One coherent theory apart from abduction

Has anyone come up with one yet?

When, were, how, and who by etc?

Nobody has come up with anything like a coherent abduction explanation so far, but I'll take your question in the spirit it was undoubtedly asked.

Recommend you read Goncalo Amaral's incisive and convincing book 'The Truth of the Lie' which, although banned, is widely available on the net.

Here, try this: http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/ No don't thank me... my pleasure and happy reading. Never hurts to post links like this as it may be the first time someone sees it, so thanks for the opportunity.

After that if you still want more, research on the web and read the PJ files. Particularly what Mark Harrison said to the PJ. Or you could try tracking down the British police officer who removed his Maddie wristband after being brought up to speed by his colleagues as I'm sure he'd have a tale to tell. Of course, as you already know, The British investigation reached the same conclusion as Amaral, that Maddie died, but if in further doubt, ask Gerry at the CEOP event what the proof of abduction actually is, as opposed to say waking and wandering. While you're there, do ask him how he knows Maddie's with paedophiles but she hasn't come to any harm.

GA - His book is fascinating for the errors.

If fell off the back of a sofa and hidden/covered up by the amateur parents mccann, how come the case is unsolved?

Oh - silly me - cover up.

I have read so many mocking "there is no evidence of abduction" posts - well one person, just one who can come up with a theory that fits all the facts (don't forget the dogs), would be welcome and could open up some genuine discussion.

PS - something happened between 30 April and 3 May doesn't really fit.

In other words - either put up or shut up, or show the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the mccanns were involved (the dogs do not prove that the mccanns were involved).

From Rosie on J4.............whether you like her or not, she raises good points.
Goncalo Amaral & the Clothes The Sniffer Dogs Reacted To!

Goncalo Amaral and his Wife Sofia Leal.
Sofia looks Worried Doesn't She?

She may have every right to look worried too, I almost feel sorry for her, she probably didn't sign up for this when she married him, but she got it anyway. She could absolve herself if she only plucked up enough courage to speak the truth, before it is too late. She owes this philandering, spendthrift womanising drunk and corrupt ex cop nothing.

While Christabel was doing some research for the forum, she came up with this startling piece of information, we think it is so important that everyone should know about it. What we cannot understand, is why all those "Amaral supporters" that say they have read Amaral's book and call themselves "truth" seekers, have not mentioned this before, not a peep, why is that? Why hasn't Amaral's "friend" the "Tubby Chasing" Joana Morais mentioned this? Perhaps she thought it may harm her chances of collecting more money to swell Amaral's coffers? Whatever it is, these people have demonstrated that they do not really want the truth, they do not want Madeleine found, they do not want the real truth of what really happened to Madeleine McCann to emerge, in fact they led by their false "God" Goncalo Amaral, want the truth concealed, because as each day passes the truth, the "real" truth, is looking more and more awful and its net of incrimination is being cast far and wide. We believe Madeleine McCann is alive, being held against her will and more, we believe there is at least one high profile person who knows exactly where she is and who took her. Now the official investigation may not be able to say this, they may not even think it, but we can say it and we certainly think it.
hris for spotting this and if you would like to read further on this subject please go to our forum http://justice4mccannfam.forumotion.com/exposing-the-lies-of-truth-of-goncalo-amaral-s-book-of-fantasy-a-video-coverage-f56/exposing-the-lies-of-truth-of-goncalo-amaral-s-book-of-fantasy-a-video-coverage-t2239.htm

On the above link you can view a collection of videos and pick up a sense of what actually happened.


The Sniffer Dogs and The Clothes

Quote from Goncalo Amaral:


QUOTE:_________________________________________________________


"The soft toy and all the clothes from the house are placed into boxes specially made to preserve evidence. These objects are then conveyed to the decontaminated premises. They are placed on the ground, a good distance apart for the dogs to examine. At 8pm, Tavares de Almeida calls me to let me know that Mark Harrison requires another place because this one is not sufficiently clean.- How do I find a place at this kind of time?- Sort it out! Julio Barroso offers us the new sports hall in Lagos which, finally, meets the required standards. The objects are once again laid out on the ground and the dogs can start. Eddie alerts us to a strong cadaver odour on some of Kate's clothes, but the CSI dog doesn't detect the slightest trace of blood."


UNQUOTE______________________________________________________

Where do we start on this? Is this what Amaral loosely refers to as "evidence"?

Amaral actually presided over the clothes all being transported in a box to the first venue, they were all then laid out on the dirty floor awaiting inspection from the British sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela and their handler Martin Grime.



•The clothes were taken and handled and put into the box.


•The clothes were then handled taken out of the box.


•The clothes were all laid out on a filthy floor.


•NOT ALL of the clothes were packed inside these "special" cartons, some came in a suit case, some came in a holdall.


•Why is Amaral giving the false impression that all the clothes were packed inside these specially held "evidence" boxes?

Why didn't Mark Harrison mention this in his report? If he did I did not read it. Where was the first place these clothes were laid out and contaminated? Who could have been walking all over the floor? What could have been dropped on the floor? Why were the clothes laid directly on the floor in both venues?




Why didn't the forensic science team conduct this test in a controlled scientific environment?



The clothes were laid out on the gym floor, a place where people sweat and dribble profusely, does sweat contain the chemicals putrescine and cadaverine? Saliva certainly does!


The dog alerts to what Amaral assumes to be cadaverine, how does he know what the dog is alerting to? How does he know it is a strong scent? Can he speak dog?


Amaral cannot assume this, it is not evidence, it is hearsay, conjecture nothing more than that!

Martin Grime refuses to divulge how these dogs are trained, but they are trained with pig meat. perhaps they are also trained with the use of saliva?

How come the dog only alerts to Kate's clothes and red T shirt that belongs to Sean and Madeleine's brother has been pictured wearing?

The clothes came out of the same box, if it was a strong odour of cadaverine as Amaral has suggested, why didn't this contaminate all the other clothes in that box?

Why has no reaction been recorded on Gerry's clothes, when Amaral has accused Gerry of getting the body and taking it one place to another 25 days AFTER Madeline disappeared in a car hired 25 days AFTER Madeleine disappeared.

Is this what Goncalo Amaral the bent corrupt criminal ex copper laughingly refers to as evidence?

ETA LINK......http://justice4mccannfam.blogspot.com/

I presume Amaral went along with what he had been told by Mark Harrison so why does everyone attack him. Why has Mark Harrison never come out and said he and his team were wrong if that is what he thinks.

If the UK Police don't think Maddie is dead then why did they say they thought she was.

Just stony silence and a link to the McCanns abduction website.

I don't get it.

littlepixie wrote:

If the UK Police don't think Maddie is dead then why did they say they thought she was.
.

The police have to go on evidence they have. There is no evidence at all to suggest she is alive, or dead as well. However as experience tells, most people are dead after missing for this long, except in extreme cases.

Hi
The guy being quoted here as saying that a high profile person knows of Madeleine's whereabouts and who took her. The other crackpot, Icke, saying it is likely she may have been stolen to order for our great political leaders in Europe.

What is this about and if there is a shred of truth in it why aren't the police hammering down their doors? Why would Mr and Mrs McCann turn to Blair, Brown et al if this was likely to be true? Surely this is speculation of the worse kind?

Take care

DCB1 wrote:In other words - either put up or shut up, or show the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the mccanns were involved (the dogs do not prove that the mccanns were involved).

Why don't you 'put up or shut up' or show the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Mccanns WEREN'T involved. There is far, far more pointing to their involvement than not. Aren't you concerned about their lies? Why would innocent people lie? All that rubbish about the apartment being broken into and jemmied shutter; all total fabrication. The timeline which gives a ridiculous small window of opportunity for any 'abductor' even to the point where Gerry says he may have been in the apartment at the time ( is this a clue?). Their behaviour is very suspect. What mother of a child she believes is with a paedophile in her own words sleeps well five days later? How can anyone feel any sympathy for such a mother? A mother who laughs, jogs, has friends over. Refusing to answer questions, not returning for a reconstruction, it goes on and on and this is without the dogs evidence. British police came to the same conclusion as Amaral. So.. why are you so desperate to declare their innocence. On what basis? Do you know them personally?

Fortunately, this is not the way it works in our society. The presumption of innocence is the very bedrock of our judicial and democratic system, so the onus is on those who believe the McCanns are guilty to prove this; not on those of us who maintain (quite properly) that they are innocent of any involvement in their child's disappearance to prove their innocence.

Contrary to all precepts of decency, legality and morality, the "antis" have already pre-judged the McCanns and pronounced them guilty in this and other forums. However, I have yet to see any proper evidence, never mind any proof, of their guilt. DCB quite justifiably asked either put up or shut up, or show the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the mccanns were involved (the dogs do not prove that the mccanns were involved). Innocence is already established; no-one has to "show evidence" of their innocence.

marigold wrote:

DCB1 wrote:In other words - either put up or shut up, or show the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the mccanns were involved (the dogs do not prove that the mccanns were involved).

Why don't you 'put up or shut up' or show the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Mccanns WEREN'T involved. There is far, far more pointing to their involvement than not. Aren't you concerned about their lies? Why would innocent people lie? All that rubbish about the apartment being broken into and jemmied shutter; all total fabrication. The timeline which gives a ridiculous small window of opportunity for any 'abductor' even to the point where Gerry says he may have been in the apartment at the time ( is this a clue?). Their behaviour is very suspect. What mother of a child she believes is with a paedophile in her own words sleeps well five days later? How can anyone feel any sympathy for such a mother? A mother who laughs, jogs, has friends over. Refusing to answer questions, not returning for a reconstruction, it goes on and on and this is without the dogs evidence. British police came to the same conclusion as Amaral. So.. why are you so desperate to declare their innocence. On what basis? Do you know them personally?

Marigold, what lies?
The timeline is irrelevant if it was a planned abduction, only minutes would be needed to take a child.
Gerry may well have been there, not a clue, merely a man trying to make sense of the situation.
Kate was answering a question when she mentioned her sleeping, if she had lied about it, would that have been better. I feel sympathy for anyone who has lost a child, regardless of how they speak, how they look or how different their behaviour may be to how I would imagine mine to be in a similar situation (god forbid that would ever happen)

Chinagirl wrote:Fortunately, this is not the way it works in our society. The presumption of innocence is the very bedrock of our judicial and democratic system, so the onus is on those who believe the McCanns are guilty to prove this; not on those of us who maintain (quite properly) that they are innocent of any involvement in their child's disappearance to prove their innocence.

Contrary to all precepts of decency, legality and morality, the "antis" have already pre-judged the McCanns and pronounced them guilty in this and other forums. However, I have yet to see any proper evidence, never mind any proof, of their guilt. DCB quite justifiably asked either put up or shut up, or show the evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the mccanns were involved (the dogs do not prove that the mccanns were involved). Innocence is already established; no-one has to "show evidence" of their innocence.

Quite right CG.

Twinkle, proof please that it was a 'planned abduction'. I am sure that you are not daft and therefore do know that the chances of a stranger abduction are miniscule. Surely you are not just taking the parents word for it?

The lies I refer to are the cries of apartment being broken into and jemmied shutters. Also, one of either JT or GM lied when stating which side of the road they were standing when GM was talking to JW. Plus, the timelines don't work out.

marigold wrote:The lies I refer to are the cries of apartment being broken into and jemmied shutters. Also, one of either JT or GM lied when stating which side of the road they were standing when GM was talking to JW. Plus, the timelines don't work out.

The jemmied shutters - was that claim made in the statements? Or was it just made by relatives repeating hearsay on television interviews?

Chinagirl, I assume then that you consider OJ Simpson to be innocent because a court found him so. Was Rose West 'innocent' before her trial then? Maybe in law but not in fact. The Mccanns have not been found innocent of a crime for which they have been suspects. They could be guilty and you don't know for sure that they aren't.

vaguely wrote:

marigold wrote:The lies I refer to are the cries of apartment being broken into and jemmied shutters. Also, one of either JT or GM lied when stating which side of the road they were standing when GM was talking to JW. Plus, the timelines don't work out.

The jemmied shutters - was that claim made in the statements? Or was it just made by relatives repeating hearsay on television interviews?

GM's sister said, in interviews, that Gerry had told her the shutter was jemmied during a telephone conversation.

DCB1 wrote:Has anyone come up with one yet? When, were, how, and who by etc?

Tony Bennett: Yes, I think that what could have happened is that one evening, whilst all the adults were out together wining and dining till gone midnight [see the waiter's evidence], having adult fun together, you know, 'so into each other' and all that, that Madeleine...

Interruption by Carter-Ruck: Just remember that solemn undertaking you gave to the High Court!

Tony Bennett: Oh yes.

REST SNIPPED

Tony Bennett wrote:

DCB1 wrote:Has anyone come up with one yet? When, were, how, and who by etc?

Tony Bennett: Yes, I think that what could have happened is that one evening, whilst all the adults were out together wining and dining till gone midnight [see the waiter's evidence], having adult fun together, you know, 'so into each other' and all that, that Madeleine...

Interruption by Carter-Ruck: Just remember that solemn undertaking you gave to the High Court!

Tony Bennett: Oh yes.

REST SNIPPED

God you are a ((cough)) really. Does anyone believe your <> snipped bits. You are just a ((cough))

marigold wrote:

vaguely wrote:

marigold wrote:The lies I refer to are the cries of apartment being broken into and jemmied shutters. Also, one of either JT or GM lied when stating which side of the road they were standing when GM was talking to JW. Plus, the timelines don't work out.

The jemmied shutters - was that claim made in the statements? Or was it just made by relatives repeating hearsay on television interviews?

GM's sister said, in interviews, that Gerry had told her the shutter was jemmied during a telephone conversation.

Yes, Marigold, there is a video where Philo McCann says that Gerry himself told her that the windows were, and she says I think the word is "jimmied", but then corrects it to jemmied. I saw it only a couple of weeks ago again on one of the forums,

Okay, so it's not in their statements, in the files.

vaguely wrote:Okay, so it's not in their statements, in the files.

But why would GM tell his sister that the shutters were jemmied??

candyfloss wrote:

vaguely wrote:Okay, so it's not in their statements, in the files.

But why would GM tell his sister that the shutters were jemmied??

Candyfloss I have no idea whether he told her that or not, or whether there were Chinese whispers and presumption involved during the chaos and panic that must have been going on around the family when they heard about her disappearance.

What I do know is that the shutters weren't jemmied, and that they never claimed that they were in their statements.

I would imagine that if you were privy to the amount of detail and information in every disappearance/abduction there has ever been then there would be the same level of inaccurate third party comments. I think it's easy to forget that we're not normally in a position to study cases under the microscope as we have been with this one.

this has been pretty unique in terms of press coverage and access to police files.

vaguely wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

vaguely wrote:Okay, so it's not in their statements, in the files.

But why would GM tell his sister that the shutters were jemmied??

Candyfloss I have no idea whether he told her that or not...

Pull the other one.

This is what Reuters reported:

LONDON (Reuters) - Madeleine McCann went missing on May 3, 2007, while on holiday in southern Portugal with her parents Gerry and Kate. Here is a selection of quotes from the case:

"The front door was open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open and Madeleine was missing."

- Gerry McCann's sister Trish Cameron describes the scene at the holiday apartment.

Trish Cameron had only one source for this: Dr Gerald McCann.

Besides that, he said the same thing to Kate's mother, and both the Mccanns simply implored, begged even their relatives to accept the abduction as a fact, especially as some of them were too stunned or sceptical that this really had happened.

I don't think there's any need for that sort of response.

I made a genuine reply to another poster. Not so you could be rude.

So the newspapers report the truth when you want them too then Toony, other times they always tell lies. Make your mind up Toony

It is rather interesting just how many people were phoned and told of the "break-in" and the jemmied shutters. Quite a few, all by G or K. Particularly interesting how Clarence Mitchell then completely reverses the "break-in" story at the very bottom of the page.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id31.html

With thanks to the Mccannfiles.

Disappointing lack of any coherent theories on this thread - I was looking forward to a good read....

I was watching a Miss Marple on TV earlier. People were puzzled as to the circumstances. Miss Marple said that's because people believe what other people say, I never do. (Sensible woman.)