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!

Don't wake up the kids

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by Guest on 10.01.12 12:36

candyfloss wrote:
Moa wrote:
@Tinkerbell81 wrote:
@Upsy Daisy wrote:

Okay..if I were FP and KM screamed to me 'They've taken her', firstly I would tell the police that I had asked KM 'Who has taken her??' 'Who is 'they'? / Who are you talking about? Did you see someone?' or 'how do you know who 'they' are?'... any normal person would have this reaction. KM is acting as if she knows who. So, that tells me that FP must be in on it, otherwise it would have been reported in her statement that she immediately questioned KM and asked who 'They' were. Seemples!

Adding to that the fact that a certain someone didnt jump up hand clasped in front of her mouth remembering what she saw namely a child being carried away by an unknown man... which would also be a much more normal reaction than keeping it quiet and pacifying poor Katie through her "horrible ordeal"

YES , spot on !!! Not in a million years would I keep quiet if that really had happened !! And if I was JT I would done exacly that, jumped up and screamed out from the top of my longs - I think I saw the person taken her !!!!


yes Immediately you would jump and say, OMG I saw a man with a child on my check, he was heading away from your apartment. Wouldn't all the tapas then immediately run up that way and search of any sign of this person. After all he had been wandering around PDL for 35/40 mins winkwink Also wouldn't it be the first thing you would tell police on their arrival?

YES, its an human reflex to react like you describe IF that is what happened.This situation alone should have rang big red alarm bells!! How could she not imidiatly jump up and shout her information out to everyone around !! It would be crusial !! If she really thought she saw an abducter that image would instant pop into her head at the moment Kate comes screaming !! No sane person would keep that information quiet !

As to why she is lying there could be many reason I guess..
All I know is that their story lack something really importent - The truth...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by pennylane on 10.01.12 12:38

The reason Jane Tanner did not immediately jump up and declare she'd seen a stranger carrying Madeleine off, is because she did not see a stranger carrying Madeleine off, and at that juncture it was not in the script! Things went pear shaped from the get go with wilkins and the smiths, and they were forced to rapidly revise their story, on several fronts, until it became so ridiculously convoluted they did not dare cooperate one moment longer with the PJ. Their version of events is a pile of cheap fiction, and as such it doesn't make one iota of sense.





"If it doesn't make sense it isn't true!" Judge Judy

pennylane

Posts : 2756
Reputation : 1588
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by rainbow-fairy on 10.01.12 12:39

@tsj wrote:my first post here so i hope i can bring something worthwhile to this great site.

what if madeleine were brought to portugal for medical treatment. treatment that was experimental so could only be done away from a hospital setting.
this would explain so many of the things that have for many years now struck me as so strange.

it could explain why the tapas crew were willing to cover for the mccanns. How so? We have no evidence Madeleine was ill, barring a few iffy photo's. The PJ were not given access to her medical records,granted, but neither were they given financial or mobile records. a there was no neglect, an adult did stay behind with the other children every night, madeleine was in 5a alone receiving treatment. Physically impossible for Madeleine to be both 'alone' and 'receiving treatment! perhaps the paynes were aware of the reason before travelling and agreed to go to provide moral support. Didn't the Paynes arrange the holiday? they were the only couple really friendly with the mccanns. the others could possibly have self invited themselves along on the trip when the paynes mentioned it, they had been away together before. If it was so secret, why on earth would they mention it? the paynes could not refuse but when things went wrong the other doctors had a lot to loose, to be seen as part of a medical negligence scandal would definately have finished their careers, child neglect not necessarily so. What medical negligence? they may also have had a certain amount of understanding or sympathy if in fact the little girl was receiving last chance treatment for a condition. so they too agreed to the cover up.And commit fraud, pervert the course of justice? I don't think so.

it could explain the lack of definate sightings of madeleine during the holiday and the lack of photos. she simply was not out and about very much.Except, she was! Madeleine, or A child, attended creche every day, and according to Kate had a trip to beach on the 30th!

what if something went wrong and she did indeed need to be resucitated and a tracheotomy or some such performed. this could account for the dogs findings in the apartment.

what if those responsible for the medical procedures did in fact return and remove her body to avoid any evidence being found and they themselves being implicated. There is in fact no evidence at ALL of Maddie ever being in G5A! then indeed kate would have shouted "they" have taken her.

perhaps they truly do not know where her body is, she was in fact taken, and therein began the whole abduction story. they would have to explain where the child was, what else could they say ? they could not return home with just two children and never again mention their eldest child.

perhaps they even had an abduction story half in mind, in the event that something went wrong during treatment, before they travelled.

is that why gerry was not there to enjoy himself, as mentioned on the bus ?

it could also account for the fact that close family members at home in the uk seem to be aware of what happened or certainly very accepting of the version of events. they may well have been told she was travelling for the treatment as a last resort to cure her. That may be so, but it would then mean ALL the family lying, covering up, committing fraud for the past four years. Also, has any nanny or nursery teacher, neighbour EVER mentioned Maddie was ill?

now i am sure there are many questions my uneducated ramblings do not answer as my in depth knowledge would be no where near as fantastic as some of you posting here, but it is something that has been on my mind for a long time.

there are many many photos in which that little girl looks quite ill to me.

so perhaps "they" did take her and of course kate did feel they let her down. But WHY would Kaye feel they had 'let her down'? Surely, if this were the 'last ditch attempt you describe, they could rest knowing they had tried EVERYTHING for your little girl?
tsj, you obviously like to think the best of people but I'm afraid I for one cannot go with your theory, indeed it seems to throw up more questions than it answers.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by tigger on 10.01.12 12:44

From the blog 'Only in America'

The other great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.

"We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" is really simple.

As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."

The alternative is somewhat more complicated: "We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

_______________________________________________
So there you have it - in a nutshell, simple isn't it?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by pennylane on 10.01.12 13:05

@tigger wrote:From the blog 'Only in America'

The other great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.

"We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" is really simple.

As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."

The alternative is somewhat more complicated: "We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

_______________________________________________
So there you have it - in a nutshell, simple isn't it?


Tigger


Their story became so ridiculously convoluted and nonsensical that they had no choice but to feign an attitude and clam up.

Being made arguidos was just what the doctors ordered and needed (imo).

pennylane

Posts : 2756
Reputation : 1588
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by Guest on 10.01.12 13:11

@tigger wrote:From the blog 'Only in America'

The other great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.

"We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" is really simple.

As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."

The alternative is somewhat more complicated: "We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

_______________________________________________
So there you have it - in a nutshell, simple isn't it?

spit coffee
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by joyce1938 on 10.01.12 14:09

just trying to recall ,was it not so that they could ask to become arguidos ? it is a title that protects a person from certain questions that are maybe asked,and could incriminate themselves. so felt it best to take that on,ofcourse that seemed to progress towards then maybe getting into suspect area,then got the hell away from portugal.just some oldidh memories joyce1938
avatar
joyce1938

Posts : 847
Reputation : 113
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by pennylane on 10.01.12 14:29

@joyce1938 wrote:just trying to recall ,was it not so that they could ask to become arguidos ? it is a title that protects a person from certain questions that are maybe asked,and could incriminate themselves. so felt it best to take that on,ofcourse that seemed to progress towards then maybe getting into suspect area,then got the hell away from portugal.just some oldidh memories joyce1938

Exacto, Joyce!

pennylane

Posts : 2756
Reputation : 1588
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by Guest on 10.01.12 15:31

@joyce1938 wrote:just trying to recall ,was it not so that they could ask to become arguidos ? it is a title that protects a person from certain questions that are maybe asked,and could incriminate themselves. so felt it best to take that on,ofcourse that seemed to progress towards then maybe getting into suspect area,then got the hell away from portugal.just some oldidh memories joyce1938

As far as I know, as this is still very much a grey area. There are some who believe they did not 'ask' to become arguidos, they had no choice. To enable the PJ to ask them certain questions, by divulging very specific evidence, they had to legally assume that status. Something the PJ could not do, unless they officially became arguidos.

I'm very much in the camp who believes they had no choice in the matter.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by pennylane on 10.01.12 15:55

Stella wrote:
@joyce1938 wrote:just trying to recall ,was it not so that they could ask to become arguidos ? it is a title that protects a person from certain questions that are maybe asked,and could incriminate themselves. so felt it best to take that on,ofcourse that seemed to progress towards then maybe getting into suspect area,then got the hell away from portugal.just some oldidh memories joyce1938

As far as I know, as this is still very much a grey area. There are some who believe they did not 'ask' to become arguidos, they had no choice. To enable the PJ to ask them certain questions, by divulging very specific evidence, they had to legally assume that status. Something the PJ could not do, unless they officially became arguidos.

I'm very much in the camp who believes they had no choice in the matter.

Yes it is a grey area, I agree Stella.

I realise it calls for speculation, but do you think they were unhappy when their Arguido status was suddenly lifted? I felt they didn't want it lifted because they were now vulnerable to more direct questions.

pennylane

Posts : 2756
Reputation : 1588
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by PeterMac on 10.01.12 16:53

So unhappy they came home at very short notice.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by Guest on 11.01.12 12:02

Precisely PeterMac. They got the first flight out of Portugal they could.

The Arguido status had to be lifted when the case was shelved. It was not something they would have personally requested, it was a formality, at that point in time.

When the case gets reopened, they will all automatically become arguidos once again.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by Nina on 11.01.12 12:20

Stella wrote:Precisely PeterMac. They got the first flight out of Portugal they could.

The Arguido status had to be lifted when the case was shelved. It was not something they would have personally requested, it was a formality, at that point in time.

When the case gets reopened, they will all automatically become arguidos once again.

Stella, what an uplifting word that is in this context "When" That has boosted me no end.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
avatar
Nina

Posts : 2861
Reputation : 334
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 74

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by joyce1938 on 11.01.12 16:38

hi all,the name that has been isud arquedo has been talked about on and off on sites and i feel we dont really have true meaning of it ,but when at laverso and macs were asked about it they gave impression that mr murat was a suspect ,when he was called aquedo,so what were they ?ofcourse its just odd things that can linger in minds ,but its amazing that at times we retain bits and peices that make a markon our minds,this was just one of those times for me,is there no one on here that knows the legal meaning of being made arquedo?joyce1938
avatar
joyce1938

Posts : 847
Reputation : 113
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

arguido

Post by russiandoll on 11.01.12 16:56

It might be worth noting , unless I recall incorrectly, that in her book Kate refers to Murat as a suspect but to herself and Gerry as persons of interest.



What is an 'arguido'?
By Channel 4 News
Updated on 08 September 2007


As Kate McCann's status as a witness changes, Channel 4 News online explains what it means to be a 'formal suspect' in Portuguese law.

Arguido refers to someone of interest to the inquiry. While
there is no direct equivalent in UK law, it has become shorthand in this
case for 'formal suspect'.

As an arguido, the person connected to the case is granted certain legal rights under Portuguese law.

These inlcude:


  • the right to remain silent during questioning
  • the right to legal representation

On the other hand, an arguido is likely to have limited freedom of movement and must be in regular contact with the police.

A person can ask for arguido status if they feel the line of questioning is implying that they are a suspect. And it's not uncommon for a person to request this status.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by Gillyspot on 11.01.12 21:05

Arguido definition from Wikipedia

Arguido (male, Portuguese pronunciation: [ɐɾˈɡwidu]) or arguida (female, [ɐɾˈɡwidɐ]), normally translated "named suspect" or "formal suspect", is a status in Portuguese language legal systems, including the legal systems of Portugal and Mozambique. It is given to a person whom the authorities suspect may have committed an offence. This designation does not exist in certain other jurisdictions In a criminal investigation a person has to be declared an arguido prior to being arrested.[4] Portuguese law makes a distinction between arguido and suspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
avatar
Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by aquila on 27.11.12 10:25

I think this thread is worth resurrecting in view of the current shutters thread.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8704
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Don't wake up the kids

Post by Guest on 11.02.14 16:58

Some interesting points.
Can anyone confirm if the arguido status is reinstated once the case re-opens?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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