Re: 3 Prime Suspects Identified

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.14 17:16

This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.

by bobby18 12.01.14 17:18

Dee Coy wrote:I do like your theory of 'seeing the body and fleeing', bobby. It would solve a major difficulty the police must overcome before justice can be done. But I simply can't believe the burglars really exist, rather that the police have 'brought them into existence', like, imo, they have Crecheman.

Fair point on 'crecheman' , Dee Coy, but main difference is most people think that figment of imagination was created by JT before becoming SY's property.

After being 'identified' according to reports, I cannot see the being imaginary.

by mysterion 12.01.14 17:22

I don`t know what other people have seen whilst on holidays abroad, but I don`t recall seeing men walking around after 9pm with a young children in their arms. Such a situation would illicit "Ah, isn`t that sweet" comments.

I could believe it happening once in a small place, out of season, within a very limited time frame but no more than that.

by bobby18 12.01.14 17:27

Smokeandmirrors wrote:This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.

Again, fair point but in the absence of refuting it or even commenting, what message does that send to the general public?

Apart from seriously damaging a country's reputation.

by mysterion 12.01.14 17:36

As far as I can gather, the general public do not have an active interest in the MM case. The only thing they are interested in is "Have they found her or solved the case". After 6.5 years, the rest is ignored.

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.14 17:42

bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.
Again, fair point but in the absence of refuting it or even commenting, what message does that send to the general public?

Apart from seriously damaging a country's reputation.

SY doesn't need to say anything, and the media's view of the general public is so condescending, and the majority of the populous so stupid, that silly stories in the press are purely to separate a fool and his money and deflect attention away from the interesting stuff.

The timing, as usual, is the key thing here. There is normally anything up to a four day window prior to one of the McCann litigations or negative revelation, when these made up stories hits the new stands. After 6 and a half years of the same tired old pattern, and not one EVER has turned out to have led ANYWHERE.

IF Scotland Yard truly had any notion of a REAL suspect, the public would NOT be notified until AFTER the event.

These distracting made-up stories are pure mischief. They shouldn't be given the airtime on a serious forum.

by Guest 12.01.14 17:56

bobby18 wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:I do like your theory of 'seeing the body and fleeing', bobby. It would solve a major difficulty the police must overcome before justice can be done. But I simply can't believe the burglars really exist, rather that the police have 'brought them into existence', like, imo, they have Crecheman.
Fair point on 'crecheman' , Dee Coy, but main difference is most people think that figment of imagination was created by JT before becoming SY's property.

After being 'identified' according to reports, I cannot see the being imaginary.

People believe Tannerman was made up by Tanner, Crecheman has, imo, been made up and brought into being by the police as a means to an end - to shift the focus to Smithman without undermining Tanner. Crecheman was also identified by police, according to them, although I believe him to be imaginary. Why not the case again if they need to?

Anyway, like Smokeandmirrors said, it's only the press that have named the burglars as the reason for the letter of assistance. Like Tractorman, Burglarmen are probably more press, er, smoke and mirrors! big grin

I do like 'seeing the body and fleeing' as a theory, though. It would certainly solve a big headache if they could make it stick!

by bobby18 12.01.14 18:22

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.
Again, fair point but in the absence of refuting it or even commenting, what message does that send to the general public?

Apart from seriously damaging a country's reputation.

SY doesn't need to say anything, and the media's view of the general public is so condescending, and the majority of the populous so stupid, that silly stories in the press are purely to separate a fool and his money and deflect attention away from the interesting stuff.

The timing, as usual, is the key thing here. There is normally anything up to a four day window prior to one of the McCann litigations or negative revelation, when these made up stories hits the new stands. After 6 and a half years of the same tired old pattern, and not one EVER has turned out to have led ANYWHERE.

IF Scotland Yard truly had any notion of a REAL suspect, the public would NOT be notified until AFTER the event.

These distracting made-up stories are pure mischief. They shouldn't be given the airtime on a serious forum.

Without ANY comment from SY (I accept there would be limitationsand having been globally cited as 'identified', I would suggest that the burglar story has went beyond the point of 'pure mischief'. I do not see how it can now go away without clarification one way or the other.

Whilst being dismissive of the general public, do not underestimate their potential role in the conclusion of this case. Example, GA's book goes on widespread sale in UK to the 'majority stupid populous'- this would not have a potential impact?

I have been nothing but polite in my responses, I would appreciate that you would afford me the same.

Thank you.

by suzyjohnson 12.01.14 18:31

bobby18 wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:I think it's a possibility Bobby18, three burglars in the area the police want to know did any one of them see anything suspicious either inside or outside the apartment. It's also possible that anyone in the apartment would notice someone who had had a fatal accident before they had taken anything from the apartment (and would anyone want to keep anything from the apartment anyway if they had discovered such an accident?)

It's also possible that burglars kept quiet about anything they witnessed, but if the police are actually accusing them of a serious crime then they might wish to say what happened. If GM was involved in MM's disappearance, and burglars were at or in the apartment this would be an unhappy coincidence for him. However, with all the movements of the Tapas seven that night (as told in their witness statements) when would burglars have had the opportunity to go anywhere near apartment 5A without being seen? If burglars were in any apartments nearby then they may be able to disprove the statements of the Tapas group .........

So several possibilities to move the case forward there
Hi Suzy,

I would give SY the benefit of doubt and say they were part of it but not the be all to end all. I think most posters would be of the opinion that there were no regular checks and statements are a damage limitation to show 'reasonable parenting' , so burglary could have happened at any point between 7.30 - 9.30?

Mods - I'm new to this, so please keep me right on wording if I overstep. Thanks.

But all the Tapas group said in their statements about all the checking and if they haven't done all the checking they said they had then that would take some explaining. Not only would they have mislead the police but also potentially put a child's life in danger by not giving a true account of events that night.

The McCanns say they were in the apartment until 8.30 pm drinking wine in the lounge, so burglars could only have been in the apartment between 8.30 pm - 10 pm

by margaret 12.01.14 18:31

Am l missing something bobby18, l can't see smokeandmirrors has been rude? huh

by Guest 12.01.14 18:34

bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.
Again, fair point but in the absence of refuting it or even commenting, what message does that send to the general public?

Apart from seriously damaging a country's reputation.

SY doesn't need to say anything, and the media's view of the general public is so condescending, and the majority of the populous so stupid, that silly stories in the press are purely to separate a fool and his money and deflect attention away from the interesting stuff.

The timing, as usual, is the key thing here. There is normally anything up to a four day window prior to one of the McCann litigations or negative revelation, when these made up stories hits the new stands. After 6 and a half years of the same tired old pattern, and not one EVER has turned out to have led ANYWHERE.

IF Scotland Yard truly had any notion of a REAL suspect, the public would NOT be notified until AFTER the event.

These distracting made-up stories are pure mischief. They shouldn't be given the airtime on a serious forum.
Without ANY comment from SY (I accept there would be limitationsand having been globally cited as 'identified', I would suggest that the burglar story has went beyond the point of 'pure mischief'. I do not see how it can now go away without clarification one way or the other.

Whilst being dismissive of the general public, do not underestimate their potential role in the conclusion of this case. Example, GA's book goes on widespread sale in UK to the 'majority stupid populous'- this would not have a potential impact?

I have been nothing but polite in my responses, I would appreciate that you would afford me the same.

Thank you.

Good evening bobby18,
I am a little confused as this theory is evolving faster than my imagination.
Where in your opinion does the clarification about the 3 burglars need to come from?
Thank you.

by Guest 12.01.14 18:39

margaret wrote:Am l missing something bobby18, l can't see smokeandmirrors has been rude?

I agree. bobby18 a little less of the 'woe is me' would not go amiss.

by bobby18 12.01.14 18:50

candyfloss wrote:
margaret wrote:Am l missing something bobby18, l can't see smokeandmirrors has been rude?

I agree. bobby18 a little less of the 'woe is me' would not go amiss.

As a newbie, I thought the 'this shouldn't be given airtime on a serious forum' relating to suggested theories to the burglars was unnecessarily dismissive.

If oversensitive, I apologise to Smoke and Mirrors accordingly.

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.14 18:53

I'm sorry Bobby if you thought I was somehow being rude, not intended. I am just trying to cut through the latest in a long long line of hogwash printed about this case. Not ONE of the many news outlet that have parroted this latest drivel out have cited a source. Just a vague "the police" without any reference to the police having ACTUALLY said anything, so it remains mischief until the news is verified. Even if the "story" DID emanate from a "police source" they would most certainly NOT have been authorised to say ANYTHING of the sort to the press. That's guaranteed.

As to the populous, I stand by that. The general public (and I mean the majority, not the tiny number of researchers and campaigners), will have no impact on the outcome, it'll be solved, whitewashed or remain unsolved, the powers that be don't give a monkeys about the populous, but use their mighty PR machines to bulldoze through anything they want to achieve and present it in a way the gullible will lap up. That is how it is. Dumb down, control, pacify, spin a yarn. The people are more interested in Big Brother and trash gossip magazines and the ruling elite know it.

SY have a growing number of cover-up's and scandals already on the table, which will lead to years of inquiries, with a pre-determined outcome and a few dispensable souls thrown to the wolves for appearances sake.

The conclusion of this sorry saga may well have been decided some years ago, whatever needs to be kept hidden will be until such time as it suits someones agenda to use the truth for their own gain. Or until someone cracks under the strain and spills the beans, but even then, there is no guarantee of a just handling of such a matter.

by Woofer 12.01.14 18:57

tigger wrote:

Please can you manage to put your replies outside the box? You generally seem to manage it.

Yes miss, sorry miss.

by Guest 12.01.14 19:02

bobby18 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
margaret wrote:Am l missing something bobby18, l can't see smokeandmirrors has been rude?

I agree. bobby18 a little less of the 'woe is me' would not go amiss.
As a newbie, I thought the 'this shouldn't be given airtime on a serious forum' relating to suggested theories to the burglars was unnecessarily dismissive.

If oversensitive, I apologise to Smoke and Mirrors accordingly.

Yes, I think people do get a little oversensitive here sometimes, you just have to grow a thick skin when posting on forums. big grin

by suzyjohnson 12.01.14 19:09

Regarding burglars, I had assumed that one or two of the phone numbers were found by SY to belong to known burglars in the PdL area, or alternatively, witnesses had seen known burglars in the vicinity that night. Whether or not the burglars actually went inside apartment 5A they may have useful information to add to the inquiry, who did they see, or not see, around PdL? By letting these people know via the media that SY want to question them with regards to their involvement in a serious crime, potentially has the effect of making them reconsider their situation? The police could offer them an amnesty in exchange for information?

Regarding Crecheman, I think he does exist. I always thought the PJ interviewed, and eliminated, him at a very early stage of the inquiry. Given that JT said she saw GM and JW talking, but that neither of them saw her, I think indicates that JT was not on that road at that particular time, and I think it's possible that she saw Crecheman either at a different time, or place, or even on a different night to what she claimed. SY, having interviewed Crecheman and seen the Night Creche records, will know exactly what time she saw Crecheman and, quite possibly, where as well. If JT is not telling the truth than she will know that SY know that as well.

by bobby18 12.01.14 19:17

dantezebu wrote:
bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.
Again, fair point but in the absence of refuting it or even commenting, what message does that send to the general public?

Apart from seriously damaging a country's reputation.

SY doesn't need to say anything, and the media's view of the general public is so condescending, and the majority of the populous so stupid, that silly stories in the press are purely to separate a fool and his money and deflect attention away from the interesting stuff.

The timing, as usual, is the key thing here. There is normally anything up to a four day window prior to one of the McCann litigations or negative revelation, when these made up stories hits the new stands. After 6 and a half years of the same tired old pattern, and not one EVER has turned out to have led ANYWHERE.

IF Scotland Yard truly had any notion of a REAL suspect, the public would NOT be notified until AFTER the event.

These distracting made-up stories are pure mischief. They shouldn't be given the airtime on a serious forum.
Without ANY comment from SY (I accept there would be limitationsand having been globally cited as 'identified', I would suggest that the burglar story has went beyond the point of 'pure mischief'. I do not see how it can now go away without clarification one way or the other.

Whilst being dismissive of the general public, do not underestimate their potential role in the conclusion of this case. Example, GA's book goes on widespread sale in UK to the 'majority stupid populous'- this would not have a potential impact?

I have been nothing but polite in my responses, I would appreciate that you would afford me the same.

Thank you.

Good evening bobby18,
I am a little confused as this theory is evolving faster than my imagination.
Where in your opinion does the clarification about the 3 burglars need to come from?
Thank you.

I just feel that the use of the word 'identified' gives the 'burglars' exactly that - an identity. If made up, I think that puts more (and unnecessary) pressure on the story. Along with the current media spin (my interpretation) that PJ (and by association, Portugal) are hindering SY from bringing persons potentially responsible for a child's disappearance can just go away without clarification of some sort.

I fully accept that clarification my be 'eliminated from enquiries' but that is still clarification. Admittedly, only my opinion.

by bobbin 12.01.14 19:31

suzyjohnson wrote:Regarding burglars, I had assumed that one or two of the phone numbers were found by SY to belong to known burglars in the PdL area, or alternatively, witnesses had seen known burglars in the vicinity that night. Whether or not the burglars actually went inside apartment 5A they may have useful information to add to the inquiry, who did they see, or not see, around PdL? By letting these people know via the media that SY want to question them with regards to their involvement in a serious crime, potentially has the effect of making them reconsider their situation? The police could offer them an amnesty in exchange for information?

Regarding Crecheman, I think he does exist. I always thought the PJ interviewed, and eliminated, him at a very early stage of the inquiry. Given that JT said she saw GM and JW talking, but that neither of them saw her, I think indicates that JT was not on that road at that particular time, and I think it's possible that she saw Crecheman either at a different time, or place, or even on a different night to what she claimed. SY, having interviewed Crecheman and seen the Night Creche records, will know exactly what time she saw Crecheman and, quite possibly, where as well. If JT is not telling the truth than she will know that SY know that as well.

An interesting post.
So it's a sort of 'check mate' whichever way JT turns re crecheman, and 'interviewing a few local lags', with their own skins to protect, could make the 'real perpetrators' feel somewhat uneasy, wondering what these guys may have to say about any odd activity they might have seen, over the week, not just on the evening...
Even if it is a newspaper story and there is the chance of it being true, someone(s) might have reason to be getting worried. big grin

by bobby18 12.01.14 19:35

suzyjohnson wrote:Regarding burglars, I had assumed that one or two of the phone numbers were found by SY to belong to known burglars in the PdL area, or alternatively, witnesses had seen known burglars in the vicinity that night. Whether or not the burglars actually went inside apartment 5A they may have useful information to add to the inquiry, who did they see, or not see, around PdL? By letting these people know via the media that SY want to question them with regards to their involvement in a serious crime, potentially has the effect of making them reconsider their situation? The police could offer them an amnesty in exchange for information?

Regarding Crecheman, I think he does exist. I always thought the PJ interviewed, and eliminated, him at a very early stage of the inquiry. Given that JT said she saw GM and JW talking, but that neither of them saw her, I think indicates that JT was not on that road at that particular time, and I think it's possible that she saw Crecheman either at a different time, or place, or even on a different night to what she claimed. SY, having interviewed Crecheman and seen the Night Creche records, will know exactly what time she saw Crecheman and, quite possibly, where as well. If JT is not telling the truth than she will know that SY know that as well.

Very plausible imo.

by debs 12.01.14 20:02

so how and when exactly did all these burglars get to and from 5A without being noticed? The window of opportunity for an abductor is miniscule, so it would be even harder squeezing 3 burglars into it

by Guest 12.01.14 20:06

debs wrote:so how and when exactly did all these burglars get to and from 5A without being noticed? The window of opportunity for an abductor is miniscule, so it would be even harder squeezing 3 burglars into it

And not leaving any trace of their visit either. Incredible clever burglars, except they never actually manage to steal anything big grin

by debs 12.01.14 20:09

well given that they never managed to steal anything on two known missions, its stretching it a bit to call them burglars

by Guest 12.01.14 20:10

bobby18 wrote:
"I just feel that the use of the word 'identified' gives the 'burglars' exactly that - an identity. If made up, I think that puts more (and unnecessary) pressure on the story. Along with the current media spin (my interpretation) that PJ (and by association, Portugal) are hindering SY from bringing persons potentially responsible for a child's disappearance can just go away without clarification of some sort.

I fully accept that clarification my be 'eliminated from enquiries' but that is still clarification. Admittedly, only my opinion."

Thank you Bobby, but who exactly has identified the burglars?
Has there been an official press release from SY or PJ to this effect that I have missed?

by sallypelt 12.01.14 20:11

dantezebu wrote:
debs wrote:so how and when exactly did all these burglars get to and from 5A without being noticed? The window of opportunity for an abductor is miniscule, so it would be even harder squeezing 3 burglars into it

And not leaving any trace of their visit either. Incredible clever burglars, except they never actually manage to steal anything

Now, now, they "stole a child" but thank God, according the GM "nothing of value" was stolen music

Log in for more topics