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 theory.
Member of staff (MoS) aware McCanns leave the children at night. A week of observation has shown that:
'MoS has, or has access to, master keys.
Approaches the apartment, knocks on the door. If a parent should answer, MoS has a cover story made up - maybe one of the kids left something at the daycare, MoS is kindly returning it.
When there is no answer, MoS goes into the apartment. If there should be an adult there, MoS has another cover story - 'children heard crying', for example.
On finding no adults present, MoS picks Madeleine from her bed. If she is not sedated, as alleged, she may awaken, but it's possible that she is still very drowsy (consider how her little brother remained deeply asleep throughout an airside press conference - this may be a shared family skill. Also, I have seen many children moved when they are deeply asleep, and very few of them have wakened enough to realise who was carrying them).
Even if she does waken, and scream, that simply validates MoS's cover story.
If she continues to sleep, MoS (if working alone) walks out of the apartment, carrying her, in the manner of someone who has every right to be doing so.
If working with others (and it has been theorised that the McCanns were not working alone, so why shouldn't the same hold true for theories which don't involve the McCanns?) it would be even easier. The possibility of having a lookout, and/or someone who could receive a child passed from a window which overlooked a street, and where she could be quickly put into a car and driven off. '
If fingerprinting/DNA sampling was taken from MoS then evidence of their presence could be explained away with their inclusion in the search for Madaleine.
A member of the resort's staff could fit the category of 'someone known to the child who was abducted'. It doesn't necessarily mean that the child knew the person all that well.
The chances of a child being abducted by a stranger, or someone they know a bit, are extremely low.
A post from Meadow DM forum
its worth considering :
'Abduction - this has to be a possibility, weighed up against the odds of up to three people checking on the children, but not actually visually confirm they saw her. Equally to believe the father was outside the apartment chatting at the time, the abductor made his exit, via the window, then almost bumping into another member of the party.
>> This would indicate a random, opportunitist who got lucky and ran off into the night with Madeleine, presume to the beach, where the Smith family, might confirm a sighting. 30%chance
>> I do no think this was a planned abduction, dispite the parents behaviour that could have been observed. There would have been a car, probably more than one person. 10%chance
>>> Both abductions ran the risk of detection, of Madeleine screaming or crying.
>>> In consideration of the high probability in the statistics of this type of 'disappearance' it can not be ruled out that a member of the group is involved directly 20%chance'
A new senario and one that perhaps has a little more plausibility.
'Untoward occurrence: Incident or accident.
Based on the information in the public domain, the high probability of something happening to Madeleine in the apartment. I believe that in any of the scenarios, all is quite simple. Nothing is complicated or convoluted.
IMHO: no drugs are involved. Madeleine soon woke after the parents leaving. Playing, fell off the back of the sofa - died, this may have been preventable with immediate first aid, but no one was around to assistequally it could have been sudden.
She lay undiscovered, through the checks & Mrs McCanns check. I think she was found at some interval quite near to thetime of the PJ arriving, and when everyone else was running around PDL trying to find her.
Due to the apparent initial and secondary neglect of this incident, the McCanns chose a course to hide her. 40%chance
Their behaviour therefore, IMHO is one of initial fright and shock, compounded by their knowledge of their neglect. Although they were able to rationalize to themselves this could have happened had they been in the next bedroom. Their apparent external persona, IMHO is one of a reverseself flaggelation: punishing themselves by not allowing grief, since they know this would by hypocritical but added with a mixture of religion, present in their own unique peculiar way. '
no i'm not a post wh*re
just though a new injection of possibles could get the discussions flowing again.
Re macushla Abudction theory revisited
I don’t see the motive for a member of the staff to be involved in abduction. He should be involved in an international ring. It’s difficult to believe.
If it has been abduction, I think that an accidental death occurred in that apartment. But for what reason, would he take the body? He would do if the body has the signature of the criminal.
We know that some days before the arrival of the Tapas 9 at Praia da Luz, jewelry has been stolen by a robber. After an inquiry of the PJ, it was said that he had the keys of the apartment. So let us image that the robber was a member of the staff.
May 3, the robber enters in the apartment at 8h30. Madeleine awakes. She is going to scream. The robber panics. The robber kills her accidentally near the sofa by strangulation or suffocation, her head hits something, stainblood falls on the floor. The robber cleans the blood. As a member of the staff, he knows where the cleaning products are. He puts the body in the room of the parents under the bed for example. Gerry enters in the apartment, the robber hides himself. Gerry is drunk and sees nothing suspicious. He thinks that he is a wonderful father of three children. He doesn’t realize that Madeleine is missing. After the departure of Gerry, he takes the dead body of Madeleine. It's 9h15. 45 mn! Is it enough for a dog to detect the scent of death? May be.
Re macushla | 11.11.07 - 3:22 am
The theory that Madeleine died accidentally near the sofa and her body wasn’t discovered until the alarm is difficult to believe because no scent of death has been detected in the living room. The blood was found by a blood dog not by a cadaver dog. The blood found under the sofa has not been proven to be the blood of Madeleine. So two possibilities: she died in the room of the parents and fell there or she really died near the sofa and her body has been carried out to the parents' room. What do you think?
Jose,
Petty thief makes an accidental kill. I would have thought that the reaction would have been total panic and a fleeing of the scene. If this thief was aware of the numerous checking on the children, then they would know the time frame for mopping up would be very tight. Dead bodies drip blood and the removal of a dead child would have lead a trail.
It also doesn't explain the scent of death in the car and the DNA there also.
Machusla,
I think the last paragraph of your post @4.02am makes sense as does the untoward incident theory. Haven't got the time to check out the RTP english version but will soon.
DC good to see you back, and I knew you were a woman
I think that in this day and age anything is possible, pedophiles work as teachers, caretakers etc to say it would be unlikely they would work as MW staff is naive, they are highly determined people, a member of staff could be the gf of a pedophile, living in fear of him, doing anything he asks, battered wife syndrome is very real - not saying this is the case just highlighting anything is a possibility.
From the SundayExpress: Lawyers representing Kate and Gerry McCann are angry that the couple have been forced to spend money from the Find Madeleine fund to investigate leads the police have ignored.
++++++++
Isn't that the reason the fund was created? Arent people giving to the fund in hopes of finding Madeleine? If their lawyers are angry about the use of monies donated to actually investigate leads may we infer that the McCanns are also irate about it? One would think so, as this info made it into a newspaper without a statement from the McCanns or their PR man CM denying that they themselves are angry.
Once again, we are back to essentially profiling these people by their words and actions. If it were you and you had a fund set up to find your missing child (tho no 'reward' per se is really written into the fund use is it?) and even to help you survive while you searched for her (tho no such on the ground searching has ever been performed by these 'parents'), if it were you would you even care that some of the money was needed by the police force charged with investigating all the possibilities, including searching for your child? Of course not.
But if the money collected was being used to pay your way so to speak, and you were under suspicion and thus the money was going to be spent helping to indict YOU, wouldnt you be more than a little upset? Yes.
+++++++++++
I looked at the video on the RTP site from macushla | 11.11.07 - 2:00 am | #, thanks, but the video is only a few minutes long, the Production Details give the length as 60 minutes, I clicked everything and I didnt get the tv program now tramslated into English, does anyone have the link or what to click please? Thank you!
2 things:-
"I was certainly ready to get back although we have agreed to gradually phase my return to full-time commitments. It is also been the first week since we returned from Portugal when we have not had friends or family staying with us. Kate and I have therefore been opening all the mail ourselves and we would like to thank everyone who has offered their support and encouragement"
Ready to get back???? and what sort of husband goes back to work the same week there are no family to help support Kate, I guess the sort that deems it suitable to leave three children home alone.
2.Madeleine’s Fund was set up to:
Find Madeleine;
Support the Family; and
Bring the abductor or abductors to justice
LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED so why the hell are the lawyers alledgedly complaining its why they have the bloody fund...
as much as I am neutral here I think all Team Mccann should stop talking they are just making things worse
Perhaps issue a closing statement about loving missing and praying for Madeleine and never giving up the search but stating bowing out of headlines but Madeleines memory wont.
O.K. so let us assume that M. was either killed by a petty thief by accident or she was taken by a paedophile member of staff, evidence for either is not there but we are being hypothetic.
In the first instance this would mean the McCanns allowing the murderer of their daughter to escape? No that is a ridiculous assumption. It would mean K&G getting rid of the body of their daughter to protect her killer. Why?
I agree with Lynn in this day and age paedophiles have infiltrated virtually every walk of life where they come into contact with children. However I am sure that all the members of staff have been looked at by the P.J. It would also be strange if a member of staff abducted M that they would remain at work, as they all appear to have done. I also think as we have conjectured with the tapas 9 that it would require a cover up by other staff. Highly unlikely.
I am sorry to say I come back to the same question. If either of the above happened why the bizarre behaviour of K&G?
Re Channel
Direct links for the 1st and 2nd videos:
http://tinyurl.com/2zwdox
http://tinyurl.com/39s7fr
Madeleine in Bosnia?
http://tinyurl.com/28n789
One thing in common with all these sightings is - someone sees a child looking like Madeleine and reports it to local police - then they say it was not followed up (how do they know?). Presumably this is one of the stories which they are 'angry' about having to use the fund for? Why? If it is being taken seriously as CM says then it is exactly what the fund should be spent on.
BTW - the words angry and furious etc. are used a lot by T. McCann.
I kind of like the accident not discovered for several hours cos nobody was visually checking theory. Which boils down to neglect not murder.
I really don't understand the fuss about the fund to follow up leads... if its true. There are so many leads and the police can only do so much. This was the real purpose of the fund surely? Not hiring PRs etc
I saw the english version of Madeleine An Antomy of a mystery. In fact the two video files that I post are identical. It seems that the english version is different from the portuguese version. Some parts are missing, like the discussion about the DNA results...
Sunday Mirror:
http://tinyurl.com/33gq63
Madeleine McCann's parents are preparing to be re-interviewed by Portuguese police.
The McCanns told a friend: "We're ready to face the Portuguese police. We will answer everything they have to ask us because we are innocent. What we want to say to them is 'bring it on'."
I wonder if they really said 'bring it on' - it's this sort of language which has done them no favours. It sounds as if they are playing some kind of competitive game not talking about their and their daughters fate.
pdg - ' I kind of like the accident not discovered for several hours cos nobody was visually checking theory'
me too. I can't bring myself to believe the parents were *directly* involved in harming her... i know it happens. But as a parent i need to believe something else happened.
Evidence indicates that something happened in the apartment, ( to Madeleine/not, science and time will tell) we can only assume that it was Madeleine based on forensic evidence. ( DNA markers = poor result)
it also indicates that somehow Madeleine's DNA was more concentrated in the hire car ( DNA markers= good result)
i therefore can't see how an abduction theory would hold up, i could if DNA evidence was only present in the Appartment.... but frankly folks the car, ....it does cast doubt on parents/friends, (people who had use of the vehicle during its rental period)
Allegations of odd behaviour by all the Tapadistas in this Maddie 129 book:
http://tinyurl.com/33drcv
I would like to read this book but I think its only available in Portugal (in Portuguese).
Re John The book could be purchased online at webboom:
http://tinyurl.com/334b8s
@pdg and mach - I too agree re :accident IF the parents are involved.
RE: Sightings, I think it is going to be a sad fact that should someone see a blonde haired girl then its Madeleine, Of course it should be reported but think its like finding a needle in a haystack.....
Jose -'The blood found under the sofa has not been proven to be the blood of Madeleine. So two possibilities: she died in the room of the parents and fell there or she really died near the sofa and her body has been carried out to the parents' room. What do you think?'
Correio da Manha does say the dogs picked up on a corpse in the apartment. It also states that the time of death is possibly between 6 and 8pm on the date of the disappearance.
http://tinyurl.com/yvwu6l
@ Jose
RE: the difference in videos, the media is prejudiced, will always tend to be one sided - their countries
crickey
have just read this.... reported in Irish Sunday Mirror , posted by lastminutepost
'25k raised by TV3 Ireland viewers to find Madeleine is to remain in bank account and will not be passed to the McCanns.
Report said decision was taken by TV3 station bosses on the basis that the fund is not a registered charity. '
Can anyone remember if the McCanns claimed it wasn't possible to make Madeleine Fund a charity?
'because according to the Charity Commission,this isn't true. The McCanns could have made it a charity,but they chose not to.
Therefore the McCanns were responsible for misleading people over this.'
@ macushla
I read something but cannot find it now about the status of the Fund, not sure whether that claim is true, I think there may have been other reasons to try to justify not becoming a charity, perhaps Nancy will know she seems to know it all
Madeleine’s fund is a non charitable not-for-profit company
In England & Wales, registered charities are required to demonstrate public benefit. Because Madeleine’s Fund is currently focussed on searching for one child, Madeleine McCann, it cannot register as a charity.
So it would indeed be the case that the McCanns couldn't make Madeleine Fund a charity....
this is why we need to check and re-check what is being said.
This is from here:
http://tinyurl.com/36srj6
which is a mirror forum poster quoting from the Maddie 129 book:
"Some details revealed are "categorical" confirmation from OC staff that Russell O’Brien’s children bedsheets were never changed during the night of May 3; that except for one couple who stayed by Apt. 5A, all the other Tapas were in their apartments by 23:00, and never participated in the searches. There’s a Portuguese psychologist, Quintino Aires, saying this means they all knew where Maddie was, since otherwise, due to the "Zeigarnik effect", they’d share a compulsion to talk to each other about the problem."
All the others were in their apartments by 11.00!!!! how extraordinary - I assumed they were out combing the countryside.
Re macusha Correio da Manha does say the dogs picked up on a corpse in the apartment. It also states that the time of death is possibly between 6 and 8pm on the date of the disappearance.
What I read in this paper is that the body has been moved from the apartment of the McCanns to another apartment in the same resort. The body has the scent of death only two hours after the death, that is the body should have been dead between 2 and 4 hours in the apartment.
I didnt find that it states that the death did occur between 6 and 8pm. But if you assume that the body wasnt in the apartment at 10pm, then you conclude that effectively the death did occur between 6 and 8pm. (10-4=6;10-2=
John (UK) wrote: All the others were in their apartments by 11.00!!!! how extraordinary - I assumed they were out combing the countryside.
Yes, one would have expected this if an abduction truly did occur. Yet another fact to make the abduction theory appear less and less likely.
Just to clarify my last post. I mean, one would assume everyone would be frantically searching the resort, the beach, etc. at 11.00pm and all night! The fact that the Tapas 9 were in their respective rooms by 11.00 is indeed bizarre.
Meanwhile, mystery fingerprints found on shutters of the McCann family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz have finally been identified — and they belong to A COP.
Bungling police wasted weeks checking this clue before British experts asked if they had eliminated all the police.
http://tinyurl.com/2ycy27
Re Lynn the difference in videos, the media is prejudiced, will always tend to be one sided - their countries
We should be for only one side: the logic. In the Madeleine McCann case, I read the information in four languages: portuguese, english, spanish and french. You will be prejudiced in this case if you only read the news only from one country due to the fact that there is a lot of foreign-bashing that pollutes the information and the truth.
There is something wrong here. Either the tapas 9 all knew what had happened to M so they concocted a story that they all stuck to. They would surely have all stayed out most of the night to convince people they genuinely thought M was missing. Or you can have it that none of them knew what had happened to M in which case they would be genuinely looking most of the night.
What is being suggested here is a certain arrogance whichever scenario you go with. Surely Team Mc will repudiate this claim? If not the only further suggestion would be is, they had all agreed to go back to their apartments in case the police searched them. Am I being paranoid? That is a rhetorical question Nancy.
Re Billie The fact that the Tapas 9 were in their respective rooms by 11.00 is indeed bizarre.
That means that the all the Tapas 9 knew at 11.00 that Madeleine wasnt wandering off and that searching would be useless.
Re Billie I just read the link posted by John. From this source: a Portuguese psychologist, Quintino Aires, said this means they all knew where Maddie was, since otherwise, due to the "Zeigarnik effect", they'd share a compulsion to talk to each other about the problem.
Zeigarnik effect:
http://tinyurl.com/yuv8tr
Someone has information concerning the Spanish "Sociedade Civil” program which was described as “Felicia Cabrita’s theory”, where Felicia specifies that Maddie’s body was cremated in Spain?
Re John There is more information than I thought in this book. That's uncredible!
Re Billie The fact that the Tapas 9 were in their respective rooms by 11.00 is indeed bizarre....
I can imagine some staying to look after twins, is this not what happened???? Is this not just another fallacy? I cannot imagine in a million years NOT going out to help look for a missing child, if i knew them or not
Re: Why Findmadeleine is a fund and not a charity. Machushla is entirely correct, a charity cannot be established to assist one individual, it has to be set up to help a large group of people. That's why it's an Appeal fund instead, there are still laws covering these i.e. being clear what the money raised will be used for.
I didn't know that the friends and family were all in their own apartments by 11.00 am; I join others here in thinking this extremely strange. Not one of the friends insisting on assisting in the search... at the very least to report back to the parents how things went?!
To sum up the books Maddie 129 speculates that Maddie died in the apartment, probably by accident, was hidden in the church of Praia da Luz until she was moved in the Renault to Spain, probably by Russell O’Brien.
Re Lynn If fact it s not all the Tapas 9, it was the Tapas 7. The 9 except the McCanns.
It seems the author was in an almighty hurry to cash in... and not afraid to replace facts with theory and conjecture.
Re lizbee I agree with you. Why does he write a book during the inquiry with supposed facts unknown to the public? A serious about the case should be made at least after the inquiry.
It just doesn't feel right writing such a book with so many basic facts re: timeline of events for one! still unclear. Yet of course still guaranteed a readership in the current climate... does it say where he sourced his informaton Jose?
From the Mirror site , in case you hadn't seen it - documenting a slip by Gerry that I hadn't seen before.
http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewt...pic.php?
t=26276
Ah ok Jose
still would expect some of the tapas7 to get out and go looking, this whole thing just gets weirder by the day.
Could be that after 1.5 hours of searching along with police on the scene, staff and bystanders helping, Gerry asked the others to get on the phone with anyone they knew who might be able to help with getting the word out. The media blitz was in effect by the next morning, so I think something like this may have happened regardless of these new allegations. If Maddie *was* abducted, this was the wisest and most loving thing he could have done because 3 days later, half the world had seen her face.
Bob good thing I refreshed I was going to post the same item from the forum, I thought that was interesting, but shameful and disgusting.
I used have clarified on Gerry's part of course, it's always about them.
@ Nancy: K shouts at 10:05pm whatever she did shout. Everyone is back in their apartment by 11pm. Where do you get an hour and half out of 55 minutes?
Stanley I'd leave it, ND is wrong on the time issue and wrong on the moral issue... if the child os missing from the vicinity where you currently are what's the purpose of everyone 'getting on the phone'. As I posted earlier I wouldn't have expected all the friends to be out there, some had responsibilites... like ...'erm childcare for example, but I would have expected at least one to go along to feedback.
Sorry typing error '...if the child is missing...'
Jose and Nancy,
How on earth could anyone have known at that early juncture that M didn't wake up and wander off in search of her parents? After all, weren't the apartment doors unlocked? So it would have been reasonable that anyone frantic with genuine worry would have gone out searching for her. The fact that they did not suggests that they knew where M was already.
Truly unbeleivable that they were all tucked up in their appt.s!*?!
Jose wrote: Re Billie I just read the link posted by John. From this source: a Portuguese psychologist, Quintino Aires, said this means they all knew where Maddie was, since otherwise, due to the "Zeigarnik effect", they'd share a compulsion to talk to each other about the problem.
Zeigarnik effect:
http://tinyurl.com/yuv8tr
Jose, thanks for pointing me to that link posted by John. I have to agree, that IF M really disappeared as suddenly as Tapas9 would have us believe, then there would have been absolute pandemonium...Tapas group would have immediately begun searching every inch of the grounds of the resort, calling out for the little girl, etc. And since the resort was potentially still a dangerous place, why on earth would they return to their rooms? If anything, they would all gather in a very public place, together, in order to brainstorm what to do next.
Unless of course they wanted to get to their rooms in order to text message each other in private.
Hey, I've just thought of something... why did ND post earlier that
'Gerry asked the others to get on the phone with anyone they knew who might be able to help with getting the word out'
was this also to link to earlier postings by ND re: 14 text messages?
Shooooorly Clarance will be issuing a denial about the 11pm curfew. Where is blimey when we need him/it/her?
This is a CNN interview with Susan Hubbard, wife of Haynes Hubbard Anglican colleague of the priest. She was the one who babysat for Kate while she was interviewed by the police.
http://tinyurl.com/yr6uh8
The McCann's were planning to leave Portugal Sunday and return to their home in central England. Their friends say "they are now determined to stay, fight, and not give up hope their daughter is alive." Then of course they did the opposite as usual.
I wonder if that could be why the priest said "he was deceived"?
Don't listen to what they say, what what they do.
Too cynical to suggest forward planning?
If they were in their rooms, I could understand them texting each other, but silly us we actually thought these people would be out searching? We are the nieve ones.
Sorry remind me without me looking back at precisely what time did the first police arrive at the scene?
re: Texts
I believe (Nancy dont get upset) but I beliee i read somewhere, cant remember where, that the texts were before 10pm, whilst at dinner i guess.
Personally I don't care about the texts - I just want CM to text me and tell me that the Tapas7 were in fact searching the town and not sitting in their bedrooms fiddling with their mobiles.
( I won't give out my number because I know with his resources he can get it anyway).
Well that wasn't going to work then ND was it if Lynn's info. is correct!
The timing on police arrival differs but my understanding is that they were there by 10.35 pm. There must be a link to this somewhere... but I don't save them.
I am sure there are 2 police forces in Portugal, perhaps Jose could clarify, maybe they called one then the other who deal with serious crimes arrived??
@lizbee Same with me I don't save them. I also thought around 10;40 for the police arriving. So by the time they have taken details the tapas 7 are in their jimjams. Even if so they must of stuck their heads round the door to say they had not found M. Na! Even I cannot believe this one.
I think Aunty Phil is maybe right about them being skint. They do not seem to refute things on Sundays. Double time and all that.
I still maintain that anyone in that situation, upon discovering that a child had disappeared from her bed, would assume that she had wandered out of the apartment in search of her parents. That's simply the obvious first thought anyone would have, given that scenario.
Yet Tapas9 were apparently convinced that M was abducted almost immediately. Even though there was no evidence to support such a claim. Even though the police hadn't yet begun their investigation. Even though the entire resort and grounds and surrounding properties had not yet been searched. It appears that no other theories were even considered.
Sorry but this simply does not add up. I cannot see how they possibly could have arrived at the abduction conclusion so soon unless it was one that they had already discussed and decided upon before sounding the 10.00pm alarm.
Interesting quote from the mirror forum, summing it up nicely:
"A bunch of rather arrogant 30 somethings go on holiday together with the sole purpose of enjoying themselves. By day, the children are farmed off to the crèche and at night, are left alone in their apartment. They are sedated to stop them waking up and being scared or wandering. One night Maddie is found dead, perhaps as a reaction to the medication and the group panic. When it comes to light their kids were left alone and sedated while they went out alone, it will not look good…to say the least. They quickly agree on a cover up but two things go wrong. 1. The story takes on a life of it’s own and cannot be controlled. 2. Gerry becomes a loose cannon as he basks in his new found fame, believing that he is smarter than anybody and carry it all off."
Detectives are probing claims that Mr McCann sent and received 14 text messages between 9.30pm and 11.40pm, which they believe are suspicious.
Police were called at 10.40pm, the first officers arrived at 10.47pm and senior detectives from the Policia Judiciaria arrived at 1am.
The apartment was not cleared of searchers until 2am, when police said there were up to 50 people inside.
http://tinyurl.com/3bvhm5
The lawyer from one of the persons that wants to change his testimony criticizes the lobby around the parents of Madeleine – story published today in “El Mundo”.
“My client must keep secret what he can do help the search for the truth and this is not due to the law secrecy in Portugal. That is is quite revealing of the strange circumstances around this case”, says the lawyer of one of the two McCann friends that were at Tapas Bar, on the night of May 3, and decided to have a close cooperation with Police, as “El Mundo” published, last Tuesday. “He is not afraid of the McCann but the economic and political lobby that exists, around that couple, frightens any person.” (…)
As told by Paulo Reis
"I am sure there are 2 police forces in Portugal, perhaps Jose could clarify, maybe they called one then the other who deal with serious crimes arrived??
Lynn | 11.11.07 - 5:14 pm |"
Yes the GNR (local uniformed police) arrived first and called the on-call PJ (like the UK CID) in Portimao - after they had decided a crime had occured - who arrived later. Timings on websleuths under timeline I think - or Gazeta Digital.
Dee "The apartment was not cleared of searchers until 2am, when police said there were up to 50 people inside. "
I read that and really from looking at the plans I can't believe that 50 people would fit in there - I think that maybe 50 people were helping search. But then that seems to contradict the idea that the Tapas were all in their rooms.
As usual I don't know what to believe - but at least the Maddie 129 book quote seems to be based on interviewing the Warner staff so maybe we can give that some credance.
"sent and received 14 text messages between 9.30pm and 11.40pm"
As I have already declared I don't think the text message thing is a biggy. But if it says sent and received then maybe he only sent 7 and received 7 answers. So that's 7 texts in 2 hours ten minutes. In other words no big deal really, hardly frenzied texting.
mmm....
has anyone else noticed that 3 days after reports of a 'bag found with DNA links to Madeleine' key witnesses are reported as wanting to clarify their statements to the PJ
now is that just pure coincidence?
Interesting timing Macushla. But the problem I see with the bag is, if there is no conclusive DNA unless, how can they link the bag to anyone? Unless there are photographs of Maddie wearing that particular shirt or a neighbor saying I have seen Maddie in that shirt. Of course the parents are going to say that's not hers, never had a fleece shirt, none of the Tapas had a white bag etc. It is interesting too nobody has come forward from the public to claim the bag as theirs to clear up the mystery, "oh it blew off the top of my car" for instance.
John I took the 50 people meaning at different times, out front there must have been people standing around talking, milling about. So it would be very unusual with the commotion going on for the others to stay inside their rooms and not take turns. I do would like to know the source on that event, it seems too unlikely to be true.
Well people we knew this one was coming:
The McCanns’ lawyers are also examining the results of independent tests on the family’s hire car. Police sources have claimed that sniffer dogs found “bodily fluids” in the boot that were a match with Madeleine’s DNA.
According to the source, independent tests conducted on behalf of the McCanns have found the DNA “does not conclusively match Madeleine’s”. The source said: “We are happy that the results are supportive of our assertion.”
http://tinyurl.com/2dqbmf
I read this on the Mirror forum and thought it worth sharing. It refers to statements written in the just released book "maddie 129".
McCann's friend denounces powerful lobby of the family:
"Not that I am afraid of the McCann's, but this whole economic and political lobby that surrounds the couple truly scares anyone." The statements are from the English lawyer of one of the friends of the parents of Madeleine, to justify the silence of his client.
Present on the night of the disappearance of the child, he is one of the seven people who spent holidays with the McCann family in the Ocean Club and that dinned with Kate and Gerry at the restaurant of the holiday resort. According to the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, his lawyer said: "My client is obliged to remain silent, and it is what he can do to help research. And I am not talking about the secrecy that requires the Portuguese law, but the strange circumstances surrounding the case. "
The lawyer, who took over the case in September, said that his client until now have not had the opportunity to "say what he thinks about all this" and that the police only questioned him on the fact that the McCann's left the children alone while dinning . So he have requested to the Portuguese police to be heard again and "correct some details and discrepancies" that emerged in the statements made by nine people in the restaurant that night.
But the same source also states: "My client wishes to bring to light the whole truth, he does not intend to accuse or blame anyone, because that is the work of the police. And he is not interested who might be damaged."
Assuming a critical position of the development of the case, which he says is far from being "an ordinary case of police," the lawyer even blames the British government. "I understand that our government has a legal obligation to help the McCann's. What I can not understand is that they have received support that go well beyond what would be normal. These interventions were prejudicial to my client and to investigate the truth," he said.
http://dn.sapo.pt/2007/11/12/
s..........eroso.html
Sorry, the link supplied by that original Mirror forum poster which I quoted above does not work.
But I think the following excerpt from the quote is very important: "My client wishes to bring to light the whole truth, he does not intend to accuse or blame anyone, because that is the work of the police. And he is not interested who might be damaged."
Possibly very explosive stuff! Wonder why CM is suddenly very still?!
Sorry folks, I got the source wrong. The above quote is not from "Maddie 129".
I read it on the mirror forum:
http://tinyurl.com/2x2s5k
John, I think it's been determined that the 14 text messages were sent by G prior to the 10.00pm alarm being raised. I'm inclined to believe that these messages contain vital information as to what transpired with M that fateful evening. G had to be certain that things had been taken care of (i.e. M's body had been safely hidden) before sending Kate back to the apartment to raise the abduction alarm. So I believe that these text messages, if they can be retrieved, will undoubtedly shed some light on the events of that night.
The Correio da Manhã reports that Robert Murat would know wednesday if his status as formal suspect is removed. Any way the procedure concerning Robert Murat in the Madeleine case could be public in two months. A Judge of Lagos could ask for a prolongation of two months if the case is judged to be complicated.
perhaps the texts were simply hi m8 how are you etc etc they were due home next day i think perhaps they related to that, surely the person who sent/recieved them has come forward?
Re Lynn It s a possibility. It also could be:
Gerry: Do you have taken Maddie?
he recieves: No, where is she?
Gerry: in the cupboard of my room.
he recieves: We have found her. What we do now?
Gerry: Hide her somewhere in another apartment.
he recievies: We have taken her to the apartment of the ^^^^!
etc...
We can do all sort of speculations. I think it s more reasonable to wait the next news about the texts. Doing speculations is very dangerous, isnt it?
I agree Jose, I was simply meaning that people are jumping to conclusions, I just know when I go away they tend to be the type of texts I send, reminding people to pick me up from airport etc etc
RE: The "leaked" picture of Madeleines bed, I found it appauling and so sad, really disturbed me, not sure if it was as ound but if so I'd know instantly looking at my daughters bed like that that something wasn't right.
Re Lynn I saw also the bed piture on the Daily Miror. It is said that the room picture was taken through the front window just after Madeleine vanished. They dont say who has taken the picture and at what time it has been taken. What you see is not necessary what Kate has seen when she entered in the room. It could be a journalist staging.
Portuguese police may gag Madeleine McCann's parents by keeping them suspects for the next 15 years.
If they speak what happens? Can the UK gov step in and say we aren't extraditing them, this is a miscarriage of justice?
Re Lynn The McCanns are doing two campains: one to find Madeleine, and another one to discredit not only the Policia Pudiciaria but also the entire Portuguese judicial system. They are not doing a campain to improve their image in Portugal. You are making a good point in asking if the UK governement would allow to extradate them in Portugal due to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. The British press is suggesting that they would not have a fair trial in Portugal if they are accused or that would take a very long time for them to be cleared. It seems they are prepared to what would happened if the enquiry ends with and without charge against them.
"Portuguese police may gag Madeleine McCann's parents by keeping them suspects for the next 15 years.
If they speak what happens? Can the UK gov step in and say we aren't extraditing them, this is a miscarriage of justice?
Lynn | 11.12.07 - 5:36 am | "
This is clearly a Team McCann scare story to get sympathy. The 15 years are technically possible but the PJ have not said anything like this - the only quote is from the McCann's lawyer. The suggestion is 'if only we could speak we could clear our names!'. If so either speak anyway and risk the wrath of the PJ or (to be boring) go back to Portugal and clear your names in private with the PJ.
Interestingly no denial of the 'Tapas in their rooms by 23:00' story - although CM has apparently said he doesn't comment on allegations - which is funny cos he seems to do little else.
I think if they do speak out against the pj the pj would do nothing, imagine the uproar they would face and i think they have enough to deal with.
Yes the quote probably is that John, but still huge burden to live with especially if they are innocent, which less and less people seem to me to be thinking
Re John The quote is from the Lawyer of Robert Murat. It woul be very interesting to see what would be the reaction of the Portuguese lawyers of the McCanns. I am thinking in particularly to Rogério Alves who has said concerning the fact that the McCanns would sue the Portuguese State that it was completely ludicrous.
What do you all think about the article in the diario noticias about what the lawyer of one of friends said (Billies post today 11:33) Clarence did not denounce it so far...
For me, reading this article, there is some hope again that this case can be solved and that the confusion andf the lies could come to an end.
Re Lynn When you say that if they do speak against the PJ to what are you referring?
Andrea - the person is described as a friend of the McCanns and there is speculation that its Payne. But I was wondering if its Jeremy Wilkins - the person who had a conversation with Gerry that night - because it sounds like a single male, if it was the Paynes then it would be both presumably. There has been a lot of speculation about the JT sighting and why they didn't see her. Perhaps Gerry's timing is wrong or something. Anyway it has the ring of truth about it.
Re Andrea The article of the Diario de Noticias seems to be a Portuguese traduction of the Spanish article published in El Mundo. The genuine version is there: http://tinyurl.com/2jthd9
The English lawyer of one of the "Tapas 2", who wants to speak to the PJ, explains that this case is not normal because of the McCann lobby which is political and econmic. He adds that the aid given by the British government to the McCanns is not normal and is prejudical to his client. You may note that he made this statements in a Spanish newspaper as if he couldnt do this declarations in a British newspaper. All that suggests that the case has not been solved already because there is a political and ecomic pressure. This is not because of the Portuguese secrecy laws, that his client did not speak openly about the case. He announces that the aim of his client is to bring to light the whole truth.
So you are right, I also think that this case could be solved. If this person knows something really important, that could be the key of this mystery. For the moment, we dont know what it is.
Re Andrea The English lawyer has also commented the denial of Clarence Mitchell that no one of the Tapas7 did contact a lawyer. He said that it is comprehensible that his client hasnt said to Clarence Mitchell that he had decided to contact his own lawyer to cooperate very closely with the Police.
Re John The lawyer said that his client has recieved support from the McCanns and nothing from the British government. For this reason, I dont think that Jeremy Wilkins is this person.
When the shit hits the fan, loyalty seperate and people watch their own backs - its human nature.
@Jose - I meant if the McCanns defy the PJ and tell their story anyway.
Is it just me? I get the impression from the postings of the last couple of days and as John points out the lack of denials from Clarence that Team McCann have gone into defence mode. It was always a bit like "circling the wagons" in a western, but now I get the impression that not only have the original 9 wagons been reduced to 7 but the two missing occupants are firing arrows into the circle.
I can't remember which U.S. president it was who when asked why he had struck up a political friendship with a highly disliked person said: I would rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside it pissing in"
Maybe some folk who were inside the tent are beginning to resent the odour.
Re Lynn If they didnt tell their story to the Police which means that the story is not a secret for the justice, I dont see why they would tell it to the press and I dont see what they risk.
Nevertheless, if the McCanns or anybody else report to the press anything that has been registered in the penal procedure of this case, then this persons would face a trial. You could be sure of that.
In a website, I have seen a site of a person who is arguido in Portugal. Thats funny. He said may be I am very stupid: It s not because I am arguido that I can not write that I am innocent. And in his site he tells the reasons why he is innocent.
interesting that CM has made no "declarations" about the latest topice but perhaps they are simply sick of defending what they see as crap and perhaps they have decided less is more after all.
http://tinyurl.com/2jx5t2
'The McCanns are pressuring us to keep silent, says one of Tapas Nine'
November 12, 2007
Madeleine McCann's parents faced fresh allegations today that they are pressurising their friends into keeping silent over the events surrounding their daughter's disappearance.
One of the "Tapas nine" who was dining with the couple on the night Madeleine vanished is said to feel "obliged to keep silent".
Respected Spanish newspaper El Mundo quoted an un-named lawyer, said to represent the friend, criticising the McCanns' advisers.
The lawyer told the newspaper: "My client feels obliged to keep silent about what he can do to help the investigation, and not because of the Portuguese secrecy laws.
"This is very revealing about the strange circumstances surrounding this case.
"It's not that he is scared of the McCanns, but the economic and political lobby surrounding the couple is truly frightening to anybody.
"What my client wants is to reveal the whole truth, but he does not mean to accuse or blame anyone, as that is the job of the police.
"The only thing he wants is to help the police discover the truth about what happened before, during and after that dinner on May 3."
Last week El Mundo reported that lawyers acting for two of the McCanns' friends have contacted Portuguese police to say they wish to "correct" certain parts of their statements.
Gerry and Kate McCann's spokesman Clarence Mitchell denied the report and said it was not true that any of the couple's friends want to change their stories.
But the British lawyer, who has an office in London, told El Mundo: "If you take into account all of the pressure that has been placed on my client and on other people, it is perfectly natural and understandable that my client has not told Clarence Mitchell of his decision to hire his own lawyer to co-operate more closely with the police."
The lawyer also claimed that on the night of May 3 the McCanns did not call the police until they had discussed the possible implications for them of having left their three children alone in the holiday apartment.
The lawyer said: "The police were only informed after the group in question analysed the problems they could face for having left the children alone, and until now, my client has not had the opportunity to talk for himself about it all."
The lawyer, who is said to have been hired by the friend in September, was also critical of the help the McCanns have been given by the British authorities.
He said: "I understand perfectly that our government is legally obliged to help the McCanns.
"What I can't understand is that they have received help which goes far beyond what would be considered normal in a case like this.
"However, from the very beginning it has been clear that the Madeleine case is not a normal police case.
"It's not my job to have to explain why and how certain politicians hav
Continuing above post here:
"It's not my job to have to explain why and how certain politicians have intervened in this case, but I'm afraid these interventions have been prejudicial not only to my client, but also for determining the truth.
"My client has not received any personal support from the British authorities, only that which has come through the McCann couple.
"I don't want to accuse anyone, but there are people very close to the McCanns who are not helping them at all.
"The intention of my client is to bring to light the truth of this sad story, without any concern for who might be implicated."
Four of the Tapas Nine, the name given to Gerry and Kate McCann and the seven friends they were dining with on the night Madeleine disappeared from the holiday complex in the Algarve, have reportedly brought in their own lawyers as they prepared to be named as official suspects.
A Sunday newspaper named the four as Russell O'Brien and his partner Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield and Dr David Payne.
It claimed they had been warned they would join the McCanns and Robert Murat as "arguidos" after the discovery by Portuguese investigators of inconsistencies in key statements made immediately after Madeleine vanished.
Dr Payne, a 41-year-old cardiovascular researcher from Leicester, was the last person outside the McCann family to see Madeleine at the Ocean Club resort on May 3.
Gerry asked him to check on his wife and children while he having a tennis lesson at about 6.30pm.
Attention has also focused on Jane Tanner's claim she saw a man carrying a girl from the McCanns' ground floor apartment at about 9.15pm - when another witness says he was outside the flat at the same time but did not see her or the mystery man.
Mr Oldfield, 37, from south London, has said he entered the McCanns' apartment to check on the children about 30 minutes before Madeleine was reported missing by her mum.
He told police that although he had seen the McCanns' two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie, their sister's bed was out of his sight-line.
Dr O'Brien, 36, from Exeter, was away from the group for up to 45 minutes between 9.30pm until 10.15pm while he tended to his own child who was sick in his apartment.
He told police he had changed her bedlinen, but staff at the Ocean Club were said to have denied any change of sheets was requested.
The McCanns and their friends have always denied any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance - and insist she was kidnapped.
They are barred by strict Portuguese secrecy laws from speaking about the events of May 3 but recently issued a statement denying they had a "pact of silence" or that they were covering up a secret.
Portuguese police are preparing to send a three-man team led by chief investigator Paulo Rebelo to the UK to reinterview the Tapas Nine.
British detectives will ask questions put to them by their Portuguese counterparts."
So Tapas Grou
United we stand, divided we fall.
Continuing my lengthy post (sorry!)
My words: So Tapas Group had a meeting to discuss implications from leaving the children unattended before sounding the alarm! When? Before dinner? During dinner? - might explain the 14 texts. In either case, if this information is true, and if the group did discuss 1) M's disappearance 2) the fact that it would not look good on them if it were discovered that the kids were all left in their beds unattended 3) possible alibis etc. 4) getting their stories straight about the supposed "checks" on the children -- and this all before sounding the alarm -- will prove extremely damaging to the McCanns. Obviously the need to ensure that K&G were covered and not implicated outweighed the fact that M was supposedly "out there" in the arms of an abductor.
Very damaging indeed for Team McCann. No wonder CM is in hiding.
I'm interested in this comment in the Mail article:
"The lawyer also claimed that on the night of May 3 the McCanns did not call the police until they had discussed the possible implications for them of having left their three children alone in the holiday apartment."
Billie - but this opens up the idea that all the pact of silence stuff is just about the neglect - not about an accident cover up. Unless Gerry is being super clever in using one to cover the other - if you see what i ean.
Well, well, well, this is an interesting turn of developments. Also of note is the discovering the truth about what happened 'before, during and after the dinner'...whatever can that mean?
What I can't understand is why Gerry McCann asked Dr Payne to check in on Kate McCann and the children. It just seems very strange.
That also means that the Tapas9 were perfectly aware of the consequences of leaving their children unattented. What we need to now is when and why did discussed it before the alarm.
Re John You are right. This is the reason why they were all silent: the child neglect was used by Gerry to cover up something and to maintain this wall of silence.
I see what you mean, John. K&G needed a united front from the group relating to frequent checks on the children in order to minimize any possible fallout (possible parental neglect charges, etc). This explains the discussions prior to setting the alarm. But surely questions regarding the disappearance of M would have been central to the discussion? I have trouble picturing the group sitting together rehearsing their statements re. when they checked on the children if the abduction theory were true and M was in the clutches of a stranger. The fact that they strategized as a group prior to setting the alarm speaks volumes about what they all knew about M at that moment. There was no immediate hurry.
I suppose you could imagine that having found Madeleine gone they first had to do a search to make sure she hadn't wandered off. Then when they realised they couldn't find her - 'oh my goodness! what will they think of us.'
But when you put this together with them all being in their apartments by 23:00 i.e. less than an hour after Kate found Madeleine gone - means a short search or a very quick discussion. They must have complied with Gerry's request quite quickly. Maybe the texts are about this?
There you are - I've been drawn back into speculating again!
Police looking at witness statements for translation mistakes:
http://tinyurl.com/3ym8nw
may be the reason for discrepancies?
Hmmm... I smell a CM plant!
After reading the full article (thanks Billie) makes me think this is a bit beyond perhaps stating "there were no checks all for the kids". "Before, during and after" suggests the person has knowledge that the PJ would be interested in and leads me to believe it is not a cover, although G may try that spin down the road.
I think this development is more serious and (not sure of the word) concrete than the DNA in the trunk; as you can't convict on that alone and we have been told it any DNA found was due to transfer or planted.
Is the house of cards crumbling? Will C.M. quit before the sht hits the fan? Will we be spared an OJ type DNA trial?
So C.M. has been busy. However, are we to think these people, didn't read their official statements to the police before signing their name to the statements? K&G had separate lawyers and I bet all were damn sure that statements were right before they signed-off.
I dont think that translations made by a formal suspect in an inquiry are receivable. I think that s the problem with these translations.
Statement by the Board of
Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited
http://tinyurl.com/yr3t8l
The Fund would like to thank everyone for their kindness, support and generosity.
Madeleine’s Fund was set up to:
Find Madeleine;
Support the Family; and
Bring the abductor or abductors to justice
and subject to that to help other missing children
With the sudden dramatic and unexpected turn of events at the weekend the directors had to consider whether legal defence costs could be paid for by the Fund.
The Board has taken advice from Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP and Christopher McCall QC. The Board has been advised that payment of Gerry and Kate’s legal defence costs would be legally permissible subject to conditions about repayment in the event of a guilty conviction.
The directors of the Fund discussed this today. The two family directors, Brian Kennedy and John McCann withdrew from the meeting when the decision was made. Esther Mcvey chaired the meeting.
The Fund directors realise that there is not only a legal answer and recognise the spirit which underlies the generous donations to Madeleine’s Fund, which it is the directors’ responsibility to steer.
For this reason the Fund directors have decided not to pay for Gerry and Kate’s legal defence costs. We stress that Gerry and Kate have not asked for these costs to be paid. However, people have already called in offering their financial support. Any such fund to pay legal defence costs would have to be separately set up and administered.
At the heart of this campaign and Fund is a little girl confused, lonely and in need of her parents. This Fund’s money will be focused on finding that little girl and leaving no stone unturned.
12 September 2007
What I can't understand is why Gerry McCann asked Dr Payne to check in on Kate McCann and the children. It just seems very strange.
Maggie | 11.12.07 - 10:20 am | #
If we were on holiday with friends and my husband was playing tennis and had been away from us for a little bit, he would say to one of our friends if they were heading back to the apartment if you wouldn't mind would you check on Lynn and the kids please, so I do not honestly think this is suspicious, just actually caring.
Maggie, I too, always thought it was strange that G asked Payne to look in on Kate. Why? Did G&K have an earlier fight? Was Kate in a terrible mood or depressed state? Was she having a tough day with the kids?
Or was this part of a possible coverup...if Payne could say that he saw M alive while G was at tennis then the timeline would be considerably narrower than if he hadn't gone to check on Kate.
Re Lynn Any event that had occured between 18h and 22h is suspicious. So the question to know what was doing Dr Payne with Kate at 18h30 is a good question even if the intention of Gerry was very innocent and was only showing care to his family.
Is there a timeline problem here? When the story first broke several weeks ago the quote from Payne was to the effect "at 6:30 Gerry ask him to check on Kate". The other day a paper mentioned Payne last saw Kate & kids at 7:30.
I find it odd Gerry asked him to check on Kate. Did she need help with bathing 3 little kids and putting them to bed, plus getting herself ready? Probably...was he suppose to help her with that? Did he say an hour? Did this happen at all?
How does this sit with the recent suggestions of revisions of evidence? An old newspaper article from May:
'Around 10 British people, including the McCanns and their friends, have been re-interviewed to clarify their statements in recent days.
This week the group are set to appear in court behind closed doors to record their evidence for any future trial before they go back to the UK.
The procedure, known as "memory for the future", is similar to a mock trial in which the friends would give evidence as witnesses now against a future defendant.
Local lawyer Artur Rego said the procedure was used only in exceptional cases such as this where a large group of witnesses are foreign.
"It is recorded by video and kept sealed then released during the hearing," he said.
"If somebody is ever charged then this statement can then be unsealed and disclosed for the judge who is going to hear the case.
"It has the same value as witness statements delivered live in the trial."
But the McCanns themselves are not expected to be asked to take part.'
Link: http://tinyurl.com/27vuvk
I hardly think Mr. Murat was translating on this occasion.
Re Dee David Payne came to see Kate at 18h30 and Fiona Payne was with Kate at 19h30 when they put the children to bed.
@ Jose, this is a presumptive statement, you presume they are guilty, perhaps it was simply as i stated a friend asking another friend to make sure a mummy with 3 "typical" raucous, boisterous and demanding tots was ok.
If they are innocent then that act too is innocent.
@ John
Now i would love to see that and compare the here and now
Re Lynn I speculate that if Madeleine is dead she was dead between 18h and 22h. Consequently, all these persons could at a certain moment be present at the moment when Madeleine died. If Dr David Payne was at 18h30 with Kate, I consider it as suspicious. He is just a potential suspect. He could be the witness of the death of Madeleine and participate to disposal of the body or even he could kill Madeleine. Suspect not innocent or guilty! I will repeat it several times considering in a inquiry someone as guilty and innocent is nonsence. Those matters are for a trial not for an inquiry.
Lynn:
Wouldn't your husband think it odd if one of your women friends called in to check him while he was with the kids and you'd only just talked to each other a little over an hour ago? I can understand it if there was a long separation of many hours or days. Still find it strange but can't put my finger on it.
John what you post is interesting however is each person interviewed separately? And as Lynn said would love to compare the here and now.
@ Maggie Jose
my husband wouldnt at all, he would just think i was being nice making sure he was coping, its mad having 3 little ones under 3 so i honestly dont think that is anything that would make either of us think anything but that was sweet.
I know you may think it odd but honestly I sometimes ring or he does just as we reach our destinations to make sure the other is ok if left alone with the kiddies especially if its around bed/bath time.
Lynn:
Sorry if I appear nitpicking but I need to get the strange feeling about this point worked out.
Now you, rightly, point out that a caring person who is thinking about how hectic three kids can get would want to check everything is fine. Yes this does happen - even myself and my partner do this as well, but if he sent one of our friends along to check, I don't think I'd be too pleased.
Fair enough. However a friend checking? Seems a little off. However some newspaper reports suggest that pages from Kate McCann's diary portray her husband, Gerry McCann as not being at all helpful with the chores and the children. Given that he was fitting in a tennis match and this the last night before they were leaving, all the packing, three kids to get ready for bed (the timeline put this as half an hour). Okay I've exhausted this.
My conclusion is that it doesn't square up.
maggie -
i'm not sure if the night madeleine dissapeared was their last night.... it was a Thurs... and it is usual for check-n and outs to happen on a Sat in places like the MW complex.
I guess i just feel id not mind and perhaps thats why he sent someone else cos he wasnt the greatest helper and i am sure it was there last night i am sure i read somewhere because i remember thinking omg just 1 more day and shed have been home. Not 100% on it though.
next monday night's panorama BBC1 is about Madeleine's disappearance.
macushla it was their last night, Thursday May 3 2007. Lots of holidays go from Fri-Fri especially on the continent.
thanks Maggie - i was unsure as to whether it was their final night or not.
Probably been posted however -
if your kid is sick and vomiting, you stay with the child! I don't care whether the parents are doctors or not, you put your child's welfare before your own hedonism.
It would be interesting to hear what the child has to say although I guess that is unlikely.
As for Gerry asking for Kate and the kids to be checked on - too convenient. That concerned? Do it yourself - be responsible for your own. However it is clear that these 2 cannot manage that.
IMO Kate probably doesn't want to go back to work 'cos all her patients have found another GP.
For the record, I am female, a mother, a medico and have taken my kids overseas on extended holidays. It was a family holiday, not us and them mentality. We knew where they were every minute, they ate with us - that was part of the joy and we all came home together!!
Want a trip on your own? Do just that and leave your kids with someone trusted.
Brisbanite, it's also possible that ROB was instead cleaning up M's vomit and not his own child's...
Hi Billie
I have been lurking on this site for a few months and only post every now and then.
I had considered that and then I was surprised that there had been no mention of vomitus found in the McCann's apartment. With all the furore over "DNA" in the hire car I would have expected similar as that could conclusively prove that someone in that family was unwell that evening.
Having been a kid who threw up often (living overseas in exotic places) the only thing that made me feel better was having my mum with me.
It's just one of those small details that can be easily explained away but for some reaason doesn't sit right with me.
Enjoying your contributions too!
Brisbanite,
There was evidence of cleaning in the McCanns apartment prior to the sounding of the alarm, so it's likely that any noticeable evidence (blood, vomit, other) would have been wiped away. Or the vomit might have been on ROB's clothing, which would explain why he found it necessary to change his clothing during the dinner.
But you're right, a sick child always wants their Mummy. And it never sat right with me either, that ROB's explanation for his 45 minute absence from the dinner table amounted to his needing to clean up the mess his sick child left (changing bed sheets, etc). My gut tells me that he was doing something quite different during that critical time period.
I'm pleased to see that the timeline and the details of the events are now being much more vigourously analysed, as you all now this has been my biggest issue with this whole case. What we have heard stated about what members of the T9 did and when they did it not only defies logic but in some cases is downright impossible.
The issue about the vomitting child is one that defies logic... you just wouldn't leave a child of 3 nearly four being sick entirely on their own for a moment in a holiday appt. in a foreign country whether it was your last night and everyone else was at the Tapas Bar or not. Further RO'B is said to have stated that she was so sick he had to change the sheets of her bed and his own clothes in the course of this timeline, if this was the case why did he leave her at all? Why wasn't her Mother with her and at the Tapas Bar instead? Why did the resort state that no clean bedding was asked for or issued, he couldn't have changed the sheets without clean bedding?
The issue of JT spotting the 'abductor' at the same time and in the same tiny vicinity as two other witnesses that didn't see either of them, this is impossible!
A restaurant owner gave the police CCTV footage of G & M dancing around at 5.30 on May 3rd in his establishment. Yet the MW creche stated that M, S & A were picked up by G & K at 6.00 pm that same evening after 'high tea' this is impossible as M couldn't have been in the two locations at the same time, where was RO'B's daughter at these times and how much alike M does she look we know they were the same age, could one siting have been M and the other RO'B's daughter?
What has not been disputed so far is that whatever happened earlier G was playing tennis with other guests at 6.30 pm and asked for the children and K to be checked on, Why? the tennis courts arn't that far away, why is this important for us to know?
I still believe as I did from the start that the children weren't checked on, at the very least not in the way stated. I think that to hide their neglect in this matter the group concocted this bizarre timeline in a hurry after all who can verify any of these statements but the group itself: 'I looked in on K whilst she was bathing the kids and putting them to bed, I left them at 7.30 pm and everything was fine' or 'I listened at the door' or 'I looked in, saw the twins sleeping soundly & although I couldn't see M from my vantage point I assumed all was well' or 'My daughter was sick so I was away from the group for 45 minutes' or 'I saw a man walking hurriedly away from the appt.s carrying a sleeping child with nothing on their feet and in pyjamas'. There are actually very few things we've heard from witness statements outside the group within the crucial timeframe (other than Wilkins) - which is strange in itself - because if they'd been doing as much checking and walking the route to and from the appt.s as they state someone else surely would have witnessed it.
For me, there are a few key statements that I keep going over in my mind and of course they are taken out of context (possibly):
"If you take into account all of the pressure that has been placed on my client and on other people, it is perfectly natural and understandable that my client has not told Clarence Mitchell of his decision to hire his own lawyer to co-operate more closely with the police."
'before, during and after the dinner'
"The police were only informed after the group in question analysed the problems they could face for having left the children alone".
"my client is to bring to light the truth of this sad story". This statement is statement is so damning because it it seems it is not just a another piece of the puzzle to put into place, it implies the "whole" story.
Why is it no matter what the outcome (if there is indeed one), I feel I will be totally shocked to the core, even though I souldn't?
Lizbee and Dee,
I am struggling as I know both of you are, to understand this whole sorry tale. There are simply too many inconsistencies in the Tapas9's statements for the abduction theory to warrant any merit. I applaud the Tapas-2 who have decided to break away from the group and cooperate with the investigation. Hopefully their testimony will shed some light on what really transpired that fateful day. And kudos to the other Tapas member who's lawyer has spoken out suggesting that his client does in fact have information that will help to finally move this investigation forward. We need to know what really happened. I'm a mother of three and am almost obsessively pursuing this case simply because of my own need to know that those persons responsible for M's disappearance will be rightfully punished. It's all about Madeleine, after all. And sadly the PR statements and media frenzy and forums are focused on spin and McCann-speak and denials. And it's making me sick. I want to see justice. I want M's body to be recovered so that she can have the burial she so deserves. And I want those bastards, whoever they might be, to pay for what they have done.
Brisbanite,
Thanks for the compliment.
24Horas
The PJ is prevented from interrogating the McCanns
The letter rogatory which would permit to re-interview the parents of the little Maddie is still depending of the tests that didn’t arrive from England.
The Policicia Judiciaria is still hoping and desperate for the DNA tests, ordered to the FFS of Birmingham, in England which could bring to the light to the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, May3, Praia da Luz, Algarve.
"The tests were ordered more than three months (more than 112 days precisely), but the results didn’t arrived yet to our hands. Those tests are fundamental to orientate or to give a new line to the investigations", claimed yesterday a judicial officer close to the investigations of the mediatic case.
According to the same source, only with the final results of the tests, which according to the spokesman of the Laboratory of Birmingham, continues to be performed, that it would be possible to re-questined the McCanns, friends and member of their family though a letter rogatory which has been elaborated.
"The rogatory letter is concluded. It contains more than an hundred of questions which would be done either to Kate or to Gerry McCann, or the members of their family or their friends. The aim, as it is known publicly, is to confirm the testimonies registered when the toddler vanished", added the same source.
A high member of the Instituto de Medicine Legal, who didn’t want to be identified, put the finger on the wound: “The international cooperation is always good, until today there is no doubt about our competence. But the truth is that those tests, even being complex, are performed in 90 days maximum. This delay of the English is not understood.”
Re Jose
all hopes are fading again - is the delay of DNA results due to the influence and power of people like CM, and other wealthy supporters of the McCanns? Do they want to prevent ruined reputations because they supported people who turn out to be guilty? Is this the concern of the government also?
Does the 24 horas article imply friends would not be heard before the DNA results, even if they have important information?
It sadly seems other priorities are taking over from the true requirement o this case - I agree with what you say Billie about having a need to know those responsible will be punished.
The problem for me is simply that if the PJ apparently cant interogate McCanns why dont the McCanns say no interrogate us - anything to help find Madeleine.
Again the other things are - leaving children alone, tending to a sick child - being a doctor you know they can choke on vomit etc and who the hell leaves a sick child and if she was as sick as stated did they get new bedlinen or let her sleep on unmade bed perhaps.
I believe DNA can take a long time to be clarified and cultured, I do not hold out much hope when we do get it that it will clarify anything, too much contamination to argue it is going to be substantial evidence.
I get so frustrated with this case, wish I could do more, say more to just make something set in place so we can find poor little Madeleine, alive or dead, although I think the latter is looking more likely.
Such a disturbing world we are living in when this has to happen to young innocent children begs the question why we waste time on trying to rehabilitate pedophiles and waste money doing so when the world is over populated anyway.
Re interference of the British Government. I have like many other people in the U.K. been amazed at the "hands on" approach of our government. Gordon Brown has both as Chancellor and Prime Minister almost given a personal vote of confidence in the McCanns. If a motive is needed a visit to this website could be instructive:
http://www.castlecraig.co.uk/
This rehab facility is 20 miles from where I am sitting. The M.D. is Peter McCann (I believe Gerry's brother). The notables on this site. They are the prime carers for, amongst others, the U.S. Defense Department. The castle has been visited by the Prime Minister and members of the Royal Family.
There is more than one McCann who are directors. I may be wrong but I am sure that this site has changed over the summer in that it used to list the personnel but no longer does so.
A rehab clinic which obviously deals with establishment figures maybe has many secrets that our masters would rather we did not know.
Lynn - "we waste time on trying to rehabilitate pedophiles" - I kind of agree with your sentiment but you have to remember Stephan Kiskow (sp?) who was imprisoned for 16 years wrongly (they've just got the right man with DNA). So if you are implying death penalty I don't think that's the answer. Also there is no proven connection with pedophilia in this case.
I'm not sure i believe the DNA stories - is it not more probable that the FSS gives some results but then the PJ say can you do more with this and so on. In other words they may already have a good idea on what has been found. I also can't see how HM Govt. or anyone else is going to stop the FSS releasing results - presumably it a straightforward fee paying client customer thing.
I still have some confidence that they will eventually get a conclusion but that there is no need for them to rush.
As to the stories about Murat etc. in the Portuguese police I think this is all CM as I am sure the Portuguese have clamped down on leaks (e.g. the sacking of Amaral).
Stanley - glad to see that the Castle Craig's Director's blog doesn't mention jogging, tennis or being furious about anything.
Re Castlecraig - the supposed McCann connection surfaced some time ago, and as I understand it, this was demonstrated to be false. Can't remember where, but it was clearly established that these McCanns are not related.
Does anyone here know how reliable this info is, that Robert Murat translated some of the earliest police statements? If that is true it might explain why he is still arguido and why he would likely remain so until all such statements have either been made again, ie 'corrected' or until after a trial occurs. He could be an official suspect for a long time simply on the basis of whether his tranlations, or more correctly 'interpretations', prove to be accurate by an official PJ-approved translator.
Meanwhile, over on the freekatemccann site, it is reported on October 23rd that indeed dear Kate Does intend a new career after all in child welfare:
"Kate McCann intends to quit her job as a GP and take up a new career in child welfare, it has emerged.
Mrs McCann, who remains an official suspect in the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, has told friends she wants to help other children when she eventually feels strong enough to return to work.
One possibility is that she will set up a charity to raise awareness of the extent of child abductions across Europe and help parents and children who suffer such an ordeal. However Mrs McCann, 39, has made it clear she could not go back to work until she knows what happened to four-year-old Madeleine on May 3, when she disappeared from the family
’s holiday apartment in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz.
Madeleine
’s father Gerry McCann, 39, is said to be preparing to return to work as a consultant cardiologist at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester before Christmas."
Horrid right? It isnt just me that would never want her having anything to do with the welfare of children is it? But she will certainly have some experience with fund-raising at least. These people are so out of touch with the way they and their actions are perceived, it is quite astonishing.
Well I am sure we could all do with the advice of Mrs McCann to tell us how to be good parents and look after our children. I take total offence that someone who was so neglegent can even dream of doing this.
Although she is no Mark Klass, she could give advice "on what not to do", but she hasn't learned that yet either.
Is it the case that the secrecy laws permit just Kand G from talking and that the others could come forward if they so choose? I think this will be what happens, yet I fear its too late to save face now. I also fear as apparently - is his correct???that the first statements werent recorded and RM translated???
In relation to the photo of Madeleine's bedroom published in the Mirror - if someone just looked into the bedroom to check on the children but could see the twins but not Madeleine. (I have read that the twins were in separate cost at either side of Madeleine’s single bed)
How? According to what I see in the photo, the bottom of Madeleine's bed is approx 2-3 foot opposite from the door.
False photo, or more discrepancies??
@ elaine
I believe that was taken from the back entrance to the apartment, where the said abductor entered.
http://tinyurl.com/22drtg
Is this the picture? or does someone have a better url?
Correio da Manhã
Maddie is missing since 194 days
Twins in the middle of the crime
Gerry says that he has seen his daughter sleeping from the door, at 21h00, and while returning to the dinner he stayed talking to a friend, at the exit of the apartment.
He suspects that a person was hiding inside and this person has gone with the toddler by the window. An abductor would find two obstacles: the twins in separate cradles in the middle of the path and the empty bed under the window, from where he had to jump. No one of the children did cry.
The picture of the room -released today by an international agency and the first since May 3- shows the undone bed where Maddie was sleeping, at the bottom, an area of the apartment that may be excluded from the scene of the crime: it was in the living room that the experts did collect, in July, vestiges of blood from the walls, at the floor and in the back of the sofa.
The PJ did bet in the abduction theory and the principal expertise was made in the room. In a second phase, the British dogs did detect vestiges of blood and the scent of a cadaver in the living room- the experts did remove a pave from the floor, claims the CM.
The center of the investigation was focused in the apartment, but the key of the crime may be hold by the parents - Kate was alone with her children between 18h30 and 19h00 already past. She was interrupted at 18h40, by David Payne, a friend of the couple, who says that he has seen her playing with her children. Later Gerry arrived. Both of them say to have given a bath to the children and put them to the bed at 19h30, but they rejoined their friends only at 20h30. During this two hours, nobody has seen Maddie.
Gerry leaves the table of the Tapas bar at 21h05 and then he goes to see his children. Five minutes later when he is back and he meets Jeremy Wilkins, a TV producer. It is at this moment that Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, did pass next to them and say to have seen a man carrying the toddler in his arms - but Wilkins say to have seen nothing.
The theory of accidental death wins more consistency with the vestiges collected in the car rented by the McCanns and the final results are kept in the laboratory of Birmingham. Six month later, some friends may change their testimonies...
Re John As to the stories about Murat etc. in the Portuguese police I think this is all CM as I am sure the Portuguese have clamped down on leaks (e.g. the sacking of Amaral)
I think you are right the leaks could not from the PJ since the Natioonal Director Alipio Ribeiro has given strict orders to not release any information concerning the investigation to the press.
@ reasonable man, its the only picture I have seen.
re Andrea
It s not the PJ who decides if they should go to re-interrogate the McCanns, family members and friends but the Public prosecutor. It seems that the Public prosecutor would order the interviews to be performed in UK only after the arrival of the tests because the tests could change the direction of the investigation and consequently the questions to this persons could also be changed. So it s more reasonable to wait for the results.
And as John as said, I dont believe that neither the British government or the McCann team has something to do with the fact that the results did not arrive. I think there is a lot of tests. May be the Police has recieved some results, and then ask for other tests...
Dont forget that this crime involves a very young child and it has political components. According to the Portuguese press, the Madeleine case is still a political issue for the British government since Gordon Brown has spoken about the case to the Portuguese Prime Minister in a European summit at Lisbon. In Portugal the Prime Minister could not interfer directly in a policial inquiry (separation of powers). So the Portuguese press interprets it as pressures. It has also been said in Portugal that the Madeleine case has been used by Gordon Brown during his last electoral campain. Gordon Brown did spoke directly to Gerry McCann before he and his wife were made arguido. The fact that Clarence Mitchell is the spokesman of the McCanns is also interpreted as a political pressure because he was in the British government and it s difficult to imagine that has no connection with the British government.
For all this reasons, this inquiry has to be done very slowly and very carefully. Going to fast would be a mistake. Although the McCanns seems to be very powerful, the justice would be done to Madeleine McCann because Portugal is under the eyes of the world.
http://tinyurl.com/3yomgn
Madeleine McCann: British Intelligence services know more than Portuguese police
“In any event I think you can rest assured that the British police and intelligence services have long had a better grip on the facts of this case than the Portuguese police”, says a letter sent on behalf of Roger Kapman, a British member of European Parliament, to a constituent that raised several questions concerning the case.
The letter said also that “Portuguese police is corrupt”, investigation of Madeleine's disappearance was “amateurish” and “flawed”, and British citizens need to be protected by their Government against a country like Portugal, where the judicial system is “suspect”, most of police officers were trained under the fascist regime that ended in 1974 and legal system doesn't includes the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
Asked to comment the content of the letter, send on his behalf by his assistant, Piers Merchant, Mr. Roger Kapman told Sky News: "It sounds fair enough. Piers has very carefully investigated this matter and responded on my behalf."
http://news.sky.com/skynews/
ar..........75,00.html
'McCann Investigation Flawed From Start'
By Martin Brunt
Sky News crime correspondent
Updated:14:46, Tuesday November 13, 2007
The Portuguese police are "corrupt" and conducted a "flawed" investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance, according to a British MEP.
"The Portuguese police and judicial system is known to be suspect," says a letter from the office of Roger Knapman.
OMG thats got to do wonders for Portugese/British relationships...
http://tinyurl.com/23ygfk
SKY NEWS
McCann Investigation Flawed From Start
The Portuguese police are "corrupt" and conducted a "flawed" investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance, according to a British MEP.
"The Portuguese police and judicial system is known to be suspect," says a letter from the office of Roger Knapman.
It points out that Portugal became a democracy only 30 years ago. "Many of the police were trained under fascism and the institutions still bear the impact of this long period of dictatorship."
It adds: "In all the circumstances it is entirely right that British citizens should be protected against an unreliable foreign system.
"In any event I think you can rest assured that the British police and intelligence services have long had a better grip on the facts of this case than the Portuguese police."
The letter was written by Piers Merchant, a former Tory MP who was forced to quit after his affair with a 17-year-old was exposed by The Sun. He now works as an assistant to Mr Knapman at the UK Independence Party.
@ - Jose :P xx lol
If I accept what you say ARM about there being no relationship between Gerry and Castle Craig (I would like a clear no from C.M.). One I have looked into. There is a Dr Gerry P. McCann on one of the sub committees of Comare. This body investigated and found no link between child leukemia clusters and nearby atomic power stations. Quite why a cardiologist is on it I do not know. The largest company wishing to build new reactors (which this government is backing) is EDF Energy. The Clarence, sorry Media Director, is an Andrew Brown, who again it is rumoured, is the Prime Ministers brother.
Concerning this declaratin of Piers Merchant that in the Portuguese legal system doesn't includes the concept of innocent until proven guilty, I have to say to this person is certainly ignorant.
The presumption of innocence is estabilihed in the Consitution of the Portuguese Republic: article 32º nº2
http://tinyurl.com/2ojjeb
"Everyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until convicted, shall be tried within the shortest period of time that is compatible with the defence guarantees."
Sorry in my last post I was attempting sarcasm?! Andrew Brown is Gordon's younger brother. Pardon me I keep forgetting not everyone on this thread is fortunate enough to live on our nepotistic little island.
The full letter of Piers Merchant is there:
http://tinyurl.com/3xp2qy
Stanley/ARM
maybe you have uncovered WHY the McCanns have had help from a-high
Ben Needham's family never got this sort of help, neither did the Paynes nor Chapmans,Wells the list goes on.... where were the spokesmen on lone from the Govt then huh!
Jose
Can you help?
Is it correct that tomorrow is the day, Portugal lifts it's secrecy laws, due to a change in this law.
If so, what will this mean regarding the McCann case (ie will they now be 'allowed' to talk about the case
I would like to know how the British judicial system assumes innonce before guilt. There is someone there who can explain it?
http://tinyurl.com/39rkb
'Portuguese police have drawn up a list of 100 questions they want to put to the Kate and Gerry McCann and their circle of friends in a bid to discover the truth about what happened to Madeleine.'
they couldn't answer 40 what are the chances they'll answer 100...
aahhh, but macushla this time they have said they would answer every one of them to help the PJ. We'll see!
And isn't tomorrow also the date the arguido status on Murat expires?
I think that the PJ were flawed, from previous cases, there is a lot of controversy about the way the case was handled, not from the McCanns spin but from the fact the PJ seemed so slow in reacting to the fact Madeleine was missing. I am not saying the UK police would have been better but I do think the PJ were lapse to say the least.
I read somewhere, damned if i know where, that the PJ were not really equiped to handle these sorts of crimes as it is a rare occurence, but as you dig around it is anything but in Portugal, it is frightening how many children do go missing there, proof is on the missing childrens website and there are also "secret" abuse cases of women which go unreported, aparently a lot more than in other countries. I think perhaps this will open up a huge can of worms about what goes on in Portugal. The fact that the world is watching means that the PJ will want to get this right...I believe DNA results can take a while as very intricate.
OK - this may be a stretch - but have any of you followed the puted link between "Baby Grace" found in Galveston, TX and M?
My first reaction when I saw this topic appear on the mirror forum was complete disregard. HOWEVER, there are so many parallels that I cannot seem to shake the connection from my mind. Especially when you consider the intercoastal waterway, the similarity between shoes, the similarity in their teeth/gaps, etc...
Anyone care to comment or share their thoughts on that theory? I would love to see this topic get a fair discussion on here.
The letter from Piers Merchant ex MP is an interesting thread on the mirror forum. It was a response to an email from a mirror forumite. Pretty shocking stuff but you have to remember that they work for UKIP, the party that wants britain to leave Europe. Interesting to see that Sky news has picked up on it and run with it...
love to know whether Castle craig and the pro nuclear quango is really connected to the establishment help for the Mccanns...
Hi Emma
Yes i have been following the same thread ref: baby grace, and i like you dismissed it, as i'd read that US officials were *sure* it wasn't Madeleine.... but now i'm not so sure..... I see how it could be possible.
Have just read an interesting post on the mirror forum
http://tinyurl.com/22y2xz
its a good read...a little conspiritorial (sp?)
Jose,
Innocent until proven guilty is really a misnomer. It can't happen because when someone is charged with a crime it's then up to the prosecution to get as much evidence it can to show that the person is...guilty. Therefore those working on the prosecution can only do the job properly if they assume that the person is guilty. The person charged must never assume either innocent until proven guilty. They must build a defence case that is rock solid and to do this must assume that they are being viewed as guilty.
I believe that in France the inference is the other way round. A person charged is guilty until the innocence is proved. Am I right?
Anyway there are two verdicts, guilty and not guilty. It's up to the opposing sides to get the verdict they require.
Re macushla Is it correct that tomorrow is the day, Portugal lifts it's secrecy laws, due to a change in this law.
I have post in later post that the secrecy laws are removed in the new Penal Procedure Code. As a consequence the inquiries would be public. The Penal Procedure Code has been published the 29th of August in the Diario da Republica. Due to several mistakes, a new version has been published the 9th of November. I dont know if it is tomorrow that it enters in effect.
All the threads regarding the Piers Merchant email reply are being deleted on the mirror forum due to demands from "high up" according to the moderator. Curiouser and curiouser...
Hi guys, Steve
I wanted to take a look back in the comment threads and review some things, the last one from 10 October to 3 November links back from the top of this page, here's a tinyurl:
http://tinyurl.com/2om9p7
and that page links back to the one before that which goes from 8 October to 10 October
http://tinyurl.com/36d9o2
But I can't find the comments from the three earlier threads...
Open Thread: A photo of Madeleine McCann?
Posted by Steve Huff on 9/26/2007
(ie 26 September for us non-Yanks)
Madeleine McCann: A new twist in the case?
Posted by Steve Huff on 9/07/2007
(ie 7 September)
Keeping Hope Alive: Madeleine McCann
Posted by Steve Huff on 6/13/2007
(ie 6 June)
Can anyone/Steve post tinyurls for these older comment threads right here in a reply, or in an appropriate place on this site. Or are they lost? That would be a pity. Tell me they're still there!
Cheers.
Jose, how will this effect Murat and his arguido status? Will he be able to access the evidence against him under this new law?
Re Maggie I believe that in France the inference is the other way round.
A person charged is guilty until the innocence is proved. Am I right?
Thank for your explanations, Maggie. In France there is also the presumption of innoncence as in UK.
I think that in UK is the same thing as in Portugal: the presumption of innoncence refers to the fact that the prosecution has to give the proof of the guiltness of an accused person.
May be the difference is certainly in this strange status of the arguido that only exists in Portugal (and may be Spain). That is someone is made suspect without knowing the reasons why he is suspected.
All the threads discussing the letter sent on behalf of Roger Knapman, a British member of European Parliament, to a constituent that raised several questions concerning Madeleine's case, in the Mirror's Forum, have been deleted "by Admin at the highest level and we have been asked to remove any threads that re-post copies of the Emails or discuss them in any detail", according to a post from the moderators of Mirror's Forum: "Moderators can't give you any more information about why this action was taken as we don't know at this stage."
http://tinyurl.com/2ca6k7
oops, sorry pinkdrummergirl. You already posted this.
Re Billie I think that tomorrow the status of Robert Murat would be discussed by a judge. It seems that may also know the charges that were against him. It is suggested that he would be clear. But of course in the case the judge decides to not clear him, the juge has also the possibility to ask that the secret is kept for two more months. We will know it tomorrow.
In the new procedure penal code, publicity is the rule and secrecy is the exception. I havent read the new code, but I think that a judge has the possibility to put certain acts under secrecy.
Thank you, Jose!
Re pinkdrummergirl The UKIP, the party that wants britain to leave Europe: it is a party from the extreme right?
Re Lynn Personally I have never seen here in France a case, where there is a British victim, during which the press didnt say that the French Police is incompetent as it is happening with the McCanns' case in Portugal. All this comments that the Police should close the borders, etc. seems to be ridiculous. When a child is missing in France, the borders are not closed. I really think that this critics to the PJ are unfounded and unjust.
arghhhhhhhh politics
and with regards to the thread being pulled by the paper - normal practice when a "politician" makes a boob especially when it comes to European union.
@ JOSE, I wasnt referring to the border closure its everything else, the lack of sense really when it came to the whole case. They didn't even secure the crime scene properly, childs play really.
I wouldn't say they were extreme right, its just that traditionally its the right wing tory party who wish to leave Europe and some of the members of UKIP are refugees from the tory party. They aren't extreme right in the nazi sense, but definatley 'euro-skeptic' and don't want johnny foreigner meddling with our affairs.
I am personally skeptical about European politics but am on the left so it doesn't always follow that anti EEC (CEE) people are on the right!
I also wonder if this whole Mccanns thing is a drive to have european wide police force or at the very least to share a data base.
There are conspiracy theorists that believe child abduction stories are bigged up to push the ID card issue and more worryingly, the micro-chipping of your children. And I'm not sure they are wrong!
I think it's interesting also that the italian police are being extremely open with the press over the Meredith murder case. I'm sure they have learnt some lessons from the experience of the Portuguese police in the Mccanns case.
Another European crime case is the Diana inquiry in which the French are apparently refusing to give information or compel french witnesses to attend leading to the British press saying 'it's a farce'.
Do other European countries have a secrecy law like Portugal?
pdg - "Do other European countries have a secrecy law like Portugal?"
Yes, Greece is one believe. It is not so unusual - as has been said so many time before it is a constitutional law. There is nothing wrong with it - maybe it needs to be reformed or modernised but confidentiality should be retained in serious crime cases. I wish it was so in Britain in fact. I think people object because they don't understand it and its different to Anglo-Saxon justice - but so what? is that so perfect?
True the Brit police use the media more - but are they any less secret about important key information - no not really.
I have written a reply to that MEP character but I'm not sure whether to send it. And by the way IMO if you get any further right than UKIP you end up in BNP land.
From here:
http://tinyurl.com/2doc9t
"Detectives said a 'root and branch' review of the six-month inquiry had 'confirmed suspicions' but failed to uncover any new clues which could solve the disappearance."
Despite my doubts that the PJ have said anything at all this would suggest that the case is 'as strong' as it was as when they questioned them and made them arguidos. So the 'welcoming' of the new direction by CM seems now to be premature.
Glad to see that there are now 100 questions - this is an improvement on the 40 no doubt.
I wonder if CM will issue a statement detailing that k and g WILL as promised answer the questions. O will there be a reason not to.
Macushla: thnaks for the link to the mirror discussion on 'common purpose'. A little too conspirational for me.
However, one interesting question was raised: [quote] Was CM already in PDL on 3rd May? Not confirmed but definitely there on the 4th caught on camera. Why?[unquote]
Does anyone know whether that's true? Has CM really been caught on camera in PDL as early as 4 May?
sharon - lol...
'thnaks for the link to the mirror discussion on 'common purpose'. A little too conspirational for me.'
i did warn you
While looking for photos of C.M. I came across this site have a good look around this guy is a mine of information!
http://tinyurl.com/yr4yyw
Please look at the link I posted above the date is what makes it interesting. This guy was questioning CM's role on 25th May! Even more important he is questioning the role of her maj's government.
A worrying report on the DNA results.
Diario de Noticias - reports that the test results will be given to government ministers before being given to the police:
"Indeed, the results hardly come to PJ this week, but found the DN because, for diplomatic issues, must be sent by the British Foreign Ministry for the congener in Lisbon, which in turn send to the Ministry of Justice. Only then will be released to the PJ. Thus, as the expected results may reach their hands during the next week."
I don't understand why this course of action has to be taken..
maybe something in the 'Common Purpose' post after all
Stanley - interesting post thanks
Indeed, Stanley, great post. I quote from his blog on 26 May:
"I've no idea what legal provisions apply in Portugal, but in the UK, the Children and Young Persons Act provides that parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if "they leave a child unsupervised in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health". I would be surprised if the Portuguese provisions were significantly different.
The NSPCC, advise parents "never to leave babies or young children alone at home- not even for a few minutes whether awake or asleep."
Certainly if I were in the McCann's position and this incident had occurred at Center Parcs or Butlins, I'd be crapping myself waiting for the knock on the door from the boys in blue.
There are conflicting versions of when the kids were left alone and how often the parents were supposed to have checked on them. It appears the McCanns actually left the main door of their apartment OPEN whilst they enjoyed their tapas.
The more I read about this family, the more the Rambler's suspicions are aroused."
Yes indeed, a great post and originally back in May! Do we know much more, have views changed, is is still relevant? To the first two the answer is sadly No! and to the latter Yes absolutely!
I want to firmly believe Common Purpose is a red herring hiding behind a grassy knoll with the paps in pursuit and radioactive material invisible to the naked eye... anyone for a conspiracy theory top up?
This is a tangential speculation, relating to politics.
Thursday 3 May was an election day in the UK, not for the Westminster parliament, but for most of local government, and also all of the Scottish and Welsh parliamentary seats.
I don't think the fact that Madeleine McCann was discovered missing at the same time as polls were closing in Britain has much significance.
However, given the links which Gerry McCann appears to have with government spin doctors - at least some of whom would have just finished or still been on election duty, with counting of votes and results going on through the night and the following day, even as people were searching for the little girl in Portugal - perhaps this could explain how the media campaign around Madeleine McCann's disappearance immediately had some similarities to political campaigns.
This may be completely irrelevant to what actually happened to Madeleine herself, but one can imagine how the abduction story could have been patched into part of a news management matrix set up for getting stories and lines out rapidly. Once started, this story may have quickly got far beyond the control of the McCanns themselves, and rather swept them along in its wake.
This suppostion might also even help to explain the presence of Clarence Mitchell in the case given his position quite near the centre of UK government news management... it is entirely likely that the Director of the Media Monitoring Unit of the government would have been on duty late that night.
Just thinking aloud.
ARM can I just add to your "thinking aloud" in your last posting.
The main election that day (May 3rd) was to the Scottish Parliament. For the first time in living memory the Labour Party lost it's grip of power here to the Scottish Nationalists. Remember my quote from the e mail of a government spokesman on the day of 9/11. "A good day to bury bad news" She was fired. However that gives you an idea of the mindset.
However, sorry to be longwinded but the background is essential. May 3rd's election here saw the greatest electoral "cock-up`' in modern times. There were 146,099 spoilt ballots. This was 4% of the entire votes cast. If this had been in Africa the U.N. would have called foul. It made the Florida shards look like pure democracy. I will not go into the technicalities of how this happened as it is not relevant to this thread. What is important is to understand why her maj's gov grabbed at any other story that day to bury their own "bad news". Once started this bandwagon would not stop and the rest as they say is history.
@ Stanley
at the time i said to my husband well this story will take away from the election farce - of course human nature to care about a missing child rather than bungling politics for most of the country and i am sure cm was there to make sure spin kept happening so that gov blunder was forgotten. i still believe he works for the government and is on a hidden secondment to the McCanns, this guy is an intelligent man, handling PR badly, never has added up to me.
There was a suggestion that CM had tipped off the McCanns that their phones were being tapped - and thus compromised the impartiality of the HM Gov assistance. So he didn't resign he was pushed - go or we'll sack you. Otherwise why give up a powerful gov. job to work for those two? You jus wouldn't no matter how much you beleive in their innocence.
from skynews "Gerry and Kate McCann's hopes of seeing details of their daughter's disappearance have been dashed - despite a change in Portuguese secrecy laws.
McCanns will not get to see filesThis week's shake-up in the country's laws will make it easier for people - including official suspects in a case, like the McCanns - to access police investigation files.
Previously, all information in police files had to remain secret.
But the McCanns have told Sky News Online the overhaul will not lift the veil on documents concerning their daughter's disappearance."
Seems unfair butobvious.
re: Baby Grace, meant to reply to this earlier, stated somewhere that it wasn't Madeleine as although there was similarities DNA had ruled this out.
After what i just printed this has been published online Police in Galveston, Texas, are going through hundreds of tips that have poured in since they released sketches of a young girl whose remains were discovered a week ago inside a storage box that washed ashore on Galveston Bay.
The unidentified child has become known as "Baby Grace" and authorities are still trying to find out her identity.
Her body was found by a fisherman inside a blue plastic utility box that washed ashore along the Intercoastal Waterway
Authorities say forensic dental examination has narrowed the girl's age to between 2 and 3 years. She is described as white, 32 to 35 inches tall and 25 to 30 pounds. She had waist-long, wavy blond or light brown hair. She was wearing a Target-brand pink, flowing skirt, a pink or red shirt and white light-up tennis shoes with purple flowers on them.
With regards to "baby grace"
Emma I think "Baby Grace's" although the seem to be a number of similarities, I think her hair is just too long to be Maddie's. Another very sad story.
apparently they are working on a dna match to rule that out but i do tend to agree with Dee on this.
@Lynn I wasnt referring to the border closure its everything else, the lack of sense really when it came to the whole case. They didn't even secure the crime scene properly, childs play really.
Concerning the crime scene which has not been sealed off, I have to say that the explanations reported by the Portuguese Police are that the crime scene was not secured the night of May 3 because they didnt exclude the possibilty that the offender may return to the scene of the crime to take objects or evidences which could signed this crime.
After having taken the time to try to understand what the methods of the PJ are, I think that they are perfectly rational and show no lack of sense at all. It's my personal opinion based on an objective analysis of the situation.
Kate and Gerry's hopes 'dashed' at not being able to see police files:
http://tinyurl.com/2hghjz
Odd really, up till September they were meeting weekly I think and co-operating with the police who were showing them the results of their operation. Now the issue is that they will not be given open access tot he evidence. What a strange emphasis to give to the thing as if this was the point of anything.
Jose - I basically support the PJ who I think are doing a difficult job - but you have to admit that if there was forensic evidence in the apartment then it was compromised by leaving it open. Of course if one is going to be sceptical one would also say that the parents knew this also. If they truly believe in abduction then they may have compromised any evidence to substantiate this in the hour/ 40 mins before they called the police.
I have to say if I was called in the middle of the night to something like this my first instinct would be to search the surroundings and not to seal the apartment. I think the GNR had to decide whether to call the PJ and the GNR are not detectives.
Roger Kapman claims to the Portuguese television RTP this afternoon:
What we are saying is that the methods of investigation by Portuguese Police have been strange and they have been conducted by people sometimes that were not in the case themselves and people should be innocent until proven guilty as to whatever they [the McCanns] are guilty or not I make no judgment.
Some Portuguese comments from the European Parliament:
Manual Lobo Antunes, State Secretary for European Affairs of Portugal
The truth is that these allegations are outrageous which obviously I have to reject and refute it vehemently. These allegations are not acceptable and they are not related in any way to the truth.
Edite Estrela, Eurodeputy of the Socialist Party (PS)
I have therefore to refute and say that we will use all our competencies and every available person to denounce this attitude.
Carlos Coelho Eurodeputy of the Social Democrat Party (PSD)
These allegations are unacceptable and unqualifiable from a deputy who pertains to a group which uses the calumny and the insult as arms of political action here in the European Parliament.
Ilda Figueiredo Eurodeputy of the Portuguese Communist Party (CPP)
He has no right to do these allegations about the Portuguese Police when obviously he did not really know what is happening in Portugal. He didn’t live there.
Ribeiro e Castro Eurodeputy of the Popular Party (PP)
I will do a protest to the President of the European Parliament and I would send it because these facts are inadmissible
Miguel Portas Eurodeputy of the Left Bloc (BE)
They are the allegations of an imbecile.
http://tinyurl.com/32dj8c
The blonde girl spotted being forced into a car in Bosnia is not Madeleine McCann.
http://tinyurl.com/2mevyj
British sources have indicated that the tests - and subsequent analysis carried out by the forensic scientists - continue to point towards the McCanns' involvement and that nothing has been discovered to suggest the involvement of any other person
@ Jose: You said "It's my personal opinion based on an objective analysis of the situation."
Please mate we just got rid of a Team McCann apologist who had "looked at all the 'possibles'" and come to a ludicrously simplistic conclusion.
Do not rise to the bait being put out my Team Mc and certain tabloid papers. The PJ's handling of the case is not exemplary but what police force would have done it better. Ours? I think not. When critics say the PJ should have closed the border. Do not respond by trying to argue a logical case. How long would a child be missing in the U.K. before we closed our borders. Hell will freeze over first and anyway our governments have insured that none of us have borders anymore. When people criticize the PJ you must understand it could be any police force in the world. We British gave the world Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple and Father Brown. Unfortunately I cannot name you a real life British Detective who even merits note. We just dislike the way everyone else in the world does things cause it's not British!
News is just out here that the body of Vicki Hamilton from Scotland has been found buried in the garden of a house of a recently convicted murderer Peter Tobin. Was that not clever of our police to think of digging there? No it was my youngest son suggested it and he is a press reporter!
Jose
I respect your views but have to disagree with you the crime scene should have been sealed off immediately, the PJ did not handle this case professionally at all. No one should have been allowed into th apartment until forensics had been in and taken samples, it was too little too late basically.
Jose,
I have to agree with Lynn. There appear to have been basic policing errors made in preserving the crime scene and collecting evidence from it, although I must admit if the reports of 50 people being in and around the appt. by the time the Police arrived one could argue it was already spoiled.
However, please correct me if I'm wrong, I thought preserving the crime scene was the first rule in policing with potential abductions such as this.
hi all, been lurking for a while and like the way you guys are all so respectful.
Could I make the following observations on the case?-
I have a little theory.. the protagonists (Tapas gang incl k n g) were drunk. Not the worst thing on vacation, but if the kids were on their own well that's a different story,
I reckon that when the empty bed was discovered (how, why or by whom is beyond me), that person was a bit drunk and didn't have the same reaction that a sober person would. All was chaos and shouting etc. That may be why the timelines are so out of sync.
I still think Madeleine woke up, got a fright, and wandered off through the open door to find Mom or Dad and somehow got lost. Kate's screams were alcohol induced.
So sad, we will never know what happened here, unless Madeleine is found alive or dead. That is the sad thing.
@ liz
yes you are right and if they suspected an abductor would return then set up an obbo not leave the place open and unwatched - madness.
Metal Guru - I think the wandering off scenario has been discounted for various reasons. The McCanns have denied being drunk - but of course they would wouldn't they. the whole problem with this thing is that clearly lies or half truths have been told about the time line - but we don't know which is which.
To re-iterate Stanley's point I don't think there's a single case in the UK of this type where you couldn't criticise the police for some aspect of its handling. The PJ made mistakes but have generally, I think coped quite well under the intense light of the media and the rather unhelpful (in my opinion) tactic of Team McCann. I am sure the Portuguese tax payers have spent a small fortune looking for Madeleine while the parents have not even had to worry about the mortgage.
hi stanley is that true about your son suggesting they dig there? Has your son worked on the mccann case, if so , what does he think?
i wonder if steve is going to do a piece about the Peter Tobin case?
John,
My criticism was regarding the initial handling i.e. not securing the crime scene, especially when it was a potential abduction.
I agree with you that they have followed their procedures since then and have, despite fierce allegations against their conduct and access to resources, continued to actively pursue the case and follow up even tenuous leads; most recently when attacked by TmMcC they had to issue statements defending their willingness and ability to continue to work the case... which IMO reflects very badly on TmMcC.
And let's face it they have a case here that is confounded by lack of consistent evidence, that crosses European borders, that requires translation resources, that appears to be politically sensitive etc.
You are absolutely correct in asking would any other police force fare any better, I think not.
Stanley re: echoing pdg's comment
Tell us more...
My son would be mad if he knew I was talking about this. He works for a news agency here in Scotland. They are if you like a mini Reuters or Press Association. My son researched Tobins past and discovered an address near to where Vicki Hamilton had disappeared. He wrote a story on this which I believe was bought by the Sunday Mail or Mail on Sunday (different papers in Scotland). From memory they ran it with a photo of the house and bingo a week later the police start digging in the garden. I must admit when they found nothing I thought it was just another bright idea leading to nothing.
I have not spoken to my son today so I do not know if he realised that the police then decided to excavate all of the properties that Tobin had lived in. The news last night was the police had found a body and expected it to be Dinah Nicol who lived in the Margate area. It was in fact Vicki who went missing from Bathgate 400 miles away.
This story does not end there. As well as digging further in the property to hopefully find Dinah. Most of us in Scotland (of a certain age!) believe Peter Tobin to be Bible John, who murdered three women in Glasgow in the late sixties. Artists impressions are really close and the timelines and the associations with the church all fit.
I mentioned Tobin in a post some months ago when we were discussing the role of the church in M's case. Tobin had disposed of his latest victims body in his local church in Glasgow. The priest was not charged but was dismissed because he was an alcoholic who had an affair with a parishioner. I had always thought these two things were prerequisites for the priesthood!
I'm glad to read that the MEP's from Portugal have responded the way they did regarding the UKIP's MEP's views on the PJ.
Stanley, what are your son's views? Most UK reporters I've read have an inbuilt sympathy for the McCanns.
I've no doubt that most police forces would have made mistakes on this case. It's very easy to look back in hindsight and make criticisms. European borders are never going to be open following an abduction simply because it would mean they would never close!
metal guru,
The truth is we don't know the truth and we can't get near to it whilst a basic timeline with such relevant inconsistencies exists.
The w&w (woke and wandered) theory has been widely discussed on forums and appears to lack conviction but without contradictory proof cannot be totally discounted.
Wow Stanley this communication thing really works, how satisfying in these cold cases; thanks very much for posting back and let's hope they find the missing young lady they were looking for.
My son would fit in well on this thread. He has an open mind as to what happened but finds the McCanns behaviour strange to say the least and also considers them arrogant. His company have done little on this story because the saturation of staff reporting in the nationals makes it unlikely for them to be able to write and sell something fresh.
That would be on account of there being nothing fresh!
But thank you very much for your reply Stanley and I'm sure we'd all welcome Stanley jnr onto the site.
Re: Cold cases & convictions: Just thinking aloud here, sorry off topic for M case, but there have been many cold cases resurrected recently in the UK and convictions made re: DNA evidence not available in times past.
Steve is this happening across the globe and would it warrant a Thread of it's own? Or does this already exist?
As Stanley referred to earlier some of these cases could be really big and link unsolved crimes going back decades.
Just a few floating thoughts of mine i thought i'd share. Murat fits the typical sterotype of pedophile 9 times out of 10.He knows the complex, is friends with the owner and lives close by, ability to watch closely without arracting attention.Offered up his services as police translator putting him back on the scene. Another documented trait of abductors.He behaved oddly enough for a hard nosed journalist to become suspicious of him. Murat then lied phone calls with Malinka.He tried to get an alibi from friends.His story changed.Then the rental car was not sorted out.Malinka wiped his computer h/drives clean,why? Q:do Murat and Amoral have an aqauintance prior? Amoral was heading police investgation and failed to preserve crime scence,and failed to investgate McCann's immediately.Why? Incompetence has been hinted at on his behalf..but, he was competant enough to immediatley suspect the parent of missing joana cipriano a few yrs earlier,a girl about 11yrs old who vanished from her home town less then 4 miles away.He was so convinced of the mothers guilt he didnt make any other enquiries.Why?There are now criminal proceedings against him for perverting evidence and hiding other officers assult to obtain a confession. No body has been found. Two other children have also dissapeared recently on the Iberian pennisula, Ms Morales and Master Vargas,a possible conection? Amoral's incompetance is so unbelievable it could be done on purpose. Also, the taps 9 doesnt add up. If Maddy died why would they all cover it up?Would you lie for a friend and risk your job and reputation? Why do it? What can be worse than that if u had nothing to do with it? Only something far worse than that is plausible. What then? Was there a tapas 10 or 11?Was there a sexual party going on? Did tapas 10 or 11 snatch Maddy and they know who it is? Or perhaps not all of them are involved. This would explain the discrepancies in their statements, after all, they had the whole evening to get the story right and make sure witnesses saw them check the kids regularly. Why get this bit wrong? It could be the tapas 4. Dr obrien and jane tanner were away from the table tending a sick child. Obrien said the child was sick and changed the bedsheets before returning to tapas bar. Would you leave a vomiting child alone? Tanner also left the sick child to return to the restaurant..? On her way back she saw the man carrynig the child, said she thought nothing of it implying she paid no attention at the time, but then was obviosly paid enough attention to recall the pyjamas of the child. Weird? Stanger still, a witness talking to Gerry didnt see either the kidnapping or Tanner pass him on the narrow path,why not? Are obrien and tanner lying? Are they in on it with the mccanns? Why did kate scream "they've taken her"? Odd thing to say dont u think? Also, if your child had died that night by accident wouldnt u be absolutely distraught, incapable of covering the death up let alone sit in a tapa
@ Sian
I agree completely, deep down i have wondered a lot about rm and the pj especially after looking into the case of joana but then what you say about the tapas9 is also a possibility - i believe there was another couple - gerrys other brother who left pdl the next day but never had any concrete proof of this yet to me if true that is too strange for words.
Sian + Lynn - what are you suggesting exactly? That Murat + Amaral + Tapas 4 or (11 who are they?) are all part of a pedophile ring?
Why does Murat hit 9/10 for being a pedophile? They have searched his house endlessly and found nothing? The JT sighting - whats that got to do with Murat? Sorry don't get it.
Since I do not live in the UK, does anyone of you know when exactly BBC's Panorama's doc. on M's case is going to be broadcast?
Many thanks to all who can help!
Ok here is my source for this tidbit:
http://tinyurl.com/2ca6by
When the author came home the news came of MM's disappearance. This man and his family had just stayed at the OC and he largely 'excuses' the McCann's strange method of keeping their children safe while dining (and he is wrong about the distance, it is more like 120 meters) by saying that a) the listening service was temporarily disconnected at that time...funny, he was able to find that out and b) there was no in-room babysitting offered but instead the children would have to be dropped at the creche and Would Have To Be Asleep before the parents could leave. How inconvenient! (sarcasm) Surely some licensed nanny service was available. Why didnt they pay Mrs Fenn to babysit, she was probably trustworthy; there were many ex-pats around, they could have hired someone and then still have dropped in to check that all was ok. Anyway, it is worth a look.
Chanel, thanks for the link.
The article mentions that OC did offer in-room babysit services:
"The resort, however, offered a baby-sitting service for 15 euros (£10) an hour, which was staffed by a member of the daytime nursery teams, or a ‘dining out club’."
This means they could easily have had a babysitter, had they been willing to pay the price. From 8pm to 12 pm this would have added some 40 pounds to their daily bill. I understand that the resort was all inclusive (except for drinks, perhaps) so they surely could have paid this amount in order to enjoy their evenings out.
I, for one, would never have been able to enjoy myself knowing my kids were on their own, no matter how many times I would go back the (120 mtrs!!) to check.
So it's perhaps the MCCann's stinginess that started this whole drama.
Hmmm, Thanks for the link Chanel but I don't think it adds more than we are already aware of and although he talks about it being 'quiet' etc. I think that these days it simply means certain things are less likely to happen, not that they won't or it is unbelievable if something does happen.
Thanks Chanel, I wonder if the Ocean Club recently did away with the listening service in light of...can you imagine the lawsuit if this had happened on their watch? Come to think of it...if they are guilty what a perfect plan.
Regarding the secrecy law being changed, my very limited understanding is, it takes both parties to agree to make details public. Is this accurate?
http://tinyurl.com/25q4tn
Madeleine: McCann friends 'told police that Murat was man who fled apartment with child in his arms'
Dee,
Yes, but since ROB and JT now want to change their original statements, they may in fact clear RM.
Possible private action against the McCanns under neglect laws in England.
http://tinyurl.com/23gck4
could flush some facts out into the public domain!
According to the Correio da Manhã, the arguido status of Robert Murat is maintained for more two months. The Lawyer of Robert Murat, Francisco Pagarete, has read the corrections done to the new Procudure Penal Code and said that he would require to have acess to this inquiry, the 14th of January 2008, that is 8 months after his client has been made arguido in the Madeleine McCann case.
The process has been judged as complex and consequently should be maintained under secrecy. At the end of this two months, the investigation concerning Robert Murat should be public unless the Ministerio Public decides to put another delay to the consultation of the process.
Further to my posting last night Peter Tobin was charged today with the murder of Vicki Hamilton. What is significant for this thread is I got my son to enquire and Tobin did not buy the house where Vicki's body was discovered until 6 months after she disappeared and remember it was 400 miles away.
So all you red wine picklers and freezer cabinet believers are back. Please understand that the moment Vicki went missing, 17 years ago, we closed our borders and nobody has come or gone from Britain since.
According to the Gazeta Digital, Ed smart, father of a North American child abducted in 2002, said during an interview with Larry King that the father of Madeleine McCann has admitted the possibility that DNA evidences were planted deliberately in the Renault Scénic with the aim to incriminate the McCanns.
CNN transcript: http://tinyurl.com/2vn9k4
Re Dee What s the link referring to the fact that McCann friends told police that Murat was the man who fled the apartment with a child in his arms?
Re Dee Regarding the secrecy law being changed, my very limited understanding is, it takes both parties to agree to make details public. Is this accurate?
This was already possible in the old Procedure Penal Code.
Dont expect that this inquiry would be put in public. In the new Penal Procedure Code, a judge has the possibility to put a public process under secrecy if it is complex. Since this case is certainly complex, it would probably remain under secrecy during the entire procedure.
@ John
No what i was saying is that i agree that psychologically RM does fit a typical [profile match of an abductor - as sian stated,
With regards to the Tapas9 + 2 I simply meant I heard no I read that Gerry McCanns brother, i believe his name to be Terry and his wife were on holiday with the Tapas9 but actually flew back the next day, IF this is true, trying to find the link, this begs the question and answer WHY would your brother leave you when such a devastating thing had happened.
AGAIN i must reiterate only read that once and I am looking for the link desperately.
http://tinyurl.com/38jwp2
Madeleine: McCann friends 'told police that Murat was man who fled apartment with child in his arms'
Francisco Pagarete said: "They are lies. My client doesn't know the McCanns and the day Madeleine disappeared, he was at home with his mum.
Thanks Jose!
Lynn
Quite a while ago the name of Terry Mccann surfaced and it was established that there was no relationship to G&K. Mccann is quite a common surname.
Brisbanite,
I'm glad you cleared that up as I had wondered what happened to the 'mystery T2'!
Liz
Ah ok, thanks, I had just read somewhere that Terry was the brother then that story seemed to disappear off the face of the planet and I was so puzzled as to why a brother would do that ..... again media spin, we all fall for it on occassions
Thanks again Bris.
Parents are being privately prosecuted by a lawyer for neglect???????
This guy is simply jumping on the bandwagon - yes they maybe should be prosected but that is for police to decide not him and to be honest what they must be going through is prosecution enough and do the twins really need any more instability???
Lynn wrote: Parents are being privately prosecuted by a lawyer for neglect???????
This guy is simply jumping on the bandwagon - yes they maybe should be prosected but that is for police to decide not him and to be honest what they must be going through is prosecution enough and do the twins really need any more instability???
The twins need responsible parents and G&K's behaviour in Portgugal demonstrated that they are indeed not responsible. It's about time someone brought neglect charges against them.
@ Billie
Perhaps it is but some stranger doing it, I totally disagree with, the British police should press charges not some lawyer who just more than likely wants to make a name for himself.
I have to ask what will the benefit be? They won't bring Madeleine back, what will it mean? Prison? taking the parents away from the twins? Cause more suffering to Kate and Gerry? Lead them to a breakdown? then what happens to the twins? I am not so sure this is the right answer. I do think they were neglectfiul 110% but they and Madeleine are already living a life sentence for that neglect.
Lynn - the same lawyer was responsible for resurrecting the Michael Barrymore case through private action. I don't think he is climbing on the bandwagon its just something he believes in.
@ John
I just feel this is the job of the Police and Social Services and I am not sure what the benefit really is her. With MB case I guess Mr Lubbocks father needed answers, won't this do more damage than good, not that you can get anymore damaging.
The guy bringing the case is a millionaire - he can spare the money for a private prosecution.
Yesh, that Sky news reporter who put Murat in the frame ought to be looked at. Did she by some chance have any connections to any of the 'Tapas' coterie? It's all too neat and in no way plausible.
Stanley, the Tobin case does have similarities and you are bang on the nose when you mention the timeline and the distance. How was that body preserved? Buried and then relocated is my guess and I would definately go so far as to say that Vicki Hamilton's body was frozen. Grisly goings on.
good to see a millionaire putting his money to find the truth...
Lynn, Surely the fact that K&G are sufering should not preclude them from being charged with neglect.
And Mr. Bennett explains why he felt it necessary to launch his lawsuit (see below).
http://tinyurl.com/2pfslu
Solicitor bids to prosecute McCanns
15/11/2007 - 14:02:27
»A solicitor attempted to launch a private prosecution against the parents of Madeleine McCann today on grounds of alleged child neglect.
Anthony Bennett faxed an application for a court summons of Gerry and Kate McCann to magistrates in the couple’s home county of Leicestershire this morning.
The lawyer, who previously failed in an attempt to bring a private prosecution against entertainer Michael Barrymore over alleged drugs offences on the night of Stuart Lubbock’s death, also sent Loughborough Magistrates’ Court six pages of “evidence” to support the summons.
Mr Bennett, 60, a father of two, said his move was sparked by a “lack of action” by the Leicestershire authorities, and comments made by the McCanns’ spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, that their actions while on holiday were typical of many British families.
The former UK Independence Party prospective parliamentary candidate from Harlow, in Essex, said: “I think the case is very simple. By the McCanns’ own admission they have left their own children unattended for a significant period of time.
“What troubles me is that there has been no prosecution by the relevant authorities, namely Leicestershire Police and Leicestershire social services.
“I was also prompted by the comments of Clarence Mitchell, who said on television that the McCanns’ actions were no different to what many British parents do.”
Mr Bennett, a self-employed rights adviser who is also qualified as a social worker, added: “I think this matter should be put before the court. Do we want a society in which it is acceptable to leave children alone?
“If the application concentrates people’s minds on whether it should ever be acceptable to leave children on their own then I will have achieved what I set out to achieve.”
He said he hoped the prosecution would be taken on by Leicestershire County Council or Leicestershire Police.
He said: “I would be delighted if they took over this prosecution, but I just feel that, given the publicity surrounding this case, someone should stand up for neglected children.”
Madeleine, now four, went missing from her family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on May 3, while her parents dined nearby.
Mr Bennett alleges that the couple, from Rothley in Leicestershire, were guilty of neglecting Madeleine and their two-year-old twins, Sean and Amelie, under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It is a claim the McCanns strenuously deny.
Mr Mitchell said: “We will not comment on this, other than to say Kate and Gerry have committed no offence under UK law, indeed any other country’s law.
“They regret very much that they were not with Madeleine when she was take
Sorry, the last line of that story was cut off in my previous post.
“They regret very much that they were not with Madeleine when she was taken, and are doing everything in their power to find her.”
I feel like I am fighting a losing battle with this case, everytime i think i wonder if this is the case, i get disheartened, makes you sort of realise the frustrations that the police, PJ and all involved closely with this case must feel. It is also a sad fact that the people who seem to be hindering this case are the Team McCann, the PJ made errors but they have spent hours and god knows how much time and effort and money on trying to find Madeleine, the press have reported on and travelled to many parts of the country chasing sightings (granted its for publicity reasons for their papers) and then there is Team McCann who criticise everyone and have the nerve to want to sue people for not doing their job correctly and DENY the fact they did anything wrong apart from and i quote "thinking it was safe" We all seem to be paying the price, Madeleine more than anyone yet the McCanns are not only guilty of neglect, blatant narcissim and arrogance but also of seemingly causing a rift between political and national relations. Are we on our way to WW2 and a bit, if it keeps the McCanns out of prison and if CM has anything to do with it then start building those bomb shelters!!!!!!
I am just thinking, punishment of a crime is meant to retrain behavior and protect society. I truly believe in the particular case these two would never, ever in a million years leave their kids alone again and have been punished enough on this particular issue, even if they still can't really admit they made a "big mistake", as they still seem to pussyfoot around it. Now if it turns out Maddie died of an accident by one of their hands so to speak, is a different ball game, etc.
Yes, Yes, Yes, lots of us said at the time that we didn't think it was right for the Pt & UK officials not to look into neglect and when the McCanns were back in the UK Social Services were sent to look into the case and the officials deemed there to be no risk to the twins and obviously chose not to pursue negelct 'after the issue in point' re: M; which I still feel is correct in the point of ongoing childcare for the twins.
However there is still the outstanding issue of past neglect pertaining to a criminal investigation that should be looked into at a later date, either when a criminal case associated with the event is brought to Court or, in the event of no case being brought to Court and unlikely to be so, the Pt Police may decide they wish to bring charges on this offence alone.
Again IMO this would be the correct way to progress.
So I don't support individuals taking up their own agendas in this way as I see it as unhelpful generally and furthering media interest & activity.
Liz
@ Billie, I know what you are saying my issue is i simply think the police are the ones who should have brought these charges but also i worry about if found guilty will they be imprisoned - what will this mean for the twins - have to think of them, they have had more than enough trauma.
Its funny that it was something said by CM that prompted the millionaire to act. Maybe there's a message there - like shut up for instance.
One thing this case definitely does not need is backdoor prosecutions.
@ John
The guys so spun up in himself I don't think he knows which end he talks out of, although the lower probably makes more sense - you get to a point where you suffer McCann exhaustion - i think i am reaching it
The private prosecution has shades of the O.J. civil suit, and there was a private prosecution planned for the Armagh bombers. I mentioned a few days ago the verdict they have here of not proven. I think this sums up the feelings of impotence when it comes to prosecuting obvious perpetrators. The danger of course is if the case was thrown out the public sympathy may well bounce back to the McCanns.
In the "good old days" we had ducking stools for witches. They were strapped to the stool and submerged in a pond for several minutes. The lucky ones died, they were considered innocent and buried in consecrated ground. If they survived they were witches and burnt alive.
I have checked my list and obviously in this day and age such a test would be barbaric and all the people would drown. Sorry I was forgetting about Cherie Booth (Blair if on a chartable speaking engagement for £50,000.) Burn baby burn!
If there were a private prosecution can K&G refuse to answer questions? Does anyone know?
Lynn and Dee,
I suppose I would have more sympathy for K&G if they would just admit that they were stupid and irresponsible in leaving three kids under the age of 4 alone and unsupervised while they went to dinner. The fact that they never once admitted that they were negligent and the fact that CM thinks their behaviour is not unlike most parents on holiday just boggles my mind. It is against the law to leave children under a certain age (here in Canada it's 11) unsupervised for any length of time. Period.
And yes, Lynn, I would obviously favour a police charge against K&G but this seems more and more unlikely so a lawsuit is the next best thing, imo. I say, bring it on.
Well I'm obviously alone in thinking that these actions will not be helpful at this stage. But it does not change my view that although I share the concerns expressed here that the neglect issues need to be adressed in court, I believe this should be as part of the investigations into Ms disappearance.
No good can be served now of pushing this through early unless of course you all truly believe the twins are in direct danger of similar neglect.
I am not a, so called, Mccann supporter but I believe that the laws that exist need ample opportunity to be served before we rush into gang mentality and hound them down - however much K & G do not particularly appeal to my/our codes of conduct and moral compass.
Give the law a chance to act,if it does not, I'll be right behind any such action.
Billie this is the line that gulls me the most “They regret very much that they were not with Madeleine when she was taken, and are doing everything in their power to find her.” As if even if they were there she would have STILL been taken anyway or worst case...it was her fault. That statement pisses me off to no end...however, I have to reluctantly stand by my earlier statement of thoughts and the twins.
Your last statement Liz, excellent I would stand behind that, if that is what it takes to get at the truth.
This action by Mr. Barrett might just be what it takes to get the ball rolling. It's not the end result which matters so much as the process itself. With the anticipated public support and media coverage, publicity will be focused on the child neglect issue. Whatever may come of the suit itself, Barrett will have succeeded in opening up the neglect angle and the media may find it more difficult to sweep it aside, despite all CM's counterspin efforts.
@ Billie
I'm not so sure, this is a highly respected family with bucket loads of top level support, without any clear outcome of the disappearance case I think it would be a whitewash. Whereas holding it beside the case sees this particular neglect issue in stark contrast to expected parental behaviour.
As always I am open to differing views on this matter and reserve the right to change mine.
The question that would be raised in a stand alone prosecution would be 'Are they generally neglectful parents' to which the answer would be 'No they are not... and here are 2 skips full of reasons why not' which would weaken the next question 'Were they neglectful parents on this occasion' to which the answer would be 'Remiss , wrongly advised parents but not neglectful as earlier evidence proves'.
Whereas keeping the neglect issue with the case has the opportunity of saying 'You were neglectful parents and xy and z happened'. Which is a far more stark warning not to allow themselves to be in this situatiion to other parents than if it went to court alone and the McCs won (highly likely IMO) and the message was it's ok so long as you are prepared to defend yourself well if anything goes wrong.
On the neglect issue I'm 100%positive we'd all agree that prevention is always preferable rather than cure.
Lizbee, it shouldn't matter one iota whether they were "generally neglectful parents" or not. What matters is that they were neglectful parents on the one occasion when they were caught. One time is enough. There does not have to be a pattern of behaviour in order to prosecute. If a crime (and leaving three children under the age of 4 alone at home is certainly a crime) is committed, then it matters not whether this is a repeated pattern of behaviour or an isolated incident.
Considering G&K apparently left the kids everynight so they could partake in dinner and wine with their cronies, perhaps they do this in the UK as well.
Don't forget they have been away on hols before with some of the Tapas 9. Perhaps the leaving of the kids was an already established behaviour that was 'no risk' in their eyes?
Whatever their excuses and I stress excuses because there was not a reason for this, IT WAS WRONG! and they got caught out big time.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in the hospital where Gerry works. Do you think it is a case of "Poor Gerry blah blah blah" or more like "shush here he comes ...."
IMO to support them is condoning their behaviour and they will nto get a brazz razoo from me into their so called fund!
I must admit though, things went off the boil here in Oz months ago.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle1890234.ece
good article on stranger danger, particularly this comment below article:
"Here's a stab at the statistics:
Let's say that there are 65M people in the UK and that, for the sake of arguement, they are spread equally across the ages 1-65; (I know it's a simplifiaction !): that means there are about 1M ten year olds and I think we can safely say that, as near as damn it, half of them are girls, thus 500,000 10 yr old girls. Assuming 80% are white: 400,000 white girls.
Given (your figures) approximately 440 attempted abductions by strangers in 2002/3, 'just over half' were female (say 225) and three-quarters white (say 170).
So, given the assumptions and approximations, the chances of an attempted abduction of a particular white girl of ten by a stranger is around 170: 400,000, i.e. about 1: 2350.
You state that 'successful' abductions by strrangers amounts to around 13.5% of the total attempted, so the chances of the successful abduction of a white ten year old is around 1: 16900
It's a far higher chance than winning the lottery."
this is interesting: growth percentiles for children. Madeleine well below normal growth percentile for her age.
http://www.truthformadeleine.com.../
growthinfo.htm
Deadlines: Only more than one month and half
PJ runs against time
Kate and Gerry would be able to examine the process and would know the evidences that exist against them by the 3rd of January.
The Policia Judiciaria of Portimão wants to accelerate the inquiry of Maddie’s Case. The detectives understand that the deadlines for the closing of the inquiry would be finished in the next 3rd of January, date on which it would be eight months since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The aim of the PJ is to finish the inquiries by this date and then the final report would be redacted and the diligences of possible evidences would be closed. This point of view is also shared by the hierarchy of the PJ, which begins to see with more and more concern the lack of irrefutable proof elements which could sustain an accusation against the parents.
NEW LAW RAISES DOUBTS
The obligation to comply the deadlines of the inquiry is set out in the Penal Procedure Code, which came into force in the past 15th of September and which establishes as a sanction, in case the delays are not respected, that the arguidos are allowed to examine the acts. Nevertheless, the several interpretations and the novelty of the law have caused confusions about the end of the enquiries and to the possibility that the acts could be consulted.
In Maddie’s case, the CM knows that the interpretation is that the process should be concluded by the 3d of January and if no indices of crimes were found that would allow the continuation of the secrecy of Justice. The existing indices are only pointing to an eventual homicide crime with negligence and concealment of corpse.
It should also be claimed that if the process is not be concluded by this date then it could be consulted by the parties, since the justice secrecy would be lifted. “Although the investigation could be extended, the opening of the process invalidates the investigation. The arguidos would know all the evidences and could require endless diligences", added yesterday to the CM a judicial source.
Bugger had typed a mammoth answer re: law case and hit wrong button and lost it all. Arm is aching so will just say, yes something should happen re: legal pursuit BUT let our legal system and the PJ do their job. This is an intricate and delicate case and EVERYONE accepts they were neglectful, even the McCanns, they just don't admit it. Probably for fear it will affect their "innocence", again probably more badly advised PR by the man who makes more politically correct errors than Richard Madely.
RE: LIZ I agree with you!!!!
RE:PDG Yes she is smaller, perhaps that is why people think she may be Baby Grace - has this been ruled out yet?
RE: Closure of Case - surely the lines of enquiry stay open incase new evidence comes to light, I have to say I can understand the almost desperation to get rid of this case as it has been a nightmare from the start with the interference of Team McCann
24Horas
The witnesses, who asked to change their depositions, have identified the arguido
Friends of the McCanns have pointed to Murat
The PJ puts in the same room the parents of Maddie, their friends and the Luso British, has reported yesterday the 24Horas.
A confrontation has taken place. The Policia Judiciaria has collocated Rober Murat in front of all the persons that were dinning with the McCann couple in the night where Madeleine disappeared from an apartment in Praia da Luz, in Lagos, Algarve, May 3. Some days later it has resulted from this diligence the constitution of Murat as arguido, because two of the McCanns' friends told during this face-to-face that they have seen the Luso British near the apartment where the toddler and her twin siblings were sleeping.
"They were collocated all together in the same room and two persons, who leaved the restaurant, did point their finger to Robert Murat. They told that it was this person that they have seen near the apartment where the little girl was sleeping by the hour in which the alarm was raised in the respective apartment where the little girl was sleeping close to the hour in which it has also been given the alarm of the respective disappearance ", told to the 24Horas a judicial source linked to the process.
The 24Horas claims that the friends, who have accused Murat, are Jane Tanner and Russel O'Brien. They said clearly, during their face-to-face that it was him who was bringing the toddler in his arms.
It is the same couple who has manifested their intention to the Ministerio Publico to change their depositions performed at that time after it has been turn public that they could be made arguidos in this process.
"We know that Robert Murat was near the apartment, it was claimed by two witnesses and they are friends of the McCann couple", has guaranteed to the 24Horas another source close to the investigations.
Also Francisco Pagarete, the lawyer of the arguido, is preemptory: "These are lies. My client didn’t know the McCanns and the night that the little girl vanished he was in his house with his mother. We would prove this fact. We are lamenting the fact that it would be only in May that we could have access to the process and prepare our defense.
While I agree with what Lizbee says, I think a private prosecution will be a good thing in that it may well clarify the law regarding leaving young and therefore vulnerable children alone. I'm quite amazed by CM statements regarding the prosecution - not done anything wrong? Does this mean they will do it again? Some may well argue that the tour around Europe, Morroco and the visit to the Pope showed that the McCanns were prepared to leave their twins (albeit in the care of relatives).
I find it hard to come to terms with the fact that RM is an arguido simply on the hearsay of two witnesses who have since been proven (by other witnesses J Wilkins and the Irish teenager) to be at best unreliable.
This case should take a long time. Very often people who fit the profile are banged away quickly on the flimsiest of evidence only to be released years later. This has left the real perp to go unhindered and in many instancees to further kill.
What has happened to the forensics?
Clothes, blankets and cushion of the bed should have been analyzed
Policia Judiciara has thrown evidences
Judicial sources guarantee that a series of vestiges has not been collected by the detectives due to the confusion that has permanated.
The detectives of the Policia Judiciaria have ignored important evidences that could help to find a solution to the case of Madeleine McCann.
This alleged negligence was due to the confusion that has prevailed in this place and the fact that it was only taken into account that they were in presence of abduction. "When the PJ returned to the apartment, more than 24 hours after the disappearance of the toddler, half of the evidences have already been eclipsed", has affirmed a judicial source close to the process.
Although many evidences have vanished, as it has been reported by the 24Horas last week, a contamination of the apartment has been caused not only by the numerous persons that did enter in the room of the little girl, but also by the existence in the scene of vestiges pertaining to precedent lodgers.
A source of the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal clarified: "It has been also send to us vestiges to DNA analysis. But it is clear that it should have been good if the PJ did remit to us the clothes, blankets and even the mattress where the little girl was sleeping”.
The importance of the analysis of this elements is explained by the same source with the possibility to collect some indices which could explain what did happen in that apartment, May 3:"It could have been found in this articles an important trail and not only the hairs which were send to the Institute. They forget that the existing articles in the room could have, and, we are talking about hypotheses, fibers pertaining to an eventual kidnapper and eventually a digital impression".
It is established that this articles in question were cleaned by the staff of the Ocean Club days after the disappearance of Maddie, thus destroying some elements that they could contain.
The tests asked to the English Laboratory are the ones that continue to arrive to the PJ.
The precedent article was from the 24Horas.
24horas seems to be on the mccanns side nowadays... what changed? any idea jose?
Here is the link to the YT which shows how far away the tapas bar is from the apt.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P...T8QJL9nlaw&
NR=1
Re Sharon: The article does state that individual babysitting services were offered but read a bit further from your quote and you will see what I meant about them not bothering to use it: "The resort, however, offered a baby-sitting service for 15 euros (
£10) an hour, which was staffed by a member of the daytime nursery teams, or a ‘dining out club’. This involved parents dropping off children at the crèche where they would be supervised watching videos until they went to sleep. Parents would then return before 11.30 to scoop up their sleepy offspring.
Plus parents were required to wait until children under two, which includes the McCanns
’ twins, were asleep. We talked to parents who said this was enough to put them off the option."
So the MCs did not wish to put themselves thru the inconvenience of having to wait for the twins to be asleep before they could get on with their holiday fun. We are in agreement that had they bothered to pay a bit for any kind of babysitting service, this whole tragedy could have been subverted.
As to the lawsuit against them and the arguments pro & con, I am all for it. If they were to lose custody of the twins bc of such an action, they deserve to. I am hardly convinced that those two children are safe in the custody of these two, sorry, but that is my opinion. I need that proven to me in light of their past actions.
Judicial sources guarantee that a series of vestiges has not been collected by the detectives due to the confusion that has permanated.
The detectives of the Policia Judiciaria have ignored important evidences that could help to find a solution to the case of Madeleine McCann.
That is the reason I feel that the PJ "cocked up". How can any reputable police force not secure a crime scene and get DNA evidence from the actual place of abduction.
With regards to RM still being an arguido are we sure that the only reason he is IS because JT stated she saw him, is there not another reason?
Re pinkdrummergirl This article of the 24Horas is not an article who is in the side of the McCanns. If it was it would sustain that the McCanns are innocent, that Madeleine McCann has been abducted and that the Portuguese Police is incompetent.
This paper demontrates that the Portuguese Police did major mistakes at the begining of the inquiry of the Madeleine McCann case.
In this sense it could be interpretate as a paper being in the side of the McCanns.
The first mistake of the Portuguese Police was to believe exclusively in the abduction theory. It explains that how terrible it was that the scene of crime has been contaminated not only by the a lot of people but also by the precedent occupants -as if the Police could seal off the scene of crime before the crime!
Well it seems to me, that the fact a lot of people was present in the scene of crime (before and after the crime) is not a problem for genetics to identify DNA. It just render their work more complicated. I think that these suggestions of the 24Horas are simply ridiculous.
The second point is that Police forget to analyse blanket, sheets and mastress which could contain evidences (other than hair) that could incriminate an eventual abductor. For me, if it is true, it s a real big mistake of the Portuguese Police.
Re Lynn It wasnt you who said to me that the 24Horas was a second hand newspaper?
Now, do you believe in what is written in this tabloid?
Concerning the fact that Robert Murat is arguido, the same tabloid 24Horas said some ago that DNA of Madeleine McCann was found in his house.
http://tinyurl.com/38d8xp
Jane Tanner has given an interview to the BBC where she speaks about the moment she saw the abductor of Madeleine McCann.
The confession of Jane Tanner on BBC, with a video online:
http://tinyurl.com/3bn6pl
Re: pinkdrummergirl | 11.16.07 - 1:48 am
The comment you quote contains at least one fairly massive and fundamental statistical blunder.
According to the Times article, for year 2002-2003 there were:
"59 successful stranger abductions that year, and 377 failed attempted abductions by strangers (out of a total of 843 total abductions)"
59+377=436, so I guess this is where the commenter gets "approximately 440 attempted abductions by strangers in 2002/3"
The article says that the average age of children abducted is 10. This does not mean that every abductee is a 10 year old. But this is the (big) mistake the commenter makes.
The commenter then applies the number of attempted abductions (failed and successful) of *all* people to their crude estimate of the number of 10 year old girls (with some adjustments for race, not sure why).
Complete error. The figure which the commenter gives as the chance of a 10 year old white girl being abducted is out by an enormous factor because of this mistake.
The clearest estimate of risk which the article implies is this: 59 successful abductions took place in total (across the whole population) 2002-2003. 2/3 of the abductees were found within 24 hours. So about 20 went missing for longer than a day. The figures will be for England and Wales (Scotland keeps its own crime satistics), the pop. is about 60 million. So the chances of being abducted and going missing for more than a day are approximately 1 in 3 million for the whole population. This will be higher for children, as the average age of abductees is o low. But I reckon it will still be a figure of over a million to one, literally.
Apparently a higher chance than winning the main prize in the UK lottery (1 in 14 million i believe). But still a pretty remote chance.
The chances of being abducted and going missing permanently will be much more remote... and I suspect that goes for Portugal too.
The chances of being killed by your parents, on the other hand... well, I don't know - but if the annual figure is in excess of 20 as think it would be, then on the basis of the figures in the article (not the comment, bin that) it is simply statistically more likely than being abducted.
PDG: the NSPCC (anti child cruelty campaign in UK) quotes official figures on its website
http://tinyurl.com/yw8y78
"On average, every week in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent"
So, about 50.
So, statistically more likely to be killed by your parents than abducted for over a day.
Re Lynn It wasnt you who said to me that the 24Horas was a second hand newspaper?
Now, do you believe in what is written in this tabloid?
@Jose sorry you lost me
Some info on child killing:-
"Most murderers of children are relatives, acquaintances or caretakers. Younger children (aged 13 and under) are more likely to be murdered by a relative...In modern times, the killing of children is often closely related to instances of prolonged periods of child abuse. Some victims are murdered by parents as part of a murder-suicide. Parents sometimes begin administering corporal punishment that quickly escalates into severe abuse and occasionally murder, as, for example, in the Victoria Climbié case which occurred in London.
A number of murderers of children are pedophiles who commit lust murder or kill to cover up their other crimes. These latter cases are more notorious, although killings by family members are more common
In the U.K. the number of child homicides fluctuates every year but the annual number of child homicides recorded in Criminal Statistics has averages 79 a year for the last 28 years. The Home Office also provides unpublished figures on the relationship between the child victims of homicide in any one year and the principal suspect. Latest figures for 2000/2001 show that parents were the principal suspect in 78 per cent of child homicides"
Jose - JT comes across as quite convincing - she clearly believes she saw an abduction.
Thanks for the link - i watched it and like Kate and Gerry my first impression was which planet is she on BUT in saying that trying to cope with what has happened with media speculation she looks like a woman on the verge, but wouldnt we all.
@ John isnt it interesting how people perceive others, i think she did sound convincing but looked like she was a woman who had certainly been through a lot but omg put yourself in her shoes, not used to all this media attention then receiving so much negative publicity, to read anything awful about onesself must be so hard to do. I know i had to have therapy for Nancy's harsh criticisms lol
@ Lynn where did you get the therapy I have still not recovered!
Someone asked when the Panorama programme on Madeleine is due. This Monday 9pm GMT.
My opinion of J.T. for what it is worth is, when did she first remember the abduction? Unfortunately only the PJ know the answer so we are unlikely to find out.
Thanks for the link Jose. I too thought JT came off very credible, just wonder WHY they didn't ask about Murat and if he was the one, etc.???
http://tinyurl.com/27tkxv
This is a video of G&K talking about how rare abductions are for tourists, I believe his said there was only one other case and that was back in 1991. It's hard to watch as he appears so detached it seems as if it was he could have been doing a documentary on gum disease.
So let's get this straight.
Jane Tanner was going, in the dark, to check on some of the unattended children of the tapas group in apartments some distance away from the dinner party, which she must have known were not locked when she was making this trip.
In the Panorama interview she says she saw a man taking a child away from these apartments, and "thought nothing of it" at the time, even though her visit was supposed to be to check that the children were alright.
In May, after Madeleine disappeared, Jane Tanner recalled this sighting, saying that she had seen someone with something like a child wrapped in a blanket.
Now, months later claims it was definitely someone taking Madeleine McCann, though other witnesses in the same place at the same time who should have seen the same person carrying the child all say there was no person.
Is that a fair summary?
Still something doesn't add up.
Why did she change her story from the object being unidentifiable even as a child, and being wrapped in a blanket, to saying it was a child wearing pink pyjamas, to it was Madeleine McCann?
But more to the point, if she was really checking up on any of the kids (whether on the McCann children or just her own) surely seeing someone moving purposefully away from the partments where the kids were sleeping unattended would have rung some alarm bell with her at 9.15 on May 3 - and not in the middle of November.
A read of the web forums including this one would reveal that one of the big problems for the abduction theory is no evidence.
Jane Tanner changing her story from "thought she saw someone carrying something but shought nothing of it" to "actually saw someone abducting a child and can identify that child as Madeleine McCann" could be thought of as providing some evidence where there was none.
But a witness who changes their story is at best unreliable.
And it is of course possible that she may be lying.
ARM - Its perfectly possible that JT saw someone carrying a child (or something which might have been a child). She thought nothing of it because the place was full of tourists with children (presumably). What is clear is that she cannot have actually recognised Madeleine because then she would have done something. Aferwards, shock/guilt on being told that Madeleine has been taken - "has anyone seen anything suspicious?" - the memory grows in her mind until she is convinced that she witnessed the abduction. Now she is credible because she believes what she is saying.
Possible conclusions:
1) she is right
2) she is wrong but not likely to be part of any fabrication.
3) she is a magnificent liar.
The last in my opinion is v. unlikely.
Re John The problem with Jane Tanner is that she did not undertand that the man she saw was the abductor of Madeleine McCann at the moment she saw him. If I was Jane Tanner I would be tormented to have failed to recognize Madeleine McCann in the arms of that man. And how could I be certain that it was an abduction? I will doubt.
But I am not Jane Tanner.
She looks to be convinced that she saw an abduction, I agree with you. But there is something odd. She speaks now only to prove that she is not a lier or a fantasist as if it was the only thing important. And she says that she BELIEVES that Madeleine was abducted. She is not sure. She speaks like anyone of us who has not been present at Praia da Luz, May 3.
I don't blame her for wanting to speak - after all she has been accused of making the thing up. But the idea that because people thought she had mad it up deliberately as part of a conspiracy has now to be very unlikely. Also I think its interesting that she feels safe now to do this interview despite secrecy laws. I think probably she would never have got into trouble over this anyway ... she doesn't really say anything that hasn't been leaked into the public domain anyway.
When someone changes their story it is problematic for the case.
Did she, or did she not see Madeleine McCann being abducted?
For:
- she now says she did
Against:
- she didn't think so when she actually saw whatever she saw
- she didn't say to at the time she was asked by the cops
- she has changed her story substantially since the event
- no one else, including people who were around in the same vicinity at the same time says they saw anything like what she says she saw
If I was going to cynical I would point out that it is "Children in need" tonight on BBC. The timing of this is interesting.
the lacy bottom on those pajamas are pretty clear evidence that it was madeleine. lacy hems are not common in children's pajamas. i would suggest that the odds are astronomical that another small child was wearing light pink pajamas with lacy hems at mark warner that night. im not a statistician, but if she saw what she says she saw (i believe her) then it is 99.95555% improbable that it could have been any child other than madeleine.
a reasonable man, show me where there is conclusive reporting that jane tanner has changed her story? only the police know that, and from what i've gathered, they aren't talking. i think 90% of the things people here consider to be facts are nothing more than desperate editors looking for something to sell newspapers. when i see the transcript of all her interviews, i will decide if she has changed her story or not. until then, i will give her the benefit of the doubt.
regarding no one else seeing what she saw that night..one minute's difference in the time either of these people were out and the exact moment JT saw this man would clearly alter what everyone else saw. the man did not linger or she would have a better description, he was walking away from her and MW. how long do you think the window of opportunity was for someone to see this man in the time between he walked out the door of the apt. and was out of view of the MW complex? my guess would be 45 seconds or less.
just think of it this way, no one saw jane or the man, perhaps that was because none of these people were at the right spot at the right time. "i was out on my balcony smoking around 9:15 and didnt see JT" is clearly not enough evidence to discredit her. the same applies for gerry and his tennis friend standing in the alley. what if she walked down that path 120 seconds before they converged to speak? is that not atleast as probable as them being there 120 seconds later to see her?
Re Nancy Disgrace It s perfectly possible that Jane Tanner saw the offender. For me the important question is: was Madeleine alive or dead in the arms of that man?
I agree ARM. I think John that she is convincing because she has been convinced.
Let me try to give you a trivial example. I go to a football match and a goal is scored by the opposing team which I think at the time is a good goal. However the person sitting next to me says it was offside. Everybody round about me agrees, offside.
I go to the pub afterwards and my pal who was at the other end of the ground because he supports the other team, says what a great goal they scored. I think it could have been offside say I. We then watch it on the telly and it is offside. A day later (never mind 6 months) I am convinced that I knew immediately the goal was offside. Just as important my pal has told all his friends I knew that was offside Stanley told me before we even saw the replay on the telly.
JT is convinced she saw someone. That much I am prepared to believe, but no further.
do we have any body language experts amonst us??
why.... because if you watch Jane Tanner during the interview everyt time she talks about the night in question, May 3rd and what she saw, she is shaking her head
Is this significant....???
Oh Nancy, would you sitting on a jury send Murat to jail for the abduction of a girl on the testimony of Jane Tanner? She says the man was Murat. Herself, husband the Paynes and Murat were all together in a room. The finger was pointed firmly at Murat.
She is a very unreliable witness. Has no idea of the timelines, said there was a man at a time when others were there, ie. Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins and the Irish teenager and all, yes ALL, agreed that there was no man at that time.
She has changed several details regarding the man she saw. This just isn't good enough.
She could well have seen someone but for her to say it was the abductor is disingenuous.
Macushla, when she is asked about the time she raises her eyes to the right, says she's not sure and then answers 10ish. It simply isn't good enough.
Where did she say the man was Murat? Certainly not in the interview she just gave...??
You don't know that she changed the details. Have you read the police transcripts? No, you've just read a bunch of garbage on the internet that may or may not be true.
When she said 10ish, she was being asked about the time she found out Madeleine was missing. NOT what the time was when she saw the man in question.
Re macushla I am not an expert in facial expression but her face is expressive. When she looks with her eyes back, her eyes are counterirritated which denotes introspection, lack of selfconfidence.
When she says I am not sure ...10ish (about the time when she heard Madeleine is gone): she shakes her head, her voice changes trembling with emotion. I think she lies at that moment.
Re macushla What I feel odd is the expression that Jane Tanner has when she speaks about the moment she heard Madeleine is gone: there is no sadness in her face on the contrary she seems to be happy.
It is not just Zorro G & Jeremy missed they also did not see Jane walk right by them. Reasonable intelligence would dictate Jane's details have changed, from eggman to Zorro 5 1/2 months later. If there was no blanket why didn't whoever was the spokesman at that time correct this widely reported detail that there was a blanket? Nobody corrected the blanket issue so I feel it is a fairly safe assumption to assume her story changed here. I do believe her that she believes she saw someone. It will be interesting to see the rest of the interview Monday night for those that get Panorama.
Stamley "I am convinced that I knew immediately the goal was offside."
That ball never crossed the line! It was a linesman called Malinka what gave the goal.
Nancy I already knew that Jane was refering to the time that Madeleine vanished.
The reason why Murat was made an arguido was because of the testimony of a Sky reporter and the testimony of Jane Tanner and her husband. The Paynes were also present. The Sky reporter went to the police because she felt he was behaving in a strange way.
Nancy do keep up. With regard to the siting of the 'abductor', Jane Tanner has changed the details. First of all she reported a man with an egg shaped head. Then he had an oval face with facial detail, even some stubble. The FBI forensics drawing, i.e. the latest of three, the perp has no facial features but carries the child as if it has died.
Maggie, I am keeping up and you posted nothing but media reports. We have no idea what JT did or did not say to the police regarding the man, murat or anything else. You can't cite a definitive source, only rumor and group think perpetuated by the media matrix. You have not seen a transcript to prove any of this, have you? You are twisting anything you read or hear into fact, and it's not. YOU KNOW NOTHING.
But Nancy, with regard to Jane Tanner's sightings, we do know something. She has changed her mind on what the perp looked like three, YES three times.
She has said that the perp had abducted Madeleine at a time that has been disputed by three independent witnesses, one of them a suspect in this case.
So in fact I and others do know something. You however....
Need I go on?
The most definitive source is the drawing and the interview with Jane herself. Everything else is rumor.
I am a firm believer in Occam's Razor and justice, and neither of these principles are being served here.
Correction - drawingS
No, she has not. Show me the drawing that changes 3 times? Or a transcript that has changed 3 times? You are citing reports from unknown media sources, internet gossip and using some twisted deductive reasoning to blame everything that appears to not add up on JT, when in fact she may have been saying the same thing all along and the MEDIA and their sources got it wrong. Just because it's been repeated widely and entered into web sleuthing group think DOES NOT make it true.
Nancy for the first drawing (eggman) when everything was fresh in Jane's mind I believe you will find it on the PJ's own website, 2nd one (I don't know) and I assume since C.M. release Zorro you believe that one. Go check it out dear.
Dee, you don't know what you are talking about. The police have never released the supposed "egg" sketch to media. The sketch that you have seen is "reproduction of the e-fit of Madeleine's suspected abductor as drawn from memory by one witness who has seen the original"
The original was supposedly shown around to residents of prai da luz. The media do not have this so called police artist's sketch. If this is an accurate reproduction, then i don't think you can blame this drawing on jane tanner. she is not the artist who took pen to paper. it looks like to me that the second drawing is based on the same information, but by a decent sketch artist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
The eggman was Jane Tanner's description of the abductor. The second drawing I'm referring too is a mistake, it's the Belgian man supposedly seen with Madeleine in a restuarant (this picture was accurate though and ruled this sighting out).
However Jane Tanner has, as Dee has pointed out, said the abductor had Madeleine wrapped in a blanket. This picture was known as Egg man or Bundle man. In the latest picture, there is no blanket.
There was never an 'E' fit photo. Only drawings.
'E'-fits are composite photos of the face. In this 'latest' drawing there is no face.
Common sense tells you an artist needs a proper description to be able to sketch, obviously the artist didn't get the information needed.
the "egg" sketch that is commonly circulated wasn't the official police sketch...it was a "recreation" of the official police sketch made by someone who had seen the official sketch. The official police sketch was never released. People in the town who were shown it said it had no facial detail, and one of them drew this recreation after seeing it.
why can't you separate fact from crazy stuff like this secondhand "egg" sketch?
You are not asking us to put our faith and believe a newspaper article from the Daily Mail as fact are you Nancy????
Dee the artist is drawing a reproduction of a SUPPOSED sketch that may or may not exist.
one thing is for certain, JT could name quite a few things about the man she saw that aren't on the reproduction of a SUPPOSED sketch including clothing colors, hair color, height, age, weight. it appears to me that JT knew a lot, just not about the man's face and the PJ
totally blew it by deciding since she knew no facial details, it wasn't worth the effort.
We do agree she apparently knew a lot of details 5 1/2 months later. Still wondering what happened to the blanket though?
No, I'm not Dee, but since you won't produce the original police sketch that you said was on their web site, I thought I better challenge your lies.
FACT: no one can show me the supposed original sketch that you say is on the PJ web site
FACT: numerous news sources confirm that this "Egg" sketch is a reproduction drawn from the memory of someone who SUPPOSEDLY saw the original.
Nancy - If someone was shown a sketch that looked like an egg with some hair and was then asked to describe it then this is what they would come out with. I remember a lot of derision amongst press and locals about the sketch they were shown. We have to suppose that this sketch was based on what JT said she saw.
Nancy I said, "I "believe" you will find it on the PJ's own website...go check it out dear"
macushla and jose: totally agree. i just watched the clip. And i imitated her to my daughter saying the same words and shaking my head. It feels so wrong.
This woman i believe was at madeleines birth. She has known that child since birth. It is probably going to be one of the most important events in her life, the abduction of her good friends child, who she was on holiday with. A devastating experience by anybody's standards.
"what time was that?"says the interviewer
"er, tennish?" says jane, shaking her head. It's all in the body language.
Sorry. She is so not telling the truth. I would have tears in my eyes as i recalled the moment. I'd know exactly when it was. This is how you react if someone says to you " so when time did you arrive at the pub?" " er, tennish?".
What is wrong with these people?
I honestly believe the police totally blew it by dismissing the importance of JT's description because she didnt see the man's face.
So, we are back to my assertion that until we see transcripts of JT's actual statements to the police which contradict themselves or change over time, we MUST give her the benefit of the doubt...in the name of justice for Madeleine.
pinkdrummergirl, if you are imitating JT to you daughter, you need serious psychological help.
"it feels so wrong."
grow up and stop deluding yourself into believing that you can read people's mind that you see on the internet or tv or even face to face. you can't. if you can, these people will give you a million dollars.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
hello all,
Just thinking, we are now 6months down this road, with no concrete proof of anything really. Have the policia judicaria any more than we know? Don't know, don't think so.
I think, give it another few weeks, and unless there is a massive breakthrough, this case will go to dust. Christmas is upon us (for christians and revellers yes), and it is a season that focuses on different things.
I'd be very surprised if this case stays much in the news for much longer. Except for our community which is interested and cares for the fate of the child.
I fear the lack of reporting on this as much as I fear the spurious reporting really, because reporting no matter how rubbish sometimes, well, it keeps it on the map.
I have to say that I am fearful that this case will wind down, and will be largely forgotten except by folks like us. But that is the way of the world, Next item please.....
@ Maggie and Dee
Didnt you know its either Nancy's way or the highway - waste of time - she will just say you lie.
JT did state that the man she saw had a child wrapped in a blanket it was in an officially released - 6 months almost down the line and things have changed AND moreso the Pyjamas the little girl JT saw are trhey not totally different to what Madeleine was wearing. I cant see lace around the bottom of them or am i mistaken?
hey nancy, in my house we talk to each other, discuss things, debate stuff over dinner. I believe a family is precisely that, doing stuff, sharing your life with your kids... unlike certain other people.
Anyway its a shame you aren't as amusing as your screen name.
Yep...and she did as usual. Never really compared the PJ's to the drawing.
Have to say I do sway back and forth but I somehow feel that JT perhaps misguided did see something and it just didnt twig with her. Perhaps it wasnt Madeleine but because of a willingness to believe it was she has now convinced herself it was - how many times have you thought you were right about something and cant believe you are wrong - at the end of the day we are only human.
I think she looked upset, broken and of course disturbed by this whole case, my heart goes out to K and G who made a neglectful error and have lost an adoreable child something I could not live with, so ?I do not know how they cope.
Re: Video of JT describing what she saw:
There is absolutely no reason why she would make the entire story up, it would be too risky and mad in the head! Therefore she definitely saw someone carrying something that she thought was a child.
Why did she not think more of it at the time and only recall greater detail later? I think that they were all on planet holiday and only later did the shadowy image she saw grow in relevance when K announced M was missing and she'd been given time to think and clearly she would have been wanting to be as helpful as possible. I think she's been pushed to recall as much as possible and may have unintentionally added more detail from her increasing knowledge about the whole event e.g. PJs M was wearing, than the light and brief sighting allowed her to factually witness at the time.
I think she believes she saw M being abducted but that does not mean that she did. I think she comes across as quite choked up by it all at the end of the video, yes she does try to be personable, who wouldn't.
Regarding the timing and the other witnesses, well all the timings appear out of sinc. so why should this differ.
John said "That ball never crossed the line! It was a linesman called Malinka what gave the goal."
This is a fascinating case. He is referring here to "the goal that never was" in the 1966 World Cup Final.
What makes it interesting for our present discussion is this. The morning after the game 50 million people on this island believed the ball had crossed the line. For the sake of argument we shall call them the English. 10 million people on these islands believed it had not. Again for simplicity we shall call the Celts. Now just in case you think that 5 times as many people believing in something makes it true. There were 70 million people who definitely knew it was not a goal. Lets call them Germans.
The point of course is that people see and believe what they want to. They also draw different conclusions from seeing the same evidence. Would any of you have guessed that Nancy would believe JT and the rest would not? Does anyone doubt what conclusions blimey will have come to? After considering all the 'possibles' of course!
Has anyone noticed that there now appears to be some text missing from day 185 - I think, on the findmadeleine.com blog? or am I imagining that I read something there and it's now vanished??
Is it a 'fact' that there was written information there and it has now been removed or am I imagining that there was an entry there about more recent developments, please someone help me out here as I have casesickness if i am wrong!!
Very serious and may require nancytype professional help!
nancytype professional help. lol.
i always imagine her to look like the girl in The ring.
N'anycase I've been told on the M Forum that there was a date entry but no script posted for that day... nuff said.
So having found the answer for myself... please don't anyone suggest I need nancylikehelp; gosh & yikes am v. scared by the sound of that.
Stanley you are assuming Nancy and Blimey are 2 different people, I find that are to believe. Can you tell the difference...they both just call you liars and ask for proof which they say comes from newspapers, that are unsubstantiated (we all know this), then they turn around with quotes from newspapers themselves that are all of sudden are deemed as fact. They both have serious troubles determining the difference between an opinion and a statement. On this board we state opinions, they state their opinion as absolute statements of proclamations. They keep calling for transcripts, so if they want that factual of information, they shouldn't be on this discussion site, (simply for their sanity) and patiently wait to see if these people are charged, the court case to be completed and then perhaps they can personally read the official transcripts if available.
Liz, I think you can trust we will never suggest this (you have an open mind)!!!
Nancy and Blimey probably imagine we are all different people too!
I'm wondering why the much anticipated DNA test results aren't yet back. Any ideas?
Does anyone have any info regarding the little american girl supposedly found in Rif mountains, morocco, by metodo 3, the PI company hired by the McCanns?
I don't know the answer to the last two questions posted but would like to as well.
Regarding the timeline. Now that JT has come out and broken the silence surely then she could have shed some light on the times. All the speculation so far exists because of this. Wouldn't it be better to clear this up?
i have been mulling over why the McCanns are insistant that they were not negligent in leaving their children unsupervised, where the majority voice,
(sorry CM but the majority of *British* folks just wouldn't leave 3 toddlers unattended... so please only speak for yourself!)
...believe otherwise, then i came apon this from the law society ;
Negligence
...failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.
IMHO, Technically ; the McCanns are arguing an abduction theory, thus no resulting injury, therefore no negligence.
I really think they believe this.... they/those surounding them, would have researched Laws regarding child neglect, as it is pertinent to the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's disapearance.
Maggie - the timeline is "hmmm about tennish ..." the only bit in JT's interview that made me wonder ...
@ Billie - no idea on DNA did hear a rumour that something was amiss hence taking longer but unsubstantiated gossip!!!
@ Dee I always imagined Nancy to be an Anerican who missed the therapy line!!!
@ Sian - not sure whether or not the one I know about is the same as you but there was a girl tracked down and was proven to not be Madeleine - if there was the only one Moroccon sighting then it wasn't Madeleine. http://tinyurl.com/3x5b2k
Don't know if you've spotted this but some of the footage to be used in Panorama (BBC Mondya):
"The programme will also feature some previously unseen footage of the McCanns talking about Madeleine in the early stages of the hunt for her.
They were filmed by indepedent producer John Corner, a friend of the McCanns and godfather to their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie."
http://tinyurl.com/2cq467
This guy is:
http://tinyurl.com/2ztx53
These McCanns have the most amazing connections! No wonder the media is falling at their feet.
Panorama prides itself on investigative style reporting - so I hope Monday is not going to be a whitewash - although I am poised to write another (seemingly pointless) complaint if it is.
@ john
about tennish is ok i think id be more suss if she gave exact time
John
i too noted the *independant film producer* for Monday's Panorama.
lets hope there is an interview in there with Robert Murat... what are the chances?
I'll be there with you on the complaints front if this investigation is anything other than unbiased!
Dear Nancy
Dee said "Stanley you are assuming Nancy and Blimey are 2 different people, I find that hard to believe."
I think it is time we both came clean. If you will admit you are blimeyhecks, I shall confess I am John (UK), A Reasonable Man, Billie, Lynn, Maggie, Lizbee, PDG, Jose (FR), Andrea, Macushla et al.
I am in ward 10 at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital. I am totally and utterly barking mad. What is your excuse?
I hope you are receiving the same standard of treatment I am, though I find the electrodes scary. I apologise for the silent periods but I cannot type properly in my straight jacket.
Steve does this confession mean I owe you more money?
"@ john
about tennish is ok i think id be more suss if she gave exact time
Lynn | 11.17.07 - 4:27 am | "
Just sounded a bit rehearsed to me - but I may be falling into the body language trap!
Stanley - if you are me ... then who the hell am I?
macushla - Murat has given interviews hasn't he - although he just proclaimed his innocence.
john
yes, Robert Murat has given his side.... but regarding this documentary and its producer ( a very close family friend) .... is it all about the McCanns and Friends or is it unbiased enough to include Robert Murat's side of events...
what troubles me besides all my identity problems -who am I - is the question if the two friends who wanted to change their testimony do really exist ?IMO it was definitely not Jane Tanner and her husband(24horas claimed it was them, how do they know) , even if we dont know if she lies or not, we know her husband did by telling the story about their sick child...changing the sheets and so on.
to me they are both not credible. not at all.
The two who want to tell the truth must be- if true at all - the Paynes.
Thanks Jose for the link, I hope the whole show gets up on google quickly after Monday. MSNBC did a show on the case last week and there is no sign of it yet.
Ms Tanner certainly has incredible night vision, being able to discern all these details and COLORS in the almost pitch black darkness after being in that darkness for only a minute or so from the brighter lighting of the tapas bar. I am not convinced of her bionic night vision as of yet.
She was in her apt at the time she learned of Madeleine's disappearance according to the text of the article and I am sure from the rest of the interview. I shall leave that to you timeline experts to put into place .
When asked if she is willing to return to Portugal for further questioning Tanner's voice goes up a pitch - that is a sign of sudden nervousness, conflict. She answers Yes while shaking her head No, again conflict. To me that is a lie and also a deliberate one. The rest of the interview convinces me only of her effort to convince...and not that she is telling the truth. I would love to see the part where he asks her what the abductor looks like, if he does. Interesting to see if she remembers still more details of the dark or if she sticks to what she has said or remembers less. If he doesnt ask her this, then yes John, write that letter of complaint, and send her a copy, for this is surely her chance to tell the world what the abductor looks like. And it should match her description point for point as in the made-for-the-McCanns artist's rendering!
From G's blog: Day 160 - 10/10/2007 -Wednesday
After a few days of ridiculous newspaper coverage in the UK and Portugal it was heartening to hear of the statement this evening from Mr Ripeiro, the National Director of the Judicial Police in Portugal. He has again emphasised that all lines of the investigation, not only Madeleine
’s death, are open and that much of what has been written is pure speculation and in some cases misinformation. Scientific reports that we drugged our children clearly fall in to the latter category.
In the coming days and weeks we hope that only factual material is reported, allowing everyone to focus on finding Madeleine and who took her.
+++++++++++
Ok Gerry, if you want only facts and no speculation then why do you say "Madeleine's death" here? I realize I am not the first one here to notice this horror. Why does he say it, the death, is part of the investigation? Because at that time the DNA was still in the headlines and it was supposedly from the hire car and a deceased person, a body? So do we give him a pass for this statement? I won't of course, I'm hard on him like that.
Why does he say "Scientific reports" on the drug business are misinfo? I mean hey Gerry, if they are scientific...He knows more than we do and here he gives some of it away. There ARE scientific reports which he disagrees with. And he knows Madeleine is dead.
I wish the two of them would just confess and get this over with.
@ CHANEL
i too would be nervous to go back to Portugal.
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We believe the Panorama programme will go a long way to show as wide a public as possible the truth about Madeleine’s abduction” (Daily express)
Stanley you are hilarious!!!
Also the CBS show 48 Hours is doing the McCann story TONIGHT.
John we must stop talking to ourself!
The reason I never commented on the story that 2 of the tapas 7 were going to change their testimony was I was perplexed at from where this story emerged, and who had most to gain from it?
There are 2 possibilities: The PJ leaked this tale in the hope that the tapas 7 would believe their collective cover had been broken and one of them at least would indeed change their story.
Team McCann leaked the story so that when there was no-one forthcoming it made the Portuguese press look silly (not too difficult) and confirmed the solidarity of the tapas 7.
I would be interested to know if Panorama approached JT or the other way round and was this before or after the leak about changing testimonies?
re stanley
concerning your thoughts about the author of the leaks: Would the McCann team criticise the McCann Team by leaking the statement that the pressure from the team surrounding the McCanns was really scary?
Dee, thank you re 48hrs, I will def'ly watch it!
The Sun has plenty of McCann mania today including much more of the JT interview: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/
home...ticle476010.ece
(Sorry, tinyurl wouldnt show up with the tinyurl - ?)
It is ALL to get the timeline driven into our little heads. And it must ALL be TRUE as there was a veritable parade of people in and out of apts looking at children, sick, sleeping or sedated. It's a wonder this gang had time to eat and drink at all!!
"Says Clarence Mitchell: “We believe the Panorama programme will go a long way to show as wide a public as possible the truth about Madeleine’s abduction” (Daily express)
andrea (germany) | 11.17.07 - 6:29 am | "
That quote is very worrying - I do hope Panorama are not going to let themselves down.
From the Sun link given by Chanel:
"Her cuddle cat was on the bed along with the blanket Maddie had been snuggled in."
I thought the cuddle cat was placed high up where a child could not have reached. I'm beginning to gte very confused again.
from today's Mirror:
"Jane, of Exeter, agreed with the permission of the McCanns to speak to BBC's Panorama for a one-hour special report on Monday night."
...with the permission of the McCanns???? So there is no pact apparently!
I do not know what Jane Tanner really saw or did not see, but what she says in the Panorama film:
"Never in a million years did I think it could have been Madeleine. But I didn't know then. I just saw a person walk along the top of the road with what could have been a child in his arms."
does not appear to me to constitute a positive identification.
re A reasonable man Jane Tanner said: Never in a million years did I think it could have been Madeleine
Never in a million years I would believe that Jane Tanner did see Madeleine McCann in the arms of this man without a face.
I think that it was stated the cuddle cat was high up hence the suspicion Madeleine had been taken, again though the Sun stating it was on the bed isnt exactly reliable.
If the McCanns are innocent THEN there is nothing wrong with CM stating it should clear things up re: abduction. We have to presume they are and he thinks they are and I wonder how people will feel if they are ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt innocent after everything the McCanns have been put through.
the above post was me, attempting to be funny!!!
clearly i shall stick to what I know best - but what the hell is that?
I think JT did see someone, but with pressure, spin, logical thinking, rationalising i think she has sat down and thought yes that must have been Madeleine - so desperate to figure it out???
Lynn - given the current public knowledge about the case there is no way a TV programme can 'clear it up' - unless it is biased. There are so many questions which need to be answered. If CM means they have done some in depth investigation to find the truth - then fair enough - but I would be very surprised. I expect to see the usual lazy journalism repeating what they want us to think and a lack of challenging questions.
I presume that will be the case the do not tread on any toes sort of interview.
Re John ...with the permission of the McCanns???? So there is no pact apparently!
The SoSMaddie website http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/
reports that it's Clarence Mitchell himself who did organized the interview of Jane Tanner in the BBC documentary "Panorama". It's a counter-attack to the declaration of the Tapas 2 who did decide to change their initial depositions to the Portuguese Police. Jane Tanner was anxious about the revelation of the two repented.
Re Lynn I think JT did see someone, but with pressure, spin, logical thinking, rationalising i think she has sat down and thought yes that must have been Madeleine - so desperate to figure it out???
If Jane Tanner and her husband are involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, dont you think that Jane Tanner could lie and invent that she has seen someone?
Jane Tanner is under the pressure to be made arguido. The McCanns, Jane Tanner and Russel O'Brien are under the threat of the Tapas 2 who have decided to change their depositions to the Protuguese Authorities. This is why Clarence Mitchell did organized this "spin" interview.
According to SosMaddie, a source within the Police Judiciaria said that the statements of Jane Tanner didnt match with their first statements made in Portimão. The same source adds that the Tanner/O'Brien couple did not fully cooperate with the Portuguese Police and also that the Portuguese Police dont understand how it is possible that Janne Tanner did see the man from profile without seing his face!?
http://tinyurl.com/2sukw9
parents innocent courtesy of Boston Herald.com
investigator goes undercover in PDL reports inconsistancies with McCann statements .... children left regularly.... Not checked regularly etc..
if this is really the case then yes the possibility of abduction does increase. But then so does the grounds of child neglect IMHO.
To leave 3 children EVERY NIGHT for hrs on end.... naive or down right stupid? Neither just plain criminal!
I know it's hard for you sheeple to believe, but there is actually more than one person in these comments who believes in the presumption of innocence.
BlimeyHecks and I are not the same person. Since so many of you love to tattle (whine) to Steve, why don't you ask him to check IPs?>/b>
Keep spinning little spiders, maybe one day you'll hit on something that sticks or grow up. Until then, you remain a lying, twisting, spinning, hateful and morally corrupt mob of overgrown children.
thank you nancy disgrace love you too
Nancy Disgrace, I like very much to read your comments. I am aware about the fact that the McCanns could be innocent. The presumption of innoncence is a judicial concept -or tenet as would say BlimeyHecks- established in the constitution of the Portuguese Republic. It means that it is to the Portuguese Authorities to bring the proof that the main suspects are guilty. It doesnt mean that the main suspects are innocent. I appreciate that you defend the McCanns in the way you do when you say that the news in the tabloids are not reliable and may be untrue. Because it is exactly what I think.
But I cant follow you when you say that the people there is lying, twisting, spinning, hateful and morally corrupt mob of overgrown children. I think that you should respect everyone here even those who dont share your point of view.
Jose, I think your question about respect should be directed at a few others who have accused blimeyhecks or myself of being the same person, being in a mental ward, need therapy, clarence mitchell, and even questioned whether blimeyhecks actually did the crime. I haven't called anyone here a murderer, have I? When I've called people liars, I have backed it up.
I do not know if they are innocent or not, I have stated that in previous threads..I just don't think many people are being critical enough of the theory that the McCanns did it. From all the evidence I've read, most everything people here think they know is myth. I actually think I am one of a few here who is actually being fair to all theories.
The myopia is deep here.
It is my opinion that there is not enough evidence to determine either way, abduction or parental murder. So when both are just as likely or possible as the other, I am going to be sympathetic to the individuals in question because they may in fact be innocent. How tragic
will it be if these people had nothing to do with her disappearance? Very.
I'm just trying to put a small balance weight on the other side - don't hate me for it.
Macushla: it would also mean a crime of perjury.
"don't hate me for it."
Don't call us lying, twisting, spinning, hateful and morally corrupt mob sheep/spiders/children then.
If the shoe fits..
Does anyone else wonder whether JT may in fact have recognized the man carrying the child that night?
So she would not be lying when she states that she did see a man carrying a child. This might explain her apparent difficulty in providing a description of the man's face: she might fear incriminating herself and others close to her.
Chanel, I too wish that G&K would return to Portugal. If they are as innocent as they claim they have nothing to fear.
I have talked during a while with Blimeyhecks and I have no reason to believe that you are him. I agree with you that nobody should say that you are someone else or to suggests that you are a murderer. That s not fair. Having someone like you could help us to find what is the truth and what is not. I also know that nobody here knows what did happen to Madeleine McCann. That s the reason we are here all we are trying to understand what did happen -doing our own theories- or what could be the theories of the Police and also if we are manipulated by the press or by the Police. You have your place here.
Nancy: and how tragic will it be if they did?
It is "very" tragic already.
I agree with you that we don't know much. I am sure more facts will emerge, especially if there is any kid of prosecution or trial.
I have an open mind. I think if the police have evidence that shows Madeleine was dead in or around the apartment, then it is hard to see how the parents would not be implicated in some way.
Personally I feel sorry for the McCanns, whether they neglected their child and she was abducted; or they killed her and disposed of her body; or something else altogether happened of which we know nothing; and even though they do come across as quite unlikeable to most people - that matters nothing to me.
Don't hate me for it.
Nancy Disgrace
Emmm have to care first!!!!!!
Re Billie Are you suggesting that the man she saw was in fact Jane Tanner or one of the Tapas 9? Since Jane Tanner was absent from the restaurant at 9h15, she could be the abductor or the person who disposed of the body of Madeleine McCann. Nothing could be excluded.
I think we are all in the dark with this case and we speculate but it is so difficult to trust what the Tapas9 say. I DO NOT think any of them are involved, I do think it was accidental death/wandered off/abduction more so than the parents or parents friends did it BUT the way the Tapas9 represent themselves, state things, discuss things, portray themselves (gotta blame CM for that one) is simply that they give off a lot of negativity and Gerry's Blog just does nothing but make the situation worse. Most threads now spend more time discussing that than what really happened to Madeleine.
I have so many theories which are posted and rejigged but thats all they are, the lack of help from anything that Team McCann say (this interview on Panorama will no doubt conclude this)
@JOSE NO I dont think that JT could lie and cover up, would have to be one hell of a friend, would you cover up the fact your friends killed their child i know I bloody wouldnt.
I just think JT did see what she says, didnt really pay attention, why would she, the child wasnt screaming/crying etc and then as time has gone on as a more of a willingness to help i think she has convinced herself it was Madeleine.
What I cant understand is why so many people have an issue with the fact no one else saw the man carrying Madeleine :
Maybe he hid in some bushes
Maybe he went into a nearby apartment
Maybe he jumped over a wall
The worry is if he was there and did take Madeleine too much time has been lost not looking for him.
I agree that JT saw someone with a child - why not it would not be that strange. But if it was recognisably Madeline then I think she would've instinctively done something about it. I think she may be back projecting from the point where she discovered Madeleine gone.
You have to remember these people are under incredible pressure. Put yourself in their shoes - all the media attention, feelings of guilt that they either didn't spot something or do something. I cannot see how a memory after six months can possibly be reliable. I would like to know what she said in that videoed evidence in court. The idea that she is actually the abductor os actually quite bizarre.
Hey Lynn, you're not fooling anyone. You care a lot more than you want anyone to know. If you really want to appear as if you don't care, it would look more convincing if you didn't comment on my posts to other people constantly with your belittling remarks.You are as predictable as the sunrise.
reasonable man: to answer your question, "and if they did it?"
Then the tragedy is done and can't be undone or diminished at this point in time, but if they are innocent the tragedy is being compounded daily. I think this is the type of tragedy that can be avoided if people let the police do their job and stop trying to be judge and jury on the McCanns. The tone on tv and internet against the McCanns has reached what I consider hysteria. There is no reason yet (that i've seen) for this type of villification.
I'm not suggesting anything, Jose. Let's assume that JT did in fact see someone carrying a child. I'm just throwing the questions out ...perhaps she recognized the man? Could it have been her husband? Or Gerry? Once the abduction scenario was set, she couldn't very well say "Oh, but I saw so-and-so carrying M" so she says "I did see a man carrying her but couldn't see his face". That way she's not lying but is not entirely truthful either; she could likely pass a lie detector test while still protect those she's covering for. And it would naturally have given greater credence to the abduction story.
Something's just not right with her whole story, though, and continues to nag at me. Why did her description of the "abductor" change at least twice? Why did she first think the man had a blanket only to change her story once it was revealed that M's blanket was still on her bed? Why does Jeremy Wilkens claim that he did not see her nor the supposed "abductor" in the street at the same time JT claims to have seen Wilkens and the "abductor with child"? Why does she say that Cuddle Cat was on the bed when Kate had said that it was high up on a shelf? Why would she spend only 15 minutes with her supposedly sick child -- she left the restaurant at 910 and was back at the table again at 9.25. Why did ROB phone her to return to the room immediately after she left it and returned to the table? Wouldn't she have run into him either at the room or enroute back to the restaurant? So she leaves the table again? And is conveniently in her room at 10.00pm when Kate sounds the alarm? Why, if she was in her apartment at 10.00pm when Kate sounded the alarm did she not immediately run to Kate's room to see what the matter was? Why did she and ROB lie about having to order a set of new bed linens due to their supposedly vomiting child? Is there any evidence that their child vomited? The soiled clothing worn by ROB that he changed out of, for instance, was it ever tested? Was there any vomit on it? Were the clothes ever forensically tested? (I still have a sneaking suspicion that it might have been M vomiting and not ROB and JT's child).
JT and ROB been on stress leave from work for the past 6 1/2 months and it's been rumoured that JT is suicidal. Makes you go hmmmmm.
Lots of questions. Giving me a headache.
Yes, they were careless when they left the kids alone. If you want to talk about that, go ahead..it should be a cautionary tale to any parent.
But to jump from leaving the kids alone to some conspiracy that involves atleast 4 people and possibly 9 commiting child murder and body disposal, is extremely unlikely.
So whether McCanns are innocent or not, JT's eyewitness account is likely true. She isn't in on some bizarre coverup. It would have unraveled by now.
I think it's likely that the DNA tests haven't been "leaked" or "sourced" yet is because it doesn't incriminate the McCanns, and is therefore of no PR benefit for the PJ to "leak".
@ John I tend to agree with you re: memory
@ Billie as unreal as it sounds many women do indeed lie for their husbands, out of fear mainly, look at past cases in history, Myra Hindley, Rose West and Maxine Carr to name a few, so it isnt necessarily something you can right off but it seems extreme. Name something in this case that isnt though.
@ Nancy I DO CARE!!!
Nancy, in some ways I agree with you. There is lots of rubbish on telly and on the interweb. Most of it isn't here, and if you are running a campaign to clean it up I think I would say to you this isn't really the best place to raise your flag. Most (probably all) of the posters here are pretty sensible and not hysterical in any way.
The phenomenon which has occurred that the parents of a disappeared child are almost universally not believed is indeed qute something. I am glad we don't have lynch mobs, because there is a lot of hatred out there for the poor McCanns.
As I keep saying, I feel sorry for them. I do think they may have done something and covered it up, but I dont know. Maybe they didn't do anything to Madeleine apart from neglect her, which I think is incontrovertible.
One of the reasons they have a hard time getting people to believe them is because they have not really shown pople that they recognise that leaving their kids to go and have dinner and drink with their friends was a wrong thing to do. I am not looking for anything from them, I don't really care what they think, but am observing that most people find their maintainence of their responsible parenting is simply unbeleivable.
Clarence Mitchell didn;t help them much when as part of his spin routine he told Joe Public that it wa normal for people in Britain to leave their kids unattended. It just ain't. End of.
The sound you heard when people realised what the McCanns had done in neglecting their children was the sound of tens of millions of jaws hitting the pavement.
They did what? Left the kids and went out for tapas and drinks? For f***'s sake!
The same sound was heard when Clarence made his really ill considered remark that this was a common thing for British peple to do.
Nul points for PR. It was a false statement, and has deeply offended the very people that the McCanns hoped would sympathise with them.
Their isolation from reality is underlined when Kate repeatedly says she wants to work in child protection.
She really says this.
What people want to hear from the McCanns is the truth. It's not just me who finds something odd about what they say happened.
All of the above is really only my opinion of how public perceptions have developed. I don't think the McCanns "did it". I don't even know what was done, so can't say anyone "did it". I think they might have done something and covered it up. Possibly. And I believe, on the basis of what I think can be discovered about the case so far, that this is more probable than adbuction.
I hope we find out what really happened. It may be the case that there will be no conclusive solution to this mystery. But i think more fact will emerge.
Finally. If the wee girl turns up safe and well, a) I'll be pleased as everyone else here will too and b) I think in time, the McCanns will simply be thought of as very stupid people who were lucky to get their kid back after doing so
Nancy, in some ways I agree with you. There is lots of rubbish on telly and on the interweb. Most of it isn't here, and if you are running a campaign to clean it up I think I would say to you this isn't really the best place to raise your flag. Most (probably all) of the posters here are pretty sensible and not hysterical in any way.
The phenomenon which has occurred that the parents of a disappeared child are almost universally not believed is indeed quite something. I am glad we don't have lynch mobs, because there is a lot of hatred out there for the poor McCanns.
As I keep saying, I feel sorry for them. I do think they may have done something and covered it up, but I dont know. Maybe they didn't do anything to Madeleine apart from neglect her, which I think is incontrovertible.
One of the reasons they have a hard time getting people to believe them is because they have not really shown pople that they recognise that leaving their kids to go and have dinner and drink with their friends was a wrong thing to do. I am not looking for anything from them, I don't really care what they think, but am observing that most people find their maintainence of their responsible parenting is simply unbeleivable.
Clarence Mitchell didn;t help them much when as part of his spin routine he told Joe Public that it wa normal for people in Britain to leave their kids unattended. It just ain't. End of.
The sound you heard when people realised what the McCanns had done in neglecting their children was the sound of tens of millions of jaws hitting the pavement.
They did what? Left the kids and went out for tapas and drinks? For f***'s sake!
The same sound was heard when Clarence made his really ill considered remark that this was a common thing for British peple to do.
Nul points for PR. It was a false statement, and has deeply offended the very people that the McCanns hoped would sympathise with them.
Their isolation from reality is underlined when Kate repeatedly says she wants to work in child protection.
She really says this.
I think what people want to hear from the McCanns is the truth. And I think they think what they are hearing is unbelievable.
Finally. If the wee girl turns up safe and well, a) I'll be pleased as everyone else here will too and b) I think in time, the McCanns will simply be thought of as very stupid people who were lucky to get their kid back after doing something really bad in neglecting her. If she isn't found - as I think she won't - they are rightly suspects in her disappearance.
After a period of absence from this site I'm back and somewhat aghast at how "Mirrorised" it has become, even down to the bickering!
Someone cashes in by rushing out a book - I had to look twice at the title as on my first reading of it, I thought it said Madeleine 101, it wouldn't have surprised me that much though - and the contents are accepted as "fact" e.g. that the other parents in the group went back to their apartments and did not search for her along with the locals and other tourists. Do we know that's true? How?
Who was it keeping such close watch on their movements to know where 9 people were at a specific time?
I appreciate that everyone is desperate for more information than is available in this case - but why do people swallow hook line and sinker every piece of information? If I sit here and make something up, you would immediately demand sources. Yet a couple of crime reporters can throw together a "book" and that makes it reliable?
As time goes on, the prospect of solving this disappearance diminishes. The actions of attention seekers like Bennett serve only to detract from the main issue. Rest assured, his private summons will be taken over by the CPS and dropped. Otherwise every other publicity seeking nutter would be issuing them to advertise their own cause.
Lynn- your comments about Myra Hindley and Rose West omit to say that not only did these two women lie for their men, they actively participated in the crimes committed against the victims.
If I recall rightly, I don't think Maxine Carr was involved with what happened to the two little girls but she did pervert the course of justice by covering for Huntley through her false alibi for him.
Hi and wb jtash,
I feel the same way about that darn book, very ill advised to write about an ongoing case in which so few actual facts are in the public domain.
I've also said on here that I'm appalled by the private prosecution, let the police, ss, CPS etc. do their job.
That is true jtash, I guess my main thought about this is are these people, from my perceptions of them, and i mean the whole tapas9 capable of doing such an awful thing, covering it up and lying. I cannot even think 1 or 2 of them can do this, again this is from face value only, let alone all 9. I can see why people think Kate and Gerry are a lot more "hidden and capable" than their public persona gives off. Yet I still think they are innocent, if it is to be believed that DNA was found in their car, in Madeleines apartment and in the bag then I would say to you all WHY in that case have they not been arrested.
Oops wb too jtash and I am with liz re: book and private prosecution.
Re: This forum becoming 'mirrorised', Nah... not at all, have you been on there lately?
Mad as a box of frogs with the occasional voice of reason but with snippets of interesting new information now and again (which is the only reason I wander in there).
Lizbee (aka Stanley apparently!)
I agree its not, I just have a laugh at people, no need to name names, who just feel the need to be childlike and insultive, not the reason the majority are here.
With regards to the timeline - does anyone know where i can view the detailed timeline of the night Madeleine disappeared.
Thanks John UK
They haven't been arrested because (a) the early investigation fell short of the standard required and (b) because the evidence is not there - whether it ever will be, I don't know.
The original PJ team, it is said, played a game of leaking to the press. Apparantly, some of the leaks could be true, some of them were deliberately false. The intention was to see if the McCanns would slip up and incriminate themselves. In the meantime, the McCann PR team were also busy at work.
Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way for the PJ. So now the new boss in charge of the investigation is having to go over everything again - 6 months down the line.
With hindsight, I wonder if the McCanns would do the same again (presuming them to be innocent, a status to which they are entitled at this point in time)or if they would do anything differently - aside from the obvious one of not leaving their children unsupervised.
Yes lizbee, I have taken a look - hence why I made the comment. First time I have seen someone called a troll on this site for disagreeing with the mainstream opinion.
Lynn, You can go to any of the online newspapers, I seem to remember timesonline had a detailed timeline and there's a whole thread dedicated to it on m forum but I haven't gat a link as I don't save them.
But given that the timeline changes all the time I don't think there's a definitive one.
jtash I don't hold with calling people trolls for simply disagreeing with mainstream opinion rather than deliberately stirring by posting inflamatory comments to cause upset.
And the suggestion that two posters were the same person was ridiculous to me as one of them in particular was rather errudite in explaining their opinion and the other has been downright rude at times which got some people's back up. No one minds a bit of teasing and occasional lightheartedness in what is a bleak subject to be discussing (we are human after all) and I agree it has been unseemly at times.
But thankfully it does right itself IMO and is far superior re: conduct than some other forums, again MHO.
With you on that Liz, not sure why people feel the need, attention normally and lol talking about it gives that, so enough said.
re: timeline, the reason i ask is, does JT's statement that she was in her room at 10 tie in with the original as i was under the impression that ALL tapas9 barr Kate where in the Tapas bar eating.
Clarence Mitchell refuses to talk about the timeline. He said in an interview with RTE - (it's on their website) that if the timeline was brought up he would stop the interview. So no-one really knows, which is a shame because then it would stop the speculation and it's obviously important.
There may well have been an abduction but if so then this rules out JT's sighting of the abductor (though she may well have seen someone), as I personally find it implausible that an abductor would carry a child in the way JT describes. Her recall of the nights events has brought more confusion, as far as I'm concerned.
Kate refuses to take lie detector test.
The Sunday Express (November 18 , 2007)
http://tinyurl.com/2l6nxh
@ Maggie
I have said many a time, I cannot believe anyone would not feel suspicious of someone carrying a child like that, surely as a medical person she would have thought how weird and perhaps offered help as this is the "fainted" or "dead" position.
IF Kate has refused a lie detector test that is just bloody absurd, nothing to hide??? then do it, take it and end speculation....again this is not concrete that she has refused to take it.
I think it's been pointed out before that a) the lie detector test isn't part of either Portuguese or Britih justice systems, ie it doesn't count as evidence and b) the McCanns will have been advised of this by their lawyers and also advised not to do it, in strong terms i would think.
Anyway, who is asking her? Is it the Daily Express? It can't be the police...
If I was Kate McCann, I wouldn't do it either, under any circumstances, whether or not I had something to hide.
But she should answer the questions asked by the police.
ARM - I agree I wouldn't take a lie detector test either but I would answer police questions.
portuguese poster on another forum talking about a tv programme:
" some very interesting statements made by Hern
âni Carvalho [added: the main author of the 'Maddie 129' book] yesterday morning on the TVI morning talkshow, the Goucha program.
according to him, we're going to enter a crucial period: if the McCanns are to be charged, it will have to happen between Dec. 12 and Jan 3.
Dec 12 is the date the Lisbon Treaty will be signed. And, according to Carvalho, the price Gordon Brown demanded to Socrates in order to sign it was the head of Gon
çalo Amaral (in broader terms the stalling of the investigation). As for Jan. 3, it's the day the the "secret of justice" laws will be replaced by the "publicity of justice" ones. After that day, in principle everything in the McCann case will become public.
so, said Carvalho, although in legal terms most likely the case will be covered up by not going to court, after Jan. 3 not only all the facts relating to it will be public but anyone will be free to comment publicly about them, and adding something to the effect of "someone involved is bound to talk" meaning magistrates or policemen.
he said also that by the looks of it the FFS results will arrive only AFTER the Jan. 3 limit date for charges to be pressed or not. Presumably after that they should also made public, but he was not specific about this.
a related news is today's main 'Expresso' headline, a quote by Alipio Ribeiro, from an interview inside: "I'm not sure if there will be arrests in the Maddie case". This is a perfect summation of what he says inside, and certainly seems to indicate that there will be NO charges against the McCanns.
unless a game is still being played
… for instance there'll be another showing of Anatomia de um Mistério on RTP tomorrow before Telejornal. It's interesting IMO that RTP should air again this "PJ approved" program.
on the Maddie case in general, Carvalho said the main reason the McCanns stayed in Portugal for as long as they did was because they feared the twins might be taken away from them if they returned to the UK; and that it was a complete shame they weren't prosecuted for child neglect by Portuguese authorities.
he also said he didn't dare reveal on TV the exorbitant monetary price Portugal is going to pay for the McCann case (the dogs, the forensics, everything will be on our tab)"
Lynn,
I haven't found a timeline for you but this is an interesting link (try cut and paste) to more details re JT's story... Yes I know it's a 'news'paper i would never normally reference however the timeline points in it, if true, clear up quite a few questions we've had... see what you think.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/
home...ticle476010.ece
Link worked! the timeline points I'm referring to are regarding the movements of the T9 (esp. R'OBand sick child) and whether or not JT was aware of G and JW in the narrow alley, she also admits that her sighting was for a matter of seconds only.
Just got back in time today to catch 48 Hours. Here are some personal notes, a computer re-enactment was done, did catch by who but in Lisbon. There were 14 coming and goings of people in 2 hours. 2 analysis say it makes an abduction as highly improbable.
A report was interviewed, Joe Morra(?) who spent a lot of time gaining the trust of the staff over a length of time. He claims they insist only one male that night left left the table.
They had a table booked every single night for the 6 days. He suggested the Tapas are mixing up timings on checkings from different nights and so to speak this last night they didn't check that much at all. The staff insists they acted normally as to other nights so it is his belief they could have gone to dinner...
Sketchy here folks someone named "Maro" I believed they identified hired by the McCanns has found an alleged suspect that moved Madeline 2 days after the kidnapping and the PJ just have learned of this inform.
McCanns could remain suspects for 15 years.
70% of people in a poll after the spanish interview where Kate cried for the lst time in 6 months, people suspected it was a lie.
Jane Tanner claims to have only seen the person carrying a child for about 5 seconds.
Looks like basically the same footage of J.T. & the friend who shot personal video that will be seen on Panorama. Be sure to take note (it goes very quick) it shows there is a washer & dryer in the apt. which is right next to the fridge.
------
Re: lie detector test, I want to personally go back & check if C.M. or who said "K&G would voluntarily take one" and the source of that.
I will try to contain my lack of humor, I may have misguided beliefs, but I am NO liar!
Liz the timeline always seems to change, why won't C.M. confirm this as Team McCann is in charge?
Want to correct my notes above 70% of people in a poll after the spanish interview where Kate cried for the lst time in 6 months, people suspected it was a lie to a headline posted shown on the video "crying and lieing". Hopefully 48 Hours will have a transcript, did anyone else see it and can shed more light?
Hmmm, throughout my posts I have returned to my original belief that the checks on the chldren were not done and there is mounting evidence that this was actually the case, e.g the workers at the T Bar did not see comings aand goings of the group, they were mainly seated with the exception of R'OB.
There has been a witness statement to point to an abduction... JT supplied this information and she is one of the T9.
So what benefit would there be in repeatedly lying about the timeline by the T9, only one...
That whatever happened to M, G & K shoul not be charged with neglect. They have emplored us all with the abduction theory in order to quell the firey debate thet they, as parents were ultimately responsible for the wellbeing of their child and they failed miserably.
Detective 'Certain' Madeleine Is Alive
Updated:08:47, Sunday November 18, 2007
A private detective hired by Kate and Gerry McCann has said he is certain their missing daughter Madeleine is alive.
Francisco Marco also told a US television station that the net is closing on the youngster's abductors.
The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said: "He's very confident.
"He's 100% certain that she's alive and believes that they are 'very, very close' to finding the kidnapper.
"Naturally we are extremely encouraged by any indication by our investigators that things are going well.
"But there have been a number of leads that have come to nothing and Kate and Gerry remain cautious."
The comments come after new testimony emerged that Madeleine was seen in central Portugal two days after she disappeared from her family's holiday apartment.
The apartment in Praia da LuzMr Mitchell confirmed that a new sighting at an undisclosed location on May 5 was being investigated.
But he added: "This is very much an ongoing inquiry by our investigators. We will not comment on individual sightings."
Not sure what to make of the above, heres hoping it is true, still as CM states blah blah blah.
@ lis
re link
from JT direct - i presume this is a more logical timeline - makes sense
can anyone confirm JT was only one not at tapas bar along with kate
Lizbee @ 11.53pm, my thoughts exactly.
On the link you posted it's now said that cuddlecat was on the bed, hold it a minute, I thought this was put on a shelf.
I'm begining to think that not being able to talk is a distinct advantage in that you can say anything you like and put it down to the newspaper reports.
Madeleine McCann has vanished. Now it seems anything else is ....anybody's guess.
Correio da Manhã:
The PJ still believes that it is possible to accuse the parents of Madeleine for her disappearance. While the detectives are in struggle against time - the process would be accessible to the formal suspects by January 3 or 14, depending on the decision of the Ministério Público of Portimão -, the PJ is waiting for the results of diligences ordered in England. Only after the rogatary letters would be sent, but judicial sources contacted by the CM believe that it would be possible to make a public accusation with the elements already collected.
An alteration of the coercion measure -Kate and Gerry are only subjected to the terms of identity and residence - appears to be more and more difficult. As it was reported yesterday to the Portuguese newspaper 'Expresso' by Alípio Ribeiro who said that he didnt know if "imprisonment would occur in the Maddie case".
However, several sources contacted by the CMM believe that it would be possible to prevent the acts to be archived, waiting for a better proof. That is, at least, the expectation of the detectives who are already in the possession of some tests performed to the biological vestiges collected in the car and in the apartment of the McCanns, they are trying to distinguish the genetic profiles and to reconstruct in the most faithful form the “movie” of the night of the disappearance of the toddler and the posterior steps of her family.
What will result in the end of eight months of inquiry - Maddie vanished May 3 and the fist main suspect to be interrogated was Robert Murrat, interviewed May 14- is still an unknown. It could be a homicide by negligence, an homicide caused by reckless endangerment or even an accidental scenario. Knowing the juridical qualification of this situation in precise criminal terms is fundamental, since the different scenarios could aggravate or diminish the pain.
WB Jtash. Now we are three, you, Nancy and all my me's!
On a slightly more serious note. I am not a great believer in lie detector tests and do not think that Kate should be considered to be hiding something by not taking it. What I would much rather see (and never will) is Jeremy Paxman interviewing the tapas 9. For those of you not in the U.K. he is the most fearsome interviewer on T.V. He once asked the same question of a politician, I think it was, nine times. He is like a terrier with a bone.
For example does anyone from Panorama ask JT why the blanket had disappeared? Did anyone ask her was the linen changed on her daughters bed? Also when did her partner ROB change his clothing? Did they both leave their daughter who had just vomited to search for M? I can think of a lot more but you can be sure the BBC will not ask them. There will be more whitewash in evidence than anything we have seen since the Hutton Enquiry.
This People article is quoting from the John Corner film:
http://tinyurl.com/2l4zxo
they say:
GP Kate, 39, said: "There's not a day goes by that I'm not thinking, 'Why did I think that was OK? Why did I think that was OK?' I have to keep telling myself I am a responsible parent." And heart surgeon Gerry said: "At the time we felt what we were doing was quite responsible.
which is a kind of shift in position. Also says they felt they were being watched - although it is on record that they said they were not being watched. Also says JT is a marketing executive - which I didn't know.
Its pretty clear that the Panorama programme is going to consist of material fed to the BBC by Team McCann - such is the BBC's desperation to get ratings.
2 points
1) Kate said she put Madeleine to bed with cuddle cat however it was found on a high shelf post disappearance of Madeleine.
2) The creche offered a babysitting service and the kids could bed down for a sleep however the children had to be collected by 11pm and taken back to the apartments. What if the man JT saw was a guest who had collected their sleepy child from the creche and was returning to his apartment?
Just a thought.
Re 48hrs, the same program you will see in the UK with dift reporters dropped in: What strikes me is the amount of info that is left out of course. The 40 questions - or however many - are left out. The distance from the apt to the tapas bar becomes 40 yards. (I swear eventually the crowd will have been eating while in the swimming pool!) The cadaver dogs are not really gone into nor the items they alerted to; even the car when mentioned is the rear of the car not the area under the carpet in the boot, trunk. Just DNA in the rental car, that police dogs smelled death in the apt.
The most astounding part for me was this on DNA evidence. Gerry's brother John asks "What DNA evidence? The number of family members that have been in that hire car, of course there's gonna be similar DNA but to say that it's Madeleine's DNA is just, come on, let's get back to reality." And that was the end of that subject!! So much for objectivity esply on the forensics of the case!
The 2 Portuguese experts, Dr Paulo Sargento a forensic psychologist and Dr Pedro Gameto, re-created the events digitally, from the 6pm pickup of the kids on thru. They came up with all the comings & goings, 14 in 2 hrs, which would in their opinion, deter a predator. A 'police source' told 48hrs the investigators want to re-interview the MC friends including Jane Tanner!
The 'almost non-stop activity'...made 'abduction unlikely' said the Portuguese experts. Police sources say that the McCanns are ruled out for murder but not for an accidental death. Theprogram said the parents kept M's face & name where more people can see it. Elizabeth Smart's father spoke of accusations he endured in the press but no one asked him if he refused to answer any police questions put to him. Gerry called him a few months ago but we only hear a tidbit of that convo, Gerry thot the ivestigation came to a halt bc of the DNA. John Ramsey is brought in and then we are treated to a glimpse of Susan Smith crying. (Did nothing for me, crying or not never has swayed me, their words and actions have).
Jo Moura was hired by the producers (Corner is in the program but not named as a producer, only as a close friend of the MCs. He believes an abductor took Maddy.) to inestigate the case. Moura said one could not see the sliding doors of the apt from the tapas bar, he believed they would have no possiblity of seeing anyone enter the place...we all knew this. Asked about the 14 bottles of wine,he says from his sources he learned they drank 6 or 7 bottles of wine routinely every evening - and they did go there each nite supposedly for the 5 nites prior. (Anyone know more about the the Chaplins' evening/s?) He says the kids were never included at dinner and that he believes the MCs did NOT go check the children as often as they say, and mentions that just one male did on that nite. Jo Moura believes that after 5 nites of the routine, tho he says they checked on the children but implies it was
Re Brisbanite What if the man JT saw was a guest who had collected their sleepy child from the creche and was returning to his apartment?
I think that the Police should have checked the children that were put in the crèche that night.
John(UK) I have to disagree with your comments about the BBC. I think you've done them a diservice. I have found their reporting of the McCann case to be responsible and measured -unlike most of the media who appear to report whatever they think will sell their brand to a public whose appetite is seemingly insatiable for any item of new info to pick over.
All told, there's still not much solid evidence in the public domain and what there is still remains highly contentious.
The public analysis of this case long ago left behind any serious consideration of what happened to Madeleine McCann. Newspapers and tv media are either praised or denigrated according to whether or not what they are printing today fits the reader's preferred theory. Information is selectively accepted or rejected on the same basis.
I will watch the Panorama programme precisely because it is a BBC programme and because of the way it has handled the reporting of this sad case so far.
Jo Moura believes that after 5 nites of the routine, tho he says they checked on the children but implies it was less often than they say, on the sixth nite they got very unlucky and that Maddy was abducted. He says that his sources say their behavior was normal. As to the idea that they accidentally killed their daughter and then ate dinner with friends he says, "I'm not buying it, it didn't happen, that's a crazy thought. It's ludicrous." Ludicrous! OMG!! So for me the entire program became at that point a Team MC PR ploy.
I said here on the prior thread, we are appalled at Kate's next morning jog, we are appalled at Gerry's day or two after tennis lesson. Why can't the so-called experts see that the characters of these people did not change radically after the event, and that in fact they could have done the hard to beleive, ludicrous actions after all!!
Anonymous = me - forgot to put email addy in - thought I'd "fess up" before people start accusing me of being more than one poster on here!
taken from BBC news... ref: panorama Mon 19th Nov
Mr McCann said that, before Madeleine went missing, he and his wife had been concerned by the security at the back of their Praia da Luz apartment when "maybe the weak spots were at the front".
"It's a corner flat with trees overlooking it - somebody could be hiding there or watching out of view," he said.
Then Please.. WHY OH WHY if they believed security was lacking did they think it 'responsible' to leave their children alone in the apt at night!
I agree jtash, that the bbcs reporting has been fairly balanced so far. It's only after we see the entire programme that we can judge. However i have done a translation of the link that jose provided to sosmaddie and it seems that clarence mitchell asked jane tanner to speak out to present the mccanns side. He also admits to getting in touch with the tapas 7 and that the mccann lawyers want everyone to speak with one voice. I think that this is very peculiar. He is being allowed to pressurise witnesses. I hope that the sosmaddie site are correct and that the 2 tapas are still willing to correct their stories.
Yes i'm not privy to the evidence but there is so much about this case that is conflictual and doesn't sound right. I do hope somebody will fess up and say whats really going on, whether it be a cover up of neglect, a cover up of an accident, a cover up of swinging, or whatever...
I saw a bit of gerry's video diary and it constantly amazes me how cool and calm they are...
comment from Kate McCann
"There's not a textbook about it is there? Like what to do when your daughter gets abducted," she said.
How about not leave her in an unlocked, unattended holiday apartment when your not convinced of how safe the area surrounding the apt is....
sorry all.... i know this is becoming something of a signature tune with me.... but really! If Madeleine had been abducted from a park (parents present) from a shopping mall, then sympathy abound....
but we are talking about 2 respected professionals who, reportedly, left their 3 children repeatedly, unattended for 6 nights.
According to Gazeta Digital:
Madeleine McCann spotted in Portugal
A new witness found by Metodo 3, the Spanish detectives company hired by the McCann, said that she saw Robert Murat’s girlfirend, Michaela Walczuch, with Madeleine McCann on May 5, two days after the child disappeared from Ocean Club.
Francisco Franco, the director of Metodo, 3 told Daily Mail their investigators are “very, very close to finding her kidnappers”. The witness, who called Metodo 3 hotline, said she saw a man similar to the description made by Jane Tanner in a city 100 miles from Algarve, with Madeleine McCann inside a white van.
if this is more spin, its criminal
jtash and pdg - the BBC reporting has been quite poor I have watched most of it (being a sad person with no life). I have already emailed them twice with important factual corrections. BBC24 reporters seemed to have no contextual understanding of Portugal and so on.
It has improved recently mainly because they have reported less - after criticism of the rather crazy following of the McCanns driving to Faro airport on their way home - they seemed to back off.
However I realise this is my point of view and I respect your right to your POV
I am amazed by the Metodo 3 reports - I thought they were not allowed to operate in Portugal and ask have they given these vital bits of info to the Police?
Macushla posted:
comment from Kate McCann
"There's not a textbook about it is there? Like what to do when your daughter gets abducted," she said.
"How about not leave her in an unlocked, unattended holiday apartment when your not convinced of how safe the area surrounding the apt is...."
You forgot to mention go jogging the following morning! It's a must do thing.
Jtash thank you for fessing up about being Anonymous. For a minute I thought it was me.
I continue to be amazed by the twists and turns. Back into the news comes Murats girlfriend (a Jehovah's Witness we are told)! And what exactly does that bit of information suggest?
Is all this some kind of misguided attempt to genuinely find Madeleine? I try to put myself in the shoes of "innocent K&G" and ask would I act like this? No comes the answer but thats my POV.
If they are close to finding the kidnappers then why in heaven's name are they announcing it to the world. It's rather like when the police arrive at a scene of ongoing crime with the sirens blaring, sort of says - you've got time to get away!
The man who is heading the Metodo 3 investigation is in my humble opinion a sandwich short of a picnic. Are they really the best people for the job of finding Madeleine?
How did this witness know it was the girlfriend of Murat? It's not as if her face is instantly recogniseable. Is this another attempt to point the finger at Murat? What has her religion to do with this?
you have to wonder if this new *information* has entered the public domain to try and give credance to Jane Tanner's up and coming TV debut.
john: i suppose i meant the bbc radio 4 programme 'inside stories'.
If this latest report is not true, about murats girlfriend, then i really think they should sue for libel, but then i guess they haven't got govt backers, millionaires prepared to fund actions etc
We are assisting a war Murat against McCanns.
Three of the Tapas9 said we saw Robert Murat! He is the abductor!
Then the drawing of the mysterious man without a face seems to innocent Robert Murat. He is not the abductor!
Now it's the girlfriend of Robert Murat who did it. It s his girlfriend who was the abductor with the mysto man without a face seen by Jane Tanner!
This kind of information shouldnt be public until the arrest of the kidnappers. That s why I doubt that s really true.
Jose wrote:
"A new witness found by Metodo 3, the Spanish detectives company hired by the McCann, said that she saw Robert Murat’s girlfirend, Michaela Walczuch, with Madeleine McCann on May 5, two days after the child disappeared from Ocean Club."
Jose, Metodo 3 were hired by and are being paid by Team McCann, so I think any claims they are making are highly suspect.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the BBC John(UK)- I prefer its style of reporting this case than the wild divergence of lurid headlines being shovelled out by the others desperate to outdo each other for the "scoops".
If the truth be told, I'm sick of seeing these headlines. I don't know who is responsible for them - but they don't have anything to do with finding Madeleine.
Maggie said "How did this witness know it was the girlfriend of Murat?"
She was probably door-stepped by her, that is what JH's do ain't it. By the way Maggie was the use of the word 'witness' intentional irony?
Sorry last post should read JW's.
BBc tend to be middle of the road, non commital, that is how this interview will be - I agree let Paxman do an interview with them All
No...Stanley it wasn't intentional irony but that is funny. What is/are JW's?
Apparently the witness was shown pics of women in the PDL area at the time - and picked out Frau W.
jtash - I hate the lurid headlines too - my criticism is that the BBC fell into the same game at one point. For instance they led on the 'plea bargaining' -claim - as breaking news - for two days, long after it had been stated on here and other places that it was not possible under Portuguese law, they joined the hurd outside Murat's house, they talked about 'so called' evidence and so on.
An interesting thoughtful post on Mirror Board (yes I know! it is possible)
http://tinyurl.com/2gvoee
Asks:
1) why wasn't JT recalled to PDL for face to face with Murat in Portimao?
2) why was the JT sighting news released so late?
3) the PJ searched McCann villa when they went to Huelva - before - they searched Murat villa!
I think 3) means that they were suspects before Murat ... which I didn't realise.
Re Billie Metodo 3 were hired by and are being paid by Team McCann, so I think any claims they are making are highly suspect
I agree with you Billie. If what they say was the truth -that Madeleine is alive etc.- and not the usual utter rubbish then the life of Madeleine McCann is deliberately put in danger.
Re John the PJ searched McCann villa when they went to Huelva - before - they searched Murat villa!
I think 3) means that they were suspects before Murat ... which I didn't realise.
Robert Murat was main suspect May 14. I think that his villa has been searched at that period.
When the McCanns did go to Huelva it was the day when the British cadaver dogs arrived at Praia da Luz. Since the dogs were first in the apartment and found a scent of death, I think that the PJ detectives thought that the McCanns could be involved. That s why the villa of the McCanns was also searched. The cadaver dogs were also in the casa Liliana but no scent of death was found there.
Later the cadaver dogs were brought to the cars of Murat and the McCanns. Nothing was found in car of Murat but a scent of death was found in the car of the McCanns.
What happen was that Murat, who was the main suspect, suddenly became almost innocented and that the McCanns became to be suspected.
I agree that if the Metodo 3 were really "closing in" on M's abductor then they would be putting her life at risk. That is how you know they are not. As someone, sorry can't remember who, said in a recent posting they are more like a Steve Martin comic movie. It was called the 3 Amigos and it was seriously unfunny. If this bunch of Spanish Shamuses (or should that be Shami?) were not involved in such a heartbreaking case it would be faintly amusing. As it is it only further enhances the bizarre behaviour of Team McCann and the manner in which they waste other people's money.
@ Maggie: JW's Jehovah's Witnesses. If you have not had one ring your doorbell please tell me where you live and I shall come and stay there!
Re John 1) why wasn't JT recalled to PDL for face to face with Murat in Portimao?
The 24horas did report this week that JT, the McCanns and the other three of the Tapas 9 have done a face-to-face with Robert Murat. JT did recognize Robert Murat as the man she saw at 9h15 May 3. That s probably why Robert Murat was made arguido.
The 24Horas did also said some time ago that some friends of the McCanns did accuse deliberately Robert Murat and that these persons would be made arguido. That was before the publication of the drawing of JT. The drawing didnt match with the description of Robert Murat. It is reported in the press that some of the Tapas 9 wanted to change their deposition. What I thought -if these stories are true- was that Jane Tanner wanted to change her deposition concerning Robert Murat because she feared to be made arguido and that also explained why the man in the drawing is not Robert Murat.
Now, the answer to your question: The prosecutor would never order to perform any face-to-face or interview in the UK or in Portugal if they dont have all the results from the laboratory of Birmimgham.
Jose - thanks for all the clarification - when you say this "JT did recognize Robert Murat as the man she saw at 9h15 "
If this is correct it makes her story even more wobbly.
BBC are drip feeding bits of the Panorama on the news. There is an interview with the Metodo 3 guy - he says he is certain they are closing in on the abductor.
At the moment I feel that I need a McBreak from all this. But I am going to wait till after Monday night.
Has anyone else seen the 48 HOURS progam shown in the US last night ?
http://tinyurl.com/ywwace
It seemed to favor the McCann's innocence.
K.
Yes Karina, I saw it and I quote from it in 2 parts above.
I can find nothing on this guy Jo Moura. He is not a PI then as he seems to have no website, but is just a guy the producers decided to use. JM said his means of getting info was to 'blend in' as he speaks Portuguese. But his conclusion came to that 'ludicous' ending so I think he was little more than an actor in this news story. And yes it was done thru the McCann machine and was indeed proMcCann, pro abduction, with the exception of the dogs and the 2 Portuguese men trained in forensics. But hey, John McCann was in it and he thinks it's time to get back to reality on those forensics, so all's well in the McCann universe.
But I still dont sleep so well...what's wrong with me?
Some of this latest stuff coming out is so outrageous, if it was a script of a film you'd say it was too unbeleivable!
What's this rubbish about RMs girlfriend being seen with M on 5th May, yeah right who & where are the witnesses to that then?
And just who is this JM, what're his credentials, why should I take his say so about anything to do with this? We are supposed to take the Metado 3 as unbiased when they're being paid by two of the suspects in the case?
Some journo cashes in and writes a book about a current case still being actively investigated so few 'actual facts' are released in the public domain and we're s'posed to take his word as the real story?
Celebrity backers, political intrigue...
You couldn't make it up!
Hi Karina,
When you say favour the McCann's innocence could you explain to me how they came to this conclusion? Did they explore the reasons why abduction is the most likely possibility? Many thanks.
Stanley, I once invited in two female JW's into my home. I was only 24, obviously very silly, and on one of my days off work. It was pouring down with rain (I have noticed since they only knock on your door when it rains). I felt so sorry for them as they were completely drenched to the skin. I told them I would give them a cup of tea, let them dry off but they were not to talk about religion. Well I may as well have explained Einstein's theroy to the cat because they never understood a word. The two nattered away merrily with their captive audience about the awful sinful world and how the soggy leaflet they offered me could change all that. I had to ask them to leave in the end and I wasn't using my sweet, little girl voice either.
And no I can't remember what they looked like - it was twenty years ago!
Maggie & Stanley,
I too have invited two JWs (they never seem to travel alone!) into my home. I was about 17 I think and have always been fascinated by religion and was interested in what they had to say. I seem to remember that these two young men were actually quite boring, not interested in a theological discussion in the slightest only in recruiting me and I wasn't interested in that. So it was a rather unsatisfactory experience all round really. I don't think they would have got many takers as they made their way round the mining village as this was around the time of the strikes and everyone was seriously peed off.
Maggie - you're 44 - I wouldn't have thought it.
Murat's mum fights back and aunty Philomena talks of Kate screaming after she was made an arguido.
http://tinyurl.com/388nha
I once worked with a JW and he used to slip copies of the Watchtower in amongst the papers I had to sign. I returned them politely with a 'no thank you' but it made me doubly damned in his eyes I think.
Nancy D. said:
"It is my opinion that there is not enough evidence to determine either way, abduction or parental murder. So when both are just as likely or possible as the other, I am going to be sympathetic to the individuals in question because they may in fact be innocent. How tragic
will it be if these people had nothing to do with her disappearance? "
That's exactly the way I feel about this case. Until the PJ offically comes up with credible evidence, I can't condemn the McCanns based on tabloid reports. Why some of you seem to thoroughly enjoy vilifying this couple is beyond understanding.
K.
Jose, can you help with this one? (your translation expertise is requested!)
Moita Flores, a Portuguese criminologist, says the Spanish detective is an impostor.
http://tinyurl.com/329qvu
Karina wrote: "Why some of you seem to thoroughly enjoy vilifying this couple is beyond understanding".
Karina, no one is making vilifying statements about the McCanns. Can you give an example?
And for you to suggest that those of us who are less than convinced of K&G's innocence should find our suspicions toward the couple at all enjoyable is a bit much.
We all want to see justice served, here. A little girl is missing and it's anybody's guess as to what actually transpired that fateful day back in May. We're all on the same side, here; we all want to pursue the truth and find out once and for all what happened to M.
I have had difficulty for some time now in accepting the abduction theory simply because it just doesn't add up. K&G initially shouted out to everyone who would listen that the windows to their apartment had been jimmied from the outside...until it was proven impossible by the investigators. Then K&G abruptly changed their story and admitted that they must have left their door unlocked instead. Why did they lie in the first place?
Karina, you must admit that there is much about this case that appears to be extremely damaging to the McCanns and makes some of us take a step back and ask questions.
Examples:
1) The cadaver dogs smelled "death" on Kate's clothing and in K&G's apartment.
2) DNA linked to M was discovered in the trunk (boot) of the car rented by K&G some 20 days after M disappeared.
3) There was no evidence of an intruder having been in the apartment.
4) The whole time-line is questionable...nobody can seem to get their stories straight.
5) The Tapas 9 insist that they made frequent checks on the children -- so many checks, in fact, that it would be virtually impossible for an abductor to have reached the apartment, snatching M and sneaking off again without running into at least a couple of the Tapas Group on "their rounds".
6) JT claims she saw a man carrying a child, yet Jeremy Wilkens who was in the street at the time JT said she saw the "abductor" did not see such a person or even JT.
7) ROB left the table for 45 minutes and returned with a fresh set of clothing on...because his child had apparently vomited. He said that he had ordered a new set of linens from housekeeping staff yet the staff at the resort refute this claim.
Kate refused to answer the now famous 40 questions.
9) The Priest sought out by G&K admitted that he had been deceived.
These are but a few of the points that have me unconvinced that G&K & Co. are telling the truth. There are more...but it's late, I'm tired, and it's another day that has come and gone and the mystery of M's disappearance remains unanswered. And this continues to haunt me, to cause me considerable distress. I, like you, want to see this case resolved, want to see justice served.
Nancy said : "It is my opinion that there is not enough evidence to determine either way,
This represents how i feel about this case.
But Karina i will express my distain for any parent who leaves 3 young children alone in an apt, where they are unsure of its security, doors unlocked, night after night
sorry! if you want to enjoy an active social life at least make the necessary child care arrangements.
John UK - what age did you think I was?
I don't believe for one minute the McCanns murdered Madeleine. However they must accept that they made a conscious and deliberate decision to leave three very young and vulnerable children alone while they went out socialising. You know if they had nipped down to the takeaway for some chips and this happened I think we would be more sympathetic (although there would be those who would condemn because of their eating habits - believe me!). But not only did they eat - yes you have to do that - but they enjoyed themselves with a quiz and with their friends. They paid a very high price for this negligence but ultimately I hope they are reunited with their child.
Re Billie Translation of the interview of Moita Flores concerning the CBS Documentary.
Journalist:
Moita Flores has already seen this documentary [Where's Maddie? 48 Hours Mystery CBS] and said that the theory of the Spanish detective is wrong and denies the first principle of a criminal investigation stating that there are no absolute truths.
Francisco Moita Flores:
What appears from this work is the lack of credibility of the examinations in question.
First, because the detective [Joe Moura] hired by the CBS starts from the knowledge or the recognition that it is de facto an evidence that the McCanns lied when they said that they were looking after the children and that wasn’t a giving up of their children and also that they were checking them in the room. And this is evidence which is indubitable; it is sufficient to go the Ocean Club.
Next, he makes a completely delirious theory that an abductor did enter into sinister paths, following a theory of one of the McCanns' friends, into the most sinister paths down which would bring him to the toddler.
Well, we have to say that he has spoken and evoked the behaviorial pattern. Any abductor at the end of three or four days of watching any family to do an abduction of a child has not this behaviorial pattern.
There is no behaviorial pattern when we are talking of the first days of vacation of a couple.
Moreover there is no knowledge of the place.
Moreover there was no knowledge of the house.
Moreover the doors of the house were open.
And that would be a miracle for this invented abductor to be able just after that to carry out a child into this path, which is also a labyrinth, without being seen by any witness.
Well, as to the testimony of the Lady [Jane Tanner] it is a thing so vacant and inconsequent that it has no sustentation.
Now relatively to the Spanish Detective [Francisco Marco of Metodo 3], the theory that he has built is a theory of an impostor. An impostor without conditions to be taken seriously. In criminal investigation terms, he denies the first principle of a criminal investigation which is to not believe in absolute truths. And he considers as an absolute truth that the toddler has been abducted, he knows who is the abductor and he knows where she is. This is not true! This should be understood as being a form of winning money and not as a form of bringing to us the truth.
Finally, what we can say is:
This hour an half, which is discussed since a long time, this secret of an hour and half, these secrets that are in this hour and half, between the discovery of the disappearance or the news of the disappearance and the dinner, this is what it should be explained.
Diario de Noticias:
The priest has been re-interviewed by the PJ and new searches were done in the church
Four months after the trail of suspicion has been brought by the English cadaver dogs, the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) has decided to comb the inside and the recesses of the church of the Lady of the Light, in the county of Lagos, and also the areas surrounding the temple, in a attempt to open a new trail relatively to the concealment of the corpse of Madeleine McCann.
As a consequence of the alert transmitted by in the English dog in other places, some detectives of the PJ -who have the conviction that the toddler died in the apartment and that her body has been transported in the trunk of the grey Renault Scénic, rented by the parents three weeks later- arrived to admit, some months ago, that the toddler could have been buried "in the sea or in the church".
According to what the DN has established within various sources, the new diligence performed two weeks ago in Praia da Luz, "informally and with the highest discretion" to avoid suspicions, has bring some elements of the PJ team - directed by the new coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Portmão, Paulo Rebelo - "to spent a day with the catholic priest José Manuel Pacheco" in this locality. For this effect, the inspectors did approach initially the priest in the house where lived his parents in the town of Odiáxere (Lagos),they have decided to go in separate cars to the church of Luz without giving sights and thus preventing the presence of the journalists.
The trail of the church
"The Police did talk to the priest several time in Praia da Luz since the disappearance of Madeleine", guaranteed the same sources. Besides, it has been impossible to know if José Pacheco has done a formal deposition in the CID of Portimão as a witness in this process. Unfruitful were also the attempts to enter in contact with the priest during all the day of yesterday.
During theses diligences with the priest, the inspectors wanted to know, for example, what was the relationship of this priest and the involvement of the own church with the McCann couple during the five months when they were in the Algarve until they were made arguidos, in September, for being suspected of the death of their daughter and the concealment of the corpse, even more to understand the reason why José Pacheco has given to Gerry and Kate the key of the temple giving them the possibility to pray in private at any time, without the vigil of prayers for Madeleine promoted by the parish.
Well Billie you asked Jose to translate and he did. It is often said that many things get "lost in translation" (movie title even). However could anyone put this in more eloquent language:
"Well, as to the testimony of the Lady [Jane Tanner] it is a thing so vacant and inconsequent that it has no sustentation."
Almost Shakespearian. And how about this for a comment on the Metodo 3:
"This is not true! This should be understood as being a form of winning money and not as a form of bringing to us the truth."
Churchillian! This describes these money grabbing frauds in terms that a mere speaker of the English tongue would find impossible to match.
Jose, thank you very much for the translation.
And Stanley, I could not agree with you more!
Re Stanley There is the original transcript. It s up to you to apreciate the style of Moita Flores:
Moita flores já viu este documentário e diz que a tese do detective espanhol é falso e nega o primeiro principio de uma investigação criminal por não haver verdade absolutas.
Francisco Moita Flores:
Aquilo que ressalta deste trabalho é a falta de credibilidade quer dos despimentos em causa.
Em primeiro lugar porque o detectivo [Joe Moura] contratado pela CBS parte para o conhecimento ou o reconhecimento que é de facto uma evidencia do que os McCann mentem quando dizia que estavam em cima dos filhos que aquilo não era o abandono dos filhos que estavam a controlar o quarto. E isso é e uma evidencia que é incontornável basta ir ao Ocean Club.
Para depois ir para uma tese completamente delirante de um raptor que entrou por uns caminhos sinistros, alias recolhendo a tese de um dos amigos do casal, por um caminho sinistríssimo que o levaria até a criança.
Bom, devemos dizer que ele fala e evoca o elemento do comportamento padrão.
Nenhum raptor ao fim de três ou quatro dias de ter uma família de qualquer rapto de uma criança tem um comportamento padrão.
Nem há comportamento padrão quando estamos a falar dos primeiros dias de ferias dum casal. depois não hão conhecimento do local
depois não existia o conhecimento da casa
depois a casa tinhas as portas abertas.
Que foi um milagre por esse inventado raptor para poder logo de seguida conseguisse sair com a criança por aquele caminho também labirinto sem que ninguém pudesse o ver ou testamunhar.
Bom quanto a testemunha da senhora [Jane Tanner] é uma coisa tão vaga e tão inconsequente que não tem qualquer sustentação.
E com respeito ao detective espanhol [Francisco Marco], a teoria por ele montada é de um burlão. Um burlão sem condições para ser levado a sério.
Porque em investigação criminal, ele nega o principio que é de não acreditar em verdades absolutas. E ele tem como verdade absoluto que a menina foi raptada, sabe quem é o raptor sabe aonde que ela esta. Isto é falso! Isto e o que se percebe é que uma forma de ganhar de dinheiro que não e uma forma de nos trazer a verdade.
Em fim o que nos podemos dizer é:
Aquela hora e meia, que há muito tempo se discute, aquele segredo de hora meia, os segredos que estão naquela hora e meia, entre o descoberta do desaparecimento ou a noticia do desaparecimento e o jantar isto esta para explicar.
Re Stanley Are you vilifying my translations?
Thank you Jose. If anyone wishes to translate from Portuguese as a Scot I can recommend.
http://tinyurl.com/y923gh
They do 150 words for free! The Jane Tanner line came out as "Good how much the witness Mrs (Jane Tanner) a thing you the vacant and you inconsequente that in she has in it any sustenato."
Empty and without substance. Exit Zorro stage left!
From the Daily mirror forum, another translation of the same interview of Moita Flores:
-----------
What stands out from this work is the lack of credibility of the statements made.
First because the detective hired by CBS starts with the recognition of what is in fact an evidence — that the McCanns are lying when they said they were checking on their children, that they had not abandoned their children, that they were controlling the room — and that’s an unquestionable evidence, you just have to go to the Ocean Club — and then proceeds to a completely delirious theory of an abductor who came in through some sinister pathways — incidentally following a theory of the couple’s friends — crossing some very sinister pathways that would take him to the child.
Well, it should be said that he invokes the element of pattern behavior. No abductor at the end of two or three days watching a family, wanting to kidnap a child…No one has a pattern behavior, and there are no pattern behaviors when we’re talking about the first days of a couple’s holidays. Additionally, he had a deficient knowledge of the premises. Additionally, he wasn’t familiar with the house. Then the house had the doors open, which was a miracle for this invented abductor in order for him to be able to get out immediately through that labyrinthic pathway with the child without anyone seeing him.
Well, as for the lady’s [Jane Tanner] testimony, it’s something so vague and so inconsequent that it has no foundation at all.
As for the Spanish detective, the theory he comes up with is that of a crook, a crook without conditions to be taken seriously. Because he denies the first rule of criminal investigation, which is not to believe in absolute truths. and he considers as an absolute truth that the little girl was abducted, he knows who the abductor was, and where she is. Well, this is false. And this is so false one realizes it's a way of making money and not of bringing us the truth.
In a synthesis, what we can say is that those 90 minutes that are being discussed for so long, the secrets that are in those 90 minutes, between the discovery of the disappearance, or of the news of the disappearance and the dinner, that’s something still to be explained.
Jose your translations are excellent!
babelfish:
"Good how much the witness of the lady [ Jane Tanner ] is a so vacant thing and so inconsequente that she does not have any sustentation."
Why it doesn't translate inconsequential I'm not sure.
Sustention - sustentacao - support? or possibly foundation or basis. Or cannot be sustained (possibly).
I think its safe to say he doesn't think much of Lady Jane Tanner (was she one of Henry VIII's daliances?) or her evidence.
Maggie - I was only honing my detective skills by working out your age from your post.
More on the current investigation at the Church:
onhttp://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?
n=10413 (sorry the TinyURL site is down)
London, Sep 18, 2007 / 10:59 am (CNA).- A priest has been dragged into the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Detectives are expected to put pressure on Fr. Jose Pacheco to break his vow of silence, which is paramount to the sacrament of confession.
According to The Daily Mail, police are to question the priest to see if Kate McCann, 39, confessed to him she had killed her four-year-old daughter. But priests are bound by an oath never to reveal penitents’ confessions.
The police have reportedly already spoken to the Portuguese priest informally about the relationship he developed with the McCanns in the days after their daughter was reported missing.
According to The Daily Mail, Fr. Pacheco met the McCanns the day after Madeleine vanished from their holiday apartment on May 3. The couple subsequently attended daily Mass at his church. Fr. Pacheco even gave them the keys to the tiny chapel so they could pray round the clock.
But when the finger of suspicion was pointed at the McCanns and they left for Britain last week, they did not say goodbye and handed the church keys to an Anglican priest.
The church has become a focal point of the inquiry since sniffer dogs followed a trail there from the apartment where Madeleine vanished.
http://fromtheleftsideofmybrai..........ry-mccann/
In a separate development, Portuguese press reports that two English sniffer dogs traced a ’smell of death’ from the Ocean Club resort - from where the girl vanished - to the Nossa Senhora da Luz church. The McCanns were given the keys to the church, which is two minutes walk from their holiday flat, to use as a private sanctuary from day one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
t..........766899.ece
Mr Rebelo was inside the Ocean Club apartment for three hours with five other officers yesterday evening. He walked the route to the nearby beach – past the town’s church – which had previously been marked by a British sniffer dog.
Just to clarify...the above quotes and links are from September - they are meant to give some background on the searches made at the Church and suspicions the PJ had...
This relates to Jose's post of 9.30am today.
Jose you totally misunderstood what I was saying. Your translations actually described perfectly what I felt about JT's "evidence" and the validity of the Metodo 3. If Clarence is listening even he must realise the 3 are a comedy turn. Get rid off them they are a scandal to M's memory.
I've just watched the Panorama program and as expected it gave a very credible slant to the McCann's side of things. But unless I missed something it didn't seem to give any more details about the timeline?
Anyone...
There are obviously a lot a lot a lot of things to say about Panorama. However let me start with what to us must be the most obvious omission from the programme. Jane Tanner had a long interview. She saw the abductor and now realises that the child must have been M. That was at 9:15. She was still in her apartment at 10;00pm when Kate is shouting. Anyone notice the elephant in the room? Why were you there Jane? Was it because your daughter was ill? Was your partner ROB there all that time? Did your daughter vomit? Did this make ROB change his clothes? Did you ask for the linen to be changed? Was the linen changed?
As I said yesterday bring on Paxman. Instead we had a cub reporter who never asked one awkward question of any member of Team McCann. A boy doing a man's job. I still do not know what happened to M, however my opinion that K&G come from Planet Zog has not changed. At 6pm he went for his 3rd tennis lesson of the day. This must be part of what the McCanns believed was a family holiday.
I thought the programme was better than I expected. It did however seem to concentrate a lot on the McCanns. Interesting points:
1) It was the McCanns own lawyer (Pinto de Abreu presumably) who was talking about a 2 year deal and Kate was screaming No! at him - not the police.
2) The whole shutter up/down/jimmied thing was completely avoided.
3) If JT is happy to talk to the police - get on plane and go! same to the McCanns
4) Murat looked a bit weird - but he has got a glass eye.
5) The McCanns were pushing the word predator quite strongly.
6) Even Kate's mum can't understand why they left the kids - but they themselves repeat 'we are responsible parents' like a mantra.
7) If the DNA is so inconclusive then what in God's name are they doing in Birmingham - if there is nothing to find then it should have been completed ages ago - so I don't believe that.
I now know how much I hate this whole saga. I hate it for obsessing me - but I hate it even more because the fate of Madeleine (although the very subject of it all) has been buried under a load of nonsense.
I agree John both on the points raised and your final comment, I think I might be due another rest from it; can't see an end and it gets more like R.D. Laing's 'Knots' as time goes on. Nothing makes any more sense than it did the day before. And when I remember who and what this investigation is about re: Madeleine and the truth regarding what happened to her we are no closer now to finding either than we were when this began.
So very, very sad
Liz
I thought it was well balanced, I liked Kate's mother - feel she came across as truthful.
Was surprised not to see Clarence talking. One minute to get Madeleine out of a small window - now the only route that the McCann's think the abductor went. That would mean there would have to be two people involved. They think the twins were sedated because they didn't wake up. It would I think take more than 1 minute for all of that to happen.
The Dispatches programme filmed at night which gave a better flavour of what could and couldn't have been seen. If JT had seen such detail on the abductor, then others JW, GMcC, Irish teenager would have seen the person - i.e. the abductor was not obscured.
JT said that the person was not dressed as a tourist, ie no cropped trousers, heavy jacket and that, I had to laugh, she thought the person carrying the child was an unresponsible parent because it was COLD, and there was nothing on the child's feet. So COLD in fact JT herself was not dressed as a tourist but had a jumper on.
I think an excellent programme with lots of meat on it. Food for thought.
i am uneasy about the 'out of the window' theory....
was there step leading down to the car park out the back.... does anyone know?
Because the drop from the balcony to the street looked a good 6ft if not more.... so how does an abductor manage that drop with a small (roughly 2 -21/2 stone child - average weight for a 3yr old child) in their arms?
Yes the comment about the "abductor" being an irresponsible parent must have given the Panorama team a grim laugh.
There wasn't much new, and not everything was covered but the programme was another interesting summary of the story so far.
Not much further forward.
I don't agree with Stanley that the reporter was a "cub" - I think he had access (again) to participants in an ongoing story and cannily wants to be available for them if and when a real new development takes place.
For me the most interesting insight was from the portuguese police man who indicated that the police have a lot of evidence which keeps the death/cover-up line of inquiry going, not all of which has been reported; and also that although the forensic evidence relating to the car (the other evidence was skipped over) was not conclusive, it was "indicative". That would mean the police have "indicative" evidence for one scenario, but not another.
I wonder when the other DNA results will be finalised; I wonder what the delay is - the programme said "bureaucracy" for which we may read diplomatic sensibilities also perhaps.
I think there are lots of things still to be discovered about what happened on May 3.
"The couple, both 39, are devout Catholics and went to Mass at the church most Sundays during the 130 days they spent in the Algarve. "
SO DEVOUT, they underwent IVF treatment onat least 2 occasions that we know of!
Hypocrites! Using the church because it suits them ... and adds to their woeful profile.
hi, i did a quite lengthy transcript of the programme, not everything but as much as i could get down, Shall i post it for non british viewers?
ok. no reaction. storms off in huff!
Just do it!
The "brits" have gone to bed and the "yanks" will not be up yet.
A reasonable man is working, so probably can't post any reply but will read it!
ok i will then, thanks arm.
ok its starting. jeremy vine.
shots of the apt.
anguish to celebrity. doubts and finally suspects.
forced to return without madeleine.
recap over the whole thing.
richard Bilton: Monsters or martyrs?
carlos anjos of pj talking:the friends were uncooperative witnesses.
Bilton: april the mccanns and friends go for early break in sun.
kate calls her mum saying weather was cold. but going well.
nice bit of velvet underground in the background.
at 6 gerry has his 3rd tennis lesson of the day.
6.30 gerry asks david payne to see the children and kate and if they want to come down. but they are too tired.
all 3 kids are asleep by 7.30.
8.30 they leave for tapas restaurant.
they can't see fron t or side of apt. can see back but is obscured by bushes.
the police have told panorama . timeline is strange.
Everybody drinking. all couples had children in apts and took turns to check up on them.
kate: it just seemed totally right.
gerry says he went just after 9 to check on kids. bedroom door more open than usual. he remembers looking down at madeleine thinking how beautiful she was. he leaves. closes stairgate. meets jeremy wilkins cross road. opposite entrance of ocean club.
jane tanner: I thought i'd better just check (children) before food arrives, leave passing gerry at top of road. i see person carrying child, a male,. describe him 5'8" . He was wearing a lot of clothes - brits abroad usually wear crop trousers. ,wearing a jacket. in hindsight thats strange, tourists dont when abroad. . hair, alot of dark long hair. what was he carrying, i could tell it was a child, i could see feet and bottom of pajamas you could see feet and it was quite a cold night. that parent is not a particularly good parent.
pajamas pinkish. carrying child is unusual way
philomena mccann: just repeated that Gerry said to her: "THEY'VE TAKEN HER"
Mccanns asked ocean club to call police from front desk.At one point they went back to find out what was going on. Police say they got first call at 10.40. confusion about times.
Narrator: but remember portugal on same time as uk.
narrator: source, woman in flat nearby. she first heard at 10.30pm of madeleine missing. kate mccann was sobbing saying 'we've let her down'. First Policeman on scene says: she must have walked out because no sign of break in.
Police criticised for not sealing off crime scene.
gerry: There was us, interpreters...i was telling people to stay out of the room. twins still sleeping in cots. we tried to leave it as undisturbed as possible. it makes me wonder whether any substances used to keep them asleep.
narrator: police didnt test tho.
kate mum: gerry on phone" its a disaster". he was quite hysterical.
philomena: he was out of control
brother: he was walking streets at half three. most of search party disbanded by then he was still crying his eyes out.
kate mum (emotional):. kate was distressed obviously.kate
kate needed to make contact with paul, she needed the strength of the faith.
john mccann; pray for madeleine
by dawn. major search underway.
police judicio searching.
Next day: first press call: appeals made.
But unknown at the time, some portuguese police are already saying they dont believe mccann story. that the story was full of holes from mccanns side.
This crime correspondant (missed name)in diario de noticias: head line ' a badly told story'.
Police suspected theory that she had been kidnapped. they suspected them from word go.
The breakdown in trust worked both ways. Mccanns grew impatient at police response.
kate: it seemed b***dy slow at the time. you've got to put it into perspective .sleepy town. language barrier.
So the family and friends: went to media.
in the early appearances, kate mccann seemed too cool, too controlled.
pedro tadeu of 24horas: after the kidnapping kate mccann appeared on the veranda crying purposefully and we interpreted this as a performance for the media.
john mccann: if you are too tearful you will not have impact or get messge over. they dont talk like that normally.
narrator: In this atmosphere: a former pj detective goes on portuguese tv and accuses mccanns of being swingers.
detective clip: This practice would allow this type of...there are people who know, but obviously, i cannot reveal the source here
Narrator: Such stories were damaging.
At press conference in germany the question: how do you deal with fact that pple think you might have something to do with it?
kate: i dont think that is the case. very small minority. (she looked bloody shakey i have to say)
footage wasn't offered to panorama but offered it when word of its existence leaked out.
john corner friend of mccanns. he makes films for utube footage. he filmed the mccanns for a week, in their new base, a villa on the outskirts of praia.
john corner: We burned alot of footage. You see a father sitting on his own in his bedroom in a foreign country looking for his daughter.
Footage of gerry talking.at the computer.
when john corner the filmmaker and friend arrives, kate tells him about gerry taking pple to airport. his sister says:"I nearly choked on my full English because of that Tiny Tears husband of yours..."
john corner asks: how do you feel when people say gerry's an emotionless warrior
kate(looks surprised): its really harsh. he's obviously used to speaking in public. i think thats what people see. People say how can you do that? How can you stand there? How did i get up this morning? How did i have breakfast? Something gets you through it. Until u are in that situation you cant say. Lowest days for gerry are saturdays, a family day
narrator asks john corner: people saying is it likely that pple would invite a camera team in their lives at a time like that?
john corner: I did tell them, its likely that madeleine wont be the story that you will be. They were quite upset
but as a friend i had to say it.
narrator: things changed.
john corner: police arrived, took most of their clothing, even wet clothes out of the machine, cuddle cat was boxed. we were asked to leave the villa. everybody.
narrator: what did kate and gerry make of this?
john corner: kate and gerry were massively enthusiastic about his. thinking thats a moment for optimism.
k and g were pushing for more urgency. They asked for the FBI but they brought in a british forensic team.
kate: we were doing everything to find madeleine
john corner: But I was thinking. things have changed here. and that this was a bit late in the day to me.
forensic teams found specks of bloody in apt. dogs found traces in car hire.
k & g: talked to interviewer.
kate: we are looking for a living child.
that was the time when the mccanns experienced a more aggressive approach from police.
justine mcguinnes: that was the start of a very difficult period. they went thru a really tuf time.
more serious doubts:
6th of sept: kate dropped off at police station.
justine: i have to say, i was incrediblyimpressed . she just held her head high and walkd into police station. alot of pple wldnt of coped.
kate mum: theyd had a meal with this police detective , she talked to me as if he was a friend. she felt confident that he was there, cos he spoke english. he didnt make eye contact at all.
shes there for 13 hours.
justine: we were naughty, cos we got text messages, updates. knowwing everybody had deadlines. i felt it was important to manage pples expectations.
kate gets out at 1 am. her lawyer tells the press what happened.
allegation put to kate that she was involved in harming her daughter a dreadful allegation.
at 3 am, her lawyer arrives with a deal, plead guilty.and 3 yrs jail
philomena: kate screaming at lawyer no , no. disgust, emotion, anger, you could feel it.
gerry same, interrogated by police.
narrator: then they leave, without madeleine.
Few are putting up yellow ribbons now.
Edward smethhurst, mccann legal advisor: terrible situation, then to make matters worse, trial by media.
narrator: some of evidence against mccanns is tenuous.
Police think: body shifted in car hired 25 days later.
then on trip to huelva spain 3rd aug: disposed of body.
Corners pictures show the only trip they made to huelva.
narrator: so that effectively in evidence?
corner: Yes. ..in the back of that vehicle,there were alot of posters in the boot.(footage shows posters)
police: its a mystery why the vehicle did so many miles when they used it so little as they were away in europe alot.
panorama: we've had access from a source close to the top.
2 diff scenarios are being tested.
1.she was abducted
2. she died in apt 5a. cover up.
police suspicions: a senor detective has told us, inconsistencies in friends statements. night so busy its hard to see how a paedophile could have taken her.
carlos anjos: what happened that
carlos anjos: what happened that nite in the tapas bar, it leaves us somewhat perplexed that not all their statements match up.
tanner; if you ask 9 people about the events of a nite then you are going to get different stories. we were not clockwatching.
why have you chose to speak now?...
tanner: because ive been accused of being a liar and fantasist ...
the first man to be declared arguido: robert murat.
in july murat came face to face with 3 pple, oldfield, obrien, payne woman.
They all said theyd seen murat around ocean club.
he denied it then and now.
Interview with his aunt and mum:
aunt: why are they (tapas 9) fingering robert?
murat sat in on this interview.but couldnt speak due to portuguese secrecy laws.
mum: i got home about 8 after taking out the dogs. robert was already there and he was there all evening,
bilton: would you have noticed if he'd gone out?
mum: of course.we were talking in the kitchen all evening.
kate mccann journal: kate mum: kate distressed. every evening they had to hold it together. she needed support. philomena why dont you keep a journal which madeleine can read when she comes back.
carlos anjos: kate diary, by combining all of the evidence we can reconstruct what happened.
interviewer: diary describes madeleine as hyperactive.
nonetheless we have been told by police that the journal is of interest.
we understand that dna sample has been recovered.
carlos anjos: some of results still missing, waiting for them. Others are inconclusive, to be conclusive they would have to be 99% certain. otherwise they are indicative but not conclusive.
mccanns legal team said their independant tests reveal nothing.
but police say that there is other evidence which has not been revealed to the media.
interviewer: timeline. there are inconsistencies in mccann version.
An alternative theory:
kate stayed in alone from 6.to 6.30. gerry arrived at 7.
Or if something happened at 9 when gerry checked. Not much time.
What if 3rd person was involved? gives more time.
But can we believe that they were involved then got ready to go out.
the police: say its possible they could have masked their feelings.
john corner: tests how easy it would be for an abductor to get out with madeleine wihtout being seen.
good view of apt.
gerry: maybe weak spots at front. somebody could have been hiding or watching.
kate: theyd been watching us for a few days.
they must have known ( she hesitates, imo, almost as if she was going to say 'that we left them alone every night' ) they must have known that gerry had just checked and then ping! (strange noise to suggest madeleine gone).
Interviewer: But there was at most a window of 5 minutes to get madeleine.
alternative view: gerry thinks abductor already hiding in flat.
john corner: its quite creepy if you think about it.
gerry: thats the regret we have, with hindsight, always regret that we have left the window of opportunity ,
gerry: thats the regret we have, with hindsight, always regret that we have left the window of opportunity , makes me sick, a predator ,
kate mum: i have to say i m surprised they left their children alone. They are such good parents.
gerry: with hindsight, its all taken in context of your child being abducted, if we could turn back the clock, we would just rewind.
kate;i know how much i love my children. i know im a responsible parent.
police suspect that friends have exagerated how often they checked.
carlos amjos: we suspect they didn't check their children
kate: its not about us. the problem is this predator who has been watching us.
so 200 days on where is madeleine now?
tho we have been breifed by police they cant be on tv talking about the case.
mccann have a substantiallegal team.
smethhurst: part of the reason we are talkign today. there are 2 strands: part of it criminal case, part of it media attention.
we want media attention focussed back on abduction.
police keeping an open mind but will ask to reinterview friends again, the delay is due to bureaucracy.
anjos:
tanner: weve got nothing to hide.
you want to go back and change your story.
tanner: i actively want to be reinterviewed.
have you been asked to return?
tanner:no. of course we'd return. obviously we are key witnesses.
metodo 3 in barcelona. theyve revealed to us, 2 days after madeleine was in car, she was given to another person.
we have seen no proof. they are confident. evidence has been passed to pj.
tanner: its the least thing you ever think. gerry standing outside apt. so i thought madeleine had just been checked. so there was no reason to think she'd just been taken.
from what i have read so far that is very close to how I saw the programme, ta pdg, most helpful...
Panorama show is online at BBC site
http://tinyurl.com/3fp3h
Just watched the BBC program.Thank you for the link, ARM. Very interesting.
The diagram of the area where Jane Tanner saw the man with the child and where Gerry was talking with J. Wilkins was very helpful. It could be that if Wilkins was facing the other way, he could not have noticed the man in back of him. Does Wilkins remember seeing Jane Tanner ? He could not possibly have missed her.
I am surprised they did not talk about O'Brien tending to his sick child and being away from the dinner table.
Also if I remember correctly, wasn't there a nanny who asserted that she had seen Murat at the Ocean Club the night Madeleine disappeared ?
Thanks very much, pinkdrummergirl. A very interesting read.
Karina, Jeremy Wilkens stated that he did not see JT or the "abductor" on the street even though JT claims to have seen him. And I too am disappointed that JT wasn't asked about her supposedly sick child.
pdg: Thanks for the play by play, well done. arm: Thanks for the link to the progam.
JT sure had a very long walk to check on her child! Just how far was Her apt?? The Corner video (with GM in attendance unseen, but heard! How long has Team MC been woking this all up?) from the tapas bar is heart-wrenching, he has to telescope the camera to give us any idea of 'seeing' the rear of the apt. Imagine how far that distance is to a small 3 year old. And yes macushla the apt is high up, incl'g at the front door where there is a wall with quite a drop for any abductor to make, or quite a far walk to the parking lot with a possibly resisting child.
Smoke and mirrors...the McCanns should be magicians. Gerry says of the twins not waking that it leads one to wonder if they were given substances! So right from the start we see how smart this film is - get them before they get you; show the bad things being said about you up front so you look innocent, so you look as if you have nothing to hide.
We See Gerry on the computer but we Hear that he is desperately looking for his little girl - Really??! Show us then! Kate makes a little joke about Gerry 'losing it', breaking down, aw he's not such a tough guy, hahaha. She repeats the things we have heard her say in other videos word for word and at times seems to run out of words, as if there is no new script.
We are told the PJ suspected the parents from the jump. And then told that the press spoke of them being swingers for no good reason; the one man on tv seemed to get it out of thin air. Huh. Then maybe the PJ are just making this stuff up too.
So I started to fall under the magic spell, started to believe what I was being told to believe. I asked myself why I think these two are guilty of accidentally killing their child and then covering it up. What is there to prove otherwise after all? The dogs. That was it.
Then along came minute 44. The DNA. There was DNA found on the underside of the carpet in the trunk. "Fluid and hair from a corpse not necessarily human and a separate DNA sample that's a partial match for Madeleine and comes from a primary source."
How else would DNA get to such a place and match Madeleine 'indicatively' if not from her body? I think we are waiting for the finest DNA work available - and I sure hope the PJ have police watching all the test tubes and petri dishes 24/7 - and their own video of the entire procedure!!
well done PDG all your hard work is much appreciated.
Karina - i believe. ( but will check) that Jeremy Wilkins stated he saw no-one else whist talking to Gerry McCann
Chanel - I am sure it was mentioned last night and reported that Jane Tanner's apt was next door to the McCanns...
but she may have had to walk round the back of the complex to access her apt, note the rear stairs only lead to the McCann apt's back door.
This being the case.. i agree JT would have had quite a walk to get to her apt where her and her partner where tag teaming a *supossedly* sick child.
Karina here's two extracts from very different newspapers
1= News of the world (personally i don't give this paper the time of day)
2=Telegraph
1= 'But Wilkins, viewed by police as a completely independent witness, told cops he could not recall anyone walking past him. And in all the time he was there he saw NO MAN carrying a child.
The TV executive is convinced he would have seen Jane Tanner pass by.
He said: "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing."
And he also believes he would have seen the mystery man and child who would also have been just yards away.'
2='Mr Wilkins apparently saw no such man, and does not remember seeing Miss Tanner. He has told police: "It was a very narrow path and I think it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without me noticing."'
I'm just loving the comment from Brisbanite about IVF and the Catholic church...what a vindictive comment! Still I guess it is open season on them.
Just popped into have a read to see what y'all made of the Panorama programme, which was thoughtful and considered, and basically said at the end 'The only fact that is known, is that Madeleine McCann disappeared in May', and dismissed a lot of the so-called theories that have been promoted in the press and on the internet.
macushla, yes right. And also on JT saying she 'actively wants' to be reinterviewed -!!! In the most minor police report, a prowler say, police always ask that if you remember anything else or have new info to add, it happens again, call them. Why doesnt she contact the PJ with her recovered memory and let them decide whether she must come to Portugal to be deposed? Hopefully she has. Hopefully.
Are we being led towards Louis Antonio being the man carrying the child?
http://tinyurl.com/2es6g3
Re John
Or is it Murat's girlfriend Michaela Walczuch ?
http://tinyurl.com/yqljv3
She seems pretty sure it was a man.
Journal de Noticias:
The MP has concluded the rogatory letters to grill the McCanns' friends
McCann would be interrogated after the arrival of the new results
The Ministério Público (MP) of Portimão has already concluded the rogatory letters, which would be sent to England in the next days and in which it is asked the cooperation of the local authorities. This diligence would permit the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) to re-interview the seven friends of the McCann couple, who spent their holidays in the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz (Lagos), in last May, and also to clarify "some contradictions" detected in their depositions. But the detectives pretend, above all, to break the apparent "pact of silence" which did prevent them to reconstruct with exactitude the crime and all the happenings of the night, May 3.
Even without the arrival, in Portugal, of the results of the analysis of the vestiges collected in the apartment where Madeleine (then 3 years old) vanished, the rogatory letters would be sent to the Police of Leicester. Also some days later, a team of detectives would accompany the Prosecutor José José Magalhães e Menezes who will assist to the inquiries of the seven friends of the McCann couple. The inquiries would be performed by the British Police in the United Kingdom.
For the PJ, their depositions are crucial and this is proven by the care that was collocated in the elaboration of the rogatory letters.
The detectives are also watching very carefully the public declarations of some witnesses; as the PJ understands, they are violating clearly the secret of justice. Jane Tanner, friend of the McCanns, who said to have seen a man with a child in his arms and who has said that Robert Murat was in the Ocean Club, in the night where Maddie vanished, has now broken the silence. She spoke first to the North American channel CBS and next to the English television BBC, whose documentary has been transmitted yesterday night.
The re-interview of Kate and Gerry -made arguidos last September 7- is in this moment excluded. According to information collected by the JN, the detectives understand that presently there is no need to re-interrogate the couple since they were already confronted with the results of the vestiges collected in the car rented 25 days after the disappearance of their daughter.
On this occasion, Kate and Gerry did not answer to the main questions; the detectives hope that they would change their position after the arrival of the totality of the analysis results, which are performed in the Laboratory of Birmingham since the beginning of August. At this moment, only inquiries - which do not depend on the tests -would be performed to the friends.
Re John How could Jane Tanner be sure that it was a man? And besides a man with a dark skin? If she has seen the color of the skin of this person, she should have seen the face as well.
Re Jose - well that's the question how can she be sure of anything?
Confusion...isn't Jane Tanner Robert O'Brien's partner? Wasn't he supposedly away from the table for 45min including at 10pm? So why did JT leave to check their child also? And come back but he was still there in their apt with said child? But she doesn't mention him or this?
Confusion...
anyone believe her now?
Re Jose Do we know how much bottles of wine did she drunk that night?
Blimeyhecks
My point about G&K's Catholicism is that it appears they are devout when it suits them and when they want it to appear so to the public. If they were so devout they would never consider IVF treatment.
I am not denying that their frequent trips to the local church gave them comfort or whatever they sought there.
However being in a Catholic country, I think that it was part of their recovery plan.
I think it also gives a tiny insight into the type of people they are.
Whether you think it vindictive or not - doesn't bother me as I would make the same comment no matter who.
IMO it is hypocritical just like I think it is hypocritical to never go to church and then expect to be able to get married, christen children and have a funeral service in a church.
Perhaps it is time that the whole of this group stopped playing frikkin mind games with the world and tell it straight.
The problem is that so many lies have been told that no one really knows what the truth is anymore.
The master puppeteer (CM) has this motley crew dangling on their respective strings and I tihnk someone will get their strings in an absolute bloody tangle before too much longer.
Anyone got scissors and we can start letting them fall to the ground now???
Re Brisbanite If they were so devout they would never consider IVF treatment.
The Vatican is cleary against IVF. Even the new Pope, Benedict XVI did speake out against artificial fertilization methods. He said that Christian families must bear witness that procreation is the fruit of love.
Chanel & Lynn that is the point I made straight after the broadcast last night. It is as though the reason for JT being in her apartment (sickness of child) had never happened.
Glad to have you back blimey, what do you think? Did ROB and JT indeed have a child that vomited? Did they get the linen changed? Why were they BOTH absent from the restaurant for 45 minutes? What do you think of the pronouncements of the Metodo 3? I would be interested to hear your, as always, objective comments.
Jose
My point exactly!
But the Pope did add that reproductive assistance is welcome if it 'facilitates' sexual activity between a couple!
By the by, on much earlier threads there was a lot of comments made on how the Pope pretty much ignored Kate.
Maybe it was because he knew they had been through IVF.?
Anyway what does it matter how Madeleine was conceived? Can't believe I am writing about it to be honest.
Fact is she is missing and her parents are responsible for that fact!
Kate's mother still alleges planting of evidence:
http://tinyurl.com/yqr7tb
I know its an obvious point but would they choose the hire car (hired 25 days later) if they were indeed planting evidence. It the improbability of the body storage scenario which makes it more convincing for me - life is like that.
So many things going round my head from that Panorama programme.
Re Brisbanite I think that the way Madeleine has been concieved is important for the Detectives as it is to know who are her biological parents (DNA tests). Nevertheless, I think that's a private matter that shouldnt have been published in the press.
Re John would they choose the hire car if they were indeed planting evidence.
And why no evidence with 99% DNA match with Madeleine's profile has been found?
Dont tell me it s because they are incompetent and amateurish?
I would like to know the rental history of this car before the Mccann's had it.
If they are paying a car detailer to clean it up after each rental, they are not doing a decent job.
I don't buy it that whatever matter and fluid /tissue etc that was found was planted.
Paulo Reis says:
"Mr. Pinto de Abreu remained almost silent, while all British Media said he has done something illegal: offered a plea bargain to Kate, if she confessed a manslaughter, she would get 2 years in jails and that's all. I have nothing against lawyers, but I believe Mr. Pinto de Abreu, as the chairman of the Human Rights Commission of the Portuguese Bar, should not accept to defend the McCann. And you know, if you are in a room with a lion, a tiger, a lawyer, a gun and two bullets, who do you shot, first? The lawyer, twice..."
here: http://tinyurl.com/3yo63w
But my conclusion is different. If Kate's own lawyer having sat with her through all the police evidence and having been involved in her becoming an arguido and in knowing the Portuguese law and what is likely to happen ... if he suggests (not 'offers' he can't do that) a plea of guilty ... then he must himself thought that she was guilty! When your own defence counsel thinks this - then you are in trouble. And he wasn't just mentioning it in passing as a possibility if she was screaming "no! no!" as aunty Philomena claimed.
From JT's interview - " would say the man I saw was more local, or Mediterranean looking, rather than British, or a tourist. He had dark, almost black, long hair and had swarthy skin."
Er ... JT take a look around your neighbourhood in the UK - you telling me that everyone is 100% caucasian???
Gerry McCann, June 3, 2007:
“We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing (...) It wouldn’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that."
HEY Gerry! Have you started planning it yet? Or is that up to CM now?
Well with all your high flying connections I reckon it will be the event of the year.
Guess the tickets will cost a pretty penny too! Oh and let's not forget the merchandise!!
Re John
Since Kate McCann and her lawyer, Pinto de Abreu, dont have access to the files of the inquiry and consequently to the real evidences collected by the PJ, Pinto de Abreu couldnt be sure of the culpability of his client. He could only have an intimate conviction.
The information reported by the Journal de Noticias -that the Tapas 9 would be re-interrogated- has been confirmed by the RTP.
"Re John
Since Kate McCann and her lawyer, Pinto de Abreu, dont have access to the files of the inquiry and consequently to the real evidences collected by the PJ, Pinto de Abreu couldnt be sure of the culpability of his client. He could only have an intimate conviction.
Jose (FR) | 11.20.07 - 8:01 am | #"
Sure but he saw all the stuff they showed Kate and if his conviction was that she was probably guilty then ... - also she had a chance to talk to him and answer the unanswered questions and he still wasn't convinced. I know we weren't there so its only supposition but all we can go on is those who know more than us.
Did JT use a 'cognitive technique' to enhance her memory? If so the evidence is bunk.
http://tinyurl.com/yruaan
Brisbanite: a very worrying comment from GMC. On 3 June (four weeks after the disappearance) he is already planning future events "It wouldn’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that."
How come that, barely 4 weeks after the disappearance, he is so sure that she will not be found?
John (UK) wrote: Did JT use a 'cognitive technique' to enhance her memory? If so the evidence is bunk.
http://tinyurl.com/yruaan
Does anyone know who financed these cognitive memory tests?
John wrote: Did JT use a 'cognitive technique' to enhance her memory? If so the evidence is bunk.
http://tinyurl.com/yruaan
What I want to know is who financed these tests?
Ok, I've submitted twice in the last five minutes my comments are not appearing on the thread. Anybody else experiencing a problem?
The sosmaddie website
http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/
reports that a written testimony of the Tapas 1 has arrived in Portugal!?
Yesterday the Jornal de Noticias dismissed the information that the PJ has been in contact with a "Tapas 1" who wanted the change the declarations of his/her testimony.
Re Billie I have the same problem.
I have posted this post and nothing appeared:
The sosmaddie website
http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/
reports that a written testimony of the Tapas 1 has arrived in Portugal!?
Yesterday the Jornal de Noticias dismissed the information that the PJ has been in contact with a "Tapas 1" who wanted the change the declarations of his/her testimony.
Billie - yes its behaving strangely today - delays and so on.
The problems you are encountering are the fault of a minority of idiots leaving comments on other blog posts. People were posting with the same IP and e-mail but using multiple user names and talking to themselves (sock-puppetry, in Internet terms), blatantly insulting other commentators, ranting as if this is their blog, you name it.
I got sick of it and put comment moderation in place. Unfortunately that affects threads where civilized people post as well. Sorry for the delays. I'll keep them at a minimum as best as I can, but you will definitely see a few for the time being.
Steve Huff
Thanks, Steve.
Still from SOSMaddie, it is reported that the a source within the FSS explained that there is a lot of tests to be sent to Portugal and that the portuguese inquiry "is not considered as a priority".
If the information of the written confession of the Tapas 1 is true, that could explain why the Portuguese authorities want to re-interrogate the Tapas 7 in the next days. Until now it has always been reported that they would wait for the results of the FSS before re-interviewing the Tapas 9.
'Not priority"
is that because its a portugese investigation, or just a 3 yrs old life isn't priority
or just its all old news.....
jeez
For one horrible minute I thought Steve had realised that I was all of you!
Joking apart if it takes a delay I would rather have that and keep the thread civilised. Carry on the good work Steve.
Sky News: McCanns Escape Child Neglect Charges
http://tinyurl.com/23e8qg
Retired solicitor Tony Bennett has failed in his bid to issue a summons against the McCanns.
"After careful consideration, the request to issue a summons against Gerald and Kate McCann for alleged offences contrary to section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has been refused as it is clear this court does not have the necessary jurisdiction"
From Pat Brown's blog today
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: McCann Detective 100 Percent Full of It
http://tinyurl.com/27tyec
I'm ill in bed with flu, please send me some chicken soup whilst I read your comments, didnt get to see all of the documentary but it seems to have just put confusion into a very confused situation anyway.
http://tinyurl.com/38c9lg
Daily Mail:
Robert Murat's girlfriend was seen in a small Moroccan town on the same day as a possible sighting of Madeleine McCann.
A witness has told the McCanns' private detectives she saw Michaela Walczuch, 34, in Zaio, in the north of the country, on June 15.
Minutes earlier the witness had seen a young blonde girl she believes was Madeleine being dragged across the street by a North African woman.
Isabel Gonzalez, 60, said today: "I have always been sure the girl I saw in Morocco was Madeleine, and now I am equally sure the blonde woman I saw that day in the town was Murat's girlfriend."
I also think its a good thing that the private prosecution hasnt gone ahead.
You are right too John, this whole case is now anything but about Madeleine, its about team McCann, Madeleine even on here gets mentioned less and less.
Re Lynn
To accuse the McCanns of having committed a crime of negligence in Portugal, it would be necessary to prove that they were willing to give up their children deliberately.
i think the sockpuppetry is going on on the meredith thread rendering it difficult to read. shame.
Do sosmaddie have sources that nobody else has?
Also just looked up rogatory cos it been bugging me and it means:
A Letter Rogatory or Letter of Request is a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some type of judicial assistance.
wierder and wierder. Seems to me that the Mc Canns are VERY confident that nothing will be found to incriminate them. Kate's dismissive "ping" comment on the abduction happening in the wink of an eye is not something I would expect to hear from a grieving and upset mother at the loss of her child??
If that were me, I would be devastated that such a thing happened when the child was unattended. But no, just a dismissive shrug. I just don't understand the lack of awful guilt and remorse. Anyone think the same?..
several years ago at my sister's birthday party, my 2 yr old niece somehow got into my handbag (as kids do) We found her on the floor with a bag of pills. I was completely racked with guilt that I had left the bag within her reach. We took her to the hospital etc etc. and thankfully she was fine, but to this day, I look at her and think what if? and that was just a mistake. But hey maybe I'm overreacting!
metal guru - i feel the same too, i have made no bones on how horrified i am that 2 seemingly educated,professional people left their children as they did... but i was mortified to watch Kate McCann's flippance over the *abduction* of Madeleine.
Lynn - will courier home made broth to speed recovery.... get well soon
Not bird flu I hope Lynn - so chicken soup would be no help.
Metal guru, I also couldn't believe that gesture (the 'ping'). You would perhaps do that if your cat got run over and even then!
What I also found disgusting is the statement: "it's not about us, its the predator".
Yo Stanley, I too thought you had been caught out with your multiple persona
So the private prosecution's gone west - no surprises there then - there wasn't ever going to be any other outcome to that little attention seeking stunt.
Overall, I don't think the Panorama programme did the McCann's any harm - possibly did them some good - Gerry at least came across more "normal" although Kate still seems flaky to me. But that doesn't make them child killers.
Brisbanite - regarding the rental car, I remember reading somewhere there was only one person who had rented the car before the McCanns and it was a new vehicle. I hope this is true as the trunk could have possible been in pristine condition.
Watched the Panorama show thanks RM for the link.
Question: Which window had the shutter up and that abductor supposedly climbed out, was it the front or the side? I have always assumed it was the side window, I think from a photo of the cop taking the fingerprints off of? If it is the side window watching the re-enactment (about 50 min. on tape) of Jane & Zorro it couldn't be the side window if we are to believe Zorro.
Right after that I couldn't help but notice how Gerry had his head down and would not look at the interviewer when he was talking about Maddie being targeted etc.
I noted Gerry saying except at the very beginning of the dinner, they were the only dinners, so it makes the waiters more credible on statements of what they observed.
The police seem to have a problem with the 10ish time-line. Could be why J.T. didn't seem to want to answer the question and was trying and tripping over words as if she was asked this for the lst time? Then you have the neighbor who heard Kate sobbing, saying a couple times "we let her down" and was sure of the time because the news was just getting over at 10:30. She may have turn-off the TV and that is why she heard her, but even with the news on wouldn't she have heard all the people that were running around outside calling for Maddie's name? I wonder if this time of 10 is the major time differences of witnesses?
I couldn't believe the "ping" thing either, just shocked. I lost my budgie bird a couple weeks ago and I wouldn't even say "ping" he was gone.
Very strange but of course that does mean she killed her. I can believe K&G were capable of attending supper and masking their feelings. Most people couldn't and I think that is why they were given the benefit of a doubt by everyone in the beginning.
OOOppps should have been "does not mean she killed her".
Get well soon Lynn, we need you here.
Well my leave of absence didn't last long. I found myself very frustrated by the Panorama prog. as it offered no real progress and yet more confusing details, which you've all been commenting on here. Also I found myself disliking JT & K for their offerings despite trying my best to remain objective!
Also very dismayed by some of the flippant comments of all TmMcC members interviewed:
G's '...the twins must have been sedated'
K's '...'ping and she's gone'
JT's 'I know what I saw and I beleive I saw Madeleine being abducted' without reference to NOW beleiving that's what she saw in a matter of seconds, late in the evening after consuming several glasses of wine and it was dark and she was supposed to be where? tending her sick daughter or at the Tapas Bar?...etc.
Also the whole thing about the window with a huge drop that G now beleives M was taken from... all in a matter of seconds? And the Metado Group putting their unsubstansiated two pennorth in.
However it was a useful program in that there is a clear need for TmMcC to engage with the public and they stated complet willingness to assist Pt Police so let's see what happens.
Dee - the window is at the 'front' of the apartment - i.e. furthest away from where they were dining and on the opposite side to the patio doors and opens onto the car park.
You can find a plan of in on websleuths.
Chicken soup is the solution to all the wolds great problems. A bad service, poor forehand, lousy backhand. Eat chicken soup and your tennis game will be seriously improved. Saves money on three lessons in one day too. There is a downside it might mean spending some time with your children on their family holiday. I loved Gerry's assertion (on Panorama) that they miss M on a Saturday a day put aside for the family. What thev fuck (excuse the French but no other word does it justice) does the little creep do when it is not a day for the family? He has not been working for six months and puts aside one day a week as family time. Does this mean from Sunday through Friday he does not miss M as it is not the right day for family time? Pass me the sick bag Alice.
The 'were they on something' debate has been reinvigorated by the Panorama prog. as some watchers/commentors believe they (TmMcC) are regular users of stimulents, I came across this post of interest:
"Ecstasy?
On Oct 11 the GNR made the biggest synthetic drugs bust in six years, arresting a British citizen and his Portuguese girlfriend in his villa. The drugs included 1 kilo of pure MDMA, thousands of ecstasy tablets, plus some cannabis and LSD.
http://www.correiodamanha.pt/n.....pt/n.....&
p=200
oh, I almost forget to mention where this bust took place. It was in Praia da Luz…"
I went to the link but it's in Pt'se, need you're expertise here Jose, is this right about the bust?
What do others think about the premis?
Stanley,
In total agreement re: "FAMILY TIME".
But who the fuck is Alice!
Thanks John interesting site and Stanley these are trophy children.
Lizbee - can translate but your link doesn't work I get " Página Inexistente"
- page doesn't exist.
Steve,
This moderation thing completely ruins this thread - is there any chance its going to be switched off?
G has updated his blog since the Panorama pro.:
Gerry's Blog/Diary
Day 201 - 20/11/2007
Yesterday marked 200 days that Madeleine has been missing. Last night saw the screening on the BBC of one of three documentaries about what happened to Madeleine, the others having already been shown in North America and Portugal over the weekend. These programmes have been useful in going over many of the facts and, I believe, emphasising that Madeleine was abducted and is still out there somewhere. Whilst the police and private investigators are following a number of leads, we would like appeal to anyone who was in and around Praia da Luz to come forward with any information that might be relevant on +34 902 300 213 or investigation@findmadeleine.com
We have had a busy ten days with visitors from both Canada and the USA. Whilst it has been really good to see them, it has also been emotionally very difficult for all of us without Madeleine. They are leaving tomorrow and we hope and pray that the next time we get together we will finally be reunited with our lovely Madeleine.
I think it's interesting that he refers to this being 'one of three documentaries' and where the others have been screened; also the 'emphasising that Madeleine was abducted'.
No room for doubt then Gerry!
We've got the 'ping' from Kate and we have had the 'pong' for a long time now - this whole thing stinks.
And it really is all about ping pong - back and forth, back and forth.
Dee
Very early on in this forum there was the mention of trophy children. Interesting to note that you raise it too.
Wishing you a speedy recovery, Lynn.
On another note, does anyone else think it strange that Gerry and Kate were so anxious to speak with Priests almost immediately? Gerry telephoned home to the UK almost immediately to ask a family member for the phone number of a Priest/family friend in the UK, while Kate was at the same time seeking out a local Priest. Why the urgency? especially since at that moment M's whereabouts were still undetermined? And K&G are supposedly not devout Catholics.
I am not Catholic so have no knowledge of the relationship between Catholics and their Priests, but it would seem to me that in the initial moments after Kate sounded the alarm, K&G would have been absolutely focused on assisting with the search for their daughter instead of attempting to reach these Priests. Unless they had a compelling reason to do so...perhaps to get something big off their chests???
Lizbee, interestingly you raise the question of drugs in Praia da Luz. The Mirror forum has several threads on the subject of drugs & Tapas 9 and lots of wild scenarios have been put forth, some of which are actually quite believable and provide motive for a cover up of an accidental death. I've starting to think that something very big and potentially very damaging to all involved is the key to the whole Tapas group pact and the secrecy...there is obviously something that the group does not want the public to discover. Perhaps it's the drug angle. If drugs were involved, and if M accidentally died as a result (either directly or indirectly), there would be an obvious effort by Tapas 9 to cover up her death in order to protect the reputations and interests of the group. From what little I've come to learn about K&G, I have come to realize that they are truly narcissistic individuals who have to be in control at all times and who are in the right, no matter what evidence against them might suggest. An accidental death of one of their children just wouldn't do; so much easier to cover up the whole thing than to admit such a terrible thing could have happened to them, the perfect family. Two well-respected doctors, three beautiful kids, a beautiful home, lots of powerful and very influential friends, what a life! Imagine what an accidental death of one of their beloved children due to negligence, sloppy drug habits, or whatever, might do to that pink bubble of a life that they have carved out for themselves! Unthinkable! And therefore not possible!
They have never admitted negligence in leaving their three children alone in their beds while they partied with friends, they continue to wave the McCann PR banner and they seem to genuinely expect continued public support, sympathy and financial contributions in order that they may continue to live the high life. And they seem to crave the constant attention: the hiring of CM, Gerry's blogs, the hiring of the McCann investigators, the constant badmouthing of the Portuguese police, the interviews, and now the documentaries. It's positively repulsive! If it were my kid missing I'd want to have as low a profile as possible...I'd be too busy looking for my kid to spend time blogging...and I'd certainly not be seeking media attention, I'd be doing my damndest to assist with the investigation, help the police, take any damn lie detector test they wanted to throw at me, etc.
Can anyone post a link to the Panorama show as I cannot access the video on their site?
thanks
Hi all, get well Lynn! I am always complaining about their 'garden distance' from the apt in which their precious children slept so while having a look around I found this, the url is short and besides the name is priceless: http://www.hurtfulandunhelpful.com/?p=14
So no matter what the measurement, as a People mag reporter said it was a brisk 2 minute walk from the apt to the tapas bar, it was a full 2 minutes too far away then.
I did think that G's going back to work with CM tagging along was quite a picture. I thot he looked scared, I got the feeling these people are wondering when and where they will be arrested. And G's little speech there where he talks of the "infrastructure" being in place (umm, what? Oh yeah you mean for the "wider agenda"? Whatever.) after that when he says "do my job" his face changes expression at least three times. I have never seen him truly vulnerable before, he even looked like a little boy. Touching. For about a nanosecond.
I always thought they went to the priest/church/made calls for a priest so fast in hopes of getting the last rites or Extreme Unction for Madeleine, if possible even long distance. It has been done before and it is not necessary to have that sacrament done while one is living. Good of them to find religion isn't it?
Chanel I thought of last rites too, I don't know what Extreme Unction is. It just make sense to call and talk to a priest at a critical time you need to be searching. Kate thought it more important to talk to a priest than to search, a good question for Kate.
Regarding a drug angle very, very possible, maybe Maddie got into something while Kate was giving the kids a bath for instance? Being a doctor is a very high risk substance abuse profession.
Panorama show is online at BBC site
http://tinyurl.com/3fp3h
MADDIE: CHARGE THE PARENTS
21st November 2007
By Jerry Lawton Your Shout
Police were last night under mounting pressure to charge Madeleine McCann’s parents with neglect.
http://tinyurl.com/2tke9r
Angry viewers demanded action after Kate McCann’s own mother admitted on TV that the couple should not have left their children alone in Portugal.
And in a Daily Star phone poll yesterday, 86% said Kate and her husband Gerry, both 39, should be charged with child neglect.
Susan Healy, 61, told BBC1’s Panorama: “I have to say that I’m surprised that Kate and Gerry left their children at all.
“I have thought about it a lot because they are such caring parents. And I think: ‘Why?’”
The McCanns say their four-year-old daughter was snatched from their apartment in Praia da Luz on May 3, while they were dining with pals nearby.
The couple said the resort was “so quiet”, they thought it was safe to leave Madeleine and their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie.
They and their pals claimed they checked on them every 20 minutes and could see the apartment from their table.
I’m surprised that Kate and Gerry left their children at all Susan Healy
But Panorama showed the group could not see it from where they were sitting. And one pal who checked did not actually go into the bedroom.
Yesterday, a bid to have the couple privately prosecuted for neglect was thrown out.
Solicitor Anthony Bennett, 60, tried to launch a case against them at Loughborough Magistrates’ Court, Leics.
But a judge ruled he did not have the power to deal with the case in the UK.
The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell insisted: “Kate and Gerry have themselves questioned their own actions.
"But they are responsible parents who would never intentionally have done anything to harm their children or put them at risk.
“They have been told by their lawyers that they have not broken the law.”
Despite being something of a McSceptic these days I don't think they should be charged with neglect. I think this would be really odd outcome when the bigger question of what happened that night is hanging over everything. If they are covering up the fact that they didn't really check that much and/or darker secrets (such as the now more popular suggestion of a drug habit) - they are very unlikely to come clean.
I don't agree that the Anthony Bennett attempted private prosecution was attention seeking though. I believe that eh thought this action might flush out the truth by attempting to make the McCanns publicly accountable. There are no standards of accuracy or accountability for the kind of information now being released (even if it is BBC Panorama) so we have no idea how truthful people are being. The McCanns rehearsed use of key words - 'furious', 'ludicrous', 'predator', 'responsible' is very telling to me and the Spanish interviewer said he was amazed how rehearsed they were.
Where, by the way, is the breakthrough from Metodo 3?
@ lizbee: I am glad you asked me as it is an expression I use from time to time without knowing from where it derived. Simple answer these days Google it!
Answer John Junor a famous (or infamous) editor of the Sunday Express and a fellow Scot. He had many catchphrases and "Pass me the sick bag Alice" just beautifully captures a reaction to unctuous and arrogant behaviour. It was how I felt at the end of the Panorama programme and every time Clarence speaks.
Someone has already mentioned how well Kate's mother came over in the programme. To be honest she was just a very natural caring lady who was telling the truth as she saw it. She looked at the interviewer and made eye contact with him and the camera, did not nod or shake her head and was just normal! What does that tell us about the others we saw?
Correio da Manhã:
Investigation: "We know when they come and what they are doing there"
PJ controls detectives
The Polícia Judiciária knows when the Spanish private eyes hired by the McCanns are in Portugal. "We know when they come and what they are doing there", said to the CM a source close to the investigation, adding that "they can be there in Portugal as long as they don’t interfere with the inquiry". The men of the Spanish agency Metodo 3 can "talk with neighbors, or with who they want, as long as they do a formal investigation", said to the CM a source of the Ministério Público. "Now if they talk with any witness who has been duly summoned in this process or if they have access to any procedural piece they could be charged for obstruction of justice", he explained.
The information that the detectives have collected until now is finally seen with low credibility by the PJ. "It ought to be like a whiting with its tail in its mouth", refereed a source linked to the investigation and he explained that the Spanish detectives "have been in places that were already known".
The more recent suspicion brought by the detectives of the Metodo 3 points to Michaela Walczuk, the alleged girlfriend of Rober Murat, and to Luís António, the husband of Michaela. According to the CM, the PJ dismissed completely this suspicion.
"In the day that they said to have been seen her, Michaela was probably in Lagos, because at this time her car, a Skoda van, was in a garage for a gear box problem", said Francisco Pagarete, lawyers of Robert Murat and friend of Michaela Walczuk.
"This is a fact even known by the PJ", continues Pagarete, referring that "she didn’t remember herself what she had really done this day because in her agenda, where she writes everything on a daily basis, it is referring to the fact that objects were confiscated by the PJ and they were not sent back".
Remember that when Robert Murat was made arguido, in May, Michaela and her husband, Luís António, were also interviewed and although they weren’t made arguidos some of their objects were seized.
Also in relation to the private expertise requested by the couple to the Renault Scénic (reported yesterday by the CM), the PJ now doesn’t consider that it could incriminate the PJ. "If these analyses would incriminate something it would be the Laboratory of Birmingham and the results that they have obtained", ironized a source of the PJ; "and we are talking of one of the major forensic laboratory in the world".
The same source adds also that tests have been performed to the twin siblings of the couple to prove that no drug has been used to help their children to sleep. Also according to this source, the McCanns are preparing evidences to show that the work of the English dogs- which have detected a scent of death in the car and in the apartment- is not 100% reliable.
This seems to be indicating that Kate and Gerry McCann are already in this moment pr
Re lizbee | 11.20.07 - 7:06 pm
Translation of the following article in the Correio da Manhã, October 10.
http://tinyurl.com/2o7bqv
Traffic: GNR of Sintra did arrest a couple in a gas station on the A2
They were selling Ecstasy in raves
An English man, 38 years, and a Portuguese woman, 22 years, were detained by the GNR of Sintra, Thursday afternoon, in the gas station of de Alcácer do Sal in the highway of South (A2). Both were suspected to manage a gang of drug trafficker that furnished pills of Ecstasy and doses of MDMA (both synthetic drugs) to several discotheques spread in Portugal.
The nucleus of crime drug investigation (NIC-D) of the GNR of Sintra, responsible for the detention, believed that the couple was going to a house which was their home, in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve.
"They spent the week-end in Almeirim where they sold Ecstasy to several discotheques", said to the CM a source linked to the investigation.
The couple spent the Monday in a house in Ericeira and only the following day they moved to the Algarve. Already on the track of the activity of the suspects, the brigade of the NIC-D of the GNR of Sintra was following discreetly the trip of the lovers.
By 18h00, the Vauxhall (the English car driven by the couple) stopped in a gas station in Alcácer do Sal, in the A2, in the north-south sense. The militaries [GNR] took advantage of the halt to make the detention.
The English citizen was hiding in the inside of the car a packet of ecstasy pills. Although at the beginning he denies to be a trafficker, the English man finally authorized the searches in his apartment at Praia da Luz.
The investigators of the GNR found a stock of one kilo of MDMA, in pure form. "It's a chemical compound, rare to find, and from which pills of ecstasy and methamphetamines (a granular which is consumed diluted in water) are produced in laboratory. It has been also confiscated 2850 pills of ecstasy, 400 gr of pollen of marijuana, 87 doses of LSD, 32 gr of Lyamba [Bhang or Cannabis sativa] and 900 euros", said to the CM the same source. The couple has been presented to the Tribunal of Alcácer do Sal. At the end of the afternoon the measure of coercion was unknown.
@ John: I believe the Metodo 3 are genuinely on the edge of a breakthrough. By tonight I estmate they will have issued fee notes in excess of €20,000. (£14,000U.K. $30,000) "this is not a maybe, it is a for sure" That is what the man said. So where are they? the kidnap gang?
I took the liberty of contacting the Guinness Book of Records to see if this was the biggest waste of time and money in history. They are looking into it but are doubtful that the 3 will take the record set by The Duke of York, the grand old one, not the golfing playboy who is kept by the U.K. taxpayer!
Thank you Stanley for that update.
A quick look round at other boards and so on suggests that a lot of people think that the PJ are about to shelve the case - the DNA evidence being inconclusive. If this is so it leaves the three arguidos with a question mark over them (possibly forever) and the Metodo 3 an opportunity to keep searching an ever widening area of Europe and North Africa (possibly extending to SE Asia if funds allow).
What a horrible prospect (including for the McCanns themselves) for everybody. Will this turn into one of the great unsolved mysteries - requiring the wisdom of Socrates (and I don't mean the Portuguese PM!) to solve.
If you think this will not happen please offer your reassurance now because it is becoming gloomily more likely day by day.
loved that link chanel, very funny.
agree about kates mum, to me she was sincere.
John (UK) I don't think this is true. The PJ haven't got all the DNA back yet and they have until January to make a decision. I think they will keep this to the bitter end.
I've been reading about a latest news item from Spain regarding Tapas 7 new testimonies. Anyone help here...Jose?
Pat Brown profiling has a good post on the Metodo 3. Very funny and expresses my view entirely. Worth a look.
One thing of note about Mrs Healy. She had a very long pause (of Radio 3 proportions) when asked about Kate's phone call to her on the fateful night, then she said Kate wanted the no of a priest friend. I took this to be a genuine remembrance of the awful events. But there is something about it that's niggling me...can't shake it.
Still we are left with no answers and this is sad. :-(
Hi, thanks for well wishings, still feel yucky but hasnt been a bad thing to have a break from Madeleine, Team McCann etc etc, you dont realise how something is affecting your life til you suddenly realise its not there. So a bit of a break means I got my head back into gear.... I think it is simply ludicrous that the McCanns and the Tapas7 had anything to do with the disappearance and moreso the coverup of Madeleines body etc. Films arent as far fetched as this, I keep reading posts, listening to what is said and the more i read the more outrageous this whole thing becomes. I dont think the Metodo 3 or whatever they are called will come up with anything, I dont think this case will conclude, I forsee no closure nor indeed do I think we will ever know what happened to Madeleine..1. because there are too many stories about that night..2. evidence is inconclusive and 3. i am not sure anyone really knows who to believe SO how can this case possibly resolve.
I do think, please do not take this as a criticism, but i do think that perhaps as we are so desperate that Madeleine returns home we have let ourselves get carried away in hope, deep down though if we stop and think about it what we are saying is:
Parents killed Madeleine then their friends hid the crime to protect themselves and the McCanns hire a legal team and PI company to elude from the trail, it just gets more bizarre, I think perhaps in my case I would rather that be the case than her in the hands of some pedophile, becoming one of these "little maids" or being tortured in any way, if I take a step back, I do think abduction is the case.
THEN the other side of me thinks, what if what if what if...so then I find myself back at stage 1 going over the facts and banging my head against a brick wall - which as it hurts already isnt a good thing!!!
Question I do have IF it was RM girlfriend in Morocco - wouldnt passport show she had travelled there? Does she have an alibi for where she was on that particular day?
Re John
The DNA evidence is indicative that Madeleine McCann has been in the Scénic rented by the McCanns. May be it s not necessary to have conclusive DNA. According to the Portuguese press, the PJ has other evidences against the McCanns that have never been revealed to the press and that the Police can end the case in January.
The Correio da Manhã did also report that Kate and Gerry McCann are in this moment preparing their defense for trial in case they are going to be judged for the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. This is also what I think. The McCanns are not looking for Madeleine but they are just using the sightings and their Spanish detectives to establish as a true fact that Madeleine is still alive. Everything points to an accusation of the McCanns for January and the McCanns are prepared for that. Then in January the English lawyers would enter in action against an eventual extradition.
Re Maggie
I have also appreciated the excellent post of Pat Brown concerning the Metodo 3.
What are the news that you were reading from Spain regarding Tapas 7 new testimonies?
Re Lynn Question I do have IF it was RM girlfriend in Morocco - wouldnt passport show she had travelled there? Does she have an alibi for where she was on that particular day?
Daily Mail: http://tinyurl.com/35rtpc
Michaela Walczuchsaid said she was at Jehovah's Witness meeting when Madeleine disappeared. She has an alibi for that day.
What has been reported in the Correio da Manhã today is that Metodo 3 said that Michaela and her husband did give Madeleine to a pedophilia gang at Silves. And next the gang has transported Madeleine to Morocco.
just watching the Panorama programme the first thing I wanted to say is that I did state that in a previous post how could the waiter know who left and what time they left but Gerry and Kate both stated they thought they were the only table in the tapas bar so perhaps the waiter could possibly be correct
thanks Jose
But didnt i read somewhere that she was spotted in Morocco?
Jose, The report came from Antenna 3 and on the Mirror Forum (now on page 2) came a report that this is not a reliable source.
Lynn, glad to hear you are feeling a little better, rest easy and don't overdo it.
Regarding the allegations against Michaela Walczuch - 'scrapping the barrel' is a phrase that comes to mind. It reminds me of Amanda Knox's allegation against Diya Lumumba.
Re Lynn But didnt i read somewhere that she was spotted in Morocco?
Yes, Isabel Gonzalez claims she saw Michaela Walczuch in Morocco. You can always speculate that Michaela Walczuch usued a false passaport to travel to Morocco, etc...
thanks Maggie, my husband says its the shame the police dont put as much effort in as we do, even from our sickbeds we still are trying to get somewhere!!!!
@ Jose - see its like trying to think like a criminal sometimes, you just think you are somewhere then booommm smacked down in your prime that is what i meant earlier by never finding the truth
dont suppose these ports have CCTV? or am i being just too optomistic and i have read reports Isabel is going to be a one woman A Team going out to track Madeleine down despite death threats from the Mafia etc etc - so again I take what she states with a pinch of salt!
Lynn - obviously the chicken soup has worked - so welcome back.
With regard to the 'unlikely' nature of the accidental death/cover up scenario - the way I read it is this. The police were uncomfortable with what they were being told from the beginning - but they couldn't figure it out - partly because it is so bizarre. It was only with the DNA/cadaver dog assistance that they got a breakthrough. Surely they must have been as staggered as we are by the Renault Scenic traces - who would predict that?!? But the albeit inconclusive evidence forced them into the scenario they know have. This makes it more believable because you couldn't make it up - if you see what I mean.
The there is - as Jose points out : "According to the Portuguese press, the PJ has other evidences against the McCanns that have never been revealed to the press and that the Police can end the case in January."
The Panorama programme says the same - the police have more evidence and we don't know what it is.
The family e.g. Kate's mother are thinking the evidence is planted because its so strange - but if the PJ were going to stitch them up then they would make up a much more probable and straightforward scenario - because they now have to explain what happened to the body for 25 days and where is it now.
Couple all this with the equally gob smacking idea that some or all of the Tapas 9 are involved and you get a really far out idea of a joint cover up.
Then add on the obsession with Murat and his girlfriend - remember the lurid stories of his strange relationships, his failed marriage and his daughter like Madeleine - far more information than we have ever had about K&G themselves (devout Catholics, hardworking doctors, responsible parents - blah).
So in the end it is the unlikeliness of the scenario which forces one to think it might well be true.
Why t