Author Topic: So where does Amaral turn? ...  (Read 39172 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

C.Edwards

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2013, 04:21:35 PM »

This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.

There's a parallel universe where apparently the supporters of the McCanns have already discarded anything they consider derogatory to the McCanns and their friends.  This includes treating anything where doubt remains (inconclusive DNA, timelines, whereabouts of the protagonists for example) as conclusively in favour of the McCanns (i.e. exonerating them).

Furthermore the same universe allows them to treat comments of the LP and PJ as being invalid as they have decided that later comments and/or documents in some way "top trump" or render outdated the PJ summary and the comments of the asst. chief constable of the LP.  Even though the LP, to the best of my searching, have not ever rescinded that comment and the PJ investigative summary from 2007 was still alive and kicking come the court case in Lisbon 2010 which, to the best of my knowledge, came after the AG archiving summary, no?

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2013, 04:43:56 PM »

This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.

The line is just diplomacy I think Angelo. Including it avoids having to say anything specific about the witness (JT).

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2013, 10:15:14 PM »

This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.
You're very right, Angelo, I never thought of that ! This sentence being one, if not the whitest,  of the Final Report's pearls, it was like a tree masking the forest.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2013, 11:29:22 PM »

This comment concerns me greatly as I cannot see how they could make such a claim. By his own admission Gerry McCann claims he could very well have been in the apartment at the time of her disappearance.

That never even occured to me before  ...  but you are absolutely right !

Gerry claimed that he was probably in the apartment  ...  in the children's bedroom, in fact  ...   at the same  time  that the  abductor  was there

Far from  'being away'  from the apartment when Madeleine disappeared,  Gerry claims he there  'mid-abduction  ! 


Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2013, 11:32:37 PM »
Probably Lyall, don't know if you've been around on blogs/forums from the start but I remember posts from people who wrote of their own feelings and beliefs about what happened. Now everything is from google, wiki, statistics, translators, doctors, scientists, policemen etc .  Probably since the files were released then suddenly all the bloggers morphed into professionals who maybe use the internets knowledge to enhance their writing. Not everyone mind you but you can usually tell .
.

There were a few people very early on who were very hysterical and telling people who doubted the mccanns story from the minute they saw them on tv, and there were many, as happens, right or wrong,  that everythng all speculation and no facts at all were known, ie nothng at all, this went on for months and months, the shut up message and dont question was right from then,and carried in fir years and years with insidious campaigns to shut people up...British media were 80 per cent diagraceful in all this too... fast forward many years, the public here and in portugal had their views  morphing gradually based on early coverage, tv interviews of the couple, police activities, more coverage, more interviews, more online discussions, more tv and radio discussions,not just on *maddie boards* but all kinds of boards,then arguido status, then more tv coverage, more interviews, UK media biased blitzes year on year, media saturation, pj files coming out,albeit most people didnt see them, but they saw the reports of eddie and keela in the papers, mccanns going on the defensive post sept 07 aided and abbetted by clarence mitchell and other agencies, all the time ghe debate still infused with the child neglect issue if nothng else, then the mccanns becoming what seemed like vexatious litigants, news coming out about their fund and the vast mjority of it going to lawyers pr merchants etc, the mccanns negatve image was NOT caused by Mr Amaral who most had never heard of and if they read his name in a paper probably wouldnt remember it a day or a month later, In fact, many *neutral*peoples view of the  mccanns have been shifted by Kate Mccanns own book years later and also the prime minister of the UK agreeing to spend endless money trying to solve this case! IMO the PP should have charged them, taken them to court and lost or won.....that would have put an end to it early doors instead of leaving it hanging.....sorry for long post..... I could say thrice as more but wont
 @)(++(*
« Last Edit: September 30, 2013, 11:44:06 PM by Redblossom »

Offline blonk

Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2013, 12:26:06 AM »
That never even occured to me before  ...  but you are absolutely right !

Gerry claimed that he was probably in the apartment...in the children's bedroom, in fact...at the same time  that the abductor was there.

Far from 'being away'  from the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, Gerry claims he was there 'mid-abduction!

THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT VISIT:

1st statement 4 May 2007

Yesterday, after the daily routine, MADELEINE and the twins were put to bed in their respective beds, and he stresses put to bed, at 7.30 pm. The deponent and his wife remained in the apartment to relax and drink a glass of wine until 8.30 pm. After checking the children, the deponent and his wife and the adults went to the "Tapas" restaurant, around 50 metres away, where they had dinner together. As usual, every half hour and considering that the restaurant was close to the apartment, the deponent or his wife went to check if the children were ok. Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant.

2nd statement 10 May 2007

Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.

They took the usual route to the “TAPAS”, where they arrived a little after 20H35, not having passed on the route anyone known nor detected anything abnormal. Asked, he said that the dinner bookings were made since Monday, it was already the intention of the group to take their meals there. They were the first of the group to arrive, seating themselves at the biggest table, as usual, which is located in the middle between other tables, under an awning with a transparent plastic surface at the front. He mentions that they were seated at the table, in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire back door of his apartment, through which they left and entered and which gave access to the living room.

He adds that, among other people whom he does not recall, at one of the small tables was the CARPENTER couple, whom he also met playing tennis and with whom they spoke until the other group members began to arrive. He does not recall the order of arrival but he has the idea that MATTHEW and RACHEL were the first to arrive after the deponent. As time went by, the rest of the group arrived until all nine adults were there. At around 21H00, MATTHEW stood up from the table, saying that he was going to check on the children. Nevertheless, he did not say that he would go to check on the deponent’s children, and it was only after the disappearance of MADELEINE that he told him that at 21h00 the shutters of the children's bedroom window were closed. At 21H05, MATTHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go check on his children.

He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room.

He adds that he did not enter any other part of the residence, where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the back door, that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without checking any other couple’s children, even because he had not been asked to do so.

After leaving through the side gate...

tbc

Offline blonk

Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2013, 12:28:20 AM »
MORE TRUTH:

G McCann Arguido interview 7 Sep 2007

When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch. He remembers that once inside the apartment he was surprised that the door to the children's room was slightly more open than how he had left it when he and Kate left for dinner. However, it could have been Madeleine who had opened the door after waking and getting up, eventually to go to her parents’ room. On this occasion, the three children were lying in their beds asleep, he is sure of this. Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, completely uncovered, i.e. lying on top of the covers, with the soft toy and blanket, both pink, next to her head; he does not know if they were in the position that can be seen in the photograph attached to the files

Daily Mail 22 Sep 2007

Madeleine McCann's parents say they believe that an intruder hid inside their holiday apartment before snatching their daughter from her bed.

Gerry McCann says he is convinced that, when he checked on Madeleine at 9.05pm on the evening she disappeared, the abductor was somewhere inside the ground-floor flat.

He thinks that the intruder - who would have entered the flat through an unlocked patio door - would have pounced almost immediately after he left.

It would have taken seconds to scoop up the little girl andescape through a bedroom window.

If Mr McCann's theory is correct, it means that he would have been within yards of his daughter's abductor - and could easily have stumbled upon him or her.

Yesterday a friend of the family claimed that having thought back over the events of May 3, Mr McCann recalls noticing that Madeleine's bedroom door was open when he went to check on her.

He thinks that the door was left open because the intruder did not have time to shut it when he heard Mr McCann approaching.

Gerry McCann believes Madeleine's abductor hid inside while he checked on the children.

According to the friend, the intruder would have hidden himself somewhere else in the flat - possibly the bathroom or the master bedroom -whilst Mr McCann checked on his children.

As soon as he left, the kidnapper struck.

The McCanns now believe the abductor got in the apartment more than an hour before the alarm was raised.

Mr McCann checked on the children at 9.05pm and saw Madeleine asleep in her bed with the twins Sean and Amelie in cots beside her.

But the door to the bedroom was open and although Mr McCann thought nothing of it at the time, he is now certain he had previously shut it.

A source close to the family today told the Standard: "When Gerry went to check on Madeleine he realised the bedroom door was open. Gerry is firmly of the view the abductor was already in the apartment.

"When he went in he saw Madeleine was asleep but the bedroom door was slightly open. He thought, 'That is odd' because he had left it firmly closed. But all the children were asleep. So he just went in and closed the door again and came out at about 9.10pm.

"Gerry is convinced the man must have been hiding and once Gerry went out through the patio doors the only way out for the abductor was through the window.

"The front door was locked so the kidnapper took Madeleine and climbed out of the window.

"The theory is the man came in through the patio doors, knowing he has a few minutes until the McCanns' next check. The rear doors are out of sight from the tapas bar where the McCanns and their friends are eating.

"The abductor goes in and he hides and when Gerry goes into the bedroom, he just thinks he didn't close the bedroom door properly.

"When Gerry leaves, the man realises he only has a few minutes. He thinks the only way to get out without being seen is through the window," the source added.


Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2013, 12:28:36 AM »
I'm a Columbo fan myself

They always make that  'one'  mistake don't they  ?  ...  however perfectly executed the crime,  there is  always  that one oversight

If this was a a Columbo film,   the  'one'  mistake would be the  window  ...  the one that they  claimed the abductor broke into  ...  but which  was found to have been  opened from the  inside

That would have been Columbo's  "aha"  moment   

Well in her statement to police she said she never touched  the window..fast forward two years later  she tells Oprah Winfrey she ran to the window to look out presumably touching it whilst  looking out...didnt Mr Amaral and co decide the prints found on the inside were made by someone opening a window?


Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2013, 12:41:30 AM »
Nope. Watch the drama and you'll see what I mean. The actress playing the missing child's mother herself mentioned K McCann in an interview before it was screened.

Lyall!!! The actress did indeed give an interview about the Mccann case and prepping about what its like to lose a child....though WHY it had to be the Mccann case I dont know....Probably because its the most recent case? or maybe not...April Jones was more recent..I  know people make connections and this series had tenuous ones ie it happened in MAY 2008 the child was 4/5, the parents were partying  at the time, not looking after their kids particularly,I DID spot the boat outside their house was called EDDIE, LOL, Talk about a mssing blanket, Tamsin a character being a witness in mccanns story, callum being their webmasters name? oh dead sorry cant make a REAL full connection, didnt the boy end up strangling himself copying a game from older kids?


eta I remember when the  Suspicions of Mr Whicher came out on ITV...much talk was about about similarities....with this case..and Mr Whicher the disgraced detextive was vindicated in the end for his suspicions!!!..maybe ITV will solve the case one day, it certainly wont be Lorraine Kelly though LOL



« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 01:25:43 AM by Redblossom »

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2013, 12:48:07 AM »
You'll be in serious trouble one of these days Bennett.

Oops, you already are. 8-)(--)

Well,  blonk  ...  ARE  you Tony Bennet  ? 

If you are not,  then speak up up now and end the gleeful speculation  ( Admin will help you if that is the case,  I am sure  ) 

If you  ARE  Tony Bennet,  then you might think of  reconsidering  your membership of this forum  ...  if only because the   last  thing we need is a  'focal point' that will serve no other purpose than  to be  a distraction and diversionary obstacle to  genuine debate

Tony Bennet is a busted flush,  and if you are he,  you must acknowledge that

If you are not,  then  please accept my apologies and  make it clear to the forum that you are not who some members are claiming you are

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2013, 12:52:25 AM »
LoL!!!!
 @)(++(*

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2013, 12:56:56 AM »
Lyall!!! The actress did indeed give an interview about the Mccann case and prepping about what its like to lose a child....though WHY it had to be the Mccann case I dont know....Probably because its the most recent case? or maybe not...April Jones was more recent..I  know people make connections and this series had tenuous ones ie it happened in MAY, the child was 4/5, the parents were partying  at the time, I DID spot the boat outside their house was called EDDIE, LOL, Talk about a mssing blanket, sorry cant make a REAL full connection, didnt the boy end up strangling himself copying a game from older kids?

Yep that's what happened. The April Jones case more recent but that one was solved, had to be an unsolved one. I missed the boat (got to watch it again now), but May 3rd isn't very subtle is it. I don;t think there could be too many connections, or ITV might be in the High Court >@@(*&) It was interesting though. I do think the writer isn't being sensationalist. There's a point to it ?>)()<

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2013, 01:00:02 AM »
Yep that's what happened. The April Jones case more recent but that one was solved, had to be an unsolved one. I missed the boat (got to watch it again now), but May 3rd isn't very subtle is it. I don;t think there could be too many connections, or ITV might be in the High Court >@@(*&) It was interesting though. I do think the writer isn't being sensationalist. There's a point to it ?>)()<

Didnt know it was actually May 3rd, oooer tv production companies hinting? Thats a discourse ive never come across , its quite a spooky thing

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2013, 01:08:03 AM »
I'm a Columbo fan myself

They always make that  'one'  mistake don't they  ?  ...  however perfectly executed the crime,  there is  always  that one oversight

If this was a a Columbo film,   the  'one'  mistake would be the  window  ...  the one that they  claimed the abductor broke into  ...  but which  was found to have been  opened from the  inside

That would have been Columbo's  "aha"  moment   
Perhaps the window : once forced or open, there was no possible return. Though it turned out to be an impossible way in from the outside and an absurd way out. Could they say "actually Kate opened the shutters and window to look outside in the car park and I didn't realise, there was some confusion but we were in such a state..." ?

Lyall

  • Guest
Re: So where does Amaral turn? ...
« Reply #44 on: October 01, 2013, 01:11:29 AM »
Didnt know it was actually May 3rd, oooer tv production companies hinting? Thats a discourse ive never come across , its quite a spooky thing

That's what I thought Red 8)-))) It was definitely thought provoking.