The Times article 19 May 2014 mentions 'her murder'

utahagen wrote:Mirage posted: "Looking at the activity/or lack of activity over recent days for clues/mood..."
 
 
Great list, Mirage.
 
Here's why I am optimistic that the noose is tightening around the McCanns: if they were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance, or if they were involved but believe the fix is in to protect them, why have they seemed more frightened during the past two months than they did during the weeks after Madeleine disappeared? In interviews, they are less combative, less sure of themselves, more serious, and more on edge than I've ever seen them be. What tipped me off early on that the McCanns were lying is that they neever seemed FRIGHTENED during the days and weeks after Madeleine disappeared. They sometimes seemed serious and sad, but to me they never appeared frightened. So, why do they seem frightened now? Their defenders would assert that the McCanns are now reasonably afraid Madeleine will be found dead. But why would they think that now, after seven years of insisting she's alive? And even if they just now are grappling with the possibility/likelihood Madeleine is dead, why would they seem frightened instead of simply filled with dread? Given the many things you noted, including their wacky post about wanting the media to stop interfering, it's hard to believe these two are confident they either did nothing wrong or have got away with doing something wrong. They strike me as people who know that time is running out on them.

della70 wrote:

utahagen wrote:Mirage posted: "Looking at the activity/or lack of activity over recent days for clues/mood..."
 
 
Great list, Mirage.
 
Here's why I am optimistic that the noose is tightening around the McCanns: if they were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance, or if they were involved but believe the fix is in to protect them, why have they seemed more frightened during the past two months than they did during the weeks after Madeleine disappeared? In interviews, they are less combative, less sure of themselves, more serious, and more on edge than I've ever seen them be. What tipped me off early on that the McCanns were lying is that they neever seemed FRIGHTENED during the days and weeks after Madeleine disappeared. They sometimes seemed serious and sad, but to me they never appeared frightened. So, why do they seem frightened now? Their defenders would assert that the McCanns are now reasonably afraid Madeleine will be found dead. But why would they think that now, after seven years of insisting she's alive? And even if they just now are grappling with the possibility/likelihood Madeleine is dead, why would they seem frightened instead of simply filled with dread? Given the many things you noted, including their wacky post about wanting the media to stop interfering, it's hard to believe these two are confident they either did nothing wrong or have got away with doing something wrong. They strike me as people who know that time is running out on them.

Didn't they say something along the line of not being niave in believing she was alife

Tavares de Almeida - author of the interim report - Quick reminder

Conclusions:
From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;
From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

The Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes
and
The Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes
authors of the archiving report. Quick Reminder

viii - Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

PeterMac wrote:Since various people will be tracking this thread here it is again

Tavares de Almeida - author of the interim report - Quick reminder

Conclusions:
From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;
From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

The Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes
and
The Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes
authors of the archiving report. Quick Reminder

viii - Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

Newintown wrote:
Thanks PeterMac.  I've now saved your post for future reference (and for friends who are sitting on the fence). I keep referring to it but can never find it when I need to refer to it.    

PeterMac wrote:

Newintown wrote:
Thanks PeterMac.  I've now saved your post for future reference (and for friends who are sitting on the fence). I keep referring to it but can never find it when I need to refer to it.    

And remember
1  They are not my words.   These are the words from the two most important official documents, pored over and worked on, re-phrased and re-written, so that there can be no misunderstanding at any time in the future what they meant, or were intended to mean.  They are in the public domain and every person interested in the case should read them both.  Frequently

2  I am allowed to post them, as is every other person on the planet - with the exception of one Old Aged Pensioner who would be sent to prison for 3 months if he did so, on the complaint of the True Catholic, all forgiving, McCanns !

Funny Old World isn't it.

Newintown wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Newintown wrote:
Thanks PeterMac.  I've now saved your post for future reference (and for friends who are sitting on the fence). I keep referring to it but can never find it when I need to refer to it.    

And remember
1  They are not my words.   These are the words from the two most important official documents, pored over and worked on, re-phrased and re-written, so that there can be no misunderstanding at any time in the future what they meant, or were intended to mean.  They are in the public domain and every person interested in the case should read them both.  Frequently

2  I am allowed to post them, as is every other person on the planet - with the exception of one Old Aged Pensioner who would be sent to prison for 3 months if he did so, on the complaint of the True Catholic, all forgiving, McCanns !

Funny Old World isn't it.

Only true Catholics when it suits them to be.   

ETA: Referring to the McCanns of course.

aquila wrote:

Newintown wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Newintown wrote:
Thanks PeterMac.  I've now saved your post for future reference (and for friends who are sitting on the fence). I keep referring to it but can never find it when I need to refer to it.    

And remember
1  They are not my words.   These are the words from the two most important official documents, pored over and worked on, re-phrased and re-written, so that there can be no misunderstanding at any time in the future what they meant, or were intended to mean.  They are in the public domain and every person interested in the case should read them both.  Frequently

2  I am allowed to post them, as is every other person on the planet - with the exception of one Old Aged Pensioner who would be sent to prison for 3 months if he did so, on the complaint of the True Catholic, all forgiving, McCanns !

Funny Old World isn't it.

Only true Catholics when it suits them to be.   

ETA: Referring to the McCanns of course.

Had an audience with the Pope after having had children by IVF.

The catholic religion isn't "pick'n'mix" is it?

Ribisl wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's still there. So it appears the McCanns' libelling days are clearly over.

Tony Bennett wrote:
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

margaret wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

But if they do that it will bring the blood and cadaver dog evidence to the fore.  

How are SY going to explain the fact of all the cadaver dog alerts were on items relating to the Mccanns? Then tell us they weren't to blame?

Most people remember the headline of maddies body in the boot of the Mccanns hire car, do you think believe will believe the abductor hired that very car to dispose of maddies body weeks later?

People aren't stupid, the Mccanns have very little support as it is a dead Maddie is a nightmare for them.

Ribisl wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's still there. So it appears the McCanns' libelling days are clearly over.

margaret wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

But if they do that it will bring the blood and cadaver dog evidence to the fore.  

How are SY going to explain the fact of all the cadaver dog alerts were on items relating to the Mccanns? Then tell us they weren't to blame?

Most people remember the headline of maddies body in the boot of the Mccanns hire car, do you think believe will believe the abductor hired that very car to dispose of maddies body weeks later?

People aren't stupid, the Mccanns have very little support as it is a dead Maddie is a nightmare for them.

Mirage wrote:

Just one small point, there was a distinct mark under KH's right eye on the day of the 10k.

AndyB wrote:

noddy100 wrote:This article is also about historical 'sex cases' not missing children
Gaspar?

Its about historical cases in general not specifically historic child sex abuse and I think we need to be careful not to read too much into the two other examples quoted. Having said that, I do find it intriguing that the Madeleine "murder" is listed between Pallial and Yewtree, both of which are historic child abuse investigations

noddy100 wrote:

Gollum wrote:

ChippyM wrote:I think it may be significant that this story is 'pay per view'. Maybe journalists are just itching to print the word 'murder' in relation to this case based on what sources have told them. They might be testing the waters by putting it behind a paywall.

  Of course the alternative view is that with recent news of digging, someone has presumed this case is a murder.

I don't think so chippyM.  You subscribe to read the online version of the Times, it's as simple as that.  Instant viewing of the front page so to speak is only a taster probably to tempt you into subscribing, something the Sun is less forthcoming with but then who is likely to be tempted in that direction anyway? 

As for presuming a murder in this case, I think a number of on-lookers came to that view a long time ago.

This article is also about historical 'sex cases' not missing children
Gaspar?

Ribisl wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's still there. So it appears the McCanns' libelling days are clearly over.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:Does look a bit bruised to me.  The mark on her cheekbone isn't new though.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Monty Heck wrote:Perhaps the use of the term murder in this article is justified by the fact that it's a homicide team investigating this disappearance, rather than a journalistic breakthrough.  Given that the McCs themselves are now openly admitting M may no long be alive the danger of newspapers being sued for saying so must be much diminished, although there is still quite a large margin between "no longer alive" and "murder".

aquila wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:Perhaps the use of the term murder in this article is justified by the fact that it's a homicide team investigating this disappearance, rather than a journalistic breakthrough.  Given that the McCs themselves are now openly admitting M may no long be alive the danger of newspapers being sued for saying so must be much diminished, although there is still quite a large margin between "no longer alive" and "murder".

You can't excuse the word 'murder' imo.

It either has to be retracted or it stays in situ.

Monty Heck wrote:Perhaps the use of the term murder in this article is justified by the fact that it's a homicide team investigating this disappearance, rather than a journalistic breakthrough.  Given that the McCs themselves are now openly admitting M may no long be alive the danger of newspapers being sued for saying so must be much diminished, although there is still quite a large margin between "no longer alive" and "murder".

Edited to add:  KMcC seems to have quite pronounced under eye bags in some photos/footage, more pronounced on one side than the other, plus there is an existing blemish there also.  Highly unlikely she has a black eye.  Lookswise, there is now quite a contrast between fresh, almost radiant she appeared in PDL back in 2007, even allowing for the passage of a few years.