The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Autumn on 29.11.09 14:28

This is a thread for members of this forum who genuinlly believe that Madeleine was abducted, to tell us what evidence they have to support their belief.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 14:33

No cadavar scent to link to Maddie ...FACT

Blood not connected to Madeleine....FACT

No blood or scent in car connected to Madeleine....FACT

Blood in apartment not accertained to be Madeleines....FACT

All in the FSS statements

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 15:18

It's an upside down question, no one needs to prove or convince anyone that an abduction happened, this is clearly what happened once parental/known involvement of a crime is ruled out, which of course it has been.

There is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine's parents or their friends or her extended family harmed her in any way and there is no motive, means or opportunity for them to have done so. Since that day, her parents and family have gone above and beyond in an attempt to recover her safely.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 16:28

An accident or an abduction? Either could have happened.

An accident and a cover up would have involved many people, all willing to involve themselves in the death of a child, and many who didn't even know Madeleine or The McCanns. Why should they risk their integrity? And why has no one spoken out? Why has Madeleine's body not been found. Why did no one see them acting suspiciously in broad daylight when they were being followed everywhere by The Media.

There was time in the limited time frame for an abductor to get into the appartment and whisk the child away. It would have taken no more than minutes.

Lack of evidence of an abductor does not mean that there wasn't one.

There is no evidence of an accident.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by ROCKY on 29.11.09 16:51

There was a witness, Jane Tanner. Remember Mccann told SF that he was almost caught by her. This would have been my first thought. Jane even spoke of the pyjamas madeleine was wearing in the arms of the abductor. Or do you now think she was mistaken.

ROCKY

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 16:59

@ROCKY wrote:There was a witness, Jane Tanner. Remember Mccann told SF that he was almost caught by her. This would have been my first thought. Jane even spoke of the pyjamas madeleine was wearing in the arms of the abductor. Or do you now think she was mistaken.

I believe that Jane Tanner saw the abductor. The timing is right for it to have been him or her. But I have no proof, so I am trying to stick to logistics.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 17:02

I think the fact that this person was never found is concerning as it suggests (although it's not definite, innocent people sometimes don't want to draw attention to themselves either) that someone did not want to come forward and may have something to hide, the fact that the description is very similar to a person seen by a family that evening too, who also did not come forward to rule themselves out, is very suggestive...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by ROCKY on 29.11.09 17:13

OK fair comment. How do we explain Janes changing image of the man she saw that night with madeleine. Also do you think the Smith sighting is of importance?. I would also like to ask with Mccanns reconstruction in PDL why did he change the statement of Smiths sighting. Smith said the man he saw had the childs head resting on his shoulder. In the reconstruction the child was seen as to being held the same way as Tanners description. (Have to be honest I have not seen the reconstruction so please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on any points )

ROCKY

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by ROCKY on 29.11.09 17:15

Correction have only seen clips of the Mccann reconstruction.

ROCKY

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 17:15

clarity wrote:I think the fact that this person was never found is concerning as it suggests (although it's not definite, innocent people sometimes don't want to draw attention to themselves either) that someone did not want to come forward and may have something to hide, the fact that the description is very similar to a person seen by a family that evening too, who also did not come forward to rule themselves out, is very suggestive...

Highly unlikely that two men would have been running around Praia da Luz carrying a small child at that time of night, and for neither of them to have come forward. Also, 9.15 would have been rather early to have collected a child from The Creche, or to be taking a child home from an evening get together. 9.55 would have been early as well. And surely The Creche would have know who was there. These two sightings are highly suspicious.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 17:16

Janes description didn't change, there is less detail written in the notes from the first time she told a GNR officer that night and more detail when she sat down the the Pj and gave a full description and they recorded it more fully but nothing she said contradicted the original description. I'm not sure why people think her description did change, perhaps they need to discredit her, perhaps they are confusing other descriptions released, with hers, I'm flummoxed because it is very clear if you have read the files that she was consistent.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Autumn on 29.11.09 17:29

Do any of you who believe that she was abducted, consider there is anything questionable about the choice of private detectives the McCanns have used to 'search' for Madeleine? What are your opinions on the current Private investigators who claimed recently that Madeleine was being held in an underground lair within 10 miles of PDL? If that were my child, I would have been over there on the first plane out, digging with my bare hands had my private detectives told me that was where she was believed to be.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 17:34

I've never had to hire a private detective so I have no idea how I would go about choosing one that was good, by definition private detectives are used where they police cannot get involved or have failed to accomplish the task so they are coming from a position that means they are incomparable to official channels, too late, not enough authority, evidence gone by then etc. I don't know anything about PI's claiming there was underground lairs so I can't comment on that, the McCanns, as far as I can see have been unlucky with their PI's but then as I said they are always going to be a last resort, the police didn't find her or any hard evidence of the perpetrators either, are they also to be deemed questionable because of their failings?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 17:43

@Autumn wrote:Do any of you who believe that she was abducted, consider there is anything questionable about the choice of private detectives the McCanns have used to 'search' for Madeleine? What are your opinions on the current Private investigators who claimed recently that Madeleine was being held in an underground lair within 10 miles of PDL? If that were my child, I would have been over there on the first plane out, digging with my bare hands had my private detectives told me that was where she was believed to be.

I think The McCanns were fighting in the dark to begin with. It was a foreign country and they didn't speak the language, so they needed someone relatively local.

I can't find anything wrong with the current detectives. They are both ex British policemen. A crime is a crime whatever the agenda. Policemen don't have to specialise to investigate. It's an attitude of mind.

Madeleine could be within ten miles of Praia da Luz, but no one actually knows. If an untrained person such as yourself were to go blundering around, everyone would know what you were doing. This would not bode well for the child. You could do more harm than good.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Autumn on 29.11.09 17:47

clarity wrote:I've never had to hire a private detective so I have no idea how I would go about choosing one that was good, by definition private detectives are used where they police cannot get involved or have failed to accomplish the task so they are coming from a position that means they are incomparable to official channels, too late, not enough authority, evidence gone by then etc. I don't know anything about PI's claiming there was underground lairs so I can't comment on that, the McCanns, as far as I can see have been unlucky with their PI's but then as I said they are always going to be a last resort, the police didn't find her or any hard evidence of the perpetrators either, are they also to be deemed questionable because of their failings?

Your post demonstates perfectly that many 'pros' who appear to accepted the abduction theory have not bothered to do any research into the case. You say you no nothing of the PI's latest findings re Madeleine's whereabouts, maybe you shoudl be pondering why are the McCanns not trumpeting this wonderful news from the rooftops, why are they not banging on the door of their local police station telling them of the new developments, why could they not be as*d to pop up to PDL themselves to have a quick look round when they were over in Portugal recently? Oh don't tell me, the hapless PI's have failed to tell Kate and Gerry.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Autumn on 29.11.09 17:52

Sabot, what became of the 'victoria beckham' lookalike? And before you start making excuses, lets not forget that Clarence accepted the findings of the Daily Mail investigation and admitted that the PIs had failed to carry out basic enquiries.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 17:53

@Autumn wrote:
clarity wrote:I've never had to hire a private detective so I have no idea how I would go about choosing one that was good, by definition private detectives are used where they police cannot get involved or have failed to accomplish the task so they are coming from a position that means they are incomparable to official channels, too late, not enough authority, evidence gone by then etc. I don't know anything about PI's claiming there was underground lairs so I can't comment on that, the McCanns, as far as I can see have been unlucky with their PI's but then as I said they are always going to be a last resort, the police didn't find her or any hard evidence of the perpetrators either, are they also to be deemed questionable because of their failings?

Your post demonstates perfectly that many 'pros' who appear to accepted the abduction theory have not bothered to do any research into the case. You say you no nothing of the PI's latest findings re Madeleine's whereabouts, maybe you shoudl be pondering why are the McCanns not trumpeting this wonderful news from the rooftops, why are they not banging on the door of their local police station telling them of the new developments, why could they not be as*d to pop up to PDL themselves to have a quick look round when they were over in Portugal recently? Oh don't tell me, the hapless PI's have failed to tell Kate and Gerry.

1. What do you mean not bothered to do any research into the case, I have read everything there is to read several times which apparently makes me persona non grata round here where rumour trumps fact.

2. You have lost me, what wonderful news are you referring to?

3. Why would they need to go to PdL? To have a quick look around? Are you suggesting that Madeleine would be in their old holiday apartment (now since sold so I doubt it, somehow) or on the beach or something, could you clarify what it is you would have liked them to do, to make you happy?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 17:57

@Autumn wrote:Sabot, what became of the 'victoria beckham' lookalike? And before you start making excuses, lets not forget that Clarence accepted the findings of the Daily Mail investigation and admitted that the PIs had failed to carry out basic enquiries.

There is no harm in following any possible lead. You can't just pick and choose. It needed to be looked into. There was always a possibility that Madeleine could have been taken out by boat.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by ROCKY on 29.11.09 18:00

Thanks Clarity but I have to disagree with you there. We had Gail Coopers description and Jane said that matched her description. This is not the case. This is not the description that Jane gave. Jane would have had to be very close to see this man to see his teeth. They are a prominent part of his face plus he had a moustache (of course this could have been grown later). Jane also said when asked on Panaroma 'Did you see his face ' her reply ' No, I wish to god I had'...Janes words not a newspaper report. How do we explain this?

ROCKY

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Autumn on 29.11.09 18:00

So if they thought she had been taken out by boat, why didnt the PIs follow it up? simple question. They held a press conference to announce their latest theory, but after that - nothing.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 18:04

@ROCKY wrote:Thanks Clarity but I have to disagree with you there. We had Gail Coopers description and Jane said that matched her description. This is not the case. This is not the description that Jane gave. Jane would have had to be very close to see this man to see his teeth. They are a prominent part of his face plus he had a moustache (of course this could have been grown later). Jane also said when asked on Panaroma 'Did you see his face ' her reply ' No, I wish to god I had'...Janes words not a newspaper report. How do we explain this?

You may want to disagree but read the files, her description did not change, she was unfairly being called a fantasist and a liar by people on the internet well before the description given by Gail Cooper which she said matched her description by a certain percentage, she did not say it was 100% definitely the same man, how could she, she has always been very clear she saw him for only a few moments in profile.

You ask how to explain it, there is nothing to explain, you seem to think she is saying something that she has not, it is not for me to explain why you have made this leap I'm afraid, that's for you to work out.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 18:05

@Autumn wrote:So if they thought she had been taken out by boat, why didnt the PIs follow it up? simple question. They held a press conference to announce their latest theory, but after that - nothing.

How on earth do you know what they did, there was a story in the press that stated that no-one had been out to speak to a bar manager who works out there but that is one fraction of the myriad of things that could potentially be followed up so how do you know that the PI's followed nothing up re: the boat?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Autumn on 29.11.09 18:12

clarity wrote:
@Autumn wrote:So if they thought she had been taken out by boat, why didnt the PIs follow it up? simple question. They held a press conference to announce their latest theory, but after that - nothing.

How on earth do you know what they did, there was a story in the press that stated that no-one had been out to speak to a bar manager who works out there but that is one fraction of the myriad of things that could potentially be followed up so how do you know that the PI's followed nothing up re: the boat?

because clarence admitted that they hadnt carried out the most basic of enquiries and apologised.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by ROCKY on 29.11.09 18:12

Clarity I am not leaping anywhere . Have you seen the interview of Jane Tanner on Panorama? Her own words when asked and I repeat she said she did not see his face. I am willing to check my facts when wrong ,not you? We are trying to see both sides here. We will not get anywhere if we get agitated.

Lets move on.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/51994,people,news,madeleine-mccann-detectives-australian-millionaires-rhonda-wylie-melissa-karlson-victoria-beckham-lookalike

The owner of this boat is Rhonda Wylie, one of the most wealthiest women in Australia. She is also well known to Rupert Murdoch. All of Murdochs papers carried this story. You would think that he would have told his friend Mrs Wylie that she had come under suspicion for the most sought after child in the world.

ROCKY

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evidence to support the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted - facts only

Post by Guest on 29.11.09 18:27

@Autumn wrote:
clarity wrote:
@Autumn wrote:So if they thought she had been taken out by boat, why didnt the PIs follow it up? simple question. They held a press conference to announce their latest theory, but after that - nothing.

How on earth do you know what they did, there was a story in the press that stated that no-one had been out to speak to a bar manager who works out there but that is one fraction of the myriad of things that could potentially be followed up so how do you know that the PI's followed nothing up re: the boat?

because clarence admitted that they hadnt carried out the most basic of enquiries and apologised.

I hate to be a link obsessive but .... don't suppose you have a link do you?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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