Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by chillyheat 05.11.13 13:12

StraightThinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Well, there's the straightest of straight thinking you could ever hope to see amongst the 165,000+ posts on this forum...and from Mrs 'StraightThinking' herself, as well!
Glad to see you agree Tony, now let's forget the conspiracy theories and concentrate on the basics

This is not a simple case. Tell me if things like this are just coincidental.....Jeremy Wilkins statement

They chose that specific period to go to the Praia Da Luz resort because of the childcare facilities and the fact that it was the cheapest week of the season.

They flew to the resort on Saturday 28 April 2007. Whilst on the plane they came into conversation with Russell O'Brien and Mathew Oldfield due to their children being of the same age range and the fact that they were playing together on the plane.

They were also aware of the presence of their partners, Jane Tanner and Rachel Manphilly.

Upon arrival in the resort they were allocated apartment O in block G4. This block being situated near to the tennis courts and adjacent to the block in which the McCann’s apartment was situated. It is on the junction of Rua 1 De Maio and Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, with Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins running parallel.

Same flight.....Same resort....But he befriended Gerry McCann ???
This is just one of many so called co-incidences.

by notlongnow 05.11.13 13:13

StraightThinking wrote:
sallypelt wrote:It's not simple. Just one example, why were these people given such VIP treatment on leaving Portugal? What made them so important that they went through the VIP lounge?
Because by Sept 2007 it had become one of the major news stories of the year and it would have caused mayhem had they gone through the normal gate. VIP is a misleading name

While I'm on, let's look at some of the other probable red herrings spread across the web which have overcomplicated this case
1) There has been government interference - NO, the media initially reported M's disappearance because it was a good story - child snatched from holiday home. It became such a massive story that the government felt obliged to show its compassion, then they were caught up in it
2) The media are hiding the truth - NO, the modern media are only interested in selling papers and attracting viewers. Defamation law prevents them saying certain things, even speculation, but they are determined to cash in on the story, so they print nonsense
3) Certain people in this case are "protected" - NO, in the UK you are considered to be innocent until you are found guilty. The media can't make nudge nudge comments about people in such a serious case without evidence to back it up (I mean evidence, not circumstancial irregularities)
4) Rich people donated money because of secret links - NO, they either did it because they have a genuinely caring nature, or probably in some cases because they thought it would make them look good (ie positive publicity for them)
5) SY is involved in a cover up - NO, they are trying to establish evidence of a crime, whatever it is, that is strong enough to take to court and secure a conviction. As with many crimes, that's difficult, which is why so many go unsolved. Many criminals are good at covering their tracks
6) K knew M was going to be missing when she entered 5a - NO, there's no reason to believe that at all
7) The T9 were all involved in a pre-arranged and elaborate scheme to hide what had already happened when they went to the Tapas - NO, there's nothing to suggest that. And the idea that they would all go to dinner knowing M was dead is frankly grotesque
8) Smithman was one of the T9 carrying a live decoy child - HA HA HA
And so it goes on

There are very simple scenarios described by posters on other threads which probably come very close to explaining what happened. Not all the jigsaw pieces quite fit, but that's mainly because of confusion over timelines

The UK media criticism of the PJ has been insulting and unfair, but if they had rounded up everybody in the area and taken them down to the station for a thorough interrogation in the first 24 hours, it would have been solved within a few days. Yes I'm sure it really is that simple

And if there's a simple solution, why look for one of crime thriller proportions?

Jimmy saville would also probably disagree with some of the above.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 13:18

StraightThinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Well, there's the straightest of straight thinking you could ever hope to see amongst the 165,000+ posts on this forum...and from Mrs 'StraightThinking' herself, as well!
Glad to see you agree Tony, now let's forget the conspiracy theories and concentrate on the basics.

We are at one!

This is your golden opportunity to share with us your 'straight thinking'.

Please concentrate just on the simple 'basics' (which we've all been unnecessarily complicating) and tell us in a few words:

1. What probably happened to Madeleine McCann and
2. Why the case is not yet solved.

by jeanmonroe 05.11.13 13:19

Sockpuppet wrote:Anyway, I'm out of this thread. I'm not going to have ideas that I agree with described as 'bordering on the insane' or 'daft', or 'ludicrous', 'ridiculous' or 'impossible'.

Are you Mitchell, are you Mitchell, are you Mitchell in disguise?
Are you Mitchell in disguise!
laughat

Those words could have come straight out of Spokesman Mitchell's mouth in relation to anyone or to anything questioning his 'clients' the McCanns!

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 13:20

Sockpuppet wrote:Anyway, I'm out of this thread. I'm not going to have ideas that I agree with described as 'bordering on the insane' or 'daft', or 'ludicrous', 'ridiculous' or 'impossible'.

What a great shame.

I was just going to ask you what 'tourists' and 'non-tourists' look like at night-time in May in Portugal.

If you've not left this thread forever, please help.

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 13:25

Tony Bennett wrote:What a great shame.

I was just going to ask you what 'tourists' and 'non-tourists' look like at night-time in May in Portugal.

If you've not left this thread forever, please help.

As you've asked the question I will answer.

You are missing the point. The point is that the police asked the question. You are maintaining that the Smiths offered a meaningless bit of information. It seems like a very good question to me. Others have agreed, IIRC you seem to be the only person that I know of who is having trouble with it. If I was a policeman in a holiday resort I would ask the question.

Clearly, the police *did* ask the question, as indicated by the word 'urged'.

by Nereid 05.11.13 13:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:Anyway, I'm out of this thread. I'm not going to have ideas that I agree with described as 'bordering on the insane' or 'daft', or 'ludicrous', 'ridiculous' or 'impossible'.
What a great shame.

I was just going to ask you what 'tourists' and 'non-tourists' look like at night-time in May in Portugal.

If you've not left this thread forever, please help.

Tony, what do you think of the two e-fits that look as if they're made with two different kinds of software? I posted about it earlier on this thread, but the thread seems to have been derailed.

I may be totally of my trolley, but I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks.

by Joss 05.11.13 13:28

I have always thought a Tourist would look like someone wearing a Hawaiian shirt with a camera hanging around their neck, lol!

by Guest 05.11.13 13:29

.....and wearing a kiss-me-quick hat and carrying one of those tatty stuffed donkeys....

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 13:29

jeanmonroe wrote:

Are you Mitchell, are you Mitchell, are you Mitchell in disguise?
Are you Mitchell in disguise!

Those words could have come straight out of Spokesman Mitchell's mouth in relation to anyone or to anything questioning his 'clients' the McCanns!

Despite the many smiley faces I'm not 100% certain whether you're joking big grin

No, I am not Clarence Mitchell!

by columbostogeys 05.11.13 13:30

Tony Bennett wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:Anyway, I'm out of this thread. I'm not going to have ideas that I agree with described as 'bordering on the insane' or 'daft', or 'ludicrous', 'ridiculous' or 'impossible'.
What a great shame.

I was just going to ask you what 'tourists' and 'non-tourists' look like at night-time in May in Portugal.

If you've not left this thread forever, please help.

Well perhaps I can help there.

Having lived in many places in the med etc, we always used to laugh at the tourists especially in the early part of the year when it was very chilly, as they NEVER seemed to bother bringing coats, or warm over clothing, so you would see the tourists freezing their bits off even at night, and the locals would be wrapped up warm in coats or jumpers etc lol. Thats the truth as I know it...

by Joss 05.11.13 13:31

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:.....and wearing a kiss-me-quick hat and carrying one of those tatty stuffed donkeys....

HaHa, :)

by Angelique 05.11.13 13:37

Ah but then there are JT's flip flops!

by columbostogeys 05.11.13 13:38

notlongnow wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:
sallypelt wrote:It's not simple. Just one example, why were these people given such VIP treatment on leaving Portugal? What made them so important that they went through the VIP lounge?
Because by Sept 2007 it had become one of the major news stories of the year and it would have caused mayhem had they gone through the normal gate. VIP is a misleading name

While I'm on, let's look at some of the other probable red herrings spread across the web which have overcomplicated this case
1) There has been government interference - NO, the media initially reported M's disappearance because it was a good story - child snatched from holiday home. It became such a massive story that the government felt obliged to show its compassion, then they were caught up in it
2) The media are hiding the truth - NO, the modern media are only interested in selling papers and attracting viewers. Defamation law prevents them saying certain things, even speculation, but they are determined to cash in on the story, so they print nonsense
3) Certain people in this case are "protected" - NO, in the UK you are considered to be innocent until you are found guilty. The media can't make nudge nudge comments about people in such a serious case without evidence to back it up (I mean evidence, not circumstancial irregularities)
4) Rich people donated money because of secret links - NO, they either did it because they have a genuinely caring nature, or probably in some cases because they thought it would make them look good (ie positive publicity for them)
5) SY is involved in a cover up - NO, they are trying to establish evidence of a crime, whatever it is, that is strong enough to take to court and secure a conviction. As with many crimes, that's difficult, which is why so many go unsolved. Many criminals are good at covering their tracks
6) K knew M was going to be missing when she entered 5a - NO, there's no reason to believe that at all
7) The T9 were all involved in a pre-arranged and elaborate scheme to hide what had already happened when they went to the Tapas - NO, there's nothing to suggest that. And the idea that they would all go to dinner knowing M was dead is frankly grotesque
8) Smithman was one of the T9 carrying a live decoy child - HA HA HA
And so it goes on

There are very simple scenarios described by posters on other threads which probably come very close to explaining what happened. Not all the jigsaw pieces quite fit, but that's mainly because of confusion over timelines

The UK media criticism of the PJ has been insulting and unfair, but if they had rounded up everybody in the area and taken them down to the station for a thorough interrogation in the first 24 hours, it would have been solved within a few days. Yes I'm sure it really is that simple

And if there's a simple solution, why look for one of crime thriller proportions?
Jimmy saville would also probably disagree with some of the above.

Very odd because a child a boy went missing in greece just like Maddy Ben Needham but no one cared a fig, the poor mother had to do it all her self even by remortgating her home.

So why the difference with these two cases?

I found the attention of the Maddy case almost like some sort of mass hysteria, like we had all been drugged in our water, and had to simply know more and more about the case...it was bizarre....and still is.

Nothing seems to happen about finding her abductor if there was one, and the ones they look at are just LUDICROUS. Patsys....Its like they have applied for the job as creepy abductor and they fit the bill....drifter, black, gypsy, dead etc......

So are we to assume its only black, gypsy, drifters etc who take children...WRONG. A large amount of men on the sex register or even in prison for pedophile activities come from good backgrounds, doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers etc....

Not pervy looking men.....

Something is so OFF about this case, I agree far fetched maybe but something is so off about it.

by RIPM 05.11.13 13:39

Keeping it simple, we know for certain Rachel Oldfield and Fiona Payne made statements to the Police that Murat was outside 5a that night.

It was not and could not be mistaken identity as both state RM came up to me shook me by the hand and said "I am Robert Murat". Unequivocal, no translation errors.

So Redwood instead of dead black tractor men, smithman etc; you could ask why people very very close to the "onion centre" chose to implicate a man they did not know, in child abduction acusations and you could ask Murat, why he has never sought redress from these people. As Murat has been cleared it must be a simpler task, to find a Robert Murat doppelganger walking around Luz that night in the company of the Police and stating "hi I'm Robert Murat" instead of looking for swarthy Roma, blacks, dodgy whites, etc; etc;

by jozi 05.11.13 13:39

Sockpuppet wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:What a great shame.

I was just going to ask you what 'tourists' and 'non-tourists' look like at night-time in May in Portugal.

If you've not left this thread forever, please help.
As you've asked the question I will answer.

You are missing the point. The point is that the police asked the question. You are maintaining that the Smiths offered a meaningless bit of information. It seems like a very good question to me. Others have agreed, IIRC you seem to be the only person that I know of who is having trouble with it. If I was a policeman in a holiday resort I would ask the question.

Clearly, the police *did* ask the question, as indicated by the word 'urged'.

How do you know the police asked that question ?

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 13:42

jozi wrote:How do you know the police asked that question ?

Because of the word 'urged'.

by notlongnow 05.11.13 13:44

I agree.
No other case that i know of comes close to this.

With all the media attention & millions thrown at this case and still not one person charged for anything. sad

by SixMillionQuid 05.11.13 13:45

RIPM wrote:Keeping it simple, we know for certain Rachel Oldfield and Fiona Payne made statements to the Police that Murat was outside 5a that night.

It was not and could not be mistaken identity as both state RM came up to me shook me by the hand and said "I am Robert Murat". Unequivocal, no translation errors.

So Redwood instead of dead black tractor men, smithman etc; you could ask why people very very close to the "onion centre" chose to implicate a man they did not know, in child abduction acusations and you could ask Murat, why he has never sought redress from these people. As Murat has been cleared it must be a simpler task, to find a Robert Murat doppelganger walking around Luz that night in the company of the Police and stating "hi I'm Robert Murat" instead of looking for swarthy Roma, blacks, dodgy whites, etc; etc;

Those two don't know when p.m. ends and when a.m. begins. Murat was not outside apartment 5a on the night of 3 May 2007.

by Silver Shuffle 05.11.13 13:46

Sockpuppet wrote:This thread seems to have gone off the rails somewhat. Perhaps if we delete 'Express' from the thread title it will more accurately describe its contents

maybe something has been said that Needs to be derailed.... thinking

by columbostogeys 05.11.13 13:46

RIPM wrote:Keeping it simple, we know for certain Rachel Oldfield and Fiona Payne made statements to the Police that Murat was outside 5a that night.

It was not and could not be mistaken identity as both state RM came up to me shook me by the hand and said "I am Robert Murat". Unequivocal, no translation errors.

So Redwood instead of dead black tractor men, smithman etc; you could ask why people very very close to the "onion centre" chose to implicate a man they did not know, in child abduction acusations and you could ask Murat, why he has never sought redress from these people. As Murat has been cleared it must be a simpler task, to find a Robert Murat doppelganger walking around Luz that night in the company of the Police and stating "hi I'm Robert Murat" instead of looking for swarthy Roma, blacks, dodgy whites, etc; etc;

What night? I thought this was discounted.

Also you want a doppleganger for Murat look at Payne, they are almost identical. Great idea you find someone who looks like DP, and point him out as being near to 5a at the time, just incase DP was seen ....... at some point of course.

And why would Murat do that, shake a ladies hand and say Hi I am Robert Murat...sounds totally made up to me....

by Rob Royston 05.11.13 13:47

Sockpuppet wrote:
jozi wrote:How do you know the police asked that question ?
Because of the word 'urged'.

If it wasn't the police, who else was present when he was giving his statement? The tea-lady perhaps?

by StraightThinking 05.11.13 13:51

Tony Bennett wrote:This is your golden opportunity to share with us your 'straight thinking'.
Please concentrate just on the simple 'basics' (which we've all been unnecessarily complicating) and tell us in a few words:
1. What probably happened to Madeleine McCann and
2. Why the case is not yet solved.

I am not going to fall into the trap of libelling anybody by accusing them of something I can't prove (unlike some people)
However I have a clear idea of what happened which is close to what some others on this forum appear to believe
Why is the case not solved?
Because not all criminals leave a clear trail behind them, some are very good at covering their tracks, others tell fibs, and the police need a solid case before they can take it to court
No government or media conspiracies

by notlongnow 05.11.13 13:55

StraightThinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:This is your golden opportunity to share with us your 'straight thinking'.
Please concentrate just on the simple 'basics' (which we've all been unnecessarily complicating) and tell us in a few words:
1. What probably happened to Madeleine McCann and
2. Why the case is not yet solved.
No government or media conspiracies

That either makes;

Mccs the best criminals that ever lived
Had lots of help
Not guilty
Very lucky