Author Topic: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?  (Read 89670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline colombosstogey

Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2013, 04:28:42 PM »
Don't be silly Benita, i was thinking out loud and you know i was, your just being rude.  Kate McCann immediately thought her little girl had been taken, why would she leave her babies and not shout from the balcony, I'll never understand that ...  And please don't make those stupid faces at me !

The point of the exercise is not to find out what happened to Madeliene but to disrupt as many posts and threads as people can. Their agenda I have no idea, but you cant have a sensible debate with them Candi.

I totally AGREE with you.

The one thing I know of that EVERYONE HAVES (sorry not shouting using for emphasis lol), is a MOBILE PHONE.

Even 4 and 5 year olds have a mobile phone, some have Ipads too lol. I dont know of anyone actually who hasnt got a mobile phone, even my mum has a mobile phone and she is 91, and my mother in law had one too and she was 92 when she died.

So the obvious thing would be to pick your phone up and ring your hubby or even dial a friend at the table....

Maddy isnt here, I cant find her come quick or similar or even TEXT, its so obvious.

Now you are thinking your daughter has been abducted what do you do?

1. Run out of the door leaving 2 young vulnerable children ALONE in the bedroom
or
2. Use your mobile phone to get help (even ring reception), or shout as loud as you can to get help.

You would NEVER leave your children on their own with the knowledge that your other child could have been snatched.

Well most normal people wouldnt anyway. And we are not talking about just anyone here, we are talking about a trained doctor who is trained to act in a crisis even if they are mothers they would still protect the children that were still in the room.

No I too found it very odd, and actually wondered if it wasnt another forum myth.....


Offline Benice

Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2013, 04:29:55 PM »
Most of the above post is bollox.  And the rest is twisted to suit.

Agreed. 
 
 For instance

quote
11. The detective on  the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old.
Unquote

Totally untrue.  Amaral has a criminal conviction for perjury - not for beating up anyone.

   
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Benita

  • Guest
Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2013, 04:32:31 PM »
lol i would swop your TS any day for my MS lol.....Mother Sucker.......is what I call it.

Do you find it hard to talk in front of people then, it must be awful to have that. Does it give you a favorite swear word, like bollox or similar as I note you use that a lot.

Ah that explains why you TIC so many people off on the forum lol...poor thing it must be hard to always have the TIC, and the vocal swearing I think i have decided I would rather keep my MS thanks, it seems to be a much friendlier disease lol.


excuse me ..you must have me mixed up with another poster I never use ..b*ll*x ...and I don't know what your health problems have to do with posting on a forum ...you are either capable or your not ...simples ...

Offline jassi

Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2013, 04:33:13 PM »
The point of the exercise is not to find out what happened to Madeliene but to disrupt as many posts and threads as people can. Their agenda I have no idea, but you cant have a sensible debate with them Candi.

I totally AGREE with you.

The one thing I know of that EVERYONE HAVES (sorry not shouting using for emphasis lol), is a MOBILE PHONE.

Even 4 and 5 year olds have a mobile phone, some have Ipads too lol. I dont know of anyone actually who hasnt got a mobile phone, even my mum has a mobile phone and she is 91, and my mother in law had one too and she was 92 when she died.

So the obvious thing would be to pick your phone up and ring your hubby or even dial a friend at the table....

Maddy isnt here, I cant find her come quick or similar or even TEXT, its so obvious.


Now you are thinking your daughter has been abducted what do you do?

1. Run out of the door leaving 2 young vulnerable children ALONE in the bedroom
or
2. Use your mobile phone to get help (even ring reception), or shout as loud as you can to get help.

You would NEVER leave your children on their own with the knowledge that your other child could have been snatched.

Well most normal people wouldnt anyway. And we are not talking about just anyone here, we are talking about a trained doctor who is trained to act in a crisis even if they are mothers they would still protect the children that were still in the room.

No I too found it very odd, and actually wondered if it wasnt another forum myth.....

Ah, but not as dramatic.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2013, 04:38:12 PM »
Hopefully no news is good news - as in the police are carrying out a proper investigation and the media circus has stopped. In my opinion the key to this case is going right back to the beginning and investigating the days around Madeleine's disappearance. What the key witnesses did and said. Looking at the inconsistencies and so on.

There are some key facts that have been ignored or distorted by all the media frenzy.

1. The apartment was not broken in to - there was no evidence of a break in. None was found
2. There is no evidence of an abduction by a stranger. Doesnt seem to be
3. There are conflicting accounts of what happened on the days around Madeleine's disappearance from the key witnesses. Most definitely, many of them, some quite bizarre
4. The parents and friends accounts of how often and when they checked the children are inaccurate/conflicting.It ranged from 10/15 minutes to half an hour and sometimes more
5. The parents did not join in the search for their daughter on the evening of her disappearance. Gerry did some searching, Kate stayed in all night
6. The parents criticized the police investigation from a very early stage, despite  not joining in to look for their daughter. Not publically.....
7. The parents insistence that their daughter had been abducted - they think by a paedophile group -  is inconsistent with their belief that it was safe to leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment. Gerry was overheard on the phone at 11 pm that night saying thats what he thought had happened......I dont believe this could have been thought of in advance....obviously!!
8. The parents alerted the media at a very early stage. They employed their own detectives who were not experts in missing children cases. Their friends did for sure....yes they employed loads of PIs ..some of them motley crews
9. the parents started up a Fund using maximum publicity and with celebrity endorsement to get public money. People were donating initially into buckets being put around in PDL and people in Rothley stuffing cash into their uncles hands....they set up a fund to manage them....it grew..and there were legitimate criticism of it....for instance, why just a month after the childs disappearance and over a million in the bank did they start an online store selling gear
10,. The parents have used money from the fund to sue people who do not support their abduction by a stranger theory...the mCcanns used the fund to pay Isabel Duarte, their Portuguese libel trial lawyer... also used the fund to hire image consultants in Portugal.....some argue it was their perogative as money in the fund included non donated money...ie dmages paid to them via the uk newspapers
11. The detective on  the case, Amaral, was wrongly accused of beating up a woman who is now in jail convicted of the murder of her 8 year old. he was accused by a couple people of doing that, namely Leonor Cipriano and her (later) lawyer but he was never charged with that
12. The McCann's and their friends did not take part in a reconstruction of the evening which could have helped jog people's memories. the reconstruction they couldnt be bothered to attend was not to jog the publics memory.....it was to be a closed PJ exercise to try and establish the details of the evening and movements...but yes, doing so may have thrown up something new to go on
13, Jane Tanner's testimony was not convincing - she changed her story. The abduction theory rested heavily on her 'sighting' which has now proved to be irrelevant. I think her description of what she saw was altered time to time but not in any major way.....more embelishment..

Replies  in quote in red.....

Offline colombosstogey

Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2013, 04:41:35 PM »
Ah, but not as dramatic.

LOL tis true, i never thought of that. Thanks hun.

Offline colombosstogey

Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2013, 04:44:31 PM »
Replies  in quote in red.....

Agreed.

number 13. She identified Murat as the person she saw carrying a child away....which wasted tons of police time.....surprised she didnt finger David Payne as they could be twins lol.


Offline Benice

Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2013, 04:47:20 PM »
Yes they searched very briefly, although staff, police and even holiday makers searched through the night.. The parents admitted that they didn't.  I could never understand that..     

Unlike the McCanns - staff and other holiday makers didn't have to spend time that night talking to the police.   Neither did they have to do that most of the next day.

The parents have described when they searched and have not said they never searched.     They have not claimed to have searched once the media arrived on 4th May  -  as no doubt the police advised them not to - as they would have been mobbed by scores of reporters if they had tried.

The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2013, 04:58:31 PM »
Agreed.

number 13. She identified Murat as the person she saw carrying a child away....which wasted tons of police time.....surprised she didnt finger David Payne as they could be twins lol.

i forgot about that! was going more with her description of man and child....

Offline colombosstogey

Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2013, 05:01:57 PM »
i forgot about that! was going more with her description of man and child....

For me Redblossom it was one of the biggest waste of police time and from her original statments about the description Robert Murat looked NOTHING like her description where did she get him from, it was very odd.

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2013, 05:05:07 PM »
For me Redblossom it was one of the biggest waste of police time and from her original statments about the description Robert Murat looked NOTHING like her description where did she get him from, it was very odd.

she fingered murat......on the way he walked.....according to mr amarals book......round about the same time as three of the other tapas group fingered him as being there that night....if their dreadful memories are anything to go by reading their rogatory interviews they would have said humpty dumpty was there too.....
« Last Edit: November 07, 2013, 05:06:58 PM by Redblossom »

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #71 on: November 07, 2013, 05:09:11 PM »
she fingered murat......on the way he walked.....according to mr amarals book......round about the same time as three of the other tapas group fingered him as being there that night....if their dreadful memories are anything to go by reading their rogatory interviews they would have said humpty dumpty was there too.....

Yet more falsehoods.  Jane Tanner never said anything about Robert Murat.

Offline j.rob

Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #72 on: November 07, 2013, 05:10:35 PM »
To the poster who asked about one of my messages - I'm not sure what happened to it.

However, with regard to Amaral, it was widely reported in the UK press that he was 'discredited' as he had become a suspect after a woman claimed he beat her up to get a confession. This cannot be denied - look up the media reports on the McCann files. It had the effect of weakening his case against the McCanns which presumably was the intention.

Yes - the points made by me are my opinions based on what I have read from the police files, mostly.

The management of the resort stated very clearly there was no evidence of a break in to the apartment.

There is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger.

The McCanns considered the risk of abduction from the apartment to be so low that they left the children alone every evening in an unlocked apartment. Therefore their very early conclusion that she was abducted by a stranger is inconsistent with their belief system. That alone is a massive red flag.

There are so many others in this case.

There are media interviews where the interviewer asks Kate why she didn't join the searches - she gave a very strange reply.

Their very early conviction that they KNEW what had happened to Madeleine is really only consistent with with one conclusion - that they really DID know what had happened to her. But they didn't want to tell the truth about it. So they made up another version of events.

They have told many lies, in my opinion. And so have their friends. It's interesting that they lumbered Jane Tanner with the dodgy statement about her having seen the abductor.

To my mind their story is weak as it contradicts with their own belief system about the very low risk of stranger abduction. None of the parents were worried about it as they all left their children without babysitters every evening that week. (Even after Madeleine supposedly asked why no-one came when the twins cried. Even after Madeleine was heard crying for an hour and a quarter.)

So why would they all reach that very early conclusion that she had been abducted?! I smell a giant rat.

The early involvement of the press, their own dodgy detectives, a lawyer skilled in extradition........a spin doctor, a reputation manager.

The whole thing is completely nuts.

I am not sure what I am twisting in order to suit whom?

The 'only' evidence for abduction was the 'sighting' by Jane Tanner which has now been ruled out.

Kate running out of the apartment where abductors could still be hidden, for instance, is also inconsistent with her 'belief' that Madeleine had been stolen. You would want to check that the other children were okay and had not been molested (don't forget - they thought it might have been a paedophile abduction). The other two children were also, potentially, very important witnesses. If an abductor had stolen Maddie from her bed, it is possible that s/he or they could have woken up one of other of the twins. In any case, Kate stated that she thought the abductor may have drugged the children, so why did she not insist of toxicology tests?

Why did she also not insist on appropriate medical intervention to rule out the drugging plus rule out any kind of molestation?

That would surely be critical.

In cases of missing children, the parents and caretakers and those who last saw the child always have to be ruled out as having something to do with the disappearance.


Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #73 on: November 07, 2013, 05:12:05 PM »
Yet more falsehoods.  Jane Tanner never said anything about Robert Murat.

yes she did....source is amarals book and her rogatory interview.....chew over them....

Offline pathfinder73

Re: A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?
« Reply #74 on: November 07, 2013, 05:17:14 PM »
[When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they stayed inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way. While the guests and employees of the resort were searching, he went to the main Reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After going to the Reception he went back to the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom. 7th September
the deponent (Mr McCann) having asked MATHEW who went to the secondary reception [where] the event was communicated to the local police, since he had no doubt that his daughter had been kidnapped [abducted]. 10th May]

An important part of the case.

Helder Jorge Samaio Luis

That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.

JOHN ELLIOT HILL

Statements show that he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007.

-----------------------------------
John Hill wasn't informed of Madeleine's disappearance until 10.28pm. Therefore we can conclude that Gerry and Mr Hill never went to reception until 10.30pm at the earliest. First phone call to police is logged at 10.40pm. So from 10-10.25pm Gerry's whereabouts are unknown. Matt Oldfield went to reception earlier but was told by Fiona Payne to go.

"So Fiona, I think, asked me to go and phone the Police, so I actually went down the route to where she would have gone for Nursery drop off, which his back to the, to the main reception essentially, so I went down that route looking for her at that time and I asked the reception to phone the Police, and that must have been about five past, it's difficult to know what time it was at that time, but maybe about ten past ten, five past ten, ten past ten'."

"I think it's Stuart HILL or, well the Manager, the sort of Manager got involved, that might have been when it occurred. Erm, so there was plenty of running around through the back streets and back to the apartment and then, you know, where's the, where are the Police, where are the Police, erm, and so went back down to the reception, this would have been about thirty minutes or so later, erm, back to reception, erm, and at that point, Gerry had come down as well."

"about thirty minutes or so later" 10.30pm. Where people were actually searching in this 10-10.15pm time period is going to be very important in solving this case and the connection to Smithman and Madeleine. The net is closing in!
« Last Edit: November 07, 2013, 06:11:14 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.