Re: Follow the money trail.

by Khaleesi 11.01.15 17:27

Ladyinred wrote:
I haven't read anywhere on this forum that M.Rider arrived/stayed with the Naylor family at the OC. What I have read is that the Rider family were holidaying at PdL but not at the OC.

Ok. But is there any evidence that they did stay in PdL?

by j.rob 11.01.15 18:45

Khaleesi wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
I haven't read anywhere on this forum that M.Rider arrived/stayed with the Naylor family at the OC. What I have read is that the Rider family were holidaying at PdL but not at the OC.

Ok. But is there any evidence that they did stay in PdL?

There is no evidence that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a mystery (probably paedophile) person from the apartment. But that hasn't stopped the story running and running. With people being sued for advancing other theories. For instance Detective Amaral.

by j.rob 11.01.15 18:49

Khaleesi wrote:Someone cares to explain where this Madeleine Ryder/Rider story stems from? Naylors came to the Ocean Club the same day as the McCanns, but there was no additional child with them. See? Two adults, one toddler, one baby, no Madeleine Ryder/rider, aged three.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did they smuggle Madeleine into the resort in their luggage?

Now, you can read both the MW and the Cook arrivals lists to and fro, you can toss them and turn, but you won't find there any Ryders or Riders. Many of you are happy to use M. Ryder in your theories, as if that story was a proven fact, the face of her supposed mother, Sarah Fox, is for everyone to see in one of the threads here. So may I ask you what is the source of that story? Other than "It is purported that..."?

Can you please produce the evidence that it is a proven fact that Madeleine McCann was abducted from apartment 5A by a mystery person? The McCanns and their acolytes have put forward this theory as though it is a proven fact. Where is the evidence for this? What is the source of the story? The McCanns and their supporters (a rapidly dwindling number) have merely purported a theory. They should not put their theory forward as fact. Because there is no evidence to back it up.

by j.rob 11.01.15 18:55

Dee Coy wrote:
j.rob wrote:Does Madalene Rider have a coloboma?

This is the $64 question. If the answer is yes the mystery would become academic.

Must be quite easy to verify this.

On the back cover of Kate McCann's book there is a photo which purports to show Madeleine McCann aged 3 and a half taken in January 2007. The photo shows a distinct coloboma. There is also an age-progressed image of Madeleine aged 6. Again, a coloboma is quite distinct.

Yet but parents admit that Madeleine McCann did not have a coloboma.

So who did?

by ultimaThule 11.01.15 19:23

Khaleesi wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
I haven't read anywhere on this forum that M.Rider arrived/stayed with the Naylor family at the OC. What I have read is that the Rider family were holidaying at PdL but not at the OC.

Ok. But is there any evidence that they did stay in PdL?

The fact that there is no evidence in that part of the PJ files which are in public domain to the effect that the Rider family were staying at the OC does not preclude the possibility that they were in Portugal during the week 28 April-5 May 2007.

It should also be understood that no theory which is purported here can be substantiated without access to the resources of a police investigation..

by Khaleesi 11.01.15 19:48

j.rob wrote:

Can you please produce the evidence that it is a proven fact that Madeleine McCann was abducted from apartment 5A by a mystery person? The McCanns and their acolytes have put forward this theory as though it is a proven fact. Where is the evidence for this? What is the source of the story? The McCanns and their supporters (a rapidly dwindling number) have merely purported a theory. They should not put their theory forward as fact. Because there is no evidence to back it up.

Do I support here or anywhere a theory that Maddie was kidnapped? No. So why I should prove it as a fact? On the other hand some people here build their theories using the Madeleine Ryder (or, more correctly Madalene Rider) story as if it was a proven fact. So I am asking what is the source of it and what is the evidence that the Riders even were in PdL? I prefer facts over the gossip and unsupported stories.

by Liz Eagles 11.01.15 19:51

Khaleesi wrote:
j.rob wrote:

Can you please produce the evidence that it is a proven fact that Madeleine McCann was abducted from apartment 5A by a mystery person? The McCanns and their acolytes have put forward this theory as though it is a proven fact. Where is the evidence for this? What is the source of the story? The McCanns and their supporters (a rapidly dwindling number) have merely purported a theory. They should not put their theory forward as fact. Because there is no evidence to back it up.

Do I support here or anywhere a theory that Maddie was kidnapped? No. So why I should prove it as a fact? On the other hand some people here build their theories using the Madeleine Ryder (or, more correctly Madalene Rider) story as if it was a proven fact. So I am asking what is the source of it and what is the evidence that the Riders even were in PdL? I prefer facts over the gossip and unsupported stories.

I agree Khaleesi.

by j.rob 11.01.15 20:41

Khaleesi wrote:
j.rob wrote:

Can you please produce the evidence that it is a proven fact that Madeleine McCann was abducted from apartment 5A by a mystery person? The McCanns and their acolytes have put forward this theory as though it is a proven fact. Where is the evidence for this? What is the source of the story? The McCanns and their supporters (a rapidly dwindling number) have merely purported a theory. They should not put their theory forward as fact. Because there is no evidence to back it up.

Do I support here or anywhere a theory that Maddie was kidnapped? No. So why I should prove it as a fact? On the other hand some people here build their theories using the Madeleine Ryder (or, more correctly Madalene Rider) story as if it was a proven fact. So I am asking what is the source of it and what is the evidence that the Riders even were in PdL? I prefer facts over the gossip and unsupported stories.

But the McCanns support this theory as fact.

Why should I or anyone else support a theory as fact, when the McCanns and their toadies do not?

by j.rob 11.01.15 20:42

aquila wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:
j.rob wrote:

Can you please produce the evidence that it is a proven fact that Madeleine McCann was abducted from apartment 5A by a mystery person? The McCanns and their acolytes have put forward this theory as though it is a proven fact. Where is the evidence for this? What is the source of the story? The McCanns and their supporters (a rapidly dwindling number) have merely purported a theory. They should not put their theory forward as fact. Because there is no evidence to back it up.

Do I support here or anywhere a theory that Maddie was kidnapped? No. So why I should prove it as a fact? On the other hand some people here build their theories using the Madeleine Ryder (or, more correctly Madalene Rider) story as if it was a proven fact. So I am asking what is the source of it and what is the evidence that the Riders even were in PdL? I prefer facts over the gossip and unsupported stories.
I agree Khaleesi.

A theory is a theory. Not a fact. Get your facts right.

by Khaleesi 11.01.15 21:09

j.rob wrote:

A theory is a theory. Not a fact. Get your facts right.

Why so aggressive? I just asked about the sources of this particular story. Is that something wrong? And, primo, you can't base a theory on another theory, secundo stating "there were one Riders in Praia, at the same time as McCanns" is not a theory. A definition might come in handy here:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Stating that Riders were in Praia is not a theory. Not at all, I'm afraid.

And tertio, plastering a face and name of a woman on the forum, because someone somewhere said she and her family might have been in Praia and another someone built a theory in it, is just plain wrong, as we don't have even a shred of evidence that she is involved in Maddie's case. Do we?

by Liz Eagles 11.01.15 21:12

Khaleesi wrote:
j.rob wrote:

A theory is a theory. Not a fact. Get your facts right.

Why so aggressive? I just asked about the sources of this particular story. Is that something wrong? And, primo, you can't base a theory on another theory, secundo stating "there were one Riders in Praia, at the same time as McCanns" is not a theory. A definition might come in handy here:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Stating that Riders were in Praia is not a theory. Not at all, I'm afraid.

And tertio, plastering a face and name of a woman on the forum, because someone somewhere said she and her family might have been in Praia and another someone built a theory in it, is just plain wrong, as we don't have even a shred of evidence that she is involved in Maddie's case. Do we?

Once again Khaleesi, I agree.

by Khaleesi 11.01.15 21:15

j.rob wrote:
But the McCanns support this theory as fact.

The McCanns also neglect their kids. Should we do it too?

Why should I or anyone else support a theory as fact, when the McCanns and their toadies do not?

I don't actually get what are you trying to tell here huh

by woodforthetrees 12.01.15 10:10

j.rob wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:
j.rob wrote:

Can you please produce the evidence that it is a proven fact that Madeleine McCann was abducted from apartment 5A by a mystery person? The McCanns and their acolytes have put forward this theory as though it is a proven fact. Where is the evidence for this? What is the source of the story? The McCanns and their supporters (a rapidly dwindling number) have merely purported a theory. They should not put their theory forward as fact. Because there is no evidence to back it up.

Do I support here or anywhere a theory that Maddie was kidnapped? No. So why I should prove it as a fact? On the other hand some people here build their theories using the Madeleine Ryder (or, more correctly Madalene Rider) story as if it was a proven fact. So I am asking what is the source of it and what is the evidence that the Riders even were in PdL? I prefer facts over the gossip and unsupported stories.

But the McCanns support this theory as fact.

Why should I or anyone else support a theory as fact, when the McCanns and their toadies do not?

Mccanns Theory:
The McCanns are pushing their 'theory' that Madeleine was abducted alive by someone who didn't want to harm her. Reason for this being that as long as they keep the 'alive theory going, the cadaver evidence can't be substantiated and as such, they can't be charged with neglecting Madeleine for hours on end as opposed to 15 ins max as per the tapas 7 BS rota.

SY Fact:
SY are not considering the McCanns or the tapas 7 as suspects for the movement/disposal of Madeleine. They searching for a lone paedo. (rightly or wrongly is to be proven).

Unconfirmed (based on what SY are doing/saying), so half theory/half fact: SY also know she died in the apartment (hence the digs and their 'change of thinking'), but without the perp or the body, this cannot be proven.

My opinion on the 'Madeleine double': Think this is conspiracy gone mad and there is nothing to support this theory that i can see.

by Joss 12.01.15 10:52

Khaleesi wrote:
j.rob wrote:

Can you please produce the evidence that it is a proven fact that Madeleine McCann was abducted from apartment 5A by a mystery person? The McCanns and their acolytes have put forward this theory as though it is a proven fact. Where is the evidence for this? What is the source of the story? The McCanns and their supporters (a rapidly dwindling number) have merely purported a theory. They should not put their theory forward as fact. Because there is no evidence to back it up.

Do I support here or anywhere a theory that Maddie was kidnapped? No. So why I should prove it as a fact? On the other hand some people here build their theories using the Madeleine Ryder (or, more correctly Madalene Rider) story as if it was a proven fact. So I am asking what is the source of it and what is the evidence that the Riders even were in PdL? I prefer facts over the gossip and unsupported stories.

I think it adds more confusion to an already confusing case, and i have never really seen a substitute child for Madeleine somehow ringing true. But that's just my opinion.

by Guest 12.01.15 11:39

woodforthetrees wrote:

Mccanns Theory:
The McCanns are pushing their 'theory' that Madeleine was abducted alive by someone who didn't want to harm her. Reason for this being that as long as they keep the 'alive theory going, the cadaver evidence can't be substantiated and as such, they can't be charged with neglecting Madeleine for hours on end as opposed to 15 ins max as per the tapas 7 BS rota.

SY Fact:
SY are not considering the McCanns or the tapas 7 as suspects for the movement/disposal of Madeleine. They searching for a lone paedo. (rightly or wrongly is to be proven).

Unconfirmed (based on what SY are doing/saying), so half theory/half fact: SY also know she died in the apartment (hence the digs and their 'change of thinking'), but without the perp or the body, this cannot be proven.

My opinion on the 'Madeleine double': Think this is conspiracy gone mad and there is nothing to support this theory that i can see.

The SY way of thinking if indeed thats where they are regards the lone paedo leaves them with two possible scenarios but end's in one place,the first being if leaving aside the tapas lot and they are searching for a paedo and only a paedo then if there is insufficient evidence to pursue any one then it leaves them where? nothing to exonerate the McCanns.The other is ok lets go down the paedo route just to be absolutely clear this did not happen,the end result with out evidence is the same.All IMO of course.

Whilst finding nothing on anyone as regards a lone wolf,then it leaves them with out that angle but must surely lead them to the tapas lot,is there enough evidence to secure a conviction is what it all boils down to.

As regards the money trail,I think if Amaral wins the case then it will leave them up a creek without the paddle.
They pursued him with with the arrogant thought of no way will he contest this,we'll have his money from the book and it will show anyone who dares print we will pursue and win,but oh no much to there dismay and anger no doubt and much to his credit because he know's he is right Mr Amaral would not back down even with the plaintiffs wanting to settle out of court,nope he is having his day and maybe just maybe if successful it will put a stop to the money grabbing.

All the above is opinion based on nothing but having the freedom of free speech and thought.

by j.rob 12.01.15 12:44

It is POSSIBLE that another child was signed in as Madeleine McCann that week on one or more occasions.

The analysis done of the creche signatures is of interest to me.

It is a FACT that there was "a disaster" that week as Gerry McCann told family members on Thursday night. The "disaster" that Gerry speaks of I suspect is connected not just to what happened to Madeleine that week, but also to other factors.

I think someone or several people landed them in it - right at the last minute. Naturally this is my opinion only based on scrutiny of various FACTS.

"The f****** b******* have taken her" cries Kate. Kate tells a social worker that a couple had taken Madeleine.

Gerry tells Mrs Fenn that a girl has gone missing. He does not say "my daughter" which Mrs Fenn finds odd.

Robert Murat claims that there has been "the biggest c*** u* in history." He flies out to Portugal at the last minute early in the week. I believe this is directly linked to something terrible happening to Madeleine McCann early in the week.

My own opinion is that Madeleine McCann was an abused child. I think she was crying hysterically one evening (possibly Monday night when Mrs Fenn heard anguised crying coming from the apartment for an hour and a quarter. This stopped suddenly when Mrs Fenn heard someone entering the apartment. I think Kate lost her temper with Madeleine and, to use the word Russell used in one of his rogatories "clobbered" her.

Kate pretty much tells us what happened in an early media interview. Madeleine was crying. Kate mimics grabbing Madeleine by the shoulders and shaking her vigorously. This is not what a caring parent does when a child is crying. Watch the media interview. It is incredibly damning and Gerry has got a look on his face like a naughty school-boy. Completely inappropriate.

They are both guilty of at least neglect and, imo, child abuse.

Kate cannot face the reality, imo, that GM, DP and quite possibly other tapas males (and maybe wider acquaintances of theirs who were possibly at OC that week) are paedos. Some evidence for this is a statement given to police by the Gaspers who went on holiday with the McCanns the summer before. Rather then protecting her children, and getting away from Gerry, she lashed out on Madeleine. She adopted the ostrich approach which is not at all uncommon when women are involved with men who are abusive in some way. A bit like Stockholm syndrome. A sort of co-dependent approach.

There are a million red flags blowing in the wind with regard to this. There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine McCann was abducted from the apartment by a random mystery person or persons. All the signs are that the parents and their friends have an involvement in her 'disappearance' as is very often the case when children disappear in suspicious circumstances.

The police were astonished by the behaviour of the McCanns and their friends that evening. They do not search for Madeleine. They make a priority of drawing up a time-line rather than searching. They do not find Jane Tanner's 'sighting' credible. Neither does Jez Wilkins who was allegedly talking to Gerry when Jane walked past yet Jez claims he saw neither Jane or Tanner-man. Odd.

All the evidence is that Madeleine came to horrible harm that week and that the parents tried to cover it up by claiming she had been abducted. This is what detective Amaral thinks and he must know more than most about the case.

I am simply giving an opinion on what I think happened.

by j.rob 12.01.15 12:50

Khaleesi wrote:
j.rob wrote:

Can you please produce the evidence that it is a proven fact that Madeleine McCann was abducted from apartment 5A by a mystery person? The McCanns and their acolytes have put forward this theory as though it is a proven fact. Where is the evidence for this? What is the source of the story? The McCanns and their supporters (a rapidly dwindling number) have merely purported a theory. They should not put their theory forward as fact. Because there is no evidence to back it up.

Do I support here or anywhere a theory that Maddie was kidnapped? No. So why I should prove it as a fact? On the other hand some people here build their theories using the Madeleine Ryder (or, more correctly Madalene Rider) story as if it was a proven fact. So I am asking what is the source of it and what is the evidence that the Riders even were in PdL? I prefer facts over the gossip and unsupported stories.

No they do not. It is a theory. Not a fact. It is possible.If Madeleine came to harm early in the week, it is possible that another child was signed in as Madeleine McCann. Why did the McCann parents perpetuate the lie that Madeleine McCann had a coloboma? This is a fact. They lied about her eye. Why do this?

by woodforthetrees 12.01.15 12:59

WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

Mccanns Theory:
The McCanns are pushing their 'theory' that Madeleine was abducted alive by someone who didn't want to harm her. Reason for this being that as long as they keep the 'alive theory going, the cadaver evidence can't be substantiated and as such, they can't be charged with neglecting Madeleine for hours on end as opposed to 15 ins max as per the tapas 7 BS rota.

SY Fact:
SY are not considering the McCanns or the tapas 7 as suspects for the movement/disposal of Madeleine. They searching for a lone paedo. (rightly or wrongly is to be proven).

Unconfirmed (based on what SY are doing/saying), so half theory/half fact: SY also know she died in the apartment (hence the digs and their 'change of thinking'), but without the perp or the body, this cannot be proven.

My opinion on the 'Madeleine double': Think this is conspiracy gone mad and there is nothing to support this theory that i can see.
The SY way of thinking if indeed thats where they are regards the lone paedo leaves them with two possible scenarios but end's in one place,the first being if leaving aside the tapas lot and they are searching for a paedo and only a paedo then if there is insufficient evidence to pursue any one then it leaves them where? *nowhere, hence why it has gone on so long, they have blown £10m and the whole thing is one big gravy train and 'jobs for mates' charade. IMO i don't think it will never be closed*nothing to exonerate the McCanns *They are already (unfortunately) exonerated of the disposal of her body, but we are unsure whether they are totally exonerated against neglect charges and fraud charges for the fund. IMO they are protected enough to not be charged*.

The other is ok lets go down the paedo route just to be absolutely clear this did not happen,the end result with out evidence is the same.All IMO of course. *Sorry, i can;t work out what you are saying in this sentence*

Whilst finding nothing on anyone as regards a lone wolf,then it leaves them with out that angle but must surely lead them to the tapas lot,is there enough evidence to secure a conviction is what it all boils down to. *No, just because they can't find the guilty party, it doesn't mean they can then pin it on someone else. The only thing they can pin on the tapas group is child neglect and perverting the course of justice. IMO*

As regards the money trail,I think if Amaral wins the case then it will leave them up a creek without the paddle. *Not really, it's just another book with a different story about the case, which will allow them to make more money off interviews, counter-books/claims and newspaper suing. Unfortunately, the book is just that...a book. It is not legal documentation*
They pursued him with with the arrogant thought of no way will he contest this,we'll have his money from the book and it will show anyone who dares print we will pursue and win,but oh no much to there dismay and anger no doubt and much to his credit because he know's he is right Mr Amaral would not back down even with the plaintiffs wanting to settle out of court,nope he is having his day and maybe just maybe if successful it will put a stop to the money grabbing. * I do hope he wins as they have made his life hell. The McCanns have become too arrogant and cocky due to winning so many cases and from having a crack team of lawyers. Don;t forget, lawyers will actively be contacting them to push them open cases as it lines their pockets too*

All the above is opinion based on nothing but having the freedom of free speech and thought.

a bit more...

You are of course assuming that SY have no evidence of 'said paedo'. Its been said before, but keep in mind that we, the general publish, have only had access to the PII files, not ALL of the case files and evidence files. Think about this the other way, if they had no evidence, nada, zilch, whatsoever to point them down the paedo route, then why would they still be pursuing that after 3 years?

They have started to back this up by questioning the New Zealand paedo, as he has links to the network. SY are aware of a handful of well known serial paedos staying along that part of the coast at the time and are using that as their angle.

They are already strongly hinting that they think she left the apartment deceased, therefore if the Tapas and McCanns 'alibi' is confirmed against the time of death (and thus cadaver), then in SYs eyes, they are in the clear.

by j.rob 12.01.15 13:03

And tertio, plastering a face and name of a woman on the forum, because someone somewhere said she and her family might have been in Praia and another someone built a theory in it, is just plain wrong, as we don't have even a shred of evidence that she is involved in Maddie's case. Do we?

----

What, you mean a bit like Robert Murat being made arguido based on what the McCanns and their friends said? Kate has written that she is sure Murat was involved and she wants to kill him, but can't.

There is not a shred of evidence that Tanner-man, Bundle-man, a dead paedo, Pimple-man, Tractor-man or any of the other sightings have anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

The Smith-man sighting is most definitely of interest, imo. Whether or not it actually happened. And of course it places Gerry McCann or someone who looks very like him firmly in the frame at 10pm on that fateful evening. Carrying a child that looked like Madeleine McCann.

by j.rob 12.01.15 13:13

My opinion on the 'Madeleine double': Think this is conspiracy gone mad and there is nothing to support this theory that i can see.

-------

Not really. If "a disaster" happened that week the Mcs and their friends may have been obliged to come up with all sorts of last-minute plans and excuses. Tanner-man is nonsense. I think they were desperate - clutching at straws. They are the type of people who will pull everyone into the mess of their own making. They will pin the blame on other people. They will duck and dive and connive, imo. Gerry is like The Joker. He likes playing games. Look at the photo of him gazing at his wider agenda flip-chart diagram. He is gazing at it as though he is in love. Quite extraordinary, imo.

There are inconsistencies about whether the McCanns had breakfast at the Millennium or not. Kate in her book claims they did not. But I think there is testimony from at least one waiter that he saw the family in the Millennium at breakfast time.

We know that the Ryders were at OC that week and that their daughter was in the same kids' club as Madeleine McCann (allegedly) attended. The Ryders and their daughter are therefore key witnesses. They can testify as to whether Madeleine McCann actually attended the OC kids' club every day including Thursday, as the McCann claim. Where is their testimony to the police? What did they say?

I have no idea whether the Ryders were also holidaying with another family or whether their daughter had a friend with her who attended the OC kids' club. It is possible. If something happened to Madeleine McCann early in the week the Mcs would have been desperate to cover this up and could have resorted to all kinds of subterfuge, imo.

by woodforthetrees 12.01.15 13:14

j.rob wrote:
The Smith-man sighting is most definitely of interest, imo. Whether or not it actually happened. And of course it places Gerry McCann or someone who looks very like him firmly in the frame at 10pm on that fateful evening. Carrying a child that looked like Madeleine McCann.

IMO j.rob, the Smith sighting never actually existed, it was given credibility for a couple of reasons...initially put forward to get Robert Murat off the hook from being stitched up by the media and tapas group and secondly, more recently... widening the window of opportunity for the McCanns 'abduction theory'.

Crecheman 'appearing' was IMO a total fabrication to take the attention away and again, IMO, i think that SY do actually still consider tannerman as a genuine sighting, but due to the lack of light/description, its no use whatsoever. It also puts a big spanner in the works for the McCanns and tapas group and their 'rota' if the cadaver scent is to be believed, so needs removing (to assist the McCanns, who are, as we know, well protected).

This, IMO is why the McCanns still have tannerman on their site.

by Guest 12.01.15 15:27

woodforthetrees wrote:
WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

Mccanns Theory:
The McCanns are pushing their 'theory' that Madeleine was abducted alive by someone who didn't want to harm her. Reason for this being that as long as they keep the 'alive theory going, the cadaver evidence can't be substantiated and as such, they can't be charged with neglecting Madeleine for hours on end as opposed to 15 ins max as per the tapas 7 BS rota.

SY Fact:
SY are not considering the McCanns or the tapas 7 as suspects for the movement/disposal of Madeleine. They searching for a lone paedo. (rightly or wrongly is to be proven).

Unconfirmed (based on what SY are doing/saying), so half theory/half fact: SY also know she died in the apartment (hence the digs and their 'change of thinking'), but without the perp or the body, this cannot be proven.

My opinion on the 'Madeleine double': Think this is conspiracy gone mad and there is nothing to support this theory that i can see.
The SY way of thinking if indeed thats where they are regards the lone paedo leaves them with two possible scenarios but end's in one place,the first being if leaving aside the tapas lot and they are searching for a paedo and only a paedo then if there is insufficient evidence to pursue any one then it leaves them where? *nowhere, hence why it has gone on so long, they have blown £10m and the whole thing is one big gravy train and 'jobs for mates' charade. IMO i don't think it will never be closed*nothing to exonerate the McCanns *They are already (unfortunately) exonerated of the disposal of her body, but we are unsure whether they are totally exonerated against neglect charges and fraud charges for the fund. IMO they are protected enough to not be charged*.

The other is ok lets go down the paedo route just to be absolutely clear this did not happen,the end result with out evidence is the same.All IMO of course. *Sorry, i can;t work out what you are saying in this sentence*

Just what it says,they go down the route of finding the lone wolf to completely rule one out and find no evidence.The same ending.No paedo, no evidence,no charges.No where.

Whilst finding nothing on anyone as regards a lone wolf,then it leaves them with out that angle but must surely lead them to the tapas lot,is there enough evidence to secure a conviction is what it all boils down to. *No, just because they can't find the guilty party, it doesn't mean they can then pin it on someone else. The only thing they can pin on the tapas group is child neglect and perverting the course of justice. IMO*

As regards the money trail,I think if Amaral wins the case then it will leave them up a creek without the paddle. *Not really, it's just another book with a different story about the case, which will allow them to make more money off interviews, counter-books/claims and newspaper suing. Unfortunately, the book is just that...a book. It is not legal documentation*

They pursued him with with the arrogant thought of no way will he contest this,we'll have his money from the book and it will show anyone who dares print we will pursue and win,but oh no much to there dismay and anger no doubt and much to his credit because he know's he is right Mr Amaral would not back down even with the plaintiffs wanting to settle out of court,nope he is having his day and maybe just maybe if successful it will put a stop to the money grabbing. * I do hope he wins as they have made his life hell. The McCanns have become too arrogant and cocky due to winning so many cases and from having a crack team of lawyers. Don;t forget, lawyers will actively be contacting them to push them open cases as it lines their pockets too*

All the above is opinion based on nothing but having the freedom of free speech and thought.

a bit more...

You are of course assuming that SY have no evidence of 'said paedo'. Its been said before, but keep in mind that we, the general publish, have only had access to the PII files, not ALL of the case files and evidence files. Think about this the other way, if they had no evidence, nada, zilch, whatsoever to point them down the paedo route, then why would they still be pursuing that after 3 years?

They have started to back this up by questioning the New Zealand paedo, as he has links to the network. SY are aware of a handful of well known serial paedos staying along that part of the coast at the time and are using that as their angle.

They are already strongly hinting that they think she left the apartment deceased, therefore if the Tapas and McCanns 'alibi' is confirmed against the time of death (and thus cadaver), then in SYs eyes, they are in the clear.

by Guest 12.01.15 15:37

j.rob wrote:
The police were astonished by the behaviour of the McCanns and their friends that evening. They do not search for Madeleine. They make a priority of drawing up a time-line rather than searching. They do not find Jane Tanner's 'sighting' credible. Neither does Jez Wilkins who was allegedly talking to Gerry when Jane walked past yet Jez claims he saw neither Jane or Tanner-man. Odd.

All the evidence is that Madeleine came to horrible harm that week and that the parents tried to cover it up by claiming she had been abducted. This is what detective Amaral thinks and he must know more than most about the case.

I am simply giving an opinion on what I think happened.

As the possibility ever been explored that JW did see tannerman but as never divulged it,the thing that makes me a little suspicious is that cadaver scent was on KM cloths,now it wouldn't be on GM's if someone else removed Madeleine (if indeed someone did) would it?

Just purporting a theory.

by plebgate 12.01.15 15:59

j.rob wrote:And tertio, plastering a face and name of a woman on the forum, because someone somewhere said she and her family might have been in Praia and another someone built a theory in it, is just plain wrong, as we don't have even a shred of evidence that she is involved in Maddie's case. Do we?

----

What, you mean a bit like Robert Murat being made arguido based on what the McCanns and their friends said? Kate has written that she is sure Murat was involved and she wants to kill him, but can't.

There is not a shred of evidence that Tanner-man, Bundle-man, a dead paedo, Pimple-man, Tractor-man or any of the other sightings have anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

The Smith-man sighting is most definitely of interest, imo. Whether or not it actually happened. And of course it places Gerry McCann or someone who looks very like him firmly in the frame at 10pm on that fateful evening. Carrying a child that looked like Madeleine McCann.

I agree with the red highlighting (mine).

Re. the rest of j.rob's post. We know for sure that Murat was in PdL. Whether the Tapas crew named him or not is not relevant to the red highlighted sentence above as we do not know whether the lady you have mentioned else where on this thread was definitely there IMO.

Re. the Tannerman, bundleman, dead paedo etc. j.rob has mentioned, again that came from the tapas crew or other witnesses who were actually in PdL at the time, but to my knowledge, none of them have described the woman j.rob has named.

I think posters need to be very careful when naming people without evidence that they were there as IMO it could possibly lead to solicitors' letters being sent to the owner of the forum.

by woodforthetrees 12.01.15 16:12

WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
WMD wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:

Mccanns Theory:
The McCanns are pushing their 'theory' that Madeleine was abducted alive by someone who didn't want to harm her. Reason for this being that as long as they keep the 'alive theory going, the cadaver evidence can't be substantiated and as such, they can't be charged with neglecting Madeleine for hours on end as opposed to 15 ins max as per the tapas 7 BS rota.

SY Fact:
SY are not considering the McCanns or the tapas 7 as suspects for the movement/disposal of Madeleine. They searching for a lone paedo. (rightly or wrongly is to be proven).

Unconfirmed (based on what SY are doing/saying), so half theory/half fact: SY also know she died in the apartment (hence the digs and their 'change of thinking'), but without the perp or the body, this cannot be proven.

My opinion on the 'Madeleine double': Think this is conspiracy gone mad and there is nothing to support this theory that i can see.
The SY way of thinking if indeed thats where they are regards the lone paedo leaves them with two possible scenarios but end's in one place,the first being if leaving aside the tapas lot and they are searching for a paedo and only a paedo then if there is insufficient evidence to pursue any one then it leaves them where? *nowhere, hence why it has gone on so long, they have blown £10m and the whole thing is one big gravy train and 'jobs for mates' charade. IMO i don't think it will never be closed*nothing to exonerate the McCanns *They are already (unfortunately) exonerated of the disposal of her body, but we are unsure whether they are totally exonerated against neglect charges and fraud charges for the fund. IMO they are protected enough to not be charged*.

The other is ok lets go down the paedo route just to be absolutely clear this did not happen,the end result with out evidence is the same.All IMO of course. *Sorry, i can;t work out what you are saying in this sentence*

Just what it says,they go down the route of finding the lone wolf to completely rule one out and find no evidence.The same ending.No paedo, no evidence,no charges.No where.

That to me sounds the same as what you put in the sentence above it, hence me not seeing why it was different.

Whilst finding nothing on anyone as regards a lone wolf,then it leaves them with out that angle but must surely lead them to the tapas lot,is there enough evidence to secure a conviction is what it all boils down to. *No, just because they can't find the guilty party, it doesn't mean they can then pin it on someone else. The only thing they can pin on the tapas group is child neglect and perverting the course of justice. IMO*

As regards the money trail,I think if Amaral wins the case then it will leave them up a creek without the paddle. *Not really, it's just another book with a different story about the case, which will allow them to make more money off interviews, counter-books/claims and newspaper suing. Unfortunately, the book is just that...a book. It is not legal documentation*

They pursued him with with the arrogant thought of no way will he contest this,we'll have his money from the book and it will show anyone who dares print we will pursue and win,but oh no much to there dismay and anger no doubt and much to his credit because he know's he is right Mr Amaral would not back down even with the plaintiffs wanting to settle out of court,nope he is having his day and maybe just maybe if successful it will put a stop to the money grabbing. * I do hope he wins as they have made his life hell. The McCanns have become too arrogant and cocky due to winning so many cases and from having a crack team of lawyers. Don;t forget, lawyers will actively be contacting them to push them open cases as it lines their pockets too*

All the above is opinion based on nothing but having the freedom of free speech and thought.

a bit more...

You are of course assuming that SY have no evidence of 'said paedo'. Its been said before, but keep in mind that we, the general publish, have only had access to the PII files, not ALL of the case files and evidence files. Think about this the other way, if they had no evidence, nada, zilch, whatsoever to point them down the paedo route, then why would they still be pursuing that after 3 years?

They have started to back this up by questioning the New Zealand paedo, as he has links to the network. SY are aware of a handful of well known serial paedos staying along that part of the coast at the time and are using that as their angle.

They are already strongly hinting that they think she left the apartment deceased, therefore if the Tapas and McCanns 'alibi' is confirmed against the time of death (and thus cadaver), then in SYs eyes, they are in the clear.

Log in for more topics