Re: The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

by nglfi 28.05.16 11:13

Given that Murat was later made an arguido, were the interviews that he translated ever re done? Surely there's a rather strong chance he was interpreting wrongly? This never actually crossed my mind before but if he did indeed know Gerry and Kate before the incident, he may well have been prompting or guiding those interviewed without the interviewer knowing, if they only spoke Portuguese? Apologies if this has already been discussed.

by nglfi 28.05.16 11:18

Although thinking about it, if all interviews had an audio recording, those in which he took part would have been the first thing they checked once they made him an arguido and decided his interests were not purely benevolent. One would hope.

by pennylane 28.05.16 11:47

Realist wrote:
plebgate wrote:

I believe a reconstruction might be able to help establish the facts and consequent discovery of the truth.

I understand your philosophy, Plebgate, but all an authentic reconstruction would achieve is to demonstrate the McCanns and their acquaintances are lying. The police from both the UK and Portugal already know this, so what would be gained from staging the aforementioned??

It could only ever be introduced as evidence if there were other tangible evidence with which to indict the McCanns. By tangible evidence, I mean the discovery of Madeleine's body, or evidence that she had come to harm.

I disagree Realist, an authentic reconstruction would further prove the McCanns are lying! This stacks up more evidence against them, which is paramount to the investigation. It also renders the McCanns and their friends more vulnerable and susceptible to being caught out. Oftentimes, incriminating information can emerge years down the road, and then all areas can come back into full focus. An authentic Reconstruction would be immensely valuable, not only for the police..... but also for Madeleine.

by Realist 28.05.16 11:49

nglfi wrote:Although thinking about it, if all interviews had an audio recording, those in which he took part would have been the first thing they checked once they made him an arguido and decided his interests were not purely benevolent. One would hope.

In the vein that he appears to have acted as an interpreter on previous occasions, it may have been that he received some kind of stipend for the yield of his labour, ngifi. Others more familiar with the life and times of Robert Murat will no doubt be able to confirm or refute the aforementioned.

by Realist 28.05.16 11:55

pennylane wrote:
I disagree Realist, an authentic reconstruction would further prove the McCanns are lying!

I don't understand what you are stating, why would one require further proof that the McCnns and their acquiantances are lying, when there is is aleady more than enough to sink a refloating of the Titanic. Without wishing to appear repititious, proof of their lying does not constitute proof of their (edited for possible libel) or harming their daughter.

by pennylane 28.05.16 12:19

Realist wrote:
pennylane wrote:
I disagree Realist, an authentic reconstruction would further prove the McCanns are lying!
I don't understand what you are stating, why would one require further proof that the McCnns and their acquiantances are lying, when there is is aleady more than enough to sink a refloating of the Titanic. Without wishing to appear repititious, proof of their lying does not constitute proof of their(edited for possible libel) or harming their daughter.

The police often have a great deal of evidence against the perps, but not enough to get a conviction. That doesn't mean they shouldn't bother to pursue and meticulously record any further information they can glean for future reference. In fact I would go on to say that it is paramount that they do. You never know where or when that important piece of evidence that ties it all together will come from.

by Liz Eagles 28.05.16 12:27

The only person on this thread using the terms 'murdered" and 'killed' is Realist.

Even Goncalo Amaral didn't use these terms.

Nothing like a bit of entrapment eh?

by Verdi 28.05.16 12:38

Realist wrote:
Verdi wrote:@Realist wrote: Thanks for providing this informal interview/statement of the 4th inst. May, Sky. It would appear that the aforementioned was made when events were freshest in her mind. I am now a tad confused, because here she appears to be stating that Maddie was in her company around the 5 30 pm mark. ''That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14. 50 and picked her up at 17.30''

It would appear to me that Catriona Baker's informal statement taken on 4th May 2007, was not made while her mind was still fresh but more to accord with a predetermined futuristic path in mind. The times she states for signing in and signing Madeleine out of the creche by Kate and/or Gerry McCann on Thursday the 3rd May, are the exact times recorded on the creche register. Considering six children attended the creche in the morning and four in the afternoon, do you seriously think it likely she would be able to recall the exact times - to the minute?

Catriona Baker was reported to have been seriously disabled by Madeleine's disappearance, which I think extraordinary considering she only knew Madeleine for a few hours over a period of five days, if she is to be believed. If Madeleine disappeared whilst left unattended by her parents on the night of the 3rd, why would a nanny that supervised her during the day, be so affected? Apparently Catriona Baker was swiftly shipped out by Warners to another country, in itself peculiar if she was an important witness !?!

It should be remembered that Catriona Baker was re-interviewed during the rogatory process at the request of the McCanns - not the PJ or the UK police. One can deduce from this that they considered her to be an important witness but why? Ostensibly she couldn't be a witness in any way connected with Madeleine's disappearance but a character witness? How would that be possible when she only passed the time of day with the parents when they dropped off and/or collected Madeleine from the day care facilities?

The way the rogatory interviews were conducted remains an enigma to me, unorthodox in terms of customary policing I would suggest. Whatever, they proved to be insignificant as regards the PJ investigation. The McCanns request for specific persons to be interviewed or re-interviewed is recorded in the PJ files as follows [snipped]..

Faxed from Society of Attorneys 16 Oct 2007 to Ministerio Publico in Portimao.

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, better identified in the documents referenced above, approach, very respectfully, to set forth and request, Sir, the following:

1 - Since the applicants stopped being considered witnesses, moving to suspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, witnesses central to the discovery of truth were not questioned, or re-questioned.

2 - With the recent investigations, witness interviews and interrogations of the applicants, new questions were raised and doubts aroused, broadening, in this way, the object of the investigation, as well as matters of fact considered relevant to the investigations.

3 - Indeed, the Investigation departed from confining itself to the disappearance of the minor, proceeding to embrace other matters, allegedly connected with her.

4 - It is therefore essential to hear these witnesses who can explain facts now very relevant, such as the way the couple treated their children, their personality and routine and, even, the reactions manifested by them after the disappearance and the consequent psychological and emotional state.

5 - So, and because it is believed essential and indispensable for the establishment of the facts and consequent discovery of the truth, they come to request the hearing of the following groups of witnesses, all present and with direct knowledge of the facts:
----------

So how does Catriona Baker fit in with this I ask? Is it so difficult to understand why some people think Catriona Baker is not the real deal?
All of which is very interesting, Verdi, but the bottom line is, for the pre 3rd. May plot to have worked, Catriona Baker would have had to have played an integral role. So again I ask the questions ,1/ Do you believe she would have agreed to participate in a conspiracy to (edited for possible libel), particularly in the vein, as you so poignantly state, she barely knew the McCanns.

2/ Do you believe that the McCanns would have confided in a naive, 20 yr. old menial worker that they had (edited for possible libel) their daughter, disposed of her body and were going stage a spurious kidnapping for the benefit of the Portuguese authorities. These are facts she would had to have been made aware of to enable her to participate in the conspiracy.

Would you please refrain from using the word 'murder' and/or 'killed' in connection with the parents. You seem to be the only member of this forum who continuously promotes such a diabolical suggestion.

ETA: @aquilla Touche, only just read your post!

by willowthewisp 28.05.16 12:51

Realist wrote:
nglfi wrote:Although thinking about it, if all interviews had an audio recording, those in which he took part would have been the first thing they checked once they made him an arguido and decided his interests were not purely benevolent. One would hope.

In the vein that he appears to have acted as an interpreter on previous occasions, it may have been that he received some kind of stipend for the yield of his labour, ngifi. Others more familiar with the life and times of Robert Murat will no doubt be able to confirm or refute the aforementioned.

Hi Realist, do you receive a "Stipend" from certain parties or have close associations to protracted family arrangements?

by Verdi 28.05.16 12:56

nglfi wrote:Given that Murat was later made an arguido, were the interviews that he translated ever re done? Surely there's a rather strong chance he was interpreting wrongly? This never actually crossed my mind before but if he did indeed know Gerry and Kate before the incident, he may well have been prompting or guiding those interviewed without the interviewer knowing, if they only spoke Portuguese? Apologies if this has already been discussed.

Pretty much my line of thinking - a situation he knew nothing about until the following day, the 4th May, yet he breezes in offering his services as an 'unofficial' translator? From my limited experience, in cases of a crime committed abroad the local Consulate would provide a list of translators if required (not paid by the Consulate) - was Robert Murat paid for his services or was it a goodwill gesture for a group of tourists he doesn't know from adam. Bit like the 'greatest f***-up on the planet' when the tables turned on him ???

Re-interviews Robert Murat attended are not contained within the PJ files so I doubt it happened. Of course it's impossible to re-translate a witness statement taken verbatim - as was the case here.

Question: "Did you know Robert Murat before?"

Answer: "I'm not going to comment on that!"

by plebgate 28.05.16 13:02

pennylane wrote:
Realist wrote:
pennylane wrote:
I disagree Realist, an authentic reconstruction would further prove the McCanns are lying!
I don't understand what you are stating, why would one require further proof that the McCnns and their acquiantances are lying, when there is is aleady more than enough to sink a refloating of the Titanic. Without wishing to appear repititious, proof of their lying does not constitute proof of their (edited for possible libel)or harming their daughter.
The police often have a great deal of evidence against the perps, but not enough to get a conviction. That doesn't mean they shouldn't bother to pursue and meticulously record any further information they can glean for future reference. In fact I would go on to say that it is paramount that they do. You never know where or when that important piece of evidence that ties it all together will come from.

Of course you are right pennylane and that is why police like reconstructions as important pieces of evidence might be revealed. With any new information the police might then be able to put pressure on a weaker "witness" and who knows where that would lead.

I also agree with others who have commented on Realist's use of the M word. Unnecessary and is mentioned in a good number of Realist's posts and I have to wonder whether it is an attempt for TM to complain and get the site shut down?

by **HiDeHo** 28.05.16 13:07

Realist wrote:
Verdi wrote:@Realist wrote: Thanks for providing this informal interview/statement of the 4th inst. May, Sky. It would appear that the aforementioned was made when events were freshest in her mind. I am now a tad confused, because here she appears to be stating that Maddie was in her company around the 5 30 pm mark. ''That her mother, Kate, dropped her off at 14. 50 and picked her up at 17.30''

It would appear to me that Catriona Baker's informal statement taken on 4th May 2007, was not made while her mind was still fresh but more to accord with a predetermined futuristic path in mind. The times she states for signing in and signing Madeleine out of the creche by Kate and/or Gerry McCann on Thursday the 3rd May, are the exact times recorded on the creche register. Considering six children attended the creche in the morning and four in the afternoon, do you seriously think it likely she would be able to recall the exact times - to the minute?

Catriona Baker was reported to have been seriously disabled by Madeleine's disappearance, which I think extraordinary considering she only knew Madeleine for a few hours over a period of five days, if she is to be believed. If Madeleine disappeared whilst left unattended by her parents on the night of the 3rd, why would a nanny that supervised her during the day, be so affected? Apparently Catriona Baker was swiftly shipped out by Warners to another country, in itself peculiar if she was an important witness !?!

It should be remembered that Catriona Baker was re-interviewed during the rogatory process at the request of the McCanns - not the PJ or the UK police. One can deduce from this that they considered her to be an important witness but why? Ostensibly she couldn't be a witness in any way connected with Madeleine's disappearance but a character witness? How would that be possible when she only passed the time of day with the parents when they dropped off and/or collected Madeleine from the day care facilities?

The way the rogatory interviews were conducted remains an enigma to me, unorthodox in terms of customary policing I would suggest. Whatever, they proved to be insignificant as regards the PJ investigation. The McCanns request for specific persons to be interviewed or re-interviewed is recorded in the PJ files as follows [snipped]..

Faxed from Society of Attorneys 16 Oct 2007 to Ministerio Publico in Portimao.

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, better identified in the documents referenced above, approach, very respectfully, to set forth and request, Sir, the following:

1 - Since the applicants stopped being considered witnesses, moving to suspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, witnesses central to the discovery of truth were not questioned, or re-questioned.

2 - With the recent investigations, witness interviews and interrogations of the applicants, new questions were raised and doubts aroused, broadening, in this way, the object of the investigation, as well as matters of fact considered relevant to the investigations.

3 - Indeed, the Investigation departed from confining itself to the disappearance of the minor, proceeding to embrace other matters, allegedly connected with her.

4 - It is therefore essential to hear these witnesses who can explain facts now very relevant, such as the way the couple treated their children, their personality and routine and, even, the reactions manifested by them after the disappearance and the consequent psychological and emotional state.

5 - So, and because it is believed essential and indispensable for the establishment of the facts and consequent discovery of the truth, they come to request the hearing of the following groups of witnesses, all present and with direct knowledge of the facts:
----------

So how does Catriona Baker fit in with this I ask? Is it so difficult to understand why some people think Catriona Baker is not the real deal?
All of which is very interesting, Verdi, but the bottom line is, for the pre 3rd. May plot to have worked, Catriona Baker would have had to have played an integral role. So again I ask the questions ,1/ Do you believe she would have agreed to participate in a ~~conspiracy to murder~~, particularly in the vein, as you so poignantly state, she barely knew the McCanns.

2/ Do you believe that the McCanns would have confided in a naive, 20 yr. old menial worker that they had ~~killed~~ their daughter, disposed of her body and were going stage a spurious kidnapping for the benefit of the Portuguese authorities. These are facts she would had to have been made aware of to enable her to participate in the conspiracy.

@ Realist Please edit your comments to remove the suggestion that Kate and Gerry murdered Maddie. There is nothing to confirm this and puts the forum at risk with possible libel.

Your suggestion is that i Catriona was KNOWINGLY involved. I suggest she was USED, intimidated and manipulated.

She was a young girl looking after 7 children (5 girls) Lobster group, in the same room as the Sharks which were likely approximately a further 7 children.

14 x 3-5 year old in one room..

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident. - Page 6 Creche12

Unlike a school setting children were dropped off and picked up randomly throughout the day.

If one child was missing would it have been obvious

Would any of the children have stood out from the rest?

Madeleine, if she was there would have been one of 14 for a few hours a day.

What would be the likelihood that she would be able to identify all of the children individually?

Catriona clearly was referring to the records when claiming that there were 7 children in the morning and 4 in the afternoon as well as stating exact times.

Madeleine, once she had disappeared, became important but was Catriona able to remember her specifically?

She recognised the name on a list... She remembers about 10 pretty 3-5 year olds but can we be sure she SPECIFICALLY remembered Maddie?

She is shown a pic of a younger Maddie but maybe didnt remember her specifically.

She is TOLD that Maddie was there by the parents so even if she could not remember specifically she wouldn't have questioned...

If by some chance she recalled Ella (with similar hair and similar age) she may have second guessed herself and thought ELLA was Maddie and she had her name wrong... BUT it wouldn't have mattred too much as the creche was not involved.

Maddie disappeared from the apartment so the creche was not involved.

She 'knows' she looked after Maddie as her name was on the list...She remembers seeing Gerry and Kate and THEY say she was there...

IF she couldnt remember Maddie specifically there was no reason for her to say 'I don't recall seeing her'. How awful would that be...

Shortly afterwards there were suggestions that Gerry and Kate may have been involved...

Her first thoughts of not remembering Maddie specifically would come back to haunt her? Too late to say anything now... BUT her name was on the list so she must have been there...

Is this a point that she second guessed herself and was really suffering, letting her friend know?

Gerry and Kate then invited her to their home in November... close to the time that they held a secret meeting with others including Metodo 3...

They maybe relived the time... Recalling that last time she would have seen Maddie... when she was at high tea... reminding her that Kate was just back from a run...wearing her sporting clothes... Gerry had just finished a game of tennis... etc etc (an important moment for them to make sure she remembered)

Then came the Rogatory interviews...

Catriona 'recalled' high tea ...her first statement had mentioned Kate was there with the twins... In her rogatory she didnt specifically state Maddie was there... only that Kate came to fetch her and that Kate was wearing her sporting clothes (as she recalled the details she was reminded about)

She remembered they had reminded her that Gerry was playing tennis just before....they had reminded her of that also but she made a mistake... She claimed Gerry wasn't there because he was playing tennis... She claims she didnt see Gerry because he was playing tennis, she was repeating what she had been 'reminded' about except she SHOULD have said he had been playng previously and WAS at high tea....

I don't for one minute think Catriona was KNOWINGLY involved..

I believe she was manipulated into second guessing her own observations and helped to recall what they wanted the scenario to be...

It would have been easier for her to second guess her own memory than to speak up and say... I don't remember seeing Maddie....

I don't know how credible the above scenario may be, but it is a POSSIBLE interpretation of how Catriona became involved (by default)

We know the creche records were questionable and at the time they were removed from the creche, Catriona would have had no knowledge to falsify them other than to protect her job if some of the times were not completed...

IF she did not recall Maddie specifically but in hindsight after the disappearance, had mistaken another child could this have been Ella?

We know that the creche records show that for a few of the days both Ella and Maddie were at creche but only one child was signed in and the other signed out... and both Russell and Gerry were there at the same time...

That scenario has also been discussed on another thread...

by Verdi 28.05.16 13:12

@plebgate wrote: I believe a reconstruction might be able to help establish the facts and consequent discovery of the truth.

Yes, a reconstruction that was proposed by the PJ as they knew it to be beneficial to the investigation but the main players declined to attend, for a varying degree of ~~reasons~~ excuses.

Through the auspices of Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior of Leicestershire police, the key participants were acquainted with the reason for staging a re-enactment. It wasn't, or shouldn't have been, the decision of the McCanns or their friends to dictate the terms, even less so a member of the public nine years later, who seems to think on the same lines as the Tapas gang, that a re-enactment would be a waste of time.

Don't you just love these people who think they know better than the police?

by sandancer 28.05.16 13:21

Just jumping in here quickly to say I find Realists use of the t term "menial worker " in reference to Cat Baker as rather derogatory and patronising . No one has a job that can be termed "menial". I worked with children for many years, not as a nanny but as a sports coach but the children were in my care during their sessions ,I would have been very upset being referred to as a " menial ". Please Realist take care with your use of words thank you.

by plebgate 28.05.16 13:21

@Verdi, I have never heard of key witnesses dictating terms in a police investigation.

The other very surprising thing to me is that Maddie could have been in the hands of a paedophile going through who knows what kind of hell but none of them were prepared to go back and do a reconstruction which could very well have jogged someone's memory and who knows where that might have led?

by pennylane 28.05.16 13:32

I do not believe Catriona was lying, leaned on, or mistaken. I believe she was with Madeleine, as she claimed, and took her to the beach on 3rd May 2007 when Maddie went out on the yellow catamaran.

The McCanns were happy to use Catriona Baker as a witness because she knew absolutely nothing of what happened to Maddie on the evening of 3rd May 2007, and only witnessed a happy child enjoying her holiday (imo).

by dottyaussie 28.05.16 15:23

This from another topic and shows how easy it was to mistake Ella & Madeleine. This is from a waiter at the Paraiso.

A waiter who served the children their meals of spaghetti bolognese and fillet of fish recalled, “They made you smile, full of fun and very happy holiday moods.”
According to staff, the family and three couples arrived around 5 pm. “They were at the restaurant for over an hour and most of the time Gerry was playing with Maddy on the beach in front.”
“He took her down to the beach on his shoulders time and again. Each time she was giggling and bouncing up and down. On the beach he pushed her on the swings and gave her loads of hugs and kisses – all you could hear was Daddy, daddy, daddy.”
“He really did seem a perfect dad. I can’t see how he had anything to do with her disappearance. He’d have to be a superb actor.”
“Most of the adults were on the beach with the other children but kept coming and going. Kate was at the restaurant table feeding the twins in baby chairs. It took a while. I felt a bit sorry for her.”

This is from Jane Tanner's statement

“Okay. Go on then. So Russell goes back to fetch Ella?” Reply “Yeah, and then I remember him coming back down, erm, to the beach. I think she was on his shoulders. I don’t know why I remember that, but I remember him”.

But, no, I had an orange juice and we fed the kids and then they played in front of the, erm, tut, in front of the restaurant there was like a slide and swings and they were playing on there”. 20.16 4078 “Is that actually on the beach then?” Reply “Yeah, more or less, yeah, it’s sort of right on the edge and then it goes onto the beach, so the swings are actually on the beach, a bit of it.

by Verdi 28.05.16 15:49

dottyaussie wrote:This from another topic and shows how easy it was to mistake Ella & Madeleine. This is from a waiter at the Paraiso.

A waiter who served the children their meals of spaghetti bolognese and fillet of fish recalled, “They made you smile, full of fun and very happy holiday moods.”
According to staff, the family and three couples arrived around 5 pm. “They were at the restaurant for over an hour and most of the time Gerry was playing with Maddy on the beach in front.”
“He took her down to the beach on his shoulders time and again. Each time she was giggling and bouncing up and down. On the beach he pushed her on the swings and gave her loads of hugs and kisses – all you could hear was Daddy, daddy, daddy.”
“He really did seem a perfect dad. I can’t see how he had anything to do with her disappearance. He’d have to be a superb actor.”
“Most of the adults were on the beach with the other children but kept coming and going. Kate was at the restaurant table feeding the twins in baby chairs. It took a while. I felt a bit sorry for her.”

This is from Jane Tanner's statement

“Okay. Go on then. So Russell goes back to fetch Ella?” Reply “Yeah, and then I remember him coming back down, erm, to the beach. I think she was on his shoulders. I don’t know why I remember that, but I remember him”.

But, no, I had an orange juice and we fed the kids and then they played in front of the, erm, tut, in front of the restaurant there was like a slide and swings and they were playing on there”. 20.16 4078 “Is that actually on the beach then?” Reply “Yeah, more or less, yeah, it’s sort of right on the edge and then it goes onto the beach, so the swings are actually on the beach, a bit of it.

That information has been taken from a UK press report, published after the McCanns fled Portugal and returned to the UK - it is not an official witness statement identified in the PJ files.

The interesting things is why it was reported in September 2007 - ostensibly an anonymous key witness (I think the report also mentioned waiters - as in more than one) that could provide valuable information to assist a criminal investigation, who springs forth from the blue with stories about Tapas group beach activities? From whence did this information originate? The account doesn't even begin to accord with all other witness statements.

In my opinion best ignore this before it takes on a life of it's own.

by Verdi 28.05.16 15:53

plebgate wrote:@Verdi, I have never heard of key witnesses dictating terms in a police investigation.

The other very surprising thing to me is that Maddie could have been in the hands of a paedophile going through who knows what kind of hell but none of them were prepared to go back and do a reconstruction which could very well have jogged someone's memory and who knows where that might have led?

Yes indeed - that is of course the crux of the matter and no doubt the reason why so many people think their decision abominable.

by Realist 28.05.16 17:11

plebgate wrote:

Of course you are right pennylane and that is why police like reconstructions as important pieces of evidence might be revealed. With any new information the police might then be able to put pressure on a weaker "witness" and who knows where that would lead.

I simply can't understand the point of continuously revisiting the issue of the McCanns and their acquaintances participating in any type of authentic reconstruction 'cos it jus' aint gonna happen.The first reason being that no-one, whether they be an accused person or otherwise can be forced to participate in such an exercise. Secondly it is not in their interests to do so for the reasons you have stated. Turkeys don't vote for Yultide.

I also agree with others who have commented on Realist's use of the M word. Unnecessary and is mentioned in a good number of Realist's posts and I have to wonder whether it is an attempt for TM to complain and get the site shut down?

Now why would I wish this or any other site to be closed down, I'm a libertarian in case you hadn't noticed, not an authoritarian. Your problem is that you allow your heart to rule your head. As for my frequent use of the word murder, I can't possibly see how anyone should find this terminology to be offensive, particularly in the vein that most using this forum are of the belief that Madeleine is dead.

If one is of the belief that she had been kidnapped by a third party for the purpose of sexual gratification, then undoubtably, she would have been murdered after that person had satisfied their needs. If as many believe, she met her death at the hands of her parents with the aid of their acquaintances, then the necessity to dispose of her body and concoct a spurious kidnapping fable would strongly suggest that that it wasn't any kind of accident. Further, if as many believe, their fund is also fraudulent, which it would have to be by default if there was knowledge that Madeleine was already dead at the time of its inception, this would also indicate that there was an element of premeditated criminal intent in the 'disappearance' of their daughter, over and above that of being an accident. Parents whose children die of accidental deaths do not seek to financially capitalise on their deaths.

by Liz Eagles 28.05.16 17:18

Realist wrote:
plebgate wrote:

Of course you are right pennylane and that is why police like reconstructions as important pieces of evidence might be revealed. With any new information the police might then be able to put pressure on a weaker "witness" and who knows where that would lead.

I simply can't understand the point of continuously revisiting the issue of the McCanns and their acquaintances participating in any type of authentic reconstruction 'cos it jus' aint gonna happen.The first reason being that no-one, whether they be an accused person or otherwise can be forced to participate in such an exercise. Secondly it is not in their interests to do so for the reasons you have stated. Turkeys don't vote for Yultide.

I also agree with others who have commented on Realist's use of the M word. Unnecessary and is mentioned in a good number of Realist's posts and I have to wonder whether it is an attempt for TM to complain and get the site shut down?

Now why would I wish this or any other site to be closed down, I'm a libertarian in case you hadn't noticed, not an authoritarian. Your problem is that you allow your heart to rule your head. As for my frequent use of the word murder, I can't possibly see how anyone should find this terminology to be offensive, particularly in the vein that most using this forum are of the belief that Madeleine is dead.

If one is of the belief that she had been kidnapped by a third party for the purpose of sexual gratification, then undoubtably, she would have been murdered after that person had satisfied their needs. If as many believe, she met her death at the hands of her parents with the aid of their acquaintances, then the necessity to dispose of her body and concoct a spurious kidnapping fable would strongly suggest that that it wasn't any kind of accident. Further, if as many believe, their fund is also fraudulent, which it would have to be by default if there was knowledge that Madeleine was already dead at the time of its inception, this would also indicate that there was an element of premeditated criminal intent in the 'disappearance' of their daughter, over and above that of being an accident. People whose children die of accidental deaths do not seek to financially capitalise on their deaths.

Awww bless, it must have taken a lot of cut and paste and phone a friend stuff to come up with such a pointless argument.

'I'm a libertarian' - don't make me laugh - I know where that cut and paste came from.

Your presence on this forum is tantamount to keeping a cockroach as a pet, calling it 'fluffy' and trying to get it a little friend to keep it company.

by plebgate 28.05.16 17:32

Realist I am not really bothered about what you think is worth commenting on. This site allows us to air our views. There are many views I do not agree with but unless I think they are wind ups or being deliberately antagonistic I do not post to say that I think it is not worth someone bothering to air their views.

We are not daft here, we know they cannot be forced to do anything, we are saying what we thought should have happened. Anyway you are becoming increasingly boring to me, round and round we go so I am deffo out of this discussion with you.

Several threads have ended because of your repetitive views that they do not have to do this that or the other. We all know that already.

Sheesh.

by Realist 28.05.16 17:38

aquila wrote:

Awww bless, it must have taken a lot of cut and paste and phone a friend stuff to come up with such a pointless argument.

'I'm a libertarian' - don't make me laugh - I know where that cut and paste came from.

Your presence on this forum is tantamount to keeping a cockroach as a pet, calling it 'fluffy' and trying to get it a little friend to keep it company.

I don't have the need to cut and paste anything, Aquila, I have an independent mind, hence my not needing to acquire 'a little friend to keep me company' As previously stated, you don't like anyone who challenges your opinions, or goes against the flow, even when it is the most logical conclusion.

Maybe you should think about changing your username to cheerleader.

by Realist 28.05.16 17:40

plebgate wrote:. This site allows us to air our views.

Not according to Aquila, it doesn't.

by Liz Eagles 28.05.16 17:42

Realist wrote:
plebgate wrote:. This site allows us to air our views.
Not according to Aquila, it doesn't.

Is there anything else you'd care to add? Go for it.

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.