Re: This just gone on to Daily Mail.

by Joss 03.02.15 11:35

I think these are just WFTT's theories, unless he/she has some insider intel?

by Dr What 03.02.15 11:51

As far as I am aware, the only evidence that has been gathered and resulted in official conclusions, has been the report from the PJ.

I have not yet heard that SY, after their long and expensive investigation, have dismissed these original findings as rubbish.I have not heard either that the PJ have changed their original findings as a result of the 'work' of SY.

So, all I know suggests that the child still died in the apartment, the result possibly of an accident, and the McCanns not only assisted in removing the body but also engaged in a simulation of an abduction.

I am not aware of any other official report from either police force that has been produced that supercedes these findings.

Is anyone else aware of one?

by Smokeandmirrors 03.02.15 12:05

Joss wrote:I think these are just WFTT's theories, unless he/she has some insider intel?

Probably, but unless WFTT can expand or clarify WHY they are stating it is fact there posts will be moderated.

by Joss 03.02.15 12:17

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Joss wrote:I think these are just WFTT's theories, unless he/she has some insider intel?

Probably, but unless WFTT can expand or clarify WHY they are stating it is fact there posts will be moderated.

Fair enough.

by Joss 03.02.15 12:25

Dr What wrote:As far as I am aware, the only evidence that has been gathered and resulted in official conclusions, has been the report from the PJ.

I have not yet heard that SY, after their long and expensive investigation, have dismissed these original findings as rubbish.I have not heard either that the PJ have changed their original findings as a result of the 'work' of SY.

So, all I know suggests that the child still died in the apartment, the result possibly of an accident, and the McCanns not only assisted in removing the body but also engaged in a simulation of an abduction.

I am not aware of any other official report from either police force that has been produced that supercedes these findings.

Is anyone else aware of one?

No.

by woodforthetrees 03.02.15 16:32

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:
j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote:

Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.

------

How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events.

They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

Whether there is little public support for the McCanns, or public mistrust of their version of events, is immaterial. DCI Andy Redwood stated clearly that neither Madeleine's parents, or any of the members of the group that were with her, are either persons of interest or suspects. I personally do not believe that SY are corrupt, or involved in a whitewash. They will have information we are not privy to and their investigation will be based on this, and this alone.
Exactly Daryl Dixon, thank you.

As much as we all would like to believe they are secretly looking at the McCanns, they have evidence which is pointing them to someone else.

Please can you provide details of what evidence? And would you be kind enough to answer my earlier questions for clarity.

No, I cannot give you details of the evidence SY have on their filed as I do not have access to their files

by woodforthetrees 03.02.15 16:35

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Joss wrote:I think these are just WFTT's theories, unless he/she has some insider intel?

Probably, but unless WFTT can expand or clarify WHY they are stating it is fact there posts will be moderated.

No, I cannot speak on behalf of SY I'm afraid, they speak for themselves.

Not sure why my posts would be moderated? Just because my posts regarding the McCanns not being suspects don't make for easy reading for those intent on their guilt, rather than focusing on the truth for Madeleine.

by Jamming 03.02.15 16:42

woodforthetrees wrote:No, I cannot speak on behalf of SY I'm afraid, they speak for themselves.

Not sure why my posts would be moderated? Just because my posts regarding the McCanns not being suspects don't make for easy reading for those intent on their guilt, rather than focusing on the truth for Madeleine.

I cant speak for the moderating part, but you do put your points across as facts known to you rather than your theories/beliefs based on what is being reported re Grange. If they are facts perhaps you could enlighten us on how you know them to be facts?

by Smokeandmirrors 03.02.15 16:53

woodforthetrees wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Joss wrote:I think these are just WFTT's theories, unless he/she has some insider intel?

Probably, but unless WFTT can expand or clarify WHY they are stating it is fact there posts will be moderated.
No, I cannot speak on behalf of SY I'm afraid, they speak for themselves.

Not sure why my posts would be moderated? Just because my posts regarding the McCanns not being suspects don't make for easy reading for those intent on their guilt, rather than focusing on the truth for Madeleine.

You have stated something as fact for which you provide no backup. Your posts have nothing to do with "easy reading" or otherwise. You are making unsubstantiated claims as if they are fact, which is disruptive unless you state it is an opinion only.

by j.rob 03.02.15 17:33

Not sure why my posts would be moderated? Just because my posts regarding the McCanns not being suspects don't make for easy reading for those intent on their guilt, rather than focusing on the truth for Madeleine.

-----

Focusing on the truth of what happened to Madeleine would mean focusing closely on what the McCanns, their friends, acquaintances and wider networks were up to not just that week, but in the weeks and months both before and after that fateful 'holiday'.

by woodforthetrees 03.02.15 17:49

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Joss wrote:I think these are just WFTT's theories, unless he/she has some insider intel?

Probably, but unless WFTT can expand or clarify WHY they are stating it is fact there posts will be moderated.
No, I cannot speak on behalf of SY I'm afraid, they speak for themselves.

Not sure why my posts would be moderated? Just because my posts regarding the McCanns not being suspects don't make for easy reading for those intent on their guilt, rather than focusing on the truth for Madeleine.
You have stated something as fact for which you provide no backup. Your posts have nothing to do with "easy reading" or otherwise. You are making unsubstantiated claims as if they are fact, which is disruptive unless you state it is an opinion only.

Dear oh dear...

Ok, I'll state that they are 'opinion only' to allow people to continue to believe that SY are still looking at the McCanns. I'm not here to convince people who have strong beliefs, each to their own.

As you were...

by ChippyM 03.02.15 17:53

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.

You are contradicting yourself. Why would an 'expert' lone paedo plan to go into a house and kill the child whilst in there? As has been repeated time and again, breaking in to a house and assaulting a child there is the riskiest type of assault there can be but you are saying it WAS planned that way?!. If he was so good at cleaning up then no need to take the body. If he killed the child by accident then how was he an 'expert'? It is sadly more likely that any sex offenders possibly connected to MM knew her and weren't strangers, that would logically explain how the offender left 'no trace', as their DNA would already be there.

We have no idea what SY are doing behind closed doors, that they are looking for one person or 2 or 3. Anything else is speculation but usually at least backed up by logic.

by Garrincha 03.02.15 20:44

This just gone on too long

by Maggs Shaw 03.02.15 21:54

Whether or not, and of course it remains to be seen, the debacle with The Sun newspaper was intentionally designed to aid the McCanns and their entourage, and give strength to their long list of reasons people should just shut up, we will never know. But is has played right into their hands and consequently will give them more ammunition to to portray themselves as victims.

The McCanns have evaded questions from the Portugese Police, Scotland Yard, and numerous interviewers that dared to step out of line occasionally and pose the more difficult searching questions. They have have had copious amounts of 'protection' They have been so far, and appear to be, totally untouchable.

The day will come, without a doubt, when K and G ARE questioned, and WILL have to answer, and it will not be from any of the above mentioned. It will be from their own flesh and blood, from their children. The questions their children will ask, will far outweigh ANY they have previously been asked. But...they will not have the option to reply with 'no comment'! When, and the day will come, they are both interrogated by their children will be the day K and G will have to face their demons.

by ScarletLaw 04.02.15 8:48

Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.

In reply to this question IMO (in the purpose of the evidence I supplied yesterday to their fitting up of people in the past) will be something that they find on a person. I have looked into Granges statements and there seems to be a definite plant to our press where they grumble about not being able to get access to various burglars and misfits homes. I don't know yet, because I haven't looked into this fully yet, (maybe someone can enlighten me) but as far as I know they still haven't been able to search a home because the Portugese's legal system of only being able to search if they're a proper suspect is stopping them.
  My instinct is the Portugese are being very clever with the Yard and are very aware that a hairbrush; an item of clothing, a speck of the little girls dna etc, could be planted in order by these people with the purpose of setting them up. Because these people have a firm, history where they've done this in the past.
The stories that Grange give out and the fact that their feeding and leading us to believe that they have some mysterious evidence, plus like others on here have said-we have no proof of, shows that it doesn't exist and it's their purpose for us to think this because much later, it will be found on a thoroughly dishonest person. Who I expect will be someone with a history of lying and again, the perfect patsy.
What the Yard are actually searching for is someone who is very dodgy; in the area on the night the little girl, has connections to breaking in houses etc, or has a penchant for child pornography, or just generally being violent. Unfortunately they can't do this because so far there isn't one person who fits into the criteria, hence in seven years they haven't bee able to find someone who was there.
    So they're grasping at straws and double checking every person there that night, hence the round up of lots of suspects before Christmas, and desperately searching for someone who fits this remit. Somebody who was say, sat up home alone and doesn't have any collaborative alibi to prove this theory.
   If they did have specific evidence then they would purposely be going in one direction at this point, say a small group of individuals. But they're not, they're simply grasping at straws in the hope something sticks.

IMO the fact that the Portugese are smart enough to know this is going on and stopping them, is the reason this case hasn't been concluded yet.

by Sceptic 04.02.15 9:09

IMHO the only logical explanation of SY interest in burglars taking into account their timeline is : They think a bag possibly blue was stolen from the apartment without the burglars knowing what was inside, until later and SY are determined to prove/eliminate this theory

by ScarletLaw 04.02.15 9:16

Sceptic wrote:IMHO the only logical explanation of SY interest in burglars taking into account their timeline is : They think a bag possibly blue was stolen from the apartment without the burglars knowing what was inside, until later and SY are determined to prove/eliminate this theory

Interesting but I think most people would be aware if a body was in a bag. It would be very heavy for a start and the body would stick out in lumps.

by Jamming 04.02.15 9:20

Sceptic wrote:IMHO the only logical explanation of SY interest in burglars taking into account their timeline is : They think a bag possibly blue was stolen from the apartment without the burglars knowing what was inside, until later and SY are determined to prove/eliminate this theory

So, the burglars took a blue bag without knowing what was in it, but left every item of value behind ? Nah

by woodforthetrees 04.02.15 9:22

ChippyM wrote:

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

You are contradicting yourself. Why would an 'expert' lone paedo plan to go into a house and kill the child whilst in there? As has been repeated time and again, breaking in to a house and assaulting a child there is the riskiest type of assault there can be but you are saying it WAS planned that way?!. If he was so good at cleaning up then no need to take the body. If he killed the child by accident then how was he an 'expert'? It is sadly more likely that any sex offenders possibly connected to MM knew her and weren't strangers, that would logically explain how the offender left 'no trace', as their DNA would already be there.

We have no idea what SY are doing behind closed doors, that they are looking for one person or 2 or 3. Anything else is speculation but usually at least backed up by logic.

To repeat..again....

I do not believe for one minute that the death of the child was planned, but who knows, there are some sick necrophiliacs out there.

How do you suggest he cleans DNA out of a childs body??????? Its a bit more difficult that wiping a floor with bleach! Hence removal of the evidence.

Agreed, it could possibly be someone linked to them, but if so, with what evidence they have, it wouldn't take them over 3 years and many trips back to Portugal to nail them. Based on the fact (and it is a fact) that they haven't caught the perp yet, it would strongly suggest that SYs target is either unidentifiable, or unobtainable.

But that would just be too logical wouldn't it.

Agreed, this topic has gone on for too long, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's clear that regardless of logic, reasoning, timeframes, public declarations from SY and the fact the McCanns and the Tapas group are within the grasp of SY and have been since day 1 and declared not suspects, some will always believe that 'they are really, they are just playing a long game'. I too was one of them, so understand, each to their own.

by woodforthetrees 04.02.15 9:22

Jamming wrote:
Sceptic wrote:IMHO the only logical explanation of SY interest in burglars taking into account their timeline is : They think a bag possibly blue was stolen from the apartment without the burglars knowing what was inside, until later and SY are determined to prove/eliminate this theory

So, the burglars took a blue bag without knowing what was in it, but left every item of value behind ? Nah

Doesn't explain the cadaver and the clean up.

by Joss 04.02.15 9:48

woodforthetrees wrote:
ChippyM wrote:

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

You are contradicting yourself. Why would an 'expert' lone paedo plan to go into a house and kill the child whilst in there? As has been repeated time and again, breaking in to a house and assaulting a child there is the riskiest type of assault there can be but you are saying it WAS planned that way?!. If he was so good at cleaning up then no need to take the body. If he killed the child by accident then how was he an 'expert'? It is sadly more likely that any sex offenders possibly connected to MM knew her and weren't strangers, that would logically explain how the offender left 'no trace', as their DNA would already be there.

We have no idea what SY are doing behind closed doors, that they are looking for one person or 2 or 3. Anything else is speculation but usually at least backed up by logic.
To repeat..again....

I do not believe for one minute that the death of the child was planned, but who knows, there are some sick necrophiliacs out there.

How do you suggest he cleans DNA out of a childs body??????? Its a bit more difficult that wiping a floor with bleach! Hence removal of the evidence.

Agreed, it could possibly be someone linked to them, but if so, with what evidence they have, it wouldn't take them over 3 years and many trips back to Portugal to nail them. Based on the fact (and it is a fact) that they haven't caught the perp yet, it would strongly suggest that SYs target is either unidentifiable, or unobtainable.

But that would just be too logical wouldn't it.

Agreed, this topic has gone on for too long, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's clear that regardless of logic, reasoning, timeframes, public declarations from SY and the fact the McCanns and the Tapas group are within the grasp of SY and have been since day 1 and declared not suspects, some will always believe that 'they are really, they are just playing a long game'. I too was one of them, so understand, each to their own.

Or some deadbeat parents that lie and confuse in the investigation into their missing child, and refuse to co operate with the investigators. Taken as a whole, there is more reason to suspect the parents in all of it, rather than some random lurking paedo/s. Isn't it funny that nothing like Maddie's disappearance from OC has ever happened before or since? If K. McC had a bad feeling about the holiday, why didn't she make doubly sure her babies were well protected? Cause she didn't give a toss. And safe to leave 3 little ones home alone ever? No way. But you believe what you want, because that is everyone's perogative here, and we all just say it the way we see it. All IMO as always.

by ScarletLaw 04.02.15 9:53

Joss wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
ChippyM wrote:

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

You are contradicting yourself. Why would an 'expert' lone paedo plan to go into a house and kill the child whilst in there? As has been repeated time and again, breaking in to a house and assaulting a child there is the riskiest type of assault there can be but you are saying it WAS planned that way?!. If he was so good at cleaning up then no need to take the body. If he killed the child by accident then how was he an 'expert'? It is sadly more likely that any sex offenders possibly connected to MM knew her and weren't strangers, that would logically explain how the offender left 'no trace', as their DNA would already be there.

We have no idea what SY are doing behind closed doors, that they are looking for one person or 2 or 3. Anything else is speculation but usually at least backed up by logic.
To repeat..again....

I do not believe for one minute that the death of the child was planned, but who knows, there are some sick necrophiliacs out there.

How do you suggest he cleans DNA out of a childs body??????? Its a bit more difficult that wiping a floor with bleach! Hence removal of the evidence.

Agreed, it could possibly be someone linked to them, but if so, with what evidence they have, it wouldn't take them over 3 years and many trips back to Portugal to nail them. Based on the fact (and it is a fact) that they haven't caught the perp yet, it would strongly suggest that SYs target is either unidentifiable, or unobtainable.

But that would just be too logical wouldn't it.

Agreed, this topic has gone on for too long, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's clear that regardless of logic, reasoning, timeframes, public declarations from SY and the fact the McCanns and the Tapas group are within the grasp of SY and have been since day 1 and declared not suspects, some will always believe that 'they are really, they are just playing a long game'. I too was one of them, so understand, each to their own.
Or some deadbeat parents that lie and confuse in the investigation into their missing child, and refuse to co operate with the investigators. Taken as a whole, there is more reason to suspect the parents in all of it, rather than some random lurking paedo/s. Isn't it funny that nothing like Maddie's disappearance from OC has ever happened before or since? If K. McC had a bad feeling about the holiday, why didn't she make doubly sure her babies were well protected? Cause she didn't give a toss. And safe to leave 3 little ones home alone ever? No way. But you believe what you want, because that is everyone's perogative here, and we all just say it the way we see it. All IMO as always.

Isn't it funny that nothing like Maddie's disappearance from OC has ever happened before or since?

Good point Joss. I will be addressing in an open letter to all members later that includes the so called other abductions in the area, so stay posted for that.

by secrets and lies 04.02.15 9:57

I'm sure are you correct in your assertion that SY are NOT looking at the McCanns, WoodForTrees.

However, that doesn't mean that the parents are not involved or that they aren't in it up to their necks.

I am not entirely sure that Operation Grange is a whitewash-all the taxpayers monies spent thus far, all the column inches, all the public interest. What I do believe is that Kate and Gerry McCann are, for some reason unknown to us, in the privileged position of not having to answer any awkward questions or explain why they told barefaced lies with regard to, for instance, the "jemmied shutters" (how I cringe.) A vital piece of evidence that points to an intruder. A vital piece of evidence in supporting an abduction theory. Yet, this story changed. Why?

Either the shutters in the bedroom of your abducted child were broken or they were not. Where is the confusion?

May I ask if you have read the PJ files, WoodForTrees? If you are happy with the fact that SY are not looking at The McCanns and have not brought them in for questioning (formal or otherwise) simply because they have other evidence pointing to a homicidal "paedo", that has not been made available to the public, then perhaps you need to carefully reexamine all the other evidence in this case that is available.

by woodforthetrees 04.02.15 9:58

Joss wrote:
woodforthetrees wrote:
ChippyM wrote:

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

You are contradicting yourself. Why would an 'expert' lone paedo plan to go into a house and kill the child whilst in there? As has been repeated time and again, breaking in to a house and assaulting a child there is the riskiest type of assault there can be but you are saying it WAS planned that way?!. If he was so good at cleaning up then no need to take the body. If he killed the child by accident then how was he an 'expert'? It is sadly more likely that any sex offenders possibly connected to MM knew her and weren't strangers, that would logically explain how the offender left 'no trace', as their DNA would already be there.

We have no idea what SY are doing behind closed doors, that they are looking for one person or 2 or 3. Anything else is speculation but usually at least backed up by logic.
To repeat..again....

I do not believe for one minute that the death of the child was planned, but who knows, there are some sick necrophiliacs out there.

How do you suggest he cleans DNA out of a childs body??????? Its a bit more difficult that wiping a floor with bleach! Hence removal of the evidence.

Agreed, it could possibly be someone linked to them, but if so, with what evidence they have, it wouldn't take them over 3 years and many trips back to Portugal to nail them. Based on the fact (and it is a fact) that they haven't caught the perp yet, it would strongly suggest that SYs target is either unidentifiable, or unobtainable.

But that would just be too logical wouldn't it.

Agreed, this topic has gone on for too long, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's clear that regardless of logic, reasoning, timeframes, public declarations from SY and the fact the McCanns and the Tapas group are within the grasp of SY and have been since day 1 and declared not suspects, some will always believe that 'they are really, they are just playing a long game'. I too was one of them, so understand, each to their own.
Or some deadbeat parents that lie and confuse in the investigation into their missing child, and refuse to co operate with the investigators. Taken as a whole, there is more reason to suspect the parents in all of it, rather than some random lurking paedo/s. Isn't it funny that nothing like Maddie's disappearance from OC has ever happened before or since? If K. McC had a bad feeling about the holiday, why didn't she make doubly sure her babies were well protected? Cause she didn't give a toss. And safe to leave 3 little ones home alone ever? No way. But you believe what you want, because that is everyone's perogative here, and we all just say it the way we see it. All IMO as always.

Yes, lie and confuse to cover their arses for their disgusting parenting skills (or lack of), their narcissistic behaviors and their sheer arrogance have put them in the spotlight a lot.

That, matched with Amarals theory and their media use backfiring on them to turn against them, plus it being easier for people to blame the parents than something more sinister/rare, makes the pair very disliked.

I agree, they didn't give a toss about any of their 3 kids (until one disappeared), i have never once defended the McCanns in their actions as parents or individuals and believe they should be wholly accountable for the death by neglect of their child.

by woodforthetrees 04.02.15 10:16

secrets and lies wrote:I'm sure are correct in your assertion that SY are NOT looking at the McCanns, WoodForTrees.

However, that doesn't mean that the parents are not involved or that they aren't in it up to their necks.
Agreed, though only for neglect and subsequent fraud charges for the fund (IMO of course, before it gets libelous)

I am not entirely sure that Operation Grange is a whitewash-all the taxpayers monies spent thus far, all the column inches, all the public interest. What I do believe is that Kate and Gerry McCann are, for some reason unknown to us, in the privileged position of not having to answer any awkward questions or explain why they told barefaced lies with regard to, for instance, the "jemmied shutters" (how I cringe.) A vital piece of evidence that points to an intruder. A vital piece of evidence in supporting an abduction theory. Yet, this story changed. Why? Agreed, they are in a privileged position, hence they have not been hauled in for neglect. IMO the Jemmied shutters was just panic as they realised that they had left the door open to anyone. Also, don't forget, we assume they haven't been questioned, because 'Kate refused to answer 48 questions' back in 2007, though i dare say the Met, Leicester Police and SY have run through a few questions with them since then, they have just not spoken about it in the media, as it's an on-going live investigation. We have not seen 1 file from any of those forces on-line have we?

Either the shutters in the bedroom of your abducted child were broken or they were not. Where is the confusion? Again, they have to keep their pretense up that she was abducted alive to counter the cadaver findings and substantiate the fund

May I ask if you have read the PJ files, WoodForTrees? Yes, many parts of it over the years If you are happy with the fact that SY are not looking at The McCanns and have not brought them in for questioning (formal or otherwise) simply because they have other evidence pointing to a homicidal "paedo", that has not been made available to the public, then perhaps you need to carefully reexamine all the other evidence in this case that is available. Again, the files released are the PII files which were released to SUPPORT Amarals theory, NOT all of the files. Think about this logically....if the team of 30 at SY got those files and nothing else, no further evidence, statements or intel from other agencies and read them all, 3 years ago they too would say "you know what, not a lot else for us to look into here guv, it all seem wrapped up, get the McCanns in ASAP"

Lets not keep going over this, regardless of what anyone says, it appears that regardless of what SY know/have/think/are doing, the speculation, internet files and media have the pair bang to rights for the death and concealment.

Time will tell if SY get it wrong and revert back to the PJ theory, but after 3yrs and them stating it's not the McCanns, i very much doubt that will happen

by secrets and lies 04.02.15 11:46

Well, I'm pleased that you are satisfied that The McCann parents are simply neglectful and perhaps a bit arrogant and narcissistic.

You must find the theories put forward on this site rather repetitive and overbearing, in that case.

I will state, in my own view, even if the SY find their "paedo" and officially exonerate theMcCanns from any involvement in the death and concealment of their child, without clear and concrete proof, I, for one, will not be satisfied of their innocence.

by woodforthetrees 04.02.15 12:30

secrets and lies wrote:Well, I'm pleased that you are satisfied that The McCann parents are simply neglectful and perhaps a bit arrogant and narcissistic. I have always stated that, whether i (initially) believed they are responsible for covering up an accident and concealing the body, or (now) believe that they are 100% exonerated from that part...i always maintain that they are neglectful, arrogant, selfish, manipulating and narcissistic and as such should be held accountable for their actions on that holiday.

You must find the theories put forward on this site rather repetitive and overbearing, in that case. Not really, i have listened, contributed and considered multiple theories, whether repetitive or new. They are all worth consideration. I just want to ensure that the focus remains on finding the truth about who took her, who is responsible for causing that to happen and ensuring justice prevails and that general public do not waste too much time, effort and emotional stress on certain aspects unnecessarily, i.e becoming incessant on the witch hunt, rather than what is going on today.

I will state, in my own view, even if the SY find their "paedo" and officially exonerate theMcCanns from any involvement in the death and concealment of their child, They already have done without clear and concrete proof, I, for one, will not be satisfied of their innocence. I think at that stage it would be down to the PJ to object about SYs findings, for them to demand that the parents are extradited back to Portugal and to put forward the conclusive evidence they have. Unfortunately, if they had such conclusive evidence, it would never have been shelved and the McCanns would be in jail by now. As such, there is only SYs findings left to close the case.

by ScarletLaw 04.02.15 12:49

woodforthetrees wrote:
secrets and lies wrote:Well, I'm pleased that you are satisfied that The McCann parents are simply neglectful and perhaps a bit arrogant and narcissistic. I have always stated that, whether i (initially) believed they are responsible for covering up an accident and concealing the body, or (now) believe that they are 100% exonerated from that part...i always maintain that they are neglectful, arrogant, selfish, manipulating and narcissistic and as such should be held accountable for their actions on that holiday.

You must find the theories put forward on this site rather repetitive and overbearing, in that case. Not really, i have listened, contributed and considered multiple theories, whether repetitive or new. They are all worth consideration. I just want to ensure that the focus remains on finding the truth about who took her, who is responsible for causing that to happen and ensuring justice prevails and that general public do not waste too much time, effort and emotional stress on certain aspects unnecessarily, i.e becoming incessant on the witch hunt, rather than what is going on today.

I will state, in my own view, even if the SY find their "paedo" and officially exonerate theMcCanns from any involvement in the death and concealment of their child, They already have done without clear and concrete proof, I, for one, will not be satisfied of their innocence. I think at that stage it would be down to the PJ to object about SYs findings, for them to demand that the parents are extradited back to Portugal and to put forward the conclusive evidence they have. Unfortunately, if they had such conclusive evidence, it would never have been shelved and the McCanns would be in jail by now. As such, there is only SYs findings left to close the case.

As such, there is only SYs findings left to close the case.

Considering, that Scotland Yards only finding so far, considering the fictitious Crime Watch programme, is the creche man who not only took his child to the crèche in her pyjamas but took her their shoeless too and (illegal in all crèches worldwide because of the safety damage to feet). I can't wait for the forces next instalment because I love a good fairy tale. If they're as silly as this one, I for one will be very happy.

by j.rob 04.02.15 15:28

To cut to the chase. I think paedo networks are involved. DP, GM and male tapakniks suspect, in my opinion. Plus wider networks. Possibly some staying at OC that week, and/or staying/living in the vicinity.

By their own admission, the McCanns and all the Tapas parents claim that they left their children alone in apartment while they ate out each night and sometimes went to the bar.

This is an extraordinary admission. And while, on the face of it, you could argue that it is neglect, which is bad enough. I think that there is another, possibly even more disturbing, angle to this.

Clearly leaving very young children at night without a responsible adult looking after them exposes them to all kinds of risk. Such as waking up and wandering; waking up and having an accident; choking in sleep, and so on. There is also, of course, the very tiny risk of an opportunistic abduction of the child by a complete stranger.

But leaving children at risk by leaving them alone obviously opens up opportunities for adults who have malevolent motives. So, by leaving their children alone without a responsible adult supervising them, the Mcs and their friends allows the opportunity for other adults to enter the apartment while the children are unsupervised by a responsible adult.

Have a look at the beyond creepy 'Madeleine was Here' C4 series where GM and MO do an extraordinary 'reconstruction' of the final evening when MO allegedly stood at the doorway to the McCann children's apartment. MO is quite clear that he did not step inside the bedroom, but merely looked in from the door. Which is perhaps slightly strange, when you are supposed to be checking that babies/young children are okay.

But even more peculiar is what GM says of his alleged 'final check' at 9.05pm. "This was the only time I went into the bedroom." (And, of course, we have the saccharine description from Kate's book of how he looked at his three sleeping children that night and thought how beautiful they were and how lucky he was. Which is somewhat at odds with his boorish behaviour in front of his three beautiful children on the arrivals airport bus when he tells an adult filming him to: "f*** off. I'm not here to enjoy myself.") But what a very odd thing for GM to say. This was the one time, during all the alleged 'checking' of his children that week, that he ever actually went into their bedroom?

Assuming, of course, that a single word of what GM is true (!) then why would he not have gone into the children's bedroom while checking before Thursday evening. Especially when you consider there was no babysitter? Why admit that he couldn't even be bothered to go inside and see if they were okay?

Because, there is something sensitive about adults - including TM males, imo - having gone inside that bedroom apartment that week.

Now, why would that be I wonder?

A theory as always. I would like to be proven wrong as Madeleine McCann deserved a lot better.

Retired PJ Inspector Francisco Moita Flores: "There are no material conditions to opt for another solution. The mystery lies with one or two of the ten or twelve elements that used to enter that apartment".

The whole of TM repulse me beyond belief.

by noseyparker 04.02.15 15:34

Latest topics