Re: 3 Prime Suspects Identified

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.14 17:42

bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.
Again, fair point but in the absence of refuting it or even commenting, what message does that send to the general public?

Apart from seriously damaging a country's reputation.

SY doesn't need to say anything, and the media's view of the general public is so condescending, and the majority of the populous so stupid, that silly stories in the press are purely to separate a fool and his money and deflect attention away from the interesting stuff.

The timing, as usual, is the key thing here. There is normally anything up to a four day window prior to one of the McCann litigations or negative revelation, when these made up stories hits the new stands. After 6 and a half years of the same tired old pattern, and not one EVER has turned out to have led ANYWHERE.

IF Scotland Yard truly had any notion of a REAL suspect, the public would NOT be notified until AFTER the event.

These distracting made-up stories are pure mischief. They shouldn't be given the airtime on a serious forum.

by Guest 12.01.14 17:56

bobby18 wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:I do like your theory of 'seeing the body and fleeing', bobby. It would solve a major difficulty the police must overcome before justice can be done. But I simply can't believe the burglars really exist, rather that the police have 'brought them into existence', like, imo, they have Crecheman.
Fair point on 'crecheman' , Dee Coy, but main difference is most people think that figment of imagination was created by JT before becoming SY's property.

After being 'identified' according to reports, I cannot see the being imaginary.

People believe Tannerman was made up by Tanner, Crecheman has, imo, been made up and brought into being by the police as a means to an end - to shift the focus to Smithman without undermining Tanner. Crecheman was also identified by police, according to them, although I believe him to be imaginary. Why not the case again if they need to?

Anyway, like Smokeandmirrors said, it's only the press that have named the burglars as the reason for the letter of assistance. Like Tractorman, Burglarmen are probably more press, er, smoke and mirrors! big grin

I do like 'seeing the body and fleeing' as a theory, though. It would certainly solve a big headache if they could make it stick!

by bobby18 12.01.14 18:22

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.
Again, fair point but in the absence of refuting it or even commenting, what message does that send to the general public?

Apart from seriously damaging a country's reputation.

SY doesn't need to say anything, and the media's view of the general public is so condescending, and the majority of the populous so stupid, that silly stories in the press are purely to separate a fool and his money and deflect attention away from the interesting stuff.

The timing, as usual, is the key thing here. There is normally anything up to a four day window prior to one of the McCann litigations or negative revelation, when these made up stories hits the new stands. After 6 and a half years of the same tired old pattern, and not one EVER has turned out to have led ANYWHERE.

IF Scotland Yard truly had any notion of a REAL suspect, the public would NOT be notified until AFTER the event.

These distracting made-up stories are pure mischief. They shouldn't be given the airtime on a serious forum.

Without ANY comment from SY (I accept there would be limitationsand having been globally cited as 'identified', I would suggest that the burglar story has went beyond the point of 'pure mischief'. I do not see how it can now go away without clarification one way or the other.

Whilst being dismissive of the general public, do not underestimate their potential role in the conclusion of this case. Example, GA's book goes on widespread sale in UK to the 'majority stupid populous'- this would not have a potential impact?

I have been nothing but polite in my responses, I would appreciate that you would afford me the same.

Thank you.

by suzyjohnson 12.01.14 18:31

bobby18 wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:I think it's a possibility Bobby18, three burglars in the area the police want to know did any one of them see anything suspicious either inside or outside the apartment. It's also possible that anyone in the apartment would notice someone who had had a fatal accident before they had taken anything from the apartment (and would anyone want to keep anything from the apartment anyway if they had discovered such an accident?)

It's also possible that burglars kept quiet about anything they witnessed, but if the police are actually accusing them of a serious crime then they might wish to say what happened. If GM was involved in MM's disappearance, and burglars were at or in the apartment this would be an unhappy coincidence for him. However, with all the movements of the Tapas seven that night (as told in their witness statements) when would burglars have had the opportunity to go anywhere near apartment 5A without being seen? If burglars were in any apartments nearby then they may be able to disprove the statements of the Tapas group .........

So several possibilities to move the case forward there
Hi Suzy,

I would give SY the benefit of doubt and say they were part of it but not the be all to end all. I think most posters would be of the opinion that there were no regular checks and statements are a damage limitation to show 'reasonable parenting' , so burglary could have happened at any point between 7.30 - 9.30?

Mods - I'm new to this, so please keep me right on wording if I overstep. Thanks.

But all the Tapas group said in their statements about all the checking and if they haven't done all the checking they said they had then that would take some explaining. Not only would they have mislead the police but also potentially put a child's life in danger by not giving a true account of events that night.

The McCanns say they were in the apartment until 8.30 pm drinking wine in the lounge, so burglars could only have been in the apartment between 8.30 pm - 10 pm

by margaret 12.01.14 18:31

Am l missing something bobby18, l can't see smokeandmirrors has been rude? huh

by Guest 12.01.14 18:34

bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.
Again, fair point but in the absence of refuting it or even commenting, what message does that send to the general public?

Apart from seriously damaging a country's reputation.

SY doesn't need to say anything, and the media's view of the general public is so condescending, and the majority of the populous so stupid, that silly stories in the press are purely to separate a fool and his money and deflect attention away from the interesting stuff.

The timing, as usual, is the key thing here. There is normally anything up to a four day window prior to one of the McCann litigations or negative revelation, when these made up stories hits the new stands. After 6 and a half years of the same tired old pattern, and not one EVER has turned out to have led ANYWHERE.

IF Scotland Yard truly had any notion of a REAL suspect, the public would NOT be notified until AFTER the event.

These distracting made-up stories are pure mischief. They shouldn't be given the airtime on a serious forum.
Without ANY comment from SY (I accept there would be limitationsand having been globally cited as 'identified', I would suggest that the burglar story has went beyond the point of 'pure mischief'. I do not see how it can now go away without clarification one way or the other.

Whilst being dismissive of the general public, do not underestimate their potential role in the conclusion of this case. Example, GA's book goes on widespread sale in UK to the 'majority stupid populous'- this would not have a potential impact?

I have been nothing but polite in my responses, I would appreciate that you would afford me the same.

Thank you.

Good evening bobby18,
I am a little confused as this theory is evolving faster than my imagination.
Where in your opinion does the clarification about the 3 burglars need to come from?
Thank you.

by Guest 12.01.14 18:39

margaret wrote:Am l missing something bobby18, l can't see smokeandmirrors has been rude?

I agree. bobby18 a little less of the 'woe is me' would not go amiss.

by bobby18 12.01.14 18:50

candyfloss wrote:
margaret wrote:Am l missing something bobby18, l can't see smokeandmirrors has been rude?

I agree. bobby18 a little less of the 'woe is me' would not go amiss.

As a newbie, I thought the 'this shouldn't be given airtime on a serious forum' relating to suggested theories to the burglars was unnecessarily dismissive.

If oversensitive, I apologise to Smoke and Mirrors accordingly.

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.14 18:53

I'm sorry Bobby if you thought I was somehow being rude, not intended. I am just trying to cut through the latest in a long long line of hogwash printed about this case. Not ONE of the many news outlet that have parroted this latest drivel out have cited a source. Just a vague "the police" without any reference to the police having ACTUALLY said anything, so it remains mischief until the news is verified. Even if the "story" DID emanate from a "police source" they would most certainly NOT have been authorised to say ANYTHING of the sort to the press. That's guaranteed.

As to the populous, I stand by that. The general public (and I mean the majority, not the tiny number of researchers and campaigners), will have no impact on the outcome, it'll be solved, whitewashed or remain unsolved, the powers that be don't give a monkeys about the populous, but use their mighty PR machines to bulldoze through anything they want to achieve and present it in a way the gullible will lap up. That is how it is. Dumb down, control, pacify, spin a yarn. The people are more interested in Big Brother and trash gossip magazines and the ruling elite know it.

SY have a growing number of cover-up's and scandals already on the table, which will lead to years of inquiries, with a pre-determined outcome and a few dispensable souls thrown to the wolves for appearances sake.

The conclusion of this sorry saga may well have been decided some years ago, whatever needs to be kept hidden will be until such time as it suits someones agenda to use the truth for their own gain. Or until someone cracks under the strain and spills the beans, but even then, there is no guarantee of a just handling of such a matter.

by Woofer 12.01.14 18:57

tigger wrote:

Please can you manage to put your replies outside the box? You generally seem to manage it.

Yes miss, sorry miss.

by Guest 12.01.14 19:02

bobby18 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
margaret wrote:Am l missing something bobby18, l can't see smokeandmirrors has been rude?

I agree. bobby18 a little less of the 'woe is me' would not go amiss.
As a newbie, I thought the 'this shouldn't be given airtime on a serious forum' relating to suggested theories to the burglars was unnecessarily dismissive.

If oversensitive, I apologise to Smoke and Mirrors accordingly.

Yes, I think people do get a little oversensitive here sometimes, you just have to grow a thick skin when posting on forums. big grin

by suzyjohnson 12.01.14 19:09

Regarding burglars, I had assumed that one or two of the phone numbers were found by SY to belong to known burglars in the PdL area, or alternatively, witnesses had seen known burglars in the vicinity that night. Whether or not the burglars actually went inside apartment 5A they may have useful information to add to the inquiry, who did they see, or not see, around PdL? By letting these people know via the media that SY want to question them with regards to their involvement in a serious crime, potentially has the effect of making them reconsider their situation? The police could offer them an amnesty in exchange for information?

Regarding Crecheman, I think he does exist. I always thought the PJ interviewed, and eliminated, him at a very early stage of the inquiry. Given that JT said she saw GM and JW talking, but that neither of them saw her, I think indicates that JT was not on that road at that particular time, and I think it's possible that she saw Crecheman either at a different time, or place, or even on a different night to what she claimed. SY, having interviewed Crecheman and seen the Night Creche records, will know exactly what time she saw Crecheman and, quite possibly, where as well. If JT is not telling the truth than she will know that SY know that as well.

by bobby18 12.01.14 19:17

dantezebu wrote:
bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
bobby18 wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:This story has not been confirmed by SY, there is no source cited, it is totally uncorroborated, i.e., there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it is true. Therefore trying to make sense out of it makes no sense. IF Andy Redwood, or a named source confirmed this latest distraction, then there would be something to talk about. Supposed arrests? Nonsense, it would not be announced in advance.

This story has no substance, proof, verification from a reliable source, nothing. It is as empty as Lorraine Kelly's head.
Again, fair point but in the absence of refuting it or even commenting, what message does that send to the general public?

Apart from seriously damaging a country's reputation.

SY doesn't need to say anything, and the media's view of the general public is so condescending, and the majority of the populous so stupid, that silly stories in the press are purely to separate a fool and his money and deflect attention away from the interesting stuff.

The timing, as usual, is the key thing here. There is normally anything up to a four day window prior to one of the McCann litigations or negative revelation, when these made up stories hits the new stands. After 6 and a half years of the same tired old pattern, and not one EVER has turned out to have led ANYWHERE.

IF Scotland Yard truly had any notion of a REAL suspect, the public would NOT be notified until AFTER the event.

These distracting made-up stories are pure mischief. They shouldn't be given the airtime on a serious forum.
Without ANY comment from SY (I accept there would be limitationsand having been globally cited as 'identified', I would suggest that the burglar story has went beyond the point of 'pure mischief'. I do not see how it can now go away without clarification one way or the other.

Whilst being dismissive of the general public, do not underestimate their potential role in the conclusion of this case. Example, GA's book goes on widespread sale in UK to the 'majority stupid populous'- this would not have a potential impact?

I have been nothing but polite in my responses, I would appreciate that you would afford me the same.

Thank you.

Good evening bobby18,
I am a little confused as this theory is evolving faster than my imagination.
Where in your opinion does the clarification about the 3 burglars need to come from?
Thank you.

I just feel that the use of the word 'identified' gives the 'burglars' exactly that - an identity. If made up, I think that puts more (and unnecessary) pressure on the story. Along with the current media spin (my interpretation) that PJ (and by association, Portugal) are hindering SY from bringing persons potentially responsible for a child's disappearance can just go away without clarification of some sort.

I fully accept that clarification my be 'eliminated from enquiries' but that is still clarification. Admittedly, only my opinion.

by bobbin 12.01.14 19:31

suzyjohnson wrote:Regarding burglars, I had assumed that one or two of the phone numbers were found by SY to belong to known burglars in the PdL area, or alternatively, witnesses had seen known burglars in the vicinity that night. Whether or not the burglars actually went inside apartment 5A they may have useful information to add to the inquiry, who did they see, or not see, around PdL? By letting these people know via the media that SY want to question them with regards to their involvement in a serious crime, potentially has the effect of making them reconsider their situation? The police could offer them an amnesty in exchange for information?

Regarding Crecheman, I think he does exist. I always thought the PJ interviewed, and eliminated, him at a very early stage of the inquiry. Given that JT said she saw GM and JW talking, but that neither of them saw her, I think indicates that JT was not on that road at that particular time, and I think it's possible that she saw Crecheman either at a different time, or place, or even on a different night to what she claimed. SY, having interviewed Crecheman and seen the Night Creche records, will know exactly what time she saw Crecheman and, quite possibly, where as well. If JT is not telling the truth than she will know that SY know that as well.

An interesting post.
So it's a sort of 'check mate' whichever way JT turns re crecheman, and 'interviewing a few local lags', with their own skins to protect, could make the 'real perpetrators' feel somewhat uneasy, wondering what these guys may have to say about any odd activity they might have seen, over the week, not just on the evening...
Even if it is a newspaper story and there is the chance of it being true, someone(s) might have reason to be getting worried. big grin

by bobby18 12.01.14 19:35

suzyjohnson wrote:Regarding burglars, I had assumed that one or two of the phone numbers were found by SY to belong to known burglars in the PdL area, or alternatively, witnesses had seen known burglars in the vicinity that night. Whether or not the burglars actually went inside apartment 5A they may have useful information to add to the inquiry, who did they see, or not see, around PdL? By letting these people know via the media that SY want to question them with regards to their involvement in a serious crime, potentially has the effect of making them reconsider their situation? The police could offer them an amnesty in exchange for information?

Regarding Crecheman, I think he does exist. I always thought the PJ interviewed, and eliminated, him at a very early stage of the inquiry. Given that JT said she saw GM and JW talking, but that neither of them saw her, I think indicates that JT was not on that road at that particular time, and I think it's possible that she saw Crecheman either at a different time, or place, or even on a different night to what she claimed. SY, having interviewed Crecheman and seen the Night Creche records, will know exactly what time she saw Crecheman and, quite possibly, where as well. If JT is not telling the truth than she will know that SY know that as well.

Very plausible imo.

by debs 12.01.14 20:02

so how and when exactly did all these burglars get to and from 5A without being noticed? The window of opportunity for an abductor is miniscule, so it would be even harder squeezing 3 burglars into it

by Guest 12.01.14 20:06

debs wrote:so how and when exactly did all these burglars get to and from 5A without being noticed? The window of opportunity for an abductor is miniscule, so it would be even harder squeezing 3 burglars into it

And not leaving any trace of their visit either. Incredible clever burglars, except they never actually manage to steal anything big grin

by debs 12.01.14 20:09

well given that they never managed to steal anything on two known missions, its stretching it a bit to call them burglars

by Guest 12.01.14 20:10

bobby18 wrote:
"I just feel that the use of the word 'identified' gives the 'burglars' exactly that - an identity. If made up, I think that puts more (and unnecessary) pressure on the story. Along with the current media spin (my interpretation) that PJ (and by association, Portugal) are hindering SY from bringing persons potentially responsible for a child's disappearance can just go away without clarification of some sort.

I fully accept that clarification my be 'eliminated from enquiries' but that is still clarification. Admittedly, only my opinion."

Thank you Bobby, but who exactly has identified the burglars?
Has there been an official press release from SY or PJ to this effect that I have missed?

by sallypelt 12.01.14 20:11

dantezebu wrote:
debs wrote:so how and when exactly did all these burglars get to and from 5A without being noticed? The window of opportunity for an abductor is miniscule, so it would be even harder squeezing 3 burglars into it

And not leaving any trace of their visit either. Incredible clever burglars, except they never actually manage to steal anything

Now, now, they "stole a child" but thank God, according the GM "nothing of value" was stolen music

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.14 20:11

debs wrote:well given that they never managed to steal anything on two known missions, its stretching it a bit to call them burglars

Perhaps they were swarthy, scary looking hide-and-seekers eyebrows

by Guest 12.01.14 20:15

sallypelt wrote:
dantezebu wrote:
debs wrote:so how and when exactly did all these burglars get to and from 5A without being noticed? The window of opportunity for an abductor is miniscule, so it would be even harder squeezing 3 burglars into it

And not leaving any trace of their visit either. Incredible clever burglars, except they never actually manage to steal anything
Now, now, they "stole a child" but thank God, according the GM "nothing of value" was stolen

Sorry sallypelt, I was going along with the theory that while they were burglaring(?) the flat they found Maddie behind the sofa and ran out.
Silly me, of course they would have picked her up and ran around PdL for an hour or so carrying her.

by worriedmum 12.01.14 20:21

Could there have been three hiding places in 5a?

by bobbin 12.01.14 20:27

worriedmum wrote:Could there have been three hiding places in 5a?

Yes, easy, behind the sofa, behind the bedroom door and cowering in the cupboard. spin

by bobby18 12.01.14 20:41

dantezebu wrote:bobby18 wrote:
"I just feel that the use of the word 'identified' gives the 'burglars' exactly that - an identity. If made up, I think that puts more (and unnecessary) pressure on the story. Along with the current media spin (my interpretation) that PJ (and by association, Portugal) are hindering SY from bringing persons potentially responsible for a child's disappearance can just go away without clarification of some sort.

I fully accept that clarification my be 'eliminated from enquiries' but that is still clarification. Admittedly, only my opinion."

Thank you Bobby, but who exactly has identified the burglars?
Has there been an official press release from SY or PJ to this effect that I have missed?

According to unrefuted and unresponded (is that a word?) reports I read, Scotland Yard, but I stand to be corrected. I accept that there has been no official confirmation but I suggest that in the absence of this or any comment (even like the one on McCann's website re: speculation) runs the risk of the PJ stopping person's responsible for a child's disappearance becoming accepted fact to the masses. For example, if I was Portuguese and saw the fox news item, I would not be happy at how my country (by association) is being portrayed, especially on a specific investigative route and not just general 'Portuguese bungled the case' comment i.e. back to my clarification point.

by debs 12.01.14 20:44

if the Mail article is true, and she was taken by burglars, there isnt any point at which a burglary could have taken place according to the official timelines. Between 21.35 and 21.55 OBrien and Oldfield were out and about, and Oldfield would actually have been in the apartment next door to 5A for a while. The period between 21.55 and 22.00 is too short and too coincidental. Pre 21.35 there were several passers by that we know of but no mention of any shifty looking characters wearing balaclavas with (empty) bags marked swag over their shoulders. So I am firmly in the no burglar camp

by bobby18 12.01.14 21:21

debs wrote:if the Mail article is true, and she was taken by burglars, there isnt any point at which a burglary could have taken place according to the official timelines. Between 21.35 and 21.55 OBrien and Oldfield were out and about, and Oldfield would actually have been in the apartment next door to 5A for a while. The period between 21.55 and 22.00 is too short and too coincidental. Pre 21.35 there were several passers by that we know of but no mention of any shifty looking characters wearing balaclavas with (empty) bags marked swag over their shoulders. So I am firmly in the no burglar camp, like many other people mentioned in the press, they didnt exist either

Fair enough.

All I would ask is the following and again stand to be corrected on any matters of accepted fact.

Is it fair to say that the 'official timescales' are based solely on Tapas 7 statements?
Is it fair to say that, based on alleged inconsistencies and contradictions, including the change in checking patterns based on Mrs Fenn's statement about Madeleine crying, that there has been reservations regarding the validity of these statements?
If so, could the first check feasibly be 1-2 hours after the apartment was left unlocked?
Is it feasible to suggest that 3 burglars could be 2 burglars and a lookout?
Is it feasible to say that a petty burglar discovering a body would not continue his burglarly and would want the place to look exactly the same (or as near as) when they arrive) and escape promptly - not with a body. That would be Smithman, whoever that is.
For self-preservation purposes, is it feasible that this group may have split up and contacted each other via mobile.
Also as self I preservation, is it feasible the burglars would not bring any info forward?

For fear of boring and annoying people and repeating myself, I'll bow out now. I accept that the burglar story is not accepted by many - fair enough.

by loopzdaloop 12.01.14 21:33

bobby18 wrote:
parapono wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:Can't believe there are pages of people seriously discussing burglars as a possibility and trying to fit the dogs evidence around this bogeyman scenario. Highly ridiculous. Grasping at straws much.
Not pampa grass, I hope.
An innocent 'in the box' reply.

Kindest regards

parapono
That sneering sort of response is the exact sort of reason I choose to post infrequently.

IMO the 3 burglars exist. Why?

Reports circulating globally (see fox news item) claim that SY have 'identified' them. As soon as that happened, the scope for them to be imaginary 'shadowy figures' is gone. In summary, to the larger public they exist and, day by day, in the alleged actions of their law agencies, a beautiful country like Portugal is being potentially seen as harbouring alleged child abductors and potential murderers (again see fox news item).

That is not sustainable.

If a 'patsy' was required, they clearly need to be dying or dead (Hewlett, Tractor man) - they do not fit the bill. By being 'identified', they will not go away, so, logically, I would say the following scenarios could apply and quickly:-

PJ interview them or allow SY to interview them and they are eliminated from enquiries
PJ interview them or allow SY to interview them and evidence suggests they abducted Madeleine as part of a botched burglary
PJ interview them or allow SY to interview them and the theory of discovering the body and fleeing develops

Logically, I could only see 1 or 3 potentially applying.

Again, only as a theory based on my limited knowledge on the case.

As someone earlier mentioned it is very interesting that the 'abductor' theory has now been thrown to the wayside and the angle is now 'burglars'.

1. Newspaper 'sources' are always dodgy therefore the foundation of this is ridiculous.

Scotland Yard have never issued a press release indicating that 'Burglars' have been identified.

2. IF the 'source' was credible, the science does not exist to extrapolate professions of people in the area.

despite the television show person of interest appearing to show otherwise.

3. IF people could extrapolate professions, it would be highly unprofitable for three burglars to be sharing takings from holiday flats.

Most petty thefts from holiday accommodation are committed by people with daily access (i.e. staff).

4. IF it was profitable, In the food chain of criminal offending, I sincerely doubt a burglar would A> kill a child to steal some holiday items or B> have no conscience in that it would leave a child dying in the apartment without raising an alarm or if either A or B were true - C> Remove a body.

Statistically, if a child comes to harm, the harm is caused by someone known to the child.

5. If the hypothetical burglars did A or B an then C> it would be an amazing coincidence that they borrowed the Renault scenic that the Mccann's later used.

Wheres the roll eyes smiley.

6. If all of the above did occur, then it does not explain all the bizarre behaviour, lies and distortion committed by the Mccanns that has been thoroughly explored and chronicled in multiple threads within this forum by multiple authors.

as what the public think and what the media, PR companies and politicians pretend the public think are two different matters. Hence the Mccann's (through some means) employing the services of digital media management organisations that monitor and manipulate fora of public opinion.

IMO: SY Looking for the mobile communications data from 3 phones used to communicate in the area is clearly about the mobile pay as you go phones acquired by the Mccann's so they could (they thought) communicate quietly with other people... for some inexplicable reason

GERRY exalt

DAVID PAYNE exalt

OLDFIELD

KATE

TANNER

It is likely Mr Payne has turned Queens Witness... Hence not being mentioned in BBC's Crimewatch
I do think its time Mr Oldfield and the others who may read this followed suit. They may have wanted to protect the Mccann's little family... how about starting to think about their own families and what it will look like when the truth comes out. The longer this drags on the worse it will look.

pop2

by suzyjohnson 12.01.14 21:42

debs wrote:if the Mail article is true, and she was taken by burglars, there isnt any point at which a burglary could have taken place according to the official timelines. Between 21.35 and 21.55 OBrien and Oldfield were out and about, and Oldfield would actually have been in the apartment next door to 5A for a while. The period between 21.55 and 22.00 is too short and too coincidental. Pre 21.35 there were several passers by that we know of but no mention of any shifty looking characters wearing balaclavas with (empty) bags marked swag over their shoulders. So I am firmly in the no burglar camp

Yes debs that's what I was saying earlier (a few pages back) but suppose there were a team of burglars around that area and around that time, who could disprove the Tapas seven version of events?

by suzyjohnson 12.01.14 21:53

bobby18 wrote:

All I would ask is the following and again stand to be corrected on any matters of accepted fact.

Is it fair to say that the 'official timescales' are based solely on Tapas 7 statements?
Is it fair to say that, based on alleged inconsistencies and contradictions, including the change in checking patterns based on Mrs Fenn's statement about Madeleine crying, that there has been reservations regarding the validity of these statements?
If so, could the first check feasibly be 1-2 hours after the apartment was left unlocked?
Is it feasible to suggest that 3 burglars could be 2 burglars and a lookout?
Is it feasible to say that a petty burglar discovering a body would not continue his burglarly and would want the place to look exactly the same (or as near as) when they arrive) and escape promptly - not with a body. That would be Smithman, whoever that is.
For self-preservation purposes, is it feasible that this group may have split up and contacted each other via mobile.
Also as self I preservation, is it feasible the burglars would not bring any info forward?

For fear of boring and annoying people and repeating myself, I'll bow out now. I accept that the burglar story is not accepted by many - fair enough.

Mainly I agree with the above but would like to add the following -

I think the accepted timelines, by the PJ, would include witness statements made by those independent of the Tapas group as well as the Tapas group, but it is their statements which directly relate to the checking.

The burglars may not have been going from apartment to apartment as a group, they may have each chosen a different apartment block so as not to appear conspicuous, perhaps the phone calls (if they have any relevance whatsoever to the McCann case, which they probably don't) would be to inform the others the situation, what they had seen, heard etc.

Latest topics