The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

help needed

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: help needed

Post by tigger on 06.02.14 15:57

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/5sep7/13-09-07-express1-Find-the-body-and-prove-we-killed-her.jpg

There's an image there of the headline. It's not a litt. quote. As usual it was filtered through 'a family member' I believe.

It may have been because their British lawyers had advised them that there could be no case without a body.

From Textusa:

This is what was said in the RTP1 News on September 12th, 2007:

JAC: "... opening the news, a quote from a friend of the family conveying the intent of the McCann couple, which basically says this: "Find the body and prove we killed her"... what explanations are being given to this phrase said in such a way?”

SF: "The Daily Mail who was who put forward this information says it knows that the McCanns' lawyers, Michael Caplan and Angus McBride, have already told them that without the body it will be very difficult for the PJ to prove that they are behind a crime of murder and of concealment of a corpse, but it should be referred to our viewers that it’s precisely today that Joana disappeared three years ago and that Joana's mother and Joana’s uncle were condemned to the maximum sentence by the Portuguese Justice for a crime that it was proved they committed but that the body never appeared, that meaning, if the McCanns' lawyers told them that then surely they’re not aware of the historical developments of court cases in Portugal namely this Joana one…”

The quoted Daily Mail seems to confirm that the McCanns lawyers were convinced that if there was no body, there was no case and that they had indeed advised the couple accordingly:

“Yesterday it emerged that lawyers in Britain acting for the McCanns have advised them the Portuguese authorities will struggle to press charges that stick.

A close friend said: "The legitimate question to ask Portuguese police is: 'Where is the body? Where's the evidence that Madeleine is dead?'."

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: help needed

Post by diatribe on 06.02.14 16:04

tigger wrote:

It may have been because their British lawyers had advised them that there could be no case without a body.






Perhaps, like Haig the Acid Bath killer, they were getting confused over the literal meaning of 'Corpus Delicti.'

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: help needed

Post by suep on 07.02.14 5:07

tigger wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
tigger wrote:@Suep

Had that been the case there would have been no need for Payne to lie about seeing the children.
Your theory also doesn't explain the telephone traffic that week, the Murat connection and a host of other events. and most of all doesn't explain the two photos, photoshopped and printed  in the intervening two hours.
All this is based on is someone saying they heard a scream. Imo the accident theory on the night of the 3rd won't fly, although it is much beloved by apologists for the McCanns.

Oh yes, I probably should have mentioned that if you don't go with the "death before the 3rd" theory, somebody - usually one of a few people - will pop up and accuse you of being an "apologist for the McCanns".

tigger wrote:
Salcedas first says that he heard a scream from a woman he did not know. If they'd been at the Tapas every night how come he didn't know Kate?

Or maybe, just maybe, Salcedas was not an expert at identifying people purely from their screams.

He did identify the woman as one he did not know, presumably he would have known the screams of women he did know.
He also doesn't say whether he saw the woman at the time. It's a peculiar statement.

I do indeed not believe in the accident on the night and sudden discovery and incredibly fast worked plan, whether it started at 9.30 or 10.00 pm, they had about 70 minutes or 40 minutes before the police was contacted. After that all bets were off for how soon would the police arrive? Could be anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes. The latter being the case.
Salcedas also talks about having joked with DW about them all leaving her alone. Iirc the tennis coach gave the same account of having joked about this with DW.

If you can explain the ready-to-go photographs on the night to start of with - factor in the Smiths sighting and fit in  ALL the witness statements from that evening I'd be very interested.

I did not accuse Suep (why are you answering for her?) of being an apologist, having read the files about twenty times over, I gave my reasons for doubting her theory. I added a simple statement of fact about apologists, you may not agree.
As I addressed my post to Suep, I shall wait to hear her answer first-hand.

Oh dear, I seem to have inadvertently caused an argument!
I understand where you're coming from, tigger, and perhaps I should have made it clearer that what I was putting forward was merely a hypothesis and certainly not a theory at all. Salcedas' statement puzzled me as did the other statements that seemed to put the disappearance quite a bit earlier in the evening than the McCanns wanted everyone to believe. In a way I was thinking out loud (or whatever the equivalent of that would be when posting on a forum!) and trying to imagine what that scream might mean. You were right to point out, tigger, that my hypothesis didn't account for so many of the other facts of the case, and you're also right when you say that had they discovered Madeleine fatally injured at that late point in the evening they would have had very little time to fake an abduction and deal with her body.
In the end I have to reject my hypothesis as I've had to reject so many others I've played around with. As usual I'm left with only one certainty and that is that whatever else happened that week in PdL it didn't end up with a little girl being abducted, and I'm back to reading the files and scratching my head.


suep

Posts : 161
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-12-12

Back to top Go down

Re: help needed

Post by tigger on 07.02.14 8:46

@suep
Thanks.  As I said in earlier posts, I was answering your post, so it did get a bit confusing but that's hardly your fault.
You did not cause an argument at all. Perfectly entitled to voice your theory and opinions, this forum has been created for that very purpose.  
Different opinions and interpretations can only help getting to the truth. i'd hate anyone to think they have to change their opinion because I don't agree with it.  Just because I've got many posts to my name doesn't mean I'm right.
I simply supplied my reasons why I disagree.  I've often changed my mind when other members supplied  evidence which didn't fit my ideas.
 roses

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: help needed

Post by suep on 08.02.14 5:52

Thanks, tigger. One of the main reasons I've kept coming back to this forum is the way that long standing members welcome debate from newer arrivals, treat them with respect and are willing to share their knowledge. There's so much material around now on the internet, so many myths and so much misinformation not to mention the people whose only aim seems to be disrupting any attempts to get at the truth.

suep

Posts : 161
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-12-12

Back to top Go down

Re: help needed

Post by lj on 08.02.14 14:38

tiny wrote:From Silvia Batiste 3rd statement. 26 July 2007  

  soon after the PJ officers
arrived, the parents took the twins from their beds where they were sleeping, taking them up to the
apartment on the first floor.

so pennington was wrong .

Or she was just being poetically creative, like everyone else.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
lj

Posts : 3322
Reputation : 196
Join date : 2009-12-01

Back to top Go down

Re: help needed

Post by Guest on 08.02.14 15:50

I've always lived under the impression, that the cots with the twins in it were hurriedly staged.
They had no bedding and one of them [the left] is not properly mounted.

IIRC there's also Russel O'B saying that Pennington looked after the Payne's children [or the children in Payne's apartment?]. I'll see if I can find that quote [probably from rogatories].

ETA
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

“I recall that Charlotte PENNINGTON who was a nanny at Mark Warner was also sat on the bus- I believe that she looked after Fiona and Dave’s kids.”

“the first three paragraphs are fine. I think, I suppose, the only comment is, when I’m talking about Charlotte PENNINGTON in the fifth paragraph, erm, I said that she, ‘I believe she looked after Dave and Fiona’s kids’, then, then there’s a separate, a sort of a separate sentence there.”
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum