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: johnmartins on July 09, 2014, 03:54:47 PM
-
Hello I just signed up here because I read an article about Maddie and found it very interesting. There is a lot of good information about the case and I wanted to find out other peoples opinions on it.
This is the article:
http://enragedcitizen.com/the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann/
There are two parts, make sure you read both before commenting. Let me know what you think..
-
Hello I just signed up here because I read an article about Maddie and found it very interesting. There is a lot of good information about the case and I wanted to find out other peoples opinions on it.
This is the article:
http://enragedcitizen.com/the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann/
There are two parts, make sure you read both before commenting. Let me know what you think..
When I got to the part where is says PDL has little or no crime I stopped reading...obviously full of lies...it goes on to say that abduction is the opinion of major news outlets failing to mention its the current theory of both UK and PJ police
-
Welcome.
I had a skim read. Some of it appears reasonably accurate, but it's intermingled with a number of myths, half-truths and (arguably) details taken out of context.
-
Welcome.
I had a skim read. Some of it appears reasonably accurate, but it's intermingled with a number of myths, half-truths and (arguably) details taken out of context.
don't be coy...there are several lies in there
-
Hello I just signed up here because I read an article about Maddie and found it very interesting. There is a lot of good information about the case and I wanted to find out other peoples opinions on it.
This is the article:
http://enragedcitizen.com/the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann/
There are two parts, make sure you read both before commenting. Let me know what you think..
I'm sure you are not as uninformed as you make out...all these point are well known and have been discussed at length on this forum
-
I stopped at the part about the 'Smith family account'.
Mr Smith is very clear in his original statement that the only one who shared his thoughts that the man might be Gerry was his wife.
All his children disagreed with him, including Aofe, arguably the most astute and assured observer of what the Smiths all saw that night.
And later, Martin Smith himself recanted of the view that the man might have been Gerry and agreed to produce an e-fit (after initially refusing to produce an e-fit, as you might expect all the time he thought the man might have been Gerry).
-
I stopped at the part about the 'Smith family account'.
Mr Smith is very clear in his original statement that the only one who shared his thoughts that the man might be Gerry was his wife.
All his children disagreed with him, including Aofe, arguably the most astute and assured observer of what the Smiths all saw that night.
And later, Martin Smith himself recanted of the view that the man might have been Gerry and agreed to produce an e-fit (after initially refusing to produce an e-fit, as you might expect all the time he thought the man might have been Gerry).
so smith changed his mind whereas this article claims smith has never changed his mind
-
Hello I just signed up here because I read an article about Maddie and found it very interesting. There is a lot of good information about the case and I wanted to find out other peoples opinions on it.
This is the article:
http://enragedcitizen.com/the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann/
There are two parts, make sure you read both before commenting. Let me know what you think..
An interesting account, and not one the mccanns will like, with their made up abduction story.
-
so smith changed his mind whereas this article claims smith has never changed his mind
Smith says in his report to the Irish Gardia police that he was approached by Brian Kennedy representing the McCanns to produce an efit, but refused.
I would need to check, but I think that was the New Year 2008.
At some point between then and the crimewatch programme, he relented and agreed to produce the efit.
-
The Smithman sighting time at 9:50 is incorrect. It had to be 10 or later. There is only one way this crime happened. There is only one way that connects everything - moving doors, open window, Smithman sighting. The timeline was brought forward to 10 on purpose because of the Smithman sighting - he worked alone and was not part of a burglar gang - nobody went through the window. The new correct timeline is going to change everything and show everyone how the crime happened and reveal the identity of Smithman who looks very similar to that suppressed efit. They need further evidence to put it to bed.
-
The Smithman sighting time at 9:50 is incorrect. It had to be 10 or later. There is only one way this crime happened. There is only one way that connects everything - moving doors, open window, Smithman sighting. The timeline was brought forward to 10 on purpose because of the Smithman sighting - he worked alone and was not part of a burglar gang - nobody went through the window. The new correct timeline is going to change everything and show everyone how the crime happened and reveal the identity of Smithman who looks very similar to that suppressed efit. They need further evidence to put it to bed.
Were you there? 8(0(*
One of the watchers? @)(++(*
-
So they need further evidence, then. I assume that you are a member of the PJ or Operation Grange to be making such bold statements on this forum?
Nah, he was there .... one of the watchers .... weren't you pathfinder. @)(++(*
Eunice, you are new on here, welcome.
You should know that Pathfinder KNOWS everything about this case .... he doesn't need evidence or proof. If he says it, then it is fact 8)-)))
Innit pathfinder ?
-
Nah, he was there .... one of the watchers .... weren't you pathfinder. @)(++(*
Eunice, you are new on here, welcome.
You should know that Pathfinder KNOWS everything about this case .... he doesn't need evidence or proof. If he says it, then it is fact 8)-)))
Innit pathfinder ?
Let's see how good SY are because they should arrive at the same conclusion. There's only one way that connects and Smithman is their prime suspect and the timeline alarm raised will be 9:55 NOT 10.
-
I see. So you are trained police officer then are you? Are you a member of the PJ or the Met?
Nope just an ordinary guy.
-
Nope just an ordinary guy.
As an “ordinary guy” you may be entitled to sit on a jury where you will have to listen to and evaluate the evidence being presented before deciding someone’s fate. That worries me.
-
Let's see how good SY are because they should arrive at the same conclusion. There's only one way that connects and Smithman is their prime suspect and the timeline alarm raised will be 9:55 NOT 10.
Why dont you send your conclusion in. Make it easier for SY, cvos it is the ONLY way that connects.
Tell em Pathfinder. Save some man hours and some money. I am sure they are all ears.
They need a good logical brain like yours, dont they? 8(0(*
-
Why dont you send your conclusion in. Make it easier for SY, cvos it is the ONLY way that connects.
Tell em Pathfinder. Save some man hours and some money. I am sure they are all ears.
They need a good logical brain like yours, dont they? 8(0(*
Well after all your theories, it should prove rather refreshing, don't you think sadie ?
-
Well after all your theories, it should prove rather refreshing, don't you think sadie ?
I am sure it would be.
They deserve a good laugh after all the intense work.
Go for it Pathfinder. Make sure you give your reasons for your conclusions.
Go for it.
-
I am sure it would be.
They deserve a good laugh after all the intense work.
Go for it Pathfinder. Make sure you give your reasons for your conclusions.
Go for it.
Good laugh sadie ?
I'm sure they've already had a few already with yours. 8)-)))
-
Good laugh sadie ?
I'm sure they've already had a few already with yours. 8)-)))
I hope so, I invited them to, but unlike you guys they took on board the serious side
-
I hope so, I invited them to, but unlike you guys they took on board the serious side
So have many of your theories have they taken on board sadie ?
-
I bet it gives them a laugh at the end of a hard day.
-
I bet it gives them a laugh at the end of a hard day.
Has pathfinder sent any of his theories in, do you know?
-
Has pathfinder sent any of his theories in, do you know?
Have you heard of Mustafa's theory sadie, it's brilliant .
-
What happened to the OP Poster? I hope you didn't all scare him away.
-
What happened to the OP Poster? I hope you didn't all scare him away.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the OP was also the author of the blog he linked to, is that naughty of me to say?
-
I have a sneaking suspicion that the OP was also the author of the blog he linked to, is that naughty of me to say?
No, that's fine. He did ask what you think .
-
I have a sneaking suspicion that the OP was also the author of the blog he linked to, is that naughty of me to say?
That makes sense Alfred
No ordinary guy is likely to have found such a blog in isolation.
Maybe he produced it as ant1-mccann propaganda?
Would be good if he came back to clarify how he came upon it.
-
I am sure it would be.
They deserve a good laugh after all the intense work.
Go for it Pathfinder. Make sure you give your reasons for your conclusions.
Go for it.
The Met have been informed of the sighting time of 10:03 and timeline if they read it. When she disappeared from the apartment is crystal clear. Matt had just did a listening check and was the last to be accounted for at the table/alibi. What happened next is vital - the first visual check of the week after a check had just been done and wondering why he was gone so long Kate told others at the table that he was probably watching Football >@@(*&) The next searches should concentrate around the church to beach rocks area. The timeline is crucial and I'm sure they have worked it out 8)--))
-
The Met have been informed of the sighting time of 10:03 and timeline if they read it. When she disappeared from the apartment is crystal clear. Matt had just did a listening check and was the last to be accounted for at the table/alibi. What happened next is vital - the first visual check of the week after a check had just been done and wondering why he was gone so long Kate told others at the table that he was probably watching Football >@@(*&) The next searches should concentrate around the church to beach rocks area. The timeline is crucial and I'm sure they have worked it out 8)--))
Oh Yeah?
Hope they can understand that.
Well done anyhow for notifying them of what YOU believe.
Does Pegasus understand your reasons, cos I dont.
-
Oh Yeah?
Hope they can understand that.
Well done anyhow for notifying them of what YOU believe.
Does Pegasus understand your reasons, cos I dont.
It is the only way that explains everything. The Met are using the unreliable dogs again. Pegasus like you will still be scratching your heads when the truth comes out. People LIE to cover up a crime. It's undeniable FACT.
-
Have you heard of Mustafa's theory sadie, it's brilliant .
No.
But I am familiar with the standard of your appraisal of on-line material in general.
And that's probably all I need to know ...
-
So you think.
Meanwhile we know of your operating procedure.
As personified by your continuing attacks and libelling of Martin Grime.
I've known Ferryman for a long time and I have never heard him libel anyone
-
I've known Ferryman for a long time and I have never heard him libel anyone
You support and agree with ferryman.
So what's new.
-
Hello I just signed up here because I read an article about Maddie and found it very interesting. There is a lot of good information about the case and I wanted to find out other peoples opinions on it.
This is the article:
http://enragedcitizen.com/the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann/
There are two parts, make sure you read both before commenting. Let me know what you think..
It's strewn with errors and speculations and could be considered libellous. The title is somewhat dubious since only the abductor (if there was one) knows what happened to Madeleine. And it is the job of MSM to report the news, not to have opinion.
-
It's strewn with errors and speculations and could be considered libellous. The title is somewhat dubious since only the abductor (if there was one) knows what happened to Madeleine. And it is the job of MSM to report the news, not to have opinion.
I tend to agree. There were a few points that seemed accurate, but many others weren't. The result was that the conclusion was totally skewed.
- I'm not aware of any source other than Amaral's book/video in which Jez Wilkins is referred to as "Jeremiah".
- Someone else pointed out the Smith issue.
- The "200 cases" concerning Eddie... Grime's CV did state 200 cases, but if anyone bothered to check his actual report, he'd corrected the ambiguity. It did not concern 200 criminal investigation cases (which some people assume that to mean), but 200 incidents in which the dog had not alerted to processed meat for human consumption or roadkill.
The sources don't seem to be objective, IMO.
-
Re: What do you guys think of this?
In summary, the considered judgment seems to be, not much ...
-
Hello I just signed up here because I read an article about Maddie and found it very interesting. There is a lot of good information about the case and I wanted to find out other peoples opinions on it.
This is the article:
http://enragedcitizen.com/the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann/
There are two parts, make sure you read both before commenting. Let me know what you think..
When people write blogs about ongoing events they have a duty to get the basics correct. This blog appears to have been written by someone who has but a mere skeletal knowledge of the Madeleine McCann case. Not wanting to be too critical however the nicest thing I can say is go back to the drawing board and have another go.
The very first line of the main article begins, "On the 3rd May 2007 Madeleine McCann, while asleep in a room with her siblings, was abducted."
This has never been established so it is very wrong to make such a sweeping statement. The correct intro would have been. On the 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz.
-
When people write blogs about ongoing events they have a duty to get the basics correct. This blog appears to have been written by someone who has but a mere skeletal knowledge of the Madeleine McCann case. Not wanting to be too critical however the nicest thing I can say is go back to the drawing board and have another go.
The very first line of the main article begins, "On the 3rd May 2007 Madeleine McCann, while asleep in a room with her siblings, was abducted."
This has never been established so it is very wrong to make such a sweeping statement. The correct intro would have been. On the 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann disappeared from her parents holiday apartment in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz.
You see, this is where selective quoting completely alters the meaning of the words written. You selectively quoted this bit:
On the 3rd May 2007 Madeleine McCann, while asleep in a room with her siblings, was abducted.
whilst failing to acknowledge the sentences that immediately follow it:
This is the story of events everyone got used to accepting. But is it true? Or does this version hide a crime some want to conceal?
Thus rendering your above criticism somewhat invalid.