The Portuguese Constitution

Details Schmetails. You're finally grasping it Tyra.

You claim that Jane Tanner changed her description of the possible abductor several times when in fact the basic description as recorded by the first officers on the scene that night is basically the same as the more detailed description recorded days later by PJ and then months later by uk police. No substantive change in her descriptions, ooops, got that one wrong Mr bennett.

Autumn wrote:Oh dear, they are not good losers are they?

There are no losers - it's not a game.

vaguely wrote:

Autumn wrote:Oh dear, they are not good losers are they?

There are no losers - it's not a game.

Exactly. But some of the more vicious minded ones think it is. I'd hate to be related to anything like that.

Strange how the phantom abductor was described as having on a dark jacket in the descriptions. Then it changed to a light one in that so called channel 4 reconstructions. Did he not follow the washing instructions properly. The bottom line is there is no evidence than Madeleine was abducted.

The reasons regarding what you perceive as strange behaviour, for example searching the apartment. It is simply a bizarre choice of criticism and suggest deperation, not happy with nine reasons huh?, it being the first thing any police officer will want to know when someone is reporting a missing child, who would report a child missing unless they were utterly certain? Good grief.

Making long term plans to remind people of the plight of the missing person is recommended behaviour, it both occupies the distraught parents who are usually kept away from the busines of searching field etc for obvious reasons and it also is vital in keeping the profile of the person high, public help is vital in cases like this. To try and twist this into something odd means you plainly don't understand how the search for a missing child works but this is nothing new. You are determined to remain ignorant.

You make reference to cuddle cat being placed on a shelf but the only source for that claim is an unnamed source speaking to a tabloid, allegedly. The fact that there is no high shelf renders this statement completely pointless? Have you not seen the crime scene photographs and investigation files?

So by hook or by crook the 10 reasons are being published on here. Interesting.

Old Nick wrote:Details Schmetails. You're finally grasping it Tyra.

They say the devil is the details.

reason 7 is odd, you refer to the need for lawyers as symptomatic of something but the facts are they were in a foreign country and their child disappeared, even the most naive person on the planet will know that one may need lawyers. The PR they got came from the mark warner company initially, so perhaps any suspicion you have regarding needing PR should be aimed at them, one might suspect that the PR was really about defending mark warner, why would they need defending? Oh I know, maybe because the press writes lots of speculative nonsense in high profile incidents like this and the last thing anyone needs is someone actually believing it all and using it as proof for some wrong doing.


oh.

Slartibartfast wrote:

Old Nick wrote:Details Schmetails. You're finally grasping it Tyra.

They say the devil is the details.

Details can be so tiresome, as this thread proves. So Tony gets a few of his facts a little skewy? Which great man hasn't got a little muddled once in a while? Cut Tony some slack. He's a gentleman and a scholar.

One wonders why you have chosen the most extreme possible abduction scenario to mock and call impossible (even though it's actually technically not impossible) there are several other ways an abductor could have got in and got madeleine out but you ignore those, probably because actually they are fairly straightforward and you can't bring yourself to admit that. In terms of leaving evidence behind, what did you expect, a calling card? as things stand in fact there werer unidentified prints left behind but I suppose admitting that sort of thing would have made your leaflet messy and confusing?

Old Nick wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

Old Nick wrote:Details Schmetails. You're finally grasping it Tyra.

They say the devil is the details.

Details can be so tiresome, as this thread proves. So Tony gets a few of his facts a little skewy? Which great man hasn't got a little muddled once in a while? Cut Tony some slack. He's a gentleman and a scholar.

Yeah, another Tony got his details a bit skewy didn't he. Tony Blair. Hasn't done him any harm though, going for that president or ambasador job. Few small details of WMD I seem to remember, got that a bit wrong eh!!

candyfloss wrote:

Old Nick wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

Old Nick wrote:Details Schmetails. You're finally grasping it Tyra.

They say the devil is the details.

Details can be so tiresome, as this thread proves. So Tony gets a few of his facts a little skewy? Which great man hasn't got a little muddled once in a while? Cut Tony some slack. He's a gentleman and a scholar.

Yeah, another Tony got his details a bit skewy didn't he. Tony Blair. Hasn't done him any harm though, going for that president or ambasador job. Few small details of WMD I seem to remember, got that a bit wrong eh!!

hasn't done him any harm????? he is despised the world over, brought his party into disrepute and completely put paid to being remembered for anything other than being a warmongering liar.


almost as reviled as our very own tony bennett!

Tony Bennett wrote:

Honoria wrote:…you recently chose to plumb new depths by posting leaflets to residents of the village in which our clients live with their children”. Is the response Carter Ruck chose to use, feel free to correct this if its wrong.

The quote is correct but the content is not, since I have not delivered any leaflets in Rothley at any time. Whilst two or three Rothley people were found to complain about the leaflet, you'll find more than a few who were glad to receive them. The publicity generated by the leaflet drop, though unfavourable, nevertheless triggered many new orders for both '10 Reasons' and '60 Reasons' and we had a spate of new subscriptions to The Madeleine Foundation - plus hundreds of thousands of extra hits on our (former) website.

No you thought it would be better to go to Mountsorrell and post leaflets instead didn't you Bennett. But then you said you was at your mothers at the time, hence you could not do interviews.

• Grime said that Eddie had never ever given a ‘false alert’ in 200 previous outings



This isn't actually what Mr Grime said. You have altered the meaning of his comment. I don't understand why you would need to do that. He's the expert.

I do believe many many people pointed out the problems with his leaflets.

AND BENNETT IF THE 10 REASONS IS CORRET THEN WHY DID YOU GIVE IN TO CARTER RUCK.....AFTER ALL YOU SAID IT WOULD ALL STAND UP IN COURT AND YOU WOULD GO TO COURT TO DEFEND IT. SO THAT WAS A LOAD OF RUBBISH TO.

muratfan01 wrote:I do believe many many people pointed out the problems with his leaflets.

AND BENNETT IF THE 10 REASONS IS CORRET THEN WHY DID YOU GIVE IN TO CARTER RUCK.....AFTER ALL YOU SAID IT WOULD ALL STAND UP IN COURT AND YOU WOULD GO TO COURT TO DEFEND IT. SO THAT WAS A LOAD OF RUBBISH TO.

Mr Bennett appears to have his fingers in his ears and is singing 'lalalalala I can't hear you', just so he is able to come back in a weeks time posting just as vehemently that no one, not one single person has ever refuted any of his reasons, blah blah blah.

It would seem so, Tara. But maybe accuracy was not the primary preoccupation when compling his publications. After all, he is very fond of saying that if the McCanns disagreed with what he had published, they could always sue him.

sans_souci wrote:It would seem so, Tara. But maybe accuracy was not the primary preoccupation when compling his publications. After all, he is very fond of saying that if the McCanns disagreed with what he had published, they could always sue him.

It certainly does seem so. Anything Mr B doesn't feel he can wriggle away from he simply ignores.

There's a lot more folk than Tony Bennett who are questionning the McCann's version of events. This case on the 12th January might clarify things. But to be honest I think it's very wrong that the McCann's should be allowed to name their own suspects and not a word said. Let's hope something positive comes out of this court case to move on the investigation into the very baffling disappearance of a three year old child who went on holiday and seemingly vanished.

It's no worse that a violent, incompetent lead officer writing a book and thinking he can get rich off the same child is it?

MaryB wrote:There's a lot more folk than Tony Bennett who are questionning the McCann's version of events. This case on the 12th January might clarify things. But to be honest I think it's very wrong that the McCann's should be allowed to name their own suspects and not a word said. Let's hope something positive comes out of this court case to move on the investigation into the very baffling disappearance of a three year old child who went on holiday and seemingly vanished.

Woud you rather no-one was searching for this child, her parents are Madeleine's best shot, only shot!

tyra wrote:

MaryB wrote:There's a lot more folk than Tony Bennett who are questionning the McCann's version of events. This case on the 12th January might clarify things. But to be honest I think it's very wrong that the McCann's should be allowed to name their own suspects and not a word said. Let's hope something positive comes out of this court case to move on the investigation into the very baffling disappearance of a three year old child who went on holiday and seemingly vanished.

Woud you rather no-one was searching for this child, her parents are Madeleine's best shot, only shot!

Absolutely spot on tyra, then tell me why KM didn't answer those 48 questions, which might have shed some light on Madeleine's dissapearance?? After all they were'nt hard questions were they? Why didn't they help with a reconstruction, or their friends for that matter.

candyfloss wrote:

tyra wrote:

MaryB wrote:There's a lot more folk than Tony Bennett who are questionning the McCann's version of events. This case on the 12th January might clarify things. But to be honest I think it's very wrong that the McCann's should be allowed to name their own suspects and not a word said. Let's hope something positive comes out of this court case to move on the investigation into the very baffling disappearance of a three year old child who went on holiday and seemingly vanished.

Woud you rather no-one was searching for this child, her parents are Madeleine's best shot, only shot!

Absolutely spot on tyra, then tell me why KM didn't answer those 48 questions, which might have shed some light on Madeleine's dissapearance?? After all they were'nt hard questions were they? Why didn't they help with a reconstruction, or their friends for that matter.

They had already been answered? It's evidence to me that answering them again would help no-one so no doubt it was evidence to her, the police had just admitted to not searching for her and trying to pin her disappearance on them, kate did what any good mother would, she grit her teeth and did the best she could for her child.

No, I don't think they had been answered. Even if they had, any parent would answer them again, and again, and again, if it was to help find their missing child. Why do you find that so hard to believe?

candyfloss wrote:No, I don't think they had been answered. Even if they had, any parent would answer them again, and again, and again, if it was to help find their missing child. Why do you find that so hard to believe?

Not one single question of those 48 was designed to "help" the search for the missing child (how could "Did you call Sky News" and "Did you ask for a preast" affect the search in any way, shape or form). They only had one purpose and that was for Kate McCann to implicate herself in the disappearance of her daughter. In her situation, you would have had to be a complete idiot to answer them and her lawyer rightfully advised her not to.

JessicaPer wrote:

candyfloss wrote:No, I don't think they had been answered. Even if they had, any parent would answer them again, and again, and again, if it was to help find their missing child. Why do you find that so hard to believe?

Not one single question of those 48 was designed to "help" the search for the missing child (how could "Did you call Sky News" and "Did you ask for a preast" affect the search in any way, shape or form). They only had one purpose and that was for Kate McCann to implicate herself in the disappearance of her daughter. In her situation, you would have had to be a complete idiot to answer them and her lawyer rightfully advised her not to.

This about sums up the mentality

Quote JessicaPer

They only had one purpose and that was for Kate McCann to implicate herself in the disappearance of her daughter.



How could someone who is innocent and nothing to fear be implicated. How can you implicate yourself if you've done nothing wrong???

Just a reminder:


1 On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when you entered the apartment, what did you see, what did you do, where did you search, what did you handle?

2 Did you search in the couple’s bedroom’s closet? (said she would not reply)

3 (Two photographs of her bedroom’s closet are exhibited) Can you describe its contents?

4 Why are the curtains in front of the side window, behind the sofa (photograph is exhibited) ruffled? Did someone pass behind that sofa?

5 How long did the search that you made in the apartment after detecting the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine take?

6 Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted?

7 Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins alone at home while you went to the Tapas to raise the alarm? Even because the supposed abductor could still be inside the apartment.

8 Why didn’t you ask the twins at that moment what had happened to their sister, or why didn’t you ask them at a later point in time?

9 When you raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly did you say and what were the words?

10 What happened after you raised the alarm at the Tapas?

11 Why did you do to warn your friends instead of calling out from the balcony?

12 Who contacted the authorities?

13 Who participated in the searches?

14 Did anyone outside of the group learn about Maddie’s disappearance during the following minutes?

15 Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?

16 What does the expression “we let her down” mean?

17 Did Jane mention to you that she had see a man with a child that night?

18 How were the authorities contacted and which police force was called?

19 During the searches, and already with the police present, in what locations was Maddie searched for, how and in what manner?

20 Why didn’t the twins wake up during that search, or when they went to the upper floor?

21 Who did you call after the facts?

22 Did you call SKY News?

23 Did you know about the danger of calling the media, because that could influence the abductor?

24 Did you request the presence of a priest?

25 How was Madeleine’s face publicized, with a photograph, or other media?

26 Is it true that during the search you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?

27 How did you behave that evening?

28 Did you manage to sleep?

29 Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?

30 What was Madeleine’s behaviour?

31 Did Maddie suffer of any disease or did she take any kind of medication?

32 What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings?

33 What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings, her friends and her colleagues at school?

34 Concerning your professional life, in how many and in which hospitals have you worked?

35 What is your medical specialty?

36 Did you work by shifts, in emergency rooms or in other departments?

37 Did you work on a daily basis?

38 Did you stop working at a certain point in time? Why?

39 Do your twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, are they unruly and does that upset you?

40 Is it true that at certain times you were desperate over your children’s attitude and that left you were upset?

41 Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative?

42 In England, did you give your children medication? What type of medication?

43 Within the process, you were shown films of cynotechnical inspection of forensic character, where the dogs can be seen marking indications of human cadaver odour and equally human blood traces, and only of human origin, as well as all the comments that were made by the responsible expert. After the visualization, and after cadaver odour was signaled in your bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, you said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said?

44 You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood behind the sofa by the detection dog

45 You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of cadaver odour in the boot of the vehicle that you rented a month after the disappearance?

46 You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood in the boot of the vehicle?

47 You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, upon being confronted with the result of the collection of Maddie’s DNA, which was analysed by a British lab, behind the sofa and inside the vehicle’s boot?

48 Did you have any responsibility or intervention in the disappearance of your daughter?

The question that she answered
Are you aware of the fact that by not answering these questions you may compromise the investigation, which is trying to find out what happened to your daughter? She said yes, if the investigation thinks so.