PLEASE REMEMBER TO USE
http://tinyurl.com
TO REDUCE THE LENGTH OF ANY URL YOU WISH TO POST.
-- Go to http://tinyurl.com
-- Paste the URL you want to use in the little box on the page there
-- Click "make Tiny URL"
-- Copy the result
-- Paste that result here
I've never had an problems getting a link made there to work properly.
Steve
Hi, everyone.
Waiting for some tabloid news.
I am getting so addicted to British tabloids that I started reading about poor Heather Mills 
Here is the update from Gerry's diary:
"Day 184 - 03/11/2007
Today marks six months since Madeleine was taken from us. It is an incredibly long time for us but must be even longer for Madeleine. It is so painful for us simply being separated, but all the more distressing when we have to speculate about the situation Madeleine finds herself. We have no idea whether she is suffering but we have to hope and pray that she is being treated like a princess, as she deserves.
This afternoon there will be prayer vigils in Liverpool, Praia da Luz and many friends will be praying in Glasgow. Tonight we will be attending an ecumenical service to pray for Madeleine and other children who are suffering. There is again a lot of media presence in Rothley and the upshot is that millions of people know Madeleine is still missing and that we will not give up looking for her.
We urge anyone who may have information that might help us find Madeleine to call us on the confidential number +34 902 300 213, which is manned by private detectives in Spain or e-mail investigation@findmadeleine.com, or contact the police. "
Don't get addicted to tabloids, Karina. You'll end up like me. :P
Steve, thank you for everything you do, and for keeping us informed of all of the major cases of our era....like Maddie's. Six months seems like a long time when you experience it one blog, or forum posting at a time. In the big picture, however, I keep telling myself that justice will rule in the end, and the good guy/gal in the white hat will kick the proverbial butts of the guys/gals in the black hats. Personally, I always wear black - but then again, that just proves that sterotyping is a bad idea. Of course, Mr. Huff himself proves that steroptying is a bad idea - what other opera singer can nail a criminal to the wall with a single keyboard??? Hmmm????? Love ya' man!
STEVE, Many thanks for being such a brill host and MHR (Many Happy Returns) on your 40'th why aren't you out and about being shamoozled??
Best wishes, moahh, moahh,
Liz
Well, what do we all think about half of the T9 being named as suspects??
Liz
http://tinyurl.com/2pu7qf
The McCanns are asking the Portuguese police to interview key witnesses, including the nanny who had been assigned to take care of Madeleine.
Lynn, I think we can all reasonably assume that M is no longer on this earth and is therefore at peace and in a place where she cannot be harmed.
Hold your new little one close. Our children are precious.
I am actually optimistic that this case will be solved and I believe that those persons responsible for M's disappearance and cover up of her death will eventually be brought to justice and held accountable.
Happy 40th, Steve. Thanks for this great site.
Stanley, did you mean 20 years sober or twenty years since you've been sober? If it's the former, I applaud you; if the latter is the case, I truly hope that you will find your way back.
Oh ick. Happy B-day Steve, but this is ridiculous. Is the Maddie threads for hits?
Its all retarded, nobody knows what happened.
Melissa,
What did you mean, "Is the Maddie threads for hits?"
HAPPY BIRTHDAY STEVE!!!!
Happy Birthday Steve!
The Correio da Manhã reports today the PJ wanted to know if the parents of McCann were drunken the May 3. Paulo Rebelo has spoken with some element of the GNR (Guarda Nacional Republicana) that were in Luz after the disappearance to verify the theory that the Couple was under alcohol. The authorities have already recieved the majority of the results collected in the car and the apartment rented by the McCanns, but data that may be funtamental are still missing, claimes the CM.
The Diario de Noticias reports that the PJ garantees that they "have not already recieved" the results of the laboratoy of Birmimgham concerning the last results of the DNA test of blood, hair and other vestiges collected in the apartment of the Ocean Club, (...)
Translation of the RTP interview done by Paulo Cristóvão, ex PJ-Detective who has investigated the Joana Case and author of the book " A estrela de Joana" (The Joana Star)
-RTP Journalist: Aparently the results of the laboratory of Birmimgham didnt arrived, is this delay normal?
-Paulo Cristóvão: Apparently, it isn't very normal, but we have to take into account that it's a large number of sample which has been sent to analysis.
-This week the new team directed by Paulo Rebelo did return to apartment of the ocean club. Half a year later, what kind of data could be collected?
-I dont know if new data was collected, but it's important for someone who makes a first contact with an investigation that he moves itself to the places which are refered in this investigation. I think that it is a an absolutely normal procedure.
-In this moment we have three arguidos in this case, do you think that it would open to an accusation?
-I want to believe that it would. But also it costs to me to see that the political components are, acording to me, perverting what this inquiry should be when it should be a simple and pure policial inquiry.
But I want to believe that one day it would open to an acusation or at least that we would obtain a key clarification of the facts.
- When you are saying that there are political components that produce some noises in this case, to what are you referring in concret?
-The politial components in this case had existed since the begining. When we see Ambassadors acting personally in the name of a determined government in a specific case which is policial,when we see a Prime Minister of a coutry in the middle of a summit referring to the fact that he will talk with another Prime Minister relatively to the same case it's dificult to say that there are no political components. I think that the policial cases should remain in the policial sphere, and the political cases should remain in the political sphere. It's bad when they both interfere.
-And you think it's what it is happening?
-Apparently it is happening: when we see persons with political responsibilities, sharing their opinions about a policial case and when we see persons such as the spokesman of the couple McCann, who has a strict connectiion with the same British Cabinet,sometimes in one side, sometimes the other, and being in this moment the spokesman of persons that are formal suspects in the inquiry.
Steve, thank you what a great birthday present to all of us a brand new thread in your new decade. Hope you had a great day.
As for 4 of the tapas 7 being made suspects. I find it surprising that this is happening when the Metodo 3 have found "Madeleine" in Morocco. It is also strange that G did not mention this "find" in his diary after all he is writing the cheques for them, or does he think like me this is just bs. If so he should stop wasting op's money on them.
Happy Birthday Steve.
NOTW (never thought for a million years I'd be quoting them) has a bizzare story about a carrier bag found near Faro airport with clothes containing DNA links to Madeleine McCann - for further info go to Mirror Forum. It also had a shower curtain. The story is bizzare because in the same article there is info about the Mafia boses agreeing to investigate any links.
I'm also taken by the 'Baby Grace' story. There are currents off Portugal which in spring and summer go south, cross the Atlantic and then back up to the Gulf of Mexico. Just a thought and I think the FBI are going to investigate if there are any links.
I personally find the Metodo 3 organisation a little nutty. The interview with the Spanish newspaper was most strange - dolls in suitcases...?
All the 'leaks' about the DNA results (no pun intended), are put out to confuse. There is a constant in all of this. The FSS would never leak news nor would the PJ under Paulo Rebelo.
Happy Birthday Steve.
Thanks for the new thread!
Have a great day.
K&G are asking the PJ to interview 25 key witnesses:
http://tinyurl.com/2pu7qf
they also say they are confident they will not be charged. This doesn't fit with the Tapas arguido idea which is also being reported.
As a matter of (very little) interest I have used Safari, Firefox 2 and now Camino - and never had any trouble with formatting. But am now using Tinyurl for the pure fun of it.
Translation of the Interview of Sandra Felgueiras with a RTP journalist during the news of yesterday afternoon:
-Journalist: In this report it was revealed for example that blood was found in the apartment where the McCanns spent their holidays under a parquet block, is it proved that this blood is the blood of Madeleine McCann?
-Sandra Felgueiras: Not at all. This blood sample, that has been collected because the British dogs, brought to Portugal the 1st of August, have detected simultaneously one blood and the other the scent of a cadaver and this same sample under a parquet block under the coach of the living room where the McCanns were spending their holydays, has only proved that 5 markers are compatible with 19 corresponding with the genetic profile of Maddie McCann. I had the opportunity to talk with genetics that said 5 markers on 19 is a very bad result. With this result it’s practically impossible to say to whom this sample pertains. And let me reinforce, saying that it’s this sample, according to what I was able to clarify, is still in analysis in the Laboratory of Birmingham although the British press has reported that those results wee already ready. The truth is that the cabinet of the press of the PJ says that the results didn’t have arrived in Portugal. Its' in this expectative that the Policia Judiciaria is in this moment, as I am understanding, and I tell that this blood vestige may oblige the Scientifics to obtain a result more favorable, more positive to reinforce that theory in which the PJ believes or it is that Madeleine died in that place, near the coach, in the apartment, May 3
- While waiting for the results, what more has the Policia Judiciaria?
-I would say according to what I was able to understand, not very much. What the Policia Judiciaria has, are some vestiges that give the notion that a trail of a cadaver that starts at the apartment - it starts from this apartment because those dogs have detected the scent of blood and cadaver in the apartment and after they were brought to the villa where the McCanns were living since the beginning of July, and there they found the scent of a cadaver in clothes of Kate and also in a cuddly toy that she was always taking in her hands and which belonged to Madeleine. Furthermore, it was thos cully toy that was over the bed when the Policia Judiciara entered in the apartment in the night of the crime, May 3. And after, these dogs were brought to search 11 vehicles, and it was in that moment that Rober Murat pratically was innoncented because in the vehicles associated with the abduction theory nothing was found and the dogs have only reacted to the vehicle rented 25 days after by the McCanns. They have reacted first to the key of the car, where it was found a cadaver scent, and next in the trunk and there the dogs were able to detect vestiges which de facto have a relation very positive with the genetic profile of Madeleine McCann.
And I will explain why.
In the 19 markers that were studied to identify the genetic profile of Madeleine McCann, the Scientists were able to find a compatibly of 15. Well, 15 in 19, according to it have been explained to me by the genetics, Dr. Corto Real, of the Instituto de Medecine Legal, in Portugal, those 15 markers are already a good positive result and as it was explained to us, we only have to know what happen to the other 4. In 19 there are 15, then what happen to the others 4? Because the answer could be there, and the answer is that: in those 4, if the 4 show some incompatibility then it can’t be Madeleine, but if in the 4 it would be impossible to study because the sample was botched, then it's possible to be Madeleine. And what I have succeeded to validate, with a lot of credibility, is that those 4 markers have demonstrated that they can’t be studied, none of them were incompatible and to the fact the vestige was collected with a degree of degradation that doesn’t allow to the scientist to go further. Where are we going with all that? The Police Judiciara has a sample that allows concluding that the most probable theory is the death but doesn’t prove that it was de facto Madeleine. And with all that it might be possible to go to the tribunal with a certainty to condemn the McCanns.
- With all that the question that is imposed is: the result of this investigation could be filed?
-I think that in the Policia Judiciara, within the last contacts that I have maintained, the conviction is that if no result more convincing more conclusive is found in Birmimgham, the result could really be filed. Because in this moment, what exists? The Policia Judiciara has several lines of investigation, they cant give up the abduction theory because there is no certainty concerning the death theory and it s good to not forgive that the McCanns since the beginning of the first days did claim vehemently that the windows were jammed and that abductor was gone by there with Madeleine. Consequently, the Policia Judiciara still cant deny that in the first 12 hours the borders with Spain weren’t closed and there was an oportunity because between Praia da Luz and Spain there is only 144 km (89 miles), in 12 hours there is enough time for a child to be put on the other site and to be bring eventually to Morocco.
In conclusion, all that is a great mystery since the first day. We have two versions of the story, absolutely contradictory, but both have the possibility to be the truth. And this is a waiting, a suspense of what could be the truth and eventually we would never know it and there is there this does that this dram, a disturbing dram. (..)
Thank you Jose. Despite all that, I'm still confused but I've no doubt that whatever the PJ come up with in conjunction with the DNA results I will be happy with it. And I will hold my hand up and say I was wrong.
Having said that this really is about the search for a missing child, one of thousands who disappear annually, who went missing because her parents left her in an unlocked holiday apartment to go out for the night. May we never see this sort of thing happen again.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/you6tf
I am taking this story with a lot of salt!
A bag of clothes containing DNA linked to Madeleine McCann has been discovered dumped by a road in Portugal.
The white carrier bag was discovered in a layby two weeks ago near Faro airport, according to a report in the News of the World.
It was also said to contain a shower curtain.
Other items recovered from the bag included a white flannel, a green elastic band, a light green child's T-shirt with a green flower on the front and a pink and blue pencil case with a pink heart motif.
The DNA samples were not an exact match but were thought to show a "moderate" link to the missing four-year-old.
A source said: "The bag could be crucial. The DNA isn't an exact match to Maddie's, but it does link.
The report concluded: "The blue fleece and jeans were found to contain traces of congealed skin and hair.
Hope: Kate McCann holds her daugher's favourite toy close to her chest
"They were found to contain DNA characteristics that could be attributed to Madeleine McCann." No traces of Maddie's DNA were found on any of the other items.
The fresh clues will give Kate and Gerry, both 39, renewed hope of finding their daughter alive six months after she disappeared.
A friend of the McCanns said: "It potentially suggests that someone has taken her then disposed of the clothing.
"They have done it near Faro which could imply they have gone in the direction of the airport. It backs up the idea she was abducted."
---------------------------------
Gives parents "renewed hope of finding their daughter alive"? What part of "contain traces of congealed skin and hair" gives them hope? "Backs-up she was abducted"??? If story is true, the abductor not only cleans up but takes extra clothing (no PJs). JT didn't see a shower curtain or maybe that will trigger her memory?
The elastic band that was mentioned, I found interesting. I remember reading early on Kate mentioning how that night she took Maddie's bead out of her hair and I thought, what a strange thing to mention.
Anyway if there really was a bag found, what a great reason to call into the parents to identify the contents and say while you are here "what about...da,da ,da"? They can hardly refuse to identify the contents.
good points dee.
I just saw that spanish interview with the mccanns for the first time today. This is blunt but I think Kate Mccann is lying. I find it strange that Eyesforlies thinks they are telling the truth. I have no special abilities but good instincts. She is lying. Everything Kate says suggests mourning for someone she knows is dead and she knows how she died.
Re John K&G are asking the PJ to interview 25 key witnesses:
In this article, it is said that Mr Caplan has taken advantage of the rights that people are afforded as arguidos to demand information and action from the police.
I had to say that it seems to me that it is quite impossible that Mr Caplan asked anything to the Portuguese Police for the only reason that Mr Caplan is not allowed to represent the McCanns in Portugal because he is not registered as a Lawyer in Portugal in the Ordem dos Advogados. Any request should be formulated by the portuguese Lawyers of the McCanns: Carlos Pinto de Abreu or Rogério Alves .
And I have to say that I dont understand the reason why the McCanns want to clear their name as it is constantly reported in the press. It is true that the status of arguido gives rights to McCanns to ask action to the Portuguese Police. A simple witness dont have this right. If their arguido status is dropped, they cant ask anything to the Police relatively to action.
Personally, I have always found odd that the McCanns prefered to have their name cleared from the status of arguido, rather than using the rights of their status to participate actively in the inquiry and help the Police to find their daughter.
Happy Birthday Steve,
@ Billie yes I think perhaps that is the case, just dont want to admit it, i guess.
With regards to the Tapas7 becoming suspects, or some of them anyway, not really a surprise is it, this case just gets weirder by the day.
With regards to the bag being found surely any abductor would burn the clothes or just chuck them in the rubbish not throw the bag in a place where it would be found?
Yes, Jose re the last paragraph is another of the many oddities with these parents (sorry I use the word "parents" loosely for many reasons). Nothing they do, say or write makes sense.
Also thanks for the article you transcribed!
The story about the bag found near the airport is strange indeed. According to K&G, M had been asleep in her bed prior to the supposed "abduction" and was wearing pyjamas. If we are to believe that this bag was deliberately tossed away by the abductor, why then would there have been jeans, a fleece and a tshirt in the bag? Are we honestly supposed to believe that the supposed abductor took the time to dress M before whisking her out of the apartment? And then removed the clothes from her body in order to dispose of them? Doesn't add up.
Dee
what another strange twist in the story. I cant see why that would give the parents help either
"Everything Kate says suggests mourning for someone she knows is dead "
Pink
This was also my immediate reaction when I saw the spanish interview and also more recently her TV interview on the 6 mos anniversary. Her words don't ring true.
I hate to feel this way because I would like Kate to be innocent but I can't help it. I am waiting for someone to prove me wrong.
Moroccan Interior Minister says there is no reason to believe that Madeleine is in Morocco.
http://tinyurl.com/2duu4q
Billy not sure what you meant on the abductor too time to dress M before, whisking her out of the apt.? I agree it doesn't add up and the source is far from reliable. Supposedly she was in bed in her Pjs. PJs supposedly were not in the bag, which to me would imply he/she took an extra piece or pieces of clothing if we are to believe an abduction? If someone took extra clothing as a trophy thing, they would keep it as that is what it is all about! There have been rumors she was accidently killed before supper, if true the clothes are important... But also according to the article the child's clothes did not show any DNA only on the adult clothes. Could they have been washed? Bring back the cad. dog!
Re the Shower Curtain...the geniuses we all are & other sites,...I have never heard anyone suggest that, but brilliant if true. Shows we are not as jaded as what we think; to all our credit. So simple!!!!
So when they say the samples found on the clothes arn't an exact match but show links to Maddie this must mean they've been sent for analysis.
Re buring the clothes. Doesn't figure in my book as it would look far too suspicious. You're in a holiday home and burning things in the garden? Can't see that happening.
The elastic band is worrisome...
The clothes found need not be Madeleine's own, rather second hand that she was dressed in (if this is the case!)
Just looked at different stories, from Texas to Morocco, bag dumped near the airport, etc. Spin (from McCain's)...it's all good, "she's alive" (don't look at us) or we picked the list to be questioned (yeah right...do they think anyone buys that)? Now we have Kate finally weeping again for the 2nd time (?). "At the weekend, Kate wept in church while hearing priests pray for the “miracle” return of her daughter." Heartbreakingly it seems a little too late. And if you really believe the sitings...why cry now Kate? Plus, why aren't you in Morocco?
Sorry Kate 5 1/2 - 6 months latter...the mothers/fathers out there...just can't comprehend it.
Brisbanite wrote: The clothes found need not be Madeleine's own, rather second hand that she was dressed in (if this is the case!)
Following your logic, if the abductor took the time to dress her in the clothes, then why remove the garments and dump them? M would have been taken out of Portugal that night so why the need to get rid of clothing and especially why dump it in Portgual where it might be found?
Has anyone determined whether this bag was discovered close to the date that K&G returned to the UK? Might turn out to be "planted" evidence.
Does anyone know whether the clothes that Russel O'Brien purportedly changed out of during the Tapas dinner party when his child was sick were ever located and analysed? Could the adult jeans and fleece top possibly belong to him?
Investigators to search a farm in the Rif mountains of Morocco.
http://tinyurl.com/yw8lhq
I feel like this tragedy is turning into a depressing reality TV show. Every day is a new episode with a suspense story.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/you6tf
This maybe is another one-day story that will never to be heard again. But if so, what a good way to haul in the parents for further questioning, brilliant even if the bag was planted for questioning purposes. Anyway it is another wait & see story.
The 24Horas headlines:"4 friends of the McCanns made arguidos". (No online edition)
The Correia da Manhã reports also that the friends of McCanns could be made arguidos. According to the PJ, the hours before the disappearance Of Madeleine McCann of the Ocean Club, May 3, have shown that some of the friends that dined with Kate and Gerry that night exhibits contradictions in their dispositions.
For this reason, Dr. David O'Brien, and his wife Jane Tanner and Dr. David Payne may be made arguidos very soon.
and also Matthew Oldfield.
Karina,
I'm thinking about why I think she's lying. Her voice is different, she's not speaking from low down in her diaphragm but high up in the back of her throat.So she literally is not "speaking from the heart". Her voice is 'littler', a scratchy child-like plea to believe her... Also her liverpool accent is broader, note "bach" for "back", very scouse. Almost as if she is taking on another character in order to be able to tell these lies. Her eyes don't make contact properly... as you say it doesn't ring true. In fact i've also just watched the Heather McCartney interview on GMTV(youtube it) and whatever else one may think of her, it is clear that she is speaking her truth, she is passionate, and wants to convince, very different from Kate Mccann. I hope what i've said makes sense.
There is a good phone in on radio5live with,amongst others, the famous ex-editor of The Sun, Kelvin Mckenzie, who makes very good points: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/
m...ive_promo.shtml . Click on Steven Nolan, saturday.
The swinging rumor resurfaces, the Portuguese criminologist, José Barra da Costa, had declared to Portuguese press (24Horas?) that the detectives should investigate this rumor, reports the Daily Star:
http://tinyurl.com/26pz8e
Da Costa claimed he had been passed the “swinging” allegations by a former police colleague who was working on the case.
Although he had no evidence to back up the allegation, it had circulated on the web.
Net gossips said the couple’s home town of Rothley, Leics, was not far from Loughborough – dubbed the “swingers’ capital of Britain”.
One newspaper even sent undercover investigators to a swingers’ club in the town to ask if anyone knew the McCanns.
@ Jose re swinging. Isn't life grand for tabloid reporters all ours are in Morocco looking at the local custom of abusing children. All yours are in Loughborough (been there a one horse town) studying the British custom of screwing your neighbours wife. It's good to know we all have such high regard for each others ways of life. My kippers this morning were rather salty how were your sardines?
O you doubters about the bag! The elastic band??? How did you think he keeps his mask on?
First thing that springs to mind is:
were the clothes Madeleines????
Next point is that why would an abductor take clothes, strip a CHILD THEN kill/traffik her but dump the clothes - it doesnt add up - you would burn them to destroy evidence
but
if Madeleine was not in her pjs but dressed in clothes this makes more sense - the abductor drives her away - changes her clothes throws them out the window en route to wherever
was there a shower curtain missing from apartment?
think swinging is irrelevant personally
swinging is only relevant i suppose if that is what the lying/obfuscating is about...not covering up an accident or murder but covering up their unconventional lifestyle.
re Stanley
I had to say that I didnt found any delicious interesting sardine to munch this morning in the Portuguese press.
Re pinkdrummergirl I am listening the
Stephen Nolan program on bbc:
http://tinyurl.com/3d9h5q
I found interesting the points of Kelvin Mckenzie and especially the point concerning the presumption of innoncence "on the eyes of the law": "We you say that they are innocent people, that of course is not the case. (..) But they are the main suspects on this case and you know it s not for me to say if whatever they have done is suspicious or not, it s to the Police to decide of this..."
Going back over old ground I cannot help but think the priest is holding a vital clue to solving this case. I think the fact he was deceived is one hell of a statement for him to make and I think he is probably now battling with his demons to cope with his "Knowledge". I am going to do a revamp of the facts, the definite facts, not the "hearsay" that the McCanns and press are spinning and try to become more logical as I find I am becomming confused and spinified for want of a better word, something I am sure that would please the McCanns.
What I again will say is that, innocent or guilty Madeleines memory is being ridiculed almost by the constant crap being spun left right and centre, again I say K and G and especially Clarence "Motormouth" Mitchell should just shush.
Re Lynn
Some items found in the bag are from an "adult" person: jeans with more than 60 stains and with traces of congealed skin and hair, which could be from Madeleine McCann. The bag was found near Faro, not far away form the airport, in a place which is between Praia da luz and Spain.
It contains also other items:"a white flannel, a green elastic band, a light green child's T-shirt with a green flower on the front and a pink and blue pencil case with a pink heart motif."
If this story is true, that means that Madeleine McCann is dead and her body was congealed. The jeans were contamined and put in a bag with other items like a shower curtain.
That suggests that the shower curtain may have involved the body. The owner of the jeans may be the person who dispose the body of Madeleine McCann.
The question is: does this shower curtain came from an apartment of the Ocean Club resort and to whom pertain those jeans?
Among the other items there is a t-shirt of a child. No rose pyjamas were found. If it is a t-shirt of Madeleine McCann, that means that she was wearing that when she disappered or that her clothes were changed with an important item that has never been reported as missing. Consequently, the parents are certainly involved because they didnt report that the t-shirt was missing.
Now, if this t-shirt is not a t-shirt of Madeleine, there is nothing that we can conclude concerning the person who disposes of the body.
yes i agree jose, seems to be weird that the McCanns never mentioned missing tshirt - lets hope we find out if it was hers - if indeed the story is true - still wonder if an abductor would just throw away evidence surely theyd burn it?
off thread a little ... so apologise
Madeleine's distinctive eye marking is medically known as Coloboma, the effects of which depend on the severity of the condition, usually visual.
However there is research that some children with coloboma of the eye also have malformations in other parts of the body. There is a rare condition called CHARGE syndrome, in which coloboma is associated with cleft lip and/or palate, ear abnormalities and hearing impairment, choanal atresia, delays in growth and development, central nervous system anomalies and congenital heart defects.
I have been researching charge syndrome and children who display the symptoms are displays of determination and strong character (of which all children are capable of ) but this may tie in with reports by KM in 'diary extracts' that she was hyperactive etc.
Also the morbitiy rate in children with charge syndom are recorded as 'high'.
What if Madeleine suffered from Charge syndrome, had a congenital heart condition, that 'took her' whilst on holiday.
So why a 'cover up'?
Maybe 'sedatives' were involved, that conflicted with perscribed medication, maybe that, coupled with 3 young children left alone was enough to employ a cover up.
But its a theory that maybe has as much possibitity as any other.
Re Lynn The fact that this bag was found with all these invidences doesnt make sense. The bag should have been buried or burnt for sure so anybody could find it. An abductor would never throw away this bag in a layby. It seems to me that only an offender with low education would commit this kind of mistake.
Re macushla
It seems that the eye marking of Madeleine McCann is a cat eye (a type of coloboma):
http://tinyurl.com/39usv4
Daily Mirror:
http://tinyurl.com/2jrodk
A friend of the McCanns said none of the adult clothes found matched any items belonging to either Kate or Gerry.
He added: "Kate and Gerry do not own a blue fleece, and never did during their time in Portugal. They are puzzled by the green T-shirt and pencil case which have reportedly been found because Madeleine was wearing pyjamas when she disappeared and did not have a pencil case like the one described."
Caused by Genetic Defect in Chromosome 22
Cat eye syndrome, named after how it affects the appearance of the eyes, is caused by a genetic defect in chromosome 22. There is a wide range of symptoms associated with the syndrome. Cat eye syndrome affects both males and females, and is estimated to occur in 1 in 74,000 individuals. Many individuals born with the syndrome are the only ones in their families who have it.
Symptoms
About 41 percent of individuals with cat eye syndrome have three symptoms in common:
* absence of tissue from the colored part of one or both eyes (iris coloboma)
* small growths of skin (tags) or depressions in the skin (pits) of the outer ears
* an absence or obstruction of the anus (anal atresia)
In addition, individuals with cat eye syndrome may have:
* congenital heart defect
* downward slanting openings between the upper and lower eyelids
* defects of the urinary tract or kidneys
* short stature
* cleft palate
http://tinyurl.com/2pyzvs
CAT EYE SYNDROME
Alternative title:
CES
SCHMID-FRACCARO SYNDROME
CHROMOSOME 22 PARTIAL TETRASOMY
INV DUP(22)(q11)
Gene map locus 22q11
DESCRIPTION
A number sign (#) is used with this entry because a chromosomal abnormality is known in this syndrome. However, because in many of the reported cases the abnormality is in only a portion of the patients' cells, and because the mosaicism is sometimes transmitted through several generations, mendelian factors may be important in its causation. 30 PubMed Neighbors
Cat eye syndrome (CES) is characterized clinically by the combination of coloboma of the iris and anal atresia with fistula, downslanting palpebral fissures, preauricular tags and/or pits, frequent occurrence of heart and renal malformations, and normal or near-normal mental development. A small supernumerary chromosome (smaller than chromosome 21) is present, frequently has 2 centromeres, is bisatellited, and represents an inv dup(22)(q11). 30 PubMed Neighbors
CLINICAL FEATURES
The variability of clinical features, particularly congenital malformations, is enormous (see Schachenmann et al., 1965, Schinzel et al., 1981, and Schinzel, 1994). Within a single family, a wide spectrum of features can be observed, ranging from marginally affected individuals in whom, unless other members are affected, no chromosome examination would be performed, to those with the full pattern of malformations and lethal outcome. Only mild prenatal growth retardation occurs. Minimal features include downslanting palpebral fissures and misshapen ears with a preauricular pit or tag or both. Other frequently encountered minor anomalies include hypertelorism, strabismus, inner epicanthic folds, flat nasal bridge, and small mandible. 30 PubMed Neighbors
(...)
A few patients die from multiple malformations during early infancy; of the remainder, life expectancy is not significantly reduced. Growth retardation is a variable feature as is mental retardation. The majority of patients function in the borderline normal to mildly retarded range, a few are normal, and some are moderately to severely retarded, although the latter condition is rare. Behavioral problems have been reported in individual cases, but are not characteristic of the disorder (Schinzel et al., 1981). 30 PubMed Neighbors
(..)
(...)
DIAGNOSIS
Although CES was initially defined as the combination of an additional chromosome, with coloboma and anal atresia as primary features, it became evident from the patients reported by Schachenmann et al. (1965) that neither coloboma nor anal atresia were obligatory findings. In addition to the above features, the following are helpful for the diagnosis: heart malformations, renal malformations, downslanting palpebral fissures, preauricular pits and/or tags, and reduction of the auricles with atresia of the external auditory canal. The diagnosis nowadays, however, is based on the presence of an extra marker chromosome which, by FISH examination, is derived from chromosome 22 and contains 2 copies of the critical CES region in proximal 22q11. 30 PubMed Neighbors
CLINICAL MANAGEMENT
Surgery is required for anal atresia and complex cardiac malformations. With intestinal problems, malrotation, Meckel diverticulum, and biliary atresia have to be considered. Patients with very short stature might have additional hypothalamic growth hormone deficiency and thus be candidates for growth hormone therapy (Pierson et al., 1975). 30 PubMed Neighbors
(...)
Hold on a moment with the speculation about 'cat's eye' and Madeleine's pupil. I know someone with a similar pupil, and I can assure you that they have no other 'problems' - there are numerous reasons why her pupil or iris could be malformed like that. Secondly, just from looking at photos of the girl it is obvious that she doesn't have a chromosonal disorder as you describe. Or is this the usual hyper-speculation to try and pin the McCanns down for allegedly 'sedating' their children?
Re Blimeyhecks Can you tell us what are the reasons why her pupil or iris could be malformed like that?
I think it's necessary to a DNA test to know if Madeleine McCann was suffering from a genetic disease like the CES.
If Madeleine McCann was suffering from a genetic disease, that means that she was a fragile little child. I think that s very important.
I have worked with people who have chromosonal problems - they have very obvious facial features. Madeleine McCann does not. It is also obvious that she was at the correct 'milestones' for her age. The numerous reasons could be trauma, a small infection in her eye when she was a baby...anything. Just because you have a malformed pupil does not mean that you have a chromosonal abnormality. Unless you are a Dr with a speciality in children with learning disabilities I suggest it is very unsound to make a 'diagnosis' with so little facts or information.
Police say recent blonde girl sighted in Morocco is not Madeleine.
http://tinyurl.com/ysnkzf
Re blimeyhecks Even if I was a Dr with a speciality in children with learning disabilities I also think that making a diagnosis without seeing the patient would be very hazardous.
I agree with you Madeleine McCann could have a malformed pupil without having a CES.
Of course, no Dr worth their salt would do it. Which is why it's incredible that people are trying to diagnose 'CES' who don't even have any training or knowledge of the subject and are getting their information from Google. There has been so much speculation about this poor little girl, and a lot of it is completely in the realms of fantasy.
@ blimeyhecks: You said "There has been so much speculation about this poor little girl, and a lot of it is completely in the realms of fantasy."
I wholeheartedly agree but what is unique in this case is that the vast majority of the fantasising has been done by the child's parents and their advisors. I cannot think of a spread of misinformation in any case similar.
As a prime example Billie's last post. Yet another girl found in Morocco who is not Madeleine McCann there is a shock now. Does anyone on this thread really believe in an abductor who let himself be seen by J.T. then dumps an incriminating bag near Faro airport or parades M round various supermarkets in Morocco. Outside of the Tapas 9 there has not been a single scrap of evidence to lead us to believe that M was taken by any outsider. The big news here today was that G is thinking of going full-time in January. For gods sake how is this statement from Clarence helping find M?
If you believe that Team McCann are covering up then the case becomes simpler. However for those who think they are telling the truth, let me ask you which version?
You are referring to Charge Syndrome - this is the "eye" related problem that is 1 part of the syndrome, Madeleine does not suffer from Charge Syndrome at all.
Hi Stanley,
I know what you're saying but don't deny some of us a little bit of hope that maybe Madeleine is still alive. I know it's a stretch but I still want to believe that it's possible.
K.
God more than anything I too want her to be alive, I just pray each day she is but then when I think of what could be happening to her, my thoughts change somewhat.
On a better note it is reported that 46 pedophiles and more to follow have been arrested in Europe.
Stanley - I do not believe that McCanns are covering anything up. I think that the child has been abducted. Yes, they made a mistake when they left their children alone - to err is human. It is a burden and nightmare they will live with for the rest of their lives, even without people hounding them for the mistake they made. I think they have been villified because they have not 'reacted' as people would like them to react. That is a very dangerous trap for people who judge them to fall into - see Lindy Chamberlain, Joanne Lees, JonBenet Ramsay's family etc.
Lynn please where was this report of arrests?
Blimeyhicks, thanks for your in-put but I don't think it is out of the realms of possibilities that Madeline could have had some kind of heart defect (perhaps undiagnosed) and if medicated by someone, could have caused a problem. If this were to be the case and her father is a heart specialist; it could give cause for concern with medicating and leaving your child, why they could have possibly panicked.
Well said Stanley
it is so true that the truth is being stretched and stretched and that sitings are less reliable as time goes on.
I read somewhere, buggered if i can remember where that the Moroccon police did not even know Madeleine was missing....?????? yet the spanish dicks are there looking why oh why oh why have they not enlisted the help of the police.
Nancy flaming Drew would do better than this shambolic investigation, lies and deceipt and more lies and deceipt and not to mention spinnnnnnnnnn
Please let's not go over the CES eye thing again. M obviously has not got Charge syndrome (which can be very serious and linked to learning difficulties and other physical problems) she has a coloboma, that's it. If it was anything more Team McC would certainly have let us know that there was even more reason to get concerned here about her and them.
I wholeheartedly agree about the cover up, it just depends on degree of cover up for me.
The coloboma has been discussed at great length in much earlier posts.
Coloboma can occur without any other association and it can occur as the result of eye surgery (not in M's case).
CHARGE syndrome babies do not live a normal life, they do not reach their milestones like normal babies. they are full on care, often deaf, mute, spastic, incontinent etc. I have cared for such infants and toddlers during my nursing career. Madeleine is NOT a CHARGE syndrome baby.
Dee - I presume you mean by 'panicked' that they concealed or disposed of their daughter's body?? To me that is unbelievable - even on a practical level, never mind emotional level. The problem is not the McCann's it is the Portugese Police who have ballsed up the investigation from the beginning. All the speculation is because the Portugese legal system requires that very little information is made public - hence the utter misinformation and rumours that have spread like wildfire over the internet.
There was a program on Channel 3 (UK) tonight about how K & G have been victimised in the press.
It was an opportunity for the likes of 'easy on the eye & mind' "Journo's" to grab on to the spin from their talicoats although they seemed geniune enough in their concern for the family they gave no discussion to the huge inconsistencies in their strory. So at the very least this was one sided and it's very easy for any casual watcher/reader to say that the british media have made some very wrong footed moves re: reporting methods and running vastly contradicting stories on the same day and spinning Ms name to sell newspapers.
So basically it was a bit of a waste of time and good airtime. Sounds familiar!
Liz
Unless you have actually seen and read the police interviews with the McCanns I do not know how you can speculate that there are huge inconsistencies. Say what you like after a trial when all the evidence is in the public domain, but I find it pretty amazing that people are joining all the dots without being partial to the actual evidence.
I believe there is more than enough blame for both sides.
Also CES (Coloboma) is very different than CHARGE and it doesn't appear Maddy had CHARGE, however you can have or not have other some other abnormalities as pointed out in articles above and previous. Of course we don't know, come to think of it the parents might not know everything either?
No Blimeyhecks I am obviuosly not going on information to which i have not had access - I leave that to others!
I am going on the actual words both K & G have said regarding their actions/inactions and their statements at the time, as concerned as I was about this case, I have watched considerable video footage of them speaking about the case and I've also read Gs blog. There are contradictions and inconsistencies aplenty.
Blimey. You have as much access to the facts as everyone else does (apart from the McCanns themselves and the cops). The purpose of this thread is exactly to for those of us who are interested in this intriguing case to speculate on what might have happened to Madeleine McCann.
The discussion thread is balanced and thoughtful, almost always polite and there are plenty of posts which I think add to what we consider we know about the case.
My own view, on the basis of what I think is factual, is that it is entirely reasonable that the parents are suspects. If Madeleine was dead in the apartment (as it seems she may have been) it is hard to see how the parents are not involved in some way.
Most of the posters to this series of threads have found much of what the parents and their representative have had to say quite suspicious.
Do you think it is wrong of the police to regard the McCanns as suspects? They could have been involved, no? If you don't think so, on what privileged basis are you making your own conclusions? Do tell.
Here, here ARMan...
Do tell Blimeyhecks... are you in a more privileged position to know the fact than we are?
Blimeyhecks quite right it is all the fault of those blundering sardine munching flat foots. If only our boys in blue were on the job, that would show these damn foreigners how to do it. Just ask Rhys Jones mum and dad about how quickly they have brought the perpetrator of his daytime shooting in a public place to justice. Or the De Menezes family in London, one of whom ran face first into 6 bullets from our heroic police force. Sorry he could not have been running as another officer was holding him down at the time. At least in Portugal policeman still have the grace to resign from the job something ours refuse to do (it is a moral cowardice copied from our politicians). I do not know where you live blimeyhecks, with your great police force, but obviously not here in the U.K.
I do not think we would be any further forward if we could "have actually seen and read the police interviews with the McCanns " as you put it, as we believe Kate refused to answer 40 questions. Even Clarence has not refuted this. So as you might remember from joining the dots if you have forty missing you don't have a proper picture.
Blimeyhecks,
You can't have your cake and eat it. First of all the PJ were incompetent, even though they were actually working within the legal framework of their country. Secondly you say the rumours arose from that very legal framwork i.e. the secrecy laws. How can the police work when this criticism is levelled at them? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
My suspicions arose from the simple fact that the parents left three very young and vulnerable children alone in a holiday apartment while they went to diner - and wey hey lo and behold one of them goes missing....
I don't think so....
Finally! Team McCann has joined the debate on this thread.
I think it's great that we have someone like Blimey who believes that the McCanns are innocent. It makes the thread more interesting. Let's not chase Blimey away!
I started on this thread thinking the McCanns were innocent and I am now leaning in the other direction. Quite frankly, I would love for someone to convince me that Madeleine was abducted.
Two Portuguese officers who went to the McCanns' apartment talk about the crime scene being contaminated.
http://tinyurl.com/242k67
And Sharon, (right on), maybe he is gone, which is too bad for a rational debate as that is what we do here and why we are here (no matter who disagrees).
Karina, we are not your servants, make up your own mind...sweetie (I don't know how to do happy faces, winks, etc.), point is nobody here is trying to influence people...we just throw ideas out. We put out ideas and it is up to you to decide or not to, very simply. Bottom line you have to relate the information for yourself.
Blimeyhecks,
You wrote: "I do not believe that McCanns are covering anything up. I think that the child has been abducted".
And then you wrote: "Unless you have actually seen and read the police interviews with the McCanns I do not know how you can speculate that there are huge inconsistencies. Say what you like after a trial when all the evidence is in the public domain, but I find it pretty amazing that people are joining all the dots without being partial to the actual evidence".
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you must respect others on this thread who have opinions other than yours. We are all privy to the same information and are basing our opinions on what facts are known to date. And the facts simply do not support the abduction theory. Why, if M were abducted, did cadaver dogs detect the corpse scent in the apartment, on Kate's clothing and in the trunk (boot) of the vehicle rented by the McCanns some three weeks after M's disappearance? Why are there so many discrepancies amongst the witnesses? Why did Kate and Gerry lie about the shutters being open only to change their story once it was determined the shutters could not have been opened from the outside? Why was there no DNA trace or other evidence of an intruder found in the apartment? Why did Kate leave the twins inside the apartment once she "discovered" her daughter missing from her bed? Why did Kate and Gerry put the twins into daycare the next day if the resort was supposedly so dangerous? Why did Kate refuse to answer the 40 questions? Why did the Priest who offered Gerry and Kate comfort and keys to the Church admit that he had been deceived? Why did Kate wash cuddle cat? Why did Gerry and Kate beeline it back to the UK once they were made arguidos? Why did Kate and Gerry promptly hire a team of top notch lawyers and a PR firm? Why did they hire another PR firm in Portugal to help improve their image? And why, oh why, do they continually refer to Madeleine in the past tense?
There is much to this case that continues to puzzle us all and would put the abduction theory into question.
As long as Maddie's disappearance remains unsolved, we are all entitled to our own thoughts and opinions. And so I would respectfully ask that you allow the rest of us to continue to voice our opinions, just as we will allow you to voice yours.
Dee,
Maybe people are not trying to influence others but I've seen a lot of sarcastic and mocking comments directed at people who thought the McCanns were innocent.
And please do not call me "sweetie".
Karina I was referring to your comment "Quite frankly, I would love for someone to convince me that Madeleine was abducted. I think you will agree, everyone is searching for the truth. Nobody except the culprit(s) knows the truth...we are all struggling in our own mind to figure this out...why do you think if we don't know ourselves...we should have to "prove to you or convince you"???
I called you "sweetie" of out of kindness because I believe you are sincere. I am sorry if this offended you, it wasn't my intention.
Billie...you did a WONDERFUL sum-up!! I appreciate when people put the so-called quotes (facts)in order as we know them as you did. You put the outstanding questions out there; it will be interesting to hear rebuttals.
Anyone care to answer the outstanding questions???
Diario de Noticias
The friends of the McCanns are not arguidos
One of the Portuguese lawyers of the McCann couple, Rogério Alves, said that the friends of the McCanns, that were in the Ocean Club in the night of the disappearance of the child, are not arguidos in the process which is taking place in the PJ Department of Portimão. In declaration to the DN, Rogério Alves calls for the serenity of everyone and assumes that all this speculation is creating prejudice to the evolution of the process.
After asking if the friends of the McCann couple may be named arguidos, the Bastonary of the Order of the Lawyers [Rogério Alves] defends that, at this moment, they are not.
According to the Portuguese press of yesterday, that was quoting the English press, the contradictory depositions of the friends, that dined with Kate and Gerry McCann in this night, should result in new inquiries. And, for this reason, Dr. David O'Brien, his wife Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield and Dr. David Payne should be made arguidos, as the McCanns were in September.
Claiming that he has not been acknowledged of the results of the blood analysis, the Bastonary of the Lawyers says that he "doesn’t understand how the results could be already revealed if the results are not already known". The strategy of the lawyers’ team hired by the McCanns consits in "waiting for the development of the inquiry and proceeding diligences to find the child".
Some lawyers, contacted by the DN, close to the epicenter of the events, or that is in the Algarve, were claiming that, with the slow devolvement of the investigation, the process would certainly be finally filed. And if it happened the McCann couple may take action for compensation against the Portuguese State with an amount of 1,5 million of euros. Confronted with this information, the lawyer, which is sharing the defense of the British couple with Carlos Pinto de Abreu, refuses this action, "because it is not already known what could be the evolution of this process and even less doing predictions for the future", said Rogério Alves. "It's not planned in this sense. What should be done would be done at the proper time", defended the lawyer.
In the end of September, private Detectives were hired by the parents of the McCanns to find her daughter, according to what has been advanced in that time by the British press. This fact has been officially confirmed by the McCann couple.
Gerry and Kate McCann have been two months ago in the Control Risk Group (CRG) company, which employed ex-members of British Special forces, to hire their services because they didn’t trust in the diligences done by the Portuguese Police to find their child.
The couple of British general practitioners, who are presently suspected of the child death, has called for the help of the detectives, although the Portuguese law prohibits to open private investigations in parallel to the investigations of the Police. The company is defending itself with the fact that their searches are centered in other countries, like Spain and Morocco, where witnesses said to have seen the four year old child.
interesting article karina, especially the comment about the tapas 9 being hard to get sense out of as they had been drinking and the observation that they were scared and jumpy.
Billie, excellent questions!
Good morning.
Forgive me for intruding this space, but I couldn't help notice the passion some of you put on your argumentation, based only on the news from the media.
I am a little more skeptical about the validity of the information that has been made public.
Just a small example: check the last articles in the Daily Mail, especially the one about a witness receiving threats from the mafia bosses from Morocco (http://tinyurl.com/242k67 ) and then confront with the article written based on an interview with the head of the judicial police published by Reuters (http://tinyurl.com/3d29cz). If it was not the child how could she be menaced?
And yet another one about the two senior policemen (that is just a copy from a yesterdays article in the Daily Express, but even more unrealistic) is based upon an impossibility, because the police they refer to is Guarda Nacional Republicana and they don't make investigation. They were the first to be called, and probably everybody had made a mess in the apartment (after all they were a big group and by that time they had called help from other people in the resort), the but as soon as they were told that it was the disappearance of a person they immediately had to call the Policia Judici
ária, and no way they could stay inside and watch, it's illegal, and neither could the parents or anyone else. Implying that they declared the evidence was compromised by the investigators is utterly ridiculous. And the fact that many people were there before doesn't change anything, so many crimes are commited in public places or disguised with fires and it doesn't invalidate whatever proof can be gathered -- there is clearly an attempt to diminish whatever the police may supply to the Public Persecutor.
So, most of what the media are feeding us is mere speculation. We have to wait and see.
Keep on the good work.
See you later.
Billie - the reason I believe she was abducted is because I see it as the most plausible explanation. Predatory paedophiles will take an opportunity to abduct a child as and when it presents itself, and I am very afraid that this is what has happened in this case. I hope, I pray, that the other alternative of her being taken by a childless couple is true, but it is more implausible. If anyone truly thinks that the McCanns murdered their daughter, disposed of the body and then somehow managed to have a civilised dinner with friends, as well as maintain their composure over the past few months then I am astounded.
I do not know how people can say that the McCanns have 'changed their story' when they are not privy to what they have actually said to the police. Until their statements are published publically, not one of you actually has an idea of what flaws there are. Neither have I seen any official statements from the PJ about what the cadaver dogs did or did not find. All I know is, is if the case against the McCanns was so overwhelming, the Portugese prosecutor would have charged them by now and set a court case. As for putting the twins into day care the next day...who knows what any of us would do in the situation when you are mad with fear and want to go out looking for your lost daughter?
RE: for the surmising about not 'finding' DNA etc in the flat..we are not living in CSI Las Vegas world....that is fiction. Many crime scenes do not even yield fingerprints never mind DNA.
Yes I believe the PJ were incompetent...I believed they handled the crime scene very badly. I am not even sure why the flat was let out again afterwards - I would've thought it should have been preserved at least until the end of the year.
As for Kate McCann washing cuddle cat...that was done weeks after the girl disappeared, she is not a detective, it should have been behoven on the PJ to take it away as evidence.
And no, Sharon, I am not 'Team McCann' - just someone who thinks that they have been villified and falsely accused. Unless of course, you only want people who agree with the theory that they are responsible for killing her on this comments page? Believe it or not, there are some of us in the UK who sympathise with the McCanns. I am not stupid, I understand that parents can kill their children, I just do not believe it has happened in this case. IMO, the McCanns have played the media very badly and it has become a double-edged sword for them. I think, in the beginning, they should have held up their hands and said 'Yes it was a monumental error leaving our children alone' - instead of obfuscating the question. And I believe this is where a lot of resentment from the GBP has arisen. However, that does not make them murderers.
Maggie - when I say the PJ were incompetent I am talking about the a. handling of the crime scene b. the (probable) misdirection to Robert Murat and c. not taking enough decisive action within the first 48 hours of when the child went missing.
Stanley - thanks for making me out to be a jingoistic fool, I have never made any claims in my above posts that the UK police would have handled the case any better - although, it is probable they may have done as they have more experience in the field of child abduction. Yes I do live in the UK, i actually live not far from where Jean Charles de Menezes was unlawfully shot, and I am fully aware of the incompetencies of our police force - perhaps you could not be so patronising in your next response to me?
Re Luisa
The scene of crime has been contaminated by people present before the arrival the Portuguese Police: first the GNR and later the Policia Judiciaria after the crime has been discovered by the GNR. The tapas 9 are high educated persons, some of them are doctors and researches. I think that they are clever enough to know that if an abduction had occured the scene of crime should be protected at any cost before the arrival of the Police. Unfortunately, it didn't happen in that way.
Now as usual a certain British press is using the information to discredit the Portuguese Police and it's more funny when the information comes from Portuguese policemen. The policemen explain that the Tapas 9 botched the scene of crime and the journalists report that the scene of crime has been botched by the Police who has not do his job and consequently the McCanns would never be innocented because evidences were damnaged for ever...
Regardless of whether the 'Tapas 9' as you so call them are highly educated, it does not mean that they would have understood about the crime scene and the preservation of it. Even I, a true crime addict, wouldn't immediately think about that if my daughter went missing. It is up to the Police to do these things - or else what is the point of having them?!
The McCanns have always said that an abduction had occured. And it was said since the first day, May 3.
Kate said they have taken her and Madeleine, Madeleine, she's gone. Taken by an abductor or abductors. So she was telling that it was a crime of abduction. What should be the reaction of the friends of the McCanns?
It's possible that Kate and Gerry would panick and didnt know what to do. It was said by a nanny of the Ocean Club that Kate was crying and she couldnt participate to the searches because she was hysterical. But Kate and Gerry were not alone, they were with 7 friends. Due to their position, they know how to deal with stressful dificult situations. I think that at least one of them should understand it would be a mistake to allow people enter in the apartment before the Police because they could alter the crime scene. Did it happen?
It's possible that Kate and Gerry would panick and didnt know what to do. It was said by a nanny of the Ocean Club that Kate was crying and she couldnt participate to the searches because she was hysterical. But Kate and Gerry were not alone, they were with 7 friends. Due to their position, they know how to deal with stressful dificult situations. I think that at least one of them should understand it would be a mistake to allow people enter in the apartment before the Police because they could alter the crime scene. Did it happen?
Blimeyhecks,
Your points are well taken. Earlier in this thread, 'Occam's Razor' was cited as a reminder that the simplest theories or solutions are usually the correct ones. Initially, I also thought that the abduction theory was probably the most likely one. Since the patio doors were left open and the three kids were left in the same room, it could well be that one of the twins started crying and woke Maddie up. She then did what most kids would have done at that age: looking for her parents. While wandering off, somebody could easily have taken her. I posted earlier that friends of mine had quite a scare when their 3-year old wandered out of the house at night (they had not locked the front door and the father, who was alone that evening, was working in his study and did not hear anything). Luckily for them, a kind neighbour happened to run into the child (at 1 am at night!) and brought him back. So just to say that this could very well have happened to Maddie. The possibility of an abductor actually breaking in and snatching M from her bed is already much less likely. Imagine the risk of getting caught, especially in a tourist resort with lots of people out and about all the time. A predatory paedophile would much rather snatch a child walking alone somewhere on a beach, etc.
The fact that G&K left such small children unattended is not only a 'monumental error' but plain negligence. I agree that their tendency to downplay this has cost them a lot of sympathy. But their arrogance of claiming to have been 'responsible parents' is just shocking.
You said: "If anyone truly thinks that the McCanns murdered their daughter, disposed of the body and then somehow managed to have a civilised dinner with friends, as well as maintain their composure over the past few months then I am astounded."
Yes, as astounded as I was when I heard that a woman in the US actually drove her car into a lake with her two small kids inside and than hysterically called the police to claim she had been carjacked by a black man.
Would two highly educated doctors, who had to go into a lot of trouble to actually have kids (IVF) do something similar? No, probably not murder her. But negligence can easily result in fatal accidents (either through an error with sedatives or a fall). In the subsequent panic and faced with the awful prospect of ruined careers and losing the twins, they resorted to the 'abduction' story and got rid of the body. This was of course a fatal decision but taken in the spur of the moment and now they have to face the consequences and stick to it.
As a last point, the abduction theory does not answer the question of the cadaver dogs. Bodily fluids with an 80 % match to M's DNA was found in the car!
@ blimeycheeks: Stanley, thanks for making me out to be a jingoistic fool.
I never said anything of the sort. You said "The problem is not the McCann's it is the Portuguese Police who have ballsed up the investigation from the beginning. All the speculation is because the Portugese legal system requires that very little information is made public - hence the utter misinformation and rumours that have spread like wildfire over the internet." No jingoism????
You said "I do not believe that McCanns are covering anything up. I think that the child has been abducted."
This statement not only denies virtually every one of the few facts that we do know about this case, particularily the behaviour of the Tapas 9. Also you have failed, as have all the others with your belief, to provide us with any FACT that would lead us to believe an abduction took place.
A fool, I certainly would not say that about anyone on this thread, I respect them all. Misguided or gullible fits the bill much better.
@ ALL OF YOU esp Blimey
We all have given opinions on this site, well argued and versed. No-one has enough fact to give a true definition of the incident. We simply give theories which we all in turn refute or prove, that is the basis of this blog.
The only facts of the case are that:
Madeleine and her siblings were left ALONE in a foreign country.
Madeleine is MISSING
There are 3 SUSPECTS Murat and the parents.
We still really have no DNA conclusive facts yet so as it stands this is all we have to go on.
Witness statements are so flexible the timeline cannot even be guaranteed, yet as a group we have worked through every eventuality which has led some of us to remain impartial, some of us to believe in the McCanns innocence and others to believe in their guilt. Good arguments for all scenarios have been looked at but none of us have come up with a pure definitive as of yet, simply because we are all intelligent people who know that to base nothing more than an opinion on the so called facts fed to us by the media/McCanns would simply be unrealistic to say the least.
The theories we throw around all make interesting reading and I enjoy refuting them as most do on here.
RE arrests Stanley it was reported through reuters and i believe is on sky news site now
To Stanley - no it is not jingoism - or is one now not allowed to criticise the Portugese for fear of being called racist? And neither am I misguided or foolish. I just refuse to take part in the witch hunt of the McCanns like many others do.
The fact of the matter is, is that you all think you are experts on the Madeleine case - and you're not. You know as much as I do. We can all be armchair Sherlock Holmes, if we want to be - it doesn't make us right.
BTW...I believe one of the tenets of our legal system is that 'there is a right to presume innocence until proven guilty'. I think a little more thought to that would do well for the McCann detractors.
Very interesting Radio 4 programme this morning called Inside Stories looking at the media coverage of the case. Clarence came on at the end and was almost apologetic for the way things were handled before he took over. There is no pact of silence between the Tapas 9, he said. Asked if there was an agreement he declined to answer.
One quote was a classic. The McCanns were a normal couple and the media frenzy "was not all of the McCanns making." Another gem when asked about Portuguese media coverage. "Our lawyers are looking at this and will decide on what action to take at a time of our/their choosing." Sorry I have put that in quotes but it is not exact.
Finally a thought for those who have been on this thread for a while. There was an interview with the Head of the Portuguese Police Federation who was called CARLOS Anjos. Is this why we lost him on the thread, he was promoted. Even worse, heaven forbid, he was demoted!
Hi Sharon...I haven't got time now to discuss all the comments on here, but just to say re: the comparison with Susan Smith and infanticide. Susan Smith's story is quite different - firstly, she had a history of mental instability and secondly, her 'composure' lasted all of two weeks before she cracked and confessed.
And from what I have read, we are still not party to the full facts of the 'DNA' from the car.
My own belief is that a lot of people seem to have the CSI mindset, and that DNA etc is a totally exact science and DNA can be found on the presumption that the criminal always leaves something of themselves behind. It doesn't always work like that - as I say, most crime scenes yield no fingerprints at all, never mind minute DNA samples. And those that do are the crime scenes that have been efficiently worked from the beginning.
good radio 4 programme on this morning, and will be repeated later: Inside Stories
Tue 6 Nov, 09:00 - 09:45 45 mins
Steve Hewlett looks at the progress of different news stories, talking to journalists and editors about the decisions and choices they made.
Steve studies the reporting of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and is joined by a panel to discuss the editorial and ethical issues arising from the coverage.
[Rptd today 9.30pm]
also thread on mirror forum with much of programme transcribed.
sorry did not see that stanley had posted about this programme. however i heard very different stuff from stanley. apologetic? clarence mitchell?
He admitted that most of the public are anti, which has never been admitted by team mccann before.
he also insulted the Sun, the mccanns biggest backers, and had to be told to calm down by the sun journalist.
As i say, much of it is transcribed on the mirror thread.
heres the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/
fact...ewspapers.shtml
There is the link for the BBC 4 programme "Inside Stories" (RealPlayer):
http://tinyurl.com/2zvwd9
Another interesting article from Pat Brown concerning the whereabouts of the body: What do Frozen Turkeys have to Do with Missing Persons?
http://tinyurl.com/3d3zdn
(...)
If the McCann’s were involved and there was really DNA in the hire car, I would lean more toward the possibility her body was in a shallow grave in a drive sandy area and moved when it was feared the searches would locate the body. The decomposition would likely, in that climate, to cause mummification, a drying of the body, making it less difficult to move, but not making it impossible for evidence of that move to be left behind by stressed out and panicked participants.
If it turns out the McCanns had zero to do with the crime, the body is either on private property of a pedophile (which would tend to eliminate Murat) or, the body is in the ocean and will never be found.
(...)
@pdg Thank you for posting the link to Inside Stories. I had to go out in a hurry so was listening with one ear only. You are perfectly correct in that Clarence was ruffled and the word apologetic was incorrect. I think contrite is a better word. Like K&G he is taking the attitude "I am a lovely person and I am not coming across to the public as such, so something must be wrong with my spin/P.R." It never occurs to them it is the content not the delivery!
@ Blimeyhecks: We are in agreement about one thing and that is the C.S.I. mindset of the public. They expect DNA to be left at every crime scene. However you are overlooking the single simplest explanation for lack of evidence at the s of c, there was nobody there to leave their DNA , fingerprint, etc outside of the Tapas 9 and the people who service the apartment. Sometimes the most obvious explanation is put aside for a much more complex one to take its place. In this case there is not a single shred of evidence that an outsider has entered the McCann's apartment. Whereas Billie's excellent post a @ 10:48pm yesterday asked every question of Team McCann that we all want to ask. Not one of which have you answered with any conviction. I can even answer one of them! Why did K&G put the twins into daycare the following day. So Kate could go out jogging. See I told you the obvious answer is always overlooked.
Blimeyhecks - salutaions for restoring some balance to our thread. There was a time (quite some time ago) when more people believed the abduction theory - but now I think we have sunk clearly into a majority thinking about accidental killing.
I think you are also right about the PJ - they are not perfect (like all police forces) and have made mistakes. Where it becomes jingoistic (not you but in the press) is when the level of amateurism is used to discredit them to the point where all their actions are called into question.
Surely the main point for us (who do not know all the facts) is that they who do (i.e. the PJ + the British police who are assisting them) think there are enough questions to make the McCanns arguidos. Here things get a little difficult because we in the UK/US do not understand properly what being an arguido means. From what I can understand it is that there is enough suspicion from the evidence collected so far to point to their involvement. I think that we can count as a fact that we as reasonable people would come to the same conclusion if we were in posession fo these facts.
This does not mean that they are guilty but that taking all the facts known to the police their is a probability that the accidental death scenario is a strong one.
Their reaction to being made arguidos is one of the things that made me think seriously about their actions. Why would someone desperate to recovere their abducted child chose to retire to England and engage the strongest defense lawyer team in living history?
The Radio 4 programme that others have linked to is interesting - especially the Clarence Mitchell part in that it still seemed to present the whole thing from a basis of maral equivalence. As if it is quite normal for a 'suspect' to have a spokesperson who responds to what is in the press, ignoring that much of the UK press stories undoubtedly come from him anyway. It seems to me that there is a deliberate attempt to confuse going on.
No matter what we think of them, the PJ are the competent authority for investigating a crime in Portugal. As such they are entitled to investigate as fully, slowly etc. as they see fit - and all this has to come within the Portuguese legal system which in effect the McCanns agreed to become subject to by going to Portugal. As people holding knowledge of the events they are, in my view morally obliged to assist the PJ in any way possible, especially if they want their daughter found. Rather than do this they have embarked on a press campaign which seems guaged to protect their reputations - and not help the enquiry.
Pat Brown said that if the body was frozen and if DNA of Madeleine McCann is found in the car, then her body should be transported unfrozen in the car. "How long it would take a body to unfreeze. I looked up turkeys and some of the big one’s take four days!"
This is way she believes that the body has been mummified and not frozen.
We have discussed many points raised mummification being one of them, I remember that point well, the body of a little one, if buried in that heat would take approx 2 weeks too mummify enough to almost lack smell and reduce if not extinguish all bodily fluids.
RE: DNA again we have talked about that at length and discussed LCA DNA - the form of DNA used to decipher whether Madeleine was in the car and killed in the apartment and I myself stated this again is not 100% as this type of DNA can be flawed.
Finally none of the posters here, in my opinion, are on a witch hunt, some believe in the guilt of the McCanns and have their theories, some like me believe they are innocent until proven guilty, some just do not know. I see all sides of the arguments, even mummifiction, which seems so extreme yet the post about it makes me believe I can see how it may have occurred.
I do not think there is a need to be so defensive of onesself or indeed attack others for their opinions, after all thats all this thread is about, our opinions as we have no facts apart from the ones given out by the Pj - I listed these earlier.
Freedom of speech is something we are all entitled to in our demcratic society and the majority of people on here simply state their opinion, I have posted many a theory for others to refute, giving us ideas and trying to figure out just what happened. Actually not because we are armchair Sherlock Holmes that is rather offensive to Madeleines memory, it insinuates we are enjoying this, which is not the case at all. For some of us talking about it on here and trying to figure out what has happened is our way of trying to help by the only means possible. There is many an intelligent person here, someone may just come up with the answer to help find Madeleine, we are doing no harm, bickering about views simply wastes energy, something I am not willing to do. I enjoy the views of all on here and accept them as stated but always bearing the facts in mind.
Bimeyhecks I also agree with you regarding the CSI thing. The truth is we simply are not furnished with the facts of the case. However we can only go on what we believe. I know account of innocent until proven guilty should be upheld but I feel there is something more to this whole case than meets the eye. I've had suspicions from the start. I can't shake them off. I've asked for people to furnish me with good proof that an abduction took place and no-one has been able to do that.
I would welcome your thoughts on this matter.
@ Maggie
I agree with you, proving there was an abductor is harder by the day, especially with th ever reliable JT and the nanny being the only two people who alledgedly saw someone ande with no conclusive DNA etc etc etc
Thank you for the link on
the BBC program "Inside stories".
I've listened to the program and
it was interesting especially
about the press coverage. However,
I wish they had talked about the
issues raised by Billie in her list
of questions (see her earlier post).
Some more points I just want to make. IMO, the PJ should have initially treated the McCanns as semi-suspects - because most infanticides involve a parent. And then they could've been cleared and the investigation could move on (at the same time, because no body had been found a search for Madeleine could've continued). However, because the PJ have left it so long, then things are muddled...recollections are confused etc.
Lyn - you talk about freedom of speech, which is fine - until it becomes libellous, as some of the accusations about the McCanns are. And also you say that most people are giving their opinions - like as I read earlier (and have read elsewhere on the internet) that the McCanns are swingers? OR that they sedated their kids when their is no proof? Or that Madeleine McCann had a disorder that made her hyperactive? All of that is on this thread and it is pure speculation, possibly libellous - and it is certainly not anything that the PJ has released, is it? I did not mean to insult anyone by saying we were all armchair Sherlock Holmes...but I am just trying to get it into perspective, there is only so much we know about this case, and a lot of the 'opinions' bandied about (I am not particularly talking about on here) are wildly innacurate and yes, again, libellous. I am not insinuating that anyone is 'enjoying' this, but there have been certain ghoulish elements on the internet to the plight of Madeleine McCann. There is an element of voyeurism to all interest in true crime, like it or not.
I believe it was an abduction because to me it seems the most likely explanation. All a kidnapper would need is a few seconds to capture the child and bundle her into a car (thinking of cases like Genette Tate now). I do not believe her parents killed her. For a start, no one has convinced me with an explanation of how they would conceal or dispose of the body. Come back to me saying you know the timelines and it could be done in the two hours between rest and the meal etc...until I see an official time line of events, I am not going to base my judgement on conjecture gleaned from newspapers.
BTW...I do have a friend of a friend (this is the truth, not bull****) who was in Praia de Luz when it all happened, on holiday at the same time, who has said that Kate McCann was hysterical when the child was found missing and frantic with worry. I have no idea of the verity of Stanley's story about her jogging the next day. For what it's worth, even if she did go jogging the next day, that does not make her a murderer of her own child.
thank you, blmh, you almost convinced me.
only that it is a little too obvious, the way you use your rhethorical skills - sounding a lot like CM.
Sorry...are you saying that I am Clarence Mitchell??! Well I needed a laugh today and you have provided it If you aren't accusing me of being Clarence Mitchell, then it may suprise you to know that not everyone in the UK believes the McCanns are guilty....in fact there are a fair few people on the web who don't think that the McCanns are guilty, except they normally get shouted down on threads like this.
@ blimeyhecks. As far as I know NO-ONE on this thread has accused K&G of murdering Madeleine. As far as I know no-one on this thread has accused the McCanns of being swingers. As far as I know no-one on this thread has accused them of sedating their children.
Up until that last posting I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and thought you would bring a sense of balance to the discussion. But that last post was vintage disinformation. Nobody here has said any of the things you have accused them of. If you think they did then name them. Or did you perhaps hear about it from a friend of a friend?
Re blimeyhecks
Re Some more points I just want to make. IMO, the PJ should have initially treated the McCanns as semi-suspects - because most infanticides involve a parent.
It seems to me that you are following a kind of inductive method.
According to the statistics concerning the murders of children under the age of four in Great Britain (and also in all the anglo-saxon countries in the World), the main offender is the mother, next the father, and only after a member of the family of the victim. In this case, you would say that the main suspect should have been Kate McCann. Still acording to the statistics, a woman generally use poison to kill. Then with an inductive analysis you would conclude that Kate should have been suspected to have killed her daugther, Madeleine McCann, using poison or medication.
This is not a pure speculation, it is just the result of an inductive profiling.
But to prove that Kate McCann is the offender of this crime you should use a deductive profiling method: that is starting from the facts to find the offender or offenders of the crime.
In the begining of the inquiry all the lines of inquiries exists: the abduction, the homicide crime, the wandering off theory etc... They are all there, there are no new line of investigation that will appear later. Some have certain priorities.
The first priority has been for the PJ the wandering off theory, followed by the abduction by a paedophile.
There is no status of semi suspects in the Portuguese Penal Code.
Personnaly, I think that the McCanns should have manifested their intention to be made arguido since the begining of the inquiry as they have the right to do art. 57 n°1 of the Portuguese Procedure Penal Code: they would have acess to the inquiry after a certain delay and could ask diligences to the Police to find their daughter Madeleine McCann.
I too agree that The mccanns are innocent until proven guilty, but their behavior and assemblage of an amazing legal team post haste, speak volumes..
And not to beat a dead horse, but why not answer the famous 40 questions Kate?
Sorry to break it to ya, Stanley, but all those things you mention are on this thread - I suggest you read it again. Jose discusses the 'swinger's theory' at the top. 'A reasonable man' said a few posts back 'If Madeleine was dead in the apartment (as it seems she may have been) it is hard to see how the parents are not involved in some way.' - would you not call that accusing someone of murder? Or what else would you call it? Re: sedation, Dee said: 'Blimeyhicks, thanks for your in-put but I don't think it is out of the realms of possibilities that Madeline could have had some kind of heart defect (perhaps undiagnosed) and if medicated by someone, could have caused a problem. If this were to be the case and her father is a heart specialist; it could give cause for concern with medicating and leaving your child, why they could have possibly panicked.'
You are firing off at me Stanley for no good reason except I don't agree with you and have reasonably said that we are not party to the full facts about this case. I have said I presume innocence until proven guilty by a court of law - not a kangaroo court set up on the internet.
Jose - I know there is no such thing as 'semi suspect' in Portugese law, or indeed any law, I am saying they should have been investigated initially, really.
@ Blimey - i think you misunderstood what Stanley was saying he stated no one on this thread accused the McCanns of anything - this is true but we discussed it yes and said what if what if what if but they werent our original accusations they were from the media, which we all know are to take with the biggest pinch of salt but they throw food for thought so we like RM and Jose and others have debate them and set scenes, trawling through scenarios in the hope of finding an answer to where poor little Madeleine is.
@ Blimery
I disagree about what you say re: voyeurism, some sick people out there I do not deny that.
RE: what is stated about the McCanns - all newspapers aim to sell their paper hence fabrication and exaggeration occurs. If you read through posts on here you will see most things are mentioned then normally put in their place of unimportant - no idea if they are swingers - dont really care if they are...the point with freedom of speech i referred to on here and to the best of my knowledge never stated anything libellous we just repeated things for discussion never made them up.
For what its worth I have swayed towards the abduction theory but then again there is nothing to prove it was an abduction YET as there isnt to prove the McCanns did it.
With regards to RM quote about Madeleine being dead in the apartment, I have always found his posts not only interesting but unbias, he never once mentioned murder he simply stated that he found it hard to beleive the parents werent involved - he never said they murdered her - but I am not going to keep dotting the i's and crossing the t's gets us nowhere.
Is it proved yet that the little girl in Morocco was not Madeleine, I thought I heard that to be the case but it isn't being reported on anywhere.
Sorry blimey I always thought when someone on the thread says as ARM did "it is hard to see how the parents are not involved some way" he was giving his balanced opinion on the facts as he sees them. You say he has accused them of murder! Jose mentioned that the swingers theory had reimerged in the Portuguese press. He did not give it his approval, far from it! Dee said and I quote you "I don't think it is out of the realms of possibilities" you call that an accusation? Have you looked in the shaving mirror recently? Are you positive you are not Clarence? You certainly have learnt the black art of putting your words into other peoples mouths. Your claims of what people have said on this thread are at best a hideous distortion and at worst just lies.
Blimeyhecks you asked "what else would you call it?" Pure and simple speculation (not stated as facts) open for discussion if one wishes.
You appear to be the only person on this board that has made up his/her mind 100% with your statement "I do not believe her parents killed her", and I envy you for that. This board is for discussion purposes and we do it very well. If you are so convinced why do you care what we think?
If you say that someone is involved in another person's death, then you are accusing them of murder - or manslaughter, Lynn. Neither did I 'accuse' anyone, I just said I had read so-called 'opinions' about those issues on this thread.
I know you want this thread to be civilised, and so it should be, and I understand that you all know each other on here, and like to share news with each other. But this thread is in the public domain, it isn't 'your'(I mean the collective your) thread - and you can't blame any reading it from interpreting the comments as a. potentially libellous and b. wrong.
As for Stanley, I think he has a problem with Kate McCann, he has mentioned several times now about her jogging - who cares if she went jogging or not. It's this sort of stuff that is irrelevant, conjecture and blurs the picture. As I say, there is no 'rights and wrongs' about how people should act - again I mention people like the Chamberlains, the Ramsays etc. Just because someone acts in a particular way does not mean they are guilty.
everybody here is trying to convince blimeyhecks by using logic, but i don t think it will work. It is seemingly not his intention to enter into a constructive dialogue. so lets move on with what this is for - an open discussion- in a polite and careful and logical way
yes this is an open discussion, it is not a discussion about solely villifying the McCanns, but that is all I have practically read on here.
This is your host, jumping in to really stir things up.
Maybe.
Those of you who are posting from across the pond may not know that there is a fascinating and troubling Jane Doe case over here in Texas. A beautiful little girl was recovered from a pond not far from the Gulf Coast inside a large plastic storage container. They're calling her Grace.
She is the same age and in some respects, fits Madeleine's physical description.
Personally, I don't believe there is any way in hell that Grace is a toddler who disappeared from Portugal. I am nearly 100% certain she's an American child, probably from Texas, whose parents are either on the lam or keeping very quiet at the moment. American borders are too tightly guarded, especially any of the routes someone coming from the UK or Europe might take -- someone would have noticed.
But the possibility was suggested to me in an e-mail by someone whom I find to be intelligent and sometimes inspired in their thinking, so I figured I'd throw it out there. Search "Grace" and "Galveston" in Google news, maybe add in "sketch," and you'll probably find an article with the sketch that's been made of the little girl.
Like I said, I sometimes just want to jar things loose and see what people think.
Again i respectfully disagree, it is an open topic and room and I read with great interest peoples opinion, i just think perhaps it is misinterpreted at times.
I think as the jogging has been mentioned again, it is odd behaviour, this is what makes people, well one of the reasons, suspicious of Kate. In a million years I cannot imagine what they are going through, regardless of their innocence or guilt but it is against the norm shall we say for some mother who has lost a child to firstly leave her other children so soon to go for a run. It is a valid discussion point, why if your child had gone missing would or how could you bear to leave the others so soon, one thing i do know is i couldnt, unless i knew that it was safe to do so. how would i know it was safe, because i was responsible for my daughters disappearance and perhaps to go jogging i would be checking on the body of my child - again just my opinion as to how i could leave my children in this situation.
Lyn....odd behaviour does not a murderer make.
As for the little girl Grace...I don't think it is Madeleine. What a terrible case though...how sad. I think Steve mentioned on the blog that she was dressed well...perhaps even well cared for. In a strange way it reminds me of the unsolved case of the little African boy's torso that was found floating in the Thames.
I didn't mean it did make a murdered not at all, i simply mean that it is odd behaviour for someone who has just lost a child, i guess people will be suspicious of someone who goes jogging alledgedly when others are out looking for her child.
How do we know she went jogging the next day...not saying it isn't true, but is there some verification on it? You know, when people are in shock sometimes they do exhibit strange behaviours.
I agree with you Lynn. Also if is true as well Gerry was playing tennis 2 days later, it seems to display an indifference, arrogance and callousness for all the many volunteers; people who paid good money for their dream vacations and were out searching for their daughter. Nobody is saying this makes them murders, but it gives food for thought that they could have had dinner with their friends, etc.
Baby Grace, another horrible tragedy. I believe one of the papers said she had hair 1/2 way down her back, so I don't think it is Maddy.
Sad fact, parents do murder their own child; sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.
Can I just ask...where is the proof that Kate went jogging the day after the disappearence or that Gerry played tennis two days after? I'm not denying it, but I would like to see it with my own eyes. As I say, even if they did...it doesn't make them guilty of murder.
I'd just like to point out to readers from across the pond that not everyone in the UK hates the McCanns...see here from one of our broadsheets:
http://tinyurl.com/2k6xja
Yes I have a problem with Kate McCann. I do not like her, nor Heather Mills or Posh Spice, my next door neighbour (the one on the right) anyone who supports Hibernian Football Club and probably another 20% of the worlds population. My opinion of these people is of no interest at all. I am pretty certain Posh does not shake David awake in the middle of the night with "Dave I am really concerned Stanley does not like me, I can't sleep for thinking about it!" You blimey do not seem capable of differentiating between peoples opinions, which they are totally entitled to hold and accusations which have not been made by them. You said "As I say, there is no 'rights and wrongs' about how people should act" boy what a get out clause for every head case on the planet.
I am going to put you on my list. Not as far up as Kate but above Posh. To be on my list I need a real name, blimey is too flippant. I shall call you Clarence, to hell sue me!
These were statements made in the newspaper by the staff, I believe it was about 3 weeks ago and the link would be on the other thread. There was a good deal of discussion, you will find it.
Should have said "MW" staff.
I just want to make the point I actually don't hate the McCanns, I think they are dispicable parents for leaving their children alone and I think they will have to live with the fact that they caused this whole horrendous situation, I just hope Madeleine hasn't suffered at the hands of some evil monster, I truly do.
I do not know about the tennis but I do know that Kate said she had gone jogging in an interview to "clear" her thoughts.
You mentioned that we do things, sorry we do strange things when in shock, I agree, could this mean they were able to sit down for a meal with their friends knowing their daughter was dead, that too would be strange, unthinkable but like you say we do strange things when in shock.
That is the whole problem with this case, so little evidence, such a wide scope and hence imaginations are running wide, but if you think about it for a moment, everything is possible...
I do not know about Grace, does anyone have a link?
lol Stanley, if I make the list you can call me Lynn
@ Dee
yes that is right the MW staff did state that Kate did go jogging and Gerry did play tennis but Kate did too admit she went jogging
Blimey O'Reilly,
It's all going off her tonight. No-one is allowed to voice an opinion. It's like having the thought police on your case.
Blimey,
Try Websleuths for pictures etc., you will get the answers to the jogging there - better watch out though! You haven't convinced me that an abduction took place.
On the Dispatches programme they looked at all the possible scenarios. When they came to the scenario regarding accidental death, the ex coppers talked about 'staging', that is playing up the part of an hysterical parent whose child has gone missing. By the way, is it okay to discuss this?
Is it okay for me to discuss other matters pertaining to this case such as the news that the child in Morroco they thought was Madeleine (2 down, 1,274,524 to go) isn't. Is it all right for me to say that this comes as no great surprise?
Is it all right for me to write that I thought the programme on Radio 4 a thoughtful, well examined and balanced view on the media outpourings so far and that it exemplifies the very best of BBC broadcasting?
Did any of this offend you yet Blimey? Enough!!!
I did like Pat Brown's assessment of how a body can be hidden in warm sands and with the prevailing atlantic winds soon becomes dessicated. I had written this many posts back.
Steve, I thought that the possibility that Baby Grace was Madeleine was ruled out. It's a tragic case. Someone, somewhere knows it's their child. An awful thought.
Lynn you will never be on my list, but I forgot to mention Martina do you think she will be offended?
It is being reported by sky news that the McCanns are being blamed for creating a media frenzy
"Madeleine McCann's parents have been accused of harming the police investigation into their daughter's disappearance by creating a "monster of information".
Well I have to say regardless of who is responsible, CM, McCanns or the press, someone has created this ridiculous situation and i will say it again are making a mockery of Madeleine.
Speaking of making a mockery of Madeline here's a quote that has been nagging at me from Gerry's latest blog "It is so painful for us simply being separated, but all the more distressing when we have to speculate about the situation Madeleine finds herself." Re-read that a few times...the f-ing nerve!! AS IF it is HER FAULT! Guilty OR innocent; the guy comes off as a low-life CREEP!!!! Note that's not speculation in this time on my part; it is my opinion.
Blimey O'Riley indeed...
I've always thought this site to be thought provoking and intelligent. Yes I agree we have speculated and opinioned on all the possibilities of what could have happened and on the ongoing frenzied media coverage. But then that's because we have the freedom of speech. There is no-one on here that has said anything truly libellous although a toe in the water on other forums and blog sites does make you wonder if posters are aware that it is their resposibility not the hosts to ensure they keep within the law in this matter.
BTW this is the same frenzied media coverage that was initially inspired by the huge desire and need for publicity that G & K sought from the beginning. And before you refute this fact Blimey I am absolutely certain anyone could easily find many statements from G and his family members at the heart of the campaign stating their clear intentions in this matter from the outset.
Whilst they may have had the best intentions you cannot court such massive publicity and expect not to be at the centre of it and suffer the ups and downs that go hand in hand with polularist reporting, particularly when 'facts' and real news associated with a long running & highly emotive story is scarce; as many before them have learnt to their cost.
I was just venting to my husband on Gerry's quote above, he asked if it is possible on the offensive part of the quote (in my opinion) "the situation Madeleine finds herself" maybe the British wording of this maybe different from our being Canadian and interpreting that quote (he agreed it sounded sick). I said, I would ask you good British people if there could be another innocent interpretation?
dee, although it doesnt sound to me like he is blaming madeleine for her own situation but at the same time almost everything that Gerry says sounds convoluted and inauthentic. " the situation madeleine finds herself" is such an odd turn of phrase. Not the sort of thing a dad says. Maybe its a doctor thing?
It's a wierd turn of phrase Dee wherever you are in the world. But then I have always found G to have this extraordinary gift for saying the wrong thing at the right time and with his own brand of authority, which altogether comes out messy and has not enthused his personal (however well intentioned) media interventions in a positive way. His Blog entries are a case in point.
Blimeytroll! You haven't read many of the reasonable man's posts have ye? And certainly the last one (11.05.07 - 5:26 pm) you clearly failed to understand.
The McCanns would be pretty desperate (though with very large financial backers) if they tried to take legal action against me for what I have written on these threads. The accusation they have to deal with comes not from me but the police.
The McCanns have nothing to fear from me - I actually have an open mind about what happened as you can see if you scroll back over the previous posts.
I await more facts (as do you). I can and will continue to speculate as to what I think may have happened. I feel free to state my thoughts here. Thanks Steve!
It remains possible that an abductor may have taken Madeleine.
It also remains possible that one or even both of the McCanns may have murdered her.
However at present I think both of these still possible scenarios are less likely than the other still possible scenario of some kind of accidental death and some kind of cover up (I think this for reasonable reasons discussed in many posts already). I believe I am free to say that. Sorry blimey!
Thanks PDG & Liz will pass on to hubby.
Morocco girl not Maddy. http://preview.tinyurl.com/yqujgt
"They said though the youngster was blonde she only spoke Arabic and detectives are satisfied she is living with her natural parents."
Steve -
On Baby Grace... I'll admit that at first I was rather (hopeful isn't the right word, because I'm still hoping and praying that she's alive somewhere) that Grace might be Madeline, but FoxNews said yesterday, "Police in Texas say the body of a young girl washed ashore in a storage box in Galveston Bay last week could have come from as far away as Europe, but officially ruled out it being British toddler Madeleine McCann, who disappeared in Portugal six months ago.""
Wow, I've been gone a long time, haven't I? Just thought I'd pop my head in and see what's going on here in the sanest of all places to discuss this case... to find out it's gone completely insane. :D
And for what it's worth, I still don't think Madeleine's parents killed her. And I never have, so blimey isn't the only one who's convinced that Kate and Gerry are innocent.
And now, just because I'm here, I'll take a stab at the questions that Billie put out there last night.
Why, if M were abducted, did cadaver dogs detect the corpse scent in the apartment, on Kate's clothing and in the trunk (boot) of the vehicle rented by the McCanns some three weeks after M's disappearance?
To be honest? If they actually did react to those things (isn't the only source we have for that Kate's reaction to being shown video during her interrogation? Who the heck leaked that?)... I don't know why they did. Just like I don't know why the cadaver dogs searching for Jessie Marie Davis detected corpse scent in a freshly turned marijuana patch, or why those same dogs found a dead cow. Maybe it's as innocent as someone hit a dog with that car. Heck, with as much driving as they did, maybe Kate hit a dog with that car.
Why are there so many discrepancies amongst the witnesses?
To this, I have to ask you - which witnesses? If you're talking about the alleged "discrepancies" in Jane Tanner's statement(s), she only gave one. She hasn't changed anything. A lot of other people have tried to help her out by adding details to what she said that night, but she hasn't said a single word about it, outside of the initial statement she gave to the PJ way back in May.
Why did Kate and Gerry lie about the shutters being open only to change their story once it was determined the shutters could not have been opened from the outside?
Why was there no DNA trace or other evidence of an intruder found in the apartment?
There might have been. http://tinyurl.com/35x7zl "Traces of blood discovered in the bedroom where Madeleine McCann was sleeping on the night that she disappeared do not come from the missing girl, The Times has learnt."
The article does go on to say that the police suspect the blood belonged to someone who injured himself while staying there after Madeleine disappeared, but I've never seen them say definitely that it did.
Why did Kate leave the twins inside
Ok, let's try this again. With the formatting correct and the post split.
Why, if M were abducted, did cadaver dogs detect the corpse scent in the apartment, on Kate's clothing and in the trunk (boot) of the vehicle rented by the McCanns some three weeks after M's disappearance?
To be honest? If they actually did react to those things (isn't the only source we have for that Kate's reaction to being shown video during her interrogation? Who the heck leaked that?)... I don't know why they did. Just like I don't know why the cadaver dogs searching for Jessie Marie Davis detected corpse scent in a freshly turned marijuana patch, or why those same dogs found a dead cow. Maybe it's as innocent as someone hit a dog with that car. Heck, with as much driving as they did, maybe Kate hit a dog with that car.
Why are there so many discrepancies amongst the witnesses?
To this, I have to ask you - which witnesses? If you're talking about the alleged "discrepancies" in Jane Tanner's statement(s), she only gave one. She hasn't changed anything. A lot of other people have tried to "help her out" by adding details to what she said that night, but she hasn't said a single word about it, outside of the initial statement she gave to the PJ way back in May.
Why did Kate and Gerry lie about the shutters being open only to change their story once it was determined the shutters could not have been opened from the outside?
They never have, to my knowledge. They said the shutters were open at the beginning, and they're still saying it now. The only thing that "changed" about that is that it's no longer being reported that the kidnapper came in that way. But since the PJ were seen passing things to each other out that window when Rebelo first took over, I'd say it's safe to say that they're still saying the shutters were open when they found her missing.
Why was there no DNA trace or other evidence of an intruder found in the apartment?
There might have been. http://tinyurl.com/35x7zl "Traces of blood discovered in the bedroom where Madeleine McCann was sleeping on the night that she disappeared do not come from the missing girl, The Times has learnt."
The article does go on to say that the police suspect the blood belonged to someone who injured himself while staying there after Madeleine disappeared, but I've never seen them say definitely that it did.
Why did Kate leave the twins inside the apartment once she "discovered" her daughter missing from her bed?
Because she was scared, possibly a little intoxicated, not thinking clearly, hysterical, and she wanted her husband.
Why did Kate and Gerry put the twins into daycare the next day if the resort was supposedly so dangerous?
I think they're full aware that the only danger was at night, when they were otherwise occupied and their children were alone and unprotected. I've never seen them claim anything else.
Why did Kate refuse to answer the 40 questions?
My question is how did she refuse to answer 40 questions when they only ever asked her 22?
"Family spokesman David Hughes said police had told Kate McCann they wanted to ask 22 questions, but had not said what they were." - http://tinyurl.com/yron77
Why did the Priest who offered Gerry and Kate comfort and keys to the Church admit that he had been deceived?
Because his superiors punished him for offering comfort and quarter to grieving people in need? Because he found out after the fact that Madeleine was conceived using IVF? The context the quote appears in in this article could be read in both of those ways. http://tinyurl.com/2dhodk
The bottom line here is that quotes taken out of context very often don't mean what they meant when they were spoken.
Why did Kate wash cuddle cat?
Because it smelled bad and it was filthy, and because the police had already run their tests on it. Family spokesman David Hughes said he believed Cuddle Cat had already undergone forensic testing. - http://tinyurl.com/yrzk3p
Why did Gerry and Kate beeline it back to the UK once they were made arguidos?
All they did was carry through with the plans they'd had for weeks. Several weeks ago the McCanns made provisional plans to return to the UK with Sean and Amelie today. But they put this on hold after Portuguese police summoned them back in for questioning this week and made them arguidos. - http://tinyurl.com/2m45dw
Why did Kate and Gerry promptly hire a team of top notch lawyers and a PR firm?
They hired the Portuguese lawyer because they were about to be made suspects. They hired the British lawyer because they are suspects. IMO, they hired the PR firm because they absolutely stink at dealing with the public.
Why did they hire another PR firm in Portugal to help improve their image?
Maybe because they're sick of the way to Portuguese press talks about them?
And why, oh why, do they continually refer to Madeleine in the past tense?
Because she's gone, and she's been gone for six months. All they have left of her, for the moment, are memories. And when you talk about your memories, do you use present tense? They can't talk about how she is right now, or where she is right now, because they don't know. All they know is who and how she was when she was with
blimeytroll lol. probably a refugee from the mirror forum.
DC: the story that has changed about the shutters is not whether they were open or not, it is whether they were "jemmied" or not. They also changed their story on whether the apartment was locked.
There are discrepencies in the tapas 9 timings: what time did the Mccanns arrive for dinner? How often did they check the kids? (It started out as every 15 minutes). Why didn't Gerry and Wilkins see the man with the bundle if Jane Tanner did? Why didn't they see Jane Tanner in that the street was narrow ? How come she was at the dinner originally when Kate raised the alarm and then recently changed her statement to being in her apartment during this time?
And you haven't answered the rest of Billie's questions : "Why did Kate leave the twins inside the apartment once she "discovered" her daughter missing from her bed? (very wierd) Why did Kate and Gerry put the twins into daycare the next day if the resort was supposedly so dangerous? (unnatural behaviour) Why did Kate refuse to answer the 40 questions?(She should have done anything to help the search for Madeleine). Why did the Priest who offered Gerry and Kate comfort and keys to the Church admit that he had been deceived? (Poor man).Why did Kate wash cuddle cat? (unnatural again) Why did Gerry and Kate beeline it back to the UK once they were made arguidos? Why did Kate and Gerry promptly hire a team of top notch lawyers and a PR firm? Why did they hire another PR firm in Portugal to help improve their image? And why, oh why, do they continually refer to Madeleine in the past tense?"
The police have named them suspects, not us, and they must have done this for a good reason knowing that they have the eyes of the world upon them. To imply that they would 'fit up' the Mccanns is more xenophobic nonsense.
I also have to say that I'm surprised anyone takes all these sightings in Morrocco etc seriously. I don't even bother reading the articles. After 6 months, leaving no trace (except in the boot of the Mccanns hire car), Madeleine must be dead.
pdg -
Look at the post right above yours. Yes, I answered every single one of Billie's questions. I had to break my answer into two separate comments.
The police have named them suspects, not us, and they must have done this for a good reason knowing that they have the eyes of the world upon them.
Yep. Just like the FBI naming Richard Jewel a suspect meant that he was guilty. I mean... they wouldn't have named him a suspect if they didn't have a good reason, would they?
Innocent people are named "suspects" all the time. That's why they're considered suspects and not perpetrators.
To imply that they would 'fit up' the Mccanns is more xenophobic nonsense.
Would you be so kind as to show me exactly when and where I even implied that?
I was obviously still writing my comment when DC finished the questions so apologies. But DC is really twisting and turning to try and justify the Mccanns behaviour.
40 or 22 questions? Who cares? She should have answered everything put to her ( Mark Klaas understood this).
The cuddle cat washing, the leaving of the twins to get help, the jogging and the creche thing all point to a lack of maternal feeling and a lack of instinctive parental protection. Thats also why Gerry's statement " the situation that Madeleine finds herself in" is so wierd. They just don't seem to act like parents, they are so detached.
Just read this article on Ben Needhams mother, it's heartbreaking the effect this has had on the whole family:
http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/tod...for-his-
re.html
But DC is really twisting and turning to try and justify the Mccanns behaviour.
And that was completely uncalled for.
sorry i didnt mean to say that you had said it was "xenophobic nonsense". Other people have not you.
However "twisting and turning", yes, that is my opinion on your statements, its as if you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You've picked on details to make things fit. But I wouldn't get so offended, everybody does it I suppose.
yay thanks for welcoming me to the board everybody..I am not a refugee from the Mirror boards, although I have read them and I am not a troll. An internet troll is someone who just comes onto a board and disagrees with people for the sake of it - I just don't have the same opinion as many of you. In retaliation, and probably because I have been quite articulate, you respond by calling me a troll. yes, a lot of stuff on the internet about the McCanns is libellous (and did say above it wasn't necessarily this place I was talking about) - whether anyone here likes it or not.
I see DC has made some good points, much more eloquently than I, above (is DC Clarence Mitchell as well?!) - but still gets shouted down for holding an opposing view.
Some of you seem so confident in the McCann's guilt - it's called a Kangaroo court.
Maggie - I don't want to go on websleuths or another internet forum to look for details of Kate jogging the day after. I want some primary, source data - ie verifiable stuff. Not hearsay.
Dee - I don't think there is any point picking Gerry McCann's blog apart, and I don't think there is anyhing in the statement you quote that indicates he is subconconciously blaming Madeleine for her 'situation'. I think, honestly and objectively, that you have so much hate for him that you can't read anything he writes dispassionately. Same as the emphasis on Kate McCann shouting out 'they've taken her' (if she ever did?) - it's clutching at straws trying to implicate her in a murder plot.
@Blimey
Wow, I try to be neutral to everyone on here but I find for as much as you state the McCanns are innocent and we are terrible people for discussing other theories and imply we are myopic in our viewpoint I have to stay that you are more acutely myopic than all of us not willing to see or accept there are other options. One thing for sure is you have no more evidence of their innocence as others do of their guilt.
Sniping is a waste of time, I would rather discuss the case and facts as we know them, if I wanted anything more I would dare I say it join the mirror forum!!
Read about baby Grace and I was horrified, I accept these things happen in life, its tragic, she isn't Madeleine I believe, but she is still someones little girl, I think if the effort to find Madeleine was put into stopping these horrid people hurting children (not that I don't think the effort to find Madeleine shouldn't continue)we might get somewhere a little faster - look at what happened when interpol released the picture of the pedophile - what a result - so wheres the next????
ARM - yes you are right, actually, you are stating nothing that hasn't been surmised by the Portugese police, so sorry about that.
BTW...anyone looking for weirdish stuff written about the McCanns, log onto YouTube...incredible.
@ DC: Well at least you had a go and certainly you have given an explanation to every question. You have however failed to answer any of them.
Lyn...I am open to suggestion, and I believe anything is possible. I will hold my hands up, if the McCanns are guilty, and say I was wrong. What I an trying to say, is show me the proof, that isn't based on tabloid newspaper reports (and yes, I include the Daily Mail in that category), that people accuse the McCanns et al of.
As a long time reader of Steve Huff's blog, I came onto this Madeleine thread because I thought it might be a bit less hysterical than a lot of the UK forums. It is - but not a lot. I hate the villification of Kate McCann. And I initially responded to the frankly ludicrous suggestions that Madeleine's eye was caused by a chromosonal learning-disabilities abnormality.
You know the one thing that amazes me, is the constant sniping at the McCanns because they have 'top notch' lawyers and a PR team. Let me answer both these points. If any of you ever find yourselves on the wrong side of the law - whether you are innocent or not, the one thing you would do would be to try and secure the best lawyer you can afford. You would also want the lawyer with the most expertise in the situation you find yourself in. How on earth anyone can blame the McCanns for doing that, I have no idea.
Secondly...the PR team. PR is, rightly or wrongly, a fact of life now in the UK. Anyone who is going to be involved in the media for a length of time would be advised to hire a PR firm, who are expert at dealing with the multi-headed Hydra that is the British and international press. Again, what are you going to do - hire someone who works with small local newspapers, or hire the best PR firm you can secure the services of. Robert Murat has Max Clifford - and what a wise move, because he realises that he doesn't, himself, have the expertise or knowledge to handle the press himself. No one can blame Kate and Gerry McCann for hiring Clarence Mitchell, either.
News just emerging from Spain that two members of the group of families known as 'Tapas 7' have requested to change their statements to the police. They wish to remain anonymous.
Have no idea about the veracity of the story 'Elmondo' are printing it but if the Spanish are party to this information then so must we be. Jose, how's your Spanish?
ARM: Great post. My thoughts exactly.
Just wanted to add another point about Kate not answering the '40 questions', on the advice of her lawyers. It's called, 'the right to remain silent', like innocence presumption it is another tenet of our legal system, and is inadmissable in a court to be used as evidence of guilt.
Re Maddie Translation of the spanish article:
http://tinyurl.com/3dsfp5
Some McCanns' friends changed their statements
Lawyers of two friends who dined with the McCanns, May 3, when Maddie disappeared, have contacted the Portuguese Police to communicate their intention to correct some of their statements that they have done during the interviews to which they were submitted, according to Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis in the edition of Tuesday of the Spanish newspaper El Mundo.
Both persons have asked that their identity shouldn’t be revealed to avoid pressures from close relations of the McCann family.
This change of direction gives rise to the interest of the Portuguese Detectives who were distrusting in the contradictions of the seven friends of that dinner who have considered the abduction as the unique valid theory to explain the disappearance of the toddler.
Furthermore, the substitution of Gonçalo Amaral by Paulo Rebelo as responsible of the investigation has motivated a reframing of the case, but without changing the theory that Madeleine died. Also, the results of the analysis of the tests collected in the place "are coherent with the possibility that she is dead and there is practically no other trail that points to the abduction", according to sources close to the case.
In parallel to the Portuguese security forces, the McCann family has setup a private investigation trough the British company "Control Risk Group" and the Spanish "Método 3", dedicated this one to collect information of the possible testimonies concerning the toddler with a phone online.
So is this simply a case of all of the Tapas friends getting together and getting their stories synchronised??
United we stand .....
or could it be some truths may emerge??
Perhaps *if the story is true* the corrections they want to make are minimal and make no great changes to the main body of their statement. Who knows.
If the corrections were minimal why would they fear pressures from relations close to the McCanns?
http://tinyurl.com/2md7nm
McCann friends breaking ranks
"Lawyers from two of the McCann friends who were having dinner at Tapas Bar, on the night of May 3, have contacted Police, recently, and told their clients were willing to be questioned again, in order to 'correct' some details that were mentioned in their initial statements. The two members of Tapas' group asked for their identity to remain confidential, as they fear the 'clarification' they want to do, about the events on the night Madeleine disappeared, could bring some pressure from people connected to the McCann family (...)"
Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis - Published on today's edition of "El Mundo"
Blimey said "Just wanted to add another point about Kate not answering the '40 questions', on the advice of her lawyers. It's called, 'the right to remain silent', like innocence presumption it is another tenet of our legal system, and is inadmissible in a court to be used as evidence of guilt."
You have gone of the screen here mate. This is supposed to be a woman who is desperately trying to find out what happened to her daughter, and you are treating her as if she was a mass murderer. Why would she want to remain silent? Here in Scotland we have as well as guilty and not guilty a verdict known as not proven. This is a brilliant piece of legislation because this verdict says we know you did it but there was not enough evidence to find you guilty. I don't think it has been used very often but what a weapon.
The right to remain silent is not a good piece of law it is avery bad piece of law favouring the guilty. How would you feel if Kate & Gerry had refused to give their DNA. Would that be a sign of innocence?
Sorry did not have much time earlier but I loved DC's explanation for Kate not answering the 40 questions. Cause there were only 22 ha ha ha gotcha aren't I a clever Kate! Don't think M would be amused.
pdg -
However "twisting and turning", yes, that is my opinion on your statements, its as if you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You've picked on details to make things fit. But I wouldn't get so offended, everybody does it I suppose.
No, not everyone does it, and I most certainly didn't. I didn't twist anything, I didn't have to force anything to "fit" anywhere any more than anyone on the other side. I answered (oh, excuse me... explained, like there's some difference between the two) the questions from the opposing perspective. I "explained" how someone can, with no more than the facts at our disposal and a healthy amount of common sense, answer those questions and still remain convinced of the McCanns' innocence.
My answers are just as valid as yours, and no more twisted.
Stanley -
Well at least you had a go and certainly you have given an explanation to every question. You have however failed to answer any of them.
And what exactly would you consider an answer, sir? What is the difference between an answer and an explanation? Are you looking for absolute positive truth? Is that what you demand of me? Because you have no more of it than I do, and it seems more than a little unfair to hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself, simply because I disagree with you.
And to all of you:
Steve, thank you. It's been (mostly) fun and I appreciate the venue you gave us.
Everyone else - it seems I was wrong when I said this place was the last sane place to discuss this case. I'm no more welcome here, now, than I am on WS, or The Mirror, or anywhere else the "group think" has taken over and the McCanns have been declared "guilty or else".
I leave you to it. After all, I wouldn't want to ruin your "open discussion" by holding the opposing viewpoint, and not being afraid to admit it.
Stanley
"the black art" nicely put re blimey.
oh and blimey regarding the troll accusation,
if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck then......
prob is
Right, if you are going to accuse me of being a troll I suggest that you email Steve Huff and ask him to ban me from the board. If I get accused of being a troll again, just because I have a different viewpoint to the majority on this board, I will be emailing him myself.
Stanley - perhaps you could tell me what the 40 questions were that were asked of Kate McCann? Because if you have them then it might give us some clue as to why she refused to answer them.
And I'm sorry that you think the 'right to remain silent' is terrible - I see it as an enshrinement of civil liberties.
Jose, I will have to read this myself before I make any judgement, I know El Mundo is a good paper and thankyou for translating it, but I would prefer to read it from one of the British broadsheets.
Team McCann is denying the El Mundo story:
http://tinyurl.com/2hl6du
Sorry, the above link doesn't appear to work. Try this one:
http://tinyurl.com/2hl6du
OH my seems things are getting a bit childish
DC - it seems sad you feel you have to leave, this is a highly emotional case and people do get heated, but I enjoy what you have to state and accept some of what you say could be true, as with others on here, none of us know it is all guess work.
Blimey - I have to disagree with your quote :
Just wanted to add another point about Kate not answering the '40 questions', on the advice of her lawyers. It's called, 'the right to remain silent', like innocence presumption it is another tenet of our legal system, and is inadmissable in a court to be used as evidence of guilt.
As a mother I would answer ANY question even if it involved asking me the most vile things in the world, I would not care as this isnt a case of something unimportant this is the case of your missing child and regardless of how it made me look or what it gave away about me I would answer every damn question and then some more if it helped to find my daughter. What mother wouldn't?
The Daily Mail has picked up the El Mundo story:
http://tinyurl.com/2b4ver
You may well disagree with it Lynn, but the fact is, is that it is a cornerstone of nearly every legal system in the world. And, neither do you have any idea about what the questions were that Kate refused to answer. If you can find me the questions that Kate refused to answer, then maybe we can come to some sort of consensus about why she didn't answer them. I suggest that people also don't try to 'assume' how they would react or 'be' in the same situation, as I am afraid it is so unimaginable, that you cannot really state what you would or would not do. As I have said before, judgement like this cast a shadow over the Ramsays, Lindy Chamberlain, Joanne Lees etc. Even Robert Murat.
@ Blimey. No let us do this the other way round. Can you suggest ONE question that Kate should not have answered? And please give us your reasoning why not.
The questions are listed on the other thread blimey, early-mid October, I hope you take the time to find and read them. I do believe there were 22ish, Gerry supposedly refused the same questions although his sister (I believe) stated in the paper he did answer all the questions. Good luck.
According to RTP, in Portugal this information is not dismissed, the Policia Judiciaria doesnt clarify and doesnt say if there is any contact with at least two lawyers of the Tapas 7 concerning their intention to change their stories.
Jose
has there been any more mention of this in your newspapers?
“The Volunteer Firefighters of Cascais and the maritime authorities still failed to remove a body that appeared on Saturday, the end of the afternoon, the boiar in the caves of the Hell’s Mouth, in Cascais.
The body appeared at the end of the afternoon on Saturday, there was still a possible to withdraw it, “said a source from the Maritime Police, stressing” this is a complicated area of sea and is the body in a cave. ”
blimey.c.hecks, why do you act like you have to teach everybody about the truth? Why do you try to take control all the time? Nobody owes you "the right" explanation. If you are bothered so much by the fact that there is only speculation going on on this blog,then why are you not waiting for the official results of the police investigation and do something enjoyable in the meantime?
If your real motive for your activity though is to make everybody think harder, than it would be very helpful in my opinion to find a more appropriate way of communicating, less imposing and controlling and more "auf Augenhöhe" as we say in germany.
sorry wasn t meant to be anonymous
It may be that Kate McCann did not answer questions because they were 'hypothetical' 'What if you killed your child?' type questions. I don't know - I am just surmising. I see, Stanley you cannot answer the question, so you give me another question, instead. Dee - I am an avid reader of UK broadsheets and have never seen the 'questions' in any of them...however, prove me wrong, and show me a link to a reputable site which has the 40 questions and I will read them. I will not take as 'fact' (despite the credibility of Steve's blog) anything I read on an internet message board.
Andrea - I'm sorry you are offended. I'm offended by a lot of what I read about the McCanns, particularly the aspersions on Kate McCann's character. I came on here to defend them and correct assumptions about Madeleine McCann's eye. As for saying I am 'imposing' - it's just the way I write, I don't bull****, I come straight to the point.
Re macushla
http://tinyurl.com/2tzbsy
The body that has been found Saturday near Cabo Raso, in Cascais, has been rescued by the Portuguese Navy at 7:30 this Tuesday.
The spokesman of the Navy said that the body would be sent to the institute of forensic medicine of Lisbon to perform an autopsy which has been asked by the Ministério Público.
No Blimey your confusing that I care what you think, you indicated you wanted to see the questions and I told you where to look and there is a link that you can read the newspaper article. I have no interest in finding it for you, I read it and I can't recall a question I would not have answered.
blimey
assumptions about Madeleine's eye???
it was noted, on this forum, that there is medical condition for her distictive eye patterning.. Coloboma. (Medical Fact)
it was also noted that Coloboma is recognised in children with Charge syndrome. (Medical Fact)
NOT that Madeleine had this syndrome.
Dee - I have looked at the other thread, and I cannot find the 40 questions. I have googled, and cannot find the list of 40 questions. Can anyone tell me where they are posted?
blhs: Let me ask you one more question: why are you so concerned about the Mccann s ? What ties you so close to them? where is your distance to them (who could be anything - innocent or involved)? are you a relative? friend? pr - person? what are your ties to them? Do you identify with them? Why not with the girl madeleine? Why is it the mccanns you are so concerned about? they already have the best defense they could possibly get, tehy don t need you - unless you are clarence.
Jose
Thank-you for your post re: body at Cascais
You yourself said 'What if Madeleine suffered from Charge syndrome, had a congenital heart condition, that 'took her' whilst on holiday.'?
I welcome Blimey and DC on this board. The discussion has become much more interesting.
It's true that this board is relatively civil but people with dissenting opinions do get shouted down.
Blimey
read the post!!!! Stop reading what you want to see
i said "What if Madeleine suffered from Charge syndrome, had a congenital heart condition, that 'took her' whilst on holiday."
See that WHAT IF there at the beginning of the quote.... it would indicate that it MAY/COULD be a theory/possibility......
NOWHERE do i state she does have this syndrome!
Andrea - Because I do, I think they have been unfairly treated on the internet in particular, I feel compassion for their predicament. I don't know what you are trying to imply by saying I don't empathise with Madeleine - I think, as I said above, that the little girl has been abducted, and I can't tell you how terrible I think that is. I think the McCanns were neglectful as parents, to leave their children, but I believe in the fallibility of humanity and that we all make errors of judgement - that doesn't make them murderers. I am also a great believer in justice and that the truth will out, and I do not abide assumptions about those accused of crimes, I think it is very dangerous. Which is why I react so strongly to the posts about Kate McCann's jogging etc. I am also a strong supporter of the presumption of innocence. I know that also on the internet there are a lot of people who support the McCanns, but on forums they are generally shouted down (as DC confirms above). And you know what - I am not the only person in the UK who has sympathy with them, either.
no, Maschula - you just suggested it.
As you have suggested she was abducted... its all theoritical at the end of the day
Oops...the last Anonymous was me, Karina.
I switched from Firefox to IE because the posts were cut on Firefox.
yes, but abduction is also an assumption the PJ have made, even with the McCanns being arguidos. the 'internet' assumptions about the eye etc, are speculation.
I personally think that DC and Blimeyhecks bring a much needed balance to the thread and would be grateful, especially you DC, if you remained on the thread. It's good to get another opposing point of view, and while I may not agree with them I find it interesting nonetheless. Please stay. However what I can't stand on threads like these are those posters who insist in getting petty points across. It comes across as argumentative and devisivory
As to why the couple from the holiday group did change their statements I find that an interesting development. If it is untrue as the Sun article suggests then no-one has any means of denying it because of the anonymity clause stated in the
article.
Steve,
The posts have been cut off after the post of Luisa: too long urls.
blmhs: why murderers? IF they covered up an accident in order to protect themselves, their family, their twins, their careers - they wouldn t be murderers!
How do you get this idea? The discussion has always centered around IF or IF NOT they have covered up a tragic situation (accidental death)
Andrea, I think you are being pedantic...but anyway, how about 'unlawful killers' - will that do?!
No! why should they be killers? I would never use that term. And Im not pedantic . I am responding to your use of language. You say black or white - innocent or murderers... I don t agree at all. There may be many shades in between.
Do you want me to swear Andrea??! 'Killing' is described in the OED as 'causing the death of someone of something'. I don't know how else you would use describe saying they unlawfully caused her death - 'manslaughterers' perhaps?!
Swear? Remember: I' m German. Be patient -English is not my mothertongue. I guess you are referring to the official terms.) So: As a true-crime-interested person you outed yourself, one more question : Is the thoughtline "McCanns may cover up an accidental death" something which is at all thinkable for you?
Sorry Blimey you are not getting away with dodging the issue. As a mother desperate to find her missing daughter you are questioned by the people most likely to find her. What question would you not answer? You say she may have been asked a hypothetical question such as "What if you killed your daughter" that is not a question, hypothetical or otherwise. The obvious reply is "well I didn't now can we get on with something relevant please?" Not: "I am not answering that on the grounds it may incriminate me" which by the way is the only reason that people are given the right to silence in that they may incriminate themselves. If you are totally innocent you would never be silent if you wanted to find the truth. The oxygen of facts is what finds the wrong doers. Silence only helps the guilty.
One more thing Blimey can we please squash the final myth of Team McCann. They do not have any large support. They are lucky if 10% of the population trust a single word they say. Of course I was forgetting we don't know how many of them there are because they have all taken a vow of silence.
No. Because I have seen no evidence that they sedated their children, and I find the theories about concealing the body implausible. It would be difficult enough to conceal a body in one's own environs, never mind on holiday. Also I believe the McCanns.
I think the McCanns will be cleared of arguido status, as will Robert Murat - but I don't think the PJ will do it until they have to, I believe there is a time limit of eight months or something for arguido status.
No, silence does not help the guilty, it is a civil liberty. But you are showing your mindset, Stanley.
I tell you what, you answer my question first 'What were the 40 questions that Kate McCann were asked?' and I will answer yours. Is that a fair deal?
Re silence
I do recall the father of polly klass recently giving an interview and stateing that he freely answered all police questioning, as all he wanted was for his daughter to be found. Appearing to stonewall the authorities seems to be counterproductive. Why wouldnt you tell all if you were innocent, if it could help recover your beloved child?
Jose,
Thank you for the translation, I forgot to add that to my last posting.
We have to as a civilised group believe that everything about this case is supposition. No-one has the right to claim a fact. It's all opinion.
Only one fact in this case: Madeleine McCann was reported missing on May 3rd 2007.
Madeleine suspect Murat demands new police interview to clear his name.
http://tinyurl.com/2gdwl5
I asked you - is it thinkable for you? your answer - no because no evidence of sedation. But sedation is not the only option for an accident. It could as well be,that she fell, hit her head etc.
Concealing the body - yes, difficult, perhaps the ocean?
I never doubted that you personally believe the McCann s. But my question was: As a crime-interested-person - wouldn t you allow yourself to think through this option?
Ali - until you know what the questions were that were asked, it's almost impossible to know what one would do. DO you know what the questions were exactly?
Remember that police interrogation is very frightening - regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent. And if it was me in that situation, I would take the advice of my lawyer - because he or she is the expert.
Andrea - I have thought of the option, I just don't believe it is plausible. Of course there is an option that her body was 'dumped' (terrible way to describe it) in the sea - I don't believe that is possible, unless one hires a boat, that is. The one other option I have thought may have happened is that the little girl wandered off and fell down a roadworks hole or something. I don't believe the McCanns caused her death, or there was an accidental death in the apt, and they concealed her body.
Karina,
Who is doing the shouting now?
Re blimeyhecks
Nobody knows the 40 questions except Kate, the PJ and the Prosecutor in charge of the case.
Thankyou, Jose.
thank you blhs for answering my question
Jose, has there been any information on the body which was recovered Saturday near Cabo Raso, in Cascais? Any word on whether it was a child?
Andrea - I have just thought of something else. Why do you think, if there was an accident say, like banging her head, the McCanns wouldn't call an ambulance or get help?
"Who is doing the shouting now?"
Maggie, what do you mean ??
K.
Re Billie It cant be a child. It was suggested it was a surfer, an adult, sex not determined. The body was half buried by sand in a submarine cave and it was surrounded by a plastic.
Thanks, Jose.
Blhs: To answer your question - yes of course would if they were there , but if it happened while they were away, maybe in the restaurant - they would know there would be an accusation of negligence later on
Ok, let's look at that scenario. *Say* Gerry McCann stops in to look at the kids at *say* 20.30 - and Madeleine is dead. Are you saying, despite the shock, panic etc - and presumably even if he found his daughter dead he would attempt some type of CPR - he then decides to conceal the body (without consulting his wife) nips off down to the sea, gets back to the restaurant, tells Kate McCann what he's done, and then they both conspired to pretend she had been abducted?
Re blimeyhecks In your scenario, why would Gerry hide the body if Madeleine died accidently?
That's what I asked Andrea in the comment above, Jose.
well, if you read all´of the (previous) threads on this blog here, this is what it is all about - IF the accident and the subsequent covering- up happened, how and when could it have happened. Same thing for the abduction scenario: how could it fit all together... There is no use repeating all the thoughts of all people in detail, but you can read it all. Now we are all in a waiting position, until the pj oficially gives information to the press.
What is your personal opinion?
Yes but child abductions can happen in a matter of seconds, Andrea. I referred earlier to a young girl that was abducted in the 70's called Genette Tate - she was probably killed by a notorious paedophile called Robert Black. He literally snatched her off the road, and only her bike and newspapers were found sprawled on the ground (the wee lass was a paper girl). There was also a famous case in the UK a few years ago where a paedophile took the child out of a bathroom window, whilst she was in the bath on her own. The parents saw him running off with the child. All these people need is a few minutes or seconds to bundle a child into a car.
is it me you are talking to Jose? I believe she was abducted.
Jose, my opinion is: all the scenarios discussed leave a lot of questions open.
I can t help but the parents behaviour seems so irritating to me.I believe they know where she is, which doesn t imply that they are murderers.
Firstly, the eye debate was over and done with ages ago, all agreeing that it was not the case with Madeleine that she had any form of hidden illness, we also looked at Dyslexia for some reason and again that was ruled out. The What if scenarios will obviously continue as this is a blog trying to solve a case I guess.
With regards to the unwillingness to see their guilt or innocence sometimes being myopic hides the truth....look at the case of the recently murdered student in Italy, the family of one of the suspects state "This is not true"...refusal to believe is often how come things are hidden - even the police believe someone close to home is hiding something.
One could argue about a change of causation with regards to the neglect the McCanns showed their children, which led them leaving Madeleine alone, which led to her abduction/death - had they not left her alone then she wouldnt have gone missing etc etc - no chain was broken as regards the end result.
With regards to people giving the McCanns a hard time - there is a lot of anger and sympathy towards them, I actually believe in their innocence until I have reason to doubt otherwise but I am angry that they are so neglectful and yes made a mistake but any parent worth their salt would not make that mistake and leave babies alone to defend for themselves - that noone can justify end of story!!!
Old ground so not going to go on any longer
Yet another new "story" about two of the Tapas7 it seems they want to "correct" their statements but alledgely asked for anonminity so that they are not badgered by Team McCann, now lets say this IS true, pointless debating if it isnt,I accept it may be a fabrication but if it isnt why would you do that?
You dont suddenly both remember at the same time that happened 6 months ago - so we can presume it isnt a case of omg i just remembered
There is then the case that what someone is hiding is about to come out, this I suppose is hidden for a reason and when it comes out this will probably unlock the key to this whole sad tale.
MY GUESS is that it is JT and DP who IF it is true(wow since the arrival of blimey I feel the need to reiterate that this is just my guessing)are the ones who have something to tell. I think it will be the lack of an abductor and the fact that no child was sick - meaning they aided a cover-up or caused the accidental death.
I am wondering if IF lol IF oh bugger now i forgot what i wanted to say....ah yes IF it was a case of Madeleine was injured, they were under the influence, they had a drink then attempted to save her but messed up they would cover it up for fear of prosecution.
A calpol add has just been on tv its tagline was we understand its natural for parents to be protective perhaps that is why people have suspicions about kate as she and Gerry for that matter act as some believe unnatural IN saying that WE have NOT ever been in that position hence we as a whole cannot say how we would trul
Yes the question was for you, blimeyhecks. I thought you were explaining your theory about the accidental death.
Lyn I agree with your theory about jt and dp.
Does anyone know when or if the dna evidence will come out? or will it only be released when the case is wrapped up.
Lynn not sure what to make of this story, could be just to save face and volunteer as it is presumed they will be re-interviewed anyway and by openly volunteering perhaps hope not to be made suspects.
This statement does make sense to me.
"The friends believe that if such interviews or reinterviews take place it can only lead to Gerry and Kate being eliminated from the inquiry swiftly." I would think the police also would want to re-interview K&G, wonder if they will answer questions though if it comes to that? Don't see them stepping up to volunteer to help clear their names.
You see the problem with abductions is that 99.9% are witnessed and those that are not arouse suspicions (and rightly so).
It must be awful. You have deliberately made the conscious parental decision to leave three very young and vulnerable children alone in a holiday apartment. Then one of them goes missing.
What happened is a matter of conjecture. From henceforth the only thing a poster to this forum can do is give an opinion. It's as simple as that.
It looks like the friends do NOT want to change their story.
http://tinyurl.com/2hl6du
Karina,
No-one is shouting down anyone on this forum - it just gets a bit heated now and again.
Re your link: No-one can win in this situation. This was certainly a clever piece of reporting. The inference is anonyminity. Therefore no matter what anyone says....
Lyn - you may well have discussed the eye thing previously, but it was present on this thread just a few days ago. It might be old ground for you, but others like myself who have just joined should still be able to comment on it. I also think that it was neglectful of them as parents to leave their kids - but I don't think they have to be hounded for the rest of their lives about it. All parents make mistakes, some minor, some major - children left alone for two minutes drown in baths, boiling water is accidentally spilled and kills children, sometimes parents run over their own children etcetera etcetera. Often in those sort of cases, courts show compassion for parents, which is the civilised option. As for being myopic, I have considered and read about all the 'possibles' and come to the conclusion that the McCanns are innocent. I will not be their Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Also, if there was a bungled CPR attempt, there would be DNA everywhere - all over the apartment. CPR's are messy businesses - blood and saliva fly everywhere, people are incontinent - etc.
BTW - Stanley said above that only 10% of the UK popn. (in his estimation) supported the McCanns. IME, people are divided on them - some for, some against. Some are like my neighbour who said she doesn't like Gerry McCann because he has a funny accent and 'cold eyes' (whatever that means).
Dee - Jose answered my question about the 40 questions, he told me that no one knows what the 40 questions were apart from the PJ, Kate McCann and her solicitor.
Maggie - what sort of abductions are you talking about and where do you get your stats from? Read the case about Genette Tate as I mentioned - she literally disappeared off the road within a matter of seconds. Look at Millie Dowler - last seen on CCTV, no one can say what happened to her afterwards. Predatory paedophiles are on the 'look out' for opportunity all the time.
From the Mirror thread....an interesting thought that does not yet seem to have been picked up on this blog.
Copied direct:
I'm sure the clever people have thought of this before - but the question of how the someone in the position like the tapas 9 (we still lack evidence) could be persuaded to take part in a process where the death of a child is covered up - with the absolute agreement of all involved is still a major issue to overcome.
There have been plenty of suggestions of dodgy activities, political and/or powerful influences and about a dozen other theories - so here is the one I feel most plausible:
In order to get this to happen the group (of whatever number) must be protecting something (a secret) or someone.
A secret would imply something that extended well beyond the group and fear and allegiance would be needed to keep everyone in line - including the parents! This is what many find impossible to understand - and so do I.
So I am left with protecting someone. Who has so much pull that a group would lie, even the parents about the death of a child? The answer is simple -
.......another child. Simple.
If another child, in some way was responsible for the death of a child like M than maybe, just maybe the group would conspire to cover it up. black thought eh....
and that could be enough to get the two parents of the other child eventually to change their story and confess.
SOL by Margarida Davim
McCanns guarantee that the friends did not change their depositions
The spokesman of the parents of Madeleine, Clarence Mitchell, dismissed to the SOl the news advanced, this Tuesday, by El Mundo which reports the willing of the McCanns' friends to change their declarations about the night of the disappearance of the toddler.
Clarence Mitchell is peremptory: "That is totally untrue". The Public Relation expert of Kate and Gerry dismiss in this terms the information of the Spanish daily newspaper El Mundo about the possibility that the friends of the McCanns did change their deposition to the Portuguese authorities about the happenings in the night of the disappearance of Madeleine.
According to El Mundo, the seven friends that dined with the parents of Maddie in the Tapas restaurant, May 3, were ready to rectify their first versions told the Polícia Judiciária and their lawyers have been already in contact with the Portuguese Police in that sense.
The daily broadsheet reports that the lawyers of the friends did ask that the identity of their clients should be protected "to avoid eventual pressures" by the part of the McCanns.
Furthermore, the Spanish newspaper affirms that the group of the Tapas were ready to correct the first versions told to the Police, giving force to the suspicions of the Portuguese authorities about the contradictions of their depositions.
Clarence Mitchell has guaranteed to the SOL that he has already contacted all the friends of the McCann couple to dismiss this information. The spokesman of the parents of Madeleine assumes that this group "is in regular contact with Kate and Gerry" and that "everything that is said relatively to this case has been discussed and decided all together".
Mitchell adds that "there are months that the lawyers of the friends of the McCanns were not in contact with the Portuguese Police", but that the group of seven "is disposed to retake a deposition -not by their own initiative- but if the police said that they need clarifications".
Nevertheless, the article published in the printed edition of El Mundo "didn’t mention that there is an existing contact between the friends of McCanns and the Portuguese Police" as has explained to the SOL the journalist of the news, Duarte Levy.
The collaborator of El Mundo assumes moreover to the SOL that they maintained all that was written in the newspaper and that "the information has been confirmed by sources either in Portugal or in United Kingdom".
Blimey but the list was in the newspaper, the link is on the previous thread with 22 questions they were "supposedly" asked and not answered that's all I can tell you, go look if you want it's there.
I looked and could not see it, and Jose confirmed that no one knows what the questions were. I have also googled it and could not find a list of questions.
If I have time, as a personal favor to you because you are so interested, I will find it for you.
Re Bob
I have already thought that Madeleine could have been killed accidently by one of other children if they were all together in the same room as it was suggested by the 24 Horas. In that case the parents of this children would be responsible beyond the law and consequently I dont see why the McCanns would try to cover up their friends.
Why you dont send an email to the PJ of Portimao and asked them could you send me the 40 questions? The email is on the web site of the PJ.
The questions reported in the press are pure inventions of the journalists.
Bob I could see that if the children had been left alone. But in this particular case when would they have time to organize a plan? I would think it would have had to happen very early in the evening and Kate was with the kids for instance. But again, not everyone of them had to know what was happening.
I'm having trouble posting.
I did post to Blimey re his question to me but can't see it.
Now. Pure speculation but tin hat on and here goes. What if the nanny assigned to Madeleine was not there on the final day of the holiday. There is a another child in the group who is the same age as Madeleine and one of the McCanns brought the twins and the that child (I'll take her') to the creche, but signed her in as Madeleine. They gave the excuse that Madeleine was ill. I don't really like posting this and tell me this is full of holes.
Okay posting successfully.
Genette Tate, body never found, disappeared 25 years ago. Her bike and newspapers sprawled all over the place and evidence of something happened. Millie Dowler's body was found after six months.
Ben Needham disappeared 16 years ago. Snatched in the wink of an eye according to his carers from outside the house. All his carers were considered suspects from the start.
It's very rare, does happen, but very rare nonetheless. Almost always there is some indication, i.e. witnessed, a body, or clues.
Well I never! Having been told that we on this thread have made our minds up that the McCanns are guilty (what of I do not know) now this " As for being myopic, I have considered and read about all the 'possibles' and come to the conclusion that the McCanns are innocent. I will not be their Judge, Jury and Executioner." from blimey.
So who is the ONLY person on this thread to have come to a conclusion? The rest of us are waiting for evidence and I certainly do not consider myself clever enough to know if the McCanns are innocent or guilty on what little has so far been provided. So I bow to your obviously huge intellectual powers, we are indeed fortunate to have someone of your calibre amongst us mere mortals, it was good of you to take the time to join us on this thread.
I shall learn from my obvious deficiencies and I shall "consider and read all the 'possibles'" and come to an equally pompous and ridiculous conclusion.
stanley - do not put me on your list for not even opening g's blog - as I knew it would just be egotistical and arrogant rantings -
has anyone else noticed blimey only has 4-5 pat answers to your questions - and don't forget she is not the only one who believes the Mcc's are innocent = as if she is giving herself an excuse for feeling this way -
remember tapas9 is only as good as their weakest link - seems I said a few days ago - find the weakest link and go after them -
they left the twins in the room/and daycare cuz they knew M had not been abducted -
oh...and I find it interesting that blimey compares them to the ramseys cuz they remind me so much of the ramseys - PR killed JB, they covered it up - messed up the crime scene, created a media frenzy - ego and arrogance -
Blimey, just quickly I know CPR can sometimes be that way, not always and it may not have happened in the apartment, the lack of professionalism of the PJ could have given whoever time to "clean" things up if necessary, we are all aware that DNA will probably be dismissable now as it was contaminated.
You also misunderstood what i was referring to when i stated we had discussed the eye condition previously, i was simply pointing out it was brought up in discussion and was invented by anyone on here.
It is Lynn by the way 2 n's not one.
Now with regards to the so called reinterview of the friends, yes I would protect my child and would cover up anything, children do kill children not very often but it does happen but the McCanns wouldnt cover this up. I guess the only way that this could occur, which seems ridiculous, but so are most theories, is that K and G didnt know what had happened and that on her check JT found that Madeleine had been accidentally killed by another child and she and DP covered it up, would explain why he had to change and spend time with his sick child. Nope cannot see it myself, do not think this is the case.
I do think that perhaps there is a suspicion around ?JT and DP i feel they have always acted oddly and i do wonder if they are to be reinterviewed what they can tell although i do not think they will be reinterviewed i think perhaps this is just spin again.
I think that with the abduction theory if they were being watched and were ritualistic then it wouldnt be difficult to steal a child. It does seem more feasible that if this was the case that it could have been more an inside job or someone from MW had the knowledge that Madeleine was being left alone a lot, a chance intruder wouldnt know this???
It was mentioned ages ago that there were sour grapes between a member of
MW staff and they had been sacked - but like most things reported they disappear and seem to be falsehoods.
I tend to think that if it were abduction it is more likely to be linked to MW staff or someone close to them than a chance abductor.
I still have concerns about what the priest said, would love to know the literal translation of this and if he did say it understand what he meant.
One of the problems with this case is the lack of PJ presence clarifying facts and the amount of spin Team McCann give us and the amount of shite that is printed in the newspapers.
If the PJ didnt have such secrecy would this then mean we would be able to establish the facts better and perhaps jog someones memory.
Then again no criminal is getting the knowledge that the police are on to them.
Finally as i am off to bed, head is done in today, i just wondered about this latest sighting in Morocco and the so called "spotter" who is now getting death threats from the Mafia - but she is going to risk her life to go back to Morocco to save Madeleine - and apparently the school headmaster out there who too has seen her - i personally think this is the beginning of the end
The telegraph has picked up the El Mundo story.
http://tinyurl.com/2kp6lf
pdx-77 wrote: "remember tapas9 is only as good as their weakest link - seems I said a few days ago - find the weakest link and go after them - ".
I think pdx-77 hit the nail on the head. Someone amongst the Tapas-9 was eventually going to break and the investigators knew it; the fact that two of the 9 are allegedly seeking to "correct their initial statements" is possibly the breakthrough that the investigators have been waiting for. Not coincidental considering the rumours of 4 additional Tapas-9 members possibly being named arguidos in the coming days. The fact that they have requested that their identities remain secret speaks volumes about their personal situation and their fears of repercussion should they be found out by anyone in the McCann team.
This whole web of lies and deceit may well begin to unravel.
In Clarence Mitchells rebuttal of the story that 2 of the tapas7 have contacted the police to change details of their story, he says that team mccann have contacted all of them and that it's not true.
Isn't it a bit strange that the main suspects have the right to contact witnesses and ask information from them regarding this? Surely thats not usual.
As most of you know my own particular gnawing issues with this case are not only that leaving three very young children alone in an apartment in a strange environment to them (with changing stories as to what doors and windows were secure) is neglect in your duty of care as a parent, I think I can safely say we ALL agree on that!
But also that changing timeline of checking, eating, checking again, drinking, inviting someone else to the table,checking, drinking, checking yet again & chatting to another guest in the alley, spotting a man carrying a child after checking, etc.! It just could not have happened in the way it's been described in an hour and a half without being somewhat like a farce with people bumping into each other all over the place and other guests and staff being amused by all the comings and goings...
So I'm going to stick my neck out and reiterate what I've said many times before on here. I don't believe the children were checked on, at the very, very least not in the way described. Ironically, as we've pointed out before, IF this IS the case then not only does the window of opportunity widen somewhat but, in addition, IF not/seldom checking had also become the norm for this holiday then the door is wide open for predatory abductor to have noted movements and known when to strike.
PDG, yes it sounds strange, but remember: this is a group of close-knit friends who regularly went on holiday together. They probably still are in close contact. In that context it's not so strange that CM or the MCCs contacted them for the details.
You have a good point there, Lizbee. And if this was their routine throughout the holiday (the fact of not checking the children) this could have been noted by a predatory abductor who then made his/her move at the right time. Or perhaps, one of the staff members gave him a tip off.
On the other hand, the statement of one of the MW contradicts this. He said the fathers always checked the children but that on that fateful night, it was the first time Kate left the table to check. But then again, who knows whether this guy speaks the truth? Why would a waiter have paid such attention to a table of tourists? And even if the fathers left the tables regularly, it was perhaps for other reasons...
Having read the Telegraph article re: freinds amending their statements. I think the quotes from CM are very well constructed in that he states that the lawyers have not been approached but that the friends have always been willing to clarify their statements with the PJ. This leaves the door wide open for the story in Pt Press to be absolutely true and yet he starts out by refuting it!
sharon, on a legal level is it permissable for suspects to be able to contact witnesses? this is more what I meant by saying it is strange.
If the article is bogus, I agree Sharon, it is not so strange that CM or the MCCs contacted them, however if the article is true can you imagine how creepy that could be? PDG you make a very good point it is probably very unusual to have such a situation. CM says "Contrary to a report in the Spanish press, and after consultation amongst Gerry and Kate McCann's friends, I can deny that any approach has been made by their lawyers asking to amend or change the witness statement of any of them," he said. If the Mc team is so confident, why bother their friends to be sure???
@pinkdrummergirl
Clarence Mitchell would naturally rebut the story. But do you honestly believe that the two Tapas individuals who have asked to change their stories and who deliberately requested anonymity would admit to CM that they were the ones? Of course not. They're likely frightened for their own personal safety especially if what they want to speak to the investigators about is at all damning to the McCann team.
And no, I don't think it's at all strange that CM or someone close to K&G would be in constant contact with the Tapas Group, especially after this latest leak to the media, as they would want reassurances from said group that their stores haven't changed. They want to keep them close especially if they're relying on their witness statements in order to contine to protect K&G.
Lizbee @ 6.00pm, you make good points about all the tooing and frowing. However if they didn't check up on the children then why leave the doors unlocked? Surely, setting aside the children, you wouldn't leave your valuables such as jewelry and passports vulnerable to opportunists?
hello all I have been reading and not posting, because all has been sais and repeated lol.
Now maybe things change with the "weak links".
Maggie
Who told the doors were unlockjed? The McCanns. If we admit they they are lying, they also can be lying on this to make the "abduction theory" plausible.
Accidentally killed by another child? Possible. Maybe one of the twins, who did not even realised what happened.
I still think the most probable was accidental killing by one of the parents, that the kids were never checked and that one or more of the friends helped to dispose of the body. Why helping? Covering sedation, covering a secret, covering someone important? Who was the Tapas10? So many misteries so few answers.
Apologies, pinkdrummergirl, I misunderstood your initial post but your second (to Sharon) clarified things for me. I think you're wondering whether CM's telephoning of the Tapas 7's could legally be viewed as witness intimidation. And it's a valid point.
Is anybody on this thread familiar with the laws on this subject?
I am thinking that the Tapas 2 who are suddenly feeling angst and want to re-visit their testimony are perhaps a little freaked at the recent turn of events: A white carrier bag containing adult clothing, a shower curtain and some children's belongings was recently discovered on the side of the road near the airport. Investigators have determined that there are links to M's DNA on the jeans and fleece. Russell O'Brien told police that he changed his clothing during the course of that fateful dinner on May 3rd after dealing with an apparently sick and vomiting child.
My theory is this...Perhaps it was O'Brien's clothing that was in that bag. The adult jeans and blue fleece. His DNA would obviously be all over the clothing and would render him an immediate suspect in M's disappearance. I'm wondering whether the Tapas 7 were tested for their DNA, perhaps not. If not, the police would not make the immediate connection to O'Brien. Not yet, that is. My feeling is, that the tangled web of lies and deceit is slowly unravelling...there's only so much that one will do for a friend. And if these two Tapas members have been in contact with lawyers recently, they've surely been advised to 'fess up and tell the truth in order to save their own hides.
Marilia glad to see you back (understand completely)! It will certainly be interesting to see if there are weak links!?! Billy, possibility if two of the Tapas are calling "uncle" or their lawyer started asking "is there anything you want to say?" I would think the lawyer knows K&G silence isn't helping matters with the public it seems and could also be looking for a possible plea bargain for their client. Good grief I hope so regardless of the deal lst of all for Madeline, then all the other countries, police, da, da, da.
It's too bad all the witnesses wanting/eager/volunteering (almost begging) to to come forward willingly (supposedly including R. M.)...yet the parents say they "will cooperate" numerous times and DON'T. How can you not possibily wonder????
Diario de Noticias
Contradictions brings McCanns' friends to change their depositions
The contradictions in the depositions of the McCanns’ friends have brought them now to change their depositions given to the Police. Some of the seven friends of the McCanns who spent their holidays with them in Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished, May 3, were "alarmed and tormented" about the burning news of this week which were reporting that Russel O'Brien, and his wife Jane Tanner (the witness who said to have seen a man carrying a child, near the vicinity of the Ocean Club), Matthew Oldfield and Davide Payne may be made arguidos.
According to sources close to the McCann team, "the friends feared the change of their status and they are willing now to clarify some details, such as the number of bottle of wine that they have drunken during the dinner and the checking of the children in the apartments". Furthermore, the same sources reports to the DN that "no bombshell would be revealed, such as for example details concerning the eventual occultation of the body of Madeleine or as to what had happen de facto during this night". This happen because contradictions have appeared in the initial testimonies, given in the Criminal Investigation Department of Portimão of the PJ, either of the McCann couple or of their friends or even of the staff of the resort.
According to the edition of yesterday in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, two friends of the McCanns are willing to change their testimony in the PJ, in spite of the friendship that links them to Gerry and Kate. According to this daily newspaper, the Tapas two have already contacted the Portuguese Police to communicate their intention to "correct" some statements that they have done during the inquiries of May and July. Their identities are unknown, since they asked confidentiality, fearing eventual pressures by part of the McCanns. The DN claims that Gerry "controls everything in England, including the friends. To talk, they must ask his authorization".
The information of El Mundo hasn’t been confirmed by the PJ. To the DN, the press cabinet has only said yesterday afternoon that the coordinator of the investigation, Paulo Rebelo, had asked to say that"when the PJ would have something relevant to say, it would be done".
The DN claims that Gerry "controls everything in England, including the friends. To talk, they must ask his authorization".
Seems mad doesnt it? Is Gerry really that authoratative or is this tabloid exaggeration?
Billies comment "They're likely frightened for their own personal safety " The Mccanns are not the mafia after all, and I don't think they would dig themselves any deeper into trouble by physically threatening witnesses... But I do think it's not right somehow that they can contact witnesses with regards to their statements.
But that's an interesting point Billie about the clothing, I hadn't thought of that.
People with knowledge of portuguese press: Kelvin Mckenzie said in Inside Stories on radio 4 that there were 2 respectable newspapers in Portugal and that we should believe the stories they print because it's coming straight from the prosecuting judges office...
Which newspapers are they?
Also DC: there seems to have been a misunderstanding, I didn't say that you were 'twisted' just that the arguments that you used were twisting the facts to fit your theory. Agree to disagree?
Just to make my position clear, I am very suspicious of the Mccanns and believe they are hiding information, just am not sure what...
Correio da Manhã
Maddie: Two friends of the McCanns are willing to change their declarations
Version dismissed
The English friend of the McCann couple, Russel O'Brien, has never solicited the services of the cleaning housekeepers of the Ocean Club to change blankets of the bed where according to him the daughter has vomited because she was ill, half an hour before the alert of the disappearance of Madeleine.
Russel should have said to the Polícia Judiciária during his first interview in May that after he leaved the Tapas restaurant, he went to see his child at 21h30. He stayed in the room almost a half an hour because his little girl was sick and then he asked to change the blankets of the bed.
Nevertheless, a source of the Ocean Club guarantees to the CM that "nobody of this group has solicited any cleaning service neither during the night or the following days".
Still according to the same source, "the cleaning housekeepers have never seen the bed with vomits, and no English host had talk about that".
This should be one the principal contradictions that are intriguing the PJ and that the team directed by Paulo Rebelo want to see clarified, at a moment when two friends of the McCann couple are showing their willing to give a new interview to "correct" some statements, according to the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. The two English persons should have requested that their identity should not be revealed, "to avoid eventual pressures by part of the McCann family".
This change of attitude happens after it has been collocated the possibility that some persons of the group that were spending their holidays in the Algarve would be made arguidos, precisely to have given false statements. The McCanns have spent their holidays in the Ocean Club with 12 persons (three families), among them it was said to exist a strong friendship. The Police cross-checked the depositions and found several contradictions.
Russel is married with Jane Tanner, whom he has two children, being her one of the key-witnesses of the case since she said to have seen at 21h30, May 3, a suspicious man carrying a child.
At this hour, Gerry, father of Maddie, was in the same street talking with a relation, Jeremy. They both denied to have seen Jane and the suspect. In the group there was also Fiona and David Payne, with two children, and Rachel and Matthew Oldfield, with one daugther. The older of the group was Dianne Webster, 63 years old, the only one to say that every couple was responsible for their own children, and they did not enter in the apartment of the other friends.
Marilia,
You mentioned a mysterious Tapa10. I probably missed this, but could you clarify? Was there another friend holidaying with te group?
Thanks!
pdx-77 - no I do not just have '4-5 pat answers to everything', I'm just not prepared to condemn the McCanns on spurious timelines or witness reports concocted from newspaper articles. And excuse me, but how dare you say 'and notice how he is the only one who believes they are innocent' - I thought this was supposed to be an open discussion about the McCanns, whatever your views. Not sure whether you live in the UK or not, but I ain't the only one in dear old Blighty who feels this way about the McCanns. There is a very famous case happening in the US at the moment, about a group of lads called 'The Memphis Three' who were convicted of killing three little boys - google them. 'Everyone' thought they were guilty too, and one of them sits on Death Row as we speak. However, it now turns out that their trial was seriously flawed, and it is probable that in fact one of the murdered boys' step-father killed them. The 'Memphis Three' are probably going to be released very soon. Look up the expression 'Kangaroo Court'.
Thanks to Jose for telling me that the '40 questions' have never been released and any that have been published have been invented by journalists. I won't be emailing the PJ to ask them what they were either!! 
Stanley - I think it's obvious you dislike me, so I suggest you don't reply to my posts anymore, or post about me anymore. I see, however, you never managed to answer my question to you about what the 40 questions were.
Lynn - sorry about the mispelling of your name! This is the problem I have with your post...you talk about JT 'acting oddly' again. I mean how are these people supposed to act? They have been effectively gagged by the PJ, they can't speak for themselves to rebut any accusations against them. Secondly, are people really suggesting that Madeleine was accidentally killed and they all troop down to dinner, between the 'four to eight' bottles (or whatever) of wine they have, they casually discuss how to dispose of the child's body, and manage to eat their Tapas at the same time?! Thirdly, what would be in it for 'JT' - he's not the one whose child has died, he wouldn't have to worry about charges of neglect, in fact he would realise that if the death wasn't announced then his whole career and family could be in jeopardy. So to me, that just doesn't make logical sense.
I think Lizbee makes some very good points. And this is where my thinking is heading. I think it is highly possible that 'checking on the kids every half hour' didn't exactly go to plan, some wine was consumed, people start talking, food is ordered...next thing you know, oops you should have been looking on the kids 15 minutes ago.
Re: pdx77 I meant to quote 'and don't forget she is not the only one who believes the Mcc's are innocent = as if she is giving herself an excuse for feeling this way'.
The presumptions of guilt are sad in an age when we should know that innocent until proven guilty is politically correct. In saying that I do feel Team McCann are causing the negativity and of course the "release" of the Portuguese articles that the British press mainly the tabliods of course, over expose.
Just imagine that the ?McCanns are innocent, regardless of what you think, their friends will be reading everything too no doubt and probably wondering the same and speculating, having the odd discussions we have amongst themselves, i think I too would end up maybe convincing myself of their guilt - for example one of the Tapas7 might have said "hmm Gerry was away an awful long time, remember we had to wait for him to order dessert" I dont know thats just an example but my point is that will they too be media lead? That must be a huge concern of the McCanns
It is such a bizzare case, because of the nature not only of the events, but also because of the tremendous publicity. I think that is a combination of two things - it happened over summertime when there is traditionally little news for the media to focus on, and of course the story has found it's feet on the internet.
I think the McCanns handling of the media has been terrible...but they were naieve, and thought they could control it. I would've, if I had been their PA said, first things first, hold your hands up and say you shouldn't have left the kids - don't make any excuses, just take it on the chin. Secondly, whoever told him that a blog was a good idea must be barmy - for a start there are so many nutters on the internet, it makes him easy prey.
I do not know how this case is going to comply with sub judice when and/or if it ever comes to trial - how a jury could not be prejudiced I do not know.
Re blimeyhecks The 40 questions
The Daily Maily has published 17 key questions that they the detectives MAY have asked Madeleine's mother:
http://tinyurl.com/2rjcr2
Did you kill your daughter?
Did you sedate Madeleine?
Did you have any syringes in the apartment?
How much did you drink on the night?
Did you ever leave Madeleine all evening to go into town?
Who checked on the children and at what times, exactly?
Did you ever leave her unattended for much longer than you claim?
Does your husband know about it?
Does anyone else know? Do your friends know?
Why did you shout: 'They've taken her, they've taken her!' after returning from Madeleine's room on the night of her disappearance?
Why did a dog detect the smell of a corpse on your clothes?
Why did you hire a car?
Why did you hire it the day before going to see the Pope?
Did the hire car contain any of Madeleine's belongings?
Could Madeleine have bled on something which was later put in the hire car?
Could she have shed blood on to some clothing which the McCanns later moved in the hire car?
Did you move Madeleine's body in your hire car?
And later the Dialy Mail has published other new crucial questions that Kate MAY have to face in new interview witht he Police:
http://tinyurl.com/2jeoq9
Did you consider Madeleine hyperactive or badly behaved and did you struggle to control her?
Did you ever lose your temper with the children?
Did you ever slap Madeleine?
Did Madeleine cut herself in the apartment?
Did Madeleine cut herself in another apartment?
Did the car you hired on May 28 contain any of Madeleine's belongings?
How do you explain Madeleine's blood and other bodily fluid in the hire car?
Why would 'clumps' of Madeleine's hair be in the boot?
Did you sedate Madeleine?
Could medication have been placed within Madeleine's reach?
Did you have any sleeping pills or medication for depression?
Did you feel your husband was not pulling his weight with child care?
Why did you wash Cuddle Cat?
Right, well they are conjecture, but they are probably along the sort of lines that they would ask.
I have a problem with the Daily Mail, Jose - it has an agenda to nearly every one of it's stories. Now, having said that it is a very good read, and very well written. However, The Daily Mail polarises a lot of people in the UK - some people actively hate it. And like every other paper, it sometimes prints stories that tweak the 'truth'. When I read it, I take a lot of it's stories with a pinch of salt.
Re blimeyhecks And what about the 22 questions published in the Correio da Manhã by Moita Flores, the ex-PJ Detective, criminologist, author and president of the Camara de Santarem?
Who was the last person exterior to the couple who has seen Madeleine alive?
When you have leaved the apartment for dinner, the toddler was sleeping or awake?
And the other children were sleeping?
How was organized the checking of the children?
Who was the person who has done the first checking?
And the second?
What was the interval of time?
How many children of the other couples were sleeping at this time?
In which order has been made the checking?
How much time has been spent between the last person exterior to the couple that has seen the toddler alive and the alert of the disappearance?
How much time has been spent between the alert of the disappearance and the communication to the authorities?
Who did talk to the police?
Who has participated to the first searches?
What did they touch?
Where did they search?
Who had caustic soda and muriatic acid in their apartment?
In what supermarket did you made your purchases?
When did you buy your hygienic products?
Did a friend change his/her clothes that night?
Who has been absent more than an hour or more?
Do you allow your children to talk with child psychiatrist about what they have seen?
yes, but they're still not the '40 questions' that were asked, they are just what people are guessing at. It's still all conjecture and speculation.
Here are 2 quotations put together that sum up my feelings perfectly.
"I have considered and read about all the 'possibles' and come to the conclusion" - "Stanley - I think it's obvious you dislike me, so I suggest you don't reply to my posts anymore, or post about me anymore."
Well you got that one right blimey. I love your opinion of the Daily Mail. The bits you agree with are good the bits you don't agree with are bad. Still sure you are not Clarence? Cause thats what team McCann do. They hate the very monster they have bred.
Which questions that Jose posted should Kate not have answered? Sorry will have to go my offspring have jumped out of my pouch into the courtroom.
Re blimeyhecks Off course it's conjecture and speculation! What were you expecting?
The real so-called 40 questions are under secrecy law, nobody is allowed to publish them.
Dont worry about the name, its ok.
With regards to JT - it is Jane Tanner a she not a he I am referring to.
Again this is just a theory I put in for discussion.
It would be of interest to me, if everyone on here could just post whether they think the McCanns are innocent or guilty and the main reason for that.
I personally just cannot decide, I sway more towards their guilt mainly because the way they handle themselves, the media, the blog -ffs I cant believe that, the disappearance of their daughter makes him become a "star" in his own eyes.
I think they are guilty of neglect, all of them on holiday, not just the McCanns, someone should have said STOP you do not leave children home alone.
I think they are guilty of mistiming their checks, its amazing as I have stated before how time goes away from us and how before we know it one drink turns into another and time flies by, hence I think the checks were not regular. I do not listen to the waiter who states that he remembers they hardly left the table etc - tosh - show me a waiter who is that attentive when there are so many things going on and so many people to serve.
I do think RM, gut instinct I dont know but I do think he is involved. The PJ were suspicious too, BECAUSE in most cases of abduction, murder etc the HELPER,the person who goes out of their way to act, tends to do so because they need to ease their guilt.
I sway more towards that than the so called theories which get wilder by the day that the McCanns and Tapas7 are hiding the truth.
In saying that their behaviour leads me to believe that anything is possible and I think they simply do themselves no favours. Like ~Blimey states had they held their hands up and said we should never have left her perhaps I would think yeah you are fckin right - idiots but perhaps I could feel more compassion for them, cant feel enough for poor Madeleine. For Kate to state why did we think it was safe I will never comprehend, why would any parent think it was safe to leave a child alone fullstop - not for fear of abduction but they could have a nightmare, fall out of bed, there could be a fire or they could simply need mummy and daddy.
I do also wonder when they were checking on the children if they always went into the room, looking at the wording Gerry used others have also stated that he says "listened in" on the children not looked in - vernacular terminology from Scotland I dont now - the thing is Gerry talks funny, he doesnt talk simply, he speaks in odd phrases, hence it makes it difficult to take and understand his meanings.
So overall I am sitting on the fence, I guess the reason I find it more logical to blame RM or someone else I think is because as a mummy of two adoreable children, like Madeleine is/was, I can't imagine hurting them ever.
I do not think it was a chance abductor, this was carefully implemented and planned, i really do believe that, why wait til later on at night, the more peopl
Blimeyhecks, so are you saying that because there was no 40 questions asked it's an indication that they are not guilty?
First the PJ were told that the holiday apartment was secure but that the window shutters were jemmied, then when this was shown not to be the case the parents said they checked the children regularly, known to have definitely checked at 9.05 as witnessed by Jeremy Wilkins, and an Irish teenager having a sneaky smoke. Then PJ are told that Oldfield checked at 9.30 but the grandmother in the group said that every parent was responsible for their own children. I'm just amazed that the parents were not considered suspects from the onset.
One of the main factors that the Italian police have sited as being a major evidence of guilt regarding the Meredith Kercher murder is 'the inconsistencies in their accounts' - Arturo de Felice.
Sorry, Lynn, I was thinking of John Tanner, it was a 'senior moment'!! I wonder if they did the 'listening' thing, because Mark Warner offer that type of service in some of their resorts. I also wonder if a lot of leaving the kids wasn't 'peer pressure' as well - you know, you discuss what to do, and one of the Mums says 'Oh I think it's Ok to leave the kids in the rooms, if we check on them regularly.' - some of the parents might be dubious, but as the nights go by, they grow more and more confident that the kids will be OK.
This is my point Jose, everyone keeps saying 'Isn't it terrible that Kate McCann didn't answer those questions!' but they don't know what she was asked. I suggest, until one knows what they were, that judgement is difficult to pass.
Stanley - I've nothing to say to you. Keep ranting about me, I couldn't care less, you are making yourself look silly, not me.
No Maggie, what I am saying is is, is that no one knows what the 40 questions were that were asked or why Kate McCann refused to answer certain ones. Because some people are saying that her refusal is somehow indicative of her guilt, which a. is unfair as she has the right to remain silent, b. was advised by her lawyer and c. it is impossible to know the motives for her refusal unless you know what the questions were. Do you get me?
people drink the easier it is to do things to them or take things from them
Still niggled by the priest too - why did he feel and what does he mean by being decived
I'd have to read what the priest said or didn't say from a reliable source, TBH.
Re Lynn Saying at this stage of the enquiry that the McCanns are innocent or guilty is for me nonsense. The Gerry and Kate McCann are only main suspects in the case as Robert Murat. They are suspected to have participated to the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine McCann. The presumption of innocence is misunderstood. This principle didn’t say that a suspect is innocent. If it does, it would be impossible for any Detective to arrest any criminal. This principle states that it s to the prosecution to give the proof of the guiltiness of the suspect and not to the suspect to prove his innocence.
For me the good question is: are the McCanns the main suspects in the case?
And according to the facts reported in the press, I think that the McCanns are indeed very good suspects. For the moment I still don’t know what kind of homicide crime has been exactly committed. I just believe that Madeleine McCann dyed in the apartment, the May 3.
The right to remain silent isn't a global right and differs in many countries. The bottom line is regardless of what happens, it's important for parents to quickly get themselves eliminated as suspects and get the police to move on and search for the child.
Having said that no-one knows what the nature of the interrogations was. So yes, keep silent by all means but silence can be viewed as an indication of guilt - awful I know but that's how it works. Better to answer the questions - although we don't know what happened inside the four walls so basically it's pointless discussing it.
yes, but the issue is here Maggie, that this interrogation wasn't done immediately, it was done many months 'after the fact'. I have said on here that I think the parents should have been investigated the Mum and Dad immediately, and then they could've been eliminated as suspects. But that is the fault of the PJ not the McCanns.
That is not what I am trying to say, Jose, about innocence *presumption*. I am saying that others are calling McCanns guilty when they do not have the full facts of the case, only conjecture and speculation. I am not going to go on the 'facts' presented by the press, because the press is not a judicial body - in fact, we know from experience that the press, leaks and spin is often wrong. And if you suspect the McCanns are the main suspects because they are arguidos, then where the hell does that leave the other arguido, Robert Murat?!
I know what I think - the PJ don't have a clue about what happened to Madeleine McCann and if there was a case against the parents (and Murat), the Prosecutor would have brought it by now.
That is the main problem here, the workings of the judiciary system in Portugal is very different to the USA, UK or anywhere else. Their secrecy element leads to guesswork and theorising to the extreme.
In some ways I can see why they have it, and it is very similar to sub judice I suppose in it's motivation. But in fact, in this case, it has caused so much speculation that it has been a negative thing.
I agree that the PJ handled this case so badly, not even closing ports or securing borders once Madeleine was stated as missing - even I would have thought to do that. Not allowing anyone in the crime scene etc etc so much they didn't do that they should have done.
The cuddle cat being alledgedly up high why was it moved - an intruder wouldnt put it up high, wouldnt care enough to do so....however you know you see these films where the parents put a childs fave toy out of reach as a sort of wind up punishment - perhaps an intruder would too - if Madeleine was crying for it I presume an intruder would give her it to shut her up.
I think it may have been naievety on the PJ's behalf, as they did not believe a child could be abducted. In fact, at the begin there was a bit of 'spin' that paedophilia didn't really happen in Portugal, which is very unfortunately not true.
One thing I have always been intrigued by is the 'kidnapping of blonde children for families' - it's not something I believe, but I know that Ben Needham's Mum strongly believes that this is what happened to her son.
Re blimeyhecks Since it has been reported that vestiges of Madeleine McCann have been found in the house of Robert Murat and that three of the Tapas7 said to have seen Robert Murat in the resort the night of May 3, consequently I consider that Rober Murat should have been considered as suspect. It is almost proven that the body has not been transported in any vehicle own by Robert Murat. The vestiges collected in his house could be there because Madeleine McCann has been in his house dead or alive or may be because of a contamination -Robert Murat has participated to the searches after May 3. There are still strong suspicions concerning Robert Murat. And yes he is also a good suspect in the case.
Re blimehecks I think it may have been naievety on the PJ's behalf, as they did not believe a child could be abducted. In fact, at the begin there was a bit of 'spin' that paedophilia didn't really happen in Portugal, which is very unfortunately not true.
Are you saying that the PJ did believe that abduction didn’t occur at the beginning of the inquiry? Are saying that the PJ is naïve? And there are no pedophiles in Portugal?
At the beginning of the inquiry, it was asked by the Portuguese Police cooperation to the British Police relatively to the pedophiles that could present in Portugal because it was supposed that the offender was a pedophile and probably British or someone of the English community present in the Algarve. There are also pedophiles in Portugal and there are also laws against pedophilia in the Portuguese Penal Code. So you can’t say that the PJ was naïve to think that the child has been abducted by a pedophile. It s still a line of the inquiry until the end of the inquiry. You can’t say that there was a bit of spin that pedophilia didn’t really happen in Portugal because there is a lot of child that were abused in Portugal. You can discuss about the liability of the Portuguese statistics concerning this type of crime that seems to be lower than in other country. You can talk about the existing laws that should be reinforced to prevent these crimes. But don’t say things that are simply untrue.
Well said Jose. I shall leave you in charge of refuting blimeyspeak, until of course he tells you he is not speaking to you any more!
K&G are innocent, Portugal is full of paedophiles, and the P.J. are bungling idiots. I may well be a ranting silly man, but at least I am not an arrogant xenophobe.
Hi Jose - no, I am not saying things that are untrue. At the beginning of the case, there was a bit of spin from the Portugese media that child abductions and paedophilia were not a phenomenon in Portugal. Of course, that was rubbish. I am also talking about the first few hours when the child went missing - the PJ were reluctant to believe that she had been abducted and pursued the belief that she had wandered off. If they weren't why on earth did they not monitor the borders, as would've happened in a standard missing child case both in the UK and the US.
BTW...if it helps, I believe Murat is innocent too. I think he was 'fingered' because he had a funny eye and was overtly helpful. I think it is disgraceful that he hasn't been cleared of arguido status. I have never read that 'vestiges' of Madeleine McCann were found at his house, show me the evidence.
Stanley - I'm emailing Steve Huff, because I have had enough of you attacking me.
Blimeyhecks: "a lot of leaving the kids wasn't 'peer pressure' as well - you know, you discuss what to do, and one of the Mums says 'Oh I think it's Ok to leave the kids in the rooms, if we check on them regularly.'" I do agree with this. In fact it's one of the reasons that I get annoyed when the press say in a surprised tone about this story: 'it's not a single parent that left their children alone'. A single parent is less likely to do this because you haven't got the pressure of a partner "oh come on out, stop worrying, they'll be fine" or friends saying "don't worry, we are all doing it". (Although this is effectively what Clarence Mitchell and the Mccanns are saying to the rest of us).
I think you are being silly though blimey reporting Stanley to Steve. We've all been on here for a few months thrashing things out and here you come, crashing in, sounding quite indignant and terribly certain of your opinions and frankly without having done much research, so it's to be expected that people will react somewhat negatively... That's not to say new people, new voices, new ideas are not welcome because, for me at least, they are. But when I join a forum, I spend quite a bit of time reading and looking back on other posts before I bung in my opinion. I understand that the thing that wound you up and motivated you to comment was the musings over Charge syndrome but most people on here are quite balanced and reasonable. Its rare that anyone here indulges in the sort of nasty mud slinging that can occur elsewhere...such as slagging off Kates looks or aunty phil etc
Re blimeyhecks
You said you know that the PJ was reluctant to believe that Madeleine McCann had been abducted. Show me your proofs!
You said that there was a bit of spin of the Portuguese media that child and pedophilia were not a phenomenon. Show me your proofs!
As I have already said to you, all the lines of the inquiry were on open at the beginning. No line could be excluded. The abduction theory was taken into account as other theories such as the wandering off theory. All the lines should be verified. The Police have to carry action to validate and exclude theories. The wandering off couldn’t be excluded in the first hours and searches should be performed. Now, I agree that the PJ did a mistake in not closing the borders in the first hours since Madeleine could have been abducted.
You believe Robert Murat is innocent. You want to see the evidences: ask them to the PJ! I am very sorry I don’t have any evidence in my house.
Blimey I am not attacking you, I am attacking what you say and the manner in which you say it. You may think I have been rude to you individually but at least I have not insulted an entire nation.
Well pdg, I have emailed Steve Huff, I have not asked him to ban Stanley at all it's not my decision, but I am sick of being attacked by him. I am not Xenophobic, I am not arrogant, I am just someone who is sick of seeing the McCanns villified.
Jose
Well said
I must have missed the news that there were vestiges of Madeline found in Murats house. That bodes poorly for him
I have not insulted an entire nation. I have been on holiday to Portugal and loved it, btw. All I have said is that the investigation was bungled and the police were naieve, I would have said the same if the investigation had happened in the UK.
blimeyhecks,
Why don't you start reading? The vestiges belonging to M that were discovered in Murat's home is old news. The comments made by the Priest have also been published. And I'm also getting rather tired of your condescending attacks on those of us who remain suspicious of the McCanns. To quote you, we "do not have the full case, only speculation". So we can't possibly know. But you claim to know that K&G are completely innocent. So what makes your opinion more valid than anyone else's? And why must you continue to badger those that suggest K&G may be guilty? This is an open discussion forum and I would ask that you display a little respect for dissenting voices. Fair is fair, after all.
BTW, pdg, I don't know how you can say I haven't 'done my research', I know as much about the case as anybody, I just choose to ignore most of the salacious and prurient misinformation about it. In fact, I have asked for a lot of the 'research' that is discussed to be shown to me - like the 40 questions that Kate McCann was asked. Not one of you could tell me what the 40 questions were - because none of you know. Only Jose admitted that.
Ok, Jose I am going to answer your points. 'You said you know that the PJ were reluctant to believe Madeleine had been abducted show me your proofs'. From The Daily Telegraph, a respected UK broadsheet: 'Local police responded within 10 minutes of being called to the McCann family apartment, run by the British holiday company Mark Warner. Sean and Amelie were still in the bedroom. But they assumed Madeleine had simply woken up and wandered off.
The first few hours following any crime are critical, and in abduction cases in particular, but the local police in Praia da Luz do not intitially appear to have considered kidnapping as the likely cause of the British girl's disappearance.'
http://tinyurl.com/2ewgsw
As for the spin about Portugal, I will have to get back to you, I am looking for it, I think it was a Trevor MacDonald Tonight programme (famous UK broadcaster) where it was first discussed. I will find it.
And when I ask for evidence that Robert Murat had 'vestiges' in his house, I mean show me a decent newspaper report of it, because I have not seen one saying that. And that is really unfair if it is not true, because it really does blacken his name.
Re: Robert Murat, an excellent synopsis by Matthew Parris:
http://tinyurl.com/36zxl6
If someone can find me a reputable article about Murat and the 'vestiges' found in his house, I will hold up my hands and say I was wrong.
i agree completely with the second paragraph of pinkdrummergirls writing... and i took so much time and effort yesterday to explain to you blimey how much research was already done here on the threads but you just never seem to wear your glasses and you hear just what you want to hear- you are so predictable. the stanley one is ok! you really shouldn t be surprised to receive strong reactions.
Andrea - whether Stanley has been here a long time or not, does not excuse him berating me and calling me an arrogant Xenophobe. And he does it purely because I believe the McCanns are innocent. I don't know what you mean by 'research'.
Gerry sent and received 14 text messages on the night Maddie disapeared.
http://tinyurl.com/28ufw2
Re blimeyhecks The first few hours following any crime are critical, and in abduction cases in particular, but the local police in Praia da Luz do not intitially appear to have considered kidnapping as the likely cause of the British girl's disappearance.
This old article of the Daily Mail is refereeing to the “Local Police”, I presume they are talking about the GNR who was the first Police force present in the scene of the crime. The GNR is NOT the PJ. The GNR has no competence concerning criminal investigation.
It’s established that the PJ has been called by the GNR after they reported to the PJ that a crime had occurred. A CRIME, not that the child was wandering off. This article is not a proof of what you were reporting.
Clarence (you know who it really was) said "I know as much about the case as anybody, I just choose to ignore most of the salacious and prurient misinformation about it."
Salacious: Dictionary definition. Obscene, indecent, smutty.
Prurient: Dictionary definition. Having lustful thoughts or wishes.
Did you actually mean to use those words? If so please refer us to the smutty misinformation put about by people who have lustful thoughts???
Ok Jose, my interpretation of 'local police' was the PJ, so you will have to amend my original statement, and insert 'GNR' for 'PJ' - does that suit? And more on how the investigation was handled at the beginning, what did I say 'bungling':
'Portuguese police have admitted that confusion and disagreements in the early stages of the Madeleine McCann investigation mean that they could find it 'very, very difficult' to prove their suspicion that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were somehow involved in the girl's disappearance and death.
The startling admission, ahead of a crucial ruling this week by a Portuguese judge on how the case should proceed, came from sources close to the four-month investigation. The McCanns have strongly and repeatedly denied any involvement, yesterday launching a fresh advertising campaign aimed at finding their daughter.
The sources said that potentially crucial evidence about what happened to Madeleine, aged four, on the night of 3 May had been lost by the time the first local police arrived, due to the presence of 'the McCanns, their friends and others' in the holiday flat from which she disappeared. In the days that followed, there was growing tension between the Algarve force, which took the lead in the investigation, and senior officers from Lisbon, who were particularly sceptical about the decision to focus on a British local resident, Robert Murat, as a suspect nearly two weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, following a tip-off from a British journalist.'
http://tinyurl.com/3dy9bk
Stanley, perhaps you have the Shorter OED there, but in my Chambers, it says 'Prurient: 'uneasily or morbidly interested, curious or craving' - is that OK, do you want to look it up in a bigger dictionary? Yes, I do think some of the coverage has been 'smutty' as well.
Thank you...Jose (wink)!!! Thanks (vtash) Clarence, I actually am going to get some things done; just not interested is listening to you rant, rave and wondering about your mental health. Good luck people.
You know, you lot are unbelievable - I come on here to dispute what is being said, I post why I think things are wrong, and that means that I am mentally unstable? Or do you just want to be in a cosy bubble where you can discuss how awful the McCanns are and how they must be guilty?
Oh boy time for a Kit Kat I think tee hee
Firstly, Blimey as much as you believe in the McCanns innocence, people believe their guilt and as much as you want them to prove their reasonings, even if we look at the tenent of innocent til proven guilty, there are things that are proving their lack of innocence, hence people are getting emotional about things. I AM NOT NOT NOT saying they are guilty of murder but, if we are to look at the evidence, I include 1st hand evidence here, Gerry's blog that he has himself apparently written - (although I have previously stated I believe the blog became almost intelligent at one time leading me to think perhaps someone else writes it but that is by the by at the moment)and TV interviews and statements by the now infamous CM. They have all given cause for concern,ie they chop and change their stories, why do that?? So although you thoroughly believe in the McCanns, surely even you must see that the changing of the statements, wording of his blog lead to uncertainty over them - not saying it makes them a murderer but it makes them liars - why lie about something so important - someone help me ou t here - Gerry said something on his blog - something quite important and then denied it in the press but it was there in black and white then I think it was removed - anyone remember what that was????
Lynn, I am open to suggestion. But from what I have read, there is very little connecting the McCanns to the disappearance of their daughter. Now, if something comes along in the future, and it is evident of their guilt etc then I would say 'yes I was wrong'. What I am trying to say, is...let's not base everything on reports from tabloid newspapers, or the hyperbole from certain sections of the press.
I mean, as I say, the PJ are so confident that they haven't even dismissed the other arguido.
Blimeyhecks if you insert GNR for PJ that does change nothing about the real facts.
The real facts are that the GNR did report to the PJ that a crime had occurred when they arrived in the apartment of the McCanns. It's also a fact that the National Director of the PJ, Alipio Ribeiro, has received a phone call from the British Ambassador, John Buck, to investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann, a couple of hours after the alert of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. During the first hours, the abduction theory was really considered as one the major line of investigation. Do you have an official declaration of John Buck saying that the PJ did not consider seriously the abduction theory?
Alipio Ribeiro has also declared concerning the first hours of the case that the parents couldnt be considered as suspects because it would immoral.
Personnaly, I think that was a mistake. But I understand that with the pressures of the British Government, the PJ was obliged to investigate in priority the abduction theory.
Ok, Jose, read the article I linked to above which says that the 'local police' did not take the disappearance seriously initially and thought the child had wandered off - what more 'proof' do you need me to show? I'm not the only person who has said it on here, Lynn has also said it - that borders weren't monitored etc. Even Albert Monteiro said that the Portugese were inexperienced 'He said that because fewer children were abducted in Portugal than in England the nation’s police had less expertise in dealing with cases of children disappearing. “We don’t have great experience in this type of crime,” he said. “All I know is that no lead should be abandoned.”'
http://tinyurl.com/2hx5eb
I haven't seen anything about John Buck ringing the police, as far as I was aware, from what I have read in decent newspapers, the Portugese Police did not take the abduction theory seriously initially - and in child abduction cases it is a consensus that the earlier the investigation starts the better, as there is a serious risk of fatality as each hour passes.
Jose, can you please confirm something - is it true that 24 horas is reporting that Jane Tanner "did not leave table" that night?
Sorry, I meant Fernando Monteiro above ^^^^, not Albert! Perhaps I am going mad!
Blimey Hecks is the only one in this thread being fair. No one knows anything, and he's the only one who will admit that glaring fact.
You all are acting like villagers with torches. You are a lousy, awful bunch of folks. There are a few of you who only comment on cases involving children, and I'm beginning to wonder if you are pedophiles who get your kicks from this type of stuff.
Re blimeyhecks
It seems to me you are confounding two things: the way that a British journalist or an ex- British Detective thinks that an investigation should be and the investigation performed on the ground by the Policia Judiciaria. You have two countries, with different Polices and different methods. The British journalists were probably expecting that the Portuguese Police would be acting like a British Police. Closing borders, sealing off the scene of crime immediately, Policemen collecting evidences...
Unfortunately, the dram of this investigation is not the fact that they didn’t close the borders or sealed off the scene of crime. The dram is that a homicide crime of a child under the age of four has been committed. Furthermore a homicide crime with political components of two governments of two different countries. Those are the worst conditions for any Police to perform an investigation with serenity.
Firstly you do not know that there has been a homicide. Prove to me that there has been a homicide?
As I say, even Mr Monteiro has said there could have been an abduction - he said that last month. And why shouldn't we criticise the PJ or the other Portugese police? That really is an infringement on free speech if that is the case. I criticise the police in my own country when they do wrong or mess things up, and I feel free to criticise the Portugese likewise.
Billie, the site of the 24Horas is still out of order and I am not in Portugal. Do you have a link of these article in a forum, I will read it and translate it.
Jose, sorry don't have a link, just read on another forum that today's 24 Horas is reporting that the PJ believe that JT did not leave the table that night which naturally brings her whole abduction vision into question...
You know, you lot are unbelievable - I come on here to dispute what is being said, I post why I think things are wrong, and that means that I am mentally unstable? Or do you just want to be in a cosy bubble where you can discuss how awful the McCanns are and how they must be guilty?
blimeyhecks | 11.08.07 - 9:23 am | #
I actually am simply putting across my ideas and enjoy having people agree, disagree with them - whilst perhaps enjoy is not the right word...I simply mean I am not here to berate you or anyone else Blimey, I do take offence at that, I listen to your beliefs about this case but I also listen to everyone else, you, Stanley, Dee,Jose RM, Lizbee and others I probably havent mentioned and they all make points of interest. This is supposed to be an intelligent debate where hopefully by some miracle we actually use our logic to come up with the answer as to what happened to Madeleine, in some fantasy I hope we do and that we can save her...not for any reason other than it crucifies me to think of her(and yes all the other children that are missing) and what they go through... I guess my reasons for being here are to try to save her, I know that will sound stupid but cant really do much else in the search so talking about it on here something may just make total sense.
Blimey and Stanley need to just let by gones be by gones and put that energy into getting the answers we all so desperately want.
Blimey
The McCanns and the other members of the group were questioned by the police, presume PJ early in the investigation. They were made arguido/a in order that further interrogations be made to them which no-one, apart from those present and those who are now in charge, knows the outcome of. Philomena McCann did say something about it but I don't count this simply because I personally did not hear her say it.
Nancy Disgrace: I have occasionally commented on the other cases that Steve posts about but most I just read them. A former newspaper editor recently said that this was the biggest crime case ever reported by the UK Media. Which would explain my interest. Does the insult you hurl apply to those who believe the parents are not guilty?
You all are acting like villagers with torches. You are a lousy, awful bunch of folks. There are a few of you who only comment on cases involving children, and I'm beginning to wonder if you are pedophiles who get your kicks from this type of stuff.
Nancy Disgrace | 11.08.07 - 10:31 am | #
OMG Nancy talk about crossing a line!!!
and are there other cases to talk about????? I never knew that, I thought this site was simply about Madeleine
Re blimeyhecks
Unfortunately I cant prove you anything at all. It's just impossible.
May be you are right, may be that wasnt an homicide crime. May be Madeleine McCann was abducted and she is now treated like a princess. Who knows?
The reality is that only the Portuguese Police in cooperation with the British Police could solve the case. You know why? Because to prove, you must have the real evidences, you must be in charge of the investigation. I am not. I know you would be disappointed to learn that. I am only dealing with theories or speculations as you would call it. As you believe in the abduction, I believe in the homicide crime. You have your faith, I have my own. You believe in the innoncence of the McCanns, I believe in the intelligence of the Police. The McCanns said it was an abduction and you believe them. The Portuguese Police said that everything points to a homicide crime, and that's what I believe at this moment.
Blimey Hecks is the only one in this thread being fair. No one knows anything, and he's the only one who will admit that glaring fact.
@ Nancy, not that I feel a need to answer this as your following comments show your mentality but I want to address this to the rest of the people on here.....I think many on here are fair, they have bias views, they have guessed as to what may have happened, this is the whole idea of a topical debate... I think I have been fair, I believe in the McCanns until I see otherwise to not but I am open to give my own theories and conspiracies about what happened as is everyone on here... I am not into a hate campaign against the McCanns, although I do feel that emotion towards them, as I do anyone who is neglectful of their children...I do listen to Blimey and think he makes valid points but also think he could just accept that others are just giving ideas nothing is set in concrete here we are just a bunch of guys and gals worrying about a little girl, nothing more, it saddens me that you would think so little of people and the world to come up with the conclusions you do...I think the only fact of this case are Madeleine is missing, that is truly the only fact there is until I have further proof then I shall throw ideas around, trying to gain a true (yet probably impossible) perspective
I am still doubtful of DNA results especially as I believe there is too many flaws with the DNA samples (refer to the LCA DNA I discussed previously)
Re Billie The news of the 24Horas would certainly quoted by the British tabloids at the end of the afternoon or tomorrow.
You believe in the innoncence of the McCanns, I believe in the intelligence of the Police. The McCanns said it was an abduction and you believe them. The Portuguese Police said that everything points to a homicide crime, and that's what I believe at this moment.
Jose (FR) | 11.08.07 - 11:11 am | #
Very clearly put Jose. I tend to agree with you. Let's see what transpires.
IF and it is a big IF, M were abducted, can anyone explain to me why the McCanns published her photo within hours of the "abduction"?
As Carlos Jonas (sorry that might not be the correct surname) chairman of the Portuguese Police Federation said on Tuesday anyone holding her would kill M immediately. I raised this point 2 threads ago, what were they thinking?
Trying to get their daughter back? I can't believe even you would question making photos of missing kids available. Are you demented or just plain stupid?
Stanley, Sorry for being a pedant but I believe the Chairman of the Portuguese PF said that they should not have released a photo showing the eye defect (I too listened to the excellent radio 4 programme) and to do so was to endanger Madeleine had she been abducted. This has also been commented on by Pat Brown, criminal profiler in one of her earlier posts and of course by you.
Jose @ 11.11am, what an excellent post and one I agree with, yes ARM, let's see what transpires.
Blimey,
Just when I was ready to give up on this thread, you came in and gave it some life. It's become much more interesting since you joined and you've raised some very important issues.
I admire you for defending your position in a rational fashion and also for the way you've handled some of the negativity towards you on this thread.
I hope you stay.
K.
Sorry I think I missed some posts - what is the thing that the UK press will be reporting tomorrow?
@ Nancy learn to be civil or shush
@ Stanley - it is understandable that they would want to try to get pictures out there ASAP to try to help find Madeleine, if I read what you meant right, I take it you feel this was a negative thing to do as an abductor would panic and feel the need to dispose of the body sooner rather than later and again at Nancy learn to read what people mean rather than what you think they are saying.
I think I'm giving Stanley all due respect. The problem is there is none due. These comments have turned into a witchhunt, and that's contemptible. There is nothing that comes out which y'all do not twist to fit your fantasy.
I read it and understood it just fine Lynn. If you think all the police, the center for missing children and the federal agencies are wrong for posting pictures of missing kids then you need serious mental help. Is the host of this site wrong to publish photos of missing cheldren as well?
Re Lynn Sorry I think I missed some posts - what is the thing that the UK press will be reporting tomorrow?
According to a forum, the 24Horas has reported that Jane Tanner did not leave the table during the dinner, May 3. It is supposed to be the last theory of the PJ.
I think what everyone seems to assume, which I am afraid is a sad comment on the world we live in, is that if an abduction took place it was a paedo or stolen to order. What about an old fashioned kidnapping. We will never know as the abductors would not have time to ask for ransom before M's picture was all over the world. And yes Maggie you are quite right Carlos was mentioning the eye defect because this was her most distinguishing feature which would ensure her captors could not keep her alive.
The 24Horas also had reported that Gerry M. was not Madeleine's biological father and that all the children were in one room.
What happened to these "revelations"?
K.
Don't worry though, I'm done reading this useless drivel. Reading these comments just seems to reduce my faith in humankind, and I don't need that. These comments have become one of the most nonsensical and vile places on the internet. Continue your witch hunt and keep twisting everything to fit your agendas, but remember that you are perpetuating the most base of human weaknesses.
Re Nancy Disgrace
Carlos Anjos didnt blame to post the McCanns to post the picture of their daughter Madeleine Beth McCann. It would be very strange that he did because the picture of Madeleine is online on the web site of the PJ:
http://tinyurl.com/3ahdew
What he has explained is that the "cat eye" defect of Madeleine shouldnt be revealed. The abudctor could change the clothes of Madeline, cut his cair etc... but he would never be able to change the eye of Madeleine. If he was in danger, he could kill her.
Admit your bias Stanley, if they had not released photos, you would have a problem with that as well. You've already solved the crime, tried and convicted these people based on NEXT TO NOTHING worthy of being called evidence.
Carry on, you sick, deluded bastard or better yet GET A LIFE that doesn't revolve around missing and exploited children.
Nancy, your comments are vile and unwarranted. And unwelcome.
Just read this in the Telegraph
Mr McCann *Looks* to have been a busy man the night of May 3, up and down from the table, speaking to other guests, a quiz, now 14 text messages...
talk about time management...
OOps sorry forgot to add the url
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...8/
nmaddy208.xml
Identities of the Tapas 2 revealed:
http://tinyurl.com/2wf7dk
CM declined to comment on issues directly linked to the investigation, but yet he called all the friends to see if they were changing their stories to investigators. Hilariously funny!!!
macushla you forgot to add eating and drinking...he can certainly multi-task.
Jose sorry I can't understand what you mean. If the photo is published the distinguishing feature in the eye is surely immediately apparent.
Re Stanley
Better that an explanation, look at the picture in the web site of the PJ:
http://tinyurl.com/3ahdew
Do you see the feature in the eye?
Nancy, clearly you lack intelligence, you did misunderstand what Stanley was saying and your posts show your lack of ability to sustain facts and make sense of the nonsense - shame as you talk so much nonsense. I am not hear to read posts from people like you and hopefully Steve shall remove you and them from this thread, there is never a need for bad language, simply lowers morality and standards. Wasted enough time on you and your need for attention...
Thanks for the link Jose, that will be interesting to see what happens there...
With regards to the link about Gerry's busy night, in fairness he wasnt the only one responsible for checking, he was entitled to do as he pleased and have "fun" as the children were "safely" tucked up in bed, alledgedly BUT if it is true why text people sitting opposite you, it will be interesting if this proves to be true...is there any way that you could find out what the texts said if it is true??? Why as well would you send texts to someone sitting opposite? An affair perhaps? but wouldnt that be too obvious, i presume people will think to discuss how to remove Madeleine or set the scene..still seems so OTT doesnt it?
Nothing on Gerry's blog since November 3rd. Strangely quiet, no?
Re Lynn Sorry I think I missed some posts - what is the thing that the UK press will be reporting tomorrow?
According to a forum, the 24Horas has reported that Jane Tanner did not leave the table during the dinner, May 3. It is supposed to be the last theory of the PJ.
Jose (FR)
Add to that JT and her husband are the two members of Tapas 9 identified as wanting to "correct" their statements to investigators.
Jose thank you for the link. Yes blew up the picture no eye defect. The problem is another photo had already been released, I believe but stand to be corrected, by the McCanns, which showed the eye feature very clearly. If the P.J. thought it was better for Madeleine's sake to remove the feature, was it not a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted?
Lynn, firstly evening
'in fairness he wasnt the only one responsible for checking, he was entitled to do as he pleased and have "fun" as the children were "safely" tucked up in bed,'
I agree, IF there was an agreement in place that all the adults took a turn in checking the children...
But it has been reported that Dianne Webster has said that the adults were responsible for checking their own children and not each others.
well Karina, you may enjoy blimeyhecks' attention seeking rants but I'm not. It's brought one nutter out of the woodwork, nancydisgrace and generally lowered the tone. At least the mirror forum is funny!
Stanley it seems the only intelligent thing they have done since the beginning is it get the celebs. money to pay for the lawyers the knew they were gonna need. Oh, but wait there are no charges...yet anyway.
I would love to believe those two are coming forward to tell the truth, as hard as it may be after all this time. I would think the PJ would be on the lst available flight. This could break fairly quickly if so.
Evening Macushla
Yes I did read that but then I am sure I read that everyone checked on each others children, not just what DW had stated.
Again the Tapas9 lack of consistency raises its ugly head again.
I would love to believe those two are coming forward to tell the truth, as hard as it may be after all this time. I would think the PJ would be on the lst available flight. This could break fairly quickly if so.
@ Dee GOD me too, me too if there is something to admit to.
Pink,
I am not looking for anything "funny" on this thread. I just enjoy reading intelligent comments. I think Blimey expressed his/her views very well and gave this thread more balance.
By the way, I see people refering to Blimey as a "he". Do we know for sure if Blimey is male?
I've been away for two days visiting my mother and I come back and this whole thread has changed. Please can we agree to avoid personal attacks on other posters and also to try to read and understand what others are saying properly. This has nothing to do with our egos - all that is completely irrelevant.
1) I haven't read anything that Blimeyhecks has written which is xenophobic.
2) I think Blimey has completely missed the point about the 40 questions and the McCanns general strategy. The complaint is that their actions are to protect the parents and not help to find out what happened to Madeleine. This is not to say they are guilty - cos we don't have the facts. We don't need to know what the 40 questions were - we don't know and the ones printed in the press are pure speculation. What we do know is that they refused to answer. They are entitled to do this - no doubt about that - but how helpful to the investigation is it?
I am amazed that Clarence Mitchell is prepared to speak for the whole group. Even if he has phoned them - how does he know they are telling him the truth?
I don't know if they are guilty but the way Team McCann are trying to deal with this situation does not serve to put my mind at rest.
Blimey - who is John Buck - have I missed something?
blimey is clearly a she. karina, what i meant by that is that when the mirror forum members are confrontational at least they are funny. Please don't make out like I'm just looking for laughs...
Blimeyhecks is standing her corner, good on her for that, but she is also dominating the discussion and I do not find it very balanced.
@pdg To be honest I do not normally believe in banning people from threads. However we had 1 racist (Dave???) and he went on his own accord after bad mouthing Vashti who's real name was Annie and she lived here in Scotland. Now we have a foul mouthed lady (sorry girls I use the word loosely). I honestly think the best course of action is to ignore her postings and hope she withers away.
@ Karina: Blimey please be a man I am always polite to women!
http://tinyurl.com/2wf7dk
I didn't know this according to C.M. He said: "They (Miss Tanner and Dr O'Brien) are categorically not the couple. There is no couple." Hmmmm, did they break-up or just never were???? Why is C.M. pointing this out...interesting any ideas why this should matter?
Portuguese detectives have asked for the mobile phone records of the 39-year-old and his wife Kate, but have not yet received them.
@ Dee
I think CM is stating that they are not the couple who want to change their story and that none of the Tapas lot are the couple, meaning no one wants to change their story.
My goodness always so much to read when I finally get on these days, some of you have certainly been busy.
I can't believe that the mobile phone records are only just being requested... surely this is standard practice in any investigation.
Why is CM speaking with such authority about other witnesses than the ones he represents?
Duh...got it, thanks Lynn, my eyes are playing tricks, big difference "the" and "a" make. Liz I remember reading awhile back the PJ complaining it was taking so long.
Wouldn't the investigators already have the phone records?
@ Dee, Hmmm I vaguely remember, ages ago, there being references to 'lots of mobile activity' amongst the group... it was unsupported by anything else and reported in a UK daily tabloid so I didn't give it further thought as I assumed the investigator would have that information but weren't releasing it.
Billy they got Murats, but not McCanns as they had to be ordered from England and perhaps there were jurisdiction problems or something to cause a delay.
Liz - C.M. and witnesses, scary but I was please to hear they have their own lawyers. Can you imagine how hounded these people are going to be over the next while from the press...they must be just be FED up with the "disaster".
Absolutely Dee, talk about holidays from hell! This one has ongoing nightmares for all involved 
Yes, it is weird that the phone activity was mentioned then dropped, perhaps it was presumed reasonable that if you had a disaster you would constantly be on the phone to the UK etc
I do wonder if this is the case are text messages saved somewhere, apart from the sent messages box - probably not.
Will be of interest to know why they would message each other across a table, only done it once and was with hubby - dont need to go into detail just meaning wondered about swinging/affair again - still think irrelevant but if they were sending kinky texts would explain it
Does anyone know if they could get the actual text of the text messages? There wouldn't have been a wire-tap at that point.
@ Dee & Lynn,
Not being that technically minded I truly no more than my own experience in these matters. Last year I had reason to report to the police a series of unwanted text and phone messages. I was asked to save them as evidence to show police when making my statement, which I did, and they painstakingly went through them and wrote out the content. I remember asking them if there was another way of them evidencing these if I'd not managed to save them and was told that they, police, can get access to phone records that would show who called/texted who and the region that calls were made and received from (I took this to mean nearest transmitter details each way)but that the content was stored within the phone as far as the police officers I spoke to were aware.
TinyURL.com/yu998w
Mr Bud said mobile phone firms kept records of text messages to ensure that bills are calculated correctly.
They hung on to the messages to ensure they can resolve disputes. For instance customers may complain that they did not send messages they were being billed for or that they had sent texts that did not arrive.
These records are kept for a few weeks or months, depending on the operator and the data protection regime operating in that nation.
Mr Bud said that if an employee looked up text messages and passed them to someone else it would be a gross violation of that company's operating guidelines.
But the spokesman for the GSM Association doubted that even this would be successful.
"We do not believe that operators retain the content of messages," he said "they simply retain routing and billing information."
Sorry I missed out in my earlier post that the police did say that the length of text/message, time, date, etc. could also be accessed.
Ah ok so I guess text messages can be traced just not content, well it will lead to interest if it is proved that texts were flying between Tapas9 at that table
I'm amazed they had time to text/call with all that was going on:0
Which always brings me right back to that ****** timeline! At least 4 members of the party would have had to either be master contortionists of time and activity or be on something to have done so much (see earlier posts) in the hour and a half available!
...does anyone else think that, while sitting in his chambers reading the dictionary, blimey could be a member of the team Mcc. pr machine ??? there are people here who do not believe the Mcc's are guilty, but they have a more intelligent approach - blimey just sticks to his mantra -
I also think O'Brien may have been cleaning up M's vomit and not his childs vomit - she could have vomited from over sedation and choked on her vomit -
a couple of links regarding Telecommunication data retention...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tel..._retention...... covers europe and uk
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/num...tention-
UK...... covers the uk specifically
What does it matter pdx if Blimey is TmMcann. I wouldn't change my posts, I truly do not believe I have outright made any accusations and my speculations are based on information available. We do live in a country where we are able to form and speak our own opinion.
In fact I'd go one further and say I'd welcome close McCann supporters as one always needs to hear all sides. However I do take exception to singlemindedness and subjectivity rather than objectivity and openmindedness. I think some people cross the boundaries into personal perspective, own agendas, etc. too soon without giving some room for critical analysis and other viewpoints to enter their vision.
pdx-77 wrote: "I also think O'Brien may have been cleaning up M's vomit and not his childs vomit - she could have vomited from over sedation and choked on her vomit -"
I too consider it more likely that the child vomiting was M and not his own child.
And perhaps the adult clothing found recently (in the bag near the airport) belonged to O'Brien - clothing that he removed during the course of the dinner - clothing which would have had vomit and other traces of M on it - so it's not at all surprising to read reports that he and JT want to speak with investigators at this juncture. Things are looking poorly for Team McCann and ROB & JT are likely going to try to cover their own butts rather than continue to play the charade. They've undoubtedly been counselled to come clean. Perhaps there is even a plea bargain in the works. ROB has been on stress leave from work for 6 months and on another forum it's been reported that JT is suicidal. This can't end soon enough for the both of them.
Billie I am very interested in your last posting. As you know I have kept asking about ROB because of the change of clothes and his missing 30/90 minutes tending his sick daughter. Also the coincidence that it was his partner was the only person who saw Zorro. How certain are you that has been on leave from work?
Stanley I don't have first hand knowledge re. ROB's work situation. All I know is what I've read in other forums i.e. that ROB has been off work for six months now, with pay, that he will go to 1/2 salary for an additional 6 months, and then will receive no salary if his leave extends beyond one year in total.
Billie that is quite a post
it does seem to make sense. The story of leaving a sick daughter alone didnt sound right to me from the beginning.
I agree also Maddie being the one vomiting seems more likely. However, we have to consider we only have ROB's story giving a reason for his absence. Billy do know if any of the others are on stress leave? If these two are only ones on stress leave...well it doesn't bode to well. Why would they be so stressed out after all this time, although the first couple weeks and the last couple would be stressful on anyone.
diario de noticias states today: kate was on the balcony of the appartment when she cried out: they have taken her ,not in the bar.
Diario de Noticias
PJ chasing the telephones of the McCanns and their friends
The father of Madeleine McCann has sent and received 14 SMMs in his cell phone just before the disappearance of his daughter, the night of May 3, while he was dinning with his wife, Kate, and the seven friends who were spending their holidays with the couple in Praia da Luz, at the Tapas restaurant of the Ocean Club.
This is the line followed by the Polícia Judiciária (PJ), who is keeping the dispatch to the British authorities, of the records of all the phone calls sent and received in the cell phones of the McCann couple and their friends since they arrived in Praia da Luz.
The other line of investigation of the new team of the PJ directed by the Chief-inspector Paulo Rebelo concerns the contradictions of the witnesses done either by either Gerry, Kate and their friends or the members of the staff of the resort who are re-questioned. The DN knows that at least three members (a receptionist and two waiters of the Tapas restaurant) were re-interviewed last week. One of the aspects, which is calling the special attention of the PJ, is relatively to an employee of the restaurant, a Portuguese, who said that he was the first person who arrive to see Kate, when she raises the alert of the disappearance of her daughter.
On the contrary to what has been reported, Kate raised the alert from the veranda of the apartment where Maddie and her twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, were sleeping and not at the restaurant. "She was in panic and screaming, "they have taken her, they have taken her", they have taken our little girl", told the employee to his colleagues, adding that face to the distress of the mother of Maddie, "her husband and their friends run to see what was happening". Only after, Kate did return to the restaurant, when everyone was searching the toddler.
Furthermore, the DN knows that the receptionist has been forced by the inspectors to try to remember if someone was walking in the street when Maddie vanished. The reception of the Ocean Club is at two steps of the public street and who was walking in direction of the south should have passed obligatory near this service.
Re Andrea
Really it s just uncredible. Sometinmes I really think that the journalits dont do their job correctly. Why this information has never been reported before? Yes I know it s because it was under secrecy.
Jose, OK, we have different views on what happened, I just don't see convincing evidence for a death that night in the apartment...however, can you explain to me why Robert Murat is still arguido? I think, that particularly, is evidence that the PJ don't have much confidence that the McCanns are guilty.
No, pdx77, I am not 'Team McCann', there are more than 20 people in the UK who believe in the McCanns' innocence. But that encapsulates a lot of the 'anti-McCann' mentality to me - that it can only be family members or friends of the McCanns that can support them and believe in their innocence. I mean for God's sake, I've already been accused of being Clarence Mitchell, so if I'm not him I must be Philomena McCann!!! Still, I guess I am in good company with Richard Branson. Unless I am him as well?!
John, thanks for your response. I don't think I am missing the point about the questions, because my assertion is, is that unless one knows what the questions were it's impossible to comment on them. If I was being interrogated by the police, I would take the advice of my lawyer - particularly if it looked like I was coming under suspicion. If my lawyer advised me not to answer certain questions, then I would not do.
Can I say straight away this post is not getting at you Blimey! Especially if you are The Virgin Man, cause I am short of a few bob!
The point you made about advice from lawyers is interesting. You say that if your lawyer advised you to keep silent you would heed their advice. If someone has, to use the American phrase "lawyered up" and are interviewed by the police would any lawyer worth their (hugely inflated) fee tell their client just to go ahead and say whatever they want?
Remember as well that most lawyers deal with clients who are professional criminals. These people are more than happy to hide behind the veil of silence. The McCanns if innocent were very badly served by their legal advisors if they told them to stay silent. Even more important so was M. However from what we have seen of K&G I cannot believe they would be doormats to a Portuguese "brief".
And as I say again, seeing as not one of us knows what questions were asked, it is impossible to say whether or not we would answer them. Also, Kate McCann is not Portugese, has only a basic command of the language, and is not au fait with the legal system - it would be extremely foolish of her to do anything other than listen to her solicitor. So, although she is an intelligent woman, I think she would acknowledge this was not her area of expertise. I just can't see that taking the advice of lawyers is suspicious behaviour - but some people are spinning it that way.
You talk about defence lawyers and 'guilty' criminals - they also defend the innocent who are falsely accused.
i'm not sure about this balcony story. There have been many stories about kate running to the restaurant and everybody getting up and leaving except for the grandmother. And why would she return to the restaurant later?
You know if it had been me in their position and I was innocent, I wouldn't have given a stuff about Portuguese secrecy laws, I would have given an interview saying exactly what happened, when and where etc. If they wanted to jail me after that, well let them try, you'd see public uproar, jailing innocent parents who'd lost a daughter,on a legal technicality. It would be difficult to get extradition for that.
I was surprised that they didn't just spill all when they returned to the UK.
All this releasing details in dribs and drabs, by them and the tapas lot, has only increased suspicion.
You could give an interview, it would depend on whether anyone would dare print it.
Billie.... i am not disagreeing with your theory, it is as sound as any on this forum and i too think it very strange that you would tend to your sick child then leave her to socially meet up with friends.
but.....if any child...had been unwell (vomiting) then surely there would have been spoilt linen, either bedding or towels that would have had to be cleared by staff at MW, and there has been no report of staff having to deal anything like that...
I would assume having stayed in holiday appartments like the ones in PLZ that bedding/towels would be the only way to clear up after a sick child, as the only other means would e toilet tissue, which is a possibility, but less than ideal.
And sorry to all the guys on here as i mean no offense, but if OB did go in and clear up after his child then i can't see him using toilet tissue, if it were my hubby.. (although we would never leave our children unattended) he would A) come find me and i'd have to go sort it out or B) he would grab a towel to mop up.
Pdg: Yes I agree with you. If I were K&G I would have risked the secrecy laws if I thought it would give me more chance of getting back my daughter. My point about the lawyers is that whereas career criminals will always follow their advice, a normal middle class couple like K&G would hire a "brief" and that is where the word comes from to follow their instructions, not to issue them. Surely in this case they would instruct their lawyer that they will do anything to get their daughter back? No?
ahha just remember that the local bins were never checked by the PJ or the GNR
Re blimeyhecks
1 No death in the apartment?
According to what has been reported, the scent of the death has been detected by a British cadaver dog in the room of the apartment where the McCanns were spending their holidays. Dogs do mistakes but they do honest mistakes!
Detecting a death scent in a room of a resort is not a natural thing. It’s not the kind of place where you expect to find the cadaver of a cow, or any other animal. But you could say it was a dead mouse that was there? Yes, why not? It's possible.
Usually the scent of death is associated with an evidence of a DNA profile that the dogs have revealed.
What has been reported is that it is proven that a cadaver was in that room but it can not be proved at this moment that it was the cadaver of Madeleine McCann.
The strongest evidence has been found in the trunk of the car where an almost perfect matching with the DNA markers of Madeleine. It was said that four were missing because there were damaged and consequently they could be the markers of Madeleine. So it is not excluded that the DNA collected was not the DNA of Madeleine.
2. Robert Murat still suspect?
There is a transcript of the CNN show of Nancy Grace where you will find information concerning the evidences collected in the house of Robert Murat:
http://tinyurl.com/2rn2b8
It is up to you to believe or not in this information.
First, it s the PJ and the Public Prosecutor who decides if his status should be removed. I really I dont know why he is still arguido. May be it's for two reasons: they have strong evidences that Madeleine McCann was in his house or it s simply because if they remove his status he cant be made arguido again so he cant be cleared until the end of the enquiry. Usually the status is not removed until the end of an inquiry. The inquiry ends when an accusation is open or when the case is filed.
Also, it seems to me that what you are saying is that since the PJ made arguidos the McCanns, that means they have the true suspects of the crime and consequently Robert Murat must be cleared because he is innocent.
We have three arguidos, what are the possibilites?
Kate and/or Gerry did not commit the crime and Robert Murat did not
Kate and/or Gerry did not commit the crime and Robert Murat did
Kate and/or Gerry did commit the crime without Robert Murat
Kate and/or Gerry did commit the crime with Robert Murat
So, there is the possiblity that the three arguidos arguidos did commit the crime together that is Kate and Gerry did commit the crime with Robert Murat. It s not illogical.
3. Is the PJ confident of the guiltness of the McCanns?
The most confindent theory is that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment and her body has been transported by the car rented by the McCanns.
The facts seems seems to be established but not the evidences sustaining this theory. This doesnt mean that s the only theory that the PJ is investigating.
There is no evidence that it is
Er, yes...but they would also take instruction from their legal team if their lawyer advised them to not answer certain questions. Perhaps Kate McCann would have said 'I want to do what I can to get my daughter back' and her lawyer replied 'Of course, but I advise you not to answer these questions as they are evident that the police suspect you, and you must not do anything that will incriminate yourself, if you do this may lead police to halt the search for Madeleine's abductor.' - I am of course, surmising, as everyone else is. And I still can't see what the big deal is about her not answering certain questions. I also emphasise again that they are in a foreign country and don't speak the language, which puts them at a tremendous disadvantage.
There is no evidence that it is the body of Madeleine McCann that was in the apartment. There is no evidence that a DNA profile of Madeleine McCann has been found in the boot of the Renault Scénic.
Nothing has been found so far that can be used to open an accusation.
stanley there is pretty much no chance they will 'get back' their daughter. If innocent, they just want to find out what happened and pursue whoever took her.
They could have published all the details on their website, they didnt even need an interview.
Margarida Davim said in "inside stories" she couldnt understand why they wouldn't answer even quite anodine questions such as what was the childrens routine. She couldnt understand that they wouldn't answer questions when they were in the UK either, referring to the tapas7. She said they were cagey even when everybody was on their side, in june.
sorry jose, i don't understand your comment "There is no evidence that it is the body of Madeleine McCann that was in the apartment. There is no evidence that a DNA profile of Madeleine McCann has been found in the boot of the Renault Sc�nic."
I thought evidence had been found...
blimey
I respect your theory that Madeleine may have been abducted.. ( as for the parents to be guilty and then behave as they have to date would be truely hineous)..
but what if the person Jane Tanner saw was Jeremy Wilkins carrying his child, its a thought.
Ok, so I will answer your points Jose.
1. Evidence of death in the apartment from cadaver sniffer dogs. I have read that they can be unreliable, and detect other scents which makes them excited. Kate McCann is a GP, she has contact with dying and dead people, cadaver dogs cannot discriminate between corpses. The DNA in the car is not cut and dried, aside from the fact that the twins share many DNA characteristics with their sister. I also believe the DNA results were degraded. I read today that the DNA reports today have been leaked by the PJ - if the Prosecutor thinks they are worthwhile, then I presume the McCanns will be arrested. Let us see if he does.
2. What I am trying to point out re: Murat's status is that if the PJ were so totally confident that the McCanns were guilty, then he would be removed from the enquiry. The fact that he has not, indicates ambivalence on their behalf to me. I don't believe it is plausible that the McCanns and Murat got together in a conspiracy to conceal the body. Secondly, yes to be brutal that link of the CNN transcript shows nothing - seeing as I can find the claims nowhere else on the web, I think they misinterpreted or misunderstood something which has been taken as 'fact' - that traces of MM were found in his house. I can find no other reports of this on the web, perhaps I'm not looking properly. Seeing as none of the arguidos have been charged, I suggest that another possibility is:
Neither the McCanns nor Robert Murat killed Madeleine McCann.
3. No one has yet put forward a convincing argument how the McCanns concealed a body, then within the glare of the world's media, and surrounded by family members and friends, transported the rotting corpse of their daughter in their hire car to another destination to hide the body.
Except they would have been in contempt of Portugese Law, pinkdrummergirl - and they do have two other small children to look after and care for, which they could not do banged up in a Portugese Jail for disregarding their laws.
Re pinkdrummergirl Words are missing in my last post...
I was meaning that the PJ can prove there was a dead body in the apartment but they can not say it was the dead of Madeleine McCann: no evidence for that to open an accusation. DNA was found in the boot, but no perfect matching of the DNA that can be used to open an accusation (no "Absolute" Evidence). It could the DNA of Madeleine, it s not excluded, but it s not strong enough. That s why the PJ is till waiting for the results of the second analysis done in Birmimgham.
blimey:
"I read today that the DNA reports today have been leaked by the PJ"
where did you read it ,thank you for sharing the source"
Re blimeyhecks
Neither the McCanns nor Robert Murat killed Madeleine McCann.
I didnt write that the McCanns and Rober Murat killed Madeleine McCann or that they didnt killed Madeleine McCann. I said that there is the possibility that they have a commited a crime together. I dont know what crime is.
Why are you suggesting that I said that they killed Madeleine McCann?
Daily Telegraph:
http://tinyurl.com/2xqp3m
I haven't seen that anywhere else though, and on Wednesday I read that the DNA showed no match to Madeleine McCann.
Jose, because earlier on in this thread (yesterday) you said you thought a homicide had occured. What other crime could you be talking about?
Steve, your blog has been highjacked by team mccann, banging out the same ole crap in order to drive other people off and stifle debate... nothing i can do about it, maybe others do not agree with me but i'm fast losing patience...
thanks for your correction jose
Sorry, I didn't realise that this was specifically an 'anti-McCann thread', I thought it was an open discussion. There is only one of me on here, arguing against the majority so how on earth I can hijack a thread I have no idea. If you have a problem with me, then I suggest you email Steve directly.
Remember Julia Hobsbawm, Sarah Browns(wife of the pm) partner who is part of Editorial Intelligence?
Link: http://www.editorialintelligence...at-
database.php
Re blimeyhecks First, I was answering to your question concerning the reason why three arguidos could be suspected by the Police and not to the question if the arguidos did commit a homicide crime. The fact that I spoke before of a homicide crime as nothing to do with your question. As YOU dont know the reason why they are arguidos, I dont know eiher. I suppose it s because they have committed a crime, each one could have committed a different crime. I would like now that YOU explain to me why The McCanns and Robert Murat are suspect in the Madeleine case? Thank you for your answer.
And yes I believe that an homicide crime has been comitted. I dont know if the McCanns or Robert Murat did commit it. I know that they are suspects. That s the very true. Believe me they are officialy the main suspects in the case.
I also believe there is the possibilty that a third part killed Madeleine McCann, there is also the possibility that she died accidently. So far I dont know who is responsible of the death of Madeleine McCann: the parents, a friend of the family, an abudctor? I dont know. I would like that you stop to put in my mouth words that I have never said.
Firstly, the three arguido' s sounds more like a steve martin comedy, which isnt far from the truth sadly.
Secondly I have to disagree with you Blimey, no matter what those questions were/are I would have answered.
RE: Giving an interview I would be shouting from rooftops personally you would not keep me quiet...as for printing the interview, trust me papers would fight for it.
People are disgusted with the bounty hunters and the £1m reward I say unmoralistic as it seems, if it finds Madeleine then good luck to them.
With regards to JT and ROB I can see how all the negative press they receive would effect them and remember so far they are innocent people, then yes it would make me feel suicidal, feeling the hatred that seems to be transpiring against them..
Lastly, my first thought about the sick child was no decent parent would leave a child alone let alone an ill child, however doctors are very blase about their childrens health, I did ponder as to whether it was Madeleines sick he was cleaning up etc etc and that the bag of clothes belong to him and Madeleine.
Re blimeyhecks
Secondly, yes to be brutal that link of the CNN transcript shows nothing - seeing as I can find the claims nowhere else on the web, I think they misinterpreted or misunderstood something which has been taken as 'fact' - that traces of MM were found in his house.
The source of the information that vestiges Madeleine McCann were found in the house of Robert Murat is the Portuguese newspaper the 24Horas. The information is avalaible in their website. Take a look.
I would like to make clear that this information has not been declared officially by the PJ. It's a fact that the information has been reported. It s another question to know if the information is true or untrue.
Jose - the reason I believe the PJ have declared Murat and the McCanns arguidos is because they don't have a clue about what happened to the little girl, and have taken the easy option by accusing a strange British man and the girl's parents. Police - around the world - accuse and arrest innocent people all the time, it's not inconcievable that that has happened in this case, is it?
I can't read Portugese so there is no point me going on 24horas website, but I can find no reference in English - apart from that CNN transcript - to Murat having traces of MM in his house. I don't think it is true.
As for me putting words in your mouth, I quite logically pointed out that you told me yesterday that you thought a homicide had occured. Apologies for misrepresenting you.
Lynn - we'll have to disagree on this one, because my POV is that one is unable to say what they would not do unless they know the exact circumstances.
are you anti-police, blimey?
No, not at all. But I know they get it wrong on occasion! I think we all know of miscarriages of justices, and cases where innocent people have been accused and/or found guilty (see a famous 'honey trap' case in the UK re: Colin Stagg).
I would agree normally blimey but when it comes to my children I KNOW i would answer every single question even if they suggested I had abused/murdered my child ~I would categorically deny the allegations, probably throw a hissy fit too for the absurdness of the nature of questioning but I would not decline to answer for fear it hindered the investigation and therefore resulted in it taking longer to track my daughter and find out what happened.
Now then with the Telegraph reporting the DNA is a 100% match - if this is true cor bloody blimey is all I can say, really not sure what else to say, does this mean that MAdeleines body was in the hire car or does it mean that nappies, clothes etc left traces of DNA ???
Not if I thought it was going to misdirect the police to focusing the attention on myself instead of looking for an abductor.
I don't know what to make of The Telegraph, it is only a leak, after all. I read yesterday that the DNA had been shown to be 'no match' to MM...the problem is with this case is that there are far too many 'leaks', and nothing verifiable.
I agree police do and can get it wrong, I also agree that with the PJ there are huge miscarriages of justices reported and that is why I am dubious about this case...to the point where I would not be surprised(this is from information I have read about Portugal) that the PJ planted evidence - yessssssssss extreme but look into the case of pedophilia in Portugal and the orphanage and the man they referred to as the "doctor" and the testimonies that never were and the high profile pedophiles that were never unmasked - sadly around the world, not just in Portugal it seems high profile people are always involved in child traffiking/pedophilia because of the amount of money it makes.
I take every leak with a huge pinch of salt until verified but if it is to be the case can you answer does it mean that Madeleine had to have been in the car or is it DNA attained from secondary sources like the cuddle cat etc.
No idea!
Re blimeyhecks
It s not because a person is suspected of a crime that is the author of the crime. I agee with you that was exactly what I was saying before.
I would like that you explain me more in detail how do you arrive to the conclusion that the PJ dont have a clue about what happened to the little girl.
Concerning the evidences found in the house of Robert Murat, it's your right to believe it s untrue. But you can not say that this information is not in the web.
OOh I've just found a really good article about Colin Stagg and 'trial by media', which might give some food for thought on the McCann's 'trial by internet'. It's written by Boris Johnson, but that doesn't matter!
http://tinyurl.com/2u9ryl
Well, Jose, I cannot find the information on the web...perhaps someone can show it to me, and I will say I was wrong - is that fair enough?
I think if they had a strong case against the McCanns the Portugese Prosecutor would be charging them like a shot. The plain fact is, is that for all the talk of DNA etc, the one thing that isn't present is a body. Now, I know people can be convicted without bodies being found, but it is very, very rare and normally large quantities of blood are found of the 'deceased' which are indicative of fatal injury. OR there is a witness. I think the PJ are clutching at straws - I don't particularly think they would plant evidence btw, but anything is possible - and realised that the first people they should have investigated was the parents. I think they have therefore tried to backtrack, and have used the arguido status accordingly.
now now blimey no dissing of Boris Johnson he's hilarious, a true exccentric.
I quite like him, but I no a lot of people think he is an ****hole - that article about Colin Stagg is very good though.
Blimeyhecks: you say "her lawyer replied 'Of course, but I advise you not to answer these questions as they are evident that the police suspect you, and you must not do anything that will incriminate yourself, if you do this may lead police to halt the search for Madeleine's abductor.'"
What exactly would K or G said that would have further incriminated themselves? If they are totally innocent and willing to assist the PJ in any way (their publicly stated position) then how could they say something that would make it any worse for them?
It is possible of course that this sense that people have about them - that they covering up - is true. So there may be something that they don't want to admit which is nothing to do directly with Madeleine.
@ Jose
firstly i agree with #blimey and i think the reason the PJ look like they dont know what they are doing is because we receive these leaks and it looks like ah ha here comes another stab in the dark about what happened
there theories are so many it gets a bit ridiculous, even if the leaks are fabrications people tend to read them and perhaps had the leaks not occured and we were just given one solid piece of belief that the PJ have then perhaps we wouldn't feel so spun out by it
Hi John, I have mentioned this elsewhere but I think it could be questions that hypothetically implied she had killed or being involved in the death of the child. I'm only surmising, but 'leading questions' I guess.
sorry to revisit old ground
it has been reported that DNA found in the apartment had 5/19 markers - specialists report- poor match.
DNA found in the scenic had 15/19 markers - specialists report - good match.
coupled with the reports on the cadaver dogs and their 'interest' in the apartment and especially the car. one can only assume something accured in 2 seperate *areas* concerned with the McCanns.
There are now reports that CC was not on a self but at the top of the bed - RTP nov 2nd
Re Lynn firstly i agree with #blimey and i think the reason the PJ look like they dont know what they are doing is because we receive these leaks and it looks like ah ha here comes another stab in the dark about what happened
I am not following you. What do you mean exactly?
Re blimeyhecks Well, Jose, I cannot find the information on the web...perhaps someone can show it to me, and I will say I was wrong - is that fair enough?
I just show to you where the information was!? Did you read the CNN transcript?
I cant read it the article for you.
Are you thinking that the Police framed the McCanns because they didnt find the body, they dont have DNA evidences, no witness that has seen the body, no trace of blood of Madeleine McCann in large quantities?
It is obvious that the PJ do not have an open and shut case - or they would have arrested K&G (or whoever else). But it is also obvious that there is some reasonable level of evidence which makes them suspect the McCanns.
Beyond that we do not know. Now we don't even know if K rushed back to the Tapas Bar or shouted from the balcony! Nothing has changed as there are so few certainties, almost no absolute facts (as we discussed two or three threads ago).
The undercurrent of this case is the emotional reaction to it. First the horror and sympathy at the thought of a missing three/four year old girl - which transfers to sympathy for the parents. Then there is the suspicion and distrust of the parents - generated by their a times strange media appearances and 'spin' - which when they became arguidos turned into rage. Both these emotions are actually unhelpful if the aim is to try to logically deduce the true nature of the crime.
Because the only information we have is coming from the press, and is highly suspect, then we all go through this process of being batted back and forward from one side to the other - e.g. the DNA is, is not conclusive and so on.
I will hold my hands up and say that I do not warm to the McCanns as people - but also in the same breath admit that this is utterly irrelevant. I understand that they are entitled to refuse to answer questions and so on, but I wonder if they are entitled to release a steady stream of stories to the press under the guise of 'sources close to the family'. Is it legitimate for them to do this?
Blimeyhecks - "I'm only surmising, but 'leading questions' I guess."
... like? PJ: 'Where did you put the body?' ...Ans: "uh .. in the fridge ... oh damn!"
So easy to give yourself away when you are totally innocent. Still don't see it I'm afraid. They should have stepped up to the mark and seen it out, knowing that they had nothing to hide. Your argument doesn't hold for me.
ok this is a tad disturbing
Sandra Felgueiras report. RTP Special Report mentioned that the McCanns didn't go "through the check in, at Faro Airport, when they left Portugal back to England, following a formal request of the British ambassador." I had also read that they went straight to the VIP area.
WTF surely post 9/11 everyone has to go through check-in proceedures.
Daily Mail:
http://tinyurl.com/3628u8
"Portuguese police say instead of running back to the tapas bar where the McCanns and their friends were dining, she screamed "They've taken her, they've taken her, they've taken our girl" from the balcony of the apartment Madeleine disappeared from."
DNA analysis takes a very long time to get right. Patience is the key. This isn't an open and shut case, otherwise the police would not have made the McCann's suspects, or Murat for that matter.
Re: the balcony scene. It's always the same. One day a story that has 'bad news' for the McCanns and the next day a story that has 'good news'. This merry go round of news reporting is tiresome but it sells papers...please remember that this isn't trial by internet. If you think for one minute that the public have any sway on this LOL. It's the media who control it though I think they have been taken aback by the comments section they always include now as well as their forums.
Daily Express:
http://tinyurl.com/2jmoz4
The parents of Madeleine McCann are ready to sue Portuguese police for £1million for failing to find their daughter, it was claimed last night.
I can't see that happening, they would have to answer questions in court, like why they didn't allow the police to rule them out as suspects by answering questions for one. If I were them, I would be grateful not to be charged with neglect.
Re Dee
Suing the Portuguese police is the new PR campaign of the McCanns to improve their image in Portugal.
I agree with you, but how do they envision suing the police (hence taxpayers) will help them? Free advice for them; lie low and G & C.M. stop talking or offer (like everyone else) "I would be glad to be re-interviewed."
Hi John...plenty of innocent people have gone to jail after police questioning and a trial - so what you say doesn't hold true for me. By hypothetical questions, I mean something like 'Imagine your daughter is dead and you have accidentally killed her?' etc
Jose - I've said it politely, but now I'll say it more brutally - the CNN transcript link is rubbishy hearsay, it's 'secondary source' material, and is not evidence that Murat had traces of MM at his house - I think they have got muddled at some point. In fact in the CNN transcript, it mentions a UK article - well it's not being in anything I have read, neither has it been on the news here, neither is it anywhere else on the web. Has anyone else read it anywhere?
I wouldn't believe anything you read in the Daily Express.
I was joking Dee, it cant help them to improve their image or their relation with the Police and with the Portuguese people.
I remember the father of Estelle Mouzin, a french girl that has disappeared and has never been found,
http://www.association-estelle.org/
said in september that the McCanns could not found their daughter without the help of the Portuguese Authorities. It was a mistake to critize the Police, he said.
The McCanns are just doing the contrary.
Jose - yes I do believe the Portugese police could try and frame the McCanns. Not saying they have, but they could.
Before I say anything else I do not regard this thread as anti-McCann, I think it is pro Madeleine, just wish her parents were trying as hard to find the truth.
John & Jose, sorry it is a waste of time, blimey will not admit what everone else takes as read, the McCanns had to answer the questions in the persuit of truth.
Let us suppose my doorbell rings right now and there is a policeman who informs me my next door neighbour has gone missing. He asks me when I last saw him. I haven't actually seen him for days and was unaware he was missing. I suppose I should phone my lawyer blimey? If I answer truthfully the policeman might suspect I was lying. Why? What a wierdo I must be. Even if he came to the door and said "Did you kill your neighbour?" I would still say "No" cause to refuse to answer is a sign of guilt and sorry blimey there is not a single question in the whole world that Kate McCann should not have answered for the people trying to find out the truth about her daughter's disappearance. NOT ONE.
Re blimeyhecks I like so much when you try to be brutal. I have translated the article of the 24horas in a precedent thread.
OK, Stanley - just SUPPOSING that scenario is correct, and your next door neighbour is missing. Say missing for four months, and someone has told the police you didn't really get on with said neighbour. Now, the police ask you to come in for questioning, as they think you may have some important information about your neighbour...perhaps you were witholding a few things, Stanley, they might imply. What are you going to do then, Stanley? Get a lawyer or believe that everything will be OK?
Jose, I want to read it from a reputable source in English, no discredit to you or your translation which I'm sure is excellent, but I want to see it from a source I can verify myself before I comment on it.
Blimey read the newspapers dated Oct. 23rd. We all read it and discussed it.
Re blimeyhecks yes I do believe the Portugese police could try and frame the McCanns. Not saying they have, but they could.
That's an excellent theory Blimey. If they did, what are the chances of the McCanns going to a trial?
Is it discussed on this thread around that date?
Absolutely, probably the next day too.
I was talking hypothetically, there Jose, please don't try and put words in my mouth It was Lynn who mentioned evidence planting before. All I am trying to say is that police - around the world, in every country - do accuse people falsely.
Re blimeyhecks
Do you think that the evidences were planted before the arrival of the British dogs, or that the British police did help the Portuguese police to frame the McCanns?
Blimey "Neither the McCanns nor Robert Murat killed Madeleine McCann," did you kill her; otherwise how can you make that statement or is it...a feeling?
Ok, I've read what Jose posted from 24 horas about Murat - another 'leak' though isn't it, guys? It's not even official. And that rumour has totally sunk without trace since then. I see then there is a link to The Daily Star - one of the most revolting and disreputable tabloids in the UK (BTW The Express and The Star have the same publisher), please don't take with a pinch of salt anything that they write.
I tell you what I was suprised at though - the level of dislike of Robert Murat on here. I think he has been terribly badly treated - his whole life has been ruined, you have to feel for the man.
Jose, all the sniffer dogs showed was that there was a cadaver scent, am I not right? Did they show that the cadaver was Madeleine Mccann?
Please don't put words into my mouth, I did say that it was possible that the police had framed the McCanns, I did not say it was true. If no one believes that the police of capable of such things, then there must be a lot of naivety around.
Dee - please read the post again, it was in response to Jose's statements about the scenarios regarding each arguido.
I mean 'take with a pinch of salt' above about the Express and Star!
BTW, Dee - I just read what you said again, perhaps I'm misinterpreting it but 'did you kill her', is perhaps a little bit below the belt.
Just a question to your flat statement.
No, it wasn't, it was nasty and bitchy.
Re blimeyhecks You said I do have a friend of a friend (this is the truth, not bull****) who was in Praia de Luz when it all happened, on holiday at the same time, who has said that Kate McCann was hysterical when the child was found missing and frantic with worry.
I am begining to think that you could be the abductor that Jane Tanner saw. If it is not you it s certainly your friend of a friend. Who is he and what was he doing in Praia da Luz? I feel that the behavior of your friend of a friend is suspicious.
I sometimes get that way with closed minded people.
Talk about 'gang mentality' guys - is this how you are going to try and force me off the thread by 'joking' about such stuff. A little bit sick don't you think?
Me 'closed mind', Dee!? You're the people who won't even give the McCanns one iota of a chance, you won't even acknowledge that they might be telling the truth. You've got it all sewn up. And you call me 'closed minded', god I'll give you that woman you've got some cheek!
Blimey we are all very open minded as we are looking at different and all possibilities as what could have happened. There is not one other person that I remember on this board that has stated that Mc or Mur. or anyone else connect are absolutely guilty or innocent except you. Since K,G & crew haven't been helpful & changing stories in the events of the evening it makes it more difficult to understand what happened that night. We try and put the pieces together that are available from the papers, which we know are not 100% facts, but that is all we have to work with. They very well could be innocent, I don't know!
Dee, I am feeling closed minded at the moment, because frankly I don't even wanna reply to someone like you who even writes something like that as a 'joke'. Or Jose for that matter. Jeez.
Re blimeyhecks Jose, all the sniffer dogs showed was that there was a cadaver scent, am I not right? Did they show that the cadaver was Madeleine Mccann?
Not exactly, the dog did just write the name of Madeleine McCann but since it was misspelled -he wrote Madeline- it wasnt assumed as an evidence.
Totally uncalled for ^^^^.
Yes blimey police forces the world over "fit" people up for crimes they did not commit.
First rule of "fitting up" the person has to have "form". You will have a great deal of difficulty convincing a jury that someone who has never had a speeding ticket and is aged 73 has burgled a third storey flat by climbing the drainpipe. However if the person is a well known cat-burglar fitting him up is fairly straightforward. There is also a system of plea bargaining where at the end of a trial where the accused has been found guilty he asks for 35 "similar" crimes to be taken into account. This is a first class way for the police to rid themselves of a backlog of cases.
However to "fit up" a couple of foreign doctors for murdering their own daughter. Dream on!
Even if all the DNA results and testimonies pointed to K&G the PJ know they would have to present a 100% watertight case because the whole world would be watching.
I think the opposite is occurring here. The PJ have not yet charged the McCanns with anything to do with M's disappearance but Team McCann are trying to "fit up" the PJ for incompetence for not finding her.
Re blimeyhecks Since you are absolutely sure that the McCanns are innocent, I conclude that you know personally Gerry and Kate McCann or that you know the abductor. Why are you so confident of their innoncence?
I do think that it is possible that evidence was planted this of course leads to police corruption, again sounding more like a movie but things do happen.
For now I am going to stick with the facts before I let my imagination run too far away with me...
I am waiting with baited breath about the DNA results If they are 100% accurate then it does mean Madeleines body was in that hire care 25 days after her disappearance and OMG that is just mind blowing....cannot really comment.
I will say, please try to keep this civilised, jokes, wisecracks and bickering are just uncalled for especially if about this case...
At the end of the day we all want the same end and that is for Madeleine to be found and justice to be done..regardless of who is to blame.
jose, just read the estelle site. How awful. Brings into perspective the fact that Madeleine is not the only missing child...
No paypal button i note, on that site. And I do think that the Mccanns would immeasurably improve their public image if they donated some of their fund to campaigns to find other missing children rather than frittering it away on PR's and unlikely sightings. Over a million on one missing child is quite selfish. In their position I would feel guilty about that.
Re Lynn I am sorry but there is no DNA 100% accurate. Only an ignorant journalist would write that the DNA is matching 100% with the DNA of Madeleine McCann. It s impossible to obtain this accuracy.
I am also waiting the results. I strongly believe that key of the mystery is in the forensic evidences.
hi pdg
i do believe although i have no proof but they did and will be donating to other funds... i tell you i get so upset by reading more into missing children if i had none of my own i think id take on the cause of bounty hunter and go find them all what this world has turned into is so sad
Blimeytroll! You're so sensitive!
I think most people can separate out your posts from the rest of the thread if they want to. I know I can.
There can occasionally be some tangential entertainment value in reading some posts considering what your agenda might be. Some people seem to think you might be Clarence? No? I don't know... or care. Though that would be very funny.
Anyway, in my view there's little substance in your bizarre 'McCanns are innocent' diatribes on the basis of no more evidence than anyone else has.
Unless you do have more information, as I asked before. But you don't.
Meanwhile you seem to give the impression that you think other people don't have the right to express their views. I certainly wouldn't want to stop you expressing yours, blimey, old bean.
Perhaps you're sensitive because you've been kicked off other discussions, you seem to have some experience of that...
I think the problem for most other posters seems to be that you keep on saying categorical things like: The McCanns did not kill their daughter. But you have no evidence for this. (Have you?)
Meanwhile, reasonable people like me say things like: The McCanns might not have killed their daughter. But they might have. And then we say we don't know. And then we speculate which seems likeliest on the basis of the evidence we think can identify.
Some people lean to some theories. Others lean to others. We will hopefully know more facts and get closer to the truth as time goes by.
But anyway, I say: Blimey! Stay! Have your say! We can take it!
On a more serious note, I, like everyone else here would love the wee girl to turn up safe and well. I don't think it is likely to happen that way but I would be happy if it did.
Seriously, blimey. No one here wishes her harm.
And I don't think anyone here wishes her parents harm either. I certainly don't. I feel sorry for them. I doubt if everyone does, but people are free to have opinions. I do think everyone feels it is bad enough for her parents to have simply been exceptionally irresponsible in leaving their kids in a vulnerable position, rather than that they be implicated in some other way in Madeleine's death or disappearance.
@ Jose that site so tragic, my heart goes out to those parents, with regards the DNA I presumed that the DNA would give us at least a scenario that she was there or wasnt there - I knew there was no such thing as 100% match sorry I should have written that better
lynn, do you think that Clarence MItchell wouldn't publicize it if they had given money to others? They are desperately in need of some good publicity...
If Madeleine was killed accidentally I would feel very uncomfortable about all that money being wasted...if I'd done a cover up say, for the sake of my other children, I'd be donating very generously to other missing children campaigns
Re pinkdrummergirl I remember the father of Estelle said that his daughter is certainly dead, killed by a pedophile. He has no hope to find his daughter alive. He still expects that someone would speak. He said that someone knows something and at any moment he could tell what happen to Estelle. It’s difficult to live without knowing what happen.
I also hope that the Madeleine McCann case would be solved and I think the fund should be used to help missing children.
@ Jose
Sad fact is I have read some disgusting things where pedophiles have raped and beaten children and sometimes murdered them too all for "entertainment" ... they have no respect for those poor children and those that arent murdered on camera are often found simply left for dead....the reason i say this is to say that they have no morals so they arent going to tell anything, perhaps a gf or husband or someone knows something but probably fear stops them from coming forward.
Perhaps, 'A Reasonable Man' you can tell me why you think I'm a troll? If you think I'm a troll, email Steve Huff and get him to kick me off here - otherwise don't call it me again. The reason I'm not liked is because I don't go in for the group-think of slagging the McCanns (who unless anyone has forgotten haven't actually been formally charged with anything yet). I have even said how wrong I think the McCanns were to leave their kids, but that gets discounted, I must be 'Team McCann' or, even, shockingly Clarence Mitchell! No, I have not been kicked off other discussions, although I have read many - in fact this is the first one I have joined, because I thought on Steve Huff's blog it would at least be reasonable. But no, it's like the others I have read that thrive on hearsay and unfounded speculation. Still it's not as bad as YouTube where 'rumours' abound that the McCann children are genetic experiments and that is why Madeleine has a funny eye. And perhaps, 'A Reasonable man' you can tell me why you think it is funny that someone said 'Did you kill her?' to me. Weren't you all clucking around like chickens when Nancy Disgrace gave you all hell yesterday, seems a lot of people like to give it on here, but can't take it back.
Oh and by the way, for a far more eloquent view on this thread perhaps you'd all like to read DC's last post about how he thinks the McCanns are innocent, and how this thread is hostile to anyone who thinks the same way, or the 'madness' as he calls it. Read back some of the posts on these threads - the bile levelled at the McCanns is astounding, and a lot of it based on spurious reports from newspapers as well thought of as The Daily Star, or 'leaks' that are never confirmed. Hell, a fair few of you have even stuck the knife in to Robert Murat on the other thread, with some bizarre conspiracy that he is involved too.
yes Stanley, I can think of people who have been 'fitted up' by the police - The Memphis Three, Colin Stagg, The Ramsays (middle class couple, no previous form), Lindy Chamberlain etcetera etcetera. And I see, Stanley you never answered my question about whether you would hire a lawyer in circumstances as I described. So I ask you this - if your daughter was abroad, and was being questioned by the police for a crime she was innocent of, would you advise her to get a lawyer or not? I would be intrigued to know.
I have been reasonable on this thread - I have asked someone to show me the evidence that Kate McCann was jogging the day after the disappearance, not one of you could do that. I asked someone to tell me what the 40 questions were that people keep screaming about. Not one of you could do that. I asked for the 'evidence' that Murat has 'vestiges' of MM at his home. All Jose could come up with was a second-hand quote from an old CNN programme.
And Dee called me closed-minded? Sheesh!
Re blimeyhecks I asked for the 'evidence' that Murat has 'vestiges' of MM at his home. All Jose could come up with was a second-hand quote from an old CNN programme.
Second hand and first hand, Blimeyhecks. You forgot the 24Horas!
And can you answer to my questions: who is your friend of friend that was in Praia da Luz, May 3? What he was doing looking at Kate McCann?
I wonder at what point you accept that your child is dead if you don't know what happened. A year later? Longer? It's a living hell for them.
Except, as I explained to you, and let me explain it again, the 'report' from 24 horas was, yet again, another 'leak'. A 'leak' that has never been confirmed officially and has has never been heard of since. Unless you believe every single 'leak'?
You're just not funny Jose, a child went missing whilst my foaf was on holiday - keep joking about it. It says more about you than me.
PDG I think that would take in a huge number of factors. If I were in a situation like that and depending on the circumstances, I am sure I would waiver back and forth, trying to be realistic some days, other days not wanting to give up. It would be a long time knowing myself before I could give-up. It would be so difficult to have to reach the "reality" point.
Re blimeyhecks A 'leak' that has never been confirmed officially and has has never been heard of since. Unless you believe every single 'leak'?
You dont read what I write to you, dont you? I thought you where really defending the McCanns but you are not.
You asked for the source of the information. And it is exactly whad I have given to you.
Now you are saying that s another leak. It was exactly what I explained to you.
What do you want? And why you dont answer to my questions? Who is your friend of a friend that was looking at Kate McCann the May 3?
Um, as if I am going to tell you the name - on a public board - of who I know who was on holiday at the same time?! It wasn't anyone who was connected with the McCanns, just someone in the same resort. It is quite a popular destination I believe.
Yeah...it was another leak, which means it's probably not true, yet people have spoken about it on here like it is 'fact'. Time to differentiate the two.
Jose you hit the nail on the head with "I thought you where really defending the McCanns but you are not", that's the problem she just wants to argue for the sake of arguing, doesn't provide why the McCanns are innocent...just they ARE. Not worth the time.
ok blimeyhecks imo is a woman, she says she had a senior moment which suggests she's older but then says things like 'sheesh' which is the sort of language my teenage daughter uses. A composite character? More than one person? spends alot of time on here so either retired, unemployed, a homeworker, or being paid to do this?
Dee: yes I agree but Jose said that Estelle's dad has managed to accept that she is dead so that got me thinking.
Also I have been thinking that the Mccanns christmas is going to be so awful, whatever happened...
I remember the first christmas when I split up with my childs father, I was in bits...
Concerning the information reported by the Daily Express that the Portuguese Lawyers would sue the Portuguese authorities if the case was archived, Rogério Alves, said to the RTP this afternoon that this eventuality is absurd, out of matter and even more ridiculous.
I don't know PinkDrummerGirl, why don't you get Steve Huff to check my IP and he could confirm whether I am the same person or not.
The reason I believe the McCanns are innocent is because their child went missing whilst they were at dinner. Now, some other people who don't actually know the timeline of events, but have pieced them together from newspaper reports, seem to think that they know this isn't possible, despite not being privy to any official records. I would also like to know how people can possibly concieve that the McCanns hid their daughter's body and then transported it somewhere three weeks later. Not once have I read a convincing explanation for any of the above. And until I do, I will continue to believe in the innocence of the McCanns.
As the owner of this blog, I'm asking you all to back off the fighting. I have not viewed blimeyhecks nor anyone else hit with this accusation as a troll, so far, or I wouldn't have permitted any further commentary. So far, they're dissenting views on various issues and people just don't like their cages being rattled that way.
If you can't play nice, stop playing and come back when your head is cool.
Thank you.
Steve Huff
I agree their christmas will be awful, but their lives are forever changed in my opinion, no matter what happened, the other Tapas too. This case may never be solved in the public's eye unless they catch someone. Although if one or more of the Tapas came forward and told the truth making corrections or what have you (no matter how bad), I think the public could be quite forgiving.
Dee. You are quite right. I am a total atheist. When I discuss with people of faith (any faith, as I am a proper bigot I hate them all equally) we eventually arrive at a question that they cannot answer with logic. eg. why would a loving omnipotent deity allow this to happen to Madeleine? So they stonewall and retreat into the faith answer. That is what we are dealing with, with Blimey. He/she/it/Clarence/troll? just keeps telling us that he? knows the McCanns are innocent. Just as my religious friends know there is a god. Believe me reasoning will not prevail. Jose could descend from Mount Sinai with the 40 questions carved in stone on two tablets and blimey would still be worshipping the sacred cow of McCann innocence.
Blimey - you wrote this:
"And perhaps, 'A Reasonable man' you can tell me why you think it is funny that someone said 'Did you kill her?' to me."
You have no idea whether I found that funny or not, as I haven't told anyone. I think you might just have made that up about me to provoke this response! If so, you are a troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Int.../
Internet_troll
If not and you really do think - for no reason at all - that I find it funny that you might have killed someone, then you are not a troll but just wrong.
At any rate, I still say stay. More of the truth will emerge, and no one needs to be afraid of that.
Facts are chiels that winna ding.
If Madeleine McCann really turns up following one of the reported sightings in Morocco for example, I will be prepared to believe she was abducted and taken there. If she isn't found (as she still hasn't), then many other possibilities remain open.
I have an open mind, and I think most people who post here do too.
On the basis of what I think is established fact and reasonable supposition, I think the parents may have some involvement in the disappearance and I think this is more likely than adbuction for reasons we have gone over in this and previous threads. But I don't know what actually happened. Just like you.
Unlike the rest of the posters (some of whom are more "sympathetic" to the McCanns, some less) you seem to have decided without any real evidence that only one explanation is possible (abduction) is the case and that all others are impossible. It's a point of view. If I was you, though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for others to be persuaded while you continually rule out possible hypotheses for no real reason.
Take it easy!
Blimeyhecks
Your belief is admirable. But it is just that a belief. You beleive totally in what the McCanns have said what happened that night. Me? Well I was there once, when I read about it. Just another news story. Then I saw them on the TV (about a week later) and something didn't add up. I couldn't believe I thought this and said so to my husband. He, relayed what he had read, that they had left the children in the holiday apartment and went out to dinner. I was flabergasted. At first I thought Madeleine was the youngest! Really I was clutching at straws because I hate when someone loses their child. But I have to say, with a very heavy heart I must add, all is not right with this case.
I understand were you are coming from. But I have no hidden agenda in this. I just know something is not right, not logical non proveable but there you have it.
A.R.M. and Stanley, I refer you to what Steve said above, I can't say much more than that.
And actually, A.R.M., I did make a mistake when I said did you find that funny, I had got confused with your post (yes, sometimes I am wrong! ) so apologies for that.
I know what you are saying Maggie, but it really annoys me when I read things that are based on hearsay, or unfounded rumours or leaks. You have to admit there is a bit of Chinese Whispers about this terrible case.
ARM
'Facts are chiels that winna ding'
I'm intrigued. Could you please explain this phrase to me .
Thanks. Good post as always btw.
I am very worried! I did not know what a troll was until ARM posted it. I have been back to my shaving mirror twice. My name is still on it and I have no horns as yet. Is it contagious?
ARM said "Facts are chiels that winna ding."
The truest posting yet. If only others were as reasonable!
Blimey,
I never fall for Chinese Whispers, it was I game I participated in only once. I was so horrified by the outcome I promised myself never to gossip. Believe me I keep my promises.
You have your views I have mine.
Blimeyhecks, you mention Colin Stagg, but Ian Huntley is a similar case, banged away on similar flimsy DNA evidence. Oh yes.. his 'confession', conspiracy theorists have a field day with that one.
I read most of Ian Huntley's court transcript 'live' as it was happening, can you remember Sky News website had a link to it with a literal transcript of what was happening in court. I don't particularly want to go into great depth about it, as the case disturbs me greatly, but I find it difficult to believe anyone would think he was innocent.
PS Colin Stagg's case was thrown out as he had been 'honey trapped', it was only later that the DNA exonerated him. In that time, the Met (I'm presuming it was the Met), used to always claim that 'We are looking for no one else in connection with this case' - ie pointing the finger at poor old Stagg.
http://tinyurl.com/yw2zbp
Here is a new article for the record I have no idea if this article is substantiated and based on facts.
"All three are connected to moments when Kate and Gerry McCann claim to have been indoors with their children, indicating detectives have not yet abandoned the idea that the couple could be responsible for the death of their missing daughter."
"The documentary, which was screened on Portuguese national television last week, will be available to view in English tomorrow on the RTP website."
Re Dee In the documentary you will see where the evidences were collected in the apartment and in the car. That s really a good thing that RTP puts the video online.
I can't wait to watch it, I am very interested to see about 25 min. in, it suggested that they did indeed have a nanny booked and canceled at the last minute. I hear the program was very good, so I am excited that it will be in english.
@ ARM was it respect for our host that you did not give our friends the whole quotation?
Facts are chiels that winna ding, An downa be disputed.
Facts, disputed on this thread! Honest It wisnae me Steve it was that big laddie oer there. (Or is it a lassie?)
Stanley...have you read what Steve wrote above or not, yet?
Blimey,
Hold my hand up I didn't follow the Ian Huntley court case on Sky as then the whole thing was far too distressful for me, just stumbled across a site (conspiracy) recently that bizzarely was pro Huntley. I was shocked to say the least...
This too is a distressful case but those three very young and vulnerable children were left alone in an UNLOCKED holiday apartment for the night while the parent's went out to dine...
FIRSTLY its like being in a playground, pack it in with the constant sniping, I am not really enjoying this anymore and i dont care who what or why Blimey is here, what we should all care about is that Madeleine is missing and we are here to try to figure out where she is.
Blimey is entitled to their opinion and so are we all. I do think sometimes as innocent as you think the McCanns are you need to take a step back and when people state they believe this is not the case, it isnt a witch-hunt it is simply others with an opinion. At the same time others need to accept that it is an admirable quality to believe in someone that much, not even CM is that passionate, although I have to say Blimey I think perhaps you are a little too myopic and accepting that there may be an alternative doesnt mean you have to agree and perhaps people believe they have the proof with the way the McCanns act, cases have gone to trial on less....
Jose with regards to what Blimey states about the 24hrs report being second hand i agree - the british newspapers print bascially whatever they want - we presume that this is the case in all countries - can you tell us different????
Now remember we are all here because we are devastated by what has happened and want answers to try to help save Madeleine, at the end of the day the poor little thing is still missing
Finally, with regards to Nancy Disgrace, she has a vile mouth and I won't accept her views as I think she is an idiot, no need for her rants and her opinions, sorry i mean need for attention i wont entertain.
I think the McCanns were totally idiotic to leave the children, I have no idea why any of the party thought it was a wise thing to do. Having said that, I do know of parents who do the same thing on holiday - I wouldn't.
Hey blimey! peace and love breaks out on crimeblog shock horror! Why don't you and Stanley come round to mine for tea and crumpets?
Steve - yes.
Maggie: the quote is from Robert Burns, Scotland's international poet, one of our gifts to the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob...ki/
Robert_Burns
It is a well known phrase in Scotland anyway, though from a lesser known Burns poem called A Dream, which takes his usual iconoclastic view of spurious (royal in this case) authority.
Loosely translated from Scots into English it could be: facts are like children who will not give in.
Stanley being Scottish too, and old, might be able to give a better rendition into English. The interweb should also have many versions.
It really means that the truth is worth seeking as it is quite tough and won't be twisted to suit dodgy purposes.
It's handily quoted here with some other sayings about fact and theory:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/
Fac...Fact_and_theory
Dear Lynn,
I take it as a compliment being called an idiot by the likes of you. You are not going to solve this case on the internet via blog comments. You truly are riding the Crazy Town Express if you think differently. The fact is you post here, about this case, for your own entertainment. If you look at my history of posts in these threads, you would be lucky to find 10 posts, yet you have posted hundreds, if not thousands. I humbly suggest that based on the evidence, it is you seeking attention on this blog.
Go sell crazy somewhere else, because I'm not the least bit bothered by insults from keyboard warriors obsessed with crimes against children.
nooooo, don't call her up from her lair... lynn....
Oops too late pdg lol I apologise... and yummmmmmmm tea and crumpets i will be there ha ha ha
Thanks ARM for the veneration. Is that the correct word for really old bloke! I think the ding refers to when you flick your fingers on to a piece of pure china (as against pottery) it always gives a pure sound. It disnae ding. It does not have a hollow sound. My mother said the same thing could be done to ascertain proper crystal from glass. Then Burns says that true facts downa be disputed. Should not be disputed.
Hope that is right YOUNG man!
RE Lynn Jose with regards to what Blimey states about the 24hrs report being second hand i agree - the british newspapers print bascially whatever they want - we presume that this is the case in all countries - can you tell us different???
May be I misunderstand It seems to me that she didn’t report that the 24Horas report was second hand, in fact she said that I gave a second-hand quote from an old CNN program. I have done a reference in the CNN but I also said the original source was the 24Horas, an article translated in a precedent thread. I think I am having a very bad day!
Now you are saying, if I understand you, that the 24Horas is second hand. You add that in the United Kingdom any newspapers can print whatever they want. And you ask me if the press in Portugal (or in the entire world?) can print lies or misinformation and that you think that the 24Horas is a newspaper who prints misinformation without impunity. Misinformation is a crime punished by the Penal Code. Any newspaper can print misinformation, but if they do they could face a trial for misinformation. When Clarence Mitchell said that at the proper time the McCanns would sue the press in Portugal for misinformation, they are in their right to do. There is also the question of the secret of Justice that I have already talked in a precedent threat. Now what kind of paper is the 24Horas? I would say that the 24Horas is one the major source of information concerning the rumors or leaks circulating about the case. Is it a second hand newspaper, yes it is. Are those leaks unfounded? That’s not so sure. When you read in this paper that they have sources within the Police that said that evidences were found there and there, you have the right to ask: is it misinformation or are they violating the secrecy laws? Since it is not an official statement from the Police, is it untrue?
A Policeman has the right to report about the inquiry under certain circumstances, they can give information that seems to be under the secrecy laws if for instance it helps for the establishment of true, etc. The information that you read is not necessarily untrue and the Policemen who gives the information is not necessarily violating the law. The reader has to appreciate the reliability of the information.
ARM: Thanks for the explanation. I understand. I'm Irish.
Best ever timeline with supposed approval of detectives:
http://tinyurl.com/2qojxz
has three windows of opportunity.
Says that English version of the RTP report due on Saturday also.
? Why do they suppose making 14 text messages that evening is suspicious - some people text all the time and its usually just chat?
Re John I agree with Clarence Mitchell when he reports about the documentary that "several things in this supposed time-line do not ring true. "
I dont think that the reconstrution of the crime scene is perfect or totally true.
Why do they suppose making 14 text messages that evening is suspicious - some people text all the time and its usually just chat?
John (Uk) | 11.09.07 - 3:07 pm
I dont think it does but alledgedly it was to members of the Tapas9, too me that is suspicious but doesnt make them guilty of murder - affair other reasons perhaps - who knows
Re John 14 SMS texts were sent between 9.30 and 11.40. You dont know how many between 9.30 and 10! Sending texts after the alarm is not suspicious, before it is.
I'm not convinced that this time-line makes any more sense than any other.
Re: text messages, I agree it depends who they were to and if it was to members of the Group of friends you were with then it might seem a little odd. However I've been out with friends and sent funny texts to them, forwarded jokes, jokey wind-ups etc. So it might actually mean nothing.
Lynn - why is it suspicious to text your mates - I do it! doesn't mean anything.
True John, but when you are sitting opposite them at a table in a restaurant - why the hell would you?
That seems to be the inclination of the PJ that Gerry was texting a member of the Tapas9 rather than talking to them when they were on the same table - so yes that to me is weird and suspicious
I was reading one article where CM was denying that three of the T7 wanted to change their story - and he said that they were keen to be re-interviewed as this would undoubtedly clear the McCanns - but they would ask to be arguidos. This reminded me of an important point that being an arguido is as much a protection for the person as an accusation. Then going back to the McCanns one wonders why they reacted to being made arguidos in the way they did. After all are mate Mr. Murat didn't run away he stayed and answered questions while they searched his villa (though I think he hid from the press).
Just to correct Lynn, there has been no mention in any article anywhere that the text messages went to so-called Tapas 9. Please show where you read or heard that Lynn.
I think if you were going to be re-interviewed in these circumstances you'd prefer to be made an arguido if, as explained, it would give you more rights.
I often wondered that John, why someone who knew and they must have known, I am sure I read somewhere that they asked to be Arguidos for protection, it is a bit puzzling why then they would react like said.
With regards to Murat, he has been given a raw deal if he is indeed innocent, I guess time will tell as I believe once 8 months has passed the PJ have to make a decision.
It is a shame the world we live in that we have to worry about offering to pick-up a child you may know to give them a lift or like Murat when he simply volunteered or was asked to be a translator and if he loaned them his car.
So Kate McCann left the Tapas table at 10.00pm and reported Madeleine missing at 10.05. She walked from the bar, checked, missing child and searched the apartment three times all in the space of 5 minutes, it doesn't add up. Bet we get a more refined timeline in a couple of days. Pay attention please.
I have spoken to someone about the arguido status and it seems that it goes like this. The person is being asked questions which focus around their possible involvement in a crime. The lawyer steps in and says I advise you not to answer because these are questions which might be used in court. The person then says I want arguido status and to remain silent.
I think the PJ had no choice but to go down this route following the cadaver dogs and the first DNA, no matter how inconclusive those bits of evidence were. They had to call K&G in a grill them. The possible outcome being either this one or a confession. In these circumstances they are granted the protection of Portuguese law in that they do not have to answer the questions.
At this point their reaction was to a) make silly allegations about plea bargaining and planting of evidence by the PJ and then, b) to return the England.
By the way - its all gone very quiet on here has Blimeyhecks fallen asleep?
Gerry's blog latest:
"No major developments to report in the last week in the search for Madeleine. There has been a good response to the launch of the helpline to find Madeleine and all the leads are being checked out and followed up where appropriate. Kate and I continue to encourage anyone who has information to phone or e-mail."
Strange no mention of the Metodo 3 or whatever in the mountains of Morocco or the body in Texas. No major developments. This man has the strangest turn of phrase - 'all leads are ... followed up where appropriate.' Sounds like an internal memorandum from the department of Works and Pensions. Gone are the days of 'why haven't the borders been closed!' and so on. To put the best spin on it - he blogs to keep the interest going but really its not interesting.
...or got off work? Not laughing over the Maddie situation mind you just to clarify that. Must say the last 2 two days, especially today, I have had a belly-full of laughter, the movie character "Sybil" seem to come to mind or L.B. in the Exercist. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I believe it never hurts to laugh or have a sense of humor.
John the reporting of arguido status, whether they were declared arguidos or they elected went both ways in the press. Regardless I think it had to be done by both parties and it was a good thing. Jose made a good point the other day or last week when they didn't want it anymore...the status still gives them rights to know more what is going on in the investigation and wouldn't they want that regarding Maddie? Jose correct me if I understood wrong?
HELLO,
There was a time tonight when, despite being told there were 21 or 18 visitors Online, there was no-one commenting... so I gave up and went and did something far more interesting instead.
But now you are back... and on topic.
Yes to all comments re: Gs very unfortunate manner of speech - he's a blunderbuss when it comes to speaking coherently (yet I suspect he thinks he's pretty darn good at it). G's ineptitude re: media, just LEAVE IT GERRY - STEP AWAY FROM THE LAPTOP, sack Clarrie and most importantly SHUT UP.
Re: Two of T9 revising statements and being made Arguidos - that's progress, slow Yes, but still forward momentum. And let's face it there hasn't been much of that lately.
Let's hope this headline isn't true
POLICE HAVE ‘RUN OUT OF CASH’
http://tinyurl.com/2k7whb
Now there is a fund I would donate to; to try and find out what actually happened.
In reading the comments to the story, I agree this comment that was posted:
THE FUND
10.11.07, 12:40am
Possibly the Directors of the Fund will come to the very sensible decision to donate the remaining balance of the Fund to the Portuguese police. This would fit well with their Objectives.
• Posted by: Dr_Val • Report Comment
What! This is very poor on all sides. Yet half expected. I can believe that the local PT Police have exhausted their budget but they will have to request more from central pots as our local forces have had to in similar situations.
As regards the FindMadeleine fund it was not set up to assist police/statutory funding so there is no expectation on a LEGAL footing that it should do so. However fund Administrators could consider ways in which mutual needs could be met by financial assistance. But given the presumed fact offered in this report that the McCs wish to sue the PT police (this won't wash I don't think) the scenario of Tm McC assisting the PT officials in any way via the fund is a non-starter.
Although to casual watchers, some of whom donated to the fund, it will seem unbeleivable.
Lizbee, I agree with you that it's rather unlikely that the FindMadeleine fund would in any way want to offer financial assistance to the PJ especially since 1) the Director of the fund is G's boss and 2) K&G remain at the top of the PJ's list of suspects.
Lizbee, you wrote: "Re: Two of T9 revising statements and being made Arguidos - that's progress, slow Yes, but still forward momentum".
Has that been confirmed? That the Tapas 2 are now offical arguidos?
John (UK), you wrote: " I was reading one article where CM was denying that three of the T7 wanted to change their story - and he said that they were keen to be re-interviewed as this would undoubtedly clear the McCanns - but they would ask to be arguidos".
Ok now I'm confused. Are there now three Tapas members who want to change their witness accounts? I know about ROB and JT. But who would the third be?
CM perhaps dropped an oopsie to quote Frank Spencer
Diário de Noticias
MADDIE CASE DONT NO RUN OUT OF CASH
While the defense of the couple McCann accuses the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) of scaling back the investigation of the disappearance de Madeleine because of run out of cash, the president of the Judge Union of the Ministério Público, António Cluny, guarantees that "it is almost impossible for a highly mediatic case like this, under a huge international pressure, to be reduced or even terminated while there are still diligences to be performed and when there are not existing registers".
"Wouldn’t it be more wise to wait", claimed this officer to the DN, recording that "if the PJ don’t have money to continue this investigation, and that could be possible, and considering also that this is costing a lot of money to the Portuguese State, in which the Ministério Público is the bearer of the process, the Government would be called to solve the case trough a reinforcement of cash".
"The Ministry of Justice should collect money in any form", has claimed the officer.
António Cluny adds that, during this career, he has never seen anybody in any organism invoking the missing of cash to put an end to a criminal investigation, nevertheless he "suspects that, sometimes, in practice, it is what was happening". Consequently, the arguments of the McCann Lawyers are, for this unionist, a "pure conversation of chatters".
In his opinion, a process is archived "when it is concluded or when nothing more has to be performed, in terms of useful diligences". Furthermore, he notices, "it could be still be maintained open some channels". "There is always a control of the archive of the process by the Ministério Público, through the indication of useful diligences to perform", he explained.
For António Cluny, there is no timing for the closing of the process of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. "For a case like that, there is even the prescription of the crime", he sustained.
Diário de Noticias: Correction
MADDIE CASE DOESNT RUN OUT OF CASH
Actually it seems as if people are queuing up to be arguido:
"The new focus of the inquiry led to fears that four of the friends - Miss Tanner, Dr O'Brien, David Payne and Matthew Oldfield --could be named as official suspects."
http://tinyurl.com/2hzwc8
and;
"The seven friends are likely to request to also be made official suspects before being reinterviewed so that they have the right to have a lawyer present and to allow detectives to question them about any suspicions."
http://tinyurl.com/yp5kzk
is this some kind of weird pre-empting of their becoming arguidos - to make it seem perfectly ok rather than the 'shock horror' that the McCanns caused. Perhaps this is the spin that Justine McGuinees got wrong and so got the proverbial boot?
From Johns 1st posting above:
"Kate and Gerry McCann could sue the Portuguese police for £1million for failing to find their daughter, it was claimed.
Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said it was something the couple's legal team might consider if the inquiry is closed."
You could not make it up. They refuse to answer questions to help the enquiry and now they are going to sue?
The 2nd post at the bottom: Heather Mills supporting the McCanns. Right now they would be better off having the support of Hannibal Lecter.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO USE
http://tinyurl.com
TO REDUCE THE LENGTH OF ANY URL YOU WISH TO POST.
-- Go to http://tinyurl.com
-- Paste the URL you want to use in the little box on the page there
-- Click "make Tiny URL"
-- Copy the result
-- Paste that result here
I've never had an problems getting a link made there to work properly.
Steve
Steve | Homepage | 11.03.07 - 9:29 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Hi, everyone.
Waiting for some tabloid news.
I am getting so addicted to British tabloids that I started reading about poor Heather Mills
Karina | 11.03.07 - 9:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Here is the update from Gerry's diary:
"Day 184 - 03/11/2007
Today marks six months since Madeleine was taken from us. It is an incredibly long time for us but must be even longer for Madeleine. It is so painful for us simply being separated, but all the more distressing when we have to speculate about the situation Madeleine finds herself. We have no idea whether she is suffering but we have to hope and pray that she is being treated like a princess, as she deserves.
This afternoon there will be prayer vigils in Liverpool, Praia da Luz and many friends will be praying in Glasgow. Tonight we will be attending an ecumenical service to pray for Madeleine and other children who are suffering. There is again a lot of media presence in Rothley and the upshot is that millions of people know Madeleine is still missing and that we will not give up looking for her.
We urge anyone who may have information that might help us find Madeleine to call us on the confidential number +34 902 300 213, which is manned by private detectives in Spain or e-mail investigation@findmadeleine.com, or contact the police. "
Karina | 11.03.07 - 9:48 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Don't get addicted to tabloids, Karina. You'll end up like me. :P
Steve | Homepage | 11.03.07 - 9:52 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Steve, thank you for everything you do, and for keeping us informed of all of the major cases of our era....like Maddie's. Six months seems like a long time when you experience it one blog, or forum posting at a time. In the big picture, however, I keep telling myself that justice will rule in the end, and the good guy/gal in the white hat will kick the proverbial butts of the guys/gals in the black hats. Personally, I always wear black - but then again, that just proves that sterotyping is a bad idea. Of course, Mr. Huff himself proves that steroptying is a bad idea - what other opera singer can nail a criminal to the wall with a single keyboard??? Hmmm????? Love ya' man!
Reannan | 11.03.07 - 10:07 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Stanley
do i take it that you are not keen on the *lovely* Ms Mills
I haven't read anything that indicates the 14 texts, if there wer 14 texts, were sent to the 'tapas 9'. It's very easy to send 14 texts, if you send a group text. If there was a footie match on, or something, he could've been texting to get results etc. Basically there are numerous explanations.
Re: Murat and 24 Horas, as I pointed out that is the only place where you can see the allegations that he has 'vestiges' of MM in his apartment, and it comes from an unbsubstantiated leak. Nowhere else is this reported. I suggest it is extemely dubious, and unwise to take it as fact. IF that report was true, does no one think that Murat would've have been charged by now?!
blimey
'I haven't read anything that indicates the 14 texts, if there wer 14 texts, were sent to the 'tapas 9'.'
Neither have I, it has only been reported that he send 14 text that the PJ are interested in... why are they interested.. well i read that its because the were all send in the 10mins before Madeleine was discovered missing...
Thanks Dee for again suggesting that I am mentally unstable or even Linda Blair like, perhaps you didn't read Steve Huff's comments above about playing nicely?
Macuschla - I am surprised it has taken so long for them to investigate it or get the results. I know with cases in the UK, mobile phone records don't take long to pull or investigate. It may be complicated by the fact he has a British mobile phone provider.
Re blimeyhecks . IF that report was true, does no one think that Murat would've have been charged by now?!
No, the evidences are not sufficient to prove that Robert Murat is involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. As I have said before, since Robert Murat did participate to the searches of Madeleine, he could have contaminate his house with vestiges of Madeleine (hair, etc.). The vestiges found didn’t prove that Madeleine was dead. It only suggests that she has been in the house of Robert Murat (dead or alive). It is no sufficient to open an accusation.
@ blimey: Steve said "If you can't play nice, stop playing and come back when your head is cool."
That is twice now you have evoked our host's name totally out of context in trying to scare people off critisicing what you say, once at me and now at Dee. I have notice you have had a humour bypass, unfortunately it is an irreversible condition.
@ Macushla: How did you know? Ms "lovely" Mills is on my list, below K. McCann but in front of Posh.
No, it is not out of context, if you read Dee's comments above about me reminding her of 'Sybil' (a mentally unstable young woman with multiple personalities) or Linda Blair's character in the Exorcist. Or do you think that is 'playing nice', Stanley? Can you show me one post on here when I have said something comparable? Not forgetting that yesterday Dee said to me 'Did you kill her?' Sorry, I had a sense of humour bypass.
Dee was merely stating the obvious. The only person who can say with 100% accuracy that the McCanns are innocent is the actual perpetrator of the crime. The rest of us can merely speculate on the evidence that has been forthcoming. You just don't seem to get what we are all saying to you. You are the ONLY person on this thread to have looked at all the "possibles" and come to a conclusion.
It is impossible to come to any conclusion on the evidence so far provided. Therefore Dee assumes that you must be privy to facts we are not.
It's called sniping at someone because I don't go along with the prevailing view that the McCanns are guilty.
Steve Huff asked us to 'play nice' - after this Dee compares me to Sybil or the girl in The Exorcist. Perhaps you can answer how that is 'playing nice'. I doubt you can.
BTW, I am not the only person on this thread to believe the McCanns are innocent. You seem to have forgotten DC, who was so disgusted with what he read he decided to leave.
Re blimeyhecks Like you and DC, I also believe that they are innocent. They have to be very innocent to leave their three children alone in an apartment with the door open in a foreign country. Indeed, only innocent persons could do such a thing.
I don't know what you mean, Jose. No one in their right mind could agree that that McCanns didn't make a stupid, terrible mistake when they left their kids. It doesn't mean, however, that they were implicated in or caused her death. However, they were not the only persons in their party to do so, and I know that other parents on holiday do do the same thing - rightly or wrongly.
BTW, if they are innocent, as I believe, and their daughter was found to have been abducted and killed, I don't think anything anyone can say is going to make them feel any worse, it will destroy their lives regardless. In those circumstances I would hope people show them some compassion, but I doubt it, no doubt they will be harangued forever.
Blimeyhecks, Stanley and the rest - Steve asked us to stop sniping - will you please do what he says.
I am sick of coming back here and finding you all accusing each other of things. I want to discuss the case and I don't want to read endless bickering about who said what to who.
Blimeyhecks don't take it all so personally - you are not the only one who thinks they are innocent - so just point to the facts that lead you to this conclusion.
BTW - Jose or anyone have you read Maddie 129? I don't think its out in English yet.
FGS, John, it's very difficult to not say something when Dee writes comments like the above. You would have to be a saint not to react.
Re blimeyhecks I know that the McCanns are suffering and I have compassion for them. I know that Kate cries in private and I have compassion for her. I don’t need to see her crying in front of the cameras to know that. I feel their pain and suffering. But I also know that Madeleine McCann is missing. I know that something terrible did happen to her. Who is the victim? The parents? The daughter?
The parents have their part of responsibility to what happen to Madeleine whatever it could be. You can’t deny that. I strongly believe that they are indeed very innocent people. You worship the McCanns as gods while I just want to understand what happen to Madeleine McCann. I just have my personal way to believe in their innocence. I respect your belief. Don’t you think that I have the right for the same respect?
Of course she is a victim, but it doesn't mean the McCanns and their other two children aren't victims as well. I don't worship them, I just don't think they are the Devil Incarnate, elements of which are present on here (ie 'lets dissect Gerry's blog and show what a swine he is' etc). Well, you will no doubt all be relieved to know that I am taking a break from posting here for a bit anyway - I don't think it's too healthy for anyone's sanity to relentlessly discuss what happened or did not happen to the little girl.
Re John No I havent read the book.
Re blimeyhecks What disturbs you is not the fact that some people say expressly that the McCanns may be guilty, but it's the fact they are trying to find the truth concerning the disappearance of Madeleine MCann. Your free expression is respected as it is for everyone here. Do I have to add something more? No I don’t think so.
blimeyhecks - 'lets dissect Gerry's blog and show what a swine he is'
actually the discussion about Gerry's blog is about his strange use of phrasing, what he doesn't say which you might expect someone in his circumstances to say - and if you can reach any conclusion from this (usually no). In fact it is such an odd phenomenon to have such a blog at all - although I understand that it is there to keep the story going and to promote the search for Madeleine.
I think most of us have had breaks from here - as it does get a bit obsessive which I agree is not so good. Some people have left for good and others bob in and out.
I really don't think this thread is one sided and I have not read anything about the McCanns which is beyond limits. If they annoy people then they are entitled to say so, but being annoying is not the same as being guilty.
We have so little to go on that none of us is entitled to reach a conclusion - although I still hold that the PJ's position must remain the most favoured because they do have all the facts. Clearly abduction is the next likely but I can see that the inconclusive nature of the evidence is making a full scale hunt for Madeleine very difficult. All I can say is that if I was the McCanns I would seriously consider returning to Portugal to give some kind of response to the remaining questions - because I can't see any progress otherwise.
why does everybody react to provocations all the time? Why not just go on with an objective discussion?
Re Dee the status still gives them rights to know more what is going on in the investigation and wouldn't they want that regarding Maddie? Jose correct me if I understood wrong?
That is correct.
A person who is a witness in a case in Portugal may prefer to be arguido because he will have rights, legal protection and the possibility to ask diligences to the Police. It could be strange for someone to ask to be a formal suspect in a case. If Madeleine was your daughter would you do that?
Do you know the case of the British girl Carole Dickson in France? Carole Dickson has been raped and killed by a pedophile while she was with her school in France.
At a moment of the inquiry, John Dickson, his father, asked to the French prosecutor to perform DNA tests to all men of Pleines Fougères, the town where Carole Dickson was killed. The prosecutor refused because the Dicksons couldn’t ask anything to the judge concerning diligences. This right didn’t exist in the French Penal Procedure Code. Later the Dicksons obtain the change of the Judge. The new judge did accept the request and the DNA tests were done.
This father was doing everything he could to oblige the French authorities to perform diligences to find the murderer of his daughter. The incredible think is that he had succeeded to obtain when he had no right to ask.
Since the Dicksons did it in France and have no right to do it, why the McCanns didn’t do it when they have the possibility to do it? They could do it if they asked to be arguido.
PJ “lacking money” for Madeleine's investigation is McCann's lawyers “empty talk”
http://tinyurl.com/yvw3da
(..)
This is the second time the argument of lack of money is used, by the McCann Team, to accuse Policia Judiciária of mishandling the investigation. The first time, it was used by Kate McCann, in September, on a interview with the News of The World, the day they were named as formal suspects. However, News of The World has changed the text, on it's website, in order to delete the most damaging remarks made by Kate McCann.
But other newspapers have also published the same statements. The Daily Telegraph refers that Kate said, on September 10, that "the Portuguese police are running out of budget for this investigation and want it to end.” The Age also quotes an interview with Sunday Mirror where Kate makes the same accusations. Speaking to the Sunday Mirror, Kate said that Portuguese police was framing her: “Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: 'They want me to lie - I'm being framed.”
"haven't read anything that indicates the 14 texts, if there wer 14 texts, were sent to the 'tapas 9'. It's very easy to send 14 texts, if you send a group text. If there was a footie match on, or something, he could've been texting to get results etc. Basically there are numerous explanations."
Just more of Lynn's lying about the case to bolster her argument. When all else fails, just make something up that appears damning!
Re Nancy Disgrace The 14 texts are mentioned in the RTP documentory of Sandra Felgueiras "Madeleine: An Anatomy of a Mystery". The video was supposed to be today on the website of Portuguese Television RTP as it was reported yesterday in the British tabloids.
LOL Corrected by someone like Nancy,
With regards to the 14 texts Jose, I heard on a local TV Channel about this, seems to be much confusion about them, lets just, as always see what unfolds....if just random texts I can send hundreds in an hour, you should see my cell phone bill, but on holiday why would you want to text anyone???
Nancy, good to see you put so much great, intelligent and wanted posts into this thread.
Jose, I don't dispute that there have been legitimate reports about 14 text messages. I objected to Lynn's statement that they were to the Tapas 9. She made that part up.
Lynn, way to backtrack on your earlier post that the texts went to the Tapas 9. "I saw it on TV." What show? What day?
Keep spinning little spider, but face it, you've been busted.
Nancy as Jose pointed out he was the one who told us about the texts originally, if you have nothing better to contribute to this posts than idiotic insults, why bother.
Yes, but he never said they were sent to the Tapas 9 though did he? That was all you. Don't blame your lies on poor Jose, that's low for even you.
"True John, but when you are sitting opposite them at a table in a restaurant - why the hell would you?
That seems to be the inclination of the PJ that Gerry was texting a member of the Tapas9 rather than talking to them when they were on the same table - so yes that to me is weird and suspicious
Lynn | 11.09.07 - 3:31 pm | #
Blimey the movies comments weren't about you it was someone else posting that night that popped up, but hey if you feel the shoe fits?
Strange how some new posters have showed up out of the blue at relatively the same time (although at different times of the day) with the only seeming intention to disrupt...makes you wonder why, coincidence?
To the others, I apologize, but please understand if you are basically called a liar as many people have; many of us will feel justified to defend ourselves and it all seems to start from there, because it is insulting.
Nancy, on the 8th I read about 5 articles and I did read 1 of the 5 that either said or implied some of the messages were to the other Tapas and no I won't go looking...(all seems to familiar trying to make someone dance for you) and if someone took the time to find it for you, I will save you your comeback "it doesn't make it true".
Thanks Jose for your interesting posts. Not much in the news today, just waiting for the RTP video to be on-line (not yet).
I thought this was interesting and interesting quote from Gerry's sister.
The tributes came as Madeleine's Scots aunt revealed the family are struggling to cope financially after spending four months in Portugal and paying the mortgage on their £460,000 home.
"Gerry this week returned part-time to his £75,000-a-year job as a heart consultant. But Kate is unlikely to return to her £45,000-a-year GP's job.
Philomena McCann, a teacher in Ullapool, Wester Ross, said: "Gerry is trying to get back to a semblance of normal life. They're skint so he has to get back to work."
http://tinyurl.com/2wl5tg - Nov. 4th
I note that even without blimeyhecks the level of debate has sunk to a new low. But I'm not going to join in.
I wonder in our future discussions of what appears in the press we should consider this. Given that the PJ are bound by law not to release details of the investigation and so are the McCanns - and that this seems to leave the door open to a) deliberate leaks intended to influence either opinion or the eventual outcome and b) specualtion to sell papers; then when we read things like the 14 texts - we should think "why would someone want to leak this particular fact? What is the likely source and the intended outcome?"
Clearly in this case it is meant to be suspicious that he made these text messages - or at least opens up the question of who was he texting and why. Who is likely to have wanted this to be in the public domain? What advantage might it be to anyone.
We have already been told that the PJ are waiting for confirmation of the McCanns mobile traffic on the night of 3rd. It seems amazing that they haven't already had this information - and if they are still waiting then how do they know he made 14 texts? It seems a very specific number and not something a journalist could find out themselves. So it must, if true have come from the PJ side - and this means they do know something about the mobile phone traffic and are waiting for more details - but I'm not sure what. Given it doesn't make any sense anyway I think this is just something someone has introduced to make it sound like they have quite detailed facts about the case (when they may not have). So I think in the end speculating that he was texting other Tapas9 people and why is idle speculation.
Firstly FFS Nancy shut up - I am not here to bicker with you or give you some weird little ego trip so from now on I am going to ignore you, your posts and your tiny mind, I say that due to this post :
You all are acting like villagers with torches. You are a lousy, awful bunch of folks. There are a few of you who only comment on cases involving children, and I'm beginning to wonder if you are pedophiles who get your kicks from this type of stuff.
Nancy Disgrace | 11.08.07 - 10:31 am |
I DO NOT HAVE INCLINATION TO WASTE MY TIME REFERRING TO ANYTHING YOU SAY.
@JOSE - sorry i do not read Nancys posts properly, who the hell would but i did make an error, when i was referring to the texts you told us about i did not mean to imply you told us the texts were sent between the Tapas9, but simply you told us about the texts.
@ DEE - I am sure with Branson and others as "friends" they will never be skint, yet I am sure, like all of us we would swap every penny we had to get our child back, I am sure money is the last thing on their minds
from RTP
http://tinyurl.com/36tj4s
Edited By Siteowner
sorry guys it is only the portugese verson not the english one...
Jose we may need your expertise here
Dee - that skint quote from Aunty Philomena is dreadful - I don't think they know what skint means. the mortgage payments were contraversial enough - she is a walking PR disaster.
Came across this re: texts
"The messages were sent during the dinner, before Kate went to check the children, at 10.00pm and raised the alarm when she realised Madeleine had disappeared. Police was called almost one hour later."
If this is the case then are they really relevant, looking less and less likely.
Many thanks Steve for correcting the link....
http://tinyurl.com/33ng93
Part 2 of RTP Anatomia de um Mistério
and the english versions....
http://tinyurl.com/38hv8m - Part1
http://tinyurl.com/36z9ps - part 2
and for now ..... night to all
Does anyone else find G's comments back on June 3rd strange? He was already planning for an anniversary commemoration of M's disappearance yet she had only been missing a few weeks. Looking back at the comments now, it strikes me that he knew that M would not be found at least not in the immediate future.
Source: Daily Express, Sunday June 3, 2007, by Jason Groves:
Gerry McCann, 38, said: 'One of the ideas is maybe getting all the people who have publicly supported us to come together. I don’t just mean from the UK but from different parts of the world. We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing. We would look at high-profile people who have already pledged support. It will be some sort of focus around an anniversary, to tell people that Madeleine’s still missing. I think it would be later this year, once media attention has dropped, to bring it back up, hopefully, for a short period. It wouldn’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that (...)”
Apologies if this has already been discussed on this thread...I wasn't on board back in June.
Yes Billie, I remember being horrified at that and I believe that was one of the big turning points for me...that something is not not right and the blinkers went on (holy sht). Glad you brought that up again for my own purposes as although there is little evidence...we do have Gerry's (puke) blog. BTW I do have the whole thing save from another site, if we need history (sick puppy I am, trying to save & preserve actual facts).
OMG I remember that now... it was another of those 'is he saying what I think he's saying?' moments.
Billie, Liz just coming back again to when that statement was made "JUNE 3"!!!! This was less than 4 weeks, as the idea come into fruitation (or furmentation) to be thought of and also to put into motion (big feat), let alone Gerry feeling confident to write on "the blog".
John (UK)
I wonder in our future discussions of what appears in the press we should consider this...
I think you're absolutely dead-on that we should, with every single news report we see and hear, question exactly why we're being told these things. It's almost like it's more of a popularity contest than an investigation into a three-year-old girl's disappearance.
For every damning report the PJ leak implicating the McCanns, the infamous "source close to the couple" comes back with something that either explains the leaked report completely or with a condemnation of the PJ in return.
And on top of that, we've got the sensationalism stories, like the "Gerry's not her real father!" bullocks thrown in for good measure.
Yes, I'm back. At least for a while. My skin's gotten thicker in the past few days.
And for what it's worth, I'm a woman.
http://tinyurl.com/ys7zq9
November 11, 2007
McCann friends face questioning as official suspects.
Sorry, above link not working. Trying again. http://tinyurl.com/2dqbmf
November 11, 2007
McCann friends face questioning as official suspects.
sorry all...
had no idea the links weren't working when i signed out last night.... serves me right for not checking.....
hoping this works
http://www.rtp.pt/wportal/sites/...s/tv/madeleine/
http://tinyurl.com/2buh6n
Re macushla Thank you for the links of the video. I am seeing it again. There are some points that I didnt understand when I saw it for the first time.
another sighting has been reported this time in Bosnia....
reported on
http//:www.thisislondon.co.uk
news
not seen it picked up by other publications though.
please be advised this post is pure speculation... but Blimey /DC i think you may like this one
Abduction