The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 05.05.11 20:18

Garth, I edited one of your previous posts to remove a snide remark about Goncalo Amaral who is not a member of this forum. Your recents posts have become more 'forum friendly', thank you, which is why people are debating with you. Please keep it that way thumbsup
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 10485
Reputation : 5186
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 05.05.11 20:35

Candy
 
You said 'wandering' around the streets........which is what I don't agree with!  
 
GEC
 
No problem, it's quite enjoyable!
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 05.05.11 20:51

OK Garth here is the arial view of PDL with the Smith sighting. JT saw the man while she was walking up the hill past 5a and at the top of the road he was walking from left to right as you get to the top of the road. Completely the opposiie direction. Why did he suddenly manage to end up where the Smith sighting occured?? Why do that when you are carrying an abducted child?



Withe thanks to Pamalam

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Luz.jpg
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 05.05.11 21:25

 What I'm saying Candy is the person was wandering around the streets of PDL because wandering essentially means 'to move about without a destination or purpose'.
 
For me, there was a destination and a purpose.....but I know you were just being cynical.   
 
Anyway, why would this supposed abductor be going in the opposite direction as to where he was eventually spotted by the Smiths?
 
I believe that the abductors priority was to firstly to get the child away from the the block of aparments where the McCanns and their friends stayed. Had he walked along the top road, which would be an obvious choice if the final destination was somewhere near where he was eventually spotted, then you run the risk of exposing yourself with a child where someone within the complex may have recognised her. So for me, the first priority was to get her out sight of anyone known to her. I am of the belief that he then would have gone north of the complex behind the apartments on the opposite side of the road and eventually making his way to the location where he was eventually spotted. It's why the child was also being carried in a different way as seen between Jt and the Smiths. By the time he would have reach the Smith location his arms would have been dropping off.
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 05.05.11 21:27

The above should read 'wasn't' wandering around the streets of PDL.
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Wendy on 05.05.11 21:30

Garth, how did he get Madeleine out of the apartment without leaving any of his DNA? And without leaving any of Madeleine's DNA for that matter. Do you think he cleaned the apartment before he left?
avatar
Wendy

Posts : 60
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 05.05.11 21:36

Firstly Garth he did go in completely the opposite direction. Secondly you are saying that he got tired carrying a child in front of him (which is not the way you carry a child anyway, cos how did he manage to close the doors after himself carrying the child in front with both arms or get out of the window) and decided to then change position and put her over his shoulder. Would that not wake a child. Would she not start screaming. I'm sure that just lifting her out of the bed would wake her up anyway. And don't say he drugged her, cos I would love to hear you theory how he did that.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 05.05.11 21:42

Candy
 
For a minute forget the way he was carrying her, what's your honest thoughts on the reasons for opposi
te directions? Feesible?
 
Wendy
 
One thing at a time .........  
 
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 05.05.11 21:48

How can it be feasible Garth. How can an abductor walk around a village for 35 minutes. If it was a planned abduction, a car would be waiting and they would be off like a shot. If it was an opportunistic abduction, you would get off those streets as quickly as possible, and not walk around for that length of time.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 05.05.11 21:53

I have to agree with you, if it were a planned abduction then why run the risk of being spotted with her in your arms when you could easily have used a car?
 
But if correct, we still have these two sightings and to explain them (forgetting the planned bit for a moment) they make sense!
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Garth: Did Tanner and Smith see the same man and girl?

Post by Tony Bennett on 05.05.11 23:39

@Garth wrote:Your thoughts (both of you) are intriguing to say the least.

The Smith Sighting

I'm pleased we are, at least, talking about this sighting because contrary to your thoughts Tony, I believe this far more important than your misgivings about the McCann actions, reactions, call them what you like etc. etc.

And the reason is quite simply this, a little girl goes missing on the evening of 3rd May 2007.

REPLY: Who says? The McCanns? We are assuming that she 'goes missing' that evening. But the 'sightings' of Madeleine that day are all shrouded in obscurity, none of them fully stands up.

The streets are relatively quiet that time of year with not too many people wandering around yet, around the time of the discovery by Kate McCann that her daughter is missing, a family, namely the Smiths, (4 adults) spot a man walking down the middle of a tiny lane with a child in bare feet, pyjamas and about 3-4 years of age uncannilly fitting the description of Madeleine.

REPLY: The McCanns now say this was the same man that Tanner saw. Except that according to ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, she might have seen a woman. Do you say it was the same person?

Yet for some strange reason you Stella, have been trying to justify the beige trousers by mentioning them going missing off of Gerry's bed (how you know this I have no idea), which just happens to be the colour of the trousers as described by the Smiths! But, you don't think it was Madeleine. So what was the point of you trying to link the two?

Madeleine McCanns was most definitely last seen at 5.35 that evening.

REPLY: By whom and where? Please be very specific, Garth,as I most defintely dispute that.

Even Goncalo believes the records and statements from the creche and the nannies to be true and authentic, I mean, why wouldn't he, unless you think the whole world is involved in this so-conspiracy.

REPLY: There is one imprtant thing to be said here. We have had four years of time and new information and analysis of this case. Poor old Goncalo Amaral only had 4 months. I think he might now be inclined to review the truthfulness of the creche workers and/or the accuracy of their records.

Anyway, back to the point regarding the Smiths, this young girl being carried by, not a family, not a woman, but a man and she was in her pyjamas, miraculously the same colour as Madeleine's. Unbelievable isn't it? So why was this person carrying a child at this hour of the evening I wonder? Was it, and I'm playing devils adocate here, because he was collecting her from a creche? If so, which one? Did the PJ not check them all in this area whilst investigating? The PJ have obviously done their checking and found nothing because even they believe the child to be Madeleine.

REPLY: Could you please provide even one specific source for your claim that the PJ believe the child seen by the Smiths at around 9.55pm was Madeleine.

Yet, and after all this time, investigations by the PJ, the appeals by the McCanns, this person carrying a child, fitting the description of Madeleine perfectly, hasn't come forward and been identified/eliminated. So I rate this highly significant and puts all your misgivings regarding the McCanns well into the shade. And I would think any new members who have visited this site as a result of your leaftlets would feel the same.

REPLY: You might well wish to put into the shade, or even sweep well and truly under the carpet, all those contradictions, those changes of story, those strange statements about marketing ploys and sustaining a high profile for Madeleine's disappearance in the long-term, plus all the other issues I took the trouble to mention in my post but which you've ducked. Our preference here is to drag them out of the shade and let the bright daylight sunshine illuminate these issues.

Sorry, but I have to say this again:

“The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted”.
Mohandas Gandhi

It's not as bland and meaningless as you think Tony Bennett. IMHO of course!

REPLY: Funny how you keep quoting from this unpleasant racist.
avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14725
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 06.05.11 9:19

@Garth wrote:

Yet for some strange reason you Stella, have been trying to justify the beige trousers by mentioning them going missing off of Gerry's bed, (how you know this I have no idea) which just happens to be the colour of the trousers as described by the Smiths! But, you don't think it was Madeleine. So what was the point of you trying to link the two?


It's obvious when you examine all of the photographs made available to the public.

When inserting a photograph into a post, it automatically goes to the top and will post up the photographs now seperately for you, so that you can see for yourself.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 06.05.11 9:23




The top photograph was taken by PJ Deputy Specialist, Barreiras, who arrived on the scene at 00.40 a.m.

Look at what is sitting on the bed.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 06.05.11 9:27




This photograph was later taken by the forensic team.

Look at the 4th picture down and you will see what is now missing from the bed.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 06.05.11 9:45

@Garth wrote:
Yet for some strange reason you Stella, have been trying to justify the beige trousers by mentioning them going missing off of Gerry's bed, (how you know this I have no idea) which just happens to be the colour of the trousers as described by the Smiths! But, you don't think it was Madeleine. So what was the point of you trying to link the two?


Come on Garth. We have someone who is sure he saw Gerry walking towards the beach wearing beige trousers. We then have two official sets of photographs proving that a beige item of clothing disappeared off of Gerry's bed. Are you not even a tad curious as to why that piece of clothing went missing?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 06.05.11 9:51

Thanks for those photos stella thumbsup

They are very interesting, and what comes to mind when looking at them, not only have the beige trousers disappeared, but the wardrobes have hardly anything in them, and the shelves are bare. There are even no shoes in the bottom of the wardrobe. Surely they must have had more shoes. I don't know about anyone else, but when I used to go on holiday abroad, I took loads of clothes, evening wear, and day wear. I know some people don't take too much, but that picure doesn't look right at all, almost as if they weren't staying there. One of the beds is all made and doesn't look slept in either.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 06.05.11 13:18

Just like you Candyfloss, I also used to take more clothes and shoes away with me then I needed, to ensure I had every weather condition covered. What we can see inside that wardobe looks like a long weekend to me and where did they put all of their suitcases? I don't think I have seen a photo of them in any room, or inside a wardrobe? I must go and check.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 06.05.11 13:27

Just as I thought, not one suitcase to be seen anywhere. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm


For 2 adults and 3 children, two of which were still in nappies, they must have had to take away huge cases, but where did they go to?

Not unless they were using a different apartment and someone brought back a few items to make it look good?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by poppydog on 06.05.11 17:22

Do we know what time the second set of photos were taken at? Would the forensics allow the McCanns to remove clothing if they were going to move to a different appartment that night? And why the addition of a white towel? Almost as though, remove something, add something, looks untouched...

Is this not the wardrobe the blue bag was seen in? I can't see it in these photos.
avatar
poppydog

Posts : 50
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2010-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by cbcannie on 06.05.11 17:37

I was wondering that because surely the Mccann's would have had to go to another room and they'd have taken their stuff with them? Maybe they were in the process of taking their stuff and the PJ took photo's during the process? Maybe the PJ allowed them to take certain things?
avatar
cbcannie

Posts : 3
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-05-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 06.05.11 18:48

@cbcannie wrote:I was wondering that because surely the Mccann's would have had to go to another room and they'd have taken their stuff with them? Maybe they were in the process of taking their stuff and the PJ took photo's during the process? Maybe the PJ allowed them to take certain things?

As far as I can tell, the original photos with the beige trousers, or some say cardigan, where taken when the police first arrived. The second set, were taken the next day, 4th May at around 3.30 pm, when the forensice team arrived. The McCanns were allowed to take items from the apartment in between times. This from Pamalam site, three quarters of the way down the page.

FORENSIC COLLECTIONS IN THE PM OF 4 MAY 2007

9 PROCESSO IX- 2311

Pictures of the wardrobe without the blue bag, in the detailed report that started at 15:30pm of 4 May when the forensic material was collected.


http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ-PHOTOS.htm
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 06.05.11 21:06

REPLY: You might well wish to put into the shade, or even sweep well and truly under the carpet, all those contradictions, those changes of story, those strange statements about marketing ploys and sustaining a high profile for Madeleine's disappearance in the long-term, plus all the other issues I took the trouble to mention in my post but which you've ducked. Our preference here is to drag them out of the shade and let the bright daylight sunshine illuminate these issues.

 
I think you would be better served taking up your misgivings with the McCanns. I cannot answer for them as to do so, would be making assumptions which I think to be very unfair to say the least. Maybe things might be a little easier to understand after reading Kate's book.
 
Thus far I have talked about independent evidence given by the Smith family. I have also tried to give an honest and reasonable opinion as to why this person was seen in two different locations yet walking in a opposite directions.
 
We'd would do better to keep our rational heads on and stick to the facts we know of surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine on the night of May 3rd rather than meandering off track with all sorts of wild theories. And in that I'm talking about your suggestion that she possibly died prior to that evening, which, I have to say, appears to be a poor attempt to stifle the strong indications that the Smiths did infact observe Madeleine McCann that evening.
 
Sorry, but that's how it appears to me.
 
 
 

 
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 07.05.11 7:51

candyfloss wrote:
@cbcannie wrote:I was wondering that because surely the Mccann's would have had to go to another room and they'd have taken their stuff with them? Maybe they were in the process of taking their stuff and the PJ took photo's during the process? Maybe the PJ allowed them to take certain things?

As far as I can tell, the original photos with the beige trousers, or some say cardigan, where taken when the police first arrived. The second set, were taken the next day, 4th May at around 3.30 pm, when the forensice team arrived. The McCanns were allowed to take items from the apartment in between times. This from Pamalam site, three quarters of the way down the page.

FORENSIC COLLECTIONS IN THE PM OF 4 MAY 2007

9 PROCESSO IX- 2311

Pictures of the wardrobe without the blue bag, in the detailed report that started at 15:30pm of 4 May when the forensic material was collected.


[url=http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ-PHOTOS.htm
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ-PHOTOS.htm[/quote[/url]]

The timings are correct Candyfloss, but I dispute that item was a cardigan. It is the wrong shape, it was also a cold night according to Kate's mum and they didn't have enough warm clothing, with all the windows and doors wide open in that apartment, if it had been a cardigan Kate would have been wearing it.

The whole point of sealing off a crime scene is to preserve everything. Allowing anyone other than forensics back in is unheard of in this country. But somehow they were allowed back in and someone did remove that beige item off of the bed. They didn't think to take the reef shoes. They didn't think to take Amelie's cardigan hanging up in Kate and Gerry's bedroom either, some essential items I would have thought.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 07.05.11 8:17

Hi Stella, I agree with you that the item on the bed looks more like trousers. Didn't the blue blanket/comforter disappear too?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 07.05.11 8:47

Tony, I have to say that I admire your tenacity and resilience to detract from the fundamental issues surrounding this case.

 

However the original point of this post was to understand mindset of the ever paranoic and suspicious mind.

 

In this thread you have unwittingly dived, head first,  into the ‘clutches of concern’ which for me, has done nothing more than compound these thoughts.

 

There was, inadvertantly, a question put to you in my original post which may have allowed you to dispel any notion that your thoughts were anything but cranky. And that was and I quote,

 

 “ but can he put together a logical, rational or plausible thesis as to why and how they carried out such an act and manage to get away with it in front of the eyes of the world”.

 

Instead, your efforts appear to be subjective rather than objective.

 

I quoted Mohanda Ghandi, “ The moment there is suspicion about a persons motives, everything he does becomes tainted”

 

You, unsurprisingly, regarded the above as ‘bland and meaningless’ and then go on to give us a 2000 word analysis by G B Singh on Mohanda Ghandi in order to discredit the quote and further, go on to say, and I quote,

 

“funny how you keep quoting from this unpleasant rascist”.

 

Again, creating suspicion surrounding my motive. Yet, in truth, it was a quote I stumbled across whilst researching the internet regarding suspicious minds and to which I felt was very appropriate.

 

So, and to recap, the above proves my point, that you have an ever suspicious mind which borders paranoia.

 

A little food for thought for you Tony, through resilience and tenacity you can turn things around and a ‘no’ can turn to a ‘yes’, failure can turn to success, weakness can turn into strength and threat can turn into opportunity. When you meet obstacle to or rejection to your proposal, you may need to review, revise or re-develop ideas, having paid due dilgence to the concerns rose by your critiques.

 Good morning Stella and Candyfloss.  
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum