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

by ultimaThule 15.01.14 1:45

Good move, candyfloss.. another one who's now over the hill and far away yes

by russiandoll 15.01.14 1:49

the name linked to the Smith sighting was a good move though, eh ? winkwink

by ultimaThule 15.01.14 1:56

It certainly seems as if someone's seen something unsettling in SY's further request to the PJ, Bishop.

I wonder if any previous use of the PAYG phones that were delivered to the police station for the use of G&K & DP has been detected in the scrutiny of records undertaken by SY and, if so, whether any such activity was observed to have taken place during the period of GM and RM's 'radio silence' which has been the subject of some comment on this forum?

by jeanmonroe 15.01.14 1:57

Aoife:
"Yes. Devil's Advocate. I have a 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."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously the MET don't use your 'method'

They have a set in stone 'investigation' and it is in their remit ...."to examine the case and seek to determine, 'AS IF THE ABDUCTION OCCURRED IN THE UK"

That's it!

The ONLY possible 'conclusion' they are considering!

I think that certain people have been 'transferred off' Operation Grange for daring to deviate from the ONE and ONLY 'official' line!

Despite Mr McCann asking people "what OTHER explanations can there be, as to how 'she' ( her name is Madeleine, Gerry) is not here"?

There will be no group-think relating to Madeleine at the MET.

Their 'remit' is ONLY, to the total dissmissal of 'other' explanations, despite Mr McCann, the father of the 'missing' child, asking for 'other' explanations,, ABDUCTION!, ABDUCTION!, ABDUCTION!

Because that is what they were TOLD only by the parents of a mysteriously vanished child.

by macdonut 15.01.14 2:03

candyfloss wrote:I think we have all heard enough from Aoife, time to go now!!

Did you really ban Aoife? At risk of copping a ban myself, I think that was totally unwarranted. He (or she) was giving his opinion and doing so in a non-abusive way. He had some odd views that probably couldn't be substantiated but I've seen tons of that on here. If you disagree with what's being said, argue or ignore, but it's not right to ban someone for an opposing viewpoint.

I'm not related to Aoife! big grin

by jeanmonroe 15.01.14 2:09

Bishop Brennan wrote:
"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."
---------------------------------------------------
You mean a bit like:

burglar x to burglar y " Shiittt, there's a small child lying behind the sofa, with blood around her head"

burglar y to burglar x "get the f**k out of there right NOW!"

A short time 'later'

Burglar y "WTF was that all about?"

burglar x "looked like she was dead"

burglar y "phone z, NOW!"

etc, etc.

by ulyssesoh 15.01.14 2:11

Totally justified in my view. This was a total thread derail as has been seen from him/her elsewhere. Posting link after link is not stating opinion.

by Guest 15.01.14 2:14

macdonut wrote:
candyfloss wrote:I think we have all heard enough from Aoife, time to go now!!

Did you really ban Aoife? At risk of copping a ban myself, I think that was totally unwarranted. He (or she) was giving his opinion and doing so in a non-abusive way. He had some odd views that probably couldn't be substantiated but I've seen tons of that on here. If you disagree with what's being said, argue or ignore, but it's not right to ban someone for an opposing viewpoint.

I'm not related to Aoife!

3 posts since January 2011 including this one sticking up for Aoife? eyebrows

by mysterion 15.01.14 2:14

For the record, OED says: BURGLARY - Illegal entry into building to commit theft or other crime.

So technically, a person or persons who abducts someone from a holiday apartment are firstly commiting the crime of burglary.

by ultimaThule 15.01.14 2:15

macdonut wrote:
candyfloss wrote:I think we have all heard enough from Aoife, time to go now!!

Did you really ban Aoife? At risk of copping a ban myself, I think that was totally unwarranted. He (or she) was giving his opinion and doing so in a non-abusive way. He had some odd views that probably couldn't be substantiated but I've seen tons of that on here. If you disagree with what's being said, argue or ignore, but it's not right to ban someone for an opposing viewpoint.

I'm not related to Aoife!

Perhaps you haven't noticed that this isn't the first occasion on which Aoife has derailed a thread, macdonut.

by macdonut 15.01.14 2:25

candyfloss wrote:
macdonut wrote:
candyfloss wrote:I think we have all heard enough from Aoife, time to go now!!

Did you really ban Aoife? At risk of copping a ban myself, I think that was totally unwarranted. He (or she) was giving his opinion and doing so in a non-abusive way. He had some odd views that probably couldn't be substantiated but I've seen tons of that on here. If you disagree with what's being said, argue or ignore, but it's not right to ban someone for an opposing viewpoint.

I'm not related to Aoife!

3 posts since January 2011 including this one sticking up for Aoife?

I'm not going to derail this thread any longer myself. I have no connection with Aoife! I have 3 posts because quite simply, I have never had anything to add to any discussion, probably like many people who visit. The debate on here is fantastic and Aoife has had quite a few valid points. I know he/she is a pain in the backside but banning felt a bit trigger happy to me, that's all.

EDIT: Given my post count and lack of contribution on here... I probably should have kept my trap shut... sorry!

by jeanmonroe 15.01.14 2:27

What was the name of the Smith's daughter that saw 'smithman'?

Aoife Smith, i believe.

Probably purely 'coincidental' to 'our' Aoife.

by Okeydokey 15.01.14 2:30

"Two of the burglaries took place in April 2007 in the apartment block where the McCann family was staying"

Has this ever been confirmed by a reliable source/in the PJ files?

by tiny 15.01.14 2:33

macdonut wrote:
candyfloss wrote:I think we have all heard enough from Aoife, time to go now!!

Did you really ban Aoife? At risk of copping a ban myself, I think that was totally unwarranted. He (or she) was giving his opinion and doing so in a non-abusive way. He had some odd views that probably couldn't be substantiated but I've seen tons of that on here. If you disagree with what's being said, argue or ignore, but it's not right to ban someone for an opposing viewpoint.

I'm not related to Aoife!

Im sure you will be able to find her on another forum McCann arrests not 'major breakthrough,' experts says - Page 4 Icon_wink

by Guest 15.01.14 3:00

ultimaThule wrote:
I wonder if any previous use of the PAYG phones that were delivered to the police station for the use of G&K & DP has been detected in the scrutiny of records undertaken by SY and, if so, whether any such activity was observed to have taken place during the period of GM and RM's 'radio silence' which has been the subject of some comment on this forum?

That is my view on it UT.

Of course there's always the possibility that some of the T9 had a bit of a sideline in petty theft.

by plebgate 15.01.14 3:06

As has been said before, money being made by a lot of people since Maddie disappeared. What's the going rate for an interview these days I wonder?

I still wonder whether Mr. & Mrs. get paid or have been paid in the past for any interviews that give/gave?

I do wish people would not play devils advocate - just another way of going off topic and no-one is fooled by it all. Dreary and boring imo.

by MissesWillYa 15.01.14 4:07

Arrests are being called "imminent" in the US too. I was watching the Today Show (NBC) a little while ago when they reported. This video is different from the one they showed in the segment I watched, but I'm almost positive the anchors I was watching called it "a major breakthrough" in the case. They also went on and on about how wonderful it would be for the family to have answers, how much they've suffered, and on and on.

I don't know how to post a video but I think this link will go to one of the Today Show's reports from this morning.

http://www.today.com/video/today/54065760#54065760

by watendlath 15.01.14 4:22

dantezebu wrote:
Aoife wrote:
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?

Devil's Advocate again- to remove any DNA evidence on the body. (I do not believe this happened, but I do believe in not shutting doors without due cause.)

Lucky the intruders remembered to shut the doors, and child safety gates on their way out..

Not only on the way out, but also on the way in.

Since it's highly unlikely that the children's bedroom window was the point of entry, then the most obvious way in for any intruder, burglar or otherwise, was through the patio doors.

And unless there were 2 break-ins at 5a that night, then the 'burglar(s)' must have got in before Gerry made his check at 9 o' clock when he says he noticed that Madeleine's bedroom door was slightly more open than they left it.

But he noticed that both gates were closed.

From the timeline given to the PJ 10th May:

2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked.

The door is slightly ajar (about 45 degrees) which is unusual. All the 3 children were present and asleep.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html

The same argument would apply to any sort of intruder, (unless he had a key to the front door and got in that way.)

by nglfi 15.01.14 5:34

Let's not forget that at no point did the McCanns ever mention to the PJ at the time that they thought they had been burgled. Flat immaculate, nothing of value taken, nothing disturbed or moved, and all the parents keep screaming is paedophile. I have actually been burgled once before, and the very first thing you notice when you enter your home/holiday flat is that things are not how you left them. Your property is strewn around. Burglars are not tidy people. But no, parents noticed nothing until they realised Maddie was gone.

by Mirage 15.01.14 5:48

nglfi wrote:Let's not forget that at no point did the McCanns ever mention to the PJ at the time that they thought they had been burgled. Flat immaculate, nothing of value taken, nothing disturbed or moved, and all the parents keep screaming is paedophile. I have actually been burgled once before, and the very first thing you notice when you enter your home/holiday flat is that things are not how you left them. Your property is strewn around. Burglars are not tidy people. But no, parents noticed nothing until they realised Maddie was gone.

Good point nglfi. Comes as a welcome relief after a catch up read of this thread, which at times, felt like wading through treacle in lead boots.

by bobby18 15.01.14 5:49

[quote="MissesWillYa"]Arrests are being called "imminent" in the US too. I was watching the Today Show (NBC) a little while ago when they reported. This video is different from the one they showed in the segment I watched, but I'm almost positive the anchors I was watching called it "a major breakthrough" in the case. They also went on and on about how wonderful it would be for the family to have answers, how much they've suffered

The global perceived 'suffering' of the McCann's is why the PJ cannot be seen to have any lead in the conclusion of this case - their credibility is screwed amongst the masses and, especially within the MSM who feed info to them.

Terribly unjust and I fully understand where it angers many if not all posters on this forum - but we are where we are and have to deal with the cards currently dealt. In that regard, I cannot see anything being widely reported other than SY are leading the case, when in reality the PJ will be driving it or at least having a VERY significant role.

Restoration of their reputation will come when the case is reportedly solved by SY to the wider public, with the conclusion being the same as the PJ's (and Mr Amaral's) original findings for which they have received so much vitriol.

I live in hope.

by bobby18 15.01.14 5:52

MissesWillYa - sorry for posting in your quote box. Computer issues!

by MissesWillYa 15.01.14 6:52

bobby18 wrote:MissesWillYa - sorry for posting in your quote box. Computer issues!

No worries, Bobby18. smilie

I totally agree with what you said. I live in the US and I have yet to encounter a person who doesn't see them as victims. The mainstream media seems to portray them that way as rule here. I was a big believer myself until I started reading different information in forums like this one. It really made me think more critically about the whole situation. But if I'd only been exposed to their story in the MSM, I doubt I'd have formed any other opinions or ideas.

One thing I've never understood is how they keep the sympathy going, but I suppose it just comes down to good PR. Or good acting, I don't know. In thinking about the parents in high-profile "missing child(ren)" cases in the US, such as Casey Anthony and Susan Smith (a white woman who let her car roll into a lake with her kids in it and then claimed they'd been kidnapped by a black carjacker, touching off racial tensions in some places), it was like we knew from the outset that something was off. I don't remember ANYONE in my circle of friends and family thinking for a moment that these women were believable but all of those same people will tell you they feel terrible for the poor McCanns.

I live in hope myself. I check here every day for the big break and I'm glad to be among thinking people here.

by bobby18 15.01.14 7:04

MissesWillYa wrote:
bobby18 wrote:MissesWillYa - sorry for posting in your quote box. Computer issues!

No worries, Bobby18.

I totally agree with what you said. I live in the US and I have yet to encounter a person who doesn't see them as victims. The mainstream media seems to portray them that way as rule here. I was a big believer myself until I started reading different information in forums like this one. It really made me think more critically about the whole situation. But if I'd only been exposed to their story in the MSM, I doubt I'd have formed any other opinions or ideas.

One thing I've never understood is how they keep the sympathy going, but I suppose it just comes down to good PR. Or good acting, I don't know. In thinking about the parents in high-profile "missing child(ren)" cases in the US, such as Casey Anthony and Susan Smith (a white woman who let her car roll into a lake with her kids in it and then claimed they'd been kidnapped by a black carjacker, touching off racial tensions in some places), it was like we knew from the outset that something was off. I don't remember ANYONE in my circle of friends and family thinking for a moment that these women were believable but all of those same people will tell you they feel terrible for the poor McCanns.

I live in hope myself. I check here every day for the big break and I'm glad to be among thinking people here.

Good to get an insight within other countries from UK - unfathomable, isn't it?

I admit I struggle to stomach every media appearance, but when you see them on talk shows being introduced to rapturous appliance, I do wonder if I have entered the twilight zone. These people continually left their kids unattended on holiday and OPEN to child abduction (not of course that it occurred) - unbelievable.

by MissesWillYa 15.01.14 7:09

nglfi wrote:Let's not forget that at no point did the McCanns ever mention to the PJ at the time that they thought they had been burgled. Flat immaculate, nothing of value taken, nothing disturbed or moved, and all the parents keep screaming is paedophile. I have actually been burgled once before, and the very first thing you notice when you enter your home/holiday flat is that things are not how you left them. Your property is strewn around. Burglars are not tidy people. But no, parents noticed nothing until they realised Maddie was gone.

That's a really good point. I'm also still trying to get my head around the complete leap being made between petty burgling of holiday flats, where they might walk off with a wallet or a little jewelry...and kidnapping, pedophilia, international human trafficking, concealing a young child for the better part of a decade, and everything else these bumbling crooks were supposed to have done.

Log in for more topics