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

Anyone for scraps?

Page 12 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by j.rob on 12.09.14 16:47

@Snifferdog wrote:True j.rob, straight from the horses mouths, so to speak. It does remind me of the JonBenet Ramsey case, though without a body. The paedophilia being introduced to cover any anomalies found should she have been found before she was disposed of. It is also interesting to note the cool aloof behaviour the Ramseys showed when JonBenet was found. They still intended to go on their previously planned holiday that day and were surprised when they were told they would not be able to go...very unusual behaviour for someone who has just discovered their child has been brutally murdered. Yes, their behaviour is similar to that of the McCanns when Maddie disappeared. We also have the protection by powerful third parties in both cases Imo.


There are many similarities, imo. 
The Ramseys were planning to go on holiday on the day they 'found' their child brutally murdered.  what

In both cases I think the children were 'objectified'. Possibly there were tensions within the marriage, exacerbated by having a child/children. (Maybe also the narcissistic mothers were unable to bond with the pretty daughters who they came to scapegoat as causing all the problems in the marriage). KM strikes me as being incredibly immature and shallow. 

The parents narcissistic and lacking in emotional maturity and empathy. And probably at least one parent in both cases sociopathic. And control freaks. But also sometimes unable to control tempers/emotions.

Someone cracks, loses temper and  bomb.

As you say, powerful protection from high places derails the process of justice.

Yes, paedophilia was suggested as a cover if Madeleine was found in the early days before her body had been disposed of.  The sedation suggested as a cover if Madeleine had been found and if the twins had been tested. 

In those awful serial abuse cases such as Elm Bank Guest House and others involving children from care homes, for instance, the children nearly always seemed to be plied with alcohol and drugs to keep the compliant and 'out of it.'

Both these cases really stink.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 228
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by Grande Finale on 18.09.14 2:31

@Okeydokey wrote:
@nglfi wrote:Another scrap - both Kate and Gerry's interest in and insistence on paedophilia as an explanation for what happened, when not the slightest scrap of evidence exists to suggest anything like that happened. Gerry's visit to CEOP headquarters and the involvement of Jim Gamble - why? Let's assume for argument's sake that the macs are innocent.  The known facts are that Madeleine disappeared,  with no trace of her going any further from the apartment,  except perhaps the Smith man sighting. There is also a strong possibility she sadly died in the apartment as the dogs revealed. Where the hell did they get paedophilia from? If I was a parent I imagine it is the last thing I would want to deal with and think about the possibility of it having happened. I imagine I could not bear to think about it, yet within apparent moments of discovering her 'gone', Gerry is talking about it to all and sundry.

Yep, can anyone post the "predator" moment from the first (BBC?) documentary (the "whoosh clunk" documentary)? Where GMcC and someone else are hiding behind a wall opposite the apartment imagining how a "predator" might have been hiding there. The relish with which he speaks of it is quite bizarre in my recollection.
That would be J Cornered the would be film maker, "He could have just jumped over that wall there and fled down the road" Trouble was the wall was 6 Meters high and he was imagined to be holding a child in front as well !!

Amazing thing was that GM totally agreed ?

Grande Finale

Posts : 127
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2013-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by Grande Finale on 18.09.14 2:39

Just another scrap, I never saw photographs of the last outfit again. Did Eddie ever get a sniff of it ?
Did she die in it  ? if so where does that leave the pyjama story.

With all the courting of the press why did they never make a lot of the LAST outfit, the last clothes their daughter ever wore, what happened to them ? surely they are items to treasure ?

Where are they ?

Grande Finale

Posts : 127
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2013-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by __marla__ on 18.09.14 19:20

If Amelie and Maddie had the same pyjamas why did Amelie identify the pyjamas she wore as Maddies ?

__marla__

Posts : 23
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-08-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by Nina on 18.09.14 20:45

@__marla__ wrote:If Amelie and Maddie had the same pyjamas why did Amelie identify the pyjamas she wore as Maddies ?

And Kate and Gerry were all for recycling clothes and shoes. yet the whole of the time in PdL in the photos we never saw Amelie in either the top nor the bottoms of the poolside combination. And it had cost soooooooooooo much.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2656
Reputation : 221
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by petunia on 18.09.14 22:56

Madeleine "had to go missing in her jimmy's"cos she was taken from her bed at night,if she had gone missing in the morning or afternoon she would have been dressed in her every day cloths and if Madeleine was been abused by a peadophile why Madeleine and not the other tapas children??? i suppose drug'd babies wouldn't know they were been Abused "shudder at the thought" this case Imo stinks to high heaven.Or maybe it's just a good laid out pre planned plan that went dreadfully wrong,people got together and thought of a way to make lots of money Jerry Wilks comes to mind here,so does John Conner "lets make a chid dissapear and then reappear years later" we could make Millions? maybe she was sold to the highest bidder, maybe there is a secret video of a person abusing her?maybe she was Abducted in may 2007? so many questions and no answers.all in my opinion.

petunia

Posts : 482
Reputation : 69
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by petunia on 18.09.14 22:59

Madeleine "had to go missing in her jimmy's"cos she was taken from her bed at night,if she had gone missing in the morning or afternoon she would have been dressed in her every day cloths and if Madeleine was been abused by a peadophile why Madeleine and not the other tapas children??? i suppose drug'd babies wouldn't know they were been Abused "shudder at the thought" this case Imo stinks to high heaven.Or maybe it's just a good laid out pre planned plan that went dreadfully wrong,people got together and thought of a way to make lots of money Jerry Wilks comes to mind here,so does John Conner "lets make a chid dissapear and then reappear years later" we could make Millions? maybe she was sold to the highest bidder, maybe there is a secret video of a person abusing her?maybe she was Abducted in may 2007? so many questions and no answers.all in my opinion.

petunia

Posts : 482
Reputation : 69
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by petunia on 18.09.14 23:00

OOPS did that post twice

petunia

Posts : 482
Reputation : 69
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by Hicks on 20.09.14 22:28

During the interview with Jon Corner Kate makes that strange 'tiny tears' comment. I find it disturbing that Kate thinks her husband, being upset about his missing daughter, is ....funny.
To my mind that comment is very revealing, and perhaps gives a glimpse into the relationship Kate had with her daughter. A distant mother who would rather have hired help in to deal with Madeleine. There were certainly a hoard of Nannies available in Quenilborough, and later in Rothley, who seemed to do the things that Kate, as a mother, should have done.
 No wonder Madeleine cried for her father.

____________________
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by aquila on 20.09.14 22:36

@Hicks wrote:During the interview with Jon Corner Kate makes that strange 'tiny tears' comment. I find it disturbing that Kate thinks her husband, being upset about his missing daughter, is ....funny.
To my mind that comment is very revealing, and perhaps gives a glimpse into the relationship Kate had with her daughter. A distant mother who would rather have hired help in to deal with Madeleine. There were certainly a hoard of Nannies available in Quenilborough, and later in Rothley, who seemed to do the things that Kate, as a mother, should have done.
 No wonder Madeleine cried for her father.
No offence here Hicks but you need to substantiate your comments with links to facts/research. I don't know of a hoard of Nannies. I'm not sticking up for the McCanns here. I'm sticking up for Madeleine and this forum and things that are true to factual content.

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by davro on 21.09.14 1:34

Found this today,don't know how accurate it is but if so,the Plymouth area connection.
As far as I know none of the mainstream media have mentioned Pete Verran's Plymouth links.Stretching things a bit Hewlet also did time at Dartmoor Prison which is only 15 miles from Plymouth city Centre.

 http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/grenade.html

davro

Posts : 19
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-09-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by Hicks on 21.09.14 9:20

@aquila wrote:
@Hicks wrote:During the interview with Jon Corner Kate makes that strange 'tiny tears' comment. I find it disturbing that Kate thinks her husband, being upset about his missing daughter, is ....funny.
To my mind that comment is very revealing, and perhaps gives a glimpse into the relationship Kate had with her daughter. A distant mother who would rather have hired help in to deal with Madeleine. There were certainly a hoard of Nannies available in Quenilborough, and later in Rothley, who seemed to do the things that Kate, as a mother, should have done.
 No wonder Madeleine cried for her father.
No offence here Hicks but you need to substantiate your comments with links to facts/research. I don't know of a hoard of Nannies. I'm not sticking up for the McCanns here. I'm sticking up for Madeleine and this forum and things that are true to factual content.
No offence taken.

Link to 'tiny tears' comment @2.25.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N47AUYhD4Dg.

Off the top of my head......Hayley Jane Plummer, the McCann's cleaner/babysitter. Sharon Lewin, Madeleine's nursery teacher and babysister. Amanda Jane Coxon, McCann's cleaner/ nanny/babysitter. Sorry but I do not have time now to find links. 
I used the word 'hoards' to make a point in that there seemed to be many people around who took turns in looking after Madeleine.

IIRC in an early interview one of Gerry's sisters-can't remember which one-said that ...Kate and Gerry had a 'brilliant' full nanny back home. 

I have always tried to post factual info on this forum.

____________________
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by aquila on 21.09.14 9:28

@Hicks wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@Hicks wrote:During the interview with Jon Corner Kate makes that strange 'tiny tears' comment. I find it disturbing that Kate thinks her husband, being upset about his missing daughter, is ....funny.
To my mind that comment is very revealing, and perhaps gives a glimpse into the relationship Kate had with her daughter. A distant mother who would rather have hired help in to deal with Madeleine. There were certainly a hoard of Nannies available in Quenilborough, and later in Rothley, who seemed to do the things that Kate, as a mother, should have done.
 No wonder Madeleine cried for her father.
No offence here Hicks but you need to substantiate your comments with links to facts/research. I don't know of a hoard of Nannies. I'm not sticking up for the McCanns here. I'm sticking up for Madeleine and this forum and things that are true to factual content.
No offence taken.

Link to 'tiny tears' comment @2.25.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N47AUYhD4Dg.

Off the top of my head......Hayley Jane Plummer, the McCann's cleaner/babysitter. Sharon Lewin, Madeleine's nursery teacher and babysister. Amanda Jane Coxon, McCann's cleaner/ nanny/babysitter. Sorry but I do not have time now to find links. 
I used the word 'hoards' to make a point in that there seemed to be many people around who took turns in looking after Madeleine.

IIRC in an early interview one of Gerry's sisters-can't remember which one-said that ...Kate and Gerry had a 'brilliant' full nanny back home. 

I have always tried to post factual info on this forum.
Nice one Hicks thumbsup

aquila

Posts : 7957
Reputation : 1182
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by nglfi on 29.09.14 8:33

I've recently had to rethink a 'scrap' - I previously thought,  like many others, that Kate's behaviour when she first 'discovered there was an abductor' was troubling.  She ran away from the apartment,  leaving the twins in danger, this is something Amaral has picked up on. I do still think it is odd, however I was reading a book about Lord Lucan the other day. The wife's version of events was that after Lucan had tried to kill her in their home,  he walked into the bathroom to use the tap.  While it was on she realised he would no longer be able to hear her and she made her getaway. The thing I find a tad selfish was that her three kids were in the same house. She just left them to save herself. Now I realise there are differences with the McCann case. She knew exactly who the intruder was. Perhaps she knew in her heart he would never attack the children.  But how could she be sure of that when he'd just tried to kill her? People can act in odd ways when threatened, and forget everyone else. However, a caveat on this is that I am actually no means convinced by the version of events given by lady Lucan in that case either. I don't know,  but food for thought anyway.

nglfi

Posts : 337
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by HelenMeg on 29.09.14 10:34

@nglfi wrote:I've recently had to rethink a 'scrap' - I previously thought,  like many others, that Kate's behaviour when she first 'discovered there was an abductor' was troubling.  She ran away from the apartment,  leaving the twins in danger, this is something Amaral has picked up on. I do still think it is odd, however I was reading a book about Lord Lucan the other day. The wife's version of events was that after Lucan had tried to kill her in their home,  he walked into the bathroom to use the tap.  While it was on she realised he would no longer be able to hear her and she made her getaway. The thing I find a tad selfish was that her three kids were in the same house. She just left them to save herself. Now I realise there are differences with the McCann case. She knew exactly who the intruder was. Perhaps she knew in her heart he would never attack the children.  But how could she be sure of that when he'd just tried to kill her? People can act in odd ways when threatened, and forget everyone else. However, a caveat on this is that I am actually no means convinced by the version of events given by lady Lucan in that case either. I don't know,  but food for thought anyway.
Well yes, but as this was a staged abduction and Kate was playing her part, then she knew there was no abductor on the loose. If she had acted out the part properly to make it more realistic then she would have refused to leave her twins alone. Also with Lady Lucan, her head injuries were quite severe and I think she was just running for her life and it was that or nothing (if she is to be believed, as you say! ).

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 199
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by nglfi on 29.09.14 10:44

@HelenMeg wrote:
@nglfi wrote:I've recently had to rethink a 'scrap' - I previously thought,  like many others, that Kate's behaviour when she first 'discovered there was an abductor' was troubling.  She ran away from the apartment,  leaving the twins in danger, this is something Amaral has picked up on. I do still think it is odd, however I was reading a book about Lord Lucan the other day. The wife's version of events was that after Lucan had tried to kill her in their home,  he walked into the bathroom to use the tap.  While it was on she realised he would no longer be able to hear her and she made her getaway. The thing I find a tad selfish was that her three kids were in the same house. She just left them to save herself. Now I realise there are differences with the McCann case. She knew exactly who the intruder was. Perhaps she knew in her heart he would never attack the children.  But how could she be sure of that when he'd just tried to kill her? People can act in odd ways when threatened, and forget everyone else. However, a caveat on this is that I am actually no means convinced by the version of events given by lady Lucan in that case either. I don't know,  but food for thought anyway.
Well yes, but as this was a staged abduction and Kate was playing her part, then she knew there was no abductor on the loose. If she had acted out the part properly to make it more realistic then she would have refused to leave her twins alone. Also with Lady Lucan, her head injuries were quite severe and I think she was just running for her life and it was that or nothing (if she is to be believed, as you say! ).
That is true, her own injuries were quite severe. Maybe the two cases are too different to make a comparison, it just struck me that she left her kids alone with him. Perhaps I was reminded of Madeleine when reading the book as it seems there were (and still are, to a lesser extent) bogus sightings of the Lord, it is a case that has captured the public imagination. What happened to him, where is he? There is also a Portugal link which is interesting.

It should certainly have been easier for Kate to stay with the twins, since she didn't know who 'the intruder' was, and actually shouldn't have even made her mind up at this point that there was an intruder at all! I've got to say I'd still be considering at that point that Maddie had 'woken and wandered'. But then I suppose Kate was still trying to claim at that point that the shutters had been 'jemmied' so it is more likely there was an 'abductor.'

nglfi

Posts : 337
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by HelenMeg on 29.09.14 11:09

@nglfi wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@nglfi wrote:I've recently had to rethink a 'scrap' - I previously thought,  like many others, that Kate's behaviour when she first 'discovered there was an abductor' was troubling.  She ran away from the apartment,  leaving the twins in danger, this is something Amaral has picked up on. I do still think it is odd, however I was reading a book about Lord Lucan the other day. The wife's version of events was that after Lucan had tried to kill her in their home,  he walked into the bathroom to use the tap.  While it was on she realised he would no longer be able to hear her and she made her getaway. The thing I find a tad selfish was that her three kids were in the same house. She just left them to save herself. Now I realise there are differences with the McCann case. She knew exactly who the intruder was. Perhaps she knew in her heart he would never attack the children.  But how could she be sure of that when he'd just tried to kill her? People can act in odd ways when threatened, and forget everyone else. However, a caveat on this is that I am actually no means convinced by the version of events given by lady Lucan in that case either. I don't know,  but food for thought anyway.
Well yes, but as this was a staged abduction and Kate was playing her part, then she knew there was no abductor on the loose. If she had acted out the part properly to make it more realistic then she would have refused to leave her twins alone. Also with Lady Lucan, her head injuries were quite severe and I think she was just running for her life and it was that or nothing (if she is to be believed, as you say! ).
That is true, her own injuries were quite severe. Maybe the two cases are too different to make a comparison, it just struck me that she left her kids alone with him. Perhaps I was reminded of Madeleine when reading the book as it seems there were (and still are, to a lesser extent) bogus sightings of the Lord, it is a case that has captured the public imagination. What happened to him, where is he? There is also a Portugal link which is interesting.

It should certainly have been easier for Kate to stay with the twins, since she didn't know who 'the intruder' was, and actually shouldn't have even made her mind up at this point that there was an intruder at all! I've got to say I'd still be considering at that point that Maddie had 'woken and wandered'. But then I suppose Kate was still trying to claim at that point that the shutters had been 'jemmied' so it is more likely there was an 'abductor.'
I found the Lord Lucan case really interesting - and via her website I e-mailed Lady Lucan. She actually responded to me personally and thanked me for my interest!!

I believe this abduction was just a charade and because the whole focus was on making it look like an abduction, they forgot that normal people, on fidning their child missing, would not immediately leap to the assumption it was an abduction.

'They've taken her!'   rather than 'Madeleine's disappeared!'

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 199
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by nglfi on 29.09.14 11:14



I believe this abduction was just a charade and because the whole focus was on making it look like an abduction, they forgot that normal people, on fidning their child missing, would not immediately leap to the assumption it was an abduction.

'They've taken her!'   rather than 'Madeleine's disappeared!'
This is what gets me about the McCanns, they played out the abduction scenario so poorly, and it seems obvious to anyone with a brain they are lying, but still they get away with it!
I guess it's not like the movies where the tough cop sits the suspects down and refuses to let them leave until they explain the inconsistencies and lies. It seems like in the rogatory interviews, Leicestershire police just let the tapas 9 talk and talk, without ever highlighting any problems in the story. I didn't realise this is how policing is done.

nglfi

Posts : 337
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by j.rob on 29.09.14 13:05

@nglfi wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@nglfi wrote:I've recently had to rethink a 'scrap' - I previously thought,  like many others, that Kate's behaviour when she first 'discovered there was an abductor' was troubling.  She ran away from the apartment,  leaving the twins in danger, this is something Amaral has picked up on. I do still think it is odd, however I was reading a book about Lord Lucan the other day. The wife's version of events was that after Lucan had tried to kill her in their home,  he walked into the bathroom to use the tap.  While it was on she realised he would no longer be able to hear her and she made her getaway. The thing I find a tad selfish was that her three kids were in the same house. She just left them to save herself. Now I realise there are differences with the McCann case. She knew exactly who the intruder was. Perhaps she knew in her heart he would never attack the children.  But how could she be sure of that when he'd just tried to kill her? People can act in odd ways when threatened, and forget everyone else. However, a caveat on this is that I am actually no means convinced by the version of events given by lady Lucan in that case either. I don't know,  but food for thought anyway.
Well yes, but as this was a staged abduction and Kate was playing her part, then she knew there was no abductor on the loose. If she had acted out the part properly to make it more realistic then she would have refused to leave her twins alone. Also with Lady Lucan, her head injuries were quite severe and I think she was just running for her life and it was that or nothing (if she is to be believed, as you say! ).
That is true, her own injuries were quite severe. Maybe the two cases are too different to make a comparison, it just struck me that she left her kids alone with him. Perhaps I was reminded of Madeleine when reading the book as it seems there were (and still are, to a lesser extent) bogus sightings of the Lord, it is a case that has captured the public imagination. What happened to him, where is he? There is also a Portugal link which is interesting.

It should certainly have been easier for Kate to stay with the twins, since she didn't know who 'the intruder' was, and actually shouldn't have even made her mind up at this point that there was an intruder at all! I've got to say I'd still be considering at that point that Maddie had 'woken and wandered'. But then I suppose Kate was still trying to claim at that point that the shutters had been 'jemmied' so it is more likely there was an 'abductor.'


The Lucan case has always fascinated me too - he had friends in very high places so he could 'get away with it.' I would imagine in the Lucan case that his wife knew that he did not want to harm the children. I imagine he wanted her out of the way because if they divorced or separated he knew that she would get custody of the children. Plus he was rich enough for her to get a very comfortable settlement and live a very happy life away from her loathsome husband. 

From what I have read he was an avid gambler and a huge drinker so not exactly perfect parent material. I presume he did not want the expense and drama of a divorce/separation which would have shown him up as the awful husband that he was. 

From Lady Lucan's perspective I would imagine a divorce would have been very welcome indeed. Get rid of ghastly husband. Protect children from awful father. Nice comfortable lifestyle. And she can start again.

Presumably he was well aware of all this. But he was such a nasty person that he decided to try to have her killed. What an awful legacy for his children. To know that their father tried to murder their mother. I think he managed to twist the version of events when they were younger. But I imagine that they must by now know or at least suspect what really happened. But I do believe that he managed to get friends to look after his children in the early days.

The sheer cheek of it, imo. No doubt another psycho/narcissist or similar.

IMO the McCann twins will one day have to face the very unpalatable reality that the version of events as outlined by their parents is a load of codswallop. What a horrible legacy for them too.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 228
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by j.rob on 29.09.14 13:08

@nglfi wrote:


I believe this abduction was just a charade and because the whole focus was on making it look like an abduction, they forgot that normal people, on fidning their child missing, would not immediately leap to the assumption it was an abduction.

'They've taken her!'   rather than 'Madeleine's disappeared!'
This is what gets me about the McCanns, they played out the abduction scenario so poorly, and it seems obvious to anyone with a brain they are lying, but still they get away with it!
I guess it's not like the movies where the tough cop sits the suspects down and refuses to let them leave until they explain the inconsistencies and lies. It seems like in the rogatory interviews, Leicestershire police just let the tapas 9 talk and talk, without ever highlighting any problems in the story. I didn't realise this is how policing is done.

Just shows how corrupt things can be. If you know the right people and pull the right strings you are quite literally above the law. Even when it comes to the 'disappearance' of an innocent child.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 228
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by comperedna on 29.09.14 13:21

Eventually the police and the CPS may well be left with a ton and a half of inconsistent statements and odd scraps of information from lots of people, though, piecing them all together they may well get a pretty good idea of what most likely happened (and it may well be pretty simple). However, there will almost certainly not be enough hard evidence to prove a case against anyone in a court of law... and the investigations will one way and another, draw to a halt. Various palliative statements will then be made by the authorities, and that will be it as far as they are concerned.

There must be a lot of cases that end this way, where official investigators may feel that they have a good idea what happened, but the burden of proof is huge... and should be so... so that innocent people don't get convicted.

What the puzzle is, is why the powers that be are still expensively and uselessly banging on with peripheral issues connected with this very cold case, when, unless a body turns up, or somebody who really knows what happened talks, it is bound to be fruitless.

comperedna

Posts : 695
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2012-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by Guest on 29.09.14 15:50

j.rob @ 1.05 pm
What an awful legacy for his children. To know that their father tried to murder their mother.

He's also suspected of murdering their nanny.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Unidentified foreign couple...?

Post by missbeetle on 07.10.14 8:20


(snipped from the Getty images website)

This is the first I've heard or seen of this couple.

It seems they were being interviewed by the Portuguese police on the same day as the McCanns.

Has anyone any ideas of who they might be?

____________________
'Tis strange, but true; for truth is always strange...
(from Lord Byron's 'Don Juan', 1823)

missbeetle

Posts : 985
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-02-28
Location : New Zealand

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Anyone for scraps?

Post by Nina on 07.10.14 11:13

@missbeetle wrote:
(snipped from the Getty images website)

This is the first I've heard or seen of this couple.

It seems they were being interviewed by the Portuguese police on the same day as the McCanns.

Has anyone any ideas of who they might be?

Note the two rings on the left hand. Sorry cannot do photographs but the 4th row down, second on the left from this link,

https://www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+Jane+Tanner+and+partner&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=q7szVMWdNe6X7Qai7IDACQ&ved=0CDsQ7Ak

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2656
Reputation : 221
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Jane Tanner...?

Post by missbeetle on 07.10.14 11:40

Cheers for that, Nina - you've got sharp eyes!

Bosomy lady with two gold rings on her left hand - Jane Tanner with her hair tied back.

10th of May was when Jane had her second witness statement taken -

- so - this particular mystery cleared up - thank you.

____________________
'Tis strange, but true; for truth is always strange...
(from Lord Byron's 'Don Juan', 1823)

missbeetle

Posts : 985
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-02-28
Location : New Zealand

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 12 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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