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!

Garth's Theory

Page 3 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 11:26

@Garth wrote:Stella luvvy, you've had my thoughts regarding the Smith sighting.

You've had my thoughts regarding your quiz as to why the abductor was walking in a different direction.

You've had my thoughts regarding the shutters and the claim' they were jemmied'.

You've had my thoughts on the dogs.

What is it you're unsure of now?


We're not interested in any of that Garth.

Still dodging the questions I see.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Garth on 05.06.11 11:34

Upsy
 
You obviously havent taken on board anything that I have said on this thread. Read it and understand is my suggestion to you.
 
You said
 
 OF course, the McCann's will do anything in their power to protect themselves, however if there is absolutey any way whatsoever that there could have been an abduction and that small helpless child was in fact taken away, THE POLICE WOULD HAVE SAID SO !!
 
============
 
The McCanns will do anything in their power to protect themselves from what? Vitriol and untruths or do you mean from being involved in a conspiracy to conceal the death of their daughter?
 
And have these so-called police you refer suggested there was no abduction?
 
Anyway, I've pretty much had it with these silly argumets.
 
My challenge goes out to Me, to see if he/she has any substance.
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 11:45

Garth. Maybe next time we will here all about your evidence for the abduction..
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Upsy Daisy on 05.06.11 12:07

Haven't taken anything on board Garth?? No?? I have been reading with baited breath for your conclusions. As discussed many many times before there is no way there could have been an abduction and I am definitely Not giving you the opportunity to start leading me on yet another merry goose chase. I am waiting like all the others to hear your evidences/theory because you have heard ours and I agree with almost everyone on here, I don't profess to know what poor Madeleine's fate was however I believe in the NO ABDUCTION theory since there was zilch evidence to support there being an intruder/abductor in that apartment. The McCanns were not being stitched up. If you know that for a fact that you are one of the McCanns and you know they are innocent, then please go tell the whole world and answer all the questions there are to be answered by the police!!! There is no other reason for you to not believe in the abduction theory otherwise. The facts are there, the abduction theory does NOT stack up nor make any sense at all, regardless of what you believe to be an unbelievable scenario for a couple of good standing to somehow lie and cover up their daughter's death. It HAPPENS and it happens all over the world all of the time by seemingly NORMAL people Garth. Still waiting.....
avatar
Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by The Shelfstacker on 05.06.11 12:09

Garth, six pages of ducking and diving.

FGS man, get to the point. Answer the question.

God only knows how you manage to hold down two jobs.
avatar
The Shelfstacker

Posts : 122
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 12:17

@Upsy Daisy wrote:Haven't taken anything on board Garth?? No?? I have been reading with baited breath for your conclusions. As discussed many many times before there is no way there could have been an abduction and I am definitely Not giving you the opportunity to start leading me on yet another merry goose chase. I am waiting like all the others to hear your evidences/theory because you have heard ours and I agree with almost everyone on here, I don't profess to know what poor Madeleine's fate was however I believe in the NO ABDUCTION theory since there was zilch evidence to support there being an intruder/abductor in that apartment. The McCanns were not being stitched up. If you know that for a fact that you are one of the McCanns and you know they are innocent, then please go tell the whole world and answer all the questions there are to be answered by the police!!! There is no other reason for you to not believe in the abduction theory otherwise. The facts are there, the abduction theory does NOT stack up nor make any sense at all, regardless of what you believe to be an unbelievable scenario for a couple of good standing to somehow lie and cover up their daughter's death. It HAPPENS and it happens all over the world all of the time by seemingly NORMAL people Garth. Still waiting.....


It does happen here's one such case...............


SUSAN SMITH - CASE BACKGROUND

Categories > SMITH, ALEX & MICHAEL - SUSAN SMITH Page 1 1–1 patsystone

Susan Leigh (Vaughan) Smith, age 35, is incarcerated at Leath CorrectionalInstitution, near Greenwood, South Carolina for the murders of her two sons, Alex, 14 months old, and Michael, age 3 by deliberately drowning the children inside a vehicle. She was sentenced to 30 years to life. She is not allowed to give media interviews.

According to the Corrections Dept. Smith's projected parole date is November 4, 2024, after she has served 30 years of her sentence.Smith would be 52. David Smith, the boy's father, has stated hisintentions of being at each and every hearing and opposing parole.

1994 - Susan Smith hysterically contacted police, falsely claiming she hadbeen car-jacked by an African -American and that her two children werestill in the vehicle, and that they had cried for their mother as she watchedthem being driven away.

Law enforcement and the public were galvanized into searching for the youngboys while Smith made pleas on television. David Smith, her estranged husbandand the father of Alex and Michael stood by her side and was visibly shaken byevents. His please for the return of Alex and Michael were heartfelt and heart-breaking. Susan Smith's performance in front of the cameras led some to believe she was hiding something.


Law enforcement's investigation came full circle- right back to Susan Smith.After nine days Smith finally confessed. She claimed she had meant tocommit suicide with the children.

Susan Smith's cold hearted tale of exiting the vehicle, releasing the emergencybreak, closing the car door and watching as the car took her sleeping childrendown into the water of John D. Long lake was horrifying. Both children were strapped into their car seats, and as the water rose, it is likely it awakenedthem and they cried. One diver, testified with his voice cracking as he relatedhow the vehicle had been found upside down in 18 feet of water. "I was ableto see a small hand against the glass." During the trial a video was shown of a re-enactment of the car submerging. It was a long six minutes as the car filled with water before it submerged. An autopsy proved that both boys were still alive when the water rose over their heads.

[rest snipped]

http://cmm.lefora.com/2008/12/02/susan-smith-case-background/


avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by ufercoffy on 05.06.11 12:19

@The Shelfstacker wrote:Garth, six pages of ducking and diving.

FGS man, get to the point. Answer the question.

God only knows how you manage to hold down two jobs.

But he is two people - Garth and RBxHN - so they have one each laughat

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked
avatar
ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Upsy Daisy on 05.06.11 13:45

Thanks Candyfloss, yes that was a very horrendous case. Just goes to show, you can never tell .... don't judge a book by its cover so to speak, nice little housewife with lovely kids goes and kills them. Anyone is capable of anything at any time. Garth is in denial.
avatar
Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 14:02

@Upsy Daisy wrote:Thanks Candyfloss, yes that was a very horrendous case. Just goes to show, you can never tell .... don't judge a book by its cover so to speak, nice little housewife with lovely kids goes and kills them. Anyone is capable of anything at any time. Garth is in denial.


Yes, and just because her new "fancy man" didn't want children and had told her that he wanted to finish with her because of that reason. (IIRC - it's what was shown of Crime and Investigation channel)
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Me on 05.06.11 14:23

@Garth wrote:For your info, some of us actually have a social life.

Anyway, you'd like me to answer on a thread titled Garths theory - 'please dont laugh at the back'.

I'll tell you what 'WIMP' why dont we have this challenge off this forum on neutral ground (you know, to keep the conspiraloons at bay) and then we will see who has the KAHUNAS to stand by their convictions.

So, my challenge to you (which Im sure you wont take up because you appear to be all MOUTH) is that we debate and put up an internet wager on the outcome or if you like, the way this investigation goes (you know, either trying to convict the McCanns or the search for an abductor, conducted by SY with the cooperation of the Portuguese) and make this legally binding.

Lets see YOU accept this challenge, put your money where your mouth is (which appears to be close to your backside) and we'll see who has the KAHUNAS which you appear to like to refer.

Over to you big boy!


Oh get a grip you big drama queen. This is the internet for heaven's sake. The description of the thread was tongue in cheek and aimed at poking a little bit of fun at you. You deserved it.

It pales into insignificance against all the insults and condecension you've constantly displayed whilst on here. If you're not giving it the Alan Partridge style "look love" type of condecension you're insulting posters by labeling them or their posts "lunatics", "barmy" etc.

You're more than happy to run around the forum poking fun at other people's posts and ideas. If you can't take it yourself then don't give it out in the first place.

To suggest meeting on "neutral ground" on the basis of our discussions
on a web forum is absolutely hilarious. How old are you?

What has the investigation by SY got to do with this thread and the abduction theory which you so firmly believe? Why mention it here when this is the thread for you to put YOUR theory forward, and face questions on it.

There are other threads for the re-investigation, not this one.

You know my feelings on this "bet" of yours becuase we covered it a week or so ago didn't we?

Putting my "money where my mouth is" has absoultely nothing to do with what SY might or might not say.

I have never predicted the outcome of SY's review becuase we don't know their terms of reference, their motives, objectives or political involvement behind the scenes and given all this it is fairly clear to anyone that this bet would not be on a level playing field until we knew all these things.

So it's a nonesense bet which proves nothing. and has nothing to do with the issues we've been discussing.

Plus i don't need SY's review to expose the fraility of your abduction theory do i?

SY can come up with what they like but until i hear credible evidence backed theories supporting abduction i'll treat the theory itself and the people who epsouse it depsite all the evidence to the contrary, with the the ridicule it / they deserve(s).

Now onto the abduction theory, some questions:

1) In what way do you think this abduction was planned? Were the McCann's watched / not watched /part watched? Please give your reasoning for this theory

2) How did they get in the apartment, given we know it wasn't broken into and how did they know how to get into it without breaking into it?

3) How was the girl taken out of the flat?

4) how many abductors were involved?

5) What was the motive? paedophile? Human Trafficking, Gypsey, other? Please explain your reasoning for this

6) How did they ge tin and out without leaving any forensic evidence and how did they manage to remove any forensic evidence of Madeleline from that apartment?

7) Was the girl immieditely taken somewhere else or do you beleive she is in Portugal? Please provide your reasoning for this.

8) Why do you think the PJ couldn't find any evidence of an abductor?

That'll do for now but there will be more questions.

Look forward to your answers.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Garth on 05.06.11 15:56

Jezuz, its like the Spanish inquisition. lol
 
1) In what way do you think this abduction was planned? Were the McCann's watched / not watched /part watched? Please give your reasoning for this theory I believe they knew the child was on her own. 

2) How did they get in the apartment, given we know it wasn't broken into and how did they know how to get into it without breaking into it? Key/patio door.......possible perhaps hmmm?

3) How was the girl taken out of the flat? Passed out window

4) how many abductors were involved? Two 

5) What was the motive? paedophile? Human Trafficking, Gypsey, other? Please explain your reasoning for this. Who knows - does this have some bearing on discrediting the abduction? 

6) How did they ge tin and out without leaving any forensic evidence and how did they manage to remove any forensic evidence of Madeleline from that apartment? Wore some gloves maybe? Im sure there were plenty of evidence of many people within that apartment, but what do you compare them with if you have no suspect.........thats a question for you. 


7) Was the girl immieditely taken somewhere else or do you beleive she is in Portugal? Please provide your reasoning for this. Please provide your reasoning for this.........what are you like! It would be my opinion, what has that got to do with anything?

8) Why do you think the PJ couldn't find any evidence of an abductor? Explained already
 
If the 'lied' thread is anything to go by, people should understand why I have kept these replies brief.
 
If you would like to discuss any of the above in more detail, I could probably just about be bothered to manager one.
 
Which one seems to upset you the most?
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 16:10

3) How was the girl taken out of the flat? Passed out window


Why on earth for Garth? By your reasoning there were 2 abductors. Why bother passing her out of a window - which would look wholly suspicous if anyone was passing by - wouldn't you agree? Talk about attracting attention, and the window was on a road. Why not just let yourself out of the flat with her, as the abductor who was left behind did? Sorry Garth but that theory just doesn't stand up. You said earlier in this thread that the abductor left inside just walked out the front door, why not with Madeleine then.

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Me on 05.06.11 16:12

@Garth wrote:Marian,

I have two jobs. One involves running a security firm and the other involves kicking the backsides of people who claim benefits and pretend they cannot work.

I visit this forum in and out, in my free time. It appears to me that many of the posters here (I wont mention names) but when ever I view this forum, they are here, logged in. That suggests to me, that those posters DO spend most of their time on this board. And what's their motivation?

I simply like a challenge and hence my work. I also have a low tolerance threshold for fools and imo this forum has many. Not all I might add, some can debate and apply logic to their arguments.

Looking at the bigger picture, I see a family who never had the full support of the Portuguese investigation whilst coordination of Goncalo Amaral. Its only plain to see today, the mans conviction in trying to prove their guilt.

Whilst people may try to find little discrepancies in the McCanns actions/statements, the 'bigger picture' actually tells a different story.

So, I do look at all possibilities but I'm no fool believe me, but I know the McCanns are innocent and the people on here are wrong. And hence my challenge our noisy poster Me.


Garth Let me reply to the various parts of your post:

@Garth wrote:I have two jobs. One involves running a
security firm and the other involves kicking the backsides of people who
claim benefits and pretend they cannot work.

I visit this forum
in and out, in my free time. It appears to me that many of the posters
here (I wont mention names) but when ever I view this forum, they are
here, logged in. That suggests to me, that those posters DO spend most
of their time on this board. And what's their motivation?

I have two jobs as well. I run my own interent company and am a full time paid carer. I can't speak for anyone else but like you i flit in and out when time allows.

@Garth wrote:I simply like a challenge and hence my work. I also have a low tolerance
threshold for fools and imo this forum has many. Not all I might add,
some can debate and apply logic to their arguments.

Insults again. Please don't give them out if you can't take them back.

It's alright calling someone else a fool provided your argument stands up to the same scrutiny when others of a different persuasion, but who also have a low tolerance threshold for fools, give you the platform to lay out your theroy and arguments.

You have yet to offer any kind of coherent evidence backed narrative for your theory. Until such time as you do you are in no position to call anyone a fool. Indeed clearly the evidence of this thread is that there's only one poster on here looking foolish (here's a clue - it's not me) so i wonder if you include yourself as one of the fools on this forum.

@Garth wrote:Looking at the bigger picture, I see a family who never had the full
support of the Portuguese investigation whilst coordination of Goncalo
Amaral. Its only plain to see today, the mans conviction in trying to
prove their guilt.

Whilst people may try to find little
discrepancies in the McCanns actions/statements, the 'bigger picture'
actually tells a different story.

Really? They were given every support by the PJ up until their stories quickly fell apart into the farce the files recorded. It's all there to see and it's been debated over and over, yet you refuse to believe any if it? Why? How much more evidence do you need?

Lest we forget it was the UK police who suggested the parents should be suspected, both Lee Rainbow and the other guy (whose name escapes me) put it to the PJ that this is the line that should be followed. Clearly this was not some rabid consipiracy against the McCann's, it was simply the culmination of following the evidence they had gathered. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see this.

Lest we also forget that Amaral's successor, Rebelo, also came to the exact same conclusions as did Tavaral. Why do you think this is? Were they all part of some grand Portugese consipiracy?

Why did neither Amaral's successor or Tavaral conclude that there was no evidence to support abduction? Why do you think this?

In realtion to Amaral, he has had his career destroyed and had the McCann's bemsirch his name and set about trying to destroy him financially.

Not as the McCann's claimed to correct the fallacies, they actively sought to destroy him and his family. Why should he not try to set that wrong right? What would you do in his situation?

And given the evidence in the files which leads would you follow, from the information that's in there, if not to look at the parents?

@Garth wrote:So, I do look at all possibilities but I'm no fool believe me, but I
know the McCanns are innocent and the people on here are wrong. And
hence my challenge our noisy poster Me.

I'm not noisy, just merely content to pull apart the arguments you use and expose your inability to provide any credible evidence of an abduction. It might seem noisy to you but until i came along you were quite content simply to sit on the sidelines throwing barbed insults to all and sundry.

When i actually confornted you and turned the tables on your posturing your nose has clearly been pushed out of joint and you've been unable to provide any credible theories of your own.

It's obviously riled you because you've now resorted to abuse and threats.

How do you know they're innocent, what makes you believe this so much? Becuase there is not enought evidence to prosecute them at the moment doesnt automatically mean they're innocent.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Me on 05.06.11 16:19

@Garth wrote:Jezuz, its like the Spanish inquisition. lol

1) In what way do you think this abduction was planned? Were the McCann's watched / not watched /part watched? Please give your reasoning for this theory I believe they knew the child was on her own. How do you know this and how did they know this?

2) How did they get in the apartment, given we know it wasn't broken into and how did they know how to get into it without breaking into it? Key/patio door.......possible perhaps hmmm? How did they know it was open? Pure luck?

3) How was the girl taken out of the flat? Passed out window - Why is there no evidence of any kind forensically on that window?

4) how many abductors were involved? Two - Where did that other person go? Why were there no other sightings of two abductors?

5) What was the motive? paedophile? Human Trafficking, Gypsey, other? Please explain your reasoning for this. Who knows - does this have some bearing on discrediting the abduction? - Yes becuase there has to be a reason for someone wanting to take a child. Give us your opinion.

6) How did they ge tin and out without leaving any forensic evidence and how did they manage to remove any forensic evidence of Madeleline from that apartment? Wore some gloves maybe? Im sure there were plenty of evidence of many people within that apartment, but what do you compare them with if you have no suspect.........thats a question for you. - None was found of any kind (which was unaccounted for), no hairs, fibres, footprints that were unexplained. What about the absecne of Maddie's DNA in that room, how do you explain that?


7) Was the girl immieditely taken somewhere else or do you beleive she is in Portugal? Please provide your reasoning for this. Please provide your reasoning for this.........what are you like! It would be my opinion, what has that got to do with anything? Well she disappeared off the face of the earth, how was this acheived? no sightings at any border, port or airport, so give me your theory for how they simply spiritied her away.

8) Why do you think the PJ couldn't find any evidence of an abductor? Explained already - Hardly, would you beleive it normal for any intruder in those conditions to not leave a trace? How did they get her off the bed without leaving fibres on the bed?

If the 'lied' thread is anything to go by, people should understand why I have kept these replies brief.

If you would like to discuss any of the above in more detail, I could probably just about be bothered to manager one.

Which one seems to upset you the most?

None of them upset me as none of them have anything in the way of facts or evidence to support them. If you could provide some for any of the points it'd be a start!

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Garth on 05.06.11 16:27

Me
 
Do you know what, I couldnt be arsed to you read your post.
 
by candyfloss on Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:10 pm3) How was the girl taken out of the flat? Passed out window


Why on earth for Garth? By your reasoning there were 2 abductors. Why bother passing her out of a window - which would look wholly suspicous if anyone was passing by - wouldn't you agree? Talk about attracting attention, and the window was on a road. Why not just let yourself out of the flat with her, as the abductor who was left behind did? Sorry Garth but that theory just doesn't stand up. You said earlier in this thread that the abductor left inside just walked out the front door, why not with Madeleine then.

Candy, I will answer you because you appear to stick to the topic.
 
Firstly, we are both talking about opinions here.
 
My opinion is that to get  a child out of that apartment, it would be easier with two people. One to keep watch (at the front to ensure no one is passing) and to take the child when passed out the window. Why not just walk out the front door as you say? Because you would not be aware of who was about at the front, who had just passed or may be approaching. I dont think I need to explain what a 'lookout' does.
 
And I know your next question..........why walk across the top road in view of GM. Firstly, I doubt the abuctor knew it was the father of the child he was snatching. Secondly, the most important thing as I see it, would be to get the child away from those apartments where someone could possibly recognise her. I've already explained why I dont feel walking across the top road in a westerly direction would have been a good idea.
 
Fair enough?


 
 
 
 
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 16:41

Which brings us back to the noisy shutters again, not awakening the twins or Madeleine. Also of course the opening gap of the window was measured and the PJ files say it was impossible for a child the size of Madeleine to be passed through as she was taken out of her bed and carried. The window opening isn't large enough. So she would have had to be passed out sort of head first and pulled through - that would have been a bit of a feat initself.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Garth on 05.06.11 16:50

CandY
 
Firstly,I dispute the claim regarding noisy shutters. But even if they were a little noisy, they would have been raised from the inside by a pull cord and with the window still shut, slowly raising them would not be enough to disturb a small child imo.
 
And that window IS BIG ENOUGH to pass a child through. Hell, if they were going to snatch a child Im damn sure passing her through a window wouldnt be a problem.
 
Im going to add this because I think its important.
 
If these people were going to snatch a child via the front of the aparment as is the case, it makes sense for someone to hide behind the wall below the bedroom window to keep a vigil whilst the other is inside. That would not attract attention.  And its also worth noting the way the child was acccarried. Picked up from the bed and passed on WOULD account for the way in which she was being held.
 
 
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Me on 05.06.11 16:55

@Garth wrote:Me

Do you know what, I couldnt be arsed to you read your post.

Haha!!

Grow up for crying out loud.

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Garth on 05.06.11 17:03

Candy?
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 17:11

@Garth wrote:Candy?

Yes??
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Garth on 05.06.11 17:18

Well..............
 
You dont appear to be challenging my opinion. So do you accept my theory as a possibility or not. And if not then why?
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 17:22

@Garth wrote:Well..............
 
You dont appear to be challenging my opinion. So do you accept my theory as a possibility or not. And if not then why?

Aim busy doing something else at the mo. Back in a bit. Just to say you were given proof that the shutters made a noise way back in the shutters thread. I quoted from the News of the World who had access to Apartment 5a and there people said the shutters were very noisy, and concluded the window was ruled out.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Garth on 05.06.11 17:26

I'd like to see that article..........of course, when youve got time.
 
 
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Garth's Theory

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 17:37

@Garth wrote:I'd like to see that article..........of course, when youve got time.
 
 

Garth, I'm a bit fed up of posting and re-posting the same thing over and over, just cos you can't be bothered to look things up. It was posted about a week ago as I said. But here it is again, and this is the last time I will bother, next time please take the trouble to look for yourself, when you have been informed it has already been posted.



And our team heard for themselves how much noise an intruder would have made— reinforcing the theory that this was not an opportunistic snatch but carefully planned.

When the bedroom shutter is opened by a pull-cord it makes a loud piercing creak that could easily have woken the youngsters or alerted Pamela Fenn, the woman living upstairs.

This is crucial evidence as it shows the difficulty of entering the property by the window


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html


Note this has been pulled by the cord from the inside, and still make a loud noise!!!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Round and round we go

Post by Guest on 05.06.11 17:47

I was about to post a reply asking was it worth Candyfloss's efforts to post this article in view of Garth's track record of discounting absolutely everything supplied previously to back up statements but she got there before me. Garth, I know I'm going to have to take you on your word if you reply to this but can you, hand on heart, state that you have no connection whatsoever with the McCanns?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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