Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

by Joss 27.01.15 16:14

tiny wrote:
j.rob wrote:And David Payne's 100 second phone call to the Met police child abuse team made late in the evening of Friday 4th May. Which he claims not to remember having made late that evening.

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/david-paynes-call-to-child-abuse.html
Why would he have that number on his phone(if he did)hmmmm,i just hope that sy have chat with him.

Is the Met police child abuse team in the U.K. for reporting child abuse? Did DP know someone there, and was he perhaps reporting about Madeleine or something else to do with her disappearance? I don't know why he would be calling them otherwise?

by ScarletLaw 27.01.15 16:17

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
Joss wrote:
ScarletLaw wrote:
Joss wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Not only that. The MSM newspapers are not doing them any favour by stating it as a 'libel" case and repeating the libel - that Maddie died in the apt and her parents were involved etc....

Can't blame the press really as it is what the Mcs been telling the press all along.
They are hanged by their own silly game.They spined their own reputation demise.

I wonder if they are going to sue the MSM outlets for causing them pain, insomnia, depression etc for repeating the Court proceedings? Amaral was sued for repeating the investigation process.
So would the correct term for the Trial be specifically a "Damages Trial"? For any pain & suffering to the McC's because of the book & Documentary? Surely they must of known as parents of a missing child that the police would investigate them first to rule out any foul play by the parents? This is usually what happens in most missing child cases to my knowledge. And as to who last saw the child alive. Investigators can only go by forensic and other evidence they have to try and decipher what could possibly have happened. And most high profile cases of missing children have a cloak of suspicion on the parents, until more information is revealed to possibly rule them out. And most innocent parents would do all in their power to help the police and investigating authorities to help locate their child, not hinder an investigation and sue a lead investigator in their case that was there to help them.
But i think as we all know by now everything the McC's have done appears to be for their own reputation and name, first & foremost, and shut anyone up that sees them in a negative way. And what does that say about them as parents of a missing child? Not much, IMO.
This is from 2013 Joss in statistics. In the vast majority of cases, children who are homicide victims are killed by a parent. Figures from England and Wales over the last decade, on average around 70% of child homicides where there was a suspect were committed by a parent.
Just over 16% were committed by another family member, a friend, or an acquaintance, while the remaining 15% were committed by strangers (figures are rounded). Around one in 165,000 children aged one to four are killed each year out of statistics.

So for the McCanns not to be looked at would be severe negligence on Amarals part because there's a large difference between 70 and 15%.
Thanks for the info. ScarletLaw. Yes most of those cases involve a parent/s, or another family member. Wow that's a phenomenal amount of children that die each year. It's like a damn epedemic actually. Poor babies.
And yes, Mr. Amaral was just doing his job as an investigator on the case. The McC's should be ashamed of themselves for the damage they have caused IMO.
Those are very similar statistics to ones I've posted on here to different threads, IIRC are in GA's book. 70% of parents are responsible for child abductions or disappearances, 96% are done by people known to the child. So that's 1 in 25 chance that MBM disappeared at the hands of a complete stranger. A 1 in 25 chance that a complete stranger broke into the apartment, took Madeleine, leaving no trace of entry or exit and no forensic clue that they were there at all.

"So DCI Wall, with such a overwhelming weight of statistical evidence at your disposal, why didn't you look at the parents or their friends?" - would be the first question any defence solicitor would ask of any 'patsy' OG wishes to put on trial.

Somebody told me that it's very rare that the little girl would've been taken at her age too if they were abducting her for sick pleasure and would've most likely waited until she was around the age of 10. So that lessens the odds even more.

by ScarletLaw 27.01.15 16:20

Joss wrote:
tiny wrote:
j.rob wrote:And David Payne's 100 second phone call to the Met police child abuse team made late in the evening of Friday 4th May. Which he claims not to remember having made late that evening.

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/david-paynes-call-to-child-abuse.html
Why would he have that number on his phone(if he did)hmmmm,i just hope that sy have chat with him.
Is the Met police child abuse team in the U.K. for reporting child abuse? Did DP know someone there, and was he perhaps reporting about Madeleine or something else to do with her disappearance? I don't know why he would be calling them otherwise?

In London. A pang of conscience I think Joss and then obviously bottled it. This actually fits in with my theory that Gerry is behind what happened and I'm pretty sure he was going to report what he knew. (If everything I read is factual and not made up)

by Joss 27.01.15 16:49

ScarletLaw wrote:
Joss wrote:
tiny wrote:
j.rob wrote:And David Payne's 100 second phone call to the Met police child abuse team made late in the evening of Friday 4th May. Which he claims not to remember having made late that evening.

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/david-paynes-call-to-child-abuse.html
Why would he have that number on his phone(if he did)hmmmm,i just hope that sy have chat with him.
Is the Met police child abuse team in the U.K. for reporting child abuse? Did DP know someone there, and was he perhaps reporting about Madeleine or something else to do with her disappearance? I don't know why he would be calling them otherwise?

In London. A pang of conscience I think Joss and then obviously bottled it. This actually fits in with my theory that Gerry is behind what happened and I'm pretty sure he was going to report what he knew. (If everything I read is factual and not made up)

You could be right with that theory.

by cbeagle 28.01.15 5:19

j.rob wrote: And David Payne's 100 second phone call to the Met police child abuse team made late in the evening of Friday 4th May.

Along with his comment along the lines of he had more to tell, but it was not the right forum.

If Operation Grange is to be open and transparent then surely they need to have demonstrated they resolved these outstanding issues.

by Loving Mom 28.01.15 7:34

j.rob wrote:
snipped:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html

@j.rob

Thank you for posting about the Telegraph article. After reading it, I got the distinct impression that writer seemed to be quoting the Mc's (my opinion only). Do you think Team Mc made a request for certain things to be written and he obliged but in fairness also reported important facts too? I wonder if he will be sued next?

Did anyone else here that read it feel that way?

The part in bold I have not heard before (maybe someone else here has):

In early September 2007, according to Kate McCann, she was told by the Portuguese police that if she admitted that Madeleine had died in the apartment and she had hidden her body she might only serve a two-year sentence and Gerry McCann would not be charged at all. On September 7 the couple were both made arguidos.

by ScarletLaw 28.01.15 7:45

Loving Mom wrote:
j.rob wrote:
snipped:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html

@j.rob

Thank you for posting about the Telegraph article. After reading it, I got the distinct impression that writer seemed to be quoting the Mc's (my opinion only). Do you think Team Mc made a request for certain things to be written and he obliged but in fairness also reported important facts too? I wonder if he will be sued next?

Did anyone else here that read it feel that way?

The part in bold I have not heard before (maybe someone else here has):

In early September 2007, according to Kate McCann, she was told by the Portuguese police that if she admitted that Madeleine had died in the apartment and she had hidden her body she might only serve a two-year sentence and Gerry McCann would not be charged at all. On September 7 the couple were both made arguidos.

The statement in bold was denied by Amaral and legally he wouldn't have been able to even propose such an offer under Portugese law. That was "another" of Kate McCanns lies to try and discredit him. I think the Telegraph were just trying to be fair to everybody involved and remain impartial. Currently they still have Carter Ruck on side who are not known for being nice in court, put it that way, so the press have to be fair to the McCanns. Slowly they're starting to turn though because the money for their powerful lawyers is running out.

by Loving Mom 28.01.15 8:03

ScarletLaw wrote:
Loving Mom wrote:
j.rob wrote:
snipped:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html

@j.rob

Thank you for posting about the Telegraph article. After reading it, I got the distinct impression that writer seemed to be quoting the Mc's (my opinion only). Do you think Team Mc made a request for certain things to be written and he obliged but in fairness also reported important facts too? I wonder if he will be sued next?

Did anyone else here that read it feel that way?

The part in bold I have not heard before (maybe someone else here has):

In early September 2007, according to Kate McCann, she was told by the Portuguese police that if she admitted that Madeleine had died in the apartment and she had hidden her body she might only serve a two-year sentence and Gerry McCann would not be charged at all. On September 7 the couple were both made arguidos.

The statement in bold was denied by Amaral and legally he wouldn't have been able to even propose such an offer under Portugese law. That was "another" of Kate McCanns lies to try and discredit him. I think the Telegraph were just trying to be fair to everybody involved and remain impartial. Currently they still have Carter Ruck on side who are not known for being nice in court, put it that way, so the press have to be fair to the McCanns. Slowly they're starting to turn though because the money for their powerful lawyers is running out.

Maybe the person who wrote the article was told the part in bold above by KM (he wrote, according to KM). In my opinion, Team Mc may have requested the article and what was requested may have been stated but what's important is a lot more than what they may have requested was also stated. Seems to be a case of be careful what you wish for. Yes, there seems to be a definite shift/increase in fair reporting in this article and the more recent articles. The truth will come out and the sooner the better for everyone involved.

by ScarletLaw 28.01.15 8:15

Loving Mom wrote:
ScarletLaw wrote:
Loving Mom wrote:
j.rob wrote:
snipped:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html

@j.rob

Thank you for posting about the Telegraph article. After reading it, I got the distinct impression that writer seemed to be quoting the Mc's (my opinion only). Do you think Team Mc made a request for certain things to be written and he obliged but in fairness also reported important facts too? I wonder if he will be sued next?

Did anyone else here that read it feel that way?

The part in bold I have not heard before (maybe someone else here has):

In early September 2007, according to Kate McCann, she was told by the Portuguese police that if she admitted that Madeleine had died in the apartment and she had hidden her body she might only serve a two-year sentence and Gerry McCann would not be charged at all. On September 7 the couple were both made arguidos.

The statement in bold was denied by Amaral and legally he wouldn't have been able to even propose such an offer under Portugese law. That was "another" of Kate McCanns lies to try and discredit him. I think the Telegraph were just trying to be fair to everybody involved and remain impartial. Currently they still have Carter Ruck on side who are not known for being nice in court, put it that way, so the press have to be fair to the McCanns. Slowly they're starting to turn though because the money for their powerful lawyers is running out.
Maybe the person who wrote the article was told the part in bold above by KM (he wrote, according to KM). In my opinion, Team Mc may have requested the article and what was requested may have been stated but what's important is a lot more than what they may have requested was also stated. Seems to be a case of be careful what you wish for. Yes, there seems to be a definite shift/increase in fair reporting in this article and the more recent articles. The truth will come out and the sooner the better for everyone involved.

Could be that they were told to write it. I don't understand why they've told so many lies personally, that goes for Clarence too with some of the things he's said on camera. I'm glad they have lied though because i feel these will bring them all down in the end. I agree, that the truth will come out too but it won't be Scotland Yard.

by Loving Mom 28.01.15 8:33

I meant to say that the truth is coming out (there is a big shift recently) and the sooner it all comes out of the mouths who know (and surely someone knows) the better for Madeleine and everyone who cares about her. Ugh, IMO. It's also IMO that we should never have to write IMO. For goodness sakes whose opinion would it be if I'm writing it, Jeesh! This has really gotten out of control, whatever happened to freedom of speech?

by woodforthetrees 28.01.15 9:32

ScarletLaw wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
Joss wrote:
ScarletLaw wrote:
Joss wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Not only that. The MSM newspapers are not doing them any favour by stating it as a 'libel" case and repeating the libel - that Maddie died in the apt and her parents were involved etc....

Can't blame the press really as it is what the Mcs been telling the press all along.
They are hanged by their own silly game.They spined their own reputation demise.

I wonder if they are going to sue the MSM outlets for causing them pain, insomnia, depression etc for repeating the Court proceedings? Amaral was sued for repeating the investigation process.
So would the correct term for the Trial be specifically a "Damages Trial"? For any pain & suffering to the McC's because of the book & Documentary? Surely they must of known as parents of a missing child that the police would investigate them first to rule out any foul play by the parents? This is usually what happens in most missing child cases to my knowledge. And as to who last saw the child alive. Investigators can only go by forensic and other evidence they have to try and decipher what could possibly have happened. And most high profile cases of missing children have a cloak of suspicion on the parents, until more information is revealed to possibly rule them out. And most innocent parents would do all in their power to help the police and investigating authorities to help locate their child, not hinder an investigation and sue a lead investigator in their case that was there to help them.
But i think as we all know by now everything the McC's have done appears to be for their own reputation and name, first & foremost, and shut anyone up that sees them in a negative way. And what does that say about them as parents of a missing child? Not much, IMO.
This is from 2013 Joss in statistics. In the vast majority of cases, children who are homicide victims are killed by a parent. Figures from England and Wales over the last decade, on average around 70% of child homicides where there was a suspect were committed by a parent.
Just over 16% were committed by another family member, a friend, or an acquaintance, while the remaining 15% were committed by strangers (figures are rounded). Around one in 165,000 children aged one to four are killed each year out of statistics.

So for the McCanns not to be looked at would be severe negligence on Amarals part because there's a large difference between 70 and 15%.
Thanks for the info. ScarletLaw. Yes most of those cases involve a parent/s, or another family member. Wow that's a phenomenal amount of children that die each year. It's like a damn epedemic actually. Poor babies.
And yes, Mr. Amaral was just doing his job as an investigator on the case. The McC's should be ashamed of themselves for the damage they have caused IMO.
Those are very similar statistics to ones I've posted on here to different threads, IIRC are in GA's book. 70% of parents are responsible for child abductions or disappearances, 96% are done by people known to the child. So that's 1 in 25 chance that MBM disappeared at the hands of a complete stranger. A 1 in 25 chance that a complete stranger broke into the apartment, took Madeleine, leaving no trace of entry or exit and no forensic clue that they were there at all.

"So DCI Wall, with such a overwhelming weight of statistical evidence at your disposal, why didn't you look at the parents or their friends?" - would be the first question any defence solicitor would ask of any 'patsy' OG wishes to put on trial.

Somebody told me that it's very rare that the little girl would've been taken at her age too if they were abducting her for sick pleasure and would've most likely waited until she was around the age of 10. So that lessens the odds even more.

Unfortunately, there are different types of sick paedos out there who will only target one specific age group, whether <1, 1,2,3,4,5,6.......etc, therefore, therefore any statistics about the number/probability are useful for data collection and prevention, but in an investigation such as this, it is just that...statistics.

The 1 perp was obviously targeting Madeleines age group and that's what he got, hence leaving the twins and any older kids in the complex.

by Guest 28.01.15 10:01

Which perp?

by **Tony Bennett** 28.01.15 10:04

Portia wrote:Which perp?

'woodforthetrees' believes that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile sometime between 9.10pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

by Guest 28.01.15 10:16

Why does he/she believe that?

Has he/she seen any evidence to support that thesis?

Could he/she refer us to its source, then?

Im sure that would me much appreciated by many

by ChippyM 28.01.15 10:21

woodforthetrees wrote:

Unfortunately, there are different types of sick paedos out there who will only target one specific age group, whether <1, 1,2,3,4,5,6.......etc, therefore, therefore any statistics about the number/probability are useful for data collection and prevention, but in an investigation such as this, it is just that...statistics.

The 1 perp was obviously targeting Madeleines age group and that's what he got, hence leaving the twins and any older kids in the complex.

You've got to be kidding right?! The statistics are a tool that law enforcement can use to tell them how likely a scenario is, so of course they apply.

Have a look here, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196467.pdf

What supposedly happened to MM is unbelievably rare , 'age of non-family abuction victims 0-5 ye ars old , 7%'
'childs location prior to event, own home or yard 5%'
About 80% of children are abducted from public places, not homes!

So combine those odds and add in doubts about the crime scene (no hairs, fibres or skin cells from an abductor) and the scenario put forward by the parents is highly unlikely to have occurred. Police have seen hundreds of cases and are familiar with crime scenes that have been 'staged'. In many of these false kidnap or covered up murder cases 'verbal staging' takes place, ie. 'we know the person was abducted', 'we saw a strange man'.....sound familiar?

Big red flags to the police are the verbal staging but no signs of break in, nothing or only certain objects taken and illlogical points of entry for the burglar or abuctor......... Logically the police are right to strongly suspect the parents and not some mythical abductor that almost never occurs in real life! Funnily enough even the McCann's PR team have changed the focus from an impossible sex offender that prowls holiday apartments instead of crowded parks or beaches in recent years to a burglar that suddenly became an abductor by accident?!

by plebgate 28.01.15 10:24

@ ChippyM - I do believe I recently saw a youtube vid where Mr. says something like it is 100 million to one. That's how rare it is.

by ChippyM 28.01.15 10:31

plebgate wrote:@ ChippyM - I do believe I recently saw a youtube vid where Mr. says something like it is 100 million to one. That's how rare it is.

Nice of him to admit it eventually. Personally I can't think of one case where a child that age has been taken from inside their own home.

by woodforthetrees 28.01.15 10:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
Portia wrote:Which perp?
'woodforthetrees' believes that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile sometime between 9.10pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Initially i believed it was Gerry, but based on the fact that after 3 investigations (not including private ones), him being there to question if needed and the fact that SY are not suspecting either the McCanns or the tapas group of any involvement....yet carry on investigating, leads me to believe now (IMO of course) that they have sufficient evidence of something/someone, NOT the McCanns, which they are trying to track down.

Slight change in your description Tony... i believe Madeleine was abused anytime after about 6pm and unfortunately killed in the apartment (not intended) and in a state of panic (due to DNA being left in the cadaver), the body was removed to be disposed of.

No abduction as no struggle, plus enough time to have a clean up.

I do however think that the McCanns are guilty of death by neglect (and possibly sedating their children) and subsequent fraud through the fund (they knew she was deceased very early on, but no body = no proof) and also believe the tapas group are also guilty of neglect and for that, they all should be brought to the stand. However, they are very well protected both by people in power and a minefield of changing stories to ensure that can never be proven.

.....until a body surfaces or the perp speaks about timelines and events

All IMO of course.

by woodforthetrees 28.01.15 11:03

Portia wrote:Why does he/she believe that?
Evidence, the fact that investigations are in-going and that they are not looking at the McCanns and are looking for one of few paedos operating in the area, the fact that only Madeleine was touched/taken and not the twins, i.e targeted by a paedo looking for a specific age and type of child.

Has he/she seen any evidence to support that thesis?
Yes. Not seen, discussed evidence, in great detail, along with my previous theories regarding Gerrys involvement. All i can say is that what little evidence we see and that which has been released as 'case files' are simply the PII (Public Interest Information files, PeterMac, please correct me if i have the exact terminology wrong)scratching the surface. SY have further evidence which supports the paedo theory. We will never see this evidence as it is confidential police records.

Could he/she refer us to its source, then?
Absolutely not i'm afraid, so please don't ask.

Im sure that would me much appreciated by many
I know it would. The fact that i am still open to discussion/persuasion on this is because until it is proven otherwise, it could be perceived to be the parents and based on the wonderful theories and discussions on here, it (still) takes some convincing for me to be 100% persuaded otherwise.
As i have always said, it is about Madeleine. The 100% truth regarding who took her out of the apartment, the true extent of the child neglect going on and the sheer level of cover up going on afterwards to clean up the mess/cover peoples arses will only ever be clear upon capture of the perp, or discovery of the body containing DNA.

Both of these are IMO extremely unlikely to happen, it's all about keeping people in jobs, keeping the media spinning, the lawyers fighting and ulti,ately keeping the cash rolling in for all involved until everyone gets so fed up of it, it simply gets closed off as 'unsolved'

by Joss 28.01.15 11:19

woodforthetrees wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Portia wrote:Which perp?
'woodforthetrees' believes that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile sometime between 9.10pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Initially i believed it was Gerry, but based on the fact that after 3 investigations (not including private ones), him being there to question if needed and the fact that SY are not suspecting either the McCanns or the tapas group of any involvement....yet carry on investigating, leads me to believe now (IMO of course) that they have sufficient evidence of something/someone, NOT the McCanns, which they are trying to track down.

Slight change in your description Tony... i believe Madeleine was abused anytime after about 6pm and unfortunately killed in the apartment (not intended) and in a state of panic (due to DNA being left in the cadaver), the body was removed to be disposed of.

No abduction as no struggle, plus enough time to have a clean up.

I do however think that the McCanns are guilty of death by neglect (and possibly sedating their children) and subsequent fraud through the fund (they knew she was deceased very early on, but no body = no proof) and also believe the tapas group are also guilty of neglect and for that, they all should be brought to the stand. However, they are very well protected both by people in power and a minefield of changing stories to ensure that can never be proven.

.....until a body surfaces or the perp speaks about timelines and events

All IMO of course.

So how do you think the dogs alerting to the scenic hire car some 25 days after Madeleine's disappearance alerted there when a supposed abductor took Madeleine initially. Do you think he planted evidence there? And the McC's aired the vehicle out because of the awful smell?

by woodforthetrees 28.01.15 11:26

Joss wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Portia wrote:Which perp?
'woodforthetrees' believes that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile sometime between 9.10pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Initially i believed it was Gerry, but based on the fact that after 3 investigations (not including private ones), him being there to question if needed and the fact that SY are not suspecting either the McCanns or the tapas group of any involvement....yet carry on investigating, leads me to believe now (IMO of course) that they have sufficient evidence of something/someone, NOT the McCanns, which they are trying to track down.

Slight change in your description Tony... i believe Madeleine was abused anytime after about 6pm and unfortunately killed in the apartment (not intended) and in a state of panic (due to DNA being left in the cadaver), the body was removed to be disposed of.

No abduction as no struggle, plus enough time to have a clean up.

I do however think that the McCanns are guilty of death by neglect (and possibly sedating their children) and subsequent fraud through the fund (they knew she was deceased very early on, but no body = no proof) and also believe the tapas group are also guilty of neglect and for that, they all should be brought to the stand. However, they are very well protected both by people in power and a minefield of changing stories to ensure that can never be proven.

.....until a body surfaces or the perp speaks about timelines and events

All IMO of course.
So how do you think the dogs alerting to the scenic hire car some 25 days after Madeleine's disappearance alerted there when a supposed abductor took Madeleine initially. Do you think he planted evidence there? And the McC's aired the vehicle out because of the awful smell?

I don't think anything was deliberately planted. They were under watchful eye by various law enforcement and media people, so anyone suspicious around the car would've rung alarm bells.

The hire car is the 1 thing that keeps swaying me back to the 'unless i see evidence files with my naked eye, i'm still convinced of the parents', however, it's worth pointing out that Cadaver scent can last up to a year and is transferred upon contact...

If the parents and others had been traipsing all over the apartment, which had cadaver scent all over it and then been in the car, it could be transferred.

Rotting meat smell could just be that...rotting meat. If Madeleine's things had been transported about int he boot also, then her DNA would be in there too.

All speculation and thinking out loud though, as i said, this is the part which gets me scratching my head.

by ChippyM 28.01.15 11:38

woodforthetrees wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Portia wrote:Which perp?
'woodforthetrees' believes that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile sometime between 9.10pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Initially i believed it was Gerry, but based on the fact that after 3 investigations (not including private ones), him being there to question if needed and the fact that SY are not suspecting either the McCanns or the tapas group of any involvement....yet carry on investigating, leads me to believe now (IMO of course) that they have sufficient evidence of something/someone, NOT the McCanns, which they are trying to track down.

We can't say SY don't suspect the McCann's, we don't know what they are doing behind closed doors. In 2010 an email leaked by Wikileaks revealed Leicester police had been working together with the PJ on a case against them, so 2 police forces at one time did suspect them.

The dna in the hire car came back inconclusive and was possibly enough to make a case in Portugal but not the UK. So SY could just as easily be working on getting sufficient evidence for a case against the McCann's this time round as 'someone' else. The main problem has always been the inconclusive to 'moderate' findings from the DNA in my opinion. This was a very lucky abuctor indeed that managed to leave not a shred of evidence at the scene!

by woodforthetrees 28.01.15 11:56

ChippyM wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Portia wrote:Which perp?
'woodforthetrees' believes that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile sometime between 9.10pm and 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007

Initially i believed it was Gerry, but based on the fact that after 3 investigations (not including private ones), him being there to question if needed and the fact that SY are not suspecting either the McCanns or the tapas group of any involvement....yet carry on investigating, leads me to believe now (IMO of course) that they have sufficient evidence of something/someone, NOT the McCanns, which they are trying to track down.

We can't say SY don't suspect the McCann's, we don't know what they are doing behind closed doors. They are not looking at the McCanns, they have publicly stated that. If they were suspects, they've had 3 years to nail them...they haven't. If they suspected them but didn't have enough evidence, they would simply close the case...they haven't. They are looking for a paedo operating in the area at the time, which is not the McCanns. In 2010 an email leaked by Wikileaks revealed Leicester police had been working together with the PJ on a case against them, so 2 police forces at one time did suspect them. One person from Leicester police said there wasn't enough evidence to rule them out, not that they were suspects that they were looking to charge. i.e they haven't got the perp, so all options have to be considered, including the theory of the (initial) PJ

The dna in the hire car came back inconclusive and was possibly enough to make a case in Portugal but not the UK. Then why is the case not going ahead in Portugal? The Portuguese police are looking at the case too??...because it was not conclusive. So SY could just as easily be working on getting sufficient evidence for a case against the McCann's this time round as 'someone' else. See above The main problem has always been the inconclusive to 'moderate' findings from the DNA in my opinion. This was a very lucky abuctor indeed that managed to leave not a shred of evidence at the scene!....that we, the general public,know about. The scene was cleaned, very well, but not well enough to stop on-going investigations based on what is available.

Bits above in bold, plus......

I agree, there are mass inconsistencies in the entire case and if you wanted to make the hat fit for any scenario (Gerry, Kate, Burglar, paedo, other) then you could fit the publicly available files to fit, as i have done for the last few years.

However, only very recently has my view changed on who removed the body, based on discussions i have had about the knowns and the unknowns and 'why' the investigations are on-going/not solved.

BUT, i am always open to all possibilities and as i maintain...until the perp is charged and/or the body/DNA gives up the truth, then the FULL truth about her demise, remains open ended.

by Joss 28.01.15 12:49

WHAT THE LABORATORY REPORTS BRING TO LIGHT

The preliminary results from FSS were enlightening in a way, and confirmed the information given by the EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and the CSI dog.
– The CSI dog, Keela, signaled the presence of human blood where Eddie, the EVRD dog, marked the presence of cadaver odour – on the floor tiles behind the sofa in the lounge, on the key and in the boot of the Renault Scenic that was used by the McCanns from May 27th onwards.
– the bodily fluids, according to the FSS, contain markers from Madeleine’s DNA profile.
These elements do not constitute concrete proof but simply clues to be added to those we already possess. In itself, the definition of a DNA profile from LCN is not considered as evidence in a criminal investigation. In his report, the English scientist says that he cannot give answers to the following questions: when was the DNA deposited? In what way? What bodily fluid does the DNA come from? Has a crime been committed?
The scientific evidence is not enough and it has to be accompanied by other types of material, documented and testimonial evidence. It is only in this way that the entire puzzle can be reconstructed and certainties can be achieved, for the material truth to be established.
The FSS has still not provided the result of the technical analysis of the hair found in the boot of the car. Once more, Stuart has to contact the laboratory. Nothing has been done. We want to know two things: if the hair is indeed Madeleine’s, and if it comes from a living or a dead person. The FSS can only answer the first question. English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. But the FSS does not seem to want to part with the hair. They claim that using a colour comparison test they can establish if the hair belongs to Madeleine and in a second stage, identify the DNA profile. None of that will happen. We never find out if the hair was Madeleine’s or her parents’ or her brother’s or her sister’s, even though the laboratory has the DNA profiles of each member of the family.
Let’s remember: it is totally logical to find Madeleine’s DNA in the home, but absolutely not in a car rented more than twenty days after her disappearance.

http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/chapter-18/

The FSS lab. dodgy as anything IMO. Didn't they get shut down?

by woodforthetrees 28.01.15 13:16

Joss wrote:
WHAT THE LABORATORY REPORTS BRING TO LIGHT

The preliminary results from FSS were enlightening in a way, and confirmed the information given by the EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and the CSI dog.
– The CSI dog, Keela, signaled the presence of human blood where Eddie, the EVRD dog, marked the presence of cadaver odour – on the floor tiles behind the sofa in the lounge, on the key and in the boot of the Renault Scenic that was used by the McCanns from May 27th onwards.
– the bodily fluids, according to the FSS, contain markers from Madeleine’s DNA profile.
These elements do not constitute concrete proof but simply clues to be added to those we already possess. In itself, the definition of a DNA profile from LCN is not considered as evidence in a criminal investigation. In his report, the English scientist says that he cannot give answers to the following questions: when was the DNA deposited? In what way? What bodily fluid does the DNA come from? Has a crime been committed?
The scientific evidence is not enough and it has to be accompanied by other types of material, documented and testimonial evidence. It is only in this way that the entire puzzle can be reconstructed and certainties can be achieved, for the material truth to be established.
The FSS has still not provided the result of the technical analysis of the hair found in the boot of the car. Once more, Stuart has to contact the laboratory. Nothing has been done. We want to know two things: if the hair is indeed Madeleine’s, and if it comes from a living or a dead person. The FSS can only answer the first question. English colleagues present at the meeting raise the possibility of the hair being sent to other European laboratories which have the resources to clear up the second point for us: hair from a living or a dead person. But the FSS does not seem to want to part with the hair. They claim that using a colour comparison test they can establish if the hair belongs to Madeleine and in a second stage, identify the DNA profile. None of that will happen. We never find out if the hair was Madeleine’s or her parents’ or her brother’s or her sister’s, even though the laboratory has the DNA profiles of each member of the family.
Let’s remember: it is totally logical to find Madeleine’s DNA in the home, but absolutely not in a car rented more than twenty days after her disappearance.

http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/chapter-18/

The FSS lab. dodgy as anything IMO. Didn't they get shut down?

Nothing was ever conclusive from FSS, i.e for every finger pointing to what Amaral believes, there is another finger pointing away from that theory.

Not dodgy, i would say more incompetent. There are many rumors/stories about cross contamination and bad testing practices we have all seen snippets of over the years.

One thing i certainly have to keep telling myself is this.... "don't focus on the limited information available, think about the possibilities of the information not available", i.e.... Files have been released, based on one initial theory (Amarals) and are discussed in a way to support blame towards the couple. Whilst i agree, this could be made to be a good fit, it still begs the question "why have they not been dragged in and why are SY pursuing someone else?". The answer is... because they have more on their files than we know of.

As i said earlier though, until either the perp or the body answers any of the timing and DNA queries, it is all open to interpretation by us, the general public.