Re: Madeleine McCann: are we any closer to knowing the truth?

by cloak'ndagger 07.09.14 11:15

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:
WMD wrote:
whatsupdoc wrote:
WMD wrote:
whatsupdoc wrote:I don't think any checking took place on the Thurday evening hence the need to cobble together a timeline or two.The twins may have been looked after by someone else in another app.

I have always thought that Madeleine died at the w/e and the parents had all week to sort out the problems. Cleaning the app. on the Thursday would have left a strong smell. I think that was done on the Monday, a very quiet day it would appear from the blog. The creche register certainly looks confusing.

Hence, the last people to see Madeleine would have been the parents and members of Tapas 7 who tried to save her life followed by a pact of silence.

My theory is better than the McCanns as it has 2 pieces of evidence, namely timelines. Who else has been out, left their young children alone, then come home and written a timeline....just bonkers ehh?
Does that rubbish Amaral's theory or enhance it.

I know G Amaral said she died on the Thursday but unless he knows a lot more than we do, which I'm sure he does, I think he was being as generous to the McCanns as he could be. He said accident rather than anything else and without a body, I don't know how time of death could have been known.

I'm 100% behind GA and the PJ/GNR who did as good a job as they were dealt by the McCanns. Fingers crossed he wins the upcoming trial.
Was his book more of a brief summary of what he thought happened rather than a full blown account? don't underestimate GA I hope he does know more and maybe it is kept back in the hope it will get to trial and anything else known can't be released Not all of the evidence collected by the PJ was released for fear of jeopardising a trial if it should happen. check I can see the OG going one of two ways,they have collected some previously missed piece of evidence and can help bring about a trial or there is not enough evidence to bring a charge of any thing against any one.All IMO. In the words of GA - when the McCann's are no longer protected.................

Amaral does know more and he has said he would add it to his next book.

When asked a direct question as to what he thinks happened to Maddie he has to answer what conclusion the investigation has led him to taking into account witness statements. Now we know that Catriona Baker says she saw Maddie at 5.30pm on May 3rd. Amaral has to accept that Maddie was still alive at that time or else he has to call Catriona Baker a liar.

I am pretty certain that Amaral knows that Baker is a dodgy witness having visited the McCanns at Rothley and having changed her statement and I doubt very much that he believes Maddie died in an accident but the investigation could not prove manslaughter/murder at the time he wrote his book.

Here is an interview Kazlux had with Amaral

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 07.09.14 12:29

I've said elsewhere that I believe that Amaral is the misplaced log in the woodpile,he just wouldn't roll over,the McCann's could carry on with what ever it is they wanted,courting publicity living a life of Reilly,but no the man who had the temerity to work out (or at least come close to it) what occurred couldn't be silenced not even with a offer of an out of court solution,to which we know not what draconian rules they would have placed on him.No he was quite willing and happy to have his day in court,he wasn't required to say anything,he didn't need to,for the Mccanns have to prove he harmed them or the investigation,not he had to prove he didn't.

Just hope he wins.

As an aside I understand the courts website is up and running in Lisbon again but no news on the resumption where the Lawyers have their final say.

by jeanmonroe 07.09.14 13:46

WMD:

As an aside I understand the courts website is up and running in Lisbon again but no news on the resumption where the Lawyers have their final say.
-----------------------------------------------------

OG's ELITE Maddie Cops will be on tenterhooks then!

Ready to 'deploy', at a moment's notice, to Portugal a few days BEFORE the 'final say'!

by palm tree 07.09.14 17:13

Let's keep fighting, aparently Jack the Ripper has been solved using 126 year old DNA with 100% match to a polish man! Amazing IMO

by **PeterMac** 07.09.14 17:36

cloak'ndagger wrote:
When asked a direct question as to what he thinks happened to Maddie he has to answer what conclusion the investigation has led him to taking into account witness statements. Now we know that Catriona Baker says she saw Maddie at 5.30pm on May 3rd. Amaral has to accept that Maddie was still alive at that time or else he has to call Catriona Baker a liar.

And he didn't at that time know that the Last Photo was a forgery, because at that stage none of us did.
He hadn't been given it by the McCanns, it wasn't the camera they handed over, but on the one they didn't,
so he didn't even know of its existence.
And he didn't know that Kate would completely alter her statement about the curtains from Wide open (police statement ) to Tight closed and whooshing
so the lack of any significant gusts of wind would have also been irrelevant.
And he would have had no reason to research the weather conditions for all the different days of the holiday, as we have done, to match that photo with Sunday lunchtime.

But we - and incidentally he - now DO know these things. But none of us, nor her, has any power to do the right thing.
That is down to DCI Redwood and the PJ and the CPS (oops, who mentioned them !)

by whatsupdoc 07.09.14 17:52

Catriona Baker says she saw Maddie at 5.30pm on May 3rd but if a substitute had been used since the Sunday, then she would assume she had seen Madeleine all week.

by comperedna 07.09.14 18:42

The 'substitute all week' idea doesn't wash with me, because no three going four year old child whose name was NOT Madeleine would answer to it... She would say: 'No I'm Melanie', or whatever. Children of that age cannot be sworn to secrecy, or so I think. I am more prepared to believe Ms Baker was 'mistaken'... and that is hard on Amaral.

by whatsupdoc 07.09.14 18:58

comperedna wrote:The 'substitute all week' idea doesn't wash with me, because no three going four year old child whose name was NOT Madeleine would answer to it... She would say: 'No I'm Melanie', or whatever. Children of that age cannot be sworn to secrecy, or so I think. I am more prepared to believe Ms Baker was 'mistaken'... and that is hard on Amaral.

I believe there was a young girl with the name Madelene there that week. If the PJ haven't already made inquiries re the possibility of a sustitute then I think it may prove very helpful. The was also a Mr. Naylor there with his daughter...both people worth investigating.

by Silverspeed 08.09.14 0:37

From Chelsea Hoffman on The Crime Scene Media site. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [url=http://www.crimescenemedia.com/search/label/cold case]cold case[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [url=http://www.crimescenemedia.com/search/label/madeleine mccann]madeleine mccann[/url] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Will Maddie's disappearance ever be solved?

Will Maddie's disappearance ever be solved?

September 6, 2014

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann remains on the minds of people across the globe, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]questions whether or not the truth is near in this case. The article also goes through all of the different avenues that have been investigated by both Portuguese detectives and officials with Scotland Yard. Nonetheless, the case remains unsolved, and it seems that the truth may never be known (or at least, not officially). [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in Portugal on "slowing down the hunt" for Maddie. However, it seems that the officials in Portugal have done the most comprehensive investigation. Their hard work is simply being ignored, and former detective Goncalo Amaral is treated as a liar when he alleges that the parents played a role in the girl's disappearance.

If anything has slowed down the investigation, it's Scotland Yard's refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against the original suspects in the case. Kate and Gerry McCann were declared suspects in Portugal not long after Maddie vanished. The evidence against Kate and Gerry includes the sniffer dog evidence that they've long scoffed at, as well as Kate's refusal to cooperate with interrogation early in the search, and the total lack of evidence of an abduction. The evidence that exists in this case[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the night her parents left her alone while they enjoyed "adult time" at a nearby tapas bar. So if SY detectives are so frustrated with the case, why won't they go back to square one

by cloak'ndagger 08.09.14 11:41

whatsupdoc wrote:
comperedna wrote:The 'substitute all week' idea doesn't wash with me, because no three going four year old child whose name was NOT Madeleine would answer to it... She would say: 'No I'm Melanie', or whatever. Children of that age cannot be sworn to secrecy, or so I think. I am more prepared to believe Ms Baker was 'mistaken'... and that is hard on Amaral.

I believe there was a young girl with the name Madelene there that week. If the PJ haven't already made inquiries re the possibility of a sustitute then I think it may prove very helpful. The was also a Mr. Naylor there with his daughter...both people worth investigating.

Mr. Naylor's daughter's name is Elizabeht and her best friend is Madeline. Robert Naylor signed his daughter and Madeleine McCann in for 5 days

by whatsupdoc 08.09.14 12:40

cloak'ndagger wrote:
whatsupdoc wrote:
comperedna wrote:The 'substitute all week' idea doesn't wash with me, because no three going four year old child whose name was NOT Madeleine would answer to it... She would say: 'No I'm Melanie', or whatever. Children of that age cannot be sworn to secrecy, or so I think. I am more prepared to believe Ms Baker was 'mistaken'... and that is hard on Amaral.

I believe there was a young girl with the name Madelene there that week. If the PJ haven't already made inquiries re the possibility of a sustitute then I think it may prove very helpful. The was also a Mr. Naylor there with his daughter...both people worth investigating.
Mr. Naylor's daughter's name is Elizabeht and her best friend is Madeline. Robert Naylor signed his daughter and Madeleine McCann in for 5 days

Thanks for that, I did remember the name Elizabeth but got the spelling of RN's daughter wrong (e instead of an i). I wonder if the PJ made any sense of the Register?

by cloak'ndagger 08.09.14 13:01

whatsupdoc wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:
whatsupdoc wrote:
comperedna wrote:The 'substitute all week' idea doesn't wash with me, because no three going four year old child whose name was NOT Madeleine would answer to it... She would say: 'No I'm Melanie', or whatever. Children of that age cannot be sworn to secrecy, or so I think. I am more prepared to believe Ms Baker was 'mistaken'... and that is hard on Amaral.

I believe there was a young girl with the name Madelene there that week. If the PJ haven't already made inquiries re the possibility of a sustitute then I think it may prove very helpful. The was also a Mr. Naylor there with his daughter...both people worth investigating.
Mr. Naylor's daughter's name is Elizabeht and her best friend is Madeline. Robert Naylor signed his daughter and Madeleine McCann in for 5 days

Thanks for that, I did remember the name Elizabeth but got the spelling of RN's daughter wrong (e instead of an i). I wonder if the PJ made any sense of the Register?

Well some of the crèche sheets were withheld so I imagine the PJ must have studied them

by jeanmonroe 08.09.14 13:30

WOOHOOOO!

I've CRACKED him wot dunnit, innit?

"The staff at the tapas restaurant had left a note in a staff message book asking that the same table, The message said the group's children were asleep in the apartments, and the staff book was left at the swimming-pool reception area. Madeleine's mother believes that the abductor may have seen the note"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WORLD EXCLUSIFF!

By IVA INKLING.

Exclusiff Ocean Club 'reception' desk CCTV footage, from May 3rd 2007..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

OCEAN CLUB RECEPTION DESK STAFF MEMBER 'BREAKS PACT OF SILENCE' AFTER 7 'TORMENTED' YEARS

"he was looking through our staff book notes, and asked if any of the guests had left their kids, alone, in unlocked apartments" said the, until now, silent, OC, PDL, reception area desk staff member.

"He was well proper creepy, with all them bandages on, even right down to cover his feet"

"Brrrr, he still gives me the right heebie-jeebies, even now, over seven years later"

by cloak'ndagger 08.09.14 13:33

jeanmonroe wrote:WOOHOOOO!

I've CRACKED him wot dunnit, innit?

"The staff at the tapas restaurant had left a note in a staff message book asking that the same table, The message said the group's children were asleep in the apartments, and the staff book was left at the swimming-pool reception area. Madeleine's mother believes that the abductor may have seen the note"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WORLD EXCLUSIFF!

By IVA INKLING.

Exclusiff Ocean Club 'reception' desk CCTV footage, from May 3rd 2007..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

OCEAN CLUB RECEPTION DESK STAFF MEMBER 'BREAKS PACT OF SILENCE' AFTER 7 'TORMENTED' YEARS

"he was looking through our staff book notes, and asked if any of the guests had left their kids, alone, in their apartments" said the, until now, silent, OC, PDL, reception area desk staff member.

"He was well proper creepy, with all them bandages on, even right down to cover his feet"

"Brrrr, he still gives me the right heebie-jeebies, even now, over seven years later"

Ha ha ..brilliant laughat

by Guest 08.09.14 14:48

Okeydokey wrote:

What would you do? Sit down and construct a timeline? Or rush out in the direction indicated by Jane's sighting, banging on vehicles, looking in ditches,calling out Madeleine's name*...

I think I'd be too busy throttling Oldfield into telling me exactly what he saw at his 9.30pm check. In fact, if I was Gerry and all of this was above board, I don't think I would have relented in my doubts about Oldfield to this day.

by jeanmonroe 08.09.14 15:39

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:

What would you do? Sit down and construct a timeline? Or rush out in the direction indicated by Jane's sighting, banging on vehicles, looking in ditches,calling out Madeleine's name*...

I think I'd be too busy throttling Oldfield into telling me exactly what he saw at his 9.30pm check. In fact, if I was Gerry and all of this was above board, I don't think I would have relented in my doubts about Oldfield to this day.

EXACTLY!

But Gerry still has fun days out with Oldfield doing 'charidy' runs for Missing People, on Clapham Common.

The 'problem' with what did Oldfield 'see' at 9:30 pm would throw a massive spanner into Andy's 'forget everything you think you know til now, we are able to move the timeline, away totally from the T9 members, on til 10:00pm'

DCI Redwood didn't even blink an eye, on national TV, when he totally 're-wrote' ALL previous 'timelines' EVEN the T9's OWN typewritten timeline in which ALL T9 'members' collaborated in drawing up!.

All of the T9's carefully drawn up 'crib sheets' (timelines) DISSED, in an instant, by an elite, experienced, 30 year career cop!

The trouble with DCI Mahogany's re-writing of the 'timeline' is that he is, in effect, saying that ALL the timelines by the T9 were WRONG!

But i'm sure he's far to diplomatic to ever say "ALL of the T9 'lied' with their 'crib sheets' er, timelines.

Perhaps DCI Redwood thinks all the people, in the UK, are as BLIND as he appears to be about this case, and they didn't SEE what he had done by 'shifting' timeline, so McCanns and their 'friends' couldn't have done 'IT'!

Memo to Andy and Grange: I, and many, many thousands, DID 'see'!

A bit like super sleuth McCann PI, Dave 'Grabbit' Edgar's 'CLASSIC' " it DOSEN'T matter WHERE key witnesses WERE standing at the exact time of the crime, at 9:15/20pm,( ~~er, umm, 10.....10:00pm. The 'disappearance' time is 10pm NOW, Andy, isn't it?~~ ) on the night of 3rd May 2007"

by palm tree 15.09.14 23:11

Really now, you gotta ask this, IF the mcs are innocent, we'd have known long before now. Parents of a child that had been taken, would've answered all questions put to them, would've jumped at the chance of a reconstruction, would've handed over the true last photo, would've got her medical records for the police, would've given her toothbrush to police and more importantly would've actually looked in the direction tannerman was walking off with possibly their daughter.
To still be in this same position today, they should, even to get a few more people to trust them, do the reconstruction, answer the questions and take a lie detector test. Anything that would let people know that they are innocent, will they? IMO, no. And that's the reason why people just don't believe them, and a lot of other things too.
Could you imagine when the twins become adults, then they tell all, saying something along the lines of, we love our children so much, that we just wanted to raise the twins ourselves, and now they're grown up, we want to do the right thing for Maddie? Some parents might think like this.
IMO

by NickE 16.09.14 8:19

whatsupdoc wrote:
comperedna wrote:The 'substitute all week' idea doesn't wash with me, because no three going four year old child whose name was NOT Madeleine would answer to it... She would say: 'No I'm Melanie', or whatever. Children of that age cannot be sworn to secrecy, or so I think. I am more prepared to believe Ms Baker was 'mistaken'... and that is hard on Amaral.

I believe there was a young girl with the name Madelene there that week. If the PJ haven't already made inquiries re the possibility of a sustitute then I think it may prove very helpful. The was also a Mr. Naylor there with his daughter...both people worth investigating.

Madalene Rid*r,daughter to Sarah F*x and Joe Rid*r,best friend with Elizabeth Naylor,even today.
Madalene R was in pdl at the time.

by .Guest.. 16.09.14 10:21

canada12 wrote:
Evening_All wrote:So in relation to my earlier question : Who were the last people to see her? Who checked the apartment and looked in? Anytime I've checked children at night I at least verify they are still safely tucked up in bed.

If we discount The Last Picture as being counterfeit (at least because the EXIF data for time /date has been altered)...
If we discount The Tennis Photo as being unreliable because it may or may not be Madeleine and there's confusion around when it was taken and by whom...
If we discount the creche records because they don't seem to be reliable...
If we discount the nannies because they may not have been able to positively identify Madeleine on sight...
If we discount all of the Tapas 9 because their claims are unreliable...
If we discount Kate and Gerry because their claims are unreliable...
If we believe that THIS is a true picture of Madeleine, taken in the first day or so of the holiday...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Then the person who took this photo is probably the last person who saw Madeleine alive and can produce proof of it.

IMO this child is very similar to the one purported to be MBM in the "Last photo" It looks very like it was taken in the pool area (tree.wall etc) and there could be one of several explanations for this
1 It really is MBM in 2007 in PDL
2 It is MBM but the previous year. Looks younger than 4 etc
3 The real MBM has been photoshopped into the PDL background
4 A substitute child was deliberately posed in PDL but MBM`s face has been shopped in

There are probably other scenarios but what it does highlight is that TM have made it as difficult as possible for the truth to surface. IMO
BTW off topic but it has just been announced that Shaun Wright has resigned. No connection impiled to this case.

by NickE 17.09.14 7:01

anon357 wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Evening_All wrote:So in relation to my earlier question : Who were the last people to see her? Who checked the apartment and looked in? Anytime I've checked children at night I at least verify they are still safely tucked up in bed.

If we discount The Last Picture as being counterfeit (at least because the EXIF data for time /date has been altered)...
If we discount The Tennis Photo as being unreliable because it may or may not be Madeleine and there's confusion around when it was taken and by whom...
If we discount the creche records because they don't seem to be reliable...
If we discount the nannies because they may not have been able to positively identify Madeleine on sight...
If we discount all of the Tapas 9 because their claims are unreliable...
If we discount Kate and Gerry because their claims are unreliable...
If we believe that THIS is a true picture of Madeleine, taken in the first day or so of the holiday...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Then the person who took this photo is probably the last person who saw Madeleine alive and can produce proof of it.
IMO this child is very similar to the one purported to be MBM in the "Last photo" It looks very like it was taken in the pool area (tree.wall etc) and there could be one of several explanations for this
1 It really is MBM in 2007 in PDL
2 It is MBM but the previous year. Looks younger than 4 etc
3 The real MBM has been photoshopped into the PDL background
4 A substitute child was deliberately posed in PDL but MBM`s face has been shopped in

There are probably other scenarios but what it does highlight is that TM have made it as difficult as possible for the truth to surface. IMO
BTW off topic but it has just been announced that Shaun Wright has resigned. No connection impiled to this case.

Is it possible to see what kind of camera he/she used for this Photo?
EXIF data?

by Baldrick 17.09.14 15:27

palm tree wrote:Really now, you gotta ask this, IF the mcs are innocent, we'd have known long before now. Parents of a child that had been taken, would've answered all questions put to them, would've jumped at the chance of a reconstruction, would've handed over the true last photo, would've got her medical records for the police, would've given her toothbrush to police and more importantly would've actually looked in the direction tannerman was walking off with possibly their daughter.
To still be in this same position today, they should, even to get a few more people to trust them, do the reconstruction, answer the questions and take a lie detector test. Anything that would let people know that they are innocent, will they? IMO, no. And that's the reason why people just don't believe them, and a lot of other things too.
Could you imagine when the twins become adults, then they tell all, saying something along the lines of, we love our children so much, that we just wanted to raise the twins ourselves, and now they're grown up, we want to do the right thing for Maddie? Some parents might think like this.
IMO

So you think they might come clean when the twins are 18

They wouldn't know truth if it hit them with a brick. IMO they will never talk. because they are too scared of the high profile people they have included along side them.

If KM carries on ageing like the last 7 years she wont see another 7, she looks ill

by palm tree 17.09.14 18:33

Baldrick wrote:
palm tree wrote:Really now, you gotta ask this, IF the mcs are innocent, we'd have known long before now. Parents of a child that had been taken, would've answered all questions put to them, would've jumped at the chance of a reconstruction, would've handed over the true last photo, would've got her medical records for the police, would've given her toothbrush to police and more importantly would've actually looked in the direction tannerman was walking off with possibly their daughter.
To still be in this same position today, they should, even to get a few more people to trust them, do the reconstruction, answer the questions and take a lie detector test. Anything that would let people know that they are innocent, will they? IMO, no. And that's the reason why people just don't believe them, and a lot of other things too.
Could you imagine when the twins become adults, then they tell all, saying something along the lines of, we love our children so much, that we just wanted to raise the twins ourselves, and now they're grown up, we want to do the right thing for Maddie? Some parents might think like this.
IMO

So you think they might come clean when the twins are 18

They wouldn't know truth if it hit them with a brick. IMO they will never talk. because they are too scared of the high profile people they have included along side them.

If KM carries on ageing like the last 7 years she wont see another 7, she looks ill

No Baldrick, it's too late now to come clean, was just asking could you imagine if they did. In saying that though, it could be that if and when, if it was an accident, they could come out with it. You know, yes, it was an accident, while we weren't with her, but it was too late for Maddie, we wanted to bring the twins up ourselves. In other words they done it for the children.
No facts there ofcourse, just IMO

by HelenMeg 30.09.14 10:07

SY Op Grange have gone very very quiet. Is it the calm before the storm?

by woodbine 30.09.14 14:46

HelenMeg wrote:SY Op Grange have gone very very quiet. Is it the calm before the storm?

They've just got a few million more people to rule out before they start investigating what is right in front of their face...

by pennylane 30.09.14 15:58

woodbine wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:SY Op Grange have gone very very quiet. Is it the calm before the storm?
They've just got a few million more people to rule out before they start investigating what is right in front of their face...

DCI Redwood is busy pacing the floor, waiting for the new damages trial date! He has 'an important new lead, and a significant person of interest to interview,' and will fly out to Portugal with his Team that week. yes

by aiyoyo 30.09.14 16:03

pennylane wrote:
woodbine wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:SY Op Grange have gone very very quiet. Is it the calm before the storm?
They've just got a few million more people to rule out before they start investigating what is right in front of their face...

DCI Redwood is busy pacing the floor, waiting for the new damages trial date! He has 'an important new lead, and a significant person of interest to interview,' and will fly out to Portugal with his Team that week.

They are definitely not in a hurry aren't they? Can't be hoping to recover/retrieve an abducted child.

Corpse can wait (sorry, that's a bit stark)! Too late anyway.

by bobbin 30.09.14 16:11

aiyoyo wrote:
pennylane wrote:
woodbine wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:SY Op Grange have gone very very quiet. Is it the calm before the storm?
They've just got a few million more people to rule out before they start investigating what is right in front of their face...

DCI Redwood is busy pacing the floor, waiting for the new damages trial date! He has 'an important new lead, and a significant person of interest to interview,' and will fly out to Portugal with his Team that week.

They are definitely not in a hurry aren't they? Can't be hoping to recover/retrieve an abducted child.

Corpse can wait (sorry, that's a bit stark)! Too late anyway.

I think we'll have a VERY clear indicator of which powder is being used in this case, if a 'coincidental' UK police presence or other 'distraction' occurs 'coincidentally' with Gonçalo's court case announcement. dance

by plebgate 30.09.14 16:14

If the libel trial doesn't start again until ?January, Mr. Redwood wont be there, retirement end of this year.

by woodbine 30.09.14 16:29

They are just investigating Cristiano Ronaldo's whereabouts, and they will have officially ruled out everyone that was either in Portugal that week or was born in Portugal. Apart from the tapas crowd of course. Then they start phase 2 - question anyone that looks a bit shifty. Apart from GM.