasons, Slarti?
-
You still haven't got it.
The police do the questioning. The police take the statements. The police do the cross referencing for evaluation purposes. The police enable prosecutors to decide whether or not proceedings ensue.
What is it you or anyone else on the internet can do that hasn't been done already by the police.
Or is it your contention that the Policia Judiciaria were so remiss and incompetent in detective work that I will be so much better at answering your questions than they were at the time with all the information there was to hand?
You appear not to have a clue what constitutes defamation ~ or is it that you do know but just don't give a damn?
It would seem you chose to berate and name call and insinuate illiteracy coupled with a mental health condition which means I have obviously won that argument.
Not giving a damn would be right up there with who GAF about them anyway.
However, what you fail to acknowledge is: I was questioning the validity of answers they gave to the police- which I am sure the Police had in mind IE, Tapas tell a story about 30 mins checking but there seems to be lacking independant verification, therefore, we only have their word for it- Hence they may or may not have checked every 30 mins,in other words they may or may not be telling the truth. Certainly not libel, but I wouldn't have an issue coming up against CR, because I would crucify their PR Machine by forcing them to say what they didn't says before on camera.
-
It would seem you chose to berate and name call and insinuate illiteracy coupled with a mental health condition which means I have obviously won that argument.
Not giving a damn would be right up there with who GAF about them anyway.
However, what you fail to acknowledge is: I was questioning the validity of answers they gave to the police- which I am sure the Police had in mind IE, Tapas tell a story about 30 mins checking but there seems to be lacking independant verification, therefore, we only have their word for it- Hence they may or may not have checked every 30 mins,in other words they may or may not be telling the truth. Certainly not libel, but I wouldn't have an issue coming up against CR, because I would crucify their PR Machine by forcing them to say what they didn't says before on camera.
Any suggestions about who COULD verify their 30 minute checks would be appreciated.
Nobody, that is not part of the group, will have had a stop watch timing them.
SY Officers and PJ Officer Rebelo and the rest of the PJ apart from Amaral and his cohorts seem happy with the tapas accounts ... so why are you so bigotted that you can only see lies from the Tapas Group?
Nine mainly senior professionals who are unlikely to have reached their levels in their professions if they were liars, have individually given their accounts of what happened ... and the timings as they remember them.
Are you calling them all liars ?
-
Any suggestions about who COULD verify their 30 minute checks would be appreciated.
Nobody, that is not part of the group, will have had a stop watch timing them.
SY Officers and PJ Officer Rebelo and the rest of the PJ apart from Amaral and his cohorts seem happy with the tapas accounts ... so why are you so bigotted that you can only see lies from the Tapas Group?
Nine mainly senior professionals who are unlikely to have reached their levels in their professions if they were liars, have individually given their accounts of what happened ... and the timings as they remember them.
Are you calling them all liars ?
There were enough contradictions for the PJ to ask for a reconstitution. Owing to the refusal of the witnesses to take part those contradictions were never explained. When the case was archived the Legal Summary said;
said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Those facts remain unclarified as far as I know.
-
There were enough contradictions for the PJ to ask for a reconstitution. Owing to the refusal of the witnesses to take part those contradictions were never explained. When the case was archived the Legal Summary said;
said facts remain unclarified.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Those facts remain unclarified as far as I know.
And the question remains:
Why didn't the PJ do the reconstitution / reconstruction at the time, as The Mccanns wanted ? Whilst everything was clear in everybodies minds ?
Why didn't they do it then Gunit ?
-
And the question remains:
Why didn't the PJ do the reconstitution / reconstruction at the time, as The Mccanns wanted ? Whilst everything was clear in everybodies minds ?
Why didn't they do it then Gunit ?
I have only one source, which is Amaral. He doesn't actually say who decided not to do it, he just provides the reasons given. Ruining people's holidays, closing airspace, hordes of journalists and the danger of making the group look like suspects.
Do you have a cite for the McCanns wanting a reconstruction 'at the time' please?
-
GUILHERMINO ENCARNACAO was Amarals superior and the one who ran the case, IIRC it was he who suggested a reconstruction at the time was not a good idea..but i cant remember where i read this
alot of the decisions made were nothing to do with amaral as he had go take orders but some people are obsessed with him and making him the fall guy...no doubt to the joy of the mccanns and their cohorts, i mean why on earth would the british press gun for him so early and why on earth would the mccanns pay for blackening hs name through their metodo agency...deserve all they get imo in comeback...he was doing his job and they crucified him for it
-
GUILHERMINO ENCARNACAO was Amarals superior and the one who ran the case, IIRC it was he who suggested a reconstruction at the time was not a good idea..but i cant remember where i read this
alot of the decisions made were nothing to do with amaral as he had go take orders but some people are obsessed with him and making him the fall guy...no doubt to the joy of the mccanns and their cohorts, i mean why on earth would the british press gun for him so early and why on earth would the mccanns pay for blackening hs name through their metodo agency...deserve all they get imo in comeback...he was doing his job and they crucified him for it
I think GUILHERMINO ENCARNACAO must take a little of the blame, but Amaral was the one who decided right from day 1 that The Mccanns 'dunit' or had something to do with it. And he was head honcho on the spot.
Unfortunately Encarnacao cant be followed up as, if reports are true, it seems he is dead.
I will be honest
It seems to me that if he is truly dead, Guilhermino Encarnacao is too convenient a fall guy. I keep remembering the black guy who drove a digger, was his name Monteiro? He was dead and they tried to make him the fall guy in the Madeleine case.
Now we have Ben Needham in Kos. A dead man who also drove a digger has become the "fall guy" ... but is he the one ? ... or is he just a convenient dead patsy ?
You know, plant the idea that Ben is dead .... and everyone stops looking.
-
Guilhermino is dead and i imagine anyone who questions his death should question themselves
Moving on, a particular prick fron the british press called it (his death) an obstacle removed
Robert mendick
How crass how evil
-
Guilhermino is dead and i imagine anyone who questions his death should question themselves
Moving on, a particular prick fron the british press called it (his death) an obstacle removed
Robert mendick
How crass how evil
The forum has discussed along these lines already http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2002.msg64369#msg64369.
The "crass, evil" statement is just another piece of misinformation put about on certain internet blogs this time targetting Robert Mendick for some reason best known to themselves ...
Quote
Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve, died two weeks ago from stomach cancer.
Mr Encarnacao was convinced Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment and was a major source of a series of off the record briefings to journalists against the McCanns.
By Robert Mendick9:00PM GMT 06 Mar 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
Do you have a cite for the original article which makes reference to Guilhermino Encarnacao being an "object removed"? I can find it on blogs ... some with quaint names ... but I can't find the original.
-
The forum has discussed along these lines already http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2002.msg64369#msg64369.
The "crass, evil" statement is just another piece of misinformation put about on certain internet blogs this time targetting Robert Mendick for some reason best known to themselves ...
Quote
Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve, died two weeks ago from stomach cancer.
Mr Encarnacao was convinced Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment and was a major source of a series of off the record briefings to journalists against the McCanns.
By Robert Mendick9:00PM GMT 06 Mar 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html
Do you have a cite for the original article which makes reference to Guilhermino Encarnacao being an "object removed"? I can find it on blogs ... some with quaint names ... but I can't find the original.
The original was changed, thats why you cant find it
The original was captured though before it was
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/35march10/TELEGRAPH_06_03_10.htm
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic6621.html
Neither of whch are obscure blogs but very efficient info capture and indexing
You will have also got the waybackmachine copy but unfortunately the date of the article was the only day they did not capture the site
PS it was not "an object" but an "obstacle"
A further obstacle was removed with the death from stomach cancer two weeks ago of Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve
And yes, it was a crass way of referring to his death
And no, I was not " targetting any particular journalist for the fun of it, just making a valid observation of a cold and callous reference.
Im sure if it was Amaral he was referring to you might consider the reference not strong enough
Lastly,interesting to see that the journalist targetted this man as the reason for newspaper leaks rather than Amaral, something must have been lost in translation I guess
So, glad to have sorted that out for you and proven it was not a myth made up by people for reasons "known only to themselves"
Cheers
-
Amaral widely discredited and facing financial ruin in 2010. Six years later the playing field has levelled somewhat, it seems. Thanks mostly to UK fundraising he was able to appeal and if he wins in the Supreme Court it's the McCanns facing a big payout.
-
The original was changed, thats why you cant find it
The original was captured though before it was
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/35march10/TELEGRAPH_06_03_10.htm
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic6621.html
Neither of whch are obscure blogs but very efficient info capture and indexing
You will have also got the waybackmachine copy but unfortunately the date of the article was the only day they did not capture the site
PS it was not "an object" but an "obstacle"
A further obstacle was removed with the death from stomach cancer two weeks ago of Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve
And yes, it was a crass way of referring to his death
And no, I was not " targetting any particular journalist for the fun of it, just making a valid observation of a cold and callous reference.
Im sure if it was Amaral he was referring to you might consider the reference not strong enough
Lastly,interesting to see that the journalist targetted this man as the reason for newspaper leaks rather than Amaral, something must have been lost in translation I guess
So, glad to have sorted that out for you and proven it was not a myth made up by people for reasons "known only to themselves"
Cheers
I see.
- according to you the original article printed in the Telegraph was "changed"
- according to you the only day the waybackmachine didn't record the Telegraph was the day that article was printed
In my opinion the sentence to which you refer never appeared in the Telegraph and is an obvious fabrication like so much else from similar sources.
-
I see.
- according to you the original article printed in the Telegraph was "changed"
- according to you the only day the waybackmachine didn't record the Telegraph was the day that article was printed
In my opinion the sentence to which you refer never appeared in the Telegraph and is an obvious fabrication like so much else from similar sources.
Why are you so desperate to say all the above?
It is NOT according to ME that the waybackmachne did not snapshot the day that the article appeared, its on the waybackmachne free to peruse (i did not see 14 mar 2010 was also not captured but shame just two days out of all the mnths are missing )
it is NOT according to ME the original article was amended, theres proof it was UNLESS you want to accuse Pamalam and the news archiver Jilly on the MCF forum of delberately inserting those words
I fail to see the desperation about something a journalist said when far worst has been said
All a little odd at best
The questin YOU have to ask yourself is why it is impossible or improbably said journalist said those words and its a bit ungrateful of you to accuse both the sites i posted to as fabricating
PROVE IT dear or redact it
PROVE A SINGLE INSTANCE of fabricating news stories on the maddiecasefiles forum or pamalams news index
You cant
You wll fail 100 per cent so an apology for slandering them is due
This is a facts and evidence based forum john admin and mr moderator tell us time and time again
You asked for the facts
You got them
But dont accept them
Thats YOUR problem Brietta and no one elses
-
Why are you so desperate to say all the above?
It is NOT according to ME that the waybackmachne did not snapshot the day that the article appeared, its on the waybackmachne free to peruse (i did not see 14 mar 2010 was also not captured but shame just two days out of all the mnths are missing )
it is NOT according to ME the original article was amended, theres proof it was UNLESS you want to accuse Pamalam and the news archiver Jilly on the MCF forum of delberately inserting those words
I fail to see the desperation about something a journalist said when far worst has been said
All a little odd at best
The questin YOU have to ask yourself is why it is impossible or improbably said journalist said those words and its a bit ungrateful of you to accuse both the sites i posted to as fabricating
PROVE IT dear or redact it
PROVE A SINGLE INSTANCE of fabricating news stories on the maddiecasefiles forum or pamalams news index
You cant
You wll fail 100 per cent so an apology for slandering them is due
This is a facts and evidence based forum john admin and mr moderator tell us time and time again
You asked for the facts
You got them
But dont accept them
Thats YOUR problem Brietta and no one elses
I believe it was you who raised the issue. I was rather bemused that the version you have referred to appears only on anti McCann sites.
Very much calling to mind the infamous fridge allegation.
-
I believe it was you who raised the issue. I was rather bemused that the version you have referred to appears only on anti McCann sites.
Very much calling to mind the infamous fridge allegation.
I initially responded to a question about why a reconstruction was not done straight away and that iirc it wasthis officer rather than amaral that said no to it
Then sadie came on sayng IF he is dead etc etc
Which lead me to remember awful journalistic accounts
Youre absolutely ridiculous in the face ofevidence assertion that this is anything like the "fridge allegations" is embarrassing at best
Now go prove all my links are fakes, off you go brietta
Being on anti mccann sites is a pathetic excuse for your performance here as they more than any would want the facts recorded as real as any
-
I initially responded to a question about why a reconstruction was not done straight away and that iirc it wasthis officer rather than amaral that said no to it
Then sadie came on sayng IF he is dead etc etc
Which lead me to remember awful journalistic accounts
Youre absolutely ridiculous in the face ofevidence assertion that this is anything like the "fridge allegations" is embarrassing at best
Now go prove all my links are fakes, off you go brietta
Being on anti mccann sites is a pathetic excuse for your performance here as they more than any would want the facts recorded as real as any
It is very simple, Mercury.
The actual newspaper article differs from the reproductions on anti McCann sites as noticed by DCI on this forum over three years ago. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2002.msg64369#msg64369.
-
Somebody put them both up side by side then we can play spot the difference.
That would be much more productive... ?{)(**
-
It is very simple, Mercury.
The actual newspaper article differs from the reproductions on anti McCann sites as noticed by DCI on this forum over three years ago. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2002.msg64369#msg64369.
Nope, the actual newspaper article is any article that was printed and/or printed and then amended
Ok
Let me get this straight
You believe that the member on MCF site called Jilly who was responsible for capturing whatever news items were available each day on case and diligently did this for years and years, one day woke up and whilst capturing the Telegraph article by Mr Mendick, thought, "I know, I might amend that to say something very controversial"
The controversial sayingbeing "an obstacle removed"
Seriously?
Same goes for Pamalam
Surely then you will have lots of examples of said news manipulation, no?
You might not like the idea that people, even if "sceptics" record info honestly
It is true that journalists have altered their words and amended their articles and Mr Mendick and/or his newspaper very possibly got a complaint or two from either his own paper or from others
But it really does remain your problem
It also is very strange you are supporting a journo you know nothing about or what he did but jumping on some ridiculous bandwagon that all anti mccann sites are full of bogus news articles with no evidence whatsoever
That only proves you will support the ridiculous to support the mccanns
But you can shoot yourself in the foot whilst doing so
-
Somebody put them both up side by side then we can play spot the difference.
That would be much more productive... ?{)(**
Up and down, cant do side by side
But with the senior officer in charge Goncalo Amaral now widely discredited and facing financial ruin after being sued for libel by the McCanns over a book he wrote, it may become harder for the Portuguese to refuse the request for a thorough review.
The revelation that possible leads – many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives – had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour.
Last week, details emerged of a series of possible sightings of Madeleine, who was just three when she vanished.
Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve, died two weeks ago from stomach cancer.
Mr Encarnacao was convinced Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment and was a major source of a series of off the record briefings to journalists against the McCanns.
A Home Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann.
Vs
But with the senior officer in charge Goncalo Amaral now widely discredited and facing financial ruin after being sued for libel by the McCanns over a book he wrote, it may become harder for the Portuguese to refuse the request for a thorough review.
The revelation that possible leads – many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives – had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour.
Last week, details emerged of a series of possible sightings of Madeleine, who was just three when she vanished.
A further obstacle was removed with the death from stomach cancer two weeks ago of Guilhermino Encarnacao, who was in charge of the Policia Judiciaria in the Algarve.
Mr Encarnacao was convinced Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment and was a major source of a series of off the record briefings to journalists against the McCanns.
A Home Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann.
-
Nope, the actual newspaper article is any article that was printed and/or printed and then amended
Ok
Let me get this straight
You believe that the member on MCF site called Jilly who was responsible for capturing whatever news items were available each day on case and diligently did this for years and years, one day woke up and whilst capturing the Telegraph article by Mr Mendick, thought, "I know, I might amend that to say something very controversial"
The controversial sayingbeing "an obstacle removed"
Seriously?
Same goes for Pamalam
Surely then you will have lots of examples of said news manipulation, no?
You might not like the idea that people, even if "sceptics" record info honestly
It is true that journalists have altered their words and amended their articles and Mr Mendick and/or his newspaper very possibly got a complaint or two from either his own paper or from others
But it really does remain your problem
It also is very strange you are supporting a journo you know nothing about or what he did but jumping on some ridiculous bandwagon that all anti mccann sites are full of bogus news articles with no evidence whatsoever
That only proves you will support the ridiculous to support the mccanns
But you can shoot yourself in the foot whilst doing so
CORRECTION: This article originally stated that merchandise sold at a Momentum event ... ... ... We are happy to make this clear. The article has been amended.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/29/jeremy-corbyn-thinks-the-state-should-do-everything-except-its-j/
Update: This article has been amended since it was first posted ... ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11381925/Another-Birmingham-school-put-in-special-measures-amid-Trojan-Horse-fears.html
Update: This article has been amended since it was first posted in order to clarify certain matters. The original said that ... ... ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9992229/EU-pours-millions-into-groups-seeking-state-control-of-press.html
Please note when changes have been made to printed newspaper articles ... it is customary for these changes, amendments, corrections to be publicised.
The Telegraph article already posted on the forum and which I have re-posted carries no such intimation of change having occurred.
As you will note from the three links provided, it is customary for the Telegraph to notify changes made; there are many, many more similar examples from MSM.
Don't believe everything posted on the internet, particularly when it appears only on fora which have a particular axe to grind. I believe this to be very much a case in point.
Now may we please make the effort to get back on topic ... thank you.
Although this could be considered an example of how disinformation may be disseminated particularly by amateurs with inflexible opinions dabbling with information they just do not understand.
-
So youre accusing pamalam and mcf files of deliberateky altering news stories, yes? Or no?
If yes you will have to come up with evidence
-
So youre accusing pamalam and mcf files of deliberateky altering news stories, yes? Or no?
If yes you will have to come up with evidence
I have given you factual information. It is entirely up to you how you choose to interpret that.
-
It is very simple, Mercury.
The actual newspaper article differs from the reproductions on anti McCann sites as noticed by DCI on this forum over three years ago. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2002.msg64369#msg64369.
DCI was a brilliant sleuth and provider of info. Hope s/he is well. You are really good too Brietta. 8@??)(
-
I have given you factual information. It is entirely up to you how you choose to interpret that.
Sorry but i must have missed it
What was your factual info that proves that the recording of paper articles on two and more sites was deliberately corrupt? Lets hear it
-
Sorry but i must have missed it
What was your factual info that proves that the recording of paper articles on two and more sites was deliberately corrupt? Lets hear it
- I have provided you with a link to the original newspaper article
- I have provided links which prove that the newspaper in question publishes notification of alteration or amendment to publications as a matter of course
I think that makes matters very clear. Whether or not you wish to take that information on board is entirely a matter for you however do not presume to misrepresent what I have posted.
I am really rather puzzled why you appear to attach so much belief in what is posted on unregulated internet blogs as opposed to the original newspaper report.
-
- I have provided you with a link to the original newspaper article
- I have provided links which prove that the newspaper in question publishes notification of alteration or amendment to publications as a matter of course
I think that makes matters very clear. Whether or not you wish to take that information on board is entirely a matter for you however do not presume to misrepresent what I have posted.
I am really rather puzzled why you appear to attach so much belief in what is posted on unregulated internet blogs as opposed to the original newspaper report.
Thats a negative on your two bullet points
Newspaper articles are amended all the gime, and for years after their original publications, so where you got the idea that they announce all alterations is beynd me
Mcf press log and pamalams press log are press logs
Neither are blogs either
I suggest you open your mind, reread my previous posts and accept a callous piece of journalism was removed because of what it was, nothing else