Re: 3 Prime Suspects Identified

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.

by marconi 12.01.14 22:00

Since the Met police got involved in the case, we never heard of any new sightings anymore.

by worriedmum 12.01.14 22:56

I wonder how the cadaver odour will be explained. Any defence lawyer worth their salt is likely to bring up the findings of Eddie and Keela, especially with regards to the Renault Scenic. And they might refer to other cases, like the Zapata one mentioned by Gerry McCann.

by suzyjohnson 12.01.14 23:01

worriedmum wrote:I wonder how the cadaver odour will be explained. Any defence lawyer worth their salt is likely to bring up the findings of Eddie and Keela, especially with regards to the Renault Scenic. And they might refer to other cases, like the Zapata one mentioned by Gerry McCann.

They also might well ask what opportunity anyone had to take MM in between all the checking.

by plebgate 13.01.14 4:10

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

by **PeterMac** 13.01.14 7:56

by **PeterMac** 13.01.14 8:03

"Name please.
"Jose Alvares Silva
"Occupation ?
"Burglar
"Did you burgle apartment 5A in PdL on 3 /5/ 7 ?
"No.
"OH, bugger. Sorry. You are free to leave.
"Next please.
"Name ?
>
>
>

by biggurllypants 13.01.14 8:49

marconi wrote:Since the Met police got involved in the case, we never heard of any new sightings anymore.

3 Prime Suspects Identified - Page 15 1538665_579198892154230_1228264982_n

Can someone please explain to me how SY think they are going to get the PJ to agree or how they are going to get those burglars to UK and charge them ? What are they hoping to charge them with Using a mobile phone too much ? Another load of spin from the mccann spin doctors

by Guest 13.01.14 8:55

suep wrote:A thought experiment only…
Lets suppose just for a moment that burglars DID get into apartment 5A that night.
Lets also suppose that whilst rummaging around they found MBM’s body in that cupboard, under a pile of dirty washing perhaps.
Lets imagine that the body falls out of the cupboard and in their panic they can’t get it back in because rigor mortis had now set in making it difficult. What do they do with it?
They hide it behind the sofa and dumbfounded make a swift getaway, each leaving in a different direction and later communicating by mobile phone.
Lets also imagine that prior to stumbling upon the body one of them had pocketed Gerry’s wallet complete with credit card(s).
Kate comes along to do her check, looks in the cupboard to find no Madeleine, cowering or otherwise, panics and runs over to the rest of the gang screaming words to the effect “She’s been taken!”.
They all rush back to search and soon find her behind the sofa and the original cunning plan goes ahead. However, they now know that someone out there knows their secret. And Gerry eventually discovers his wallet has been stolen…
What do they do next?

Like I said...just a thought experiment...

Can you imagine the phone call?

Phil: Hello?
Gerry: It's a disaster!
Phil: Gerry? Is that you? Why are you calling at this time of night?
Gerry: (roars like a bull)
Phil: Now calm down Tiny Tears and tell me what's wrong.
Gerry: (mumbling between sobs) ...wallet stolen ...Margaret gone!
Phil: WHAT!?!?!?
Gerry: ....stards jemmied shutters.
Phil: Oh my God. Oh no no no no no. How much money did you have in your wallet?

rotfl

by biggurllypants 13.01.14 9:01

Poe wrote:
suep wrote:A thought experiment only…
Lets suppose just for a moment that burglars DID get into apartment 5A that night.
Lets also suppose that whilst rummaging around they found MBM’s body in that cupboard, under a pile of dirty washing perhaps.
Lets imagine that the body falls out of the cupboard and in their panic they can’t get it back in because rigor mortis had now set in making it difficult. What do they do with it?
They hide it behind the sofa and dumbfounded make a swift getaway, each leaving in a different direction and later communicating by mobile phone.
Lets also imagine that prior to stumbling upon the body one of them had pocketed Gerry’s wallet complete with credit card(s).
Kate comes along to do her check, looks in the cupboard to find no Madeleine, cowering or otherwise, panics and runs over to the rest of the gang screaming words to the effect “She’s been taken!”.
They all rush back to search and soon find her behind the sofa and the original cunning plan goes ahead. However, they now know that someone out there knows their secret. And Gerry eventually discovers his wallet has been stolen…
What do they do next?

Like I said...just a thought experiment...

Can you imagine the phone call?

Phil: Hello?
Gerry: It's a disaster!
Phil: Gerry? Is that you? Why are you calling at this time of night?
Gerry: (roars like a bull)
Phil: Now calm down Tiny Tears and tell me what's wrong.
Gerry: (mumbling between sobs) ...wallet stolen ...Margaret gone!
Phil: WHAT!?!?!?
Gerry: ....stards jemmied shutters.
Phil: Oh my God. Oh no no no no no. How much money did you have in your wallet?

My problem is I cant imagine

by **PeterMac** 13.01.14 9:41

If there were three burglars, why didn't they take one child each.
Surely three are worth more than one
and the mysterious sedation substance was clearly working well.

As it is only one got the child - the others didn't even bother with the camera or passports,.
In fact the more one thinks about it, all SY and PJ had to do was to go down to the Dole office and see which burglars were signing on, because they had not grasped what burglary was all about

by Guest 13.01.14 9:43

PeterMac wrote:If there were three burglars, why didn't they take one child each.
Surely three are worth more than one
and the mysterious sedation substance was clearly working well.

As it is only one got the child - the others didn't even bother with the camera or passports,.
In fact the more one thinks about it, all SY and PJ had to do was to go down to the Dole office and see which burglars were signing on, because they had not grasped what burglary was all about

A point I made earlier. If "burglars" enter a property and leave with nothing but a child, they're not exactly burglars, are they?

Why don't the PJ just arrest them for burglary, if so much is known about their activities, identities etc.?

by Smokeandmirrors 13.01.14 9:55

QUESTIONS THAT NEED ASKING ABOUT THIS LATEST "DEVELOPMENT"

1) Would burglars still have the same mobile phones / number 6 1/2 yrs later?
2) Would they have had a "traceable" phone, or throw away PAYG phones?
3) IF they had stolen a child, and following the years long circus, would they still be living in the area, or indeed, Portugal?
4) Would they still be known by their real names?
5) Would they have kept their appearance the same?
6) Would they still be in contact with one another?
7) Would they be sitting at home now, waiting for a knock on the door now that they have been forewarned?
8) Wouldn't the only way they could all now be arrested is if they are in jail for other crimes?
9) If the police know who they were, long enough to be writing letters, why would the PJ not have already arrested them and hence
restoring their reputation which the great British media has done their best to destroy?
10)On what grounds could they possibly be traced, and where is the physical evidence that they were in 5a?

Let's see if the trial resumes this week, normally these stories come @ 72 hrs before real news.

by Doug D 13.01.14 10:18

3 Prime Suspects Identified - Page 15 Application

Well that’s sorted then & they even escaped in a Renault Scenic!

by worriedmum 13.01.14 10:34

PeterMac wrote:If there were three burglars, why didn't they take one child each.
Surely three are worth more than one
and the mysterious sedation substance was clearly working well.

As it is only one got the child - the others didn't even bother with the camera or passports,.
In fact the more one thinks about it, all SY and PJ had to do was to go down to the Dole office and see which burglars were signing on, because they had not grasped what burglary was all about

Great points PeterMac ! Also...

Why didn't they jemmy the shutters?
If they entered through the unlocked patio door, why didn't they open drawers and search before they got to the children's room?
If they didn't get to Madeleine's room, (because she was out of bed?), why did people think the twins were sedated? By whom?What could two sleeping toddlers in high-sided cots in a dark room reveal?
If they entered with a key, through the front door, when did they have the chance to do this unobserved and where did they park their car? Why have they never been mentioned before?
How does this fit in with, if at all, with 'why didn't you come when...' ?
Should they be asked about the pink blanket?
Did they bump into the soothing couple?

by **PeterMac** 13.01.14 10:58

worriedmum wrote:
Did they bump into the soothing couple?

There was clearly quite a party going on in 5A that night.
Three burglars, a soothing couple, sporadic visits by GM, then Oldfield,
all popping in to watch the football ?