The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

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

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Miraflores on 07.10.11 10:41


Oh
yes and for many reasons. Not to mention the nanny Cat Baker, who
fails to mention Gerry bringing and possibly signing in another little
girl that week
.

Do we know for certain that this is Gerry's handwriting? Couldn't it just be one of the nannies completing the register? I believe that there was a television programme questioning Mark Warner's childcare facilities, and not completing the register, but fudging it after the event could be a distinct possibility. Wasn't the nanny invited to Rothley later in the year? So that she could get her story straight?

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 07.10.11 10:48

@Miraflores wrote:
Do we know for certain that this is Gerry's handwriting?
Good question and one that could be resolved by reopening the investigation and examining the original creche sheets and speaking to both sets of parents.

Couldn't it just be one of the nannies completing the register?
No. When the nanny signed the register in the absence of a parent, she signed 'cat nanny'. Besides, her writing is nothing like those entries.

I believe that there was a television programme questioning Mark Warner's childcare facilities, and not completing the register, but fudging it after the event could be a distinct possibility. Wasn't the nanny invited to Rothley later in the year? So that she could get her story straight?
Gerry has very distinct writing. Catriona Baker's is very different, very rounded and almost child like. Yes Cat Baker went to Rothley to see how everyone was doing.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by aiyoyo on 07.10.11 11:15

@Lemain wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:...........
I suspect the Huelva trip was not cancellable b/c of prior arrangement to meet someone there, and not b/c they'd removed Maddie's body from hiding place just to damp it in Huelva.

In the UK you can legally buy mobiles with or without SIM with cash over the counter -- e.g. Carphone Warehouse. I did so a couple of weeks ago. In Spain they make you register with ID. I don't know about Portugal. Gibraltar needs no ID. France needs ID. But it would be ever so easy for someone in the UK to buy a few PAYG mobiles and pop a couple in a Jiffy bag to Portugal....nobody would know who was using them particularly if the contacts were by texts in loose code e.g. 'Sammy gone to Huelva said will see you there' or 'Sammy can't make Huelva'. No need for anything very cunning. You could do the same with gash email addresses and Internet Cafes but probably less convenient.

Oh they have got their payg mobiles sorted out since very early days into the incident and got that handy and standby already - they even got them delivered to the Police station while they were awaiting interviews.

Communication or canceling Huelva wasnt the issue. The issue is they'd to go despite the one-day delay so there must be a compelling reason to keep that trip schedule - whatever that be is what the Police are interested to know.

I am guessing they met with someone there - someone who specially made the trip into Huelva from outside Spain just for their meeting - and cancelling would inconvenience and spoil their other plans. Either that, or they kept their date with someone along the route to Huelva and had to proceed to the city to make a stop just to afford them an excuse for that trip.

It wasnt as if they'd bought air tickets that cannot be cancelled - they were driving into Huelva so why is it urgent to go the next day if only for flyers distribution purposes. Logically speaking dogs surprise visit must be unsettling to them so why the compelling need to keep the Huelva trip if purpose is only to distribute flyers.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 07.10.11 11:30

Stella wrote:
Are you saying then that you think the same person wrote both entries?

They certainly look identical -- not that I'm a handwriting expert but the chances of having two such distinctive styles from two different people in the records of a kiddies' creche, on the same day, seems far-fetched.

So what !! Gerry McCann is asked if he knew anyone else out there that week, or who he spent time with and he never mentions this person, or possibly taking another persons child to creche and you do not think this is significant?

To be honest, not really. If you assume that they were truly innocent of being involved in the disappearance of their daughter, then, like you and me, they would have been beside themselves with worry and remembering that they'd offer to sign-in another child would seems so irrelevant they could well not consider it worth mentioning. Actually, it would be the same if they had been responsible or knowledgeable about the disappearance.
(yes a friend, someone you knew, not a complete stranger and that is the point)

What point? Obviously the person signing the child in must have done so at the request of that child's guardian/parent? They might have been on little more than nodding acquaintance, over coffees or know them from tennis?

Correct. You would make arrangements with the staff and then sign in YOUR name, not someone elses for BOTH children !!!

I'm getting a bit lost here.....the snipped image you posted had the childrens' names on them -- Elizabeth Nayler and Madeleine McCann. Not the parents' names.

The adult would have been acting in loco parentis -- surely a perfectly normal and natural thing? Is there any special reason why eyebrows should be raised in the McCann case?
Oh yes and for many reasons. Not to mention the nanny Cat Baker, who fails to mention Gerry bringing and possibly signing in another little girl that week.

When someone is looking after little children they are usually busy....surely she might have just forgotten particularly since she presumably didn't think it unusual at the time? I still can't see the big deal about this unless someone actually forged a signature -- even then, hardly a hanging offence unless part of some more sinister plot?

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 07.10.11 11:34

@Lemain wrote:
I still can't see the big deal about this unless someone actually forged a signature -- even then, hardly a hanging offence unless part of some more sinister plot?
What if the child being signed in that week as Madeleine McCann, was not the child born Madeleine Beth McCann?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 07.10.11 11:39

@Lemain wrote:
Stella wrote:Are you saying then that you think the same person wrote both entries?

They certainly look identical -- not that I'm a handwriting expert but the chances of having two such distinctive styles from two different people in the records of a kiddies' creche, on the same day, seems far-fetched.
Thank you Lemain, that is also what we are thinking. thumbup

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 07.10.11 12:07

For the purpose of asking the following questions, let us assume for one moment that it was indeed Gerry McCann signing in both children.

Creche started for the first time on the 29th April , everyone arrived in the afternoon of the 28th.

How did Gerry manage to meet, become friendly enough to be trusted with another mans daughter and take her to creche on the first day by 9.10? Only to sign his own daughter in much later at 9.45. Surely a child in a completely new environment and starting somewhere unknown to her, should be escorted by her own parents not a stranger, especially on the first day?

The McCann's were in block 5, the Naylors in BP01, how could their paths have crossed?

When could they have met and made this arrangement so quickly?

It makes no sense at all.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 07.10.11 13:13


Then we have the big issue over why someone would immitate another persons signature and very badly, over a course of 5 days.

How did they know what the original signature would have looked like and why did they need to immitate it?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 07.10.11 13:43

Many people talk of taking the easy way out. Gerry must have been a very busy man. He loved his golf and tennis and he was there with a large group of friends already, so why go to all that bother on such a short holiday break, fussing over a complete strangers child?

Why did this other person never return the favour ?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 07.10.11 16:36

One last thing to ponder on, before I retire for the night.

Tanner & O'Brien's daughter was in the same group as Madeleine, so why didn't Gerry ever take and sign her in ?

thinking Something doesn't add up.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 07.10.11 16:42

Stella wrote:
Then we have the big issue over why someone would immitate another persons signature and very badly, over a course of 5 days.

How did they know what the original signature would have looked like and why did they need to immitate it?

What was the source of that sheet (image) above? Who is signing 'for' whom? As for the other comment about Gerry signing in another child, is it possible that it was someone else who was signing in for the McCanns?

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 08.10.11 9:22

@Lemain wrote:
What was the source of that sheet (image) above?
Kikoraton, who is a poster on here, was the first person to idenitfy 'issues' with the handwriting on these creche sheets. He copied all of the signatures allegedly pertaining to Robert Naylor, the Father of Elizabeth Naylor, for the whole week. As you can see, not one of them matches with each other. With this, he set about obtaining through quite legitimate channels a copy of the real Robert Naylor's signature. What he saw was that the signature on the creche sheets does not come even close to the real signature. It's no wonder then, what we see on the creche sheets, never matches with each other.

Who is signing 'for' whom?
As you have already identified a few pages back, the handwriting for both entries is virtually identical. One can only deduce then, that whoever wrote the entry for Madeleine McCann, is also likely to have written the entry for Elisabeth Naylor.

As for the other comment about Gerry signing in another child, is it possible that it was someone else who was signing in for the McCanns?
No. There are numerous examples of Gerry's signature throughout the files. These signatures match what we see on the creche sheets. Gerry in his statements, confirms it was him who took Madeleine to the creche every day. The nanny Catriona Baker, also confirms in her statement that it was Gerry who brought Madeleine to the creche every day.

So now do you know what this must mean !!


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 08.10.11 10:50

Stella wrote:So now do you know what this must mean !!
I think it's easy to jump to conclusions. I have two signatures -- one that is hard to read or forge; I use that for banks, authorities, etc. and another that is easy to read which I use for most business letters, non-official stuff and the one I'd use if signing-in myself or another to an event (gym, creche, club,...). I'd guess that many do the same -- I'm sure I'm not alone?

But what exactly do YOU "know what this must mean"?

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 08.10.11 12:26

@Lemain wrote:I have two signatures -- one that is hard to read or forge; I use that for banks, authorities, etc. and another that is easy to read which I use for most business letters, non-official stuff and the one I'd use if signing-in myself or another to an event (gym, creche, club,...). I'd guess that many do the same -- I'm sure I'm not alone?
Of course there are people out there who use more than one mark, to seperate important from non-important stuff. This is not the issue.

The person who wrote all of the marks on those creche sheets, did not somehow manage to stick to one or the other. The number of variations is what a handwriting expert will look at. They will also look for bumps, something that is only seen when a person is trying to replicate another persons signature. They are very visible under the right magnification. They are present when someone stops to think how something should go, pauses, then carries on. A person writing their own signature (whatever version that may be) will not produce these tell-tale little bumps.

If Scotland Yard approaches the Portuguese Investigators and requests a forensic examination of those original creche sheets, they will be able to see if they have any of these little bumps or not. winkwink

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Why the Tapas Bar?

Post by TrollAng on 09.10.11 11:55

Forgive me because I am straying off the current discussion but I think it's probably the right thread.

9 adults of whom 6 are doctors and between them 8 children. They don't appear to need to socialise much outside of their group, in general their meal times don't coincide with anyone who is outside of the group and there doesn't appear to be anything happening in the bar that would draw you to it night after night. A doctor is better equipped than most to understand the implications of leaving 8 children unattended for 3 hours every night - that's 8 children x 3 hours x 4 nights = 96 hours of child neglect combined. All of this for the unique experience of dining in an otherwise empty Tapas bar. We know the Tapas bar did carryout, that's perhaps 2 people doing the reverse route to collect 2 or 3 courses, choose a garden or apartment that is central to them all, checking far simpler, same enjoyment, peace of mind, more time together. One would be actually dining in the garden. Almost a no brainer.

Sunday 29th: Matt can't attend dinner because he has a sick stomach
Monday 30th: Evie is ill, Russell stays home
Tuesday 1st: Najoua Chekaya is in Tapas from 21.00 to 22.00, she doesn't see Kate or David Payne. Kate makes 2 calls sometime after 22.00. Kate must have been home alone
Wednesday 2nd: Rachel is ill & stays home
Thursday 3rd: Evie is ill (again? call a doctor) Jayne "relieves" Russell, fortunately not before seeing the eggman.

It's a lot of illness for people you would consider healthy. Many people think that the absentees were the babysitters for the night. It's a lot of sacrifice to allow your friends the unique experience of dining in a tapas bar where not much is happening.

Premeditated? without doubt.

TrollAng

Posts : 73
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 10.10.11 12:53

@Lemain wrote:
Stella wrote: One day soon, we will also be allowed to consider a very different opinion, one that is backed up by a large number of criminal experts.

Stella, the point I'm making is that there has not been any charge made against the parents or anyone else. The Portuguese police must have a huge amount of information, much of it inadmissible in a court; hearsay, dodgy witnesses, evidence that might have been tampered with (by whomsoever, not just the PJ). If the Portuguese authorities had believed they had a case strong enough to bring to court then presumably they would have done that?

Maybe we will one day have access to all of the information, maybe we won't, but meanwhile if one is going to speculate then one should keep in mind that the authorities did not consider the case to be strong enough despite having, presumably, access to all of the evidence. So by 'reverse-engineering' why not put on the table all of the potential weaknesses in the case against the parents? By looking at the possible weaknesses we might begin to get a clearer picture.

When it comes to DNA, you only need to look at the OJ trial. The techniques of amplification require almost impossible care in collection, storage and analysis when the samples are tiny. Probably the single biggest weakness in the case against the parents is the lack of a body and the fact that child abduction is not unheard of.

You are falling into the same trap many of the Pro's reside in. What the PJ had at the point of shelving was a big bag of loose ends and circumstantial evidence which led to the following hypothesis:

1) A dead body was in contact with the McCann's apartment, car, clothes and toy. No one had died in that apartment before.

2) DNA was discivered which initially suggested (never contradicted) that 15 of the 19 markers matched. Irrespective of the final FSS report where it could not be established with certainty that this was DNA from Madeleine, it was never established that this DNA could not have come from Maddie Mccann.

3) The statements provided by the parents and their freinds, who were, lets not forget, the first witnesses to arrive at the crime scene, contained untruths and outright lies.

4) The abduction theory put forward by one friend had no basis in evidence, and contained many discrepancies. This was further complicated by this witness changing the description and then identifying Robert Murat "with certainty" and then rescinding that claim.

5) The only independant witness to see a man carrying a child around that time, identified with 60-80% certainty, that it was Gerry McCann.

Then we have the creche records, the mobile phone records and the failure of the group to come back and perform a reconstruction which would have exposed the contradictions within the statements.

So what we have is the basis of a strong body of (circumstantial) evidence building which requires pulling together as a coherent case. That was unable to be completed as a result of the Team fleeing back to the UK and not returning to take part since.

Without that and without the help of the UK Government the investigation had nowhere else to go. That is the reason why no charges were brought.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 10.10.11 13:10

bravo Well said Me, I just luv the way you explain things.

You remind me of this shark shark

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 10.10.11 14:16

Thanks, something meaty to discuss :)

Firstly, let me be clear that I am disinclined to believe the story as told by the parents. One chooses one's words with a modicum of care when money and time is mostly spent on litigation rather then seeking, so I hope you follow? Nevertheless, I want the truth. I have no reason to 'hate' anyone in the frame -- the press habitually distort the facts and bend them to sell newspapers and airtime -- we must all be vigilant as it does affect peoples' attitudes.

1) A dead body was in contact with the McCann's apartment, car, clothes and toy. No one had died in that apartment before.

No, that is an inference. I believe that no expert has confirmed that the various data prove conclusively that any dead body was in contact...etc., etc. ?


2) DNA was discivered which initially suggested (never contradicted)
that 15 of the 19 markers matched. Irrespective of the final FSS report
where it could not be established with certainty that this was DNA from
Madeleine, it was never established that this DNA could not have come
from Maddie Mccann.

It's a bit wooly, isn't it? These low copy number high amplification DNA tests can be fraught -- and they certainly do no more than corroborate other evidence. You need an expert in the field to put the test into perspective.


3) The statements provided by the parents and their freinds, who
were, lets not forget, the first witnesses to arrive at the crime scene,
contained untruths and outright lies.
That's Sunday Tabloidese! Wink If you stick to 'correct' and 'incorrect' when it comes to the factual evidence you can later consider whether 'incorrect' information was deliberately untrue, intended to deceive, an incorrect (innocent) recollection or, indeed, the truth -- at least from the point of view of that person. Let me tell you a story....

A friend and I were running a small business when we were in our twenties. Fresh, active minds, and not given to fantasy. One day I heard my friend give instructions to a worker in the workshop to do something, to my mind, odd. Still, I was busy doing my work and I wasn't in the workshop so I said nothing. Next day I heard my friend tearing the workshop foreman to shreds for doing what he was doing...the foreman said that's what friend said he was to do. It almost came to blows. Friend was wrong, I pulled him out and apologised to the foreman. But to this day friend still does not accept that he had made a mistake. My point is that the mind plays funny tricks on us. In this case my friend said something that was completely untrue but I would not have called it an 'outright lie'.

4) The abduction theory put forward by one friend had no basis in
evidence, and contained many discrepancies. This was further complicated
by this witness changing the description and then identifying Robert
Murat "with certainty" and then rescinding that claim.

Yes, there were lots of discrepancies but to draw a conclusion requires more evidence than we have here, in the public domain. And it requires questioning -- ideally in a court of law. People under stress behave very abnormally and what could be more stressful than the Madeleine case? Whether you consider the parents to be the Devil's right hand man or a friend of Gabriel, you have to concede that they were under stress? The questions need an answer. However I was appalled when Mrs McC refused to answer what appeared to be pretty basic questions put to her in Portugal. On the other hand, maybe her lawyers had advised her to do that?

5) The only independant witness to see a man carrying a child around
that time, identified with 60-80% certainty, that it was Gerry McCann
What on earth does "60-80%" mean? I mean to say....what sane person could put percentiles on the 'certainty' of an identification made in low light conditions? Maybe we ought to modify that "60-80%" to read "perhaps"?


Then we have the creche records, the mobile phone records and the
failure of the group to come back and perform a reconstruction which
would have exposed the contradictions within the statements.

You've lumped lots of unconnected issues together there. Remember that the McCanns had legal advisors including an expert in extradition. I'm sure that both you and I would avoid going to a country against the advice of lawyers and an extradition expert -- you cannot represent yourself behind bars for a start, and who would want to be behind bars? Not worth the risk.

So what we have is the basis of a strong body of (circumstantial)
evidence building which requires pulling together as a coherent case.
That was unable to be completed as a result of the Team fleeing back to
the UK and not returning to take part since.

Yes I agree with one major difference. Did the 'Team' 'flee'? Their lawyers advised them to leave Portugal and -- who knows -- advised them that it might not be safe for them to return at that time.

Peppering prose with emotive words such as 'flee' does a disservice to the truth. Surely it is the truth that we are looking for, not a public lynching or McCarthyite witch-hunt?

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 10.10.11 15:25

@Lemain wrote:Thanks, something meaty to discuss :)

Firstly, let me be clear that I am disinclined to believe the story as told by the parents. One chooses one's words with a modicum of care when money and time is mostly spent on litigation rather then seeking, so I hope you follow? Nevertheless, I want the truth. I have no reason to 'hate' anyone in the frame -- the press habitually distort the facts and bend them to sell newspapers and airtime -- we must all be vigilant as it does affect peoples' attitudes.

Yes i agree but there comes a point where a spade has to be called a spade, based on what we know supported by the expert opinion of the professionals corroborating this evidence.


@Lemain wrote:
1) A dead body was in contact with the McCann's apartment, car, clothes and toy. No one had died in that apartment before.

No, that is an inference. I believe that no expert has confirmed that the various data prove conclusively that any dead body was in contact...etc., etc. ?

No that is the professional opinion of the dog handler expert who conducted the searches. Whilst he admits this has to be corroborated, and indeed the blood findings were, it is harder, obviously, to corroborate a dead body that is no longer there in that apartment. That is why there is so much detail relating to the previous work of the dogs and their success rates in the files supporting this evidence. So we have to look and ask, are these dogs reliable, have they had proven success, have they had failures which could lead us to believe that they are incorrect?

Then we have to ask if this was a failure why did the dogs only react to the McCann’s possessions and belongings? Why not anywhere else and what, given their previous records, were the statistical chances of these dogs alerting incorrectly, so many times only to McCann related places and possessions?

Then having looked at all this, and having read the supporting deposition from the handler we form conclusions. And taking all those into account it is safe to assume that the dogs alerted to the presence of cadaver odour in that apartment. In summation then there was, according to the expert, a dead body there.

You cannot say we can’t come to that conclusion simply because the body wasn’t there when the apartment was searched, otherwise what procedural use is there for these dogs in the first place and why are they used so extensively?

@Lemain wrote:

2) DNA was discivered which initially suggested (never contradicted)
that 15 of the 19 markers matched. Irrespective of the final FSS report
where it could not be established with certainty that this was DNA from
Madeleine, it was never established that this DNA could not have come
from Maddie Mccann.

It's a bit wooly, isn't it? These low copy number high amplification DNA tests can be fraught -- and they certainly do no more than corroborate other evidence. You need an expert in the field to put the test into perspective.

Er no it’s not woolly at all! What we have is a child missing from an apartment. In that apartment we have specialist dogs marking to both blood and cadaver odour. Then when samples are collected and tested we are told the DNA found matches 15 of the 19 markers of the missing child and whilst the FSS couldn’t (or wouldn’t) say with certainty it was Maddie’s DNA, they did not say it was definitely NOT her DNA.

So to recap we have a missing child, blood and cadaver order alerted to, DNA found with 15 out of 19 markers, and a report which specifically fails to discount Maddie as the originator of those samples.

At what point for you, does this series of coincidences become too great to be simply isolated incidents and become a body of circumstantial evidence suggesting the girl came to harm in the apartment? How many coincidences are you prepared to accept before you become suspicious?


@Lemain wrote:

3) The statements provided by the parents and their friends, who
were, lets not forget, the first witnesses to arrive at the crime scene,
contained untruths and outright lies.
That's Sunday Tabloidese! If you stick to 'correct' and 'incorrect' when it comes to the factual evidence you can later consider whether 'incorrect' information was deliberately untrue, intended to deceive, an incorrect (innocent) recollection or, indeed, the truth -- at least from the point of view of that person. Let me tell you a story....

A friend and I were running a small business when we were in our twenties. Fresh, active minds, and not given to fantasy. One day I heard my friend give instructions to a worker in the workshop to do something, to my mind, odd. Still, I was busy doing my work and I wasn't in the workshop so I said nothing. Next day I heard my friend tearing the workshop foreman to shreds for doing what he was doing...the foreman said that's what friend said he was to do. It almost came to blows. Friend was wrong, I pulled him out and apologised to the foreman. But to this day friend still does not accept that he had made a mistake. My point is that the mind plays funny tricks on us. In this case my friend said something that was completely untrue but I would not have called it an 'outright lie'.

Nice story but wholly irrelevant. No, it’s not Tabloidese as you call it. If you don’t want to take my word for it, take the words of the prosecutor in the final archiving report who said:

“There is some inconsistency in the statements of the entire group in what concerns some details, which should be better clarified, with a view to determine rigorously the activity of the people that evening.” And from the prosecutors’ final report: “Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos’ and witnesses’ statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation…”

Or failing that take the words of the Judge in the recent Amaral libel case (which I quote in my signature):

What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs.

This is not mere speculation on my part. These are the words of a high court judge in Portugal. So it is also safe to conclude that they lied. If you want further details I suggest you read one of the many excellent bloggers on this case, such as Blacksmith, for more in depth analysis of these lies.

The fact remains a Judge has essentially stated that the statements contain lies. Are you now convinced?



@Lemain wrote:
4) The abduction theory put forward by one friend had no basis in
evidence, and contained many discrepancies. This was further complicated
by this witness changing the description and then identifying Robert
Murat "with certainty" and then rescinding that claim.

Yes, there were lots of discrepancies but to draw a conclusion requires more evidence than we have here, in the public domain. And it requires questioning -- ideally in a court of law. People under stress behave very abnormally and what could be more stressful than the Madeleine case? Whether you consider the parents to be the Devil's right hand man or a friend of Gabriel, you have to concede that they were under stress? The questions need an answer. However I was appalled when Mrs McC refused to answer what appeared to be pretty basic questions put to her in Portugal. On the other hand, maybe her lawyers had advised her to do that?

No it doesn’t. There is enough evidence in those early witness statements (ignore, in then main, the later ones which were worked on with their expensively assembled legal team) to confirm the existence of lies and “contradictions”. No amount of stress can justify or explain the number and the weight of lies contained in those statements. Because when you look at them what you can see, is a concerted effort to try and get words in the statements to fit the theory put forward by the parents. But these words often contradict each other and the physical evidence.

Yes of course they were under stress. But why would that stress cause them to claim the shutters were jemmied when clearly they weren’t for example?
Once again you have to ask why these people would be doing this and for what purpose?

Under what circumstances would a lawyer advise a client not to answer questions? Again what inference can be drawn? Also why would a mother of a missing child refuse to answer questions which would help rule her out as a suspect and then allow the PJ to follow the abduction line forward.

In simple terms if in the same position I would say “I know the statistical link between missing children taken / harmed by their relatives so please ask me whatever questions you like so that you can rule me out and concentrate on looking for my child”.

Why would you fear doing this as an innocent parent, and what can we (and others) analysing this course of events draw from this refusal to answer these questions?

@Lemain wrote:
5) The only independent witness to see a man carrying a child around
that time, identified with 60-80% certainty, that it was Gerry McCann

What on earth does "60-80%" mean? I mean to say....what sane person could put percentiles on the 'certainty' of an identification made in low light conditions? Maybe we ought to modify that "60-80%" to read "perhaps"?

You would need to ask Martin Smith about that. However what we have is a signed statement from someone not connected to the family or their friends prepared to state on the record the person he saw was Gerry McCann with that level of certainty. You can’t simply discount what he says because you don’t like the way he describes the certainty with which he identified the man.

I also trust you would express the same reservations about Jane tanner’s sighting, which was in similar low light conditions but much further away, and from behind, and with no corroborating evidence, despite the fact that Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins were stood in the same street at the same time and didn’t see this person.

You see if you are going to denigrate the Smith sighting then you equally have to apply the same exacting standards to Tanner’s alleged sighting, and take into account tanner’s relationship with the main suspects.


@Lemain wrote:

Then we have the creche records, the mobile phone records and the
failure of the group to come back and perform a reconstruction which
would have exposed the contradictions within the statements.

You've lumped lots of unconnected issues together there. Remember that the McCanns had legal advisors including an expert in extradition. I'm sure that both you and I would avoid going to a country against the advice of lawyers and an extradition expert -- you cannot represent yourself behind bars for a start, and who would want to be behind bars? Not worth the risk.

No I have added further supporting circumstantial evidence to the rest I have already mentioned. All of which adds further weight to the suggestion of parental involvement in the disappearance of their child. The point is the sheer weight of the various strands of evidence are so unfavourable to the McCann’s themselves and the theory they have put forward.

If I was innocent of course i would go because the ends justify the means. The aim was to continue the search for the child. Why would the McCann’s need to appoint a top extradition lawyer if they are innocent? Are they suggesting the PJ have fitted them up? How and why?

Most of the evidence gathered is either in black and white (phone records), or from outside agencies (the dogs, DNA) or from the mouths of the McCann’s and their friends (statements). How could the PJ fit them up on these things when all they did was simply record what the main Team said or did, or used evidence produced by others?

What would be the basis for requiring extradition lawyers if you are truly innocent? Why did they fear going to jail if they were innocent?

@Lemain wrote:
So what we have is the basis of a strong body of (circumstantial)
evidence building which requires pulling together as a coherent case.
That was unable to be completed as a result of the Team fleeing back to
the UK and not returning to take part since.

Yes I agree with one major difference. Did the 'Team' 'flee'? Their lawyers advised them to leave Portugal and -- who knows -- advised them that it might not be safe for them to return at that time.

Peppering prose with emotive words such as 'flee' does a disservice to the truth. Surely it is the truth that we are looking for, not a public lynching or McCarthyite witch-hunt?

No flee is the correct word given the nature of their status and the defence team they had assembled, coupled with the fact that they would not return to help continue the investigation to find their missing daughter.

Why do you think their lawyers advised them to leave? Under what circumstances normally would a lawyer advise a client to leave and how would you interpret that advice?

We are indeed looking for the truth. Once the truth does indeed come out the McCann’s deserve all the witch hunts and lynching that will undoubtedly come their way. Why? Their tasteless and sickening media campaign, their fraudulent fund / missing child business and their refusal to assist the investigation into their missing child.

I stand by everything I have said.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

My tuppence worth

Post by tigger on 10.10.11 15:30

@Lemain wrote:Thanks, something meaty to discuss :)

Firstly, let me be clear that I am disinclined to believe the story as told by the parents. One chooses one's words with a modicum of care when money and time is mostly spent on litigation rather then seeking, so I hope you follow? Nevertheless, I want the truth. I have no reason to 'hate' anyone in the frame -- the press habitually distort the facts and bend them to sell newspapers and airtime -- we must all be vigilant as it does affect peoples' attitudes.

1) A dead body was in contact with the McCann's apartment, car, clothes and toy. No one had died in that apartment before.

No, that is an inference. I believe that no expert has confirmed that the various data prove conclusively that any dead body was in contact...etc., etc. ?
Cadaverine only develops a few hours after death. Whether an actual dead body lay in several places in the flat, or whether cadaverine from a dead body (there really is no other way to get it) was used to contaminate specific areas, one of which was also found to have blood and blood spray (which is not something you can import easily, unless you get an atomiser). In combination, these two findings alone point to a live body in that localtion having become a dead body.

2) DNA was discivered which initially suggested (never contradicted)
that 15 of the 19 markers matched. Irrespective of the final FSS report
where it could not be established with certainty that this was DNA from
Madeleine, it was never established that this DNA could not have come
from Maddie Mccann.
DNA was associated with bodily fluids and again with blood in the car. Either these fluids would have had to be abstracted from a dead and defrosting body or an actual body was present.
We are not competent to judge the DNA findings. However we can find it somewhat coincidental that the DNA result was found to be contaminated after a visit from the then PM. It is now totally academic, since it won't stand up in a court of law.


It's a bit wooly, isn't it? These low copy number high amplification DNA tests can be fraught -- and they certainly do no more than corroborate other evidence. You need an expert in the field to put the test into perspective.


3) The statements provided by the parents and their freinds, who
were, lets not forget, the first witnesses to arrive at the crime scene,
contained untruths and outright lies.
That's Sunday Tabloidese! Wink If you stick to 'correct' and 'incorrect' when it comes to the factual evidence you can later consider whether 'incorrect' information was deliberately untrue, intended to deceive, an incorrect (innocent) recollection or, indeed, the truth -- at least from the point of view of that person. Let me tell you a story....

A friend and I were running a small business when we were in our twenties. Fresh, active minds, and not given to fantasy. One day I heard my friend give instructions to a worker in the workshop to do something, to my mind, odd. Still, I was busy doing my work and I wasn't in the workshop so I said nothing. Next day I heard my friend tearing the workshop foreman to shreds for doing what he was doing...the foreman said that's what friend said he was to do. It almost came to blows. Friend was wrong, I pulled him out and apologised to the foreman. But to this day friend still does not accept that he had made a mistake. My point is that the mind plays funny tricks on us. In this case my friend said something that was completely untrue but I would not have called it an 'outright lie'.
The statements did contain several outright lies, the much mentioned jemmied shutters. According to Kate and one of the T7 Gerry and someone else tried to lift the shutters, this just resulted in them getting stuck a few inches above the sill. The PJ examined and fingerprinted both the shutters and the window, the window had only Kate's fingerprints on it, consistent with her opening these. Once the shutters were proved to be impossible, another ingress had to be found, so the patio doors were said to be open. The jemmied shutters are a definite lie.
Jane Tanner saw a person carrying a child, changed the details frequently, but didn't want to upset the parents by saying she could have seen the abductor until many hours later.
She was definitely not under stress a year later in her rogatory interview, when the story is different again.



4) The abduction theory put forward by one friend had no basis in
evidence, and contained many discrepancies. This was further complicated
by this witness changing the description and then identifying Robert
Murat "with certainty" and then rescinding that claim.

Yes, there were lots of discrepancies but to draw a conclusion requires more evidence than we have here, in the public domain. And it requires questioning -- ideally in a court of law. People under stress behave very abnormally and what could be more stressful than the Madeleine case? Whether you consider the parents to be the Devil's right hand man or a friend of Gabriel, you have to concede that they were under stress? The questions need an answer. However I was appalled when Mrs McC refused to answer what appeared to be pretty basic questions put to her in Portugal. On the other hand, maybe her lawyers had advised her to do that?

5) The only independant witness to see a man carrying a child around
that time, identified with 60-80% certainty, that it was Gerry McCann
What on earth does "60-80%" mean? I mean to say....what sane person could put percentiles on the 'certainty' of an identification made in low light conditions? Maybe we ought to modify that "60-80%" to read "perhaps"?

The Smiths' sighting is circumstantial evidence, but not the only sighting that night. Michael Wright was told a few days afterwards that the man running the pizza tent on the beach, saw a man carrying child on the beach, coming from PdL, late at night on the 3rd. Michael Wright chose not to pass this information immediately on to the PJ for some reason. So that is two linked sightings.


Then we have the creche records, the mobile phone records and the
failure of the group to come back and perform a reconstruction which
would have exposed the contradictions within the statements.

You've lumped lots of unconnected issues together there. Remember that the McCanns had legal advisors including an expert in extradition. I'm sure that both you and I would avoid going to a country against the advice of lawyers and an extradition expert -- you cannot represent yourself behind bars for a start, and who would want to be behind bars? Not worth the risk.
The phone records are most revealing, not only in what they show, but the fact that the McCanns were forensically aware re their phone records.
It is not criminal, but certainly incriminating, rather than looking for a lost child, to delete all calls from one's mobile, alerting family and news media as well as the Embassy with a version of events which proved to have been impossible.Therefore the family are on record as stating the shutters were jemmied.

The creche records are revealing in that the handwriting and the times the children were checked in and out do not make sense.
Graphology is an accepted forensic tool. Therefore faked signatures are evidence.

So what we have is the basis of a strong body of (circumstantial)
evidence building which requires pulling together as a coherent case.
That was unable to be completed as a result of the Team fleeing back to
the UK and not returning to take part since.

Yes I agree with one major difference. Did the 'Team' 'flee'? Their lawyers advised them to leave Portugal and -- who knows -- advised them that it might not be safe for them to return at that time.
IMO they did flee, since they had no time to clear up in the villa, or indeed pack up everything which had to go into a van or a lorry to be shipped to Rothley. I think it was Michael Wright who took it upon himself to clear the villa, have it cleaned and deliver the keys to the owners.
Well, certainly not an orderly retreat.


Peppering prose with emotive words such as 'flee' does a disservice to the truth. Surely it is the truth that we are looking for, not a public lynching or McCarthyite witch-hunt?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 10.10.11 15:40

@Lemain wrote:Thanks, something meaty to discuss :)

Firstly, let me be clear that I am disinclined to believe the story as told by the parents. One chooses one's words with a modicum of care when money and time is mostly spent on litigation rather then seeking, so I hope you follow? Nevertheless, I want the truth. I have no reason to 'hate' anyone in the frame -- the press habitually distort the facts and bend them to sell newspapers and airtime -- we must all be vigilant as it does affect peoples' attitudes.
Agree.

1) A dead body was in contact with the McCann's apartment, car, clothes and toy. No one had died in that apartment before.
No, that is an inference. I believe that no expert has confirmed that the various data prove conclusively that any dead body was in contact...etc., etc. ?
Wrong. A highly regarded, trained, cadaver dog, who has never been wrong to date, has confirmed this. If you choose not to accept that, it's up to you. Eddie did not know a little girl was missing. He does not also know that in 85% of missing children cases, the parents or someone close to them are responsible for their homicide. If you look at the team involved on the Scotland Yard review team, you will see that Hamish Campbell is from a Homicide/Infanticide background. What does that tell you?

2) DNA was discivered which initially suggested (never contradicted)
that 15 of the 19 markers matched. Irrespective of the final FSS report
where it could not be established with certainty that this was DNA from
Madeleine, it was never established that this DNA could not have come
from Maddie Mccann.
It's a bit wooly, isn't it? These low copy number high amplification DNA tests can be fraught -- and they certainly do no more than corroborate other evidence. You need an expert in the field to put the test into perspective.

Wooly?, with 15 markers !! They convict in the US on as low as 13 markers and in other states as low as 11. If Portugal worked on that basis, they would have been banged up in Auguest 2007.

3) The statements provided by the parents and their freinds, who
were, lets not forget, the first witnesses to arrive at the crime scene,
contained untruths and outright lies.
That's Sunday Tabloidese! Wink If you stick to 'correct' and 'incorrect' when it comes to the factual evidence you can later consider whether 'incorrect' information was deliberately untrue, intended to deceive, an incorrect (innocent) recollection or, indeed, the truth -- at least from the point of view of that person. Let me tell you a story....
Oh please !! I do hope this is not going to descend into a war on words. yawn

A friend and I were running a small business when we were in our twenties. Fresh, active minds, and not given to fantasy. One day I heard my friend give instructions to a worker in the workshop to do something, to my mind, odd. Still, I was busy doing my work and I wasn't in the workshop so I said nothing. Next day I heard my friend tearing the workshop foreman to shreds for doing what he was doing...the foreman said that's what friend said he was to do. It almost came to blows. Friend was wrong, I pulled him out and apologised to the foreman. But to this day friend still does not accept that he had made a mistake. My point is that the mind plays funny tricks on us. In this case my friend said something that was completely untrue but I would not have called it an 'outright lie'.
Everything is always open to Interpretation, that's what makes the world go round, but what this has got to do with police statements and photo-fits, I have no idea. confused

4) The abduction theory put forward by one friend had no basis in
evidence, and contained many discrepancies. This was further complicated
by this witness changing the description and then identifying Robert
Murat "with certainty" and then rescinding that claim.
Yes, there were lots of discrepancies but to draw a conclusion requires more evidence than we have here, in the public domain. And it requires questioning -- ideally in a court of law. People under stress behave very abnormally and what could be more stressful than the Madeleine case? Whether you consider the parents to be the Devil's right hand man or a friend of Gabriel, you have to concede that they were under stress? The questions need an answer. However I was appalled when Mrs McC refused to answer what appeared to be pretty basic questions put to her in Portugal. On the other hand, maybe her lawyers had advised her to do that?
A photo-fit of an egg, much later turning into creepy man, is evidence that is within the public domain. So people are entitled to make assumptions on that basis. As for Kate's get-out-clause, as possibly advised by her lawyer. If she was whiter than white, she wouldn't need to return ALL answers with a "no comment".

5) The only independant witness to see a man carrying a child around
that time, identified with 60-80% certainty, that it was Gerry McCann
What on earth does "60-80%" mean? I mean to say....what sane person could put percentiles on the 'certainty' of an identification made in low light conditions? Maybe we ought to modify that "60-80%" to read "perhaps"?
Actually, the Police work with percentages all the time, in much the same way as Doctors and Hospitals work on a scale of 1 to 10, when assessing pain levels. You are sounding more and more like a defence lawyer all the time.


Then we have the creche records, the mobile phone records and the
failure of the group to come back and perform a reconstruction which
would have exposed the contradictions within the statements.
You've lumped lots of unconnected issues together there. Remember that the McCanns had legal advisors including an expert in extradition. I'm sure that both you and I would avoid going to a country against the advice of lawyers and an extradition expert -- you cannot represent yourself behind bars for a start, and who would want to be behind bars? Not worth the risk.
It's interesting that you have skipped over the creche and phone records, I wonder why? sarcastic

So what we have is the basis of a strong body of (circumstantial)
evidence building which requires pulling together as a coherent case.
That was unable to be completed as a result of the Team fleeing back to
the UK and not returning to take part since.
Yes I agree with one major difference. Did the 'Team' 'flee'?
Yes they did. Amaral confirms in his book, that even the British Police flew home at that time. Madeleine was still missing, yet they all left the country. I think this is a good indication that the British Police knew they were no longer looking for a mising child. Their lawyers advised them to leave Portugal Why?, because the case against them was gaining considerable strength and they knew it. and -- who knows -- advised them that it might not be safe for them to return at that time. Of course not, it goes without saying.

Peppering prose with emotive words such as 'flee' does a disservice to the truth. Surely it is the truth that we are looking for, not a public lynching or McCarthyite witch-hunt?
This forum has a dedicated team of individuals all trying to get to "the truth" thank you, whatever that may be. We are not here to lynch anyone. If you want a lynching, may I suggest you move onto any of the McCann supporter sites, as they seem to have the most rabid bunch of members I have ever seen.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 10.10.11 18:28

Stella wrote:
Wrong. A highly regarded, trained, cadaver dog, who has never been wrong to date, has confirmed this. If you choose not to accept that, it's up to you.
You're missing my point, Stella. You were not personally present at those trials, I presume? Yes, we have video 'evidence' but before we 'convict' it is vital for the defence to have the opportunity to challenge. I hope you agree? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that evidence had been 'published' in a highly selective or even doctored form. I'm not saying that's the case here, indeed I think it unlikely, but justice demands the right of explanation and reply which is a defence.

Wooly?, with 15 markers !! They convict in the US on as low as 13 markers and in other states as low as 11. If Portugal worked on that basis, they would have been banged up in Auguest 2007.

For all you and I know, those samples might have been taken, handled and tested in a wholly inappropriate manner. I'd guess that they weren't and that the highest standards were adhered to; Portugal is not a third world country. However, again, if one is going to come to a conclusion one must give a defence team the opportunity to investigate and challenge.


A photo-fit of an egg, much later turning into creepy man, is evidence that is within the public domain. So people are entitled to make assumptions on that basis. As for Kate's get-out-clause, as possibly advised by her lawyer. If she was whiter than white, she wouldn't need to return ALL answers with a "no comment".

Yes, the Tanner 'drawing' is odd; if a vague image becomes clearer in someone's memory as time passes, then I'd guess that the mind, suggestions or something else is adding to the detail!


Actually, the Police work with percentages all the time, in much the same way as Doctors and Hospitals work on a scale of 1 to 10, when assessing pain levels. You are sounding more and more like a defence lawyer all the time.
There are good reasons to assess pain on a scale; it's the only way doctors can see how effective the pain control is -- and I have been there, on the pain-side Sad As for sounding like a defence lawyer, fine. I suspect that the parents either know exactly what happened or were involved in the happening. However, I think that they are entitled to a defence and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, in a court of law. Particularly since every shred of evidence so far has been handed down from those whose duty it is to prosecute.

It's interesting that you have skipped over the creche and phone records, I wonder why?
To be honest, I think that they are a tiny detail. If they provided some firm evidence as to whereabouts of someone at a certain time then they would be more interesting but right now they are insecure and all one can do is infer from them. Now, if we could get the location the phones were in during the entire period, by triangulation from the signal masts (I think I read that it should still be possible to retrieve this evidence but needs a court order to have it released?) then we'd have something pretty useful. The existing phone and creche records might be useful in dotting a few 'i's and crossing a few 't's but as they stand I can't see how they figure in the substance of any case against the parents McCann.

Did the 'Team' 'flee'?
Yes they did. Amaral confirms in his book, that even the British Police flew home at that time. Madeleine was still missing, yet they all left the country. I think this is a good indication that the British Police knew they were no longer looking for a mising child. Their lawyers advised them to leave Portugal Why?, because the case against them was gaining considerable strength and they knew it. and -- who knows -- advised them that it might not be safe for them to return at that time. Of course not, it goes without saying.

No, nothing goes without saying in a murder trial. If your lawyers tell you to leave right away, you either leave or find new lawyers. It doesn't necessarily reflect on the possible innocence or guilt or state of mind of the 'accused'. So if the lawyers told them to leave then it was not 'fleeing' in the sense that most people would use the word.

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 11.10.11 9:28

@Lemain wrote:
Stella wrote:
Wrong. A highly regarded, trained, cadaver dog, who has never been wrong to date, has confirmed this. If you choose not to accept that, it's up to you.
You're missing my point, Stella. You were not personally present at those trials, I presume? Yes, we have video 'evidence' but before we 'convict' it is vital for the defence to have the opportunity to challenge. I hope you agree? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that evidence had been 'published' in a highly selective or even doctored form. I'm not saying that's the case here, indeed I think it unlikely, but justice demands the right of explanation and reply which is a defence.
Correct, I was not there. But dogs are not actors. It's a case of 'wyswyg'. What you see, is what you get. If the videos taken of those dogs have all been admissible in court before, without question and backed up by convictions in each case. What makes you think they would be inadmissible now, just because the case involves people with money and connections? To infer that these dogs may have been led into giving the reactions that they did, is truly insulting to Martin Grime and to his dogs. But it's not the first time they have been attacked and no doubt it will not be the last either.

Wooly?, with 15 markers !! They convict in the US on as low as 13 markers and in other states as low as 11. If Portugal worked on that basis, they would have been banged up in Auguest 2007.
For all you and I know, those samples might have been taken, handled and tested in a wholly inappropriate manner. I'd guess that they weren't and that the highest standards were adhered to; Portugal is not a third world country. However, again, if one is going to come to a conclusion one must give a defence team the opportunity to investigate and challenge.
If two different dogs, both indicate in the exact same areas, which leads to samples being collected with a result of 15 markers, even Carter Ruck would have one hell of a time convincing any jury that Eddie, Keela, Martin Grime, the FSS, the Portugese Forensic team, have all contributed to placing 15 of Madeleine's markers from a frozen state, in the back of the McCann's hire car, hired some 21 days after their daughter disappeared.

A photo-fit of an egg, much later turning into creepy man, is evidence that is within the public domain. So people are entitled to make assumptions on that basis. As for Kate's get-out-clause, as possibly advised by her lawyer. If she was whiter than white, she wouldn't need to return ALL answers with a "no comment".
Yes, the Tanner 'drawing' is odd; if a vague image becomes clearer in someone's memory as time passes, then I'd guess that the mind, suggestions or something else is adding to the detail!

Precisely, it would become inadmissible.

Actually, the Police work with percentages all the time, in much the same way as Doctors and Hospitals work on a scale of 1 to 10, when assessing pain levels. You are sounding more and more like a defence lawyer all the time.
There are good reasons to assess pain on a scale; it's the only way doctors can see how effective the pain control is -- and I have been there, on the pain-side Sad As for sounding like a defence lawyer, fine. I suspect that the parents either know exactly what happened or were involved in the happening. However, I think that they are entitled to a defence and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, in a court of law. Particularly since every shred of evidence so far has been handed down from those whose duty it is to prosecute.
Not just how "pain control is", in the past tense. But more specifically how much pain you are currently in, to assess if you can be moved or not, need morphine or paracetamol or if you about to go into shock. Do you therefore agree, that percentages are highly important in assessing the importance of something and that 20%-30%, is far less important than 70%-80%. Actually, I have come to the conclusion that the Smith sighting, is likely to be proven one day as inadmissible. But that's another story.
It's interesting that you have skipped over the creche and phone records, I wonder why?
To be honest, I think that they are a tiny detail. If they provided some firm evidence as to whereabouts of someone at a certain time then they would be more interesting but right now they are insecure and all one can do is infer from them. Now, if we could get the location the phones were in during the entire period, by triangulation from the signal masts (I think I read that it should still be possible to retrieve this evidence but needs a court order to have it released?) then we'd have something pretty useful. The existing phone and creche records might be useful in dotting a few 'i's and crossing a few 't's but as they stand I can't see how they figure in the substance of any case against the parents McCann.
Not a "tiny detail" or "insecure", but more like hard evidence of someone's actions. If they can prove that someone has acted suspiciously before a crime has even been reported. We are not dealing with an abduction, but something far more sinister.

Did the 'Team' 'flee'?
Yes they did. Amaral confirms in his book, that even the British Police flew home at that time. Madeleine was still missing, yet they all left the country. I think this is a good indication that the British Police knew they were no longer looking for a mising child. Their lawyers advised them to leave Portugal Why?, because the case against them was gaining considerable strength and they knew it. and -- who knows -- advised them that it might not be safe for them to return at that time. Of course not, it goes without saying.
No, nothing goes without saying in a murder trial. If your lawyers tell you to leave right away, you either leave or find new lawyers. It doesn't necessarily reflect on the possible innocence or guilt or state of mind of the 'accused'. So if the lawyers told them to leave then it was not 'fleeing' in the sense that most people would use the word.[/quote]
Are we about to be dealing with a "murder trial" then? If your lawyer advises you to leave another country. If that was his expert opinion and knowing as we do, that the McCann's had the best lawyers money can buy, do not be mistaken. He must have been very aware of evidence that he has seen during the interrogations, that might convict his clients. Fact. big grin

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 11.10.11 10:27

Stella wrote:
Are we about to be dealing with a "murder trial" then? If your lawyer advises you to leave another country. If that was his expert opinion and knowing as we do, that the McCann's had the best lawyers money can buy, do not be mistaken. He must have been very aware of evidence that he has seen during the interrogations, that might convict his clients. Fact.

If you believe in the premeditated story and believe that the child died in the apartment rather than being abducted, then I cannot see any alternative to 'murder'. You cannot say that accidentally slapping too hard, or a child falling
off the furniture, or an accidental overdose/adverse reaction to drugs
is 'premeditated'. So 'premeditated' means 'murder', surely?

As for the McCann's lawyers advising them to leave the country....it is the lawyers' duty to protect their clients. It is also a fact that KM refused to answer questions --- let's face it, the questions were quite clever and might have incriminated her. Nobody is expected to incriminate themselves -- it's a cornerstone of most justice systems at least in the developed world. So, if KM was briefed as to the type of question she should not answer (one would expect her to have been briefed by her lawyers first, at this late stage in the investigation, surely?) then she had no sensible alternative but to refuse to answer. Now, if her lawyers then considered that there was a risk, however small, of her being detained in custody then they might well have advised her to leave Portugal directly. For that reason I don't think it's fair to consider that KM had any choice in the matter. We at least have to give her the benefit of the doubt because she is the one who is being accused. For that reason, I don't think that the departure of the McCanns from Portugal can be considered as evidence of anything.

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 11.10.11 10:50

@Lemain wrote:
Stella wrote:
Are we about to be dealing with a "murder trial" then? If your lawyer advises you to leave another country. If that was his expert opinion and knowing as we do, that the McCann's had the best lawyers money can buy, do not be mistaken. He must have been very aware of evidence that he has seen during the interrogations, that might convict his clients. Fact.

If you believe in the premeditated story and believe that the child died in the apartment rather than being abducted, then I cannot see any alternative to 'murder'. You cannot say that accidentally slapping too hard, or a child falling
off the furniture, or an accidental overdose/adverse reaction to drugs
is 'premeditated'. So 'premeditated' means 'murder', surely?

As for the McCann's lawyers advising them to leave the country....it is the lawyers' duty to protect their clients. It is also a fact that KM refused to answer questions --- let's face it, the questions were quite clever and might have incriminated her. Nobody is expected to incriminate themselves -- it's a cornerstone of most justice systems at least in the developed world. So, if KM was briefed as to the type of question she should not answer (one would expect her to have been briefed by her lawyers first, at this late stage in the investigation, surely?) then she had no sensible alternative but to refuse to answer. Now, if her lawyers then considered that there was a risk, however small, of her being detained in custody then they might well have advised her to leave Portugal directly. For that reason I don't think it's fair to consider that KM had any choice in the matter. We at least have to give her the benefit of the doubt because she is the one who is being accused. For that reason, I don't think that the departure of the McCanns from Portugal can be considered as evidence of anything.

Sorry for jumping into this conversation. However I do feel that your answers appear to be at best obtuse or at worst deliberately controversial.
You can believe the child came to harm and that it wasn’t pre mediated, as I happen to do at this moment in time. A child falling off the furniture can be an accident. I believe that is the case here based on everything I have seen.

In relation to your on-going belief that their lawyer’s advice to leave the country represents nothing more than protecting the interest of their client, then again, you miss the point.

Clearly it is good advice but only when viewed against the lawyer’s studying of the case against his clients and his recommendation based on that evidence.

The lawyer would not have said “they’ve got nothing on you, so you must leave the country immediately”. If the lawyer genuinely believed the PJ had nothing on his clients why would he recommend they flee, when they were still looking for their missing child?

The only valid basis for the lawyer reaching the conclusion he did was on the basis that he felt, legally, the PJ had a case against the McCann’s at that point in time.

In relation to the questions faced by Kate you are so spectacularly wrong it is untrue. The police were investigating the disappearance of their daughter. The parents were suspects but proclaimed innocence. Therefore if you are innocent you have nothing to fear from answering 48 or 4800 questions. You have nothing to hide; you want to aid the investigation in ruling you out so that it can concentrate on trying to find your child. There is no logical reason if you are innocent, that you would refuse to answer questions which would allow the police to rule you out as a suspect.

You say the questions were quite clever and designed to incriminate. How, if you are innocent, and you answer questions truthfully, can you incriminate yourself? It’s impossible and a contradiction in terms.

Here are the questions, please tell me which ones are quite clever and designed to incriminate:

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

It is possible to draw conclusions from both the decision to flee on lawyer’s advice and the refusal to answer the questions.

The decision to flee was based on a fear that the PJ had sufficient evidence against them. The decision to refuse to answer questions suggests Kate did not want to help the PJ in the investigation into her daughter’s disappearance, she did not want to assist the PJ in ruling her out as a suspect in the investigation and Kate was not prepared to help tie up the mass of contradictions and untruths in their witness accounts.

And if that is the case you have to ask the question why would she act in that way and what does it tell you about her involvement and potential innocence?

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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