Re: Chez Dannz

by Dannz 28.02.19 15:22

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

by Dannz 28.02.19 15:44

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

In the simplest terms possible, the McCanns and their friends convoluting version of events wouldn't stand the test in any court of law. I've witnessed first hand how lawyers operate in the courtroom, they are ruthless and totally lacking sincerity. They have one objective only - to be the victor.

The McCanns nor their friends would stand a hope in hells chance.

Why would the prosecution barrister try to get them to change their story that they left the children in the apartment on 3 May and did checks every 30 minutes? I think he might well show that Gerry did not even look into the apartment when he did his check but got distracted talking with Wilkins. That's a different matter however.

What you seem to be suggesting is that 'lawyers' would break the McCanns and get them to admit that they had not left their children alone. Is that right?

Whose side would those lawyers be on?
Why would the prosecution laywer try to do this?
Why would the defence lawyer try to do this?
Why do you think they hadn't left their children alone when that is what Tapas Bar staff say in their witness statement?

In a court case, the barristers have a strategy. It isn't one-upmanship of scoring any points you can. It is about the overall objective. Why would either defence or prosectution seek to prove that McCanns had been lying about leaving their children alone on 3 May? The idea that either side might want to do that baffles me.

I also can't see credible reason for thinking that the children weren't left alone given the Tapas Bar staff statements etc. Yes, a good barrister can expose a lie. And some will be ruthless in making it seem that someone may be lying when they aren't. But if the defendant has admitted what you want to prove, you don't try to show they are lying about that!

by Guest 28.02.19 15:59

Dannz, you seem to be out of your depth in this discussion. . . . and more interested in winning your case than being open minded.
If you genuinely believe the "official McCann story" you are naïve or simpleminded. If you know they did it and are gatekeeping then you have been rumbled. Which is it?
If you work for GCHQ and this is your first assignment, give the job back to someone more capable.

by Dannz 28.02.19 16:00

Hobs wrote:Should the mccanns have been prosecuted for allegedly leaving their children home alone, resulting in harm to Maddie.
Their lawyers would indeed cross examine them.
The Portuguese have double jeopardy which means if they had been charged with neglect, they could not then charge them with homicide, filing a false police report and concealing a corpse.
Remember the PJ did not know what crime had been committed.
What the mccanns could have done is appeared in court charged with neglect resulting in harm to Maddie, possibly other charges regarding the twins which would mean rather a long time in jail and loss of custody of the twins and their jobs.

They take to the stand and admit the children were in fact babysat by the missing adult from the group each night and that Maddie died accidentally and they panicked.
The case is dismissed because they children were not neglected and they cannot be charged with homicide, concealing a corpse of filing a false police report.

In the UK they may face charges regarding the fund but nothing relating to the children and Maddie because they were already tried in Portugal.

It was a risk the mccanns were willing to take.

This is about prosecution in the UK for gross negligence manslaughter. Double jeopardy in Portugal doesn't come into it.

They take to the stand and admit the children were in fact babysat by the missing adult from the group each night and that Maddie died accidentally and they panicked.

That is an interesting suggestion for a defence strategy. But 'admitting the children were in fact babysat' is the basis for the defence. That is not admitting so much as claiming this for their defence.

I just don't see how they would be able to show that. At least 4 independent witnesses say they saw 9 adults at the table. Why did those witnesses lie? What would those witnesses say if questioned? Which apartment were all the children in? Where were they - on the floor? Did they move beds and cots? Who was doing the babysitting? Why did they panic? If there was an accident and no negligence, why conceal this?

It sounds like you believe that the children weren't left alone that night. I don't see that is plausible.

by sandancer 28.02.19 16:42

Jeronimo Salcedeas

" He noticed because it was obvious that some of the members of the group would regularly leave the restaurant to do something , which he gradually came to realise was " controlling " the children . Even so he was always convinced that the children were in some place belonging to the Ocean Club under the care of a Mark Warner company associated to the Club ."

Those from the Tapas who said they saw members of the group leaving the table to do the alleged checking cannot confirm that that was what they actually did ! None of them followed a checker to the apartments , watched them enter , then leave then went inside to confirm the children were alone . So they do not KNOW the children were alone with parents checking , they " think , presume , suppose " that's what's happening because it's what they were told ! Someone might have been going to their apartment for , jumper , coat , phone , camera .
Their statements are not proof because they weren't actually seen doing it !
It's a theory , speculation a presumption
If any of them were asked -" did you see any member of the group entering their apartment ?" The answer would have to be " No " .

by Dannz 28.02.19 16:44

JimbobJones wrote:Dannz, you seem to be out of your depth in this discussion. . . . and more interested in winning your case than being open minded.
If you genuinely believe the "official McCann story" you are naïve or simpleminded. If you know they did it and are gatekeeping then you have been rumbled. Which is it?
If you work for GCHQ and this is your first assignment, give the job back to someone more capable.

No I don't believe the official McCann story. (But I don't believe that absolutely everything they say is entirely untrue). I believe the PJ theory i.e. that Madeleine died on night of 3 May. And like Amaral, I see no reason to suppose that the Tapas 9 weren't at dinner together and that the McCann children were left unattended. I also believe there is cover up by HMG with MI5. I would like to see the McCanns go to prison for life. If I was pro-McCann, why would I suggest prosecuting them for gross negligence manslaughter?

From what I have seen I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that Madeleine died and they concealed her body. I could perhaps be persuaded that leaving them unattended was not gross negligence, but I would really find that hard to swallow given all the circumstances.

Just because I go with the PJ theory and don't accept that they were not unattended does not mean I believe the 'official McCann story'.

In what sense do you think I am gatekeeping for them? By my taking the view that is held by Amaral? By trying to show how there may be sufficient evidence to convict them in the UK for manslaughter? (which others here are arguing against!). You seem to be saying I should be open minded to the idea that the McCanns should not or could not be prosecuted in the UK for manslaughter. OK, give me a proper argument to show that - I've yet to see one.

I don't feel at all out of my depth in this discussion about potential criminal liability. I have a qualifying law degree at Masters level with Distinction (equivalent to 1st class), and although my area is primarily litigation strategy in trust law rather than criminal law, I have of course studied criminal law and have also done mini-pupillages spending time with barristers in criminal cases being tried.

I do however find some of what is said to be uninformed and confused, and frankly claims are being made which are patently bogus and invented. And I do sometimes struggle to try to understand some of the arguments being put forward.

by Dannz 28.02.19 16:53

sandancer wrote:
Those from the Tapas who said they saw members of the group leaving the table to do the alleged checking cannot confirm that that was what they actually did ! None of them followed a checker to the apartments , watched them enter , then leave then went inside to confirm the children were alone . So they do not KNOW the children were alone with parents checking , they " think , presume , suppose " that's what's happening because it's what they were told ! Someone might have been going to their apartment for , jumper , coat , phone , camera .
Their statements are not proof because they weren't actually seen doing it !
It's a theory , speculation a presumption
If any of them were asked -" did you see any member of the group entering their apartment ?" The answer would have to be " No " .

I'm not sure of the point you are making here.

It's true they didn't see them do the actual checking. As I suggested earlier, I think it likely that when Gerry went to do the checking, he got distracted talking to Wilkins and never went into the apartment. They didn't even check every 30 minutes that night.

But I can see no reason to suppose that the McCann children were not alone that night. Do you?

by sandancer 28.02.19 18:04

" I think it likely that when Gerry went to do the checking , he got distracted talking to Wilkins and never went into the apartment "

I think it likely that the McCanns children ( and the rest ) were not alone that night , or any other night .

by Dannz 28.02.19 18:10

sandancer wrote:I think it likely that the McCanns children ( and the rest ) were not alone that night , or any other night .

OK. Would you explain a bit further and why you think that. Do you think all the children were in the same apartment? A different person in each apartment? Who was it with them? Why would this be concealed? Why were the parents getting up and doing 'checks' which were not needed?

by Verdi 28.02.19 21:03

Dannz wrote:I do however find some of what is said to be uninformed and confused, and frankly claims are being made which are patently bogus and invented. And I do sometimes struggle to try to understand some of the arguments being put forward.

For someone who claims to have only very recently taken any interest in this case, you're hardly in a position to make such an audacious statement.

by **sharonl** 28.02.19 22:12

Just out of interest Dannz, what brings you to this case after almost 12 years? Why the sudden interest?

You seem to have some knowledge of the case, more than would be expected from someone new to the case. Was it a friend with a knowledge of the case who got you interested? Are you working together?

by Dannz 28.02.19 22:12

Verdi wrote:
Dannz wrote:I do however find some of what is said to be uninformed and confused, and frankly claims are being made which are patently bogus and invented. And I do sometimes struggle to try to understand some of the arguments being put forward.

For someone who claims to have only very recently taken any interest in this case, you're hardly in a position to make such an audacious statement.

As example, you gave this as an argument against prosecuting the McCann for manslaughter in the U.K.:

“First and foremost, Portugal hold primacy over this case. The UK police are in no position to prosecute aside from a possible case against the Madeleine fund.”

If that’s not bogus and invented, please refer me to the relevant treaty provisions, statute or legal authority supporting what you claim - as I already requested.

In response to something I posted one of the moderators stated that at 21:55 on 3 May there was a full scale search with police cars, sirens wailing, helicopter overhead etc. The police weren’t called until 22:41 and first arrived at about 23:00.

There is confusion and misreading of the PR Week article of 9 May, so it is mistakenly supposed that directors of Resonate flew to Portugal the week before May 3. (See my post moved into this thread)

There is an uninformed notion that Martin Grimes’ dog would not have alerted to cadaverine unless a body had been dead for at least 90 minutes. (See my recent post in ’no stone unturned’)

There are lots more examples I could give. Would you like me to do so?

Or do you mean I should ‘know my place’ and bow down to those who have been here longer - even if they are spouting erroneous statements or bogus nonsense? That’s no way to get to the truth. And in any case, I don’t do that.

by Verdi 28.02.19 23:05

OK, here's the rub.

This is not a court of law, it's an internet forum that's been running for nine years with one aim in mind - to unravel the complete mystery of Madeleine McCann. As reflected in the forum title.

A very large number of decent people offer their time free of financial gain, working together to achieve one thing and one thing only - to unravel the complete mystery of Madeleine McCann.

People come and people go, some come only to create disruption and divert the true purpose of the forum - to unravel the complete mystery of Madeleine McCann.

You Dannz, have arrived from out of the blue nearly twelve years after Madeleine's disappearance. Apart from random inaccurate commentary that you've slipped in here there and everywhere (hence you being given your own thread), your focal point appears to be the hypothetical notion of a court appearance on a charge of neglect homicide - strange terminology but that's of little importance.

The issue of neglect was never pursued by the Portuguese investigation, the UK's bogus review/investigation has never considered the issue of neglect therefore, any theorizing about what might or might not happen in a court of law is totally irrelevant as regards the true purpose of CMoMM. The likelihood of the McCanns ever appearing before a court of law is remote in the extreme - why waste time pondering what ifs. If you only wish to impress with your claimed credentials then please go do it elsewhere, CMoMM is not a platform for posers with nothing to offer but self promotion.

I truly don't understand why you've joined this forum, you don't appear to be interested in discussing any subject, only finding fault with eleven + years of research and analysis by a large group of people, many with professional expertise in varying fields and demands to answer numerous vapid erroneous questions.

Enough is enough Dannz, you've had your five minutes of fame. You've contributed little or nothing constructive to the forum since you joined a few days ago. Please have the decency to recognize CMoMM as it stands and refrain from trying to destroy it's value and exemplary reputation as the foremost forum dedicated to the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann.

Take a break - or at least give us one! I t's become very tedious.

by Liz Eagles 01.03.19 0:05

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

Please don't waste your energy debating with a WUM, otherwise you will end up wearing out your fingerprints on an Olive Oyl keyboard.

by sandancer 01.03.19 0:12

Dannz wrote:
sandancer wrote:I think it likely that the McCanns children ( and the rest ) were not alone that night , or any other night .

OK. Would you explain a bit further and why you think that. Do you think all the children were in the same apartment? A different person in each apartment? Who was it with them? Why would this be concealed? Why were the parents getting up and doing 'checks' which were not needed?

Ok Dannz , consider this first -

You have 9 adults , 1 grandmother , 6 doctors , a marketing manager and a recruitment consultant with children varying in ages , Madeleine being the eldest just short of 4 years . One daughter of Tanner/O'Brien who had been in hospital just prior to the holiday , the daughter of the Oldfield's suffering apparently from diahorrea on a regular basis , sickness by various members and Madeleine who was known to get out of bed and wander through to her parents room .

These educated people decide to leave their children alone sleeping in their apartments nightly while the parents and grandmother go down to the Tapas bar to eat and drink , and we all know it's not " like dining in your own back garden " . Apart from the difficulties getting 8 children to go to bed and sleep in strange beds/cots in a strange place , doesn't it strike you as very strange that not one of them would say " No way am I leaving my children alone ! I'll stay behind tonight , bring me my dinner , we'll take turns who stays behind each night "
We can use the Paynes baby monitor if necessary to summon any if needed "
Instead they apparently choose to run backwards and forwards like a Benny Hill farce during their " into each other " time ! Perfect recipe for indigestion/heartburn I would have thought . Sorry I don't buy it .

3rd May night it was apparently like Piccadilly Circus , Paynes late - Oldfield goes to check , he's back G M immediately goes , followed by Tanner , both get back , Oldfield and O'Brien head off a few minutes later , O'Brien stays Oldfield comes back , Tanner gulps down her dinner , rushes off to " relieve " Russell ! He comes back , few minutes later Kate toddles off ! The whole story is ludicrous .

Remember Kate said " I know what happened wasn't due to the fact of us leaving them sleeping , I know it happened under other circumstances " so she knows , and they weren't asleep when " it " happened .

That's me done for the night , just writing about all the alleged back and forth has worn me out !

by Phoebe 01.03.19 1:16

If all eight children were put in a room together and minded by one adult in turn each night, then it stands to reason that these children would have to be taken back to their own apartments when the parents returned from the Tapas bar. There were five children who would have needed to sleep in cots due to their age i.e. Amelie, Sean, Scarlet and Grace and Evie and then 3 older children, Madeleine, Ella and Lily. who could have used beds. I doubt they carted extra cots into whichever apartment these children might have been staying and then returned them when them they were done socialising. The Paynes had a cot for Scarlet, the Tanners presumably had one for Evie and the Oldfields had one for Grace, each in their respective apartments. They could have piled seven children into the four beds which would have been available to those with a two-bedroom apartment and put the youngest into a cot. However, such a system is hardly conducive to sleep. Add to this that the children might well have awakened when being carried back to their own apartments at the end of the night and would then need to be resettled again at a late hour. To top it all off, If they had used this system one adult would have missed dinner and drinks each night and been left in charge of eight small children. I cannot see any of the Tapas men readily volunteering for such a chore!
I do believe they were selfish and arrogant enough to leave the children, especially those who had baby monitors. I believe the thought of having to disturb their "me time" and collect the children from night creche (who might then awaken and be unsettled) was a "no no" for this group - "It was our holiday too"! IMO the same applies to collecting children from another apartment and resettling them in their own beds near midnight, I do not believe they left the doors unlocked however, nor that checks involved any more than "listening to see if someone was screaming their head off" as one of them charmingly put it. Mrs Fenn heard a child crying for 90 mins - this does not tally with the notion that all the children were being minded by an adult.

by **Hobs** 28.03.19 0:40

Dannz wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Thank you, yes that is the relevant bit.

If you don’t think there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the children were left alone, please explain why you think that.

But to be more specific, this concerns the Mcann children being left alone on the night of 3 May. There is the evidence given by the Tapas Bar staff and all the Tapas 9 in their statements.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think anything you raised shows that the McCann children were not left alone on that night.

As I pointed out in my earlier response, The mccanns told us during interviews the children were not left home alone as they claimed.

In order for them to be able to cover up the death of Maddie, for she is surely dead as they have told us, they had to claim neglect in order for there to be time and opportunity for an abduction to take place.
If there was no neglect, as in the children were babysat in one apartment each night by the missing adult from the table, then there would have been no opportunity for the said abduction to take place.

No paedophile abductor is going to risk taking on an adult who was babysitting children in order to get one specific child.
Firstly there is the risk of injury to themselves and no child.
Secondly, people are going to be hearing the screaming and general ruckus as the adult takes on the abductor and on paedophile abductor is going to want to be hanging around whilst a horde of concerned parents come charging towards whichever apartment with murder in their eyes.
Thirdly no paedophile abductor is going to want to be hanging around, probably being attacked until the police turn up, suffering injuries, possibly life threatening by a bunch of enraged parents.

It is simply not worth the risk.

They want to be in and out within seconds or a couple of minutes at best.

Also given the alleged claimed checks by the parents who by their own admission were up and down like a benny hill chase scene, he is not going to want to risk being spotted by one of the adults.

The claims also by kate that regarding the crying incident and wondering if an abductor had done a trial run is laughable to the extreme.

No abductor is going to do a dry run up to being in the bedroom with the child and leaving them there to do the real thing the following night.
They would have no knowledge of what the parents behavior would be the following night regardless of previous behavior.
They would not know if on the last night that the parents decided to act like parents and either leave them at the creche, hire a babysitter, take the children with them or stay at home and have dinner delivered.
If they had the chance to take Maddie they would have done so.

There was no dry run done by the non existent paedophile abductor, it was just another make believe claim to bolster their claim of abduction.

The mccanns have told us the children were babysat by the missing adult each night when they said,or rather asked,

"Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired".

Had the children been in 5a and kate and/or gerry were bathing the children, the comment would not have arisen since the parents were already present and would have known why the children cried.

Had the children been in 5a and were being bathed and put to bed by another adult from the group and kate and gerry were in the same apartment getting ready, the comment would not have arisen since they would have heard the crying and presumably gone to comfort the children.
I would ask though why they were letting someone from the group bathe their children (payne springs to mind)?
The children would not be that familiar with payne and if crying because a stranger was effectively bathing them then hopefully maternal instinct alone should kick in and then kate takes over bathing and bedtime.

Had the children been in 5a and cried and kate and gerry did not hear the crying, then the question would have arisen.
Why was someone from the group bathing and putting the children to bed and where was kate and gerry if not in 5a?
Since this doesn't make sense, then the children were in one of the other apartments occupied by the group (payne springs to mind) being bathed and put to bed by whichever adult from the group.
Kate and gerry would be in 5a getting ready with kate having a bath not long after having a shower and allegedly greeting payne who was sent up by gerry to see if kate needed help.
The question would have arisen since the children were somewhere other than 5a being bathed and put to bed and kate and gerry were in 5a and would not have heard the crying.

For there to be the opportunity for an abduction to take place to cover up the death of Maddie, they had to claim they left the children home alone each night.
If the children were all being babysat in the one apartment each night then there could not have been neglect and therefore no abduction.

Neglect = abduction
No neglect = no abduction.
No abduction means awkward and damning questions as to where Maddie was/is and what happened to her.
No abduction + No Maddie = charges and jail time for the mccanns and at least 1 or more up to all of the tapas 7 for homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.
Then further charges including obstruction of justice, perverting the course of justice, perjury for lying under oath, paedophilia(probably especially given kate's vivid description of Maddie's body and genitals, fraud regarding money obtained in Portugal.
Then we have the charges in the UK regarding the fund, obtaining money and services by deception, perjury (the leveson inquiry) obstruction of justice, perverting the course of justice.
Then also possible charges from those countries where they sought donations such as America and they dollar PayPal button on their website and the Americans do not take lightly to wire fraud.

If they were charged with every crime possible in every country that they duped they would die behind bars.
In Portugal they don't have plea deals as such and given everything they have done in Portugal to the Portuguese, i don't see them offering one even if allowed.

by Phoebe 28.03.19 10:33

@ Hobs.
Hi Hobs, I don't believe in this Wednedsay crying episode at all, therefore I think the McCanns were inventing the whole story including the crying during bathing bit. I always took them to be trying to stress that their children weren't upset by being left alone at night - remember Kate's waffle -" If they had woken up they must have fallen back asleep really quickly"- on what basis could she supposedly conclude that!!!
The bathing explanation was (IMO) an effort to suggest that the kids often cried during being bathed - probably during hair washing - most young kiddies hate it - and then she realised that made no sense as they wouldn't ask why she didn't come so her explanation was cut short. Of course, there are also claims that the Oldfield baby was washed along with the Tanner children before being brought back to her own apartment and that the older Tanner child was crying loudly during her bath time on Wednesday.
I honestly believe they were trying to muddy the waters around Mrs. Fenn's story and suggest she was mixing things up and that the crying she reported hearing happened much earlier on the Wednesday evening rather than on Tuesday night.

Log in for more topics