This just gone on to Daily Mail.

parapono wrote:Whatever good intensions SL, they get lost in quoting, requoting, coloured comments and more.
A concise reply helps the debate.
This approach is killing any exchange of opinions.
Just in my opinion, of course.
kindest regards
parapono

SuspiciousMinds wrote:

They didn't just leave the children alone for 3 minutes - no-one was with them and no-one claimed to see Madeleine for almost an hour. That's where the neglect charge comes in, not from the supposed window of opportunity for an abduction.
Agreed, no-one 'claimed' to have seen Madeleine for an hour, but based on the statements from the tapas group regarding the activities around the apartment and the tapas bar of the group, the window of op was approximately 3 mins (there is a breakdown on this forum done by PeterMac i think, from memory), which is far too risky for an abductor or a paedo to perform their act/commit the murder, hence the timeline of events must be longer than the suggested slot by the tapas group...i.e their statements are false.

That is sooo not the issue! If you think your daughter might have been carried off by someone at 7pm, what is the point in telling the police she was last seen at 9.15pm? Any sightings before that will automatically be discounted as not being Madeleine.
The point would, if you were a selfish narcissist, to cover your arse from being under the spotlight for leaving your children unattended for long periods of time 

OK, so you think Jez Wilkins is in on it and lied to police as well. As well as Jane Tanner. Jez wasn't neglecting his child - he was taking it for a walk in the pram and I believe his wife verified that. So if communal neglect is the problem, why would Jez say he saw Gerry if he didn't?
Either Jez or Tanner are not telling the truth about seeing Gerry as the stories conflict. Besides, Jez saw him in the street when he was walking his child, not in the apartment.

And Gerry's version of events is that he saw Madeleine alive at 9.05pm. If the last time he saw Madeleine was actually at 7.00pm, they could easily have said they were doing regular listening checks but no-one physically SAW Madeleine after they went out. Instead, they categorically placed her disappearance two to three hours later. In which case, how would that explain the cadaver?? Were they listening to a corpse? No, they simply weren't checking (IMO), either visually or by sound


Why would he get changed in another apartment? To not disturb the kids maybe???That's just weird. Not really, they were visiting each others apartments throughout the holiday, playing tennis together, bathing each others kids, therefore changing clothes of having a shower in a holiday friends apartment isn't so strange. Surely his clean clothes would be in his own apartment, not someone else's? Unless they were in his bag And where was Kate supposed to be? That is a good question, one of the unknowns for me, up until the time she first sighting at the tapas anyway.

No-one claimed to see Madeleine between 9.15pm and 10pm - see above. The McCanns are the ones who tried to shoe-horn in the possibility of a 3-minute abduction - no-one else takes it seriously, not even Scotland Yard. Yes, the McCanns did push this as they need to keep the story going that she was taken quickly alive. I don't for one minute believe this 3 minute window scenario, it's too risky, nor do i believe they didn't see Madeleine only for 45 mins

Oops, I accidentally killed this little girl. Should I dump the body somewhere quickly and get the Hell out of here before anyone notices? Naaah, I'll just hide her behind the sofa while I spend an hour doing the housework to utterly eradicate any forensic trace of my presence here tonight. In the dark, obviously, because otherwise the parents might look up from the tapas bar and realise there is someone in their apartment if I put the lights on.
What forensics do you think he would need to clean up? If it was a predatory paedo, he would be prepared, surgical gloves etc for no prints. The scene was walked on by numerous people immediately and things moved around whilst looking for her, whereas it should've been sealed off. IMKO the perp had to dispose of the body as it contained DNA (e.g semen)

It's not feasible that a devastated father, desperate to get his child back, would lie pointlessly about the last time he saw his daughter and jeopardise the search for her. The dogs have got them every which way. ...unless he needed to be seen to have been checking the kids
He didn't need to lie - he just had to say they'd been doing listening checks only, and she was last physically seen at ? pm. Which he could have admitted at a later date...until the cadaver was found, in which case 'stick to the story'. Anyway, what sort of pitiful excuse for a father decides that his need to avoid possible neglect charges outweighs his small daughter's need to be rescued from a predator or paedophile? A selfish narcissist like Gerry

Says who? Who knows what Scotland Yard is up to, or for what reasons? It IS your assumption - you're assuming that they must have found some hard evidence that exonerates the McCanns. But it's hard to see what that could be. I think its safe to say that after 7yrs of investigating it, with the McCanns being in close contact with each police force, with £10m spent on it and public declarations from people like Andy Redwood etc that they are not suspects...it's a safe bet to even 'assume' that they are not suspects by now. In which case, if they are not, it means they are looking for/have their eye on someone else. And yes, i do think they hold evidence that supports that, i don't know what that evidence is though, much as i would love to spend a few hours looking through the OG files! 

If the police thought there was a chance that the McCanns lied about their whereabouts earlier in the evening (as you have stated), I personally would assume that they would re-question the McCanns and their friends very thoroughly to sort the timelines out once and for all. But instead they have pushed forward the Smithman theory. Personally, i think that SY are not thinking about those statements (only to help clear them of any neglect), they will be focusing on the evidence they have and searching for witnesses and leads to catch the perp. It's common knowledge that the tapas group statements are riddled with inconsistencies, so why try and beat it out of them? Why not just accept they are worthless and focus on the cadaver, forensics and intel instead.

Using your logic, therefore, Scotland Yard do not believe that Madeleine went missing before 9.15pm and it stands to reason that they must therefore have hard evidence to back this up and your argument about timings etc. cannot be correct. Because Scotland Yard said so...
Yes. No child checking, events happened in the apartment prior to 9.15, with enough time for cadaver scent to develop, perp had to remove the body (evidence), hence the 'last seen by Gerry at 9.05 is a fabrication.

No, they are proclaiming their innocence from the rooftops - that is not the same as being able to say that evidence has emerged to show that they are telling the truth. They can't provide the evidence to exonerate them as the investigation is on-going! No police department would ever say "oh poor you, people think you are guilty, here..have this evidence from the open case and go and show it to everyone" Does not happen. The best SY can do for them is make a statement to say they are not suspects.....which they have done!

And during that court case, they did their level best to try to tell the judge that the dogs were wrong - presumably that's the best or only defence they can come up with. If they could have stood up and said, "It definitely wasn't us, because [insert proof]", don't you think they would have done so? See above, they can't get their hands on live evidence, currently held in secure police files at SY

And my comments in orange! :)

woodforthetrees wrote:

SuspiciousMinds wrote:

And Gerry's version of events is that he saw Madeleine alive at 9.05pm. If the last time he saw Madeleine was actually at 7.00pm, they could easily have said they were doing regular listening checks but no-one physically SAW Madeleine after they went out. Instead, they categorically placed her disappearance two to three hours later.

Gm went there at 9.05,was it ever stated what time that he returned by anyone,KM was prevented from going at 9.30,why do you think this was.

Snipped to reduce confusion as requested and responses in black bold above

parapono wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:
Gm went there at 9.05,was it ever stated what time that he returned by anyone,KM was prevented from going at 9.30,why do you think this was.


In the Portugese statements that I've read I can't find anything about anyone being asked out of the group on what time Gerry returned. IMO this section has been removed because there's evidence in them. But I haven't read all of them fully yet.

parapono wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:Sorry Woodsfortrees, this is farcical. Not really If he had intentions of doing something to Madeleine then he would have grabbed her and taken her away to do it. Says who? Do you know what a sick paedo would do? Why would he take a potentially screaming girl out into the open when he can be in a shut up apartment??He wouldn't have stayed in the flat where he could've easily been disturbed at any moment, then took her away. Again....if he has been watching the parents all week and knows that tehy are out for the evening getting drunk at the tapas bar and not checking the kids, then he has an apartment and child to himself. He's either that far gone mentally that he would just rape her without a thought for his safety and left her, exactly, what kind of predatory paedo, who rapes and kills children do you suspect would be clear of mind?  but to be a man who's sensible enough to not leave any DNA Again, how do we know he hasn't left any?? How do we know that what he did leave didn't get contaminated by the chaos of the crime scene? How do we know that his attempts at cleaning the scene in the dark aren't enough to make anything found conclusive? and have the foresight to think of removing her afterwards-IMO this was not part of the plan, her death wasn't part of the plan. IMO she died in whatever sick act was being done and the perp realised that there was DNA in/on the body, so decided to remove it and dispose. this doesn't match the behaviour of the first scenario. His first instinct would be to go somewhere where he wouldn't be disturbed I think is more in fitting of being CSI'd in appearance with gloves etc. See above Also Gerry was away from the table for a length of time and Kate made a reference that he's probably watching football. So it just doesn't make sense that he would've had time to do something in the flat if her dad was hanging around. Again, you are relying upon his say that he was around

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:Sorry Woodsfortrees, this is farcical. Not really If he had intentions of doing something to Madeleine then he would have grabbed her and taken her away to do it. Says who? Do you know what a sick paedo would do? Why would he take a potentially screaming girl out into the open when he can be in a shut up apartment??He wouldn't have stayed in the flat where he could've easily been disturbed at any moment, then took her away. Again....if he has been watching the parents all week and knows that tehy are out for the evening getting drunk at the tapas bar and not checking the kids, then he has an apartment and child to himself. 

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:Sorry Woodsfortrees, this is farcical. Not really If he had intentions of doing something to Madeleine then he would have grabbed her and taken her away to do it. Says who? Do you know what a sick paedo would do? Why would he take a potentially screaming girl out into the open when he can be in a shut up apartment??He wouldn't have stayed in the flat where he could've easily been disturbed at any moment, then took her away. Again....if he has been watching the parents all week and knows that tehy are out for the evening getting drunk at the tapas bar and not checking the kids, then he has an apartment and child to himself. He's either that far gone mentally that he would just rape her without a thought for his safety and left her, exactly, what kind of predatory paedo, who rapes and kills children do you suspect would be clear of mind?  but to be a man who's sensible enough to not leave any DNA Again, how do we know he hasn't left any?? How do we know that what he did leave didn't get contaminated by the chaos of the crime scene? How do we know that his attempts at cleaning the scene in the dark aren't enough to make anything found conclusive? and have the foresight to think of removing her afterwards-IMO this was not part of the plan, her death wasn't part of the plan. IMO she died in whatever sick act was being done and the perp realised that there was DNA in/on the body, so decided to remove it and dispose. this doesn't match the behaviour of the first scenario. His first instinct would be to go somewhere where he wouldn't be disturbed I think is more in fitting of being CSI'd in appearance with gloves etc. See above Also Gerry was away from the table for a length of time and Kate made a reference that he's probably watching football. So it just doesn't make sense that he would've had time to do something in the flat if her dad was hanging around. Again, you are relying upon his say that he was around

ChippyM wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:Sorry Woodsfortrees, this is farcical. Not really If he had intentions of doing something to Madeleine then he would have grabbed her and taken her away to do it. Says who? Do you know what a sick paedo would do? Why would he take a potentially screaming girl out into the open when he can be in a shut up apartment??He wouldn't have stayed in the flat where he could've easily been disturbed at any moment, then took her away. Again....if he has been watching the parents all week and knows that tehy are out for the evening getting drunk at the tapas bar and not checking the kids, then he has an apartment and child to himself. 

Sorry but the insistence that a lone paedo was responsible for MM's vanishing IS farcical. 
   Yes we do know what sick paedos do, there is research from the crimes they commit.  Most take children older than MM from outside areas, most of the time they put the child in a vehicle to take them somewhere they know they won't be disturbed.

   Logically why would a lone paedo watch a family (and 7 others)  that were up and down the road outside 5a like yo yos when he could have abducted some unsupervised kid from a crowded place?  If the Tapas lot were NOT checking like they say, then they have lied about their movements on the day a crime occurred, why?

If someone did go into the apartment and take a dead child out after doing what he wanted or being interrupted he was still removing the child to a SECOND crime scene that was meticulously chosen in order to baffle authorities as to the child's whereabouts for years.....so no point of taking the huge risk of doing something IN the apartment in the first place!

   The red flags that alert police to a staged crime scene are present in this case,  ie. A totally illogical point of entry - through a high window with difficult and noisy shutters when doors were left unlocked, which the perp would know if he had been watching the family!

    Another red flag for a staged crime scene is was the supposed offender carrying out a high risk activity?   Yes -  he was if he tried to assault or kill a child by breaking into an apartment whilst the parents were not too far away AND with 2 other children in the room to control and keep quiet.  A completely deranged mental case might try an do that but then is extremely unlikely to be so organised as to leave absolutely no trace and take the child away somewhere so clever that they could never be found.    


       A deranged nut job who planned and watched all week and had a perfect place to dispose of a body very quickly, kept his cool, cleaned up who left absolutely no hair , finger print or fibre, was he in a hazmat suit but no-one noticed him walking about the town? . Totally illogical and red flag inducing! ...which is what Amaral and his officers thought.

columbostogeys wrote:I can NEVER understand the reaction by Mrs McCann with regards to the twins. It was almost as though she knew they were ok, and that is why she did not bother to wake them up.

SuspiciousMinds wrote:I hesitate to get involved in this thread again in case I do something wrong again. But what the Hell! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


WoodForTheTrees, I can't make head nor tail of your argument. Have I got this right?

1. You are happy to believe that Gerry is an evil, lying narcissist, who deliberately and knowingly misled every investigation into the disappearance of his daughter; who willingly sabotaged any hope of finding his daughter alive to cover his own back. (Which is surely worse than finding her dead and covering it up, knowing she's beyond help anyway.) You are confident that Scotland Yard share this view.


2. You think that Scotland Yard is looking for an abductor; that they know the McCanns lied about the timeline; that they must have inevitably concluded, as you have, that the McCanns left the apartment earlier than they claimed. But you don't think they would find it necessary to re-question the McCanns to establish just when the abductor might have entered the apartment, and to determine whether there was potentially time for the cadaver scent to develop. You think they would just dismiss all that as irrelevant, and concentrate instead on making sure that the McCanns don't get into trouble for neglect, despite apparently believing them to be a pair of evil neglectful narcissists who have repeatedly given false statements to police (see point 1).


So Scotland Yard is more interested in protecting the McCanns against neglect charges than they are in nabbing the abductor. (Of course if they ever DO nab the abductor, the whole story will come out in court anyway and if the McCanns have lied as much as you say, a neglect charge will be the least of their worries. So nabbing the abductor is presumably out of the question anyway.)


If you believe SY is prepared to protect the McCanns against possibly justified charges of neglect, why do you not also believe SY is prepared to protect the McCanns against possibly justified charges of concealing a cadaver and faking a child’s disappearance?


In other words, why do you believe anything they tell you?!

ScarletLaw wrote:


 Say he did come in Woodsfortrees and (playing Devils Advocate-it could still be a case similar of Jon Benet Ramsey, we don't know for sure). If it was a case of having to silence the little girl in order to remove her quietly. This is most likely to be done through strangulation or smothering by pillow in the apartment before then taking her. He wouldn't go, I know now i'll take her to the settee and knock her to the wall to knock her out, which is consistence with the scent behind the settee and the marks of blood found on the curtains, and then leave her behind the settee for ages for the scent to take hold?
 It just doesn't make any sense with the evidence we have. .......

columbostogeys wrote:

I tell you what makes me the most suspicious i am kind of the fence BUT. The thing that irks me the most.

If i thought my daughter of 3 years old was abducted and taken a pedophile, regardless of whether or not i was a doctor, I would have woken my other 2 children up, and checked them to make sure their clothing was undisturbed and as they were sleeping so heavy they would have been taken to the hospital for full medical check ups.

I can NEVER understand the reaction by Mrs McCann with regards to the twins. It was almost as though she knew they were ok, and that is why she did not bother to wake them up. Being a mother i would have had my children checked out and i know loads of other people who have said the same thing. No that one thing simply does not never has made sense to me.

ChippyM wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:


 Say he did come in Woodsfortrees and (playing Devils Advocate-it could still be a case similar of Jon Benet Ramsey, we don't know for sure). If it was a case of having to silence the little girl in order to remove her quietly. This is most likely to be done through strangulation or smothering by pillow in the apartment before then taking her. He wouldn't go, I know now i'll take her to the settee and knock her to the wall to knock her out, which is consistence with the scent behind the settee and the marks of blood found on the curtains, and then leave her behind the settee for ages for the scent to take hold?
 It just doesn't make any sense with the evidence we have. .......

 The Jon Benet Ramsey case was also one suspected of being staged. Apparently a child abuser or killer got into a house, took a girl whilst the parents were not far away and assaulted and killed her in her own house.

   The window where he was supposed to have come in was impossibly small and not even cobwebs around it had been disturbed,  He also left no single foot print in the snow around the house and disturbed no-one in the house. Although the killer had planned this very sneaky (and risky) crime  he made use of objects in the house to tie the child and the Ramsey's note pad and pens to write a ransom note. It was also very odd to demand a ransom and then just assault and kill the child in the house, a bit like the burglary gone wrong scenario.....Was the killer an extortionist or a sex offender?  Was MM's killer a thief or a sex offender?.. we are told both, or sometimes one or the other.       The only big difference between this and the McCann case IMO is that the body of M. McCann was not left to find!

ScarletLaw wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:


 Say he did come in Woodsfortrees and (playing Devils Advocate-it could still be a case similar of Jon Benet Ramsey, we don't know for sure). If it was a case of having to silence the little girl in order to remove her quietly. This is most likely to be done through strangulation or smothering by pillow in the apartment before then taking her. He wouldn't go, I know now i'll take her to the settee and knock her to the wall to knock her out, which is consistence with the scent behind the settee and the marks of blood found on the curtains, and then leave her behind the settee for ages for the scent to take hold?
 It just doesn't make any sense with the evidence we have. .......

 The Jon Benet Ramsey case was also one suspected of being staged. Apparently a child abuser or killer got into a house, took a girl whilst the parents were not far away and assaulted and killed her in her own house.

   The window where he was supposed to have come in was impossibly small and not even cobwebs around it had been disturbed,  He also left no single foot print in the snow around the house and disturbed no-one in the house. Although the killer had planned this very sneaky (and risky) crime  he made use of objects in the house to tie the child and the Ramsey's note pad and pens to write a ransom note. It was also very odd to demand a ransom and then just assault and kill the child in the house, a bit like the burglary gone wrong scenario.....Was the killer an extortionist or a sex offender?  Was MM's killer a thief or a sex offender?.. we are told both, or sometimes one or the other.       The only big difference between this and the McCann case IMO is that the body of M. McCann was not left to find!

Good observation. I can't help feeling the Ramsey case is very similar with two scenarios given. There are many on forums who think a ransom note is being hidden but I have not come across anything personally that points to this because I think the McCanns would have said, if only to clear their names when they were made suspects.

ChippyM wrote:
Sorry but the insistence that a lone paedo was responsible for MM's vanishing IS farcical. So farcical that an entire team of experience SY investigators are following that theory!

   Yes we do know what sick paedos do, there is research from the crimes they commit.  Most take children older than MM from outside areas, most of the time they put the child in a vehicle to take them somewhere they know they won't be disturbed. 'Most', not ALL. Just because 5 people like the colour red, it doesn't mean the 6th will. I suspect that he had no car as (as previously stated a number of times) hadn't intended to take the body away..or even kill her

   Logically why would a lone paedo watch a family (and 7 others)  that were up and down the road outside 5a like yo yos when he could have abducted some unsupervised kid from a crowded place?  If the Tapas lot were NOT checking like they say, then they have lied about their movements on the day a crime occurred, why?

If someone did go into the apartment and take a dead child out after doing what he wanted or being interrupted he was still removing the child to a SECOND crime scene that was meticulously chosen in order to baffle authorities as to the child's whereabouts for years.....so no point of taking the huge risk of doing something IN the apartment in the first place! Temporary storage place, then on to even a 3rd crime scene if you want to describe it that way. So, lets get this straight, you think a paedo removing her body is more farcical than say... the childs father running the streets with his dead child, only to then store her body in a freezer and then transport the corpse, defrosting, in a hire car 25 days later in full view of the worlds media and the 24-7 watchful eye of various law enforcement officers?? hmmm.

   The red flags that alert police to a staged crime scene are present in this case,  ie. A totally illogical point of entry - through a high window with difficult and noisy shutters when doors were left unlocked, which the perp would know if he had been watching the family! I never said the perp climbed in and out of the window. IMO, entered through the unlocked door, passed the body out of the window then went back out through the door alone (as it's in full view), picking up the wrapped body.

    Another red flag for a staged crime scene is was the supposed offender carrying out a high risk activity?   Yes -  he was if he tried to assault or kill a child by breaking into an apartment whilst the parents were not too far away AND with 2 other children in the room to control and keep quiet.  A completely deranged mental case might try an do that but then is extremely unlikely to be so organised as to leave absolutely no trace and take the child away somewhere so clever that they could never be found.   Read previous


       A deranged nut job who planned and watched all week and had a perfect place to dispose of a body very quickly, kept his cool, cleaned up who left absolutely no hair , finger print or fibre, was he in a hazmat suit but no-one noticed him walking about the town? . Again, this has been covered in previous posts Totally illogical and red flag inducing! ...which is what Amaral and his officers thought. ...but could not prove and (again...) SY seem to have something otherwise they wouldn't be going down that route

noseyparker wrote: WOODFOR THE TREES...Point to one single piece of evidence to support your pedo theory

ScarletLaw wrote:
 Say he did come in Woodsfortrees and (playing Devils Advocate-it could still be a case similar of Jon Benet Ramsey, we don't know for sure). If it was a case of having to silence the little girl in order to remove her quietly. This is most likely to be done through strangulation or smothering by pillow in the apartment before then taking her. He wouldn't go, I know now i'll take her to the settee and knock her to the wall to knock her out, which is consistence with the scent behind the settee and the marks of blood found on the curtains, and then leave her behind the settee for ages for the scent to take hold? Unless you were trying to stage an accident, butt hen changed your mind and decided to remove the corpse instead of leaving it there with potential DNA evidence on/in it
 It just doesn't make any sense with the evidence we have. The only other theory to match this would be that the little girl ran from the man and on to the settee where she lost her footing and hurt herself. But this is inconsistence with Kate insisting that Madeleine couldn't have gone out by herself. Which I've always taken was because the little girl was sedated along with the twins and therefore wouldn't have been capable of walking. If it wasn't for the blood and settee evidence I would think more in favor that it's a possible abductor. I agree, the blood and scent near the wall by the sofa does fit in line with Amarals theory, but what is making me think of things from another angle is the fact that SY are not even considering those items as evidence of an accident and then subsequent cover up. As you say though, Madeleine may have been trying to escape from the man and fallen at that stage, rather than the perp killing her. However, if that had happened, unless he has a reason to take the body away (eg semen/other DNA in her body) then he could have left the body there to look like an accident.

woodforthetrees wrote:

noseyparker wrote: WOODFOR THE TREES...Point to one single piece of evidence to support your pedo theory

Known paedos operating in the area
Witness reports of the apartment being watched throughout the week
Cleaned scene/prepared perp = expert, not a novice, or an accident
Targeted one child of a certain age, leaving the twins alone, shows the 'event' and the victim were specifically targeted
and here is the most obvious one....................

That SY are searching for an intruder who acted alone, killed Madeleine 'most likely not alive when left the apartment'...whilst also interviewing  paedos who are known to know other paedos who were operating in the area at the time.

They do not do that without having evidence to back that up.

Montclair wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

noseyparker wrote: WOODFOR THE TREES...Point to one single piece of evidence to support your pedo theory

Known paedos operating in the area
Witness reports of the apartment being watched throughout the week
Cleaned scene/prepared perp = expert, not a novice, or an accident
Targeted one child of a certain age, leaving the twins alone, shows the 'event' and the victim were specifically targeted
and here is the most obvious one....................

That SY are searching for an intruder who acted alone, killed Madeleine 'most likely not alive when left the apartment'...whilst also interviewing  paedos who are known to know other paedos who were operating in the area at the time.

They do not do that without having evidence to back that up.

None of this is evidence. Well, I had a good laugh reading it anyway.

woodforthetrees wrote:

ChippyM wrote:
Sorry but the insistence that a lone paedo was responsible for MM's vanishing IS farcical. So farcical that an entire team of experience SY investigators are following that theory!

   Yes we do know what sick paedos do, there is research from the crimes they commit.  Most take children older than MM from outside areas, most of the time they put the child in a vehicle to take them somewhere they know they won't be disturbed. 'Most', not ALL. Just because 5 people like the colour red, it doesn't mean the 6th will. I suspect that he had no car as (as previously stated a number of times) hadn't intended to take the body away..or even kill her

   Logically why would a lone paedo watch a family (and 7 others)  that were up and down the road outside 5a like yo yos when he could have abducted some unsupervised kid from a crowded place?  If the Tapas lot were NOT checking like they say, then they have lied about their movements on the day a crime occurred, why?

If someone did go into the apartment and take a dead child out after doing what he wanted or being interrupted he was still removing the child to a SECOND crime scene that was meticulously chosen in order to baffle authorities as to the child's whereabouts for years.....so no point of taking the huge risk of doing something IN the apartment in the first place! Temporary storage place, then on to even a 3rd crime scene if you want to describe it that way. So, lets get this straight, you think a paedo removing her body is more farcical than say... the childs father running the streets with his dead child, only to then store her body in a freezer and then transport the corpse, defrosting, in a hire car 25 days later in full view of the worlds media and the 24-7 watchful eye of various law enforcement officers?? hmmm.

   The red flags that alert police to a staged crime scene are present in this case,  ie. A totally illogical point of entry - through a high window with difficult and noisy shutters when doors were left unlocked, which the perp would know if he had been watching the family! I never said the perp climbed in and out of the window. IMO, entered through the unlocked door, passed the body out of the window then went back out through the door alone (as it's in full view), picking up the wrapped body.

    Another red flag for a staged crime scene is was the supposed offender carrying out a high risk activity?   Yes -  he was if he tried to assault or kill a child by breaking into an apartment whilst the parents were not too far away AND with 2 other children in the room to control and keep quiet.  A completely deranged mental case might try an do that but then is extremely unlikely to be so organised as to leave absolutely no trace and take the child away somewhere so clever that they could never be found.   Read previous


       A deranged nut job who planned and watched all week and had a perfect place to dispose of a body very quickly, kept his cool, cleaned up who left absolutely no hair , finger print or fibre, was he in a hazmat suit but no-one noticed him walking about the town? . Again, this has been covered in previous posts Totally illogical and red flag inducing! ...which is what Amaral and his officers thought. ...but could not prove and (again...) SY seem to have something otherwise they wouldn't be going down that route

stillsloppingout wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion . OK

Point 1   SY are being told IMO to appear to look for an abduction as if it happened in the UK [ either they are working to an order from above ] or they are just saying that because like Huntley , Mathews , they know its them , but they have to play smart . Im not quite sure how else to put this... Scotland Yard are looking for a paedo, not a live abduction, not a burglary gone wrong and certainly not the McCanns (as much as i would love them to)

2. Does not make any sense . No Peado would take such a risk , besides sadly most are foreign aid workers these days. 'Most are foreign aid workers'? not heard that one before. Maybe, the perp thought he would be in and out of there after committing his act in a considerably shorter timeframe, only when things went wrong did his 'stay' get extended, a clean up ensue and the decision to take the body.

3 . possible . he panicked it looked dark from what I can see , took a risk ,it was either that or have a corps lying about . RE the press media watching , NO THEY WERE NOT , I had associates over there they were left to go about there business , even the Police WERE NOT WATCHING THEM that is the biggest mistake in this whole situation . The Portuguese police weren't watching them, but the UK police were, whether you wish to deny that or not  IMO she was transported with the missing posters in Plain sight when they decided to do a leaflet drop ON A PUBLIC HOLIDAY !!! RED FLAG **. again calculated risk . And you think a paedo taking a big risk in a dark apartment on his own is less of a risk that that?

4 Unlocked door  This one makes me laugh .It is only there world that the door was unlocked why does everybody on this forum , believe this statement as fact . There is no way any door or window was unlocked . Hence no break in hence NO ABDUCTION . Front door unlocked, shutters opened from the inside, hence no break in evidence (IMO)

5  Don't even get me started on reward's,  ransoms etc , somebody would have talked by now . Yeah, paedos love to chat about what their peodo mates have been doing, whilst discussing it on paedo networks don't they. Jimmy Saville abused hundreds of people over the years and how many of them who knew about it blabbed....zero. 

Panic makes people do crazy things , IMO seconds after Kate found Maddie dead due to over sedation , , and was restrained forcefully  , By Gerry [ Hence the Bruising on Her arms , everything they have done has been a risk , but because the cleaned the crime scene , nearly enough [ one day those markers will do for them ] . they have managed by fluke luck , cunning , and lies to get away with it . throw in mega bucks lawyers and the cult of celebrity , and they are now bullet proof . the UK are loath to arrest"  celebrities " so for now we are in a limbo . there will never be a body found . Luck again Portugal/ southern Spain  has many places to conceal a body . so for now its stale mate . and this is not far off my thinking up until recently, however, if this theory is true, then are following leads/evidence (that we don't know exactly what) that is barking them up the wrong tree

Finally SY either playing a blinder , or bowing to the cult of celebrity , with possibly a dark secret to hide . don't forget it[ as cases coming to light now are showing ] wouldn't be the first time. They are not 'playing a blinder' and suddenly going to say "ha ha! We had you all fooled all along, it is those nasty McCanns after all" as they are not looking at them as suspects whatsoever. I'd like to think that this could happen, but after so long and with the McCanns being in plain sight/close proximity of SY, its very clear that that will never happen (unfortunately).

woodforthetrees wrote:

stillsloppingout wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion . OK

Point 1   SY are being told IMO to appear to look for an abduction as if it happened in the UK [ either they are working to an order from above ] or they are just saying that because like Huntley , Mathews , they know its them , but they have to play smart . Im not quite sure how else to put this... Scotland Yard are looking for a paedo, not a live abduction, not a burglary gone wrong and certainly not the McCanns (as much as i would love them to)

2. Does not make any sense . No Peado would take such a risk , besides sadly most are foreign aid workers these days. 'Most are foreign aid workers'? not heard that one before. Maybe, the perp thought he would be in and out of there after committing his act in a considerably shorter timeframe, only when things went wrong did his 'stay' get extended, a clean up ensue and the decision to take the body.

3 . possible . he panicked it looked dark from what I can see , took a risk ,it was either that or have a corps lying about . RE the press media watching , NO THEY WERE NOT , I had associates over there they were left to go about there business , even the Police WERE NOT WATCHING THEM that is the biggest mistake in this whole situation . The Portuguese police weren't watching them, but the UK police were, whether you wish to deny that or not  IMO she was transported with the missing posters in Plain sight when they decided to do a leaflet drop ON A PUBLIC HOLIDAY !!! RED FLAG **. again calculated risk . And you think a paedo taking a big risk in a dark apartment on his own is less of a risk that that?

4 Unlocked door  This one makes me laugh .It is only there world that the door was unlocked why does everybody on this forum , believe this statement as fact . There is no way any door or window was unlocked . Hence no break in hence NO ABDUCTION . Front door unlocked, shutters opened from the inside, hence no break in evidence (IMO)

5  Don't even get me started on reward's,  ransoms etc , somebody would have talked by now . Yeah, paedos love to chat about what their peodo mates have been doing, whilst discussing it on paedo networks don't they. Jimmy Saville abused hundreds of people over the years and how many of them who knew about it blabbed....zero. 

Panic makes people do crazy things , IMO seconds after Kate found Maddie dead due to over sedation , , and was restrained forcefully  , By Gerry [ Hence the Bruising on Her arms , everything they have done has been a risk , but because the cleaned the crime scene , nearly enough [ one day those markers will do for them ] . they have managed by fluke luck , cunning , and lies to get away with it . throw in mega bucks lawyers and the cult of celebrity , and they are now bullet proof . the UK are loath to arrest"  celebrities " so for now we are in a limbo . there will never be a body found . Luck again Portugal/ southern Spain  has many places to conceal a body . so for now its stale mate . and this is not far off my thinking up until recently, however, if this theory is true, then are following leads/evidence (that we don't know exactly what) that is barking them up the wrong tree

Finally SY either playing a blinder , or bowing to the cult of celebrity , with possibly a dark secret to hide . don't forget it[ as cases coming to light now are showing ] wouldn't be the first time. They are not 'playing a blinder' and suddenly going to say "ha ha! We had you all fooled all along, it is those nasty McCanns after all" as they are not looking at them as suspects whatsoever. I'd like to think that this could happen, but after so long and with the McCanns being in plain sight/close proximity of SY, its very clear that that will never happen (unfortunately).