Re: SY New Theory - Burglars

by Guest 05.10.13 15:14

I think we better tell SY of this theory by the pro's as well, just been tweeted, they will have to look into this big grin

..

This person is saying Jane Tanner's bundleman was a decoy to put off the scent

******@********
chance that was a decoy to put off the scent #McCann

Front page news in the next few days??? big grin

by Woburn_exile 05.10.13 15:16

russiandoll wrote:
Trainer wrote:So these burglars were disturbed by a 4 year old and they thought ....don't nick stuff don't just leg it and get away but let's steal the child who would at this point be screaming and shouting. The standard of reporting is getting worse and I never thought it go much lower
But she was not screaming and shouting.......she was being carried, silent, across a man's arms.

Kate has said numerous times and it is in her book of truth, that she believes that this was Maddie being carried away. That Jane Tanner saw her daughter.

So the burglar who went in to steal objects, had cleverly taken with him something to sedate a child. Just in case a live wire woke up.

And he was a very quick burglar, getting in, out and in the meantime getting a presumably terrified and noisy child to go to sleep.

Maybe he told her a story, a very quick one.

All this in how many minutes ?

Doll it could've been done quite quickly.

Burglar enters apartment immediately after Gerry leaves. 1min Maddie awake, burglar suffocates her to stop her screaming, accidentally breaking her neck, 1 min. Burglar panics , hides maddie in the wardrobe and thinks what to do next, 1 min. Burglar moves maddie to behind sofa, opens the shutters then SEES JANE TANNER and decides not to exit that way 1 min. Burglar picks up maddie, walks calmly outside through the front door , across the road and into a waiting car 1 min.

5 minutes total , did I leave anything out?
spin

by gbwales 05.10.13 15:21

Woburn_exile wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
Trainer wrote:So these burglars were disturbed by a 4 year old and they thought ....don't nick stuff don't just leg it and get away but let's steal the child who would at this point be screaming and shouting. The standard of reporting is getting worse and I never thought it go much lower
But she was not screaming and shouting.......she was being carried, silent, across a man's arms.

Kate has said numerous times and it is in her book of truth, that she believes that this was Maddie being carried away. That Jane Tanner saw her daughter.

So the burglar who went in to steal objects, had cleverly taken with him something to sedate a child. Just in case a live wire woke up.

And he was a very quick burglar, getting in, out and in the meantime getting a presumably terrified and noisy child to go to sleep.

Maybe he told her a story, a very quick one.

All this in how many minutes ?
Doll it could've been done quite quickly.

Burglar enters apartment immediately after Gerry leaves. 1min Maddie awake, burglar suffocates her to stop her screaming, accidentally breaking her neck, 1 min. Burglar panics , hides maddie in the wardrobe and thinks what to do next, 1 min. Burglar moves maddie to behind sofa, opens the shutters then SEES JANE TANNER and decides not to exit that way 1 min. Burglar picks up maddie, walks calmly outside through the front door , across the road and into a waiting car 1 min.

5 minutes total , did I leave anything out?

Only things left out are making Maddie's bed and planting the cadavereine winkwink

by Woburn_exile 05.10.13 15:24

gbwales wrote:
Woburn_exile wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
Trainer wrote:So these burglars were disturbed by a 4 year old and they thought ....don't nick stuff don't just leg it and get away but let's steal the child who would at this point be screaming and shouting. The standard of reporting is getting worse and I never thought it go much lower
But she was not screaming and shouting.......she was being carried, silent, across a man's arms.

Kate has said numerous times and it is in her book of truth, that she believes that this was Maddie being carried away. That Jane Tanner saw her daughter.

So the burglar who went in to steal objects, had cleverly taken with him something to sedate a child. Just in case a live wire woke up.

And he was a very quick burglar, getting in, out and in the meantime getting a presumably terrified and noisy child to go to sleep.

Maybe he told her a story, a very quick one.

All this in how many minutes ?
Doll it could've been done quite quickly.

Burglar enters apartment immediately after Gerry leaves. 1min Maddie awake, burglar suffocates her to stop her screaming, accidentally breaking her neck, 1 min. Burglar panics , hides maddie in the wardrobe and thinks what to do next, 1 min. Burglar moves maddie to behind sofa, opens the shutters then SEES JANE TANNER and decides not to exit that way 1 min. Burglar picks up maddie, walks calmly outside through the front door , across the road and into a waiting car 1 min.

5 minutes total , did I leave anything out?

Only things left out are making Maddie's bed and planting the cadavereine

Cadaverine scent would have been planted by the body location, making the bed and drugging the twins mmmmmmmm. Dunno where he fitted that one in.
duh

by Guest 05.10.13 15:27

Woburn_exile wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
Trainer wrote:So these burglars were disturbed by a 4 year old and they thought ....don't nick stuff don't just leg it and get away but let's steal the child who would at this point be screaming and shouting. The standard of reporting is getting worse and I never thought it go much lower
But she was not screaming and shouting.......she was being carried, silent, across a man's arms.

Kate has said numerous times and it is in her book of truth, that she believes that this was Maddie being carried away. That Jane Tanner saw her daughter.

So the burglar who went in to steal objects, had cleverly taken with him something to sedate a child. Just in case a live wire woke up.

And he was a very quick burglar, getting in, out and in the meantime getting a presumably terrified and noisy child to go to sleep.

Maybe he told her a story, a very quick one.

All this in how many minutes ?
Doll it could've been done quite quickly.

Burglar enters apartment immediately after Gerry leaves. 1min Maddie awake, burglar suffocates her to stop her screaming, accidentally breaking her neck, 1 min. Burglar panics , hides maddie in the wardrobe and thinks what to do next, 1 min. Burglar moves maddie to behind sofa, opens the shutters then SEES JANE TANNER and decides not to exit that way 1 min. Burglar picks up maddie, walks calmly outside through the front door , across the road and into a waiting car 1 min.

5 minutes total , did I leave anything out?

Mwah. Don't think so. Burglars don't generally take children. Why would they?

Now, replace 'burglar' with: MO, JT a/o DP? Or even GM?

Unlike any outside burglar, they were familiar with the lay-out of the apartment(s)
But even so, I don't think any of them could have done it in the dark, within the allotted timeslot.

One of the MW staff? Maybe, but why would they do a dastardly thing like that?

It just won't wash, this scenario

by worriedmum 05.10.13 15:35

why would any burglar want to take a dead child?

by aiyoyo 05.10.13 15:46

candyfloss wrote:I think we better tell SY of this theory by the pro's as well, just been tweeted, they will have to look into this ..

This person is saying Jane Tanner's bundleman was a decoy to put off the scent

******@********
chance that was a decoy to put off the scent #McCann

Front page news in the next few days???

Next news to hit the headlines might be: Father Christmas came materialised through the wall and took Madeleine but failed to deliver her back home for Xmas 6 years ago!

by aiyoyo 05.10.13 15:49

worriedmum wrote:why would any burglar want to take a dead child?

Dunno. $i don\'t know$

by jeanmonroe 05.10.13 15:54

candyfloss wrote:I think we better tell SY of this theory by the pro's as well, just been tweeted, they will have to look into this ..

This person is saying Jane Tanner's bundleman was a decoy to put off the scent

******@********
chance that was a decoy to put off the scent #McCann

Front page news in the next few days???

Which would be fine except then WHY did GM LIE about crossing the street to talk to Wilkins.He didn't SEE the 'decoy' so why LIE about where he was?

by ultimaThule 05.10.13 15:59

Reading the UK press of late I am reminded of Evelyn Waugh's account of the Abdication crisis when he wrote that it:

"has been a great delight to everyone. At Maudie's Nursing Home they report a pronounced turn for the better in all adult patients. There can seldom have been an event that has caused so much general delight and so little pain. Reading the papers and even listening to announcements that there was no news (on the wireless) took up most of the week".

Are the ~~apron wearers~~ top brass in NSY hell bent on turning that once feared and revered establishment into a global laughing stock in order to protect a pair of irresponsible and neglectful parents who should rightfully have been brought to account for their actions 6 years ago?

WTF is going on? How has it come to this ludicrous farce of an 'investigation'?

by jeanmonroe 05.10.13 16:04

Burglar moves maddie to behind sofa, opens the shutters then SEES JANE TANNER and decides not to exit that way 1 min. Burglar picks up maddie, walks calmly outside through the front door , across the road and into a waiting car 1 min.
____________________________________________________________________

So why did 'burgleman' SMASH' the shutter?

WHY did burgleman RAISE the shutter fully?

Why did 'burgleman' OPEN the WINDOW as far as it could be?

WHY did JT not SEE all this when she passed on her way BACK to OC?

WHY didn't R'OB (TWICE) MO (TWICE, THREE if you count him INSIDE the bedroom) JT (THREE) JW (ONE) SEE the RAISED SHUTTER and WIDE OPEN WINDOW when they made numerous passes of the SMASHED, FULLY RAISED shutter?

by Guest 05.10.13 16:05

worriedmum wrote:why would any burglar want to take a dead child?

***
Ask Gerry. He's on record as saying that he's convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was taken ...

by jeanmonroe 05.10.13 16:10

Châtelaine wrote:
worriedmum wrote:why would any burglar want to take a dead child?
***
Ask Gerry. He's on record as saying that he's convinced that Madeleine was alive when she was taken ...

Dead = NO 'fund' for 'searching'

Alive = big 'fund' for 'pretendy searching'

by russiandoll 05.10.13 16:38

I can only think of one plausible reason for this nonsense being in the news.

The press were told by an alleged reliable source in Portugal that police theory was abducted by an Algarve-based paedo gang.

Later dismissed as untrue by an official source in the UK.

The press now have an alleged reliable theory regarding a child snatched during a burglary gone wrong.

Another tale with no substance from the press? With the objective being that if dismissed they will be eventually be reduced to printing credible theories about what happened?

by Woburn_exile 05.10.13 16:40

jeanmonroe wrote:Burglar moves maddie to behind sofa, opens the shutters then SEES JANE TANNER and decides not to exit that way 1 min. Burglar picks up maddie, walks calmly outside through the front door , across the road and into a waiting car 1 min.
____________________________________________________________________

So why did 'burgleman' SMASH' the shutter?

WHY did burgleman RAISE the shutter fully?

Why did 'burgleman' OPEN the WINDOW as far as it could be?

WHY did JT not SEE all this when she passed on her way BACK to OC?

WHY didn't R'OB (TWICE) MO (TWICE, THREE if you count him INSIDE the bedroom) JT (THREE) JW (ONE) SEE the RAISED SHUTTER and WIDE OPEN WINDOW when they made numerous passes of the SMASHED, FULLY RAISED shutter?

I don't know why burlaringman did what he did to the shutters but I'm sure there is an "innocent explanation". As for JT not seeing it well she was probably drunk.
spin

by **Hobs** 05.10.13 17:02

My comment sent to the daily mail

Ridiculous, Why would burglars steal a dead child?

No matter how you portray it, you still have the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs in the apartment, to kate's clothes and the hire car, dogs who have never been wrong and who only indicated to stuff connected with the mccanns.

Could this be to draw attention away from the failing miserably libel case against Goncalo Amaral, a case they have tried to back out of twice , even to offering to make a deal with him ( plaintiffs never offer to come to a deal with the defendant, it is always they other way round)
Could it be that Goncalo wanted the trial in camera to protect Maddie's privacy (and the of the mccanns) but the mccanns wanted it in public, which as we have seen, has massively backfired on them since their witnesses either have supported Goncalo, have no clue as to why they are there or have forgotten their script.
BTW gerry as a statement analyst it was an interesting slip of the tongue you made when you referred to the damage the FILES caused rather than the book, As a matter of interest since the book did not hinder the search as sightings etc are still happening and the case is still being investigated, will you be suing wifey for not answering the 48 questions and admitting by not doing so she was hindering the search? I bet this comment doesn't get published :)

by lj 05.10.13 17:05

ultimaThule wrote:Reading the UK press of late I am reminded of Evelyn Waugh's account of the Abdication crisis when he wrote that it:

"has been a great delight to everyone. At Maudie's Nursing Home they report a pronounced turn for the better in all adult patients. There can seldom have been an event that has caused so much general delight and so little pain. Reading the papers and even listening to announcements that there was no news (on the wireless) took up most of the week".

Are the ~~apron wearers~~ top brass in NSY hell bent on turning that once feared and revered establishment into a global laughing stock in order to protect a pair of irresponsible and neglectful parents who should rightfully have been brought to account for their actions 6 years ago?

WTF is going on? How has it come to this ludicrous farce of an 'investigation'?

Look at most scandals from the past years: it's always the cover up that is the most outrageous.

Here all the big names who jumped in to help the blond damsel in distress would look terribly stupid if it came out the parents were behind it after all. Not only stupid, but several actions were unlawful, like the interference from the ambassador in a police investigation, and political pressure on a foreign, friendly nation, to drop the investigation.

Now, more and more money and action is putt into finding an explanation that does not involve the parents as culprits. Sadly every further idiot theory makes it more clear they had be involved. In the mean time the narcissistic, sociopathic couple will not miss a beat to get in the attention again, thus even more complicating the whitewash cover up.

I don't feel sorry for anyone involved: the parents should really be in purgatory, if it was not that that is a step up to heaven instead of hell. Andy will eventually become the face for how deep SY has sunk. Cameron will (is) been known as the PM with the bad decisions.

All this because of a pathetic bad pair of parents.

God, I hope so that Dr. Amaral wins, and then sues them for the highest amount possible.

by jeanmonroe 05.10.13 17:08

@ Hobs

I BET IT DOSEN'T!!

by sonic72 05.10.13 17:10

I would love to know how Scotland Yard came to this burglar theory...??!!

During the libel trial one of the McCann's witnesses (can't remember who) said that they measured the harm the Dr. Amaral book was doing by the drop in website traffic.

So basically, because people believed the book, people were not going to the site to donate.

The drop in donations is what they are mainly interested in, and all this current main stream media spin is an attempt to change public perception to get more money back into the fund. Which we know wont be spent on searching for their dead daughter.

I reckon there are a fair few people receiving money from the fund, it's a money racket for all parties helping to push the McCann's story, imo.

They seem to behave like they are protected from the authorities, and they know they are safe from prosecution it seems, so the conclusion of the book is no worry for them on that side of things, but the book is stunting their revenue stream, so they need to do all they can to regain what they have lost in donations, and to do what they can to keep that income stream going... IMO of course! :)

by Guest 05.10.13 17:10

russiandoll wrote:I can only think of one plausible reason for this nonsense being in the news.

The press were told by an alleged reliable source in Portugal that police theory was abducted by an Algarve-based paedo gang.

Later dismissed as untrue by an official source in the UK.

The press now have an alleged reliable theory regarding a child snatched during a burglary gone wrong.

Another tale with no substance from the press? With the objective being that if dismissed they will be eventually be reduced to printing credible theories about what happened?

by jeanmonroe 05.10.13 17:15

Sonic:
During the libel trial one of the McCann's witnesses (can't remember who) said that they measured the harm the Dr. Amaral book was doing by the drop in website traffic.
__________________________________

Trish Cameron's now EX husband Sandy

Wonder if he is living in a 'fund' paid for house to keep 'schtum'?

by Liz Eagles 05.10.13 17:20

It's also worth noting that this libel case is for personal damages and if successful will pay the McCann parents and their twins in person - not the Limited Company (please correct my understanding if it's wrong).

Now, the McCanns can say that their own portion of the spoils will be donated to the Fund but as yet it's difficult to see from the Fund accounts where Kate's bewk income is as it's not specifically stated (so much for transparency) and the terms of the Limited Company are quite, how shall we say, 'flexible'.

Just my opinion.

by sonic72 05.10.13 18:04

aquila wrote:It's also worth noting that this libel case is for personal damages and if successful will pay the McCann parents and their twins in person - not the Limited Company (please correct my understanding if it's wrong).

Now, the McCanns can say that their own portion of the spoils will be donated to the Fund but as yet it's difficult to see from the Fund accounts where Kate's bewk income is as it's not specifically stated (so much for transparency) and the terms of the Limited Company are quite, how shall we say, 'flexible'.

Just my opinion.

Have the McCann's indicated how they are paying for all their libel trial costs? If they are using the fund, then they are harming the 'search' because if they lose there will be less in the kitty.

They should be using their own personal money, because as you say, it's for personal damages.

How are personal damages, and damages to the 'search' even linked?!

They can't have it both ways!

by russiandoll 05.10.13 18:04

and here is a definition of the crime of burglary

England and Wales[edit source | edit]
Main article: Burglary in English law
Burglary is defined by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which created two variants:^[17]

A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.^{[Note 2]}
A person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building.

by Beanie 05.10.13 18:36

So, was it Kate or Gerry who said they thought the abductors had done a trial run the night before? According to Kate they even left a red heron!

Burglars my foot, this has not only become a truly embarrassing situation for SY but our government also.

David Cameron if you are listening stop wasting our money on a no win situation.

What about the dogs?

Log in for more topics