The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Page 6 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by woodforthetrees on 29.01.15 13:59

@ScarletLaw wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:But, woodforthetrees, if you genuinely thought your child had been abducted, you would (presumably) want them back. Why would you then help out the person who took your child by pretending you only left them alone for one hour rather than three? To stop yourself from being arrested for neglect Either way the parents would be facing accusations of neglect, not if they can argue that they were checking and there was only a very small window (3 ins) where the 'abductor' took her (allegedly alive) but by lying about it they would be seriously jeopardising any chance of getting her back - why would they do that to their child? Or put another way, the child is gone, whether it be 1hr ago or 3hrs ago, therefore spending time discussing the amount of time she was spent alone would detract from any search

And Gerry was definitely outside the apartment at around 9.15pm, because Jez Wilkins confirmed it. Oh, nice, reliable Jez Wilkins. I have no doubt the tapas group colluded to come up with a whole cycle of meets and checks, to keep each other in the clear. This 'meeting, was the very same meeting that was debated by tanner was it not? Either Gerry genuinely did see Madeleine as claimed (in which case she didn't mysteriously disappear before then) or he didn't (in which case, why lie about it so elaborately with the 'proud father' moment? to cover his arse and show that being a 'proud father' he was checking on the kids (when he was drinking in the bar instead) He could easily have said he popped back to use the toilet and all was quiet, so he assumed everything was OK and didn't look in on the children. That would have opened up the possibility of Madeleine disappearing earlier whilst fitting nicely with the checking story, but his statement ruled it out entirely.) Key point you mention here 'his statement', i.e his version of events.

If the McCanns had been out of the apartment from 7pm - 11pm every other night, the perpetrator was damn unlucky that they happened to go back at 9.05pm and 10pm on the very night he/she chose to act! Those timings were an example, they may have been out 7-9.30, or 6.30-10, or 7-11.30 on any of those nights. The point being, if SY believe a perp was watching, then there mustve been a safe window of opportunity... i.e a chunk of time, not..a 3 minute window as suggested by the McCanns.  Plus as Gerry was playing tennis until 7pm and didn't turn up to dinner in sweaty tennis clothes, it can probably be safely assumed that the apartment was occupied by adults for quite some time after 7pm. Unless he got changed in another apartment

And, yes, the timeframe of 9.15pm - 10.00pm is too short for the whole process to have taken place, but that's why the McCanns fell under suspicion in the first place. If you look at the suggested timeline, sightings and 'rota', the available window is 3 minutes, not 45mins It's not feasible that your panicking perpetrator, desperate to get away, allowed the dead body to remain in the apartment for so long that it started to produce detectable cadaverine. Yes it is, lets say 8pm entry, 9.30 exit. Madeleine died within 30 mins, hour for the tidying up and scent to start It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way. ...unless he needed to be seen to have been checking the kids

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. I think that is very clear, not just an assumption of mine, they are NOT looking at the McCanns...which means they are looking for someone else. They must have some reason/evidence/justification to be doing that. If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? They are and they are suing anybody who says otherwise! Particularly given the weakness of their case in court against Dr. Amaral. This is a defamation case and a case about the book hurting them and making them feel bad about being labelled as moving her body by Amaral. Amaral will win because he has the rights to be able to write that book and it is proven that they were already feeling ruined because of the loss of their daughter I will believe it when I see it - because everything I've seen so far seems to point firmly in the direction of the McCanns. I agree, a lot of the information available on line and discussed in both the media and on forums such as these does point to the McCanns, i don't dispute that and i too have agreed with that for a long time (and until the case is closed will continue to consider it), but, the fact remains.... they are not suspects but yet the investigation continues, which means someone other than them is. Who that person is remains a mystery, but the money is on a lone person committing an act and removing the body
comments above.
I see your points but it doesn't take away for their behaviour since the crime.

IF their daughter had been taken why have they never done something like Kerry Needham, arrange for groups of people to search specific areas where she thinks her son might be? Kerry does it without the funding the McCanns have and regularly goes abroad. Because they know she is dead, therefore actual searching is futile, just the accusations that need fighting and the perception she's still alive need pushing now
 Why haven't Gerry and Kate used the reward money in later interviews? Surely this is their trump card in getting a result. Because they have spent it. It got paid into the fund, which has been spent by them
Why do they WASTE money on suing particular people when the money could be used for better means? Because they get more money coming in from the payouts of such court cases. The Amaral case has just backfired. Had he made zero money out of sales, i've no doubt they wouldn't even have sued. Kerrys brother was accused at a time but she shrugged it off. Why- to worried about her son to care....plus doesn't have to maintain a story
 Why hire incompetent investigators that have set up a phone line that is never answered? As the reporter from the Times has pointed out. This was done by Brian Kennedy, they just went along with it
 Why give out fictious e-fits of suspects, as Clarence has done in a press call, when their own investigators never went to the harbour themselves to question people? Because it might help move suspicion away from them.

And NO INNOCENT PERSON EVER, Sets up a PR defensive within days of your child going missing.
 PR IS PURELY FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WHITE WASH THE NEWS. or think they can use the news to their benefit, which is what i believed Gerry thought he was doing, it just catastrophically backfired when the media turned ont hem after being made arguidos. Cale and eat it spring to mind.

I never said the McCanns are innocent of everything. As i stated previously, they have an agenda to keep the 'she is alive' theory going but are also very narcissistic, love the limelight and i'm sure love the celebrity and wealth that has come from the whole thing. Further comments above in bold.

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by woodforthetrees on 29.01.15 14:03

@Joss wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:But, woodforthetrees, if you genuinely thought your child had been abducted, you would (presumably) want them back. Why would you then help out the person who took your child by pretending you only left them alone for one hour rather than three? Either way the parents would be facing accusations of neglect, but by lying about it they would be seriously jeopardising any chance of getting her back - why would they do that to their child?

And Gerry was definitely outside the apartment at around 9.15pm, because Jez Wilkins confirmed it. Either Gerry genuinely did see Madeleine as claimed (in which case she didn't mysteriously disappear before then) or he didn't (in which case, why lie about it so elaborately with the 'proud father' moment? He could easily have said he popped back to use the toilet and all was quiet, so he assumed everything was OK and didn't look in on the children. That would have opened up the possibility of Madeleine disappearing earlier whilst fitting nicely with the checking story, but his statement ruled it out entirely.)

If the McCanns had been out of the apartment from 7pm - 11pm every other night, the perpetrator was damn unlucky that they happened to go back at 9.05pm and 10pm on the very night he/she chose to act! Plus as Gerry was playing tennis until 7pm and didn't turn up to dinner in sweaty tennis clothes, it can probably be safely assumed that the apartment was occupied by adults for quite some time after 7pm.

And, yes, the timeframe of 9.15pm - 10.00pm is too short for the whole process to have taken place, but that's why the McCanns fell under suspicion in the first place. It's not feasible that your panicking perpetrator, desperate to get away, allowed the dead body to remain in the apartment for so long that it started to produce detectable cadaverine. It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way.

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? Particularly given the weakness of their case in court against Dr. Amaral. I will believe it when I see it - because everything I've seen so far seems to point firmly in the direction of the McCanns.

 Very well put. I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

The dog evidence points to her being dead before removed...which creates a problem for the McCanns as it means that the period for cadaver to develop, time of death, act of whatever and cleanup time does not fit with the checking rota.

Agreed, the McCanns are protected and i also agree that crecheman and Smithman were manipulated to make the cadaver and the 'checking' fit as best they can.

I do however believe that the 9.15 (ish) Tanner sighting was actually the genuine one, which is why the McCanns keep it on their site.

IMO and based on recent conversations i have had, SY are protecting them against neglect charges, but are not protecting them against the murder/disposal charges as they do not believe it is them.
I think its possible SY had their orders from high up to not implicate the McC's in the crime. There seems to be a general consensus on this because of the political interference in the case. With the connections the McC's have had i do not find this an impossible scenario.

It is not an impossible scenario at all Joss, i agree and i too believed this approach up until recently.

They are protected, yes and they have had additional help, yes but if all SY were told was to clear the McCanns and that's all the McCanns wanted, they would've wrapped it up years ago with "it's not them, but we cannot find who it is, sorry" and the McCanns etc would slope off into the distance.

SY continue to investigate and search, but are not looking at the McCanns or tapas.  Ask yourself 'why' they would do that??.....

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by jeanmonroe on 29.01.15 14:05

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. I think that is very clear, not just an assumption of mine, they are NOT looking at the McCanns...which means they are looking for someone else. They must have some reason/evidence/justification to be doing that. If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? They are and they are suing anybody who says otherwise!
-------------------------------------------------

Hmmm.

The McCann's are not SUING me!

Even though i've asked them to, on many occaisions.

They know, KNOW, i don't have a pot to p*** in, is that WHY they don't sue me?

I'm sure their 'media monitor' has reams and reams of 'screenshotted' pages with my 'comments', all given in mo, 'saved' as 'evidence', for when they do eventually get around to 'suing' me.

Who knows? I might even have a 'dossier' dedicated SOLELY to me!

"infamy, infamy, their media monitor's got it 'in for me'"

I have 'asked' Sky News, Martin McBrunt, anyone, to 'doorstep' me for an 'interview' but, strangely, nobody has.

When you say,  woodforthetrees, "They (the McCann's) are and they are suing anybody who says otherwise", does that include 'suing' people that don't have anything to 'lose' (me) or do they (the McCann's) only 'sue' people of preceived 'means'?

Do you think a 'defamation/libel' writ, ala GA, from the McCann's, will be 'served' on me, anytime soon, by their 'pro bono' lawyers, CR?

I'd love a court 'appearance'.......... as well they know!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5133
Reputation : 886
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 29.01.15 14:22

@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:But, woodforthetrees, if you genuinely thought your child had been abducted, you would (presumably) want them back. Why would you then help out the person who took your child by pretending you only left them alone for one hour rather than three? Either way the parents would be facing accusations of neglect, but by lying about it they would be seriously jeopardising any chance of getting her back - why would they do that to their child?

And Gerry was definitely outside the apartment at around 9.15pm, because Jez Wilkins confirmed it. Either Gerry genuinely did see Madeleine as claimed (in which case she didn't mysteriously disappear before then) or he didn't (in which case, why lie about it so elaborately with the 'proud father' moment? He could easily have said he popped back to use the toilet and all was quiet, so he assumed everything was OK and didn't look in on the children. That would have opened up the possibility of Madeleine disappearing earlier whilst fitting nicely with the checking story, but his statement ruled it out entirely.)

If the McCanns had been out of the apartment from 7pm - 11pm every other night, the perpetrator was damn unlucky that they happened to go back at 9.05pm and 10pm on the very night he/she chose to act! Plus as Gerry was playing tennis until 7pm and didn't turn up to dinner in sweaty tennis clothes, it can probably be safely assumed that the apartment was occupied by adults for quite some time after 7pm.

And, yes, the timeframe of 9.15pm - 10.00pm is too short for the whole process to have taken place, but that's why the McCanns fell under suspicion in the first place. It's not feasible that your panicking perpetrator, desperate to get away, allowed the dead body to remain in the apartment for so long that it started to produce detectable cadaverine. It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way.

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? Particularly given the weakness of their case in court against Dr. Amaral. I will believe it when I see it - because everything I've seen so far seems to point firmly in the direction of the McCanns.

 Very well put. I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

The dog evidence points to her being dead before removed...which creates a problem for the McCanns as it means that the period for cadaver to develop, time of death, act of whatever and cleanup time does not fit with the checking rota.

Agreed, the McCanns are protected and i also agree that crecheman and Smithman were manipulated to make the cadaver and the 'checking' fit as best they can.

I do however believe that the 9.15 (ish) Tanner sighting was actually the genuine one, which is why the McCanns keep it on their site.

IMO and based on recent conversations i have had, SY are protecting them against neglect charges, but are not protecting them against the murder/disposal charges as they do not believe it is them.
I think its possible SY had their orders from high up to not implicate the McC's in the crime. There seems to be a general consensus on this because of the political interference in the case. With the connections the McC's have had i do not find this an impossible scenario.

It is not an impossible scenario at all Joss, i agree and i too believed this approach up until recently.

They are protected, yes and they have had additional help, yes but if all SY were told was to clear the McCanns and that's all the McCanns wanted, they would've wrapped it up years ago with "it's not them, but we cannot find who it is, sorry" and the McCanns etc would slope off into the distance.

SY continue to investigate and search, but are not looking at the McCanns or tapas.  Ask yourself 'why' they would do that??.....

  Simply; Because having gone through the entire male population of Portugal, they still haven't found some poor guy to pin it on. The McCanns need to be found innocent and therefore they need somebody to be guilty. They couldn't pin on Murat because he was sensible enough to sue for libel. They can't leave this hanging because these forums are going to get bigger and bigger. It's "Ordeal by Innocence" as Christie would note, until someone is found as the chief suspect, the McCanns and friends are all going to be blamed.

If you tell me Scotland Yard wouldn't do this woodfortrees I will paper 30 of these pages with cases.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Joss on 29.01.15 14:29

@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:But, woodforthetrees, if you genuinely thought your child had been abducted, you would (presumably) want them back. Why would you then help out the person who took your child by pretending you only left them alone for one hour rather than three? Either way the parents would be facing accusations of neglect, but by lying about it they would be seriously jeopardising any chance of getting her back - why would they do that to their child?

And Gerry was definitely outside the apartment at around 9.15pm, because Jez Wilkins confirmed it. Either Gerry genuinely did see Madeleine as claimed (in which case she didn't mysteriously disappear before then) or he didn't (in which case, why lie about it so elaborately with the 'proud father' moment? He could easily have said he popped back to use the toilet and all was quiet, so he assumed everything was OK and didn't look in on the children. That would have opened up the possibility of Madeleine disappearing earlier whilst fitting nicely with the checking story, but his statement ruled it out entirely.)

If the McCanns had been out of the apartment from 7pm - 11pm every other night, the perpetrator was damn unlucky that they happened to go back at 9.05pm and 10pm on the very night he/she chose to act! Plus as Gerry was playing tennis until 7pm and didn't turn up to dinner in sweaty tennis clothes, it can probably be safely assumed that the apartment was occupied by adults for quite some time after 7pm.

And, yes, the timeframe of 9.15pm - 10.00pm is too short for the whole process to have taken place, but that's why the McCanns fell under suspicion in the first place. It's not feasible that your panicking perpetrator, desperate to get away, allowed the dead body to remain in the apartment for so long that it started to produce detectable cadaverine. It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way.

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? Particularly given the weakness of their case in court against Dr. Amaral. I will believe it when I see it - because everything I've seen so far seems to point firmly in the direction of the McCanns.

 Very well put. I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

The dog evidence points to her being dead before removed...which creates a problem for the McCanns as it means that the period for cadaver to develop, time of death, act of whatever and cleanup time does not fit with the checking rota.

Agreed, the McCanns are protected and i also agree that crecheman and Smithman were manipulated to make the cadaver and the 'checking' fit as best they can.

I do however believe that the 9.15 (ish) Tanner sighting was actually the genuine one, which is why the McCanns keep it on their site.

IMO and based on recent conversations i have had, SY are protecting them against neglect charges, but are not protecting them against the murder/disposal charges as they do not believe it is them.
I think its possible SY had their orders from high up to not implicate the McC's in the crime. There seems to be a general consensus on this because of the political interference in the case. With the connections the McC's have had i do not find this an impossible scenario.

It is not an impossible scenario at all Joss, i agree and i too believed this approach up until recently.

They are protected, yes and they have had additional help, yes but if all SY were told was to clear the McCanns and that's all the McCanns wanted, they would've wrapped it up years ago with "it's not them, but we cannot find who it is, sorry" and the McCanns etc would slope off into the distance.

SY continue to investigate and search, but are not looking at the McCanns or tapas.  Ask yourself 'why' they would do that??.....
My question would be Why did the McC's get all of this protection and help and money if they were innocent parents of a missing child? No other parents of missing children have had this level of what they have had to my knowledge, why not?
Do you honestly think with all the money that has poured into their Fraudation they would want to give that up, i don't.
They still insist Madeleine is alive, and if they accepted that she was deceased then the fund would come to a grinding halt.
The McC's and the tapas friends had their lives and reputations at stake, and could not afford to have criminal charges placed on them for child neglect in a foreign country. Of course they would of done everything in their power to avoid criminal charges.
SY have come too far in this charade and the millions of taxpayer money spent on their investigation to not come up with a credible story to the public about whodunnit at this stage, IMO. And now that AR is retired we will see what DCI Wall comes up with. How many more duds are they going to try and pin this on i wonder? In the cases i have followed LE will not normally name a suspect that they already have in custody, that they aren't absolutely sure about, and that is  usually quickly followed by an arrest and charges.

____________________

Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 29.01.15 14:41

@Joss wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:But, woodforthetrees, if you genuinely thought your child had been abducted, you would (presumably) want them back. Why would you then help out the person who took your child by pretending you only left them alone for one hour rather than three? Either way the parents would be facing accusations of neglect, but by lying about it they would be seriously jeopardising any chance of getting her back - why would they do that to their child?

And Gerry was definitely outside the apartment at around 9.15pm, because Jez Wilkins confirmed it. Either Gerry genuinely did see Madeleine as claimed (in which case she didn't mysteriously disappear before then) or he didn't (in which case, why lie about it so elaborately with the 'proud father' moment? He could easily have said he popped back to use the toilet and all was quiet, so he assumed everything was OK and didn't look in on the children. That would have opened up the possibility of Madeleine disappearing earlier whilst fitting nicely with the checking story, but his statement ruled it out entirely.)

If the McCanns had been out of the apartment from 7pm - 11pm every other night, the perpetrator was damn unlucky that they happened to go back at 9.05pm and 10pm on the very night he/she chose to act! Plus as Gerry was playing tennis until 7pm and didn't turn up to dinner in sweaty tennis clothes, it can probably be safely assumed that the apartment was occupied by adults for quite some time after 7pm.

And, yes, the timeframe of 9.15pm - 10.00pm is too short for the whole process to have taken place, but that's why the McCanns fell under suspicion in the first place. It's not feasible that your panicking perpetrator, desperate to get away, allowed the dead body to remain in the apartment for so long that it started to produce detectable cadaverine. It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way.

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? Particularly given the weakness of their case in court against Dr. Amaral. I will believe it when I see it - because everything I've seen so far seems to point firmly in the direction of the McCanns.

 Very well put. I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

The dog evidence points to her being dead before removed...which creates a problem for the McCanns as it means that the period for cadaver to develop, time of death, act of whatever and cleanup time does not fit with the checking rota.

Agreed, the McCanns are protected and i also agree that crecheman and Smithman were manipulated to make the cadaver and the 'checking' fit as best they can.

I do however believe that the 9.15 (ish) Tanner sighting was actually the genuine one, which is why the McCanns keep it on their site.

IMO and based on recent conversations i have had, SY are protecting them against neglect charges, but are not protecting them against the murder/disposal charges as they do not believe it is them.
I think its possible SY had their orders from high up to not implicate the McC's in the crime. There seems to be a general consensus on this because of the political interference in the case. With the connections the McC's have had i do not find this an impossible scenario.

It is not an impossible scenario at all Joss, i agree and i too believed this approach up until recently.

They are protected, yes and they have had additional help, yes but if all SY were told was to clear the McCanns and that's all the McCanns wanted, they would've wrapped it up years ago with "it's not them, but we cannot find who it is, sorry" and the McCanns etc would slope off into the distance.

SY continue to investigate and search, but are not looking at the McCanns or tapas.  Ask yourself 'why' they would do that??.....
My question would be Why did the McC's get all of this protection and help and money if they were innocent parents of a missing child? No other parents of missing children have had this level of what they have had to my knowledge, why not?
Do you honestly think with all the money that has poured into their Fraudation they would want to give that up, i don't.
They still insist Madeleine is alive, and if they accepted that she was deceased then the fund would come to a grinding halt.
The McC's and the tapas friends had their lives and reputations at stake, and could not afford to have criminal charges placed on them for child neglect in a foreign country. Of course they would of done everything in their power to avoid criminal charges.
SY have come too far in this charade and the millions of taxpayer money spent on their investigation to not come up with a credible story to the public about whodunnit at this stage, IMO. And now that AR is retired we will see what DCI Wall comes up with. How many more duds are they going to try and pin this on i wonder? In the cases i have followed LE will not normally name a suspect that they already have in custody, that they aren't absolutely sure about, and that is  usually quickly followed by an arrest and charges.


I agree Josh. Sorry, Joss.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by woodforthetrees on 29.01.15 14:49

@jeanmonroe wrote:You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. No, i think they have had evidence right from the start which ruled them out, hence them still not being suspects. I think that is very clear, not just an assumption of mine, they are NOT looking at the McCanns...which means they are looking for someone else. They must have some reason/evidence/justification to be doing that. If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? They are and they are suing anybody who says otherwise!
-------------------------------------------------

Hmmm.

The McCann's are not SUING me!

Even though i've asked them to, on many occaisions.

They know, KNOW, i don't have a pot to p*** in, is that WHY they don't sue me? Exactly why

I'm sure their 'media monitor' has reams and reams of 'screenshotted' pages with my 'comments', all given in mo, 'saved' as 'evidence', for when they do eventually get around to 'suing' me.

Who knows? I might even have a 'dossier' dedicated SOLELY to me! Maybe, but no money, not of interest

"infamy, infamy, their media monitor's got it 'in for me'"

I have 'asked' Sky News, Martin McBrunt, anyone, to 'doorstep' me for an 'interview' but, strangely, nobody has.

When you say,  woodforthetrees, "They (the McCann's) are and they are suing anybody who says otherwise", does that include 'suing' people that don't have anything to 'lose' (me) or do they (the McCann's) only 'sue' people of preceived 'means'? As above, people with money, i.e media and anyone who has profited off their opposing views

Do you think a 'defamation/libel' writ, ala GA, from the McCann's, will be 'served' on me, anytime soon, by their 'pro bono' lawyers, CR? Nope, you haven't profited, therefore you are just expressing your opinion

I'd love a court 'appearance'.......... as well they know! As would a lot of us, lots of quetions to ask!

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by woodforthetrees on 29.01.15 14:54

@ScarletLaw wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:But, woodforthetrees, if you genuinely thought your child had been abducted, you would (presumably) want them back. Why would you then help out the person who took your child by pretending you only left them alone for one hour rather than three? Either way the parents would be facing accusations of neglect, but by lying about it they would be seriously jeopardising any chance of getting her back - why would they do that to their child?

And Gerry was definitely outside the apartment at around 9.15pm, because Jez Wilkins confirmed it. Either Gerry genuinely did see Madeleine as claimed (in which case she didn't mysteriously disappear before then) or he didn't (in which case, why lie about it so elaborately with the 'proud father' moment? He could easily have said he popped back to use the toilet and all was quiet, so he assumed everything was OK and didn't look in on the children. That would have opened up the possibility of Madeleine disappearing earlier whilst fitting nicely with the checking story, but his statement ruled it out entirely.)

If the McCanns had been out of the apartment from 7pm - 11pm every other night, the perpetrator was damn unlucky that they happened to go back at 9.05pm and 10pm on the very night he/she chose to act! Plus as Gerry was playing tennis until 7pm and didn't turn up to dinner in sweaty tennis clothes, it can probably be safely assumed that the apartment was occupied by adults for quite some time after 7pm.

And, yes, the timeframe of 9.15pm - 10.00pm is too short for the whole process to have taken place, but that's why the McCanns fell under suspicion in the first place. It's not feasible that your panicking perpetrator, desperate to get away, allowed the dead body to remain in the apartment for so long that it started to produce detectable cadaverine. It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way.

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? Particularly given the weakness of their case in court against Dr. Amaral. I will believe it when I see it - because everything I've seen so far seems to point firmly in the direction of the McCanns.

 Very well put. I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

The dog evidence points to her being dead before removed...which creates a problem for the McCanns as it means that the period for cadaver to develop, time of death, act of whatever and cleanup time does not fit with the checking rota.

Agreed, the McCanns are protected and i also agree that crecheman and Smithman were manipulated to make the cadaver and the 'checking' fit as best they can.

I do however believe that the 9.15 (ish) Tanner sighting was actually the genuine one, which is why the McCanns keep it on their site.

IMO and based on recent conversations i have had, SY are protecting them against neglect charges, but are not protecting them against the murder/disposal charges as they do not believe it is them.
I think its possible SY had their orders from high up to not implicate the McC's in the crime. There seems to be a general consensus on this because of the political interference in the case. With the connections the McC's have had i do not find this an impossible scenario.

It is not an impossible scenario at all Joss, i agree and i too believed this approach up until recently.

They are protected, yes and they have had additional help, yes but if all SY were told was to clear the McCanns and that's all the McCanns wanted, they would've wrapped it up years ago with "it's not them, but we cannot find who it is, sorry" and the McCanns etc would slope off into the distance.

SY continue to investigate and search, but are not looking at the McCanns or tapas.  Ask yourself 'why' they would do that??.....

  Simply; Because having gone through the entire male population of Portugal, they still haven't found some poor guy to pin it on. The McCanns need to be found innocent and therefore they need somebody to be guilty. Not necessarily, if the McCanns are clear based on evidence, then it would be in everybody's interest to wrap it up quick, guilty party found or not. Also, you miss the entire point....they are already deemed innocent by all but Amaral They couldn't pin on Murat because he was sensible enough to sue for libel. Murat was put in the frame because of his actions in the early days and his similarities to the profile of Ian Huntley. Basically, the tail was pinned an a donkey...the wrong one. They can't leave this hanging because these forums are going to get bigger and bigger. It's "Ordeal by Innocence" as Christie would note, until someone is found as the chief suspect, the McCanns and friends are all going to be blamed. Correction, they are pitchforked by internet forums, again, they are not being blamed by law enforcement

If you tell me Scotland Yard wouldn't do this woodfortrees I will paper 30 of these pages with cases. Feel free to paper the pages... :-)

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ultimaThule on 29.01.15 14:59

@ScarletLaw wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
< snip > I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

How do you know that SY are 'desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns, SL?

Can you please point me in the direction of anything which can be seen as substantiating your apparent insider knowledge of SY's intentions?


 Because I've been in this game a long time.

I've seen other references you've made to your allegedly superior knowledge of this case, SL, but nothing you've posted as yet has persuaded me that you are doing anything other than guessing with regard to SY's intent.  Can you provide convincing evidence otherwise?

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by woodforthetrees on 29.01.15 15:02

@Joss wrote:
Do you honestly think with all the money that has poured into their Fraudation they would want to give that up, i don't. There's non left to give up, it's almost gone and without Amarals £1m to add to it, there is non coming either
They still insist Madeleine is alive, and if they accepted that she was deceased then the fund would come to a grinding halt. Exactly, they have to maintain she is alive
The McC's and the tapas friends had their lives and reputations at stake, and could not afford to have criminal charges placed on them for child neglect in a foreign country. Of course they would of done everything in their power to avoid criminal charges. My point exactly, hence making up the child checking rota
SY have come too far in this charade and the millions of taxpayer money spent on their investigation to not come up with a credible story to the public about who dunnit at this stage, IMO. I agree kind of. I suspect they know who has done it but there is not enough evidence to make it a  slam dunk case, hence the re-interviews etc And now that AR is retired we will see what DCI Wall comes up with. A continuation or Redwoods work i suspect How many more duds are they going to try and pin this on i wonder? Keep in mind here, that the 'duds' that are identified are ones we here from the media, i.e absolute tosh.  In the cases i have followed LE will not normally name a suspect that they already have in custody, Exactly, media tosh that they aren't absolutely sure about, and that is  usually quickly followed by an arrest and charges. Exactly, media tosh, it frustrates law enforcement as much as us, the general public

Comments in bold..

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 29.01.15 15:06

@woodforthetrees wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:But, woodforthetrees, if you genuinely thought your child had been abducted, you would (presumably) want them back. Why would you then help out the person who took your child by pretending you only left them alone for one hour rather than three? Either way the parents would be facing accusations of neglect, but by lying about it they would be seriously jeopardising any chance of getting her back - why would they do that to their child?

And Gerry was definitely outside the apartment at around 9.15pm, because Jez Wilkins confirmed it. Either Gerry genuinely did see Madeleine as claimed (in which case she didn't mysteriously disappear before then) or he didn't (in which case, why lie about it so elaborately with the 'proud father' moment? He could easily have said he popped back to use the toilet and all was quiet, so he assumed everything was OK and didn't look in on the children. That would have opened up the possibility of Madeleine disappearing earlier whilst fitting nicely with the checking story, but his statement ruled it out entirely.)

If the McCanns had been out of the apartment from 7pm - 11pm every other night, the perpetrator was damn unlucky that they happened to go back at 9.05pm and 10pm on the very night he/she chose to act! Plus as Gerry was playing tennis until 7pm and didn't turn up to dinner in sweaty tennis clothes, it can probably be safely assumed that the apartment was occupied by adults for quite some time after 7pm.

And, yes, the timeframe of 9.15pm - 10.00pm is too short for the whole process to have taken place, but that's why the McCanns fell under suspicion in the first place. It's not feasible that your panicking perpetrator, desperate to get away, allowed the dead body to remain in the apartment for so long that it started to produce detectable cadaverine. It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way.

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? Particularly given the weakness of their case in court against Dr. Amaral. I will believe it when I see it - because everything I've seen so far seems to point firmly in the direction of the McCanns.

 Very well put. I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

The dog evidence points to her being dead before removed...which creates a problem for the McCanns as it means that the period for cadaver to develop, time of death, act of whatever and cleanup time does not fit with the checking rota.

Agreed, the McCanns are protected and i also agree that crecheman and Smithman were manipulated to make the cadaver and the 'checking' fit as best they can.

I do however believe that the 9.15 (ish) Tanner sighting was actually the genuine one, which is why the McCanns keep it on their site.

IMO and based on recent conversations i have had, SY are protecting them against neglect charges, but are not protecting them against the murder/disposal charges as they do not believe it is them.
I think its possible SY had their orders from high up to not implicate the McC's in the crime. There seems to be a general consensus on this because of the political interference in the case. With the connections the McC's have had i do not find this an impossible scenario.

It is not an impossible scenario at all Joss, i agree and i too believed this approach up until recently.

They are protected, yes and they have had additional help, yes but if all SY were told was to clear the McCanns and that's all the McCanns wanted, they would've wrapped it up years ago with "it's not them, but we cannot find who it is, sorry" and the McCanns etc would slope off into the distance.

SY continue to investigate and search, but are not looking at the McCanns or tapas.  Ask yourself 'why' they would do that??.....

  Simply; Because having gone through the entire male population of Portugal, they still haven't found some poor guy to pin it on. The McCanns need to be found innocent and therefore they need somebody to be guilty. Not necessarily, if the McCanns are clear based on evidence, then it would be in everybody's interest to wrap it up quick, guilty party found or not. Also, you miss the entire point....they are already deemed innocent by all but Amaral-actually over 90% of people think they're involved, Interpol and according to others-MI5,
 
They couldn't pin on Murat because he was sensible enough to sue for libel. Murat was put in the frame because of his actions in the early days and his similarities to the profile of Ian Huntley. Basically, the tail was pinned an a donkey...the wrong one. And fed to the press in tip offs from the McCann group because he regularly appears in leaked information from their camp .
meone is found as the chief suspect, the McCanns and friends are all going to be blamed. Correction, they are pitchforked by internet forums, again, they are not being blamed by law enforcement. Ofcourse, I agree-law enforcement are complicit and helping them.
er 30 of these pages with cases. Feel free to paper the pages... :-) Or you could just go to your filing cabinet in your office; labelled under "PUBLIC F..CK UPS! It's next to the whitewash cans of paint.

Joking ofcourse..



ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 29.01.15 15:20

@ultimaThule wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
< snip > I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

How do you know that SY are 'desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns, SL?

Can you please point me in the direction of anything which can be seen as substantiating your apparent insider knowledge of SY's intentions?


 Because I've been in this game a long time.

I've seen other references you've made to your allegedly superior knowledge of this case, SL, but nothing you've posted as yet has persuaded me that you are doing anything other than guessing with regard to SY's intent.  Can you provide convincing evidence otherwise?

 I don't have half the knowledge of the regulars on here and relatively new to the case? I thought this was a forum where theories are posted with the guessing element involved because none of us know for sure. It is not for me to convince anyone of anything and I am not here for that purpose. If you agree, good, if not-also good because people have a right to say yes or no. I do not care to be honest what you think and am not here to court your persuasion.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Joss on 29.01.15 15:23

@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:
Do you honestly think with all the money that has poured into their Fraudation they would want to give that up, i don't. There's non left to give up, it's almost gone and without Amarals £1m to add to it, there is non coming either
They still insist Madeleine is alive, and if they accepted that she was deceased then the fund would come to a grinding halt. Exactly, they have to maintain she is alive
The McC's and the tapas friends had their lives and reputations at stake, and could not afford to have criminal charges placed on them for child neglect in a foreign country. Of course they would of done everything in their power to avoid criminal charges. My point exactly, hence making up the child checking rota
SY have come too far in this charade and the millions of taxpayer money spent on their investigation to not come up with a credible story to the public about who dunnit at this stage, IMO. I agree kind of. I suspect they know who has done it but there is not enough evidence to make it a  slam dunk case, hence the re-interviews etc And now that AR is retired we will see what DCI Wall comes up with. A continuation or Redwoods work i suspect How many more duds are they going to try and pin this on i wonder? Keep in mind here, that the 'duds' that are identified are ones we here from the media, i.e absolute tosh.  In the cases i have followed LE will not normally name a suspect that they already have in custody, Exactly, media tosh that they aren't absolutely sure about, and that is  usually quickly followed by an arrest and charges. Exactly, media tosh, it frustrates law enforcement as much as us, the general public

Comments in bold..
I wouldn't agree that some approx. 750,000 pounds is no money, thats a lot of money still. Where are we getting the facts of how much money the McC's have or haven't still got btw? How do we know they don't have a lot of money secreted away somewhere out of the publics knowledge?
I also don't agree that the naming of all suspects that have turned into non suspects in the case is all media bs.

[color:e7e2=000000]Three prime suspects for the abduction of Madeleine McCann have been identified by Scotland Yard officers.

Analysis of mobile phone data suggests a burglary gang was operating very near to where she vanished in Portugal in May 2007.

The three men made an unusually high number of calls to each other in the hours after Madeleine was reported missing from her holiday flat in the Algarve.
[color:e7e2=000000]http://www.mccannfiles.com/id478.html




Joss

Posts : 1899
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by woodforthetrees on 29.01.15 15:46

@Joss wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:
Do you honestly think with all the money that has poured into their Fraudation they would want to give that up, i don't. There's non left to give up, it's almost gone and without Amarals £1m to add to it, there is non coming either
They still insist Madeleine is alive, and if they accepted that she was deceased then the fund would come to a grinding halt. Exactly, they have to maintain she is alive
The McC's and the tapas friends had their lives and reputations at stake, and could not afford to have criminal charges placed on them for child neglect in a foreign country. Of course they would of done everything in their power to avoid criminal charges. My point exactly, hence making up the child checking rota
SY have come too far in this charade and the millions of taxpayer money spent on their investigation to not come up with a credible story to the public about who dunnit at this stage, IMO. I agree kind of. I suspect they know who has done it but there is not enough evidence to make it a  slam dunk case, hence the re-interviews etc And now that AR is retired we will see what DCI Wall comes up with. A continuation or Redwoods work i suspect How many more duds are they going to try and pin this on i wonder? Keep in mind here, that the 'duds' that are identified are ones we here from the media, i.e absolute tosh.  In the cases i have followed LE will not normally name a suspect that they already have in custody, Exactly, media tosh that they aren't absolutely sure about, and that is  usually quickly followed by an arrest and charges. Exactly, media tosh, it frustrates law enforcement as much as us, the general public

Comments in bold..
I wouldn't agree that some approx. 750,000 pounds is no money, thats a lot of money still. Where are we getting the facts of how much money the McC's have or haven't still got btw? How do we know they don't have a lot of money secreted away somewhere out of the publics knowledge?
I also don't agree that the naming of all suspects that have turned into non suspects in the case is all media bs.

[color:97ea=000000]Three prime suspects for the abduction of Madeleine McCann have been identified by Scotland Yard officers.

Analysis of mobile phone data suggests a burglary gang was operating very near to where she vanished in Portugal in May 2007.

The three men made an unusually high number of calls to each other in the hours after Madeleine was reported missing from her holiday flat in the Algarve.
[color:97ea=000000]http://www.mccannfiles.com/id478.html



Their latest accounts showed they had approx £70k left, from what i read. Barely enough to pay the legal bill for the Amaral trial, as i'm sure she didn't represent them on a 'no win, no fee' basis.

Agreed, not all BS, just 'manipulated snippets'. The mobile phone activities have been looked into, if only to rule out a few of the 'could be involved', or.....maybe to see if the burglar group, who were in the area and actively snooping about, saw anything of interest on that evening, e.g someone hanging around the apartment.

The statement does not say "SY have made a public statement confirming they are questioning 3 suspects under caution about their involvement in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, based on mobile phone evidence". I suspect the 1st sentence was media BS/spin and the second sentence was fact. They would not release such details about suspects to the public.

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 29.01.15 16:45

@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@Joss wrote:
Do you honestly think with all the money that has poured into their Fraudation they would want to give that up, i don't. There's non left to give up, it's almost gone and without Amarals £1m to add to it, there is non coming either
They still insist Madeleine is alive, and if they accepted that she was deceased then the fund would come to a grinding halt. Exactly, they have to maintain she is alive
The McC's and the tapas friends had their lives and reputations at stake, and could not afford to have criminal charges placed on them for child neglect in a foreign country. Of course they would of done everything in their power to avoid criminal charges. My point exactly, hence making up the child checking rota
SY have come too far in this charade and the millions of taxpayer money spent on their investigation to not come up with a credible story to the public about who dunnit at this stage, IMO. I agree kind of. I suspect they know who has done it but there is not enough evidence to make it a  slam dunk case, hence the re-interviews etc And now that AR is retired we will see what DCI Wall comes up with. A continuation or Redwoods work i suspect How many more duds are they going to try and pin this on i wonder? Keep in mind here, that the 'duds' that are identified are ones we here from the media, i.e absolute tosh.  In the cases i have followed LE will not normally name a suspect that they already have in custody, Exactly, media tosh that they aren't absolutely sure about, and that is  usually quickly followed by an arrest and charges. Exactly, media tosh, it frustrates law enforcement as much as us, the general public

Comments in bold..
I wouldn't agree that some approx. 750,000 pounds is no money, thats a lot of money still. Where are we getting the facts of how much money the McC's have or haven't still got btw? How do we know they don't have a lot of money secreted away somewhere out of the publics knowledge?
I also don't agree that the naming of all suspects that have turned into non suspects in the case is all media bs.

Three prime suspects for the abduction of Madeleine McCann have been identified by Scotland Yard officers.

Analysis of mobile phone data suggests a burglary gang was operating very near to where she vanished in Portugal in May 2007.

The three men made an unusually high number of calls to each other in the hours after Madeleine was reported missing from her holiday flat in the Algarve.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id478.html


Their latest accounts showed they had approx £70k left, from what i read. Barely enough to pay the legal bill for the Amaral trial, as i'm sure she didn't represent them on a 'no win, no fee' basis.

Agreed, not all BS, just 'manipulated snippets'. The mobile phone activities have been looked into, if only to rule out a few of the 'could be involved', or.....maybe to see if the burglar group, who were in the area and actively snooping about, saw anything of interest on that evening, e.g someone hanging around the apartment.

The statement does not say "SY have made a public statement confirming they are questioning 3 suspects under caution about their involvement in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, based on mobile phone evidence". I suspect the 1st sentence was media BS/spin and the second sentence was fact. They would not release such details about suspects to the public.
Woodsfortrees, You can't deny though that innocent people have had their names turn up in the press on a regular basis in connection to the disappearance and journalists haven't just plucked them from thin air? So somewhere in Scotland Yard the press are being tipped off on a regular basis and lives are being ruined in the process.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ultimaThule on 29.01.15 17:07

@ScarletLaw wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
< snip > I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

How do you know that SY are 'desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns, SL?

Can you please point me in the direction of anything which can be seen as substantiating your apparent insider knowledge of SY's intentions?


 Because I've been in this game a long time.

I've seen other references you've made to your allegedly superior knowledge of this case, SL, but nothing you've posted as yet has persuaded me that you are doing anything other than guessing with regard to SY's intent.  Can you provide convincing evidence otherwise?

 I don't have half the knowledge of the regulars on here and relatively new to the case? I thought this was a forum where theories are posted with the guessing element involved because none of us know for sure. It is not for me to convince anyone of anything and I am not here for that purpose. If you agree, good, if not-also good because people have a right to say yes or no. I do not care to be honest what you think and am not here to court your persuasion.

This is indeed a forum where theories are posted, SL, but if a poster claims to know as opposed to 'think'; 'surmise' or 'guess', it is entirely reasonable for others to ask for evidence which supports the purported knowledge.

On this occasion I will assume that you were merely guessing at SY's intent and that in actual fact you have no more knowledge as to its purpose than the rest of us.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 29.01.15 17:37

@ultimaThule wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@ScarletLaw wrote:
< snip > I think the dog evidence is why Scotland Yard haven't closed the case yet and I know they're desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns. Which is an impossible task because- there just isn't one. Trying "desperately" to find a way of fabricating some evidence is more the remit at this time for our boys in black. Hence Redwoods very iffy Crimewatch appeal of manipulating the timeline and the fabrication of Crecheman.

How do you know that SY are 'desperate to find a solution that fits with the theory that doesn't implicate the McCanns, SL?

Can you please point me in the direction of anything which can be seen as substantiating your apparent insider knowledge of SY's intentions?


 Because I've been in this game a long time.

I've seen other references you've made to your allegedly superior knowledge of this case, SL, but nothing you've posted as yet has persuaded me that you are doing anything other than guessing with regard to SY's intent.  Can you provide convincing evidence otherwise?

 I don't have half the knowledge of the regulars on here and relatively new to the case? I thought this was a forum where theories are posted with the guessing element involved because none of us know for sure. It is not for me to convince anyone of anything and I am not here for that purpose. If you agree, good, if not-also good because people have a right to say yes or no. I do not care to be honest what you think and am not here to court your persuasion.

This is indeed a forum where theories are posted, SL, but if a poster claims to know as opposed to 'think'; 'surmise' or 'guess', it is entirely reasonable for others to ask for evidence which supports the purported knowledge.

On this occasion I will assume that you were merely guessing at SY's intent and that in actual fact you have no more knowledge as to its purpose than the rest of us.


The convincing evidence is because Scotland Yard have stated that they're not looking at the McCanns as suspects nor questioned them, as far as we know in a hostile way-i.e taking them in as suspects. So it shows that there investigations is aimed at other possibilities. With the information of lone pedo that the Yard have talked about, that was dismissed early on by Interpol in the very early investigation as having no substance, and the fact they haven't publically given any evidence to support this hypothesis. I feel this pedo theory is not true that they are reporting this to the public. Amaral himself said in an interview that there was no pedo going around the resort. Also with the evidence of the dog scent etc, the lone person doesn't work for me. "Know" is because for me, I feel this is happening. I could be wrong, because media manipulate things, but this how I feel about the situation on a personal level.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 29.01.15 17:42

@woodforthetrees wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:Either way the parents would be facing accusations of neglect, not if they can argue that they were checking and there was only a very small window (3 ins) where the 'abductor' took her (allegedly alive)
They didn't just leave the children alone for 3 minutes - no-one was with them and no-one claimed to see Madeleine for almost an hour. That's where the neglect charge comes in, not from the supposed window of opportunity for an abduction.

but by lying about it they would be seriously jeopardising any chance of getting her back - why would they do that to their child? Or put another way, the child is gone, whether it be 1hr ago or 3hrs ago, therefore spending time discussing the amount of time she was spent alone would detract from any search.
That is sooo not the issue! If you think your daughter might have been carried off by someone at 7pm, what is the point in telling the police she was last seen at 9.15pm? Any sightings before that will automatically be discounted as not being Madeleine.


And Gerry was definitely outside the apartment at around 9.15pm, because Jez Wilkins confirmed it. Oh, nice, reliable Jez Wilkins. I have no doubt the tapas group colluded to come up with a whole cycle of meets and checks, to keep each other in the clear. This 'meeting, was the very same meeting that was debated by tanner was it not? Either Gerry genuinely did see Madeleine as claimed (in which case she didn't mysteriously disappear before then) or he didn't (in which case, why lie about it so elaborately with the 'proud father' moment? to cover his arse and show that being a 'proud father' he was checking on the kids (when he was drinking in the bar instead) He could easily have said he popped back to use the toilet and all was quiet, so he assumed everything was OK and didn't look in on the children. That would have opened up the possibility of Madeleine disappearing earlier whilst fitting nicely with the checking story, but his statement ruled it out entirely.) Key point you mention here 'his statement', i.e his version of events.
OK, so you think Jez Wilkins is in on it and lied to police as well. As well as Jane Tanner. Jez wasn't neglecting his child - he was taking it for a walk in the pram and I believe his wife verified that. So if communal neglect is the problem, why would Jez say he saw Gerry if he didn't?

And Gerry's version of events is that he saw Madeleine alive at 9.05pm. If the last time he saw Madeleine was actually at 7.00pm, they could easily have said they were doing regular listening checks but no-one physically SAW Madeleine after they went out. Instead, they categorically placed her disappearance two to three hours later.


If the McCanns had been out of the apartment from 7pm - 11pm every other night, the perpetrator was damn unlucky that they happened to go back at 9.05pm and 10pm on the very night he/she chose to act! Those timings were an example, they may have been out 7-9.30, or 6.30-10, or 7-11.30 on any of those nights. The point being, if SY believe a perp was watching, then there mustve been a safe window of opportunity... i.e a chunk of time, not..a 3 minute window as suggested by the McCanns.  Plus as Gerry was playing tennis until 7pm and didn't turn up to dinner in sweaty tennis clothes, it can probably be safely assumed that the apartment was occupied by adults for quite some time after 7pm. Unless he got changed in another apartment
Why would he get changed in another apartment? That's just weird. Surely his clean clothes would be in his own apartment, not someone else's? And where was Kate supposed to be?


And, yes, the timeframe of 9.15pm - 10.00pm is too short for the whole process to have taken place, but that's why the McCanns fell under suspicion in the first place. If you look at the suggested timeline, sightings and 'rota', the available window is 3 minutes, not 45mins
No-one claimed to see Madeleine between 9.15pm and 10pm - see above. The McCanns are the ones who tried to shoe-horn in the possibility of a 3-minute abduction - no-one else takes it seriously, not even Scotland Yard.

It's not feasible that your panicking perpetrator, desperate to get away, allowed the dead body to remain in the apartment for so long that it started to produce detectable cadaverine. Yes it is, lets say 8pm entry, 9.30 exit. Madeleine died within 30 mins, hour for the tidying up and scent to start
Oops, I accidentally killed this little girl. Should I dump the body somewhere quickly and get the Hell out of here before anyone notices? Naaah, I'll just hide her behind the sofa while I spend an hour doing the housework to utterly eradicate any forensic trace of my presence here tonight. In the dark, obviously, because otherwise the parents might look up from the tapas bar and realise there is someone in their apartment if I put the lights on.

It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way. ...unless he needed to be seen to have been checking the kids
He didn't need to lie - he just had to say they'd been doing listening checks only, and she was last physically seen at ? pm. Anyway, what sort of pitiful excuse for a father decides that his need to avoid possible neglect charges outweighs his small daughter's need to be rescued from a predator or paedophile?

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. I think that is very clear, not just an assumption of mine, they are NOT looking at the McCanns...which means they are looking for someone else. They must have some reason/evidence/justification to be doing that.
Says who? Who knows what Scotland Yard is up to, or for what reasons? It IS your assumption - you're assuming that they must have found some hard evidence that exonerates the McCanns. But it's hard to see what that could be.

If the police thought there was a chance that the McCanns lied about their whereabouts earlier in the evening (as you have stated), I personally would assume that they would re-question the McCanns and their friends very thoroughly to sort the timelines out once and for all. But instead they have pushed forward the Smithman theory.

Using your logic, therefore, Scotland Yard do not believe that Madeleine went missing before 9.15pm and it stands to reason that they must therefore have hard evidence to back this up and your argument about timings etc. cannot be correct. Because Scotland Yard said so...


If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? They are and they are suing anybody who says otherwise!
No, they are proclaiming their innocence from the rooftops - that is not the same as being able to say that evidence has emerged to show that they are telling the truth.

Particularly given the weakness of their case in court against Dr. Amaral. This is a defamation case and a case about the book hurting them and making them feel bad about being labelled as moving her body by Amaral. Amaral will win because he has the rights to be able to write that book and it is proven that they were already feeling ruined because of the loss of their daughter
And during that court case, they did their level best to try to tell the judge that the dogs were wrong - presumably that's the best or only defence they can come up with. If they could have stood up and said, "It definitely wasn't us, because [insert proof]", don't you think they would have done so?

I will believe it when I see it - because everything I've seen so far seems to point firmly in the direction of the McCanns. I agree, a lot of the information available on line and discussed in both the media and on forums such as these does point to the McCanns, i don't dispute that and i too have agreed with that for a long time (and until the case is closed will continue to consider it), but, the fact remains.... they are not suspects but yet the investigation continues, which means someone other than them is. Who that person is remains a mystery, but the money is on a lone person committing an act and removing the body
comments above.

And my comments in orange! :)

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 29.01.15 17:54

@SuspiciousMinds wrote:
@woodforthetrees wrote:
@SuspiciousMinds wrote:Either way the parents would be facing accusations of neglect, not if they can argue that they were checking and there was only a very small window (3 ins) where the 'abductor' took her (allegedly alive)
They didn't just leave the children alone for 3 minutes - no-one was with them and no-one claimed to see Madeleine for almost an hour. That's where the neglect charge comes in, not from the supposed window of opportunity for an abduction.

but by lying about it they would be seriously jeopardising any chance of getting her back - why would they do that to their child? Or put another way, the child is gone, whether it be 1hr ago or 3hrs ago, therefore spending time discussing the amount of time she was spent alone would detract from any search.
That is sooo not the issue! If you think your daughter might have been carried off by someone at 7pm, what is the point in telling the police she was last seen at 9.15pm? Any sightings before that will automatically be discounted as not being Madeleine.


And Gerry was definitely outside the apartment at around 9.15pm, because Jez Wilkins confirmed it. Oh, nice, reliable Jez Wilkins. I have no doubt the tapas group colluded to come up with a whole cycle of meets and checks, to keep each other in the clear. This 'meeting, was the very same meeting that was debated by tanner was it not? Either Gerry genuinely did see Madeleine as claimed (in which case she didn't mysteriously disappear before then) or he didn't (in which case, why lie about it so elaborately with the 'proud father' moment? to cover his arse and show that being a 'proud father' he was checking on the kids (when he was drinking in the bar instead) He could easily have said he popped back to use the toilet and all was quiet, so he assumed everything was OK and didn't look in on the children. That would have opened up the possibility of Madeleine disappearing earlier whilst fitting nicely with the checking story, but his statement ruled it out entirely.) Key point you mention here 'his statement', i.e his version of events.
OK, so you think Jez Wilkins is in on it and lied to police as well. As well as Jane Tanner. Jez wasn't neglecting his child - he was taking it for a walk in the pram and I believe his wife verified that. So if communal neglect is the problem, why would Jez say he saw Gerry if he didn't?

And Gerry's version of events is that he saw Madeleine alive at 9.05pm. If the last time he saw Madeleine was actually at 7.00pm, they could easily have said they were doing regular listening checks but no-one physically SAW Madeleine after they went out. Instead, they categorically placed her disappearance two to three hours later.


If the McCanns had been out of the apartment from 7pm - 11pm every other night, the perpetrator was damn unlucky that they happened to go back at 9.05pm and 10pm on the very night he/she chose to act! Those timings were an example, they may have been out 7-9.30, or 6.30-10, or 7-11.30 on any of those nights. The point being, if SY believe a perp was watching, then there mustve been a safe window of opportunity... i.e a chunk of time, not..a 3 minute window as suggested by the McCanns.  Plus as Gerry was playing tennis until 7pm and didn't turn up to dinner in sweaty tennis clothes, it can probably be safely assumed that the apartment was occupied by adults for quite some time after 7pm. Unless he got changed in another apartment
Why would he get changed in another apartment? That's just weird. Surely his clean clothes would be in his own apartment, not someone else's? And where was Kate supposed to be?


And, yes, the timeframe of 9.15pm - 10.00pm is too short for the whole process to have taken place, but that's why the McCanns fell under suspicion in the first place. If you look at the suggested timeline, sightings and 'rota', the available window is 3 minutes, not 45mins
No-one claimed to see Madeleine between 9.15pm and 10pm - see above. The McCanns are the ones who tried to shoe-horn in the possibility of a 3-minute abduction - no-one else takes it seriously, not even Scotland Yard.

It's not feasible that your panicking perpetrator, desperate to get away, allowed the dead body to remain in the apartment for so long that it started to produce detectable cadaverine. Yes it is, lets say 8pm entry, 9.30 exit. Madeleine died within 30 mins, hour for the tidying up and scent to start
Oops, I accidentally killed this little girl. Should I dump the body somewhere quickly and get the Hell out of here before anyone notices? Naaah, I'll just hide her behind the sofa while I spend an hour doing the housework to utterly eradicate any forensic trace of my presence here tonight. In the dark, obviously, because otherwise the parents might look up from the tapas bar and realise there is someone in their apartment if I put the lights on.

It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way. ...unless he needed to be seen to have been checking the kids
He didn't need to lie - he just had to say they'd been doing listening checks only, and she was last physically seen at ? pm. Anyway, what sort of pitiful excuse for a father decides that his need to avoid possible neglect charges outweighs his small daughter's need to be rescued from a predator or paedophile?

You seem to be assuming that the police investigations have found some piece of definitive evidence that rules out the McCanns' involvement once and for all. I think that is very clear, not just an assumption of mine, they are NOT looking at the McCanns...which means they are looking for someone else. They must have some reason/evidence/justification to be doing that.
Says who? Who knows what Scotland Yard is up to, or for what reasons? It IS your assumption - you're assuming that they must have found some hard evidence that exonerates the McCanns. But it's hard to see what that could be.

If the police thought there was a chance that the McCanns lied about their whereabouts earlier in the evening (as you have stated), I personally would assume that they would re-question the McCanns and their friends very thoroughly to sort the timelines out once and for all. But instead they have pushed forward the Smithman theory.

Using your logic, therefore, Scotland Yard do not believe that Madeleine went missing before 9.15pm and it stands to reason that they must therefore have hard evidence to back this up and your argument about timings etc. cannot be correct. Because Scotland Yard said so...


If that was the case, don't you think the McCanns would have been trumpeting it from the rooftops? They are and they are suing anybody who says otherwise!
No, they are proclaiming their innocence from the rooftops - that is not the same as being able to say that evidence has emerged to show that they are telling the truth.

Particularly given the weakness of their case in court against Dr. Amaral. This is a defamation case and a case about the book hurting them and making them feel bad about being labelled as moving her body by Amaral. Amaral will win because he has the rights to be able to write that book and it is proven that they were already feeling ruined because of the loss of their daughter
And during that court case, they did their level best to try to tell the judge that the dogs were wrong - presumably that's the best or only defence they can come up with. If they could have stood up and said, "It definitely wasn't us, because [insert proof]", don't you think they would have done so?

I will believe it when I see it - because everything I've seen so far seems to point firmly in the direction of the McCanns. I agree, a lot of the information available on line and discussed in both the media and on forums such as these does point to the McCanns, i don't dispute that and i too have agreed with that for a long time (and until the case is closed will continue to consider it), but, the fact remains.... they are not suspects but yet the investigation continues, which means someone other than them is. Who that person is remains a mystery, but the money is on a lone person committing an act and removing the body
comments above.

And my comments in orange! :)
Oops, I accidentally killed this little girl. Should I dump the body somewhere quickly and get the Hell out of here before anyone notices? Naaah, I'll just hide her behind the sofa while I spend an hour doing the housework to utterly eradicate any forensic trace of my presence here tonight. In the dark, obviously, because otherwise the parents might look up from the tapas bar and realise there is someone in their apartment if I put the lights on.

Very funny

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Daryl Dixon on 29.01.15 18:09

Don't sweat it ScarletLaw, ultimaThule is the forum grammar Nazi and resident pedant.

Daryl Dixon

Posts : 69
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Guest on 29.01.15 18:11

Whatever good intentions SL, they get lost in quoting, requoting, coloured comments and more.
A concise reply helps the debate.
This approach is killing any exchange of opinions.
Just in my opinion, of course.
kindest regards
parapono


eta The noble art of snipping
      
brilliant UT high5

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ScarletLaw on 29.01.15 18:14

@Daryl Dixon wrote:Don't sweat it ScarletLaw, ultimaThule is the forum grammar Nazi and resident pedant.


I understand passion, I'm feisty myself. It's difficult to understand what people mean in text because you don't have emotion. So things gets lost in translation. Also my first language is French and English is my second, so I do get words wrong some times if I don't concentrate.

ScarletLaw

Posts : 236
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Gaggzy on 29.01.15 18:19

@ScarletLaw wrote:
@Daryl Dixon wrote:Don't sweat it ScarletLaw, ultimaThule is the forum grammar Nazi and resident pedant.


I understand passion, I'm feisty myself. It's difficult to understand what people mean in text because you don't have emotion. So things gets lost in translation. Also my first language is French and English is my second, so I do get words wrong some times if I don't concentrate.

Wow. I never would have guessed you were French. For a second language, your English is perfect.   clapping

Gaggzy

Posts : 488
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2014-06-08
Location : North West.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by ultimaThule on 29.01.15 19:03

@Daryl Dixon wrote:Don't sweat it ScarletLaw, ultimaThule is the forum grammar Nazi and resident pedant.

Really, DD?  I could never hope to occupy the much lamented, on my part, Russian Doll's former position as Queen of Grammatical Exactitude, nor is it my desire to do so.

As for 'resident pedant', anyone reading my back posts will see the lie to that particular accusation. However, that said, I now intend to support parapono's call to bring back the noble art of snipping big grin

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Post by Guest on 29.01.15 19:11

I now intend to support parapono's call to bring back the noble art of snipping

Me too.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum