Re: Leave No Stone Unturned

by Lance De Boils 25.09.20 8:29

Re "The Interpretation of Murder," a couple of points:
I've always completely dismissed any significance of this. I'd bought it for myself - It was in the top selling books at that time. But I never did read it.
Seeing those quotes I am now (mildly) curious.
Just mildly.
No stone etc.

by **PeterMac** 25.09.20 9:27

In the UK a second Doctor is required to sign before a Cremation.
(In teaching hospitals typically student doctors do this, and their small fee is referred to as "Ash Cash")
On that form are question about pacemakers, implants, protheses etc, which if appropriate are removed by the mortician [The person who does the embalming and final preparation for the body for disposal. Not the Pathologist who is a Doctor who conducts the Post Mortem examination, if it was necessary]

by Silentscope 25.09.20 9:40

Regardless of the possibility, I do not think that it was a likely one.
I would not want to take a share of a Coffin with anyone.
Too much chance of discovery.
Unlikely theory I think.

by Silentscope 25.09.20 11:13

As someone else mentioned in previous Posts, it is easier to construct a Lie from a “Storyline” that you use to refresh your “Memory” from.

Examples:
The Tattoos that hold the Escape Plan for “Jailbreak” the Series on TV.
The Usual Suspects film ending where the Cripple escapes custody.

by Lance De Boils 25.09.20 12:03

Oh how I sometimes wish I was fluent in Portuguese. I got hold of the PJ files as soon as they were released. Since then I've relied on other's translation of them. I often wonder if the translated versions were completely true and correct.

by Silentscope 25.09.20 12:11

I do not see how the potential relevance of this book has been overlooked by Law Enforcers.

Unless no-one wants to look.

by Franco99 25.09.20 13:31

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 15.06.14 17:04
From Joana Morais blog, with thanks.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Hernâni Carvalho

On the night of their daughter's disappearance, the McCann couple asked for a priest. The priest of the Luz church, José Pacheco, did not respond. The couple knew, even before they had gone to Praia da Luz, that the Anglican priest Haynes Hubbard celebrated masses there and lived with his wife. He had a friendship with McCann's family members. It was with him whom they spoke with. Some days later, Gerry and Kate received the church keys, and since then they were able to enter and leave at any time. A situation that was criticized by the Bishop of the Algarve at the time. When questioned on this discretionary act, the priest José Pacheco said: "Do I decide that?!"

McCanns visited the church in secret

Having only just found this article, I'm afraid this is a slightly delayed response!

Is it possible that you or your sources can confirm or deny the following two claims that I've come across in the last couple of years?

I came across a quote somewhere on CMOMM whereby the priest of Luz Church had apparently said that he wished he's never come across the McCanns....

The second report I read more recently stated that the priest of this church had not only left his church but had also departed from Portugal!

I would be interested to know how true this is, particularly if his reasons for leaving are known.

I am assuming that when these reports were made 'the priest' referred to was José Pacheco or might they have been talking of the Anglican priest Haynes Hubbard who was allowed to use the church at Luz.

____________________________________________________________

Members are respectfully asked not to resurrect old defunt threads without good reason

Post moved. Mod

by Verdi 25.09.20 13:40

Attaching any relevance to passages selected from a novel, in this case 'the Interpretation of Murder', would depend entirely on when and how the book came into Gerry McCann's possession.

The book was photographed during Martin Grime's dog inspection, between 1st and 8th August 2007 - three months after the event.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Villa rented by McCanns

For the passages carefully selected to have significance, the book would have to be in the McCanns possession before the 3rd May 2007. Reading the selected passages, it would also imply Gerry McCann, or a source close too, planned a murder.

bignono

Mark Harrison is said to have been curious as to how the McCanns were in possession of manuals only normally issued to police officers, including a manual by the CEOP. This could have been given to McCann during one of his first trips to the UK, when he allegedly visited the offices of the CEOP, or the documents could have been given to the McCanns in Portugal by employees of the CEOP.

The PJ inspection and forensic examination of the crime scene, Ocean Club 5a, with accompanying photographs show no signs of bedside reading. I think I can say without fear of contradiction, the GNR and PJ teams would have noticed everything and anything that might assist the investigation. There is no reference or photographic evidence of this reading matter in apartment 5a reports.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Apartment 5a Ocean Club

The crime scene was compromised on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007 followed shortly by the cry of abduction and all the other detail!

If The Interpretation of Murder is to been seen as significant, a murder would have been premeditated.

bignono

For reference..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Silentscope 25.09.20 13:53

Then it would be beneficial to the Investigation to find out the following:

A. When and Where the Book was bought or recieved - Before or after the reported Abduction.

B. When the Classified Information from CEOP was leaked and by whom.

Or not? Or is this a “No -no?”

by Franco99 25.09.20 14:33

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Yesterday at 13:11

No you wouldn't have seen the babysitting theory documented nor pursued during interviews, because it is member Franco99's theory, presented here on CMOMM, without supporting evidence I might add.

As you correctly say, it's a theory and not evidence on its own - but if it modified even a few people's thinking, it is possible that we could arrive at some conforming evidence that might enlighten our knowledge
about some of the McCann issues that appear to have no current rational explanation.

Science is well known to construct theories as to why certain unexplainable happenings occur and to move from the theoretical to search for tangible evidence.

by Guest 25.09.20 14:42

Franco99 wrote:As you correctly say, it's a theory and not evidence on its own - but if it modified even a few people's thinking, it is possible that we could arrive at some conforming evidence that might enlighten our knowledge
about some of the McCann issues that appear to have no current rational explanation.

Science is well known to construct theories as to why certain unexplainable happenings occur and to move from the theoretical to search for tangible evidence.

No, you first need to look at the evidence, and then see what it indicates.

Starting out with a theory isn't the way to go.

by Silentscope 25.09.20 15:12

Members may wish to do their own research.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Copyright is from 2006, Bestseller of 2007. Ebook as from 2008.

by Franco99 25.09.20 15:20

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 10:40
Regardless of the possibility, I do not think that it was a likely one.
I would not want to take a share of a Coffin with anyone.
Too much chance of discovery.
Unlikely theory I think

Well, I've seen several coffins over the years - including two with occupants - and I would suggest that there would be enough space in the leg area for a very young child's body to be easily fitted. Don't forget that coffins are invariably the same height from end to end and the thiness of legs leaves a lot of space at one end. The coffin in question contained an elderly woman who was to be shipped out from the church the next morning for cremation.

I would remind you that the McCanns had earlier asked the priest at Luz Church if they could borrow a key for the church and he had been unresponsive so they then asked the Anglican vicar, who was allowed to share the same church from time to time, and it was his wife who provided them with a key, which then allowed them free access at any time.

Yet despite having attended a mass at 17.00pm on January 13th 2010 in this church, they were seen the very next day leaving by a side door of the church at 05.00am on what would have been a dark January morning One can only guess as to what time they must have arrived and entered the church that morning or how long they spent inside....and for what purpose?

by Silentscope 25.09.20 15:42

I have read different stories on this Theory ranging from shadowy figures going in the side door at night with a Crate, and the Key being requested, to MI5 being involved.

Maybe someone thought it would be the last place to be searched?Maybe they had the Key copied? Maybe this is why Amaral was removed before he looked in the right direction?

Maybe

But it is all Maybe now unfortunately.

Amaral would have found out if they had let him.

Of that I have no doubt.

by Verdi 25.09.20 16:13

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Verdi 25.09.20 16:21

Franco99 wrote:Yet despite having attended a mass at 17.00pm on January 13th 2010 in this church, they were seen the very next day leaving by a side door of the church at 05.00am on what would have been a dark January morning One can only guess as to what time they must have arrived and entered the church that morning or how long they spent inside....and for what purpose?

What is the source of this information?

by Franco99 25.09.20 16:46

I came across an entry marked "Entry by Cheshire Cat from a Joana Morais blog - 15.06.14" It mostly contained an interview by Hernâni Carvalho with a forensic psychologist, Paulo Sargento.

I have searched back since seeing your request but cannot find this entry again.

Having had more time to think about it, I realise that the dates are totally wrong and it might be a good idea if you'd delete my last few posts on this subject.

by Silentscope 25.09.20 18:26

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think you will find the Blog on the following link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Parmalam saved all Gerrys blogs before they were deleted.

by Silentscope 25.09.20 20:35

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The deleted blogs were saved by Parmalan .
I put the Link on the “Leave No Stone Unturned” thread for you.

Silentscope

by Verdi 25.09.20 21:37

Silentscope wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think you will find the Blog on the following link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Parmalam saved all Gerrys blogs before they were deleted.

What specific post are you replying to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?

by Silentscope 25.09.20 21:40

Post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] but it got moved as I was replying.

I left a Note on the Original thread for Franco99.

Sorry if I have confused you.

by Verdi 25.09.20 22:03

Franco99 wrote:I came across an entry marked "Entry by Cheshire Cat from a Joana Morais blog - 15.06.14" It mostly contained an interview by Hernâni Carvalho with a forensic psychologist, Paulo Sargento.

I have searched back since seeing your request but cannot find this entry again.

Having had more time to think about it, I realise that the dates are totally wrong and it might be a good idea if you'd delete my last few posts on this subject.

It's here Franco99..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Verdi 25.09.20 22:15

Silentscope wrote:Post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] but it got moved as I was replying.

I left a Note on the Original thread for Franco99.

Sorry if I have confused you.

No you didn't Silentscope. The post by Franco99 was moved long before you posted your comment. If you had replied before the comment was moved, you post would still show on the original thread.

That aside, the link you posted on the 'Madeleine McCann could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007' thread, is Pamalam's documentation of Media reports taken from Joana Morais' blog. It has nothing to do with Gerry McCann's blog.

Pack it in Silentscope. Stop playing silly games.

You don't know what you're talking about but more importantly, you are disrupting and confusing the forum.

You've already had one warning from the forum owner, so you're on borrowed time.

Consider this another warning.

by Silentscope 25.09.20 22:42

Sorry for trying to help Franco99 out, he did say that the Article he supplied could no longer be found.
You did ask him where his Information came from.
I thought it helpful as it seemed to be on the Link I posted for him.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on the original Thread - not [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - my mistake.

No disruption games or confusion intended.