Re: Theory

by Guest 21.05.11 14:53

candyfloss wrote:
One of the strangest things about these checks is that others were supposedly checking the McCanns children, but the McCanns weren't checking theirs. Why not? Surely it would make sense that one adult would get up every half hour and do a check on all the kids. That way they wouldn't all be bobbing up and down from the table at five minute intervals like a clip from
Only Matt checked on the McCann children that night, as "it was a nice thing to do on the last, on the last night" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Benny Hill. I know the answer will be from certain quarters [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] that everyon had to pass the McCanns apartment, but surely, sensible intelligent adults would realise, that one checking the whole lot (and their apartments were all close together) would mean just one would be missing at a time albeit for slightly longer.
Exactly, which is why Matt said they asked for apartments together in the first place, yet they never did anything with them.

Question, did all the tapas 7 leave their apartments unlocked for easy access, or was it just the MCanns. I don't think I have ever read anything about that.
None of the others claimed to have left their apartments unlocked. The only apartment with the greatest possible security issue of being right by the street, is the one they claim they left unlocked. Yer right!!

by Guest 21.05.11 15:05

Baronstu wrote:Stella,
Fits nicely, all the children in one room, except Madeleine.
The question would be, where did Gerald go? Well I think we know the answer to that, I remember he stated he entered the flat from the front door, why did he say that? Probably because his tennis buddy saw him coming from that direction. What was Gerald doing? Probably what we all think.

Actually, In my opinion, I think he might have been relocating the twins from upstairs to downstairs, which is why their bedding was missing when the PJ arrived. The twins were sedated and in a locked room, until Kate got their of course, who went in through the front door and unlocked the patio doors. This is where her door slamming story crumbles. Because if she had entered via the patio doors, the bedroom door would have slammed shut immediately with a through draft. As such, she entered through the front door, opened up the window and shutter, then ran out of the patio door screaming and later made up the door slamming story.

by Guest 21.05.11 15:08

NewGuest wrote:Looking at all the contradictions we have noticed by comparing what Team McCann/ Tapas 9 members have either written in print or recorded saying on camera when interviewed, I am not at all surprised that the Portuguese police question the abduction statement.

Precisely NewGuest. They were not the only ones, the British side of the investigation did also.

by Me 21.05.11 15:36

Me wrote:

In
relation to my queries, these are the questions which i am not sure of
and would appreciate it if anyone can provide answers to further my
knowledge:

1) Was there any evidence of intrusion into the apartment, if so what? No, none whatsoever.

2) Was there evidence that Maddie's bed was slept on by Maddie that night? No Was her DNA found in that bed? No If not why not Exactly, there is no answer to that other than it's impossible and if there was why did GM have to go back to the Uk to bring something back with her DNA on it? No DNA of Madeleine was found anywhere inside that apartment, so he had to. Where was her toothbrush or hairbrush for example and why couldn't they be used for here DNA? The McCann's claimed that all 3 children shared a toothbrush and a hairbrush, rendering their use impossible.

3)
Were fingerprints found on the external shutter? If so whose
fingerprints were there and were there partial unidentified fingerprints
found on there as well? 3 inadequate prints were found, all from one hand, from someone standing inside the apartment and pushing the shutter up.

4)
Was there any forensic evidence on that window and the shutter that
would indicate it had been opened by possible abductors and a child had
been passed through it. No, none whatsoever.

5) Did the Mccanns initially say the patio was locked and then say it was unlocked? Yes if so what explanations have they given for this glaring discrepancy? Gerry has never been asked to explain that one in public, Clarence Mitchell ensures that they are never asked leading questions.

6)
Bearing in mind question 5 if the patio door was closed but unlocked
did the patio door have an external handle to allow it to be opened from
outside when it was closed? Candyfloss has answered that one above I believe.

7)
The Mccanns initially said the shutter had been jemmied open but appear
to have changed their story and said it was opened from inside. What
explanation has been given for this significant change in story? No explanation from them as usual.

8)
If as GM says he thinks the abductor was in the apartment when he did
his check, where do the Mccanns think this abductor was given Amaral's
video shows there's not enough room to stand behind the door? I always thought Gerry said someone was in the bedroom hiding behind the door.

9)
I've heard the wardrobe mentioned as a possible hiding place but the
wardrobe where the dog barked had shelves in making it impossible to
hide in there. Was there a second wardrobe next to it and was that also
shelved as well? If it was then how could an abductor hide in it without
leaving physical evidence? In Gerry's bedroom, there would be
standing space on the right sided wardrobe. What they are like inside
the children's bedroom, I'm not quite sure. Either way you are correct,
there should have been some kind of physical evidence, but there was
none found.

Thanks!

Good questions Me, answers in bold above.

Thanks for the reply Stella. So given the answers to these questions i am genuinely interested to know from those who suggest abduction how they arrive at that conclusion given these facts which offer no evidence to support that theory.

I ask again what evidence are they relying on to support the abduction theory.

I wonder if i will get a reply without any condecesion, abuse or name calling?

by Me 21.05.11 15:43

And just to add to my post above, given this evidence and the clear inference it draws, why do the Mccann's suggest that the Portugese investigation was botched simply becuase they followed the evidence that showed an abduction was impossible?

Furthermore given that the British Police were involved in the case all along, was there or has there been at any point any indication from the British Police that the Portugese investigation was botched, or is it only the McCann's that assert that?

I'm just thinking about the dog evidence at the moment as i have seen posts from some pro Mccann websites claiming that this evidence is now "discredited".

Will post some questions later reagrding this, to see if we can nail this evidence down.

Thanks for all the replies, it's been really interesting.

by RBxHN 21.05.11 15:57

Marian

Where is the shelving

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

One of your questions answered me thinks! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by RBxHN 21.05.11 16:00

Baronstu wrote:It appears to me that Xaus and Garth are typical of their sort. If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
This appears to have worked for Kate and Gerald, they are reactive, not proactive.
The only problem is, they forget that what they have said before is available for public consumption.

Could you expand me old fruit, cos I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

A theory was given and explanations to this theory have been given. What is your problem with that mate?

by RBxHN 21.05.11 16:04

[quote="Me"]And just to add to my post above, given this evidence and the clear inference it draws, why do the Mccann's suggest that the Portugese investigation was botched simply becuase they followed the evidence that showed an abduction was impossible?

quote]

Why don't you have a good read about the case, you might understand a little more, with all due respect.

Did you know that the PJ didnt arrive until after 1.00am? Did you know they stopped searching not long after 2.00am and only returned at 9.00am the following morning?

Can you not see the problem here?

by RBxHN 21.05.11 16:06

Someone asked if the patio door had been tested for fingerprints? The answer is no!

Efficient are they these Portuguese Police.

by RBxHN 21.05.11 16:09

[quote="Me"]Furthermore given that the British Police were involved in the case all along, was there or has there been at any point any indication from the British Police that the Portugese investigation was botched, or is it only the McCann's that assert that?

quote]

I can answer that.....the Leicester Police were completely dismayed at the poor handling of the case and also the lack of info being passed onto the McCanns who were desperate for some news. They were told by the PJ that it was the PJ who were conducting the investigation and that if and when the advice of the Leicester plod was required, it would be asked for.

by Me 21.05.11 16:10

RBxHN Today at 3:57 pm

Marian

Where is the shelving

Thanks for answering. I wondered about that first wardrobe and if it was shelved like the second one i've seen images of.

So are you saying that that is possibly where a potential abductor hid?

If so was any foresnic evidence gathered from this location of any kind?

by Guest 21.05.11 16:11

Me wrote:And just to add to my post above, given this evidence and the clear inference it draws, why do the Mccann's suggest that the Portugese investigation was botched simply becuase they followed the evidence that showed an abduction was impossible?
Any defence lawyer would suggest that course of action to protect their clients interests.

Furthermore given that the British Police were involved in the case all along, was there or has there been at any point any indication from the British Police that the Portugese investigation was botched No, or is it only the McCann's that assert that? Only the McCann's and the previous Government's appointed spokeman, Clarence Mitchell who continues to prefess this, no one else.

I'm just thinking about the dog evidence at the moment as i have seen posts from some pro Mccann websites claiming that this evidence is now "discredited".
It has not been discredited. Only the McCann's and Clarence Mitchell say it is.

Will post some questions later reagrding this, to see if we can nail this evidence down.

Thanks for all the replies, it's been really interesting.

No, thank you for some excellent questions. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Rose58 21.05.11 16:11

RBxHN Today at 4:06 pm

Someone asked if the patio door had been tested for fingerprints? The answer is no!

Efficient are they these Portuguese Police.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
You are wrong there.

by rose58 21.05.11 16:13

Stella Today at 10:35 am

Rose58 wrote:
For those who believe someone easily opened the shutters from outside, please explain how they managed to open the window.

That is an excellent point Rose.

I will second guess their response by saying that, they would say, there must have been two of them. One inside, one out.

But if that was the case, one of them at least would have had a car and all 3 children would have gone. Their financial reward for 3 blonde young children would have been truly stupendous !!!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Apologies, I overlooked your earlier post to me. They had said the shutters and window were closed as always and were never touched. In that case they can't say the window was open for the abductor to get inside after easily lifting the shutters. All in all an aductor getting in via the shutters and window and leaving no sign is not very plausible.

by RBxHN 21.05.11 16:16

[quote="rose58"]Stella Today at 10:35 am

Rose58 wrote:
For those who believe someone easily opened the shutters from outside, please explain how they managed to open the window.

quote]

Simple answer is................THEY WERENT OPENED FROM THE OUTSIDE!

How many more times?

by RBxHN 21.05.11 16:16

Rose58 wrote:RBxHN Today at 4:06 pm

Someone asked if the patio door had been tested for fingerprints? The answer is no!

Efficient are they these Portuguese Police.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
You are wrong there.

Carry on then............

by Guest 21.05.11 16:18

RBxHN wrote:

Did you know that the PJ didnt arrive until after 1.00am?
Not true. They were phoned at 10.40 and arrived 20 minutes later.

Did you know they stopped searching not long after 2.00am and only returned at 9.00am the following morning?
Also not true. Why are you lying. They were there all night, when the McCann's went out at 4am, they saw the GNR on guard.

Can you not see the problem here?
The problem here is quite clear, you somehow feel the need to lie, in order to defend yourself.

by Guest 21.05.11 16:21

RBxHN wrote:Someone asked if the patio door had been tested for fingerprints? The answer is no!
Incorrect, This has been discussed earlier. The answer is Yes.

by Me 21.05.11 16:22

[quote]RBxHN Today at 4:04 pm

Me wrote:And
just to add to my post above, given this evidence and the clear
inference it draws, why do the Mccann's suggest that the Portugese
investigation was botched simply becuase they followed the evidence that
showed an abduction was impossible?

quote]

Why don't you have a good read about the case, you might understand a little more, with all due respect.

Did
you know that the PJ didnt arrive until after 1.00am? Did you know they
stopped searching not long after 2.00am and only returned at 9.00am the
following morning?

Can you not see the problem here?

I have read quite a lot about the case but given there is over 7,000 pages realting to this file i apologise for not being fluent in all of the minutiae of the case, hence my questions.

My understanding was that GNR Police were on the scene some 12-15 minutes after the first call went in to the police at around 10.50pm. A call was put into a CID team at 11.40pm (some 40 minutes later) and the CID team arrived from Portimao at 11-40pm -11.50 pm. Amaral was informed at around 12.00am and the PJ went into action with the PSP, border agency and Faro Airport at around 12.10.

What part of that tiemline suggests incompetence?

I have not read about the timeline through the night in relation to the searches stopping, can you provide evidence please?

by Guest 21.05.11 16:23

[quote="RBxHN"]

Me wrote:Furthermore given that the British Police were involved in the case all along, was there or has there been at any point any indication from the British Police that the Portugese investigation was botched, or is it only the McCann's that assert that?

quote]

I can answer that.....the Leicester Police were completely dismayed at the poor handling of the case and also the lack of info being passed onto the McCanns who were desperate for some news. They were told by the PJ that it was the PJ who were conducting the investigation and that if and when the advice of the Leicester plod was required, it would be asked for.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] In your dreams

by Me 21.05.11 16:25

[quote]RBxHN Today at 4:16 pm

rose58 wrote:Stella Today at 10:35 am

Rose58 wrote:
For those who believe someone easily opened the shutters from outside, please explain how they managed to open the window.

quote]

Simple answer is................THEY WERENT OPENED FROM THE OUTSIDE!

How many more times?

So why did the Mccann's first say they were jemmied open?

by Baronstu 21.05.11 16:26

RBxHN wrote:
Baronstu wrote:It appears to me that Xaus and Garth are typical of their sort. If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
This appears to have worked for Kate and Gerald, they are reactive, not proactive.
The only problem is, they forget that what they have said before is available for public consumption.

Could you expand me old fruit, cos I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

A theory was given and explanations to this theory have been given. What is your problem with that mate?

Well, the first one is, why go on about the light, when Kate herself said it was dark?

by Me 21.05.11 16:28

[quote]RBxHN Today at 4:09 pm

Me wrote:Furthermore
given that the British Police were involved in the case all along, was
there or has there been at any point any indication from the British
Police that the Portugese investigation was botched, or is it only the
McCann's that assert that?

quote]

I can answer
that.....the Leicester Police were completely dismayed at the poor
handling of the case and also the lack of info being passed onto the
McCanns who were desperate for some news. They were told by the PJ that
it was the PJ who were conducting the investigation and that if and when
the advice of the Leicester plod was required, it would be asked for.

Can you please provide evidence of this.

Ta in advance!

by Guest 21.05.11 16:29

RBxHN wrote:
Rose58 wrote:RBxHN Today at 4:06 pm

Someone asked if the patio door had been tested for fingerprints? The answer is no!

Efficient are they these Portuguese Police.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
You are wrong there.

Carry on then............

Your attitude and behaviour is becoming increasingly offensive. If you cannot communicate in a polite intelligent manner, I would like to suggest that you find another forum.

by Baronstu 21.05.11 16:32

[quote="RBxHN"]

Me wrote:Furthermore given that the British Police were involved in the case all along, was there or has there been at any point any indication from the British Police that the Portugese investigation was botched, or is it only the McCann's that assert that?

quote]

I can answer that.....the Leicester Police were completely dismayed at the poor handling of the case and also the lack of info being passed onto the McCanns who were desperate for some news. They were told by the PJ that it was the PJ who were conducting the investigation and that if and when the advice of the Leicester plod was required, it would be asked for.

Explain then if you can, why the British Police involved in the investigation suggested that the Dogs be brought in?

Log in for more topics