This just gone on to Daily Mail.

ScarletLaw wrote:Woodsfortrees. Is the evidence you're pointing at the small semen sample that was rumoured to be found in another place?

ScarletLaw wrote:

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.

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:Woodsfortrees. Is the evidence you're pointing at the small semen sample that was rumoured to be found in another place?

Hi ScarletLaw,

I have no specific information about 'what' evidence SY have i'm afraid (which is very very frustrating), but their continuous investigation is based on evidence they hold and is not looking at the McCanns.

IMO it would not be a semen sample, more blood, skin or hair of an unidentified person. I think (disgusting as it is to write) any semen was taken with the body.

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

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.

Don't confuse a live, confidential case to what is publicly put out through the media, the two are entirely different animals. One is based on facts and evidence, the other is a tool to shape perception, get information and make people think/talk.

IMO crecheman was just a media exercise to boost their profile...e.g  'revelation moment', to get public back on side and calm the backlash they are getting for spending millions coming up with nothing (in public anyway), albeit a pretty lame one to come up with a random man on his way back from the creche who failed to come forward for years in the most widely publicised missing person case of all time!!

Its also a good way to help tweak the timeline to assist the McCanns (covered in other threads on here regarding the Smith sighting and widening the window of opportunity).

ScarletLaw wrote:
 There are concerns too that Kate and Gerry must've been tipped off by their friends here on phone before police arrive of these burglaries because it would explain the shutters being mentioned very early on as a way in, that fitted with the other crimes. This would make sense of missing phone calls and the window being involved from the start?

ScarletLaw wrote:

This doesn't make sense if burglar, he would go in and maybe pull it back if not wanted people to see girl, but not stay in the apartment. I think McCanns want people to think, as indicated by Kate seeing door wide open, that abductor came after 9.30 and this would tie in with Janes made up statement about crecheman. Yes, well kind of.. they want people to think that Madeleine was taken in a minute window of opportunity between Gerrys l'last check' and the Tanner sighting. I do not believe Tanner made up her sighting of someone in the street, if anything, it has caused problems ever since Gerry wanted us to think this too by man being in apartment when he was there. Again, trying to add more time to the timeline, when IMO, in reality they weren't even checking Well, we know Scotland Yard are lying for them now because the crecheman was a lie made up by Jane No, it was made up by OG, not Jane. It was made up to move focus over to the SMith sighting, to help add weight to the 'rota', allow a bigger timeline and account for the cadaver in the apartment and it shows us that there is a cover up going on. Against charges for child neglect, yes (IMO of course)

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:
 There are concerns too that Kate and Gerry must've been tipped off by their friends here on phone before police arrive of these burglaries because it would explain the shutters being mentioned very early on as a way in, that fitted with the other crimes. This would make sense of missing phone calls and the window being involved from the start?

I think stories of evidence being swapped, people being stitched up etc etc are imagination gone wild and just add fuel to speculation. If SY were going to fit someone up for it, thy wouldn't take 3 years to do that, it could've been wrapped up a long time ago. 

The fact that no valuable items were taken rules out any burglary gone wrong, therefore it leave 'child wondering off'... of which no evidence of that, an abduction of a live child, or an act taking place inside and then evidence removed. The last 2 require forensic samples to be taken, which were and are on file.

IMO the warning about burglaries in the area is pretty common on any resort. I, as i'm sure many people on here have, been on holiday where people have said "make sure you lock things in the safe, there are burglars targeting tourists' etc etc. IMO they just re-iterated this whilst mentioning the shutters to divert the attention away from the fact they left doors unlocked.

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

This doesn't make sense if burglar, he would go in and maybe pull it back if not wanted people to see girl, but not stay in the apartment. I think McCanns want people to think, as indicated by Kate seeing door wide open, that abductor came after 9.30 and this would tie in with Janes made up statement about crecheman. Yes, well kind of.. they want people to think that Madeleine was taken in a minute window of opportunity between Gerrys l'last check' and the Tanner sighting. I do not believe Tanner made up her sighting of someone in the street, if anything, it has caused problems ever since Gerry wanted us to think this too by man being in apartment when he was there. Again, trying to add more time to the timeline, when IMO, in reality they weren't even checking Well, we know Scotland Yard are lying for them now because the crecheman was a lie made up by Jane No, it was made up by OG, not Jane. It was made up to move focus over to the SMith sighting, to help add weight to the 'rota', allow a bigger timeline and account for the cadaver in the apartment and it shows us that there is a cover up going on. Against charges for child neglect, yes (IMO of course)

Heavily snipped....

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

This doesn't make sense if burglar, he would go in and maybe pull it back if not wanted people to see girl, but not stay in the apartment. I think McCanns want people to think, as indicated by Kate seeing door wide open, that abductor came after 9.30 and this would tie in with Janes made up statement about crecheman. Yes, well kind of.. they want people to think that Madeleine was taken in a minute window of opportunity between Gerrys l'last check' and the Tanner sighting. I do not believe Tanner made up her sighting of someone in the street, if anything, it has caused problems ever since Gerry wanted us to think this too by man being in apartment when he was there. Again, trying to add more time to the timeline, when IMO, in reality they weren't even checking Well, we know Scotland Yard are lying for them now because the crecheman was a lie made up by Jane No, it was made up by OG, not Jane. It was made up to move focus over to the SMith sighting, to help add weight to the 'rota', allow a bigger timeline and account for the cadaver in the apartment and it shows us that there is a cover up going on. Against charges for child neglect, yes (IMO of course)

Heavily snipped....

ScarletLaw wrote:

This doesn't make sense because they admitted to going out alone on a succession of nights and leaving their babies unattended. Why would they care about neglect anyway if their daughter was taken? Your priority would be on finding her alone.

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

This doesn't make sense because they admitted to going out alone on a succession of nights and leaving their babies unattended. Why would they care about neglect anyway if their daughter was taken? Your priority would be on finding her alone.

They admitted going out alone but yet returning periodically to check on their children. 

This is a lot different to leaving their children alone for hours at a time unattended and not checking at all. Then if her body does turn up (which it most likely won't by now), then there's death by neglect.

These are narcissists remember, they think about themselves. If there is even a whiff of a chance that they could be blamed for her going missing, they talk themselves out of it...this we have seen on numerous occasions where they have squirmed, blamed, avoided, manipulated and influenced.

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:
 There are concerns too that Kate and Gerry must've been tipped off by their friends here on phone before police arrive of these burglaries because it would explain the shutters being mentioned very early on as a way in, that fitted with the other crimes. This would make sense of missing phone calls and the window being involved from the start?

I think stories of evidence being swapped, people being stitched up etc etc are imagination gone wild and just add fuel to speculation. If SY were going to fit someone up for it, thy wouldn't take 3 years to do that, it could've been wrapped up a long time ago. 

noseyparker wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:
 There are concerns too that Kate and Gerry must've been tipped off by their friends here on phone before police arrive of these burglaries because it would explain the shutters being mentioned very early on as a way in, that fitted with the other crimes. This would make sense of missing phone calls and the window being involved from the start?

I think stories of evidence being swapped, people being stitched up etc etc are imagination gone wild and just add fuel to speculation. If SY were going to fit someone up for it, thy wouldn't take 3 years to do that, it could've been wrapped up a long time ago. 

Justine Mcguinness the Mccscamms PR said at the time of the interveiws,There was frantic telephone calls and texts between the Tapas9 to get their story straight not imaganation it was on youtube don,t know if it,s still there but collusion to get the fairy story straight most definately.......not where she said  about the phone calls
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Scroll down for her comment about texts from the interveiws

ScarletLaw wrote:

I don't agree but I've seen lots of posts of people who agree with you, so I appreciate your opinion. For me most of all and raises my suspicion is that their language has indicated in interviews that their girl is dead from the very beginning. Yes, because they were told within the first week that she is most likely dead, or presumed dead, then told that if they publish detailed images of her when she was still alive, that would more than certainly kill her. They ignored that and went ahead anyway, as the narccisist in them and media attention had taken over , that wouIf she was taken, why spend valuable money that could be used for reward by chasing people in civil courts? They won't find their girl there. No they won't find her there, but they will find money. Because spending money suing people is an investment....Have you never noticed that the majority of people they sue are people who have a bank account full of cash, or look to have the means to pay compo? No body, no proof, no perp, no proof, therefore what better way to bring money in than to sue people who say otherwise. Don't forget, they will have legal advisers pressuring them to sue as they too want their piece of the cake


The McCanns played cards from beginning of making themselves investigate their own little girls disappearance by setting up their own investigation- when they themselves were the main suspects? Because they knew Amaral was pointing a finger at them for the death/concealment, therefore no other angle was being pursued, hence setting up their own investigation. You or i would most likely do the same in that situation.

 For me, Scotland Yard; Cameron, the Home Office and probably the Attorney General will one day be on the front page of The Times, the paper asking how this could happen. I very much doubt that. The media is controlled very well and many gagging orders are already in place for what can and can't be published about the McCanns, therefore it is unlikely.

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

I don't agree but I've seen lots of posts of people who agree with you, so I appreciate your opinion. For me most of all and raises my suspicion is that their language has indicated in interviews that their girl is dead from the very beginning. Yes, because they were told within the first week that she is most likely dead, or presumed dead, then told that if they publish detailed images of her when she was still alive, that would more than certainly kill her. They ignored that and went ahead anyway, as the narccisist in them and media attention had taken over , that wouIf she was taken, why spend valuable money that could be used for reward by chasing people in civil courts? They won't find their girl there. No they won't find her there, but they will find money. Because spending money suing people is an investment....Have you never noticed that the majority of people they sue are people who have a bank account full of cash, or look to have the means to pay compo? No body, no proof, no perp, no proof, therefore what better way to bring money in than to sue people who say otherwise. Don't forget, they will have legal advisers pressuring them to sue as they too want their piece of the cake


The McCanns played cards from beginning of making themselves investigate their own little girls disappearance by setting up their own investigation- when they themselves were the main suspects? Because they knew Amaral was pointing a finger at them for the death/concealment, therefore no other angle was being pursued, hence setting up their own investigation. You or i would most likely do the same in that situation.

 For me, Scotland Yard; Cameron, the Home Office and probably the Attorney General will one day be on the front page of The Times, the paper asking how this could happen. I very much doubt that. The media is controlled very well and many gagging orders are already in place for what can and can't be published about the McCanns, therefore it is unlikely.

ScarletLaw wrote:

noseyparker wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:
 There are concerns too that Kate and Gerry must've been tipped off by their friends here on phone before police arrive of these burglaries because it would explain the shutters being mentioned very early on as a way in, that fitted with the other crimes. This would make sense of missing phone calls and the window being involved from the start?

I think stories of evidence being swapped, people being stitched up etc etc are imagination gone wild and just add fuel to speculation. If SY were going to fit someone up for it, thy wouldn't take 3 years to do that, it could've been wrapped up a long time ago. 

Justine Mcguinness the Mccscamms PR said at the time of the interveiws,There was frantic telephone calls and texts between the Tapas9 to get their story straight not imaganation it was on youtube don,t know if it,s still there but collusion to get the fairy story straight most definately.......not where she said  about the phone calls
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Scroll down for her comment about texts from the interveiws

It amazes me always that Kate's portrayed as a loving mother. I think "a loving mother" wouldn't neglect her children in the first place. I've never seen this woman before but she's more professional then Clarence. But then again Clarence only got the job because he was sacked for tipping off the McCanns about being bugged and was given the job as a thank you.

LombardySkeptik wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

noseyparker wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:
 There are concerns too that Kate and Gerry must've been tipped off by their friends here on phone before police arrive of these burglaries because it would explain the shutters being mentioned very early on as a way in, that fitted with the other crimes. This would make sense of missing phone calls and the window being involved from the start?

I think stories of evidence being swapped, people being stitched up etc etc are imagination gone wild and just add fuel to speculation. If SY were going to fit someone up for it, thy wouldn't take 3 years to do that, it could've been wrapped up a long time ago. 

Justine Mcguinness the Mccscamms PR said at the time of the interveiws,There was frantic telephone calls and texts between the Tapas9 to get their story straight not imaganation it was on youtube don,t know if it,s still there but collusion to get the fairy story straight most definately.......not where she said  about the phone calls
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Scroll down for her comment about texts from the interveiws

It amazes me always that Kate's portrayed as a loving mother. I think "a loving mother" wouldn't neglect her children in the first place. I've never seen this woman before but she's more professional then Clarence. But then again Clarence only got the job because he was sacked for tipping off the McCanns about being bugged and was given the job as a thank you.

I didn't know about this - an interesting slant......sources?

LombardySkeptik wrote:Writing as someone who has followed the case from the start  -- Actually I dont think its common knowledge

Mo wrote:I found this part interesting:


BILTON: As Kate McCann sits down in the interview room she recognises one of the detectives.


SUSAN HEALY
Kate McCann's mother
They'd had a meal with this guy, with his family, and the children have played together, and she talked to me about this particular police officer as being as if he was a friend, and she felt quite comforted by having this guy who spoke English as well, and he was in the interview and he didn't make eye contact with Kate at all.


Who is this officer?  I wonder if the meal was in UK or Portugal!

ScarletLaw wrote:

I very much doubt that. The media is controlled very well and many gagging orders are already in place for what can and can't be published about the McCanns, therefore it is unlikely.

 The people create their own media.

ScarletLaw wrote:

Mo wrote:I found this part interesting:


BILTON: As Kate McCann sits down in the interview room she recognises one of the detectives.


SUSAN HEALY
Kate McCann's mother
They'd had a meal with this guy, with his family, and the children have played together, and she talked to me about this particular police officer as being as if he was a friend, and she felt quite comforted by having this guy who spoke English as well, and he was in the interview and he didn't make eye contact with Kate at all.


Who is this officer?  I wonder if the meal was in UK or Portugal!

 I was on a forum where somebody asked your very question with this section. Personally, I had no idea too, it is interesting.

Mo wrote:

ScarletLaw wrote:

Mo wrote:I found this part interesting:


BILTON: As Kate McCann sits down in the interview room she recognises one of the detectives.


SUSAN HEALY
Kate McCann's mother
They'd had a meal with this guy, with his family, and the children have played together, and she talked to me about this particular police officer as being as if he was a friend, and she felt quite comforted by having this guy who spoke English as well, and he was in the interview and he didn't make eye contact with Kate at all.


Who is this officer?  I wonder if the meal was in UK or Portugal!

 I was on a forum where somebody asked your very question with this section. Personally, I had no idea too, it is interesting.

I know it's a small world but......   They seem to know everybody all the right connections - it's unbelievable!   Although I have the bewk (downloaded) I couldn't bring myself to read it because at the start it was like reading an autobiography.  I will have a scan through and see if it's mentioned.

Strange, there is nothing mentioned in the bewk about this officer during the interview?

j.rob wrote:Is it detective Luis Neves who Kate writes about on page 158 and 159? They got quite pally with him and he came over to their apartment at OC where he drank instant coffee which became a standing joke between them? Kate writes that they built up a good, friendly relationship with him and with detective Encarnacao, although she does write that neither her nor Gerry felt entirely comfortable with the latter.

However Kate's impression of Neves which she writes that she noted in her diary is: ""A good fella; on the ball; humanitarian, sensitive."

Or detective Ricardo Paiva who invited the McCanns to dinner at their apartment in Lagos in early July 2007? Kate writes: "It was reassuring to have a close and amicable relationship with someone who was officially involved in our daughter's case.....it made us feel Ricard and his wife genuinely cared about us and, more importantly, Madeleine."

Even if not one of these, I find Kate's account of her response to their new line of questioning highly revealing:

Kate describes on pages 212 and 213 how the relationships with the detectives abruptly changed following 'a shift' in the investigation. "The whole demeanour of Neves and Encarnacao was different. They looked serious and cold."

She describes how Gerry was asked to leave the room and how she was questioned about events of that fateful Thursday evening.

"Neves stated bluntly that he did not believe my version of events. It didn't 'fit' with what they knew. Didn't fit? What did they know? I was sobbing now, well past the stage of silent tears and stifled sniffs. I began to wail hysterically, drawing breath in desperate gasps."

The sentence which jumps out to me (which I have bolded - it is already in italics in the book, and therefore stands out anyway) is: "What do they know?"


From the horse's mouth, as always. Both Kate and Gerry are terrified about what information the police have that might incriminate them. This has nothing whatsoever to do with finding Madeleine alive, imo. But everything to do with covering up what really happened and so the Mcs and their friends/aquaintances/accomplices can evade justice.

It's astonishing how such dim - and truly awful, imo - people have been protected for so long. Really amazing.

--------------- 


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".


Kate gives no account in her book of anyone else visiting their apartment that fateful week. With the one exception of Matt Oldfield who allegedly enters the apartment and stands at the McCann children's bedroom door to do a 'check' at 9.30pm on Thursday evening. While Kate gives an account of David Payne paying a visit to the apartment at 6.30pm on that Thursday, she places him as standing at the patio doors and having a short conversation with her while she stands in a towel in the sitting-room. 

This strongly indicates to me that both Matt Oldfield and David Payne had visited the McCann apartment that week - possibly quite a few times - and that both are implicated in some way in what happened to Madeleine. Kate and Gerry have  made sure they are not going to get off scot-free in this respect.

So - apart from Kate and Gerry being two of the 'elements' entering the apartment, which you would obviously expect as they were staying there that week, David Payne and Matt are another two, imo. So that makes four. I would also add Russell O'Brien as his partner, Jane Tanner, is heavily involved in the McScam by virtue, at the very least (and it's clearly, imo, a whole lot more) of the fairy-tale character Tanner-man who she allegedly sees at 9.15pm on Thursday night spiriting Madeleine away in her pajamas to some hellish liar somewhere. So that makes five 'elements.'

Who are the other five or seven 'elements', I wonder? Therein may lie a key that might unravel a big part of the 'mystery', methinks.

And why on earth would eight or ten people - presumably he means adults - enter the McCann holiday apartment that week when Kate has only mentioned one person apart from the McCann family going inside their apartment that week and that was Matt Oldfield on Thursday evening, allegedly?

Actually, just checking her book and that is not quite correct. On page 54 Kate writes, by way of explaining that their 'checking' system was more thorough than the 'baby listening' service not on offer at OC: "Even if there had been a baby listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our visits did. We were going into the apartments and looking as well as listening."

But of course, this leaves open the question of whether they were merely checking on their own children, or others as well? But I think at least one of the tapasniks said they only checked on their own children each evening (apart from Thursday, allegedly.)

I suppose if you took all the tapasniks as checking then that would come to 9 'elements' - is this what Flores means? Or does he mean other people too?

Edited to add: Even if the tapasniks were to claim they all checked in every apartment that was occupied by their children, that still only comes to 9 'elements' - so who is the other one? Or the other one plus 2?

G-Unit wrote:I have thought that perhaps Gerry McCann was making sure Jeremy Wilkins didn't see something. I thought he may have distracted him so he didn't see 'Tannerman' but then they told the police about Tannerman themselves. Unless Jeremy would have recognised him? Then they told just in case he had seen him, or someone else had? That would have been OK if he was long gone and they knew that, especially if the description given by Jane Tanner was nothing like him. All IMO. 

SY said he was a holiday maker returning from the creche with his child, but surely he was heading towards the creche if, as I understand it, it was where Madeleine's daytime club was?