Theory

It appears to me that Xaus and Garth are typical of their sort. If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
This appears to have worked for Kate and Gerald, they are reactive, not proactive.
The only problem is, they forget that what they have said before is available for public consumption.

Morning
 
This forum is funny. It's more like a little old ladies gossip column.
 
Coffee anyone? lol
 
 
 
 

Garth wrote:Morning
 
This forum is funny. It's more like a little old ladies gossip column.
 
Coffee anyone? lol
 
 
 
 

Ah morning Garth, one in one out.

  Hello, Candy, I know, were busy people, gotta work till 6 tonight. I have to dash. See you later!  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 

Well said Me [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

and I really like the "keyboard warrior" bit, you are spot on there. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Not a good advert for the McCann's, is he?

Hi Stella. I've been lurking around all the info surrounding the case for the last week trying to get an idea of the evidence and a flavour of both sides of the argument. I have been reading this forum as well for a few days.

As a contributor to other forums, not McCann related, i am amazed at the vitriol and sheer hate that comes out between the two camps that prevents any kind of meaningful discussion about the case and i find that a real shame.

It would be nice on a forum like this, and on the Mccann supporting forums, if people with differing views could simply put forward what they think and back  it up with their evidence and discuss the relative merits without the need for insults, but it seems like that is impossible.

People come on to this forum who support abduction, it seems to me, simply to lob insults and try and impose some kind of intellectual or moral superiority, and it is tedious, i have to say.

In relation to the post where i asked that chap about the evidence supporting abduction his answer was:

I'm explaining absolutely nothing. It's there, if you cannot understand that the earth is round then I cannot help!

My answer to that is ok, what is where? I wasn't slinging arrows or casting aspersions on his manhood, just simply asking him a genuine question to further my understanding of where he's coming from.

I do think though that the case against the Mccanns would be best served steering clear of some of the wilder conspiracy theories because that is what the pro McCann groups seem to latch on to. I think the case against them would be best served simply concentrating on the facts rather than the wild speculation and letting those facts speak for themselves.

In relation to my queries, these are the questions which i am not sure of and would appreciate it if anyone can provide answers to further my knowledge:

1) Was there any evidence of intrusion into the apartment, if so what?

2) Was there evidence that Maddie's bed was slept on by Maddie that night? Was her DNA found in that bed? If not why not and if there was why did GM have to go back to the Uk to bring something back with her DNA on it? Where was her toothbrush or hairbrush for example and why couldn't they be used for here DNA?

3) Were fingerprints found on the external shutter? If so whose fingerprints were there and were there partial unidentified fingerprints found on there as well?

4) Was there any forensic evidence on that window and the shutter that would indicate it had been opened by possible abductors and a child had been passed through it.

5) Did the Mccanns initially say the patio was locked and then say it was unlocked? if so what explanations have they given for this glaring discrepancy?

6) Bearing in mind question 5 if the patio door was closed but unlocked did the patio door have an external handle to allow it to be opened from outside when it was closed?

7) The Mccanns initially said the shutter had been jemmied open but appear to have changed their story and said it was opened from inside. What explanation has been given for this significant change in story?

8) If as GM says he thinks the abductor was in the apartment when he did his check, where do the Mccanns think this abductor was given Amaral's video shows there's not enough room to stand behind the door?

9) I've heard the wardrobe mentioned as a possible hiding place but the wardrobe where the dog barked had shelves in making it impossible to hide in there. Was there a second wardrobe next to it and was that also shelved as well? If it was then how could an abductor hide in it without leaving physical evidence?

Thanks!


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

Good questions me. In answer to question 6 for starters here is a pic of the patio door, also if you look at Mr Amaral documentary,there is much on this. There is no handle on the outside, as you can see from the photos.

[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.]

Well said again Me - I think you sum up the position of a lot of us.

You have highlighted a lot of questions which are puzzling.

Just reading them now, and seeing your question about the DNA I couldn't help thinking that if Madeleine was inseparable from Cuddle Cat, wouldn't her DNA be found there? Or on the clothes she had been wearing? (I was just looking down at my own clothes and immediately spotted a stray hair.) Maybe not, I don't know enough about DNA testing.

Thanks for the replies.

In relation to question 6 then and the apparent lack of handle on the outside of the patio is it possible, without a handle, to open that door or not from the outside when it's closed?

Also was there any fingerprinting done on the patio door and if so whose prints where on ther?

In order to support their statement that door should have been riddled with prints from all the people claiming they had checked on her. Whose prints were on the outside of that door?

Me wrote....

) The Mccanns initially said the shutter had been jemmied open but appear to have changed their story and said it was opened from inside. What explanation has been given for this significant change in story?


Especially when in the statements, there are three different people, GM being one, who messed with these shutters on the night. They would have known/seen they were not jemmied, you would have thought. Why would they tell their families this, that night.

Me wrote:Thanks for the replies.

In relation to question 6 then and the apparent lack of handle on the outside of the patio is it possible, without a handle, to open that door or not from the outside when it's closed?

Also was there any fingerprinting done on the patio door and if so whose prints where on ther?

In order to support their statement that door should have been riddled with prints from all the people claiming they had checked on her. Whose prints were on the outside of that door?

967 to 972 Results of lofoscopic inspection 2007.05.04
04-PROCESSO 4 -967 to 972
WITH THANKS TO ALBYM
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_967

04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_968

B - Pages 967-972 Processo vol 4.
At 11:00am on 4 May 2007 I, IT, assistant-specialist, began to examine the following location:
At apartment 5A, Ocean Club:

- Side of the patio door: One adequate print recovered but not matched to known persons.

- Outside of one patio door: Eight inadequate prints were recovered.- Outside of [the other] patio door: One inadequate print was recovered.- Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

candyfloss wrote:Just for you RBxHN that the shutters DO make a lot of noise, the News of the World had exclusive access to the apartment, and checked them for themselves. Article in mccanfiles............................................



And our team heard for themselves how much noise an intruder would have made...............

When the bedroom shutter is opened by a pull-cord it makes a loud piercing creak that could easily have woken the youngsters or alerted Pamela Fenn, the woman living upstairs.

[url=http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

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


The late Mrs Fenn heard the patio doors opening so it would follow that she would hear the shutters opening.
Mind you RBxHN manages a sly dig at Mrs Fenn. Only to be expected though, just following TM orders!!

Hello Garth, I know you won't be there now but I hope that when you return from work you'll have time to read my comments at 9.12 - yes it should be 10.12, the timer will be right again at the end of October won't it. I don't have any problem with you calling this a little old ladies gossip column as that does describe me but I can't vouch for anyone else!

Welcome "Me today", how I agree with you about the difficulties of communicating with people without it degenerating to a slanging match. This isn't just about the McCanns, all message boards seem to be the same. When someone's only form of defence is to make personal attacks on others, without dealing with the points raised, they must be very unsure of themselves and their causes.

I remember as the case broke, Auntie Phil stating "The shutters were smashed".
The shutter story doesn't hold water.
These shutters cannot be opened from the outside, anybody who has had them will tell you that.
As for opening them from the inside, the wooden ones are noisy, I believe these were metal.
Also remember the fact that it was stated that the lichen on the outside of the window was not disturbed.

Me wrote:

In relation to my queries, these are the questions which i am not sure of and would appreciate it if anyone can provide answers to further my knowledge:

1) Was there any evidence of intrusion into the apartment, if so what? No, none whatsoever.

2) Was there evidence that Maddie's bed was slept on by Maddie that night? No Was her DNA found in that bed? No If not why not Exactly, there is no answer to that other than it's impossible and if there was why did GM have to go back to the Uk to bring something back with her DNA on it? No DNA of Madeleine was found anywhere inside that apartment, so he had to. Where was her toothbrush or hairbrush for example and why couldn't they be used for here DNA? The McCann's claimed that all 3 children shared a toothbrush and a hairbrush, rendering their use impossible.

3) Were fingerprints found on the external shutter? If so whose fingerprints were there and were there partial unidentified fingerprints found on there as well? 3 inadequate prints were found, all from one hand, from someone standing inside the apartment and pushing the shutter up.

4) Was there any forensic evidence on that window and the shutter that would indicate it had been opened by possible abductors and a child had been passed through it. No, none whatsoever.

5) Did the Mccanns initially say the patio was locked and then say it was unlocked? Yes if so what explanations have they given for this glaring discrepancy? Gerry has never been asked to explain that one in public, Clarence Mitchell ensures that they are never asked leading questions.

6) Bearing in mind question 5 if the patio door was closed but unlocked did the patio door have an external handle to allow it to be opened from outside when it was closed? Candyfloss has answered that one above I believe.

7) The Mccanns initially said the shutter had been jemmied open but appear to have changed their story and said it was opened from inside. What explanation has been given for this significant change in story? No explanation from them as usual.

8) If as GM says he thinks the abductor was in the apartment when he did his check, where do the Mccanns think this abductor was given Amaral's video shows there's not enough room to stand behind the door? I always thought Gerry said someone was in the bedroom hiding behind the door.

9) I've heard the wardrobe mentioned as a possible hiding place but the wardrobe where the dog barked had shelves in making it impossible to hide in there. Was there a second wardrobe next to it and was that also shelved as well? If it was then how could an abductor hide in it without leaving physical evidence? In Gerry's bedroom, there would be standing space on the right sided wardrobe. What they are like inside the children's bedroom, I'm not quite sure. Either way you are correct, there should have been some kind of physical evidence, but there was none found.

Thanks!

Good questions Me, answers in bold above.

Baronstu wrote:I remember as the case broke, Auntie Phil stating "The shutters were smashed".
The shutter story doesn't hold water.
These shutters cannot be opened from the outside, anybody who has had them will tell you that.
As for opening them from the inside, the wooden ones are noisy, I believe these were metal.
Also remember the fact that it was stated that the lichen on the outside of the window was not disturbed.

I can't seem to find the youtube video of Philomena McCann saying the shutters were jimmied as she says. It is on one of the threads here somewhere. But here is a reversal of the story from the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell.........................


McCanns reverse 'break in evidence', 25 October 2007


McCann family reverse story over break-in 'evidence' Irish Independent
By Shane Hickey
Thursday October 25 2007


THE spokesman for the family of Madeleine McCann has reversed a statement made in the early days of the search for the missing child.


Speaking to RTE's 'Prime Time', Clarence Mitchell said she could "easily" have been kidnapped by an abductor who did not leave the trail of a break-in.

However, in the early part of the hunt, friends and family members told journalists that the shutter on the apartment where the McCanns were staying had been broken.

Mr Mitchell made his comments when questioned by a 'Prime Time' team in a report on the disappearance to be screened tomorrow. "There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell.

"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."

Of the criticism that the McCanns left their children by themselves on four evenings while they went for dinner, Mr Mitchell said there was a cultural difference between Britain and Portugal.

"It is a British approach to get your children washed, bathed and in bed early in the evening if you can so you can have something of the evening to yourself. That is the British way of doing things. It doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's right," he said.

"Nobody feels more guilty than Gerry and Kate over the decision they took jointly to leave their children in that position that night. And they will never forgive themselves. They've said this often.

"Nobody feels more guilty than they that Madeleine was alone when she was taken. However, they felt they had a perfectly proper system of checking (her in place)."

- Shane Hickey

*

Note: On Martin Brunt's documentary 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann, aired on 24 December 2007, Prof David Barclay, one of Britain's top forensic consultants said: "I think it's impossible for somebody to get in and out, through that window without leaving a forensic trace. Apart from anything else, the window sills in that area are covered in green lichen. The minute you try and scrape over the window sills you would have left marks and we know that the scenes of crime lady, the next morning, was looking for exactly that."

Interestingly, Clarence Mitchell's statement about the McCanns reversal of their 'break in' story, came one week after Dispatches aired the documentary 'Searching For Madeleine' on 18 October 2007. In that documentary, it was effectively proved that there was no way anybody could break into the apartment and leave no forensic trace or damage to the lightweight aluminium shutters, which are covered with a fine coating of polyurethane paint which marks extremely easily.

They also tested the thumb prints, that showed up under the red dust of the forensic fingerprint powder, and proved the prints came from somebody moving the shutter from inside the apartment.

Again, Prof Dave Barclay said: "We must be very careful that we're not saying this is actually staging but it's difficult to see how anybody could have interefered with those shutters, from outside, without leaving some trace. In fact, having looked at them, I think it's almost impossible."


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (last article at bottom of page)

8) If as GM says he thinks the abductor was in the apartment when he did
his check, where do the Mccanns think this abductor was given Amaral's
video shows there's not enough room to stand behind the door? I always thought Gerry said someone was in the bedroom hiding behind the door.

Hang on - I thought Gerry said that he went into the bedroom and stood over the bed. Wouldn't he have seen the person standing there as he turned to go out? Or heard the person as they nipped out quickly?

Another odd McCann statement IMO.

Again, Prof Dave Barclay said: "We must be very careful that we're not saying this is actually staging but it's difficult to see how anybody could have interefered with those shutters, from outside, without leaving some trace. In fact, having looked at them, I think it's almost impossible."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (last article at bottom of page)

NewGuest wrote:

8) If as GM says he thinks the abductor was in the apartment when he did
his check, where do the Mccanns think this abductor was given Amaral's
video shows there's not enough room to stand behind the door? I always thought Gerry said someone was in the bedroom hiding behind the door.

Hang on - I thought Gerry said that he went into the bedroom and stood over the bed. Wouldn't he have seen the person standing there as he turned to go out? Or heard the person as they nipped out quickly?

Another odd McCann statement IMO.

Once again an excellent example of the McCanns being reactive.
They have always changed their story to fit the questions asked. Look at the sedation story.
If Gerald had "sensed" another person in that room, as he says, why didn't he put the lights on and check? Nope, our Gerald was anxious to get back on the lash.
If Kate was sure the twins had been sedated, why did she not mention this to the Police? Lets be honest Kate probably knew they had been sedated. She really didn't want the Police to know, and they thought the Police were so stupid that they wouldn't notice. When it's eventually mentioned in the investigation, Kate and Gerald state that they always thought this was the case.

[quote="RBxHN"]

. You would also have noticed that JT’s sighting describes the child being carried with her head to the left and her feet to the right. This would account for the child initially being picked up by someone else out of the bed where her head would have been to the right and legs to the left, which is reversed when passed on (as observed by JT).[/size]

See, the problem I have with JT's sighting, apart from the fact that she, like the McCanns, changed her description to suit, is this.
If they were all checking the Children why:
1) Did she go before Gerald got back?
2) Why did she not ask Gerald if everything was OK on his check when she passed him on the street?

[quote="Baronstu"]

RBxHN wrote:

. You would also have noticed that JT’s sighting describes the child being carried with her head to the left and her feet to the right. This would account for the child initially being picked up by someone else out of the bed where her head would have been to the right and legs to the left, which is reversed when passed on (as observed by JT).[/size]

See, the problem I have with JT's sighting, apart from the fact that she, like the McCanns, changed her description to suit, is this.
If they were all checking the Children why:
1) Did she go before Gerald got back?
2) Why did she not ask Gerald if everything was OK on his check when she passed him on the street?

One of the strangest things about these checks is that others were supposedly checking the McCanns children, but the McCanns weren't checking theirs. Why not? Surely it would make sense that one adult would get up every half hour and do a check on all the kids. That way they wouldn't all be bobbing up and down from the table at five minute intervals like a clip from Benny Hill. I know the answer will be from certain quarters that everyon had to pass the McCanns apartment, but surely, sensible intelligent adults would realise, that one checking the whole lot (and their apartments were all close together) would mean just one would be missing at a time albeit for slightly longer.

Question, did all the tapas 7 leave their apartments unlocked for easy access, or was it just the MCanns. I don't think I have ever read anything about that.

I think the PJ acted upon the knowledge of the sedation, in a covert manner, the best way they could. Do you remember one of the PJ officers inviting them over for a cosy little dinner party and all of their children ended up playing games together? I think this was a golden opportunity to collect from 'his floor' inside 'his own house' any hairs that might have fallen out during play time [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] especially if dressing up and hats were involved. Send them off for testing and hey presto !! you will have your answers to the sedation question.

I clearly remember mentioning this after I found out about that particular little gathering and a few people really went into one with, "they cannot do that without a warrant", and "that is illegal without their prior knowledge". But is it? the hairs were dead hairs, that technically no longer belong to anyone. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Those Portuguese Detectives are not stupid you know and I think they got the answers they were looking for and I am quite sure if this is what they did, that those answers are now in the protected area of the files. Let's hope so.

This could be why when they got back home Sean's hair was allegedly cut very short.

Stable and door springs to mind. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[quote="Baronstu"]

RBxHN wrote:

. You would also have noticed that JT’s sighting describes the child being carried with her head to the left and her feet to the right. This would account for the child initially being picked up by someone else out of the bed where her head would have been to the right and legs to the left, which is reversed when passed on (as observed by JT).[/size]

See, the problem I have with JT's sighting, apart from the fact that she, like the McCanns, changed her description to suit, is this.
If they were all checking the Children why:
1) Did she go before Gerald got back?
2) Why did she not ask Gerald if everything was OK on his check when she passed him on the street?

I don't think she was checking on any children, but replacing the person who was looking after all of them that night.

I think it went something like this;

Russell was on first shift, Jane went to dinner and ordered his steak.
Jane was on second shift, she eats her dinner and goes back just after 9.00, Russels steak got cold during the handover, Jane never returns and stays with all the children upstairs.

Stella,
Fits nicely, all the children in one room, except Madeleine.
The question would be, where did Gerald go? Well I think we know the answer to that, I remember he stated he entered the flat from the front door, why did he say that? Probably because his tennis buddy saw him coming from that direction. What was Gerald doing? Probably what we all think.

Looking at all the contradictions we have noticed by comparing what Team McCann/ Tapas 9 members have either written in print or recorded saying on camera when interviewed, I am not at all surprised that the Portuguese police question the abduction statement.