Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

by Joss 03.11.13 1:37

tracey1270 wrote:Nobody knows what really happened here but what we do know for a fact is that the parents have refused to answer questions, a polygraph, a reconstruction, their stories don't match, they mention things that have gone on record and then deny they ever said it..they were the ones that said the kids could have been sedated and then claimed the idea was ludicrous, why would they do that, why all the inconsistencies?

Exactly. The Truth doesn't Lie and is always the same, IMO.

by Carver 03.11.13 1:38

Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:Still interested in any evidence that the parents are involved. Any at all.
What do you mean "involved"? There was the Smiths sighting: Gerry McCann was identified as the person carrying a young girl away from the area as Gerry McCann? Is that not evidence of something that doesn't fit in with the Team McCann narrative. In many parts of the world, cadaver dog evidence is accepted. The dogs alerted to the McCanns' hire car .

How much evidence do you want?

Gerry McCann wasn't identified as even looking like Gerry McCann, Martin Smith said only that they carried a child in the same way. (the standard way anybody would carry a young child)

by Joss 03.11.13 1:39

Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:This article mentions other children in Portugal who have been abducted by complete strangers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515348/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-linked-string-child-abductions.html
Yep, I remember that nonsense. When one looked into the case it was things like gypsies knicking clothes off lines and mothers being concerned for their children when they came upon the act of theft.

Let's hear you give some specific details if you're not trolling here.
So you're saying children don't get abducted by strangers? That doesn't happen?

Yeah sometimes. But not in this case IMO.

by notlongnow 03.11.13 1:40

Any idea why you would bury the pic and other info the pi's have found?

by Carver 03.11.13 1:40

Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.

Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.

by Okeydokey 03.11.13 1:41

Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:This article mentions other children in Portugal who have been abducted by complete strangers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515348/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-linked-string-child-abductions.html
Yep, I remember that nonsense. When one looked into the case it was things like gypsies knicking clothes off lines and mothers being concerned for their children when they came upon the act of theft.

Let's hear you give some specific details if you're not trolling here.
So you're saying children don't get abducted by strangers? That doesn't happen?

No one's saying that. People are saying that when abductions take place you normally get a pattern of evidence to suggest an abduction took place. There is no such pattern of evidence in this case (that's already been explained to you). If you can point to any evidence of abduction please set it out so we can debate it.

by Carver 03.11.13 1:41

notlongnow wrote:Any idea why you would bury the pic and other info the pi's have found?

Couldn't say because I don't know what the PI report said, and I don't know what advice they were given regarding what to do with it. perhaps they decided it wasn't helpful?

by notlongnow 03.11.13 1:43

They were advised to get the info out there as far as i know.

by Joss 03.11.13 1:44

I reiterate that in missing child cases it is the norm for parents to be the first suspects and then a process of elimination so if their story is kosha they can then be ruled out by the investigators. Because in a lot of cases it has been a parent who has been found guilty.

by Carver 03.11.13 1:44

Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:This article mentions other children in Portugal who have been abducted by complete strangers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515348/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-linked-string-child-abductions.html
Yep, I remember that nonsense. When one looked into the case it was things like gypsies knicking clothes off lines and mothers being concerned for their children when they came upon the act of theft.

Let's hear you give some specific details if you're not trolling here.
So you're saying children don't get abducted by strangers? That doesn't happen?
No one's saying that. People are saying that when abductions take place you normally get a pattern of evidence to suggest an abduction took place. There is no such pattern of evidence in this case (that's already been explained to you). If you can point to any evidence of abduction please set it out so we can debate it.

Can you post any examples of these patterns of evidence in other cases? There are endless unsolved child-abductions with no evidence. Various independent witnesses gave statements saying they saw suspicious men stalking the apartment. That can be viewed as evidence of a paedo ring planning to abduct her. Then there's the increase in apartment break-ins, that could be evidence of a second theory, that criminals did indeed break into the apartment that night. Then there's the Smithman sighting which can also be viewed as evidence of an abductor. Then there's the Tannerman sighting that could still be evidence of an abductor. (He wasn't walking FROM the direction of the creche, perhaps SY are wrong)

by Okeydokey 03.11.13 1:46

Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.

You claimed that the McCanns needed to appoint lawyers because they were "suspects" - and yet their claim was that they were NOT suspects - their claim was that arguido was a special type of witness. You can't ask me to explain their absurdities. Why did their spokesperson claim none of them had a mobile phone or watch with them on the 3rd May evening? It was an absurd claim. Next you'll be asking me to explain why they had no watches or mobile phones and telling me it's obvious they had them.

by Carver 03.11.13 1:48

Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
You claimed that the McCanns needed to appoint lawyers because they were "suspects" - and yet their claim was that they were NOT suspects - their claim was that arguido was a special type of witness. You can't ask me to explain their absurdities. Why did their spokesperson claim none of them had a mobile phone or watch with them on the 3rd May evening? It was an absurd claim. Next you'll be asking me to explain why they had no watches or mobile phones and telling me it's obvious they had them.

My point was they would have had lawyers present as they were suspects, you said they tiptoed round admitting they were suspects in the murder of their daughter? that doesn't change the fact they were still suspects and would have been offered legal advice, that's my point. You mentioning their denial in being labeled suspects was irrelevant to my point about the lawyers. And it isn't evidence of anything.

by Joss 03.11.13 1:51

My take is the McCann's needed a Priest and the Media more than they needed a Lawyer at the time?

by currio 03.11.13 1:52

Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.

Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.

by Joss 03.11.13 1:55

Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
You claimed that the McCanns needed to appoint lawyers because they were "suspects" - and yet their claim was that they were NOT suspects - their claim was that arguido was a special type of witness. You can't ask me to explain their absurdities. Why did their spokesperson claim none of them had a mobile phone or watch with them on the 3rd May evening? It was an absurd claim. Next you'll be asking me to explain why they had no watches or mobile phones and telling me it's obvious they had them.
My point was they would have had lawyers present as they were suspects, you said they tiptoed round admitting they were suspects in the murder of their daughter? that doesn't change the fact they were still suspects and would have been offered legal advice, that's my point. You mentioning their denial in being labeled suspects was irrelevant to my point about the lawyers. And it isn't evidence of anything.

I thought people only needed a Lawyer if they were charged with something? Were the McCann's going to be charged with a crime by the Police? I'm not that well versed in this case, so can you tell me when the McCann's first had a Lawyer present in this case? TIA.

by Carver 03.11.13 1:56

currio wrote:
Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.

Well he's obviously in denial.

by Okeydokey 03.11.13 1:56

Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:This article mentions other children in Portugal who have been abducted by complete strangers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515348/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-linked-string-child-abductions.html
Yep, I remember that nonsense. When one looked into the case it was things like gypsies knicking clothes off lines and mothers being concerned for their children when they came upon the act of theft.

Let's hear you give some specific details if you're not trolling here.
So you're saying children don't get abducted by strangers? That doesn't happen?
No one's saying that. People are saying that when abductions take place you normally get a pattern of evidence to suggest an abduction took place. There is no such pattern of evidence in this case (that's already been explained to you). If you can point to any evidence of abduction please set it out so we can debate it.
Can you post any examples of these patterns of evidence in other cases? There are endless unsolved child-abductions with no evidence. Various independent witnesses gave statements saying they saw suspicious men stalking the apartment. That can be viewed as evidence of a paedo ring planning to abduct her. Then there's the increase in apartment break-ins, that could be evidence of a second theory, that criminals did indeed break into the apartment that night. Then there's the Smithman sighting which can also be viewed as evidence of an abductor. Then there's the Tannerman sighting that could still be evidence of an abductor. (He wasn't walking FROM the direction of the creche, perhaps SY are wrong)

Most claimed abductions of very young children turn out to be cases of parental involvement.

How many cases can you point to of children under age 4 being abducted by a stranger (obviously - and of course Team McCann play on this fact as they do on all sorts of facts - lots are abducted in custody battles)? I can't think of a single one, apart from babies abducted by childless women - who nearly always are soon found out.

There is no evidence of anyone stalking the apartment. Do you never give any citations for your wild claims? Various people have simply tried to remember people they saw in the vicinity. It is the nature of a holiday resort that there will be lots of new faces around all the time ....and yes many of them will be wearing "sinister" sunglasses.

by Okeydokey 03.11.13 1:57

Carver wrote:
currio wrote:
Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.
Well he's obviously in denial.

We can all agree he's in denial...

by Joss 03.11.13 1:57

currio wrote:
Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.

I would take anything the McCann's say with a huge bag of salt, LOL. Their stories are constantly evolving and changing. spin

by Okeydokey 03.11.13 2:00

Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
You claimed that the McCanns needed to appoint lawyers because they were "suspects" - and yet their claim was that they were NOT suspects - their claim was that arguido was a special type of witness. You can't ask me to explain their absurdities. Why did their spokesperson claim none of them had a mobile phone or watch with them on the 3rd May evening? It was an absurd claim. Next you'll be asking me to explain why they had no watches or mobile phones and telling me it's obvious they had them.
My point was they would have had lawyers present as they were suspects, you said they tiptoed round admitting they were suspects in the murder of their daughter? that doesn't change the fact they were still suspects and would have been offered legal advice, that's my point. You mentioning their denial in being labeled suspects was irrelevant to my point about the lawyers. And it isn't evidence of anything.

Obvious trolling. Nowhere have I claimed they murdered their daughter. The investigating Portugese Police officers didn't think they murdered their daughter. I'd ask you to withdraw that claim about what I said, if you wish to show you are not a troll.

by currio 03.11.13 2:02

Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
currio wrote:
Carver wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:
Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.
Well he's obviously in denial.
We can all agree he's in denial...

Too true

by ultimaThule 03.11.13 2:57

Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann - Page 4 BYFKGb0IMAEX_JX

I can only hope you wake up and smell the coffee in the morning, Carver.

by tracey1270 03.11.13 3:20

The efit was not significant due to the Tannerman sighting, they could not afford to investigate both yet it seems that the efit was that trivial and unimportant that they felt the need to threaten legal proceedings if it was disclosed, they could have circulated the efit for free using the media but didn't no cost involved but afford it or not they were well prepared to use the fund to sue their own PI to prevent them disclosing their findings?? never mind poor Madeleine, they just can't afford it, ruin their public farce of a reputation or disclose any evidence that could be relevant or show them in a bad light....money no object.

by Joss 03.11.13 3:28

tracey1270 wrote:The efit was not significant due to the Tannerman sighting, they could not afford to investigate both yet it seems that the efit was that trivial and unimportant that they felt the need to threaten legal proceedings if it was disclosed, they could have circulated the efit for free using the media but didn't no cost involved but afford it or not they were well prepared to use the fund to sue their own PI to prevent them disclosing their findings?? never mind poor Madeleine, they just can't afford it, ruin their public farce of a reputation or disclose any evidence that could be relevant or show them in a bad light....money no object.

Exactly, i feel this is what this case is all about really. Save the McCann's from the court of public opinion. Madeline who?