Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

^^
None of this waffles disproves the possibility of McCann involvement.

no but then again it does imo highlight how many incredibly unlikely mental hoops anyone would need to jump through in order to arrive at the conclusion that they were involved.

[Wonderfulspam]

no but then again it does imo highlight how many incredibly unlikely mental hoops anyone would need to jump through in order to arrive at the conclusion that they were involved.

No it doesn't.

Returning to your points..

A strangulation would be a silent murder, the witnesses didn't describe anybody being 'paraded' (plus they'd have no way of knowing if the child was alive or dead anyway) , the McCanns acting didn't convince me & bins get emptied all the time.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

To believe Martin Smith's identification of Gerry (the only witness who formally stated that) requires acceptance of the following points:-
1. Gerry changed his clothes and no-one noticed
2. Madeleine wasn't wearing the same clothing as reported by the parents
3. Multiple other witnesses lied or were mistaken about Gerry's whereabouts at the time
4. Martin was right & the rest of his family were wrong

How much should the truth be bent to accommodate the revised statement of this sole witness, to remove a potential abductor from the equation and identify him as an existing arguido?

1. Could he could have changed his clothes twice (upon return)? How many of the T7 describe what he was wearing? There are a pair of biege trousers on top of the bed ("Foto 17" - PJ Files)
2. Light coloured pajammas - everyone agrees on that.
3. Do you mean T7? Is there anyone who accounts exactly where he was from 9:50 to 10:15. Also consider the other time anomalies in the timeline and you can see differences of 15-20 minutes. Therefore no-one needs to lie. They may just be mistaken.
How many of the T7 say exactly where Gerry was just AFTER 10pm? Two independent witnesses seem to imply Gerry was away from the table for 30 minutes before the al,arm was raised
4. The whole family saw the man. The description is similar in most respects.

Also why was the sighting ignored for years by Mitchell but held up as centrally important by Redwood in 2013. Why after Redwood's comments does Smithman remain somewhat hidden on the Find Madeleine web site? Why is Tannerman still held up as the abductor when he's been accounted for?

[Lace]

1. Could he could have changed his clothes twice (upon return)? How many of the T7 describe what he was wearing? There are a pair of biege trousers on top of the bed ("Foto 17" - PJ Files)
2. Light coloured pajammas - everyone agrees on that.
3. Do you mean T7? Is there anyone who accounts exactly where he was from 9:50 to 10:15. Also consider the other time anomalies in the timeline and you can see differences of 15-20 minutes. Therefore no-one needs to lie. They may just be mistaken.
How many of the T7 say exactly where Gerry was just AFTER 10pm? Two independent witnesses seem to imply Gerry was away from the table for 30 minutes before the al,arm was raised
4. The whole family saw the man. The description is similar in most respects.

Also why was the sighting ignored for years by Mitchell but held up as centrally important by Redwood in 2013. Why after Redwood's comments does Smithman remain somewhat hidden on the Find Madeleine web site? Why is Tannerman still held up as the abductor when he's been accounted for?

Ah so Gerry left the trousers he was wearing when he carried Madeleine on the bed for all to see. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

No it doesn't.

Returning to your points..

A strangulation would be a silent murder, the witnesses didn't describe anybody being 'paraded' (plus they'd have no way of knowing if the child was alive or dead anyway) , the McCanns acting didn't convince me & bins get emptied all the time.

Yes it does.  So many improbable ducks need to be lined up in a row for you theory to work.  Strangulation may be silent, but  was it premeditated in your view?  Were the children quietly sitting there colouring in when Kate decided to murder Madeleine?  How many murderers or their accomplices decide to hide a body by carrying it uncovered through the streets only minutes after kicking up an almighty stink about the victim going missing?  And how very fortuitous that the guy hiding the body picked one that no one checked before it was swiftly emptied before the search parties were out.   Yes, individually all these aspects are possible but when you string them together with all the other highly unlikely factors necessary to twist Kate and Gerry into the culprits, not so much.    Occam’s Razor.  Your theory is quite the opposite.  All IMO. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Ah so Gerry left the trousers he was wearing when he carried Madeleine on the bed for all to see.

Knowing he’d been spotted wearing them.  Clearly whatever injury Madeleine suffered then, there was no blood otherwise this would have been a very risky strategy to wear and then display light coloured trousers for the police to photograph, so we can rule out “blood spatter” in the apartment as being relevant.

[barrier]

Knowing he’d been spotted wearing them.  Clearly whatever injury Madeleine suffered then, there was no blood otherwise this would have been a very risky strategy to wear and then display light coloured trousers for the police to photograph, so we can rule out “blood spatter” in the apartment as being relevant.

Why was a injury needed, the story of drug overdose from Sept 2007 is still on line to see.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why was a injury needed, the story of drug overdose from Sept 2007 is still on line to see.

To explain the “blood spatter” of course!  You do know some daft ha’porths believe the McCanns performed an emergency tracheotomy on their daughter resulting in gore all over the wall don’t you?

[barrier]

To explain the “blood spatter” of course!  You do know some daft ha’porths believe the McCanns performed an emergency tracheotomy on their daughter resulting in gore all over the wall don’t you?

Each to their own.

[barrier]

I'll put it here, is Wolters a prosecutor or does he just work under the prosecutors umbrella.

Piece from Clarkes book.


"I am only involved primarily in the press work, so I don't know eveything in detail. I only know things in general terms. Because, thank God, my colleague who does all the investigation, she doesn't tell me everything in detail, so I don't run the risk of blabbing everything."

[Mr Gray]

I'll put it here, is Wolters a prosecutor or does he just work under the prosecutors umbrella.

Piece from Clarkes book.


"I am only involved primarily in the press work, so I don't know eveything in detail. I only know things in general terms. Because, thank God, my colleague who does all the investigation, she doesn't tell me everything in detail, so I don't run the risk of blabbing everything."

Mark S made s big point about Wolters not knowing the details of the phone evidence... I made the point he msy not know sll the technical fetails.. Looks like I was right

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'll put it here, is Wolters a prosecutor or does he just work under the prosecutors umbrella.

Piece from Clarkes book.


"I am only involved primarily in the press work, so I don't know eveything in detail. I only know things in general terms. Because, thank God, my colleague who does all the investigation, she doesn't tell me everything in detail, so I don't run the risk of blabbing everything."

Maybe he just said that to stop Clarke asking questions he didn’t want to answer.

[barrier]

Maybe he just said that to stop Clarke asking questions he didn’t want to answer.

Thats easy, if you like the answer don't ask the question.

[barrier]

Mark S made s big point about Wolters not knowing the details of the phone evidence... I made the point he msy not know sll the technical fetails.. Looks like I was right

Which is why I ask, is he a prosecutor or works for the prosecutors office, seems more the latter.

[Mr Gray]

Maybe he just said that to stop Clarke asking questions he didn’t want to answer.

I think Wolters may well have learnt his lesson after this e Mark S interview