Re: McCann arrests not 'major breakthrough,' experts says

by **tigger** 14.01.14 13:33

Aoife wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Aoife wrote:Back on topic.

MWT said:

"Burglars don't abduct children," Thomas said. "Child abusers abduct, pedophiles abduct, but if you are in an area burglarizing a house looking for items you are not looking to take a child.

How does that sit with the links coming from the first page of a google search above?

Suggest you pose that question to MWT if you are suggesting he does not know what he's saying.

I'd say even though I dont like that pompous guy, his this particular statement is 100% correct.
Except that it is contradicted by the links I have posted above!

I" ve looked at two of them, 1874 Is a bit off the chart imo, the Australian was charged with burglary but his only object may have been the 8 yr old girl.
Although rare, abductions from a home environment do happen but the perpetrators are without exception only interested in the child and it ends almost always in the death of the child.

The one quoted by Tasprin - the mother was present so hardly a burglary with extras.

To continue this ad absurdum: we are looking for three men and a ten-year old who's been treated well all these years?

by tiny 14.01.14 13:34

Was any of Madeleines dna found in the flat

by ultimaThule 14.01.14 13:35

'Devil's Advocate' Aoife?

I seem to recall that's the role a grinning Gerry assumed Paxman was playing in their Newsnight encounter. The wee one's prone to using that term, isn't he?

Given the pawns he's tried to knock off the board, he obviously views himself as something of a chess player

by marconi 14.01.14 13:44

As far as I know, there have been no new sightings since May 2011 and suddenly we get 3 burglars.
If they are coming from the McCanns, it could be because they are scared of the 3 new persons of interest that were added to the 38.
They could have being warned that things have changed and that the police are now concentrated on those 3 and on the Smiths man.
A terrible pressure on them and it is possible that the police want a spontaneous confession before they are obliged to.
But it seems that the McCanns are not giving up on their lies.

by tiny 14.01.14 13:48

marconi wrote:As far as I know, there have been no new sightings since May 2011 and suddenly we get 3 burglars.
If they are coming from the McCanns, it could be because they are scared of the 3 new persons of interest that were added to the 38.
They could have being warned that things have changed and that the police are now concentrated on those 3 and on the Smiths man.
A terrible pressure on them and it is possible that the police want a spontaneous confession before they are obliged to.
But it seems that the McCanns are not giving up on their lies.

It was Mitchell who said 3 burglars and not sy

by Aoife 14.01.14 13:49

tiny wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Aoife wrote:Devil's advocate here- what if burglars entered the apartment and accidentally seriously harmed Madeleine in some way, panicked and left and concealed her body later.

Burglars do encounter children and panic:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/children-assaulted-and-locked-in-bathroom-during-home-raid-29912913.html

Could the MET be thinking along these lines- they must have some reason for identifying the three burglars.

What three burglars? It seems quite clear that the source for that story is Mitchell.

From the recent Guardian article:

"The spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann said: "The letter is a significant development. It is necessary for British police to request the Portuguese authorities allow them to operate on their turf.

"It means they have the intention of arresting and interviewing X, Y or Z. We don't know who they have their sights on but it's likely it is the burglars.""
Have we had this from sy --,NO----,I bluddy hope Mitchell is taken in and questioned about spreading false rumours

Luckily there is no law banning spreading rumours. If there was we would have no free speech at all as all assertions may be rumours.

by Aoife 14.01.14 13:52

ultimaThule wrote:'Devil's Advocate' Aoife?

I seem to recall that's the role a grinning Gerry assumed Paxman was playing in their Newsnight encounter. The wee one's prone to using that term, isn't he?

Given the pawns he's tried to knock off the board, he obviously views himself as something of a chess player

Yes. Devil's Advocate. I very useful method to test out a theory. One thing that it does do is to stop the closing of particular avenues of investigation. When I have organised enquiries in my work I have always asked one person to continually question the direction being taken and to come up with any possible criticism of the direction the team is taking. It is a skilled role but very useful. I know that the police use the technique in Case Reviews to ensure that groupthink does not stop an otherwise possible conclusion from being considered.

by tiny 14.01.14 13:55

He should be taken in and questioned ,this is about a 3 yr old child,what he has said is not the truth,and should be made to explain why he said it.

by tasprin 14.01.14 14:00

dantezebu wrote:
tasprin wrote:
Aoife wrote:Back on topic.

MWT said:

"Burglars don't abduct children," Thomas said. "Child abusers abduct, pedophiles abduct, but if you are in an area burglarizing a house looking for items you are not looking to take a child.

How does that sit with the links coming from the first page of a google search above?

How about this one:

Newsone
Sep 2013
Mom Fights Off Intruder Who Tried To Kidnap Her Kids
http://newsone.com/2719420/shawndrea-smith-musa-lang-georgia/

Luckily for the kids they were not left alone.

Except there was no evidence of a single intruder in this case, never mind three.
And if you accept the dog evidence, Maddie was dead at some time in the apartment.
Which leads to the question why would they take a dead child?

No, there was no evidence of an intruder, or Madeleine for that matter. However, if one or both parents had been there she could not have been abducted by burglars, paedophiles, cleaners, gypsies or anyone else.
The case I mentioned above is an odd one. Musa was not a burglar. He walked in through the front door with the intention of kidnapping the children who he accused the mother of taking. However she says she doesn't know him but, whatever the truth in that case, the point is that the Mum was there to stop him, otherwise he would have taken them.

by ultimaThule 14.01.14 14:04

tigger wrote:< snip >
To continue this ad absurdum: we are looking for three men and a ten-year old who's been treated well all these years?

I seem to recall Dave Edgar claimed Madeleine was living with a group of paedophiles in the lawless hills around Luz, but we mustn't be too disaparaging about his prediction because he wasn't in possession of these latest facts from the horse's ~~arse~~ mouth.

It's now becoming clear Madeleine has been keeping house and fencing the tom for a group of gainfully unemployed males who, given her remarkable ability to put her tuppenceworth in at such a young age, have treated her like a princess throughout.

In true Disney style, SY are off to arrest 3 of the group and will no doubt round up and charge the other 4 dwarves in due course.

by Aoife 14.01.14 14:04

tiny wrote:He should be taken in and questioned ,this is about a 3 yr old child,what he has said is not the truth,and should be made to explain why he said it.

I am afraid that that is not how it works for Free Speech in a democracy. You need to be suspected of breaking a law before you can be taken in for questioning. "Not speaking the truth" is not a criminal offense.

by russiandoll 14.01.14 14:11

Aoife wrote:Devil's advocate here- what if burglars entered the apartment and accidentally seriously harmed Madeleine in some way, panicked and left and concealed her body later.

Burglars do encounter children and panic:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/children-assaulted-and-locked-in-bathroom-during-home-raid-29912913.html

Could the MET be thinking along these lines- they must have some reason for identifying the three burglars.

and we are off again, THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE MET THAT 3 BURGLARS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. THIS WAS ACCORDING TO KAY BURLEY INFORMATION FROM " SKY " SOURCES.

AOIFE PLEASE GIVE ME A LINK TO A SOURCE FROM THE MET SAYING ANYTHING OTHER THAN A ILOR HAS BEEN SENT.

THE AMERICAN REPORT MAKES IT CLEAR, AS DID THE GUARDIAN YESTERDAY, THAT THE IMMINENT ARRESTS OF THE SUSPECTED BURGLARS CAME FROM A FAMILY SPOKESPERSON.

by tiny 14.01.14 14:21

Aoife wrote:
tiny wrote:He should be taken in and questioned ,this is about a 3 yr old child,what he has said is not the truth,and should be made to explain why he said it.
I am afraid that that is not how it works for Free Speech in a democracy. You need to be suspected of breaking a law before you can be taken in for questioning. "Not speaking the truth" is not a criminal offense.

I sure he has broken the law many a time,have no fear on that.

by Aoife 14.01.14 14:25

russiandoll wrote:
Aoife wrote:Devil's advocate here- what if burglars entered the apartment and accidentally seriously harmed Madeleine in some way, panicked and left and concealed her body later.

Burglars do encounter children and panic:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/children-assaulted-and-locked-in-bathroom-during-home-raid-29912913.html

Could the MET be thinking along these lines- they must have some reason for identifying the three burglars.

and we are off again, THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE MET THAT 3 BURGLARS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. THIS WAS ACCORDING TO KAY BURLEY INFORMATION FROM " SKY " SOURCES.

AOIFE PLEASE GIVE ME A LINK TO A SOURCE FROM THE MET SAYING ANYTHING OTHER THAN A ILOR HAS BEEN SENT.

THE AMERICAN REPORT MAKES IT CLEAR, AS DID THE GUARDIAN YESTERDAY, THAT THE IMMINENT ARRESTS OF THE SUSPECTED BURGLARS CAME FROM A FAMILY SPOKESPERSON.

The MET has not said that the current ILOR is about the burglars. They have merely confirmed that an ILOR has been sent.

The MET has said that they are investigating burglars and have identified some (three) people who may have been burglars using mobile phones.

I have not stated that the ILOR is about the burglars at any time.

That aside, as I have said above, "Could the MET be thinking along these lines- they must have some reason for identifying the three burglars." (Note- no reference to the ILOR, merely to a previously announced expression of interest.

by Aoife 14.01.14 14:26

tiny wrote:
Aoife wrote:
tiny wrote:He should be taken in and questioned ,this is about a 3 yr old child,what he has said is not the truth,and should be made to explain why he said it.
I am afraid that that is not how it works for Free Speech in a democracy. You need to be suspected of breaking a law before you can be taken in for questioning. "Not speaking the truth" is not a criminal offense.

I sure he has broken the law many a time,have no fear on that.

Then it seems strange that the police have not investigated and arrested him if his law breaking is so prolific. Is your statement a tad libellous?

by russiandoll 14.01.14 14:29

aoife please provide a link to this claim of yours, it is the latter part I have an issue with.

The MET has said that they are investigating burglars and have identified some (three) people who may have been burglars using mobile phones.

I would also be interested to hear how the scenario you suggested might have unfolded

3 year old disturbs burglars

is seriously hurt accidentally

removed [ still alive?]

how removed?

where to?
died when?
disposed of when?

by Bishop Brennan 14.01.14 14:31

Deleted. User error from me. Dunce's corner. big grin

by ulyssesoh 14.01.14 14:33

I think the thread has been pretty much derailed, but it's worth saying that Google results are totally irrelevant here. The world is a big and strange enough place that pretty much anything that [i]could[/i] happen has happened. A few examples:

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325553/Baggy-trousered-burglar-caught-pants-man-house-raiding.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325553/Baggy-trousered-burglar-caught-pants-man-house-raiding.html[/url]

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2444738/Granddaughter-catches-burglar-Facebook-post.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2444738/Granddaughter-catches-burglar-Facebook-post.html[/url]

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10448939/Burglar-left-creepy-selfie-on-victims-mobile-phone.html]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10448939/Burglar-left-creepy-selfie-on-victims-mobile-phone.html[/url]

What's relevant is: what percentage of burglaries involve in incidental child abduction. Answer: basically none.

by tiny 14.01.14 14:33

Aoife wrote:
tiny wrote:
Aoife wrote:
tiny wrote:He should be taken in and questioned ,this is about a 3 yr old child,what he has said is not the truth,and should be made to explain why he said it.
I am afraid that that is not how it works for Free Speech in a democracy. You need to be suspected of breaking a law before you can be taken in for questioning. "Not speaking the truth" is not a criminal offense.

I sure he has broken the law many a time,have no fear on that.
Then it seems strange that the police have not investigated and arrested him if his law breaking is so prolific. Is your statement a tad libellous?

Are you for real,how is that libellous,you know as well as I do that he has perverted the course of justice with his lies

by **PeterMac** 14.01.14 14:34

Aoife wrote:
tiny wrote:He should be taken in and questioned ,this is about a 3 yr old child,what he has said is not the truth,and should be made to explain why he said it.
I am afraid that that is not how it works for Free Speech in a democracy. You need to be suspected of breaking a law before you can be taken in for questioning. "Not speaking the truth" is not a criminal offense.

Perhaps not in the simple sense, but there is a specific and extremely serious offence of "Perverting the Course of Justice" and its accompanying "Conspiracy" if committed with someone else.
"Fabricating or disposing of evidence" may be the one applicable to what Mitchell has said over the years.
He has never said he was speaking FOR the McCanns,
He always gave, and gives the impression, and clearly intends it to be understood
that he has all the facts at his disposal.
It therefore it turns out that he was making things up, he is in great peril of being charged with perverting, or obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.

by tiny 14.01.14 14:36

This a troll to far,sheesh

by Aoife 14.01.14 14:39

russiandoll wrote:aoife please provide a link to this claim of yours, it is the latter part I have an issue with.

The MET has said that they are investigating burglars and have identified some (three) people who may have been burglars using mobile phones.

I would also be interested to hear how the scenario you suggested might have unfolded

3 year old disturbs burglars

is seriously hurt accidentally

removed [ still alive?]

how removed?

where to?
died when?
disposed of when?

I have no idea. I merely wondered if the MET were thinking along these lines.

by Aoife 14.01.14 14:40

PeterMac wrote:
Aoife wrote:
tiny wrote:He should be taken in and questioned ,this is about a 3 yr old child,what he has said is not the truth,and should be made to explain why he said it.
I am afraid that that is not how it works for Free Speech in a democracy. You need to be suspected of breaking a law before you can be taken in for questioning. "Not speaking the truth" is not a criminal offense.
Perhaps not in the simple sense, but there is a specific and extremely serious offence of "Perverting the Course of Justice" and its accompanying "Conspiracy" if committed with someone else.
"Fabricating or disposing of evidence" may be the one applicable to what Mitchell has said over the years.
He has never said he was speaking FOR the McCanns,
He always gave, and gives the impression, and clearly intends it to be understood
that he has all the facts at his disposal.
It therefore it turns out that he was making things up, he is in great peril of being charged with perverting, or obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.

Then investigate and charge.

by Guest 14.01.14 14:42

I think we have all heard enough from Aoife, time to go now!! byebye

by Bishop Brennan 14.01.14 14:44

A useful statistic from the FBI website:

"In 2009, there were an estimated 2,199,125 burglaries" (in the USA)

Putting that figure against a google search with a handful of cases going back to 1874 suggests that MWS' statement seem pretty accurate. Doesn't make it statistically impossible that the 3 burglars broke in, were disturbed, took nothing of value, and carried Maddie off (leaving no traces of entrance, exit or even being there at all). But you wouldn't want to bet any money on it...!

If that's the best that the devil's advocate can come up with, then he may need a new lawyer...

Personally, I think the idea that they may have seen something very unsettling and that was the cause of the phone calls has far more logical merit. Certainly worth a flutter.

Log in for more topics