Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by dunn 06.11.13 9:37

Cristobell wrote:Comparing the two sightings on the night of the 3rd - their are similarities that are quite bizarre. In both cases, the child was unconscious, wearing only pyjamas, not covered by a blanket or a dressing gown, and with bare feet.

I think we are all agreed, it is highly unlikely that a parent would carry their sleeping child from the creche into the cold night air, in the manner described. Babies and toddlers come with lots of baggage, favourite toy, bottle/cup, buggy, change of clothes, blanket etc. Neither sighting sounds like a genuine father carrying their child home.

Up until recently, no-one had come forward in 6.5 years claiming to have carried a child through PDL on night of 3rd May, and I'm not convinced anyone has, even now. The two descriptions match on the crucial points, the child appeared 'abducted'. That is the child had been taken straight from its bed, dressed only in its pyjamas and the 'father' had none of the expected child in transit accessories.

What are the chances of two men walking around PDL that night, each showing no nurturing tendencies whatsoever to the child they were carrying? Someone is clearly lying so the two descriptions match, that is, a man carrying a barefoot child, dressed only in pyjamas, who had clearly just been lifted out of bed. One sighting must have known about the other sighting, and one sighting must be real. We know which one the police have eliminated.

I can see no reason whatsoever for a large family on holiday to incriminate themselves in a heinous crime involved a young child. Just not buying it. If Gerry was the man the Smith family saw, he saw them too. That would be reason enough to create another sighting that proved it couldn't possibly be Gerry because he was standing in the street talking to Jez when man walked by with shoeless child. However, given the hash Jane Tanner made of the re-telling, no-one believed her anyway. The Tanner lead was followed on the McCanns' insistence and Goncalo Amaral was removed as he was arranging to bring the Smith family back out to PDL. Now we have just discovered that not only did the McCanns file away the Exton report and efits, they took action to prevent them ever becoming public. I keep thinking anyday now something will happen, and the papers are keeping us on our toes with all these bizarre McCann stories. There is no way Goncalo Amaral can lose now, there wasn't before, but the suppressed report is the original smoking gun for his Defence. We've waited this long, but I honestly do think the end is in sight.

Excellent, sound and concise post.

by pennylane 06.11.13 9:38

Sockpuppet wrote:Great post Cristobell.

It is of great significance that JT placed Gerry in her sighting, thereby 'proving' that he was not the man the Smiths saw.

Indeed it is!

by StraightThinking 06.11.13 9:41

From the over-analysis of the Smiths' behaviour in this thread, anyone new to the forum might think that it's their daughter who went missing

by dunn 06.11.13 9:54

StraightThinking wrote:From the over-analysis of the Smiths' behaviour in this thread, anyone new to the forum might think that it's their daughter who went missing

Yes ... agreed. And like you have stated, and myself back on page 50 odd - it is rather pointless discussing the content or 'value' of the Smith sighting because until it is proved to be unconnected to this case it remains significant. And all that counts, outisde of a trial where it can may be connected with other evidence, are the Smith's statments as they stand.

This topic should be left with a quote from GA on the subject:

"[color:0a39=000000]Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way that the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further.'"

by ProfMoriarty 06.11.13 17:28

pennylane wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:Great post Cristobell.

It is of great significance that JT placed Gerry in her sighting, thereby 'proving' that he was not the man the Smiths saw.
Indeed it is!

Agreed. Excellent post from Cristobell.

by **PeterMac** 06.11.13 17:45

ProfMoriarty wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:Great post Cristobell.
It is of great significance that JT placed Gerry in her sighting, thereby 'proving' that he was not the man the Smiths saw.
Indeed it is!
Agreed. Excellent post from Cristobell.

And even though the three "witnesses" do not agree on the details, and their PI knows that, they STILL have to stick with the sighting.
That was the function of that sighting.
They must have known that it left an impossibly small Window of Opportunity for an abduction, but looking at it again now, that might not have been the main reason behind it.

by nobodythereeither 06.11.13 17:52

Sockpuppet wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:as Professor Sockpuppet has just told us.
More rudeness. If only I had the luxury of speaking in this manner ... I still wouldn't :)

I agree.

It's becoming really embarrassing just to read some of TB's posts on here.

by ProfessorPPlum 06.11.13 17:55

Cristobell wrote:What are the chances of two men walking around PDL that night, each showing no nurturing tendencies whatsoever to the child they were carrying? Someone is clearly lying so the two descriptions match, that is, a man carrying a barefoot child, dressed only in pyjamas, who had clearly just been lifted out of bed. One sighting must have known about the other sighting, and one sighting must be real. We know which one the police have eliminated.

Yeah. I'm with you on this. Occam and all that, again and again. Who don't we trust? The Tapas9. Why don't we trust them? Because nothing they say has ever been proven to have actually happened for starters. Nothing. Who do we trust? The people who don't sue everyone all the time. The people who's stories stay the same all the time (because they're not hiding anything).

Why would you cover up your child's death? Because you did something wrong or because you were part of an Illuminati-sponsored international multi-agency security cover-up...or global ring of reptilian paedophiles all covering up for Prince Philip etc et?

IMO the McCanns made a very bad choice out of selfishness (two characteristics we see demonstrated again and again throughout the last 6 years). Once done, they stood on the brink of losing their other children (as did the others). What's done is done. A mistake shouldn't cost everyone more than it already has, should it? Who would benefit from that?

So perhaps they agreed that nothing positive would come from telling the truth. You can see their point.

And after that point, everyone connected with this case has been in it for the money. Plenty of it. Because it sells and sells and sells and.... you get the point.

Do I know why Clarence Mitchell turned up almost immediately on site? No. But I suspect it was more likely for political advantage than some massive conspiracy. Remember; selfishness and bad choices are the core of this.

Why Madeleine McCann and not Ben Needham? I don't know - except that Ben Needham disappeared in 1991 before the internet was around. Before the media were quite as hungry, depraved and relentlessly xenophobic as they can be today. Maybe Ben's mum didn't have her Mitchell Moment and maybe that Mitchell Moment is the turning point in all of this (and why people like Blacksmith and myself included) despite him so much.

The McCanns walked and talked their way very quickly into suspicion and Mitchell knew it. Next step, control the media and remember, their use of Carter-Ruck is about NOTHING but controlling the media. Carter-Ruck acting for the McCanns is Carter-Ruck acting for Clarence Mitchell.

I think selfishness and bad decisions are behind everyone's actions in this case. I don't see that in Eddie and Keela or the Smiths or, for that matter, in Amaral.

by Guest 06.11.13 18:00

Bravo, Professor high5

by **tigger** 06.11.13 18:10

8.52 1.50 euros

9.39 13.75 euros

9.46 8.00 euros

9.49 8.00 euros

9.50 5.00 euros

I would say that the time and price paid of 9.39 seems about right for a quick drink after a meal for a family with small children. I's quite possible the bill was paid when the order was placed.
I see no problem with that and even think it likely.

by Dr What 06.11.13 18:16

Prof. Plum...I agree with all you say.Except for one issue.

I don't think the other T9 risked losing their children at all.Yes, they would have come under scrutiny, faced criticism.....but nothing actually happened to their children [that we know of].They would have argued that they had different 'monitoring' elements in place [baby monitors etc]

If this is the case, then why would some [who knows how many] of the T9 put so much at personal risk for the McCanns.Some of them have actively lied for the McCanns.They have not co-operated with the investigation in order to assist the McCanns.This risks their criminal record status, it risks career.Why would some of them put so much on the line? Was it just out of kindness? Was it out of misguided friendship?

This is the bit I can not get. Was it just bad decision making, as you say?

by ProfessorPPlum 06.11.13 18:24

Dr What wrote:Prof. Plum...I agree with all you say.Except for one issue.

I don't think the other T9 risked losing their children at all.Yes, they would have come under scrutiny, faced criticism.....but nothing actually happened to their children [that we know of].They would have argued that they had different 'monitoring' elements in place [baby monitors etc]

If this is the case, then why would some [who knows how many] of the T9 put so much at personal risk for the McCanns.Some of them have actively lied for the McCanns.They have not co-operated with the investigation in order to assist the McCanns.This risks their criminal record status, it risks career.Why would some of them put so much on the line? Was it just out of kindness? Was it out of misguided friendship?

This is the bit I can not get. Was it just bad decision making, as you say?

Dr. What - when i say 'bad decision-making' I mean of the 'we all sedated our kids' kind

by thetruthbeknown 06.11.13 18:28

tigger wrote:8.52 1.50 euros

9.39 13.75 euros

9.46 8.00 euros

9.49 8.00 euros

9.50 5.00 euros

I would say that the time and price paid of 9.39 seems about right for a quick drink after a meal for a family with small children. I's quite possible the bill was paid when the order was placed.
I see no problem with that and even think it likely.

Agree with that..its about right. For example a pint is usually around 2 euros. Plus being a resort, and trying to attract customers, its quite likely that in the evening hours there may well have been 'happy hours' or '2 for 1' ..plus 'jugs' of beer etc etc, seen it lots big grin

On other posters comments on the Smith sighting..It seems he didnt feel confident enough to do an efit at first or even come forward as a witness at all until a few weeks after the incident, he didnt see the person clear enough I suppose he thought his evidence wouldnt be of any use..However of course he came forward to state that the man he saw was not Murat, he would of recognised him as they were aquainted. It seems to be a case of when Tanner had identified Murat as the man she had seen, Smith came forward to say that if it was the same man he encountered then it wasnt Murat, even if he couldnt tell who the man was.

by Guest 06.11.13 18:32

thetruthbeknown wrote:
tigger wrote:8.52 1.50 euros

9.39 13.75 euros

9.46 8.00 euros

9.49 8.00 euros

9.50 5.00 euros

I would say that the time and price paid of 9.39 seems about right for a quick drink after a meal for a family with small children. I's quite possible the bill was paid when the order was placed.
I see no problem with that and even think it likely.
Agree with that..its about right. For example a pint is usually around 2 euros. Plus being a resort, and trying to attract customers, its quite likely that in the evening hours there may well have been 'happy hours' or '2 for 1' ..plus 'jugs' of beer etc etc, seen it lots

On other posters comments on the Smith sighting..It seems he didnt feel confident enough to do an efit at first or even come forward as a witness at all until a few weeks after the incident, he didnt see the person clear enough I suppose he thought his evidence wouldnt be of any use..However of course he came forward to state that the man he saw was not Murat, he would of recognised him as they were aquainted. It seems to be a case of when Tanner had identified Murat as the man she had seen, Smith came forward to say that if it was the same man he encountered then it wasnt Murat, even if he couldnt tell who the man was.

Sorry to be a pain but Lance has opened a thread especially for posts re till receipts. Can you post there, and deleted your post here.

by ShuBob 06.11.13 18:41

ProfMoriarty wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:Great post Cristobell.

It is of great significance that JT placed Gerry in her sighting, thereby 'proving' that he was not the man the Smiths saw.
Indeed it is!
Agreed. Excellent post from Cristobell.

Hear, hear!

by MaryB 06.11.13 18:42

Sorry but I don't see how you work that one out.

by Dr What 06.11.13 18:46

Hi Prof.

Point taken.They could all have sedated their respective children.But, who could prove that? Noboby.The other T9 could simply deny it.Even if the McCanns had alleged that they all did it, the others could simply deny it.No proof.Besides, nothing happened to their children [that we know].

It does baffle me as to why the other professional people, on that holiday, took a conscious decision to lie for the McCanns and risk so much if it all came to light.

Were they all hoodwinked by the McCanns?....and they now know it as the story unfolds.

by ProfMoriarty 06.11.13 18:47

Excellent, ProfessorP.

by Praiaaa 06.11.13 18:51

ProfMoriarty wrote:
Excellent, ProfessorP.

Hear hear, well argued ProfessorP ( even tho' your avatar gives me the creeps :-) )

by StraightThinking 06.11.13 18:54

ProfessorPPlum wrote: Illuminati-sponsored international multi-agency security cover-up...or global ring of reptilian paedophiles all covering up for Prince Philip etc

Yes Professor, sadly in six and half years of discussion we've lost sight of the real clues amongst a myriad of conspiracy theories concerning the media, politicians, police forces etc

Such speculation is irrelevant in solving the case and it only serves to submerge the relevant points

The starting point must be M discovered missing by K at 21.20. Not K expecting to find her missing, not M dead two days before, not M never existing or being cloned from a sheep. If a plausible solution stems from her empty bed when K checked, chances are it's correct - the simplest possible explanation

What matters is: who was where during the window of opportunity, who had genuine alibis, what were the correct timings of everyone's movements

Once that has been established, eliminate those who couldn't have done it. There won't be many left to choose from, then you can decide who had the most urgent motive

Discussion on this subject is a good thing but I fear we have been led up the garden path too many times by over-elaborate theories, the motive for which I can only guess at

by Praiaaa 06.11.13 19:03

StraightThinking wrote: I fear we have been led up the garden path too many times by over-elaborate theories, the motive for which I can only guess at

Well said. All this stuff about Gerry holding sensitive info, Comare, not to mention the cloning stuff... GM is a two bit first generation out of the tenements - youngest son made good - small fry, who can't believe his luck hobnobbing with slebs and being on a breakfast TV sofa - drunk on fame, and now believing his own fairytale.
When this is eventually unravelled, which it will be and hopefully in our lifetime, will be simple. Greed/fear/panic for motive, and means and opportunity grabbed, nothing more complicated than that.

by noddy100 06.11.13 19:16

StraightThinking wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote: Illuminati-sponsored international multi-agency security cover-up...or global ring of reptilian paedophiles all covering up for Prince Philip etc
Yes Professor, sadly in six and half years of discussion we've lost sight of the real clues amongst a myriad of conspiracy theories concerning the media, politicians, police forces etc

Such speculation is irrelevant in solving the case and it only serves to submerge the relevant points

The starting point must be M discovered missing by K at 21.20. Not K expecting to find her missing, not M dead two days before, not M never existing or being cloned from a sheep. If a plausible solution stems from her empty bed when K checked, chances are it's correct - the simplest possible explanation

What matters is: who was where during the window of opportunity, who had genuine alibis, what were the correct timings of everyone's movements

Once that has been established, eliminate those who couldn't have done it. There won't be many left to choose from, then you can decide who had the most urgent motive

Discussion on this subject is a good thing but I fear we have been led up the garden path too many times by over-elaborate theories, the motive for which I can only guess at

I agree accurate reconstruction and then eliminate and see who is left and what the time scales are

by StraightThinking 06.11.13 19:22

While I recognize the deductive talents of many posters on here, I suspect that some others have deliberately introduced irrelevant theories just to have a laugh at everyone's expense

These are the real trolls, not the occasional poster who turns up for the first time and is driven away within hours by aggressive behaviour from others

The real trolls subtly drop their "clever" observations into the discussion and then sit back, convulsed in hysterics, watching everyone else debating the nonsense

Anyone remember "The Author" from the Mirror Forum? Great fun but meaningless tripe

You can link anyone to anything if you make the daisy chain long enough, it doesn't mean the connections are being used to cover a crime

by soundworks 06.11.13 20:20

Yea im thinking simple

Kate screams Madeleine gone - runs to restaurant in shock

All tapas run back to apartment - Madeleine found dead behind sofa ( been there from when they Kate and Gerry first went out)

30 mins to sort stuff out - only needs a quick clean behind sofa / timelines etc

Gerry phones an accomplice and takes Madeleine out down the road at 10ish to meet accomplice who then hides Madeleine temporarily

by ultimaThule 06.11.13 21:25

soundworks wrote:Yea im thinking simple

Kate screams Madeleine gone - runs to restaurant in shock

All tapas run back to apartment - Madeleine found dead behind sofa ( been there from when they Kate and Gerry first went out)

30 mins to sort stuff out - only needs a quick clean behind sofa / timelines etc

Gerry phones an accomplice and takes Madeleine out down the road at 10ish to meet accomplice who then hides Madeleine temporarily

Why would the body of a child who met with fatal accidental injury need to be hidden?

Do you not think that a group who could collectively agree to hide a body, clean an apartment to an almost forensic standard by removing all traces of the child's existence without leaving any discernible wet patches or odour of detergent(s), and conjure up an accomplice to temporarily hide/store the corpse in the space of half an hour, would be capable of concocting a plausible tale which would absolve the parents of any culpability if the accident occurred while they were absent from the apartment?

Log in for more topics