Why didn't you come last night...?

candyfloss wrote:

[quote merrymo]

It was KMs lawyer's duty to do what was best in his clients interest. It was obvious by that time that Amaral was no longer looking for a live child, but was hoping to pin the crime on the mother
---------------------------------
Candyfloss said

Do you honestly believe a policeman with 30 years experience, a family man with children of his own would seriously do that? It was only after being made arguido could they ask more searching and serious questions, when the suspect is allowed to have a lawyer present. Isn't it the same in this country, when you are cautioned, and have the right to remain silent.

russiandoll wrote: For the second time I am requesting that you please elaborate on your comment about Kate McCann possibly accidentally falling downstairs had she repleid to her arguido questions.

Sorry - I must have missed your first request. In his previous Missing child case, the mother - who was a main suspect, ended up with horrific injuries whilst in custody, which it was claimed by the PJ she suffered from falling down steps. She claimed her confession had been beaten out of her. She took her case to court, but as she could not identify her torturers, no one was able to be found guilty. However, it could be proved that Amaral perjured himself over this incident, and so he was duly found guilty and received a suspended prison sentence. His subsequent appeal against that was thrown out. It is not unreasonable to assume that KMs lawyer was aware of what happened to Cipriano - and took the necessary measures to ensure his client would not be put in a similar position. i.e. by advising her not to answer any of the questions.


While it is good to have a person with conflicting opinions here to argue the case, [ as it is difficult to get on the other sites to argue with the pros...and by argue I mean have a reasoned intelligent and polite debate] it would be really helpful if you, who go on so much about evidence and non-speculation, practised what you preach.
Where is the evidence to prove that GA was trying to frame Kate McCann?
And what does his personal life have to do with his professional behavior? Married twice............so what?

So what indeed? - maybe you should ask Candyfloss as it was she who introduced that aspect of Amaral's personal life into the equation. I was merely elaborating on it.

Merrymo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

[quote merrymo]

It was KMs lawyer's duty to do what was best in his clients interest. It was obvious by that time that Amaral was no longer looking for a live child, but was hoping to pin the crime on the mother
---------------------------------
Candyfloss said

Do you honestly believe a policeman with 30 years experience, a family man with children of his own would seriously do that? It was only after being made arguido could they ask more searching and serious questions, when the suspect is allowed to have a lawyer present. Isn't it the same in this country, when you are cautioned, and have the right to remain silent.

Do you mean the 'family man' who is currently going through his second divorce?

The policeman who has a criminal record for committing perjury relating to his previous Missing Child case?

The policeman who has managed to form all kinds of opinions on the McCanns, but who has never actually met them or spoken to them.

Yes I can honestly say I believe his intention was to pin this crime on the mother (again)

I find it hard to believe there is a ban under Portuguese law on the PJ asking 'searching and serious' questions of anyone being interrogated/interviewed in relation to any case unless they are first made Arguidos? Who would decide which questions were too ''searching and serious'' to be asked?

Merrymo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

[quote merrymo]

---------------------------------
Do you mean the 'family man' who is currently going through his second divorce?

The policeman who has a criminal record for committing perjury relating to his previous Missing Child case?

The policeman who has managed to form all kinds of opinions on the McCanns, but who has never actually met them or spoken to them.

Yes I can honestly say I believe his intention was to pin this crime on the mother (again)

I find it hard to believe there is a ban under Portuguese law on the PJ asking 'searching and serious' questions of anyone being interrogated/interviewed in relation to any case unless they are first made Arguidos? Who would decide which questions were too ''searching and serious'' to be asked?

tigger said

Merrymo -this is a good link to read the cipriano case. the Paulo Reis point by point is good, don't forget that many of the reports are by newspapers and therefore not totally reliable.
The central figure is Correia - a lawyer who was paid by Metodo3 and even went so far as to say he had had a spiritual enlightenment.
Amaral was convicted of misrepresenting evidence, not of coercion. Leonor C failed to identify any of the police officers who had beaten her.
Leonor C and her lover beat up the girl. The lover confessed to the murder and the disposal of the body.
I haven't read further but seem to remember that Amaral may have glossed over Leonor's accusation.
The sentence given was a suspended one which was long over by 2007.

[url=http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html

Merrymo wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

anil39200 wrote:So, Merrymo, do you believe the right way to have handled this is by courting publicity at every turn, setting up a limited company which people believe is a charitable fund, telling a news reporter to "ask the dogs" when asked why did they alert to blood etc, having left children under 4 alone for several nights, then decide to set all this in motion with the help of high powered government officials and spin doctor supreme who is there to manipulate the media on behalf, when in fact it is erm, negligence,not naivity, or a mistake which has brought the whole situation about in the first place. This, you believe is how it should have been done is it? Now do me a favour,, massive language barrier, in a place where there are so many ex pats, , this, IMO of course is the problem,many people who support them have just taken in the story hook, line and sinker without even considering that there may be another side to it. Just answer this one question please. What evidence is there for an abduction?

Think you could be waiting for a while for this one, anil39200 - seems Merrymo has gone off to confer with the 'others'.
How much would you like to bet that, if you DO get an answer it'll read like the following:-
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying Maddie away at 9.15
At 9.50, an Irish family saw the same man and child (think he'd been hiding for 35 minutes)
Or very similar? Heard it all before - Zzzzz.....

So why is that not evidence? A little girl disappears and a man is seen carrying a little girl away - yards from the apartment at a time which would tally with the 'checking' times and then a man is seen within the hour whose description was so similar to the first sighting that it could not be coincidence - surely that cannot be viewed other than evidence ? The fact that no man came forward to be eliminated is also pertinent - also the fact that the Smiths did not know the McCanns or any of their friends is of importance. I am mystified as to why that evidence should be sneered at.

I'm not sure what evidence you would expect to find if Maddie had been abducted, especially by a professional gang who had targeted that resort, that complex, that particular apartment and who were just waiting for someone to come along to fit the bill. They walk in - open the window, pick up the child and leave. It could be done in seconds. It's not like a burglary when all the rooms are entered and ransacked. No fingerprints is not surprising. Any footprints would have been destroyed by the various traffic that went through the apartment before it was finally cordoned off.

The forensic evidence collected is suspect anyway IMO. Even Amaral commented in his book on the unprofessional approach of the person taking fingerprint evidence on the morning afterwards. One of the samples gathered from the floor of the apartment turned out to be the DNA of the person who collected it. So it's not impossible that evidence that may have existed was missed.

On the other hand the McCanns had no motive,
no car, no knowledge of the area, and certainly no time to 'fake' an abduction with all that that would involve. Neither is it possible IMO that they could calmly stroll over to the Tapas Bar and eat, drink, chat and act perfectly normally, having just carried out the most horrific horrendous act EVER in their whole lives, and also knowing that in a couple of hours time, the police were going to be crawling all over the place and all hell was going to break loose. Even Pat Brown doesn't believe that. It's just not humanly possible for two people to behave like that.


The theory that the McCann family was targeted and their daughter abducted is at least credible. . The half theories (I've never heard a full one) that the McCanns killed their child, or they disposed of her body - simply do not stand up to scrutiny - and so are 'unbelievable' IMO.

Once you rule out the McCanns, then abduction is the only other feasible answer.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Rainbow said

1)I wasn't sneering, but JT 'sighting' is more or less useless as it is not an independent witness. The Smith sighting IS interesting, and the fact no-one has come forward to be eliminated. Could that not be because it WAS Gerry? As you state, the Smiths don't know him so no reason to lie...

If it was Gerry who the Smith family saw at 10.00pm - then that means he had not yet disposed of Maddie. So how could he then carry on to wherever it was he was going, dispose of her - then get all the way back to the complex, and presumably change his clothes, - where he was then seen by hotel staff from about 10.10. He can't be in two places at once - and even if you don't want to consider the evidence of his friends, there are independent witnesses who confirm that he was there looking for his daughter and then with hotel staff waiting for the police from immediately after the alarm was raised by KM at about 10.05p.m.

If you can give me a credible theory to substantiate that it was Gerry - then I'd like to hear it.

2)Could you tell me, WHY would an abductor walk in, then OPEN THE WINDOW then walk out with Maddie?

I understand the front door was inset, and so you could not open it and check whether the coast was clear without walking outside of it first - but you could check outside from right to left from the open window. Also, the open window would be a direct line for escape if they were disturbed by someone coming in via the patio door or the front door. Maddie may also have been passed through that window to someone outside.


3)It seems that you rate Pat Brown and give credence to what she says, so why say the apartment was targeted? From Pat Brown: "Praia da Luz is a very cozy, brightly lit, off-the-main road very small and charming resort town. No sex ring is going to choose this location to target children. A child sex predator might lurk about here but he would be wiser abducting a child from the outskirts of the town or in pretty much any other nearby village. There are some darker side streets further to the edge of the town that a predator or someone carrying a child would be a bit less visible . Apartment 5A would rank pretty much at the bottom of any abductor’s list of places to grab a kid. The only reason someone would remove a child from 5A would be of necessity. Then he would never take the route Jane Tanner claimed she saw the man carrying a child."

I dont rate Pat Brown at all actually. If think she's fame-hungry. But that is just my personal opinion.

I think the theory that it was a preplanned abduction by a gang is most credible.

I think the resort was targetted because it had escape routes via road and sea. I think the complex was targetted because it was not a closed one - so the public at large could go in and out. There was no CCTV cameras on site and it was advertised as 'child friendly' - thus ensuring children would be there. Apartment 5a was described by the British police as being ideal from the point of view of a burglar with access on three sides - and roads on 2 sides. It was also semi secluded by shrubs.

The apartment next door but one was empty for the entire time. Would be abductors could have hidden there - a mere seconds walk away from 5A. They may have had a key. Witnesses later told of seeing 2 men on the patio of that apartment some time before - and wondered who they were. Those men have never come forward. Mrs Fenns niece reported seeing a man leave down the steps of aprtmnt 5A on one occasion - and thought he looked furtive. He has never come forward.

Maddie disappeared on the night before the last night of the holiday. People often change their routines on the last night because of packing etc.

The McCanns were noted for being very keen on routine - and so their daily/evening routines would be most advantageous to any would-abductor.

She disappeared in May, before the season got busy and so not so many people were walking around at that time of night.

I think it is possible that the perpetrators were waiting for the right family to arrive at that apartment and then along came the McCanns who ticked all the boxes.

And yes - it is just theory, but it is a credible one IMO.


4)What exactly is this 'most horrific horrendous act' you state the McCanns carried out?

Well according to some, they either murdered their child, or she died accidentally that day and they had disposed of her body. That seems pretty horrendous and horrific to me - don't you agree?


5)Following on, could you give me a link to the piece where you say 'Even Pat Brown doesn't believe that'. I can't recall seeing anything vaguely similar and I've spent the morning going through her blogs. Much appreciated thank you.

Im afraid I can't offhand. If I do come across it I will definitely post it.

Sad thing is Merrymo, it IS perfectly humanly possible for people to act fairly normally after committing heinous crimes. How many times do we hear perpetrators close family/friends saying such as "I just had no idea. X seemed so, well, normal! I just can't believe..."
I'm sure you are trying to judge everyone by your own pure high moral standpoint but there ARE very many psycho- and sociopathic people out there that you wouldn't recognise... Its a sad world.


I think one person may be able to pull it off - but certainly not two people - neither of whom have any previous histories of law-breaking of any description or sociopathic behaviour.


Just a final point. We cannot rule out the McCanns. The PJ could not rule out the McCanns. A Judge even stated they had lost the chance to rule themselves out by refusing the reconstruction. And please, before you jump on Amaral, those who came after also said, to move the case forward the reconstruction was vital. Not an optional extra, but VITAL. If the McCanns are truly innocent and so 'just wanted their daughter found' why would they not co-operate? In absence of a logical answer, all that is left is they are hiding something!

Well after reading all the various stuff around i.e. - the books - the witness files etc I do actually rule them out. Every other theory IMO always comes to a point where in order to accept it you have to dispense totally with logic and common sense.

This doesn't mean I'm right of course, but it is my honest opinion.

sammyc wrote:Merrymo seems to have a bee in his/her/its bonnet. The one single conclusion from the PJ and indeed the UK Police was that was there not a scrap of evidence to determine that the child was abducted. I can't be on my own when I state that in the case of a sudden disappearance of a person that the last people to see said person are immediately under investigation. I dunno - I guess it's what the detectives call eliminating. As we all know, none of the Tapas' statements tally (check the released files - it's open viewing on the Internet) so there is bound to be concern when the McCanns scream 'abduction' but there is no proof of it. Madeleine was here one day and not the next and the only people who know are those who knew her. Fact.

Merrymo wrote:

sammyc wrote:Merrymo seems to have a bee in his/her/its bonnet. The one single conclusion from the PJ and indeed the UK Police was that was there not a scrap of evidence to determine that the child was abducted. I can't be on my own when I state that in the case of a sudden disappearance of a person that the last people to see said person are immediately under investigation. I dunno - I guess it's what the detectives call eliminating. As we all know, none of the Tapas' statements tally (check the released files - it's open viewing on the Internet) so there is bound to be concern when the McCanns scream 'abduction' but there is no proof of it. Madeleine was here one day and not the next and the only people who know are those who knew her. Fact.

Just for record I'm female, (and a grandmother). I'm not sure why you think I have a bee in my bonnet - I have my opinion on this case like so many other people have, including yourself I presume. Does that mean you have a Bee in your Bonnet?

I would be very concerned if there were no discrepancies amongst the various statements - as it would be highly suspicious if they were all identical. Different people have vastly different perceptions of time and distance. Also some have excellent recall, others don't.

The very fact that a child disappeared is in itself evidence of a possible abduction - if it wasn't then the PJ would never have entertained that possibility. But they did.

sammyc wrote:Merrymo seems to have a bee in his/her/its bonnet. The one single conclusion from the PJ and indeed the UK Police was that was there not a scrap of evidence to determine that the child was abducted. I can't be on my own when I state that in the case of a sudden disappearance of a person that the last people to see said person are immediately under investigation. I dunno - I guess it's what the detectives call eliminating. As we all know, none of the Tapas' statements tally (check the released files - it's open viewing on the Internet) so there is bound to be concern when the McCanns scream 'abduction' but there is no proof of it. Madeleine was here one day and not the next and the only people who know are those who knew her. Fact.

Merrymo wrote:

sammyc wrote:Merrymo seems to have a bee in his/her/its bonnet. The one single conclusion from the PJ and indeed the UK Police was that was there not a scrap of evidence to determine that the child was abducted. I can't be on my own when I state that in the case of a sudden disappearance of a person that the last people to see said person are immediately under investigation. I dunno - I guess it's what the detectives call eliminating. As we all know, none of the Tapas' statements tally (check the released files - it's open viewing on the Internet) so there is bound to be concern when the McCanns scream 'abduction' but there is no proof of it. Madeleine was here one day and not the next and the only people who know are those who knew her. Fact.

Just for record I'm female, (and a grandmother). I'm not sure why you think I have a bee in my bonnet - I have my opinion on this case like so many other people have, including yourself I presume. Does that mean you have a Bee in your Bonnet?

I would be very concerned if there were no discrepancies amongst the various statements - as it would be highly suspicious if they were all identical. Different people have vastly different perceptions of time and distance. Also some have excellent recall, others don't.

The very fact that a child disappeared is in itself evidence of a possible abduction - if it wasn't then the PJ would never have entertained that possibility. But they did.

worriedmum wrote:Hi Merry-mo,
I think it is very important to be open-minded too. I am a mum and a grandma too. What I don't understand is, how do you fit the cadaver dogs in with the abduction theory?

worriedmum wrote:Hi Merry-mo,
I think it is very important to be open-minded too. I am a mum and a grandma too. What I don't understand is, how do you fit the cadaver dogs in with the abduction theory?

Merrymo wrote:

worriedmum wrote:Hi Merry-mo,
I think it is very important to be open-minded too. I am a mum and a grandma too. What I don't understand is, how do you fit the cadaver dogs in with the abduction theory?

Hi there Worriedmum

This is what Martin Grimes the dog handler (and expert) said about the findings of the cadaver dog.

Quote

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.

This does not however suggest a motive or suspect - as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. Unquote.

The ''corroborating evidence'' being a cadaver.

IMO these dogs are brilliant, but they are not infallible - as admitted by M.Grimes and as proved with the 'alerting' in Jersey - which turned out not to be cadaver remains, but part of a coconut shell

The dogs cannot say whose death scent they have picked up, or how old it is, or how it came to be deposited where they detected it. The death scent is transferable and so it does not necessarily follow that a cadaver was ever in the spot where the dog detected the scent.

The dogs are also susceptible to 'cueing' by the handler. A good example of this IMO is shown in the video where the cars were tested'. The dog whizzed past other cars and also whizzed past the McCann car - which was easily identifiable by the stickers in the windows. However, unlike the other cars the dog was repeatedly called back to the McCanns car. Eventually after being called back to their car several times the dogs 'obliged' his master and 'alerted'. IMO the whole test was a farce as the 'cueing' was blatent, and the McCann car was not 'anonymous'.

I would feel less cynical if the car and the clothes (including cuddlecat) had not been taken away overnight and stored/ tested elsewhere by the dogs. Had they been tested insitu -then there that would have completely ruled out the possibility of cross contamination from other outside sources. It would have been just as easy to let the dogs sniff the clothing where it was - in the villa - so why remove it - or the car for that matter?

I also find it really strange that the death scent was only found on KMs clothing, Maddies, and Cuddlecat. Surely as it was transferable - one would expect it to have been transferred to all of the family's clothing simply via normal physical contact between family members. One also presumes their clothes all ended up in the same washing basket frequently.

I believe 11 other guests stayed in apartment 5A after Maddie disappeared and before the dogs were brought in. Several other families had also used the hire car in the weeks after her disappearance and before the McCanns hired it. That all 'muddies the water' far too much from a forensics point of view IMHO.

Merrymo,

I think maybe you are interpreting 'corroborating evidence' as being only the presence of a body.

Do you think it is a coincidence that the dogs both alerted behind the sofa? That the blood stains were unrelated?

When you talk about the transference of 'cadaver odour' where do you think this originated from?

If it is so easily transferable, why didn't everyone have it everywhere, including the people who went in and out of the apartment when Madeleine was first reported missing.

Where are you getting your evidence about the reliablity of these dogs? I have read the 'coconut shell' story before somewhere--but the whole point is that the dogs can't speak and have no agenda. If they alerted to a piece of cocnut shell, it was because it was contaminated with the smell of death. And surely that argument of contamination is the point you were yourself making? Things can be contaminated-but the point is, WHAT IS THE SOURCE?



































.

Genbug wrote:MerryMo wrote:

IMO these dogs are brilliant, but they are not infallible - as admitted by M.Grimes and as proved with the 'alerting' in Jersey - which turned out not to be cadaver remains, but part of a coconut shell

I have a friend who trains springer spaniels and she was absolutely outraged when the newspapers suggested that a cadaver dog alerted to a coconut shell. Just because humans found a coconut shell buried where the dog alerted doesn't mean that's what the dog alerted to, you must see that? A dog alerts to an odour, not an object.

Genbug wrote:MerryMo wrote:

IMO these dogs are brilliant, but they are not infallible - as admitted by M.Grimes and as proved with the 'alerting' in Jersey - which turned out not to be cadaver remains, but part of a coconut shell

I have a friend who trains springer spaniels and she was absolutely outraged when the newspapers suggested that a cadaver dog alerted to a coconut shell. Just because humans found a coconut shell buried where the dog alerted doesn't mean that's what the dog alerted to, you must see that? A dog alerts to an odour, not an object.