Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Madeleine McCann

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    keep your diary nonsense out of it. off topic.
    It was perfectly on topic in the context of RJ's post, in which he argued very cogently for the McCanns being innocent of the greater of two evils: causing their daughter harm versus not doing enough to keep her safe. He observed that there would surely have been a whistleblower after fifteen years from someone in their circle of friends and I agree with his reasoning. The once popular public perception of the McCanns as monsters is clearly not the private one ever held by those who actually knew the family when Madeleine went missing.

    If you can't see the relevance of the parallel when it comes to the Barretts, who have similarly not had a single whistleblower in thirty years from anyone who actually knew them, that's your prerogative.

    Back to Madeleine...

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
    The vultures turned up at Cliff Richard's home hoping for another lynching.
    I suspect they got 'criminal records' confused with 'a criminal record'.

    I'll get me coat...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunny Delight
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    It's correct that a GP from England offered up himself as possibly the person seen by Jane Tanner. (She described him as not the usual sort of tourist, whatever that meant.) The PJ were aware of that claim and are now being criticised a) for not following up the information with enough zeal and b) for searching around fruitlessly for a man who had already presented himself to them.

    I have no more inside information than anyone else on this site, but I doubt the PJ placed much reliability on the Tanner sighting. The fact that the GP thought it might be him, but was not certain, indicates that her description and location of him was at odds with what he recalled. If the PJ dismissed it as not germane to the inquiry then it appears they reached the correct decision.
    It is true that it is not absolutely certain that the man who stated he was the man seen by Tanner, was actually him. The McCanns themselves on their Web page find Madeleine still have this man as someone of interest. The MET declared they were almost certain the Tanner sighting was a red herring. But almost certain is not convlusive. I think they were sure however that the Tanner sighting could be discounted.

    The PJ from the beginning doubted the Tanner sighting. Then once they became convinced the McCanns had done it they felt it was a conspiracy and the Tanner sighting part of the whole charade. They had tunnel vision and discounted everything that didn't help their own theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    It's correct that a GP from England offered up himself as possibly the person seen by Jane Tanner. (She described him as not the usual sort of tourist, whatever that meant.) The PJ were aware of that claim and are now being criticised a) for not following up the information with enough zeal and b) for searching around fruitlessly for a man who had already presented himself to them.

    I have no more inside information than anyone else on this site, but I doubt the PJ placed much reliability on the Tanner sighting. The fact that the GP thought it might be him, but was not certain, indicates that her description and location of him was at odds with what he recalled. If the PJ dismissed it as not germane to the inquiry then it appears they reached the correct decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunny Delight
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    So far as shutters are concerned, I will rely on what the PJ established had happened in regard to these particular shutters; not what might have been possible with another set of shutters in a video.

    There was more than a scintilla of evidence gathered in respect of the McCanns. None of it was sufficient to bring charges against them, so they remain innocent.

    The person in the Jane Tanner sighting must have been one of the few people in the western world who was not aware of the high profile case of missing Madeleine McCann. That is if he ever actually did carry his daughter from a creche down the street.
    You are mistaken to rely on the PJ as has been demonstrated to you.

    No there was no real evidence against the McCanns. Cavidar is not evidence. The DNA was not evidence. They had absolutely nothing on them whatsoever.

    The person in the Jane Tanner sighting passed a questionnaire to the Leicestershire Police detailing their movements in 2008. The PJ didn't follow it up because by then they had convinced themselves the McCanns had done it.

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    So far as shutters are concerned, I will rely on what the PJ established had happened in regard to these particular shutters; not what might have been possible with another set of shutters in a video.

    There was more than a scintilla of evidence gathered in respect of the McCanns. None of it was sufficient to bring charges against them, so they remain innocent.

    The person in the Jane Tanner sighting must have been one of the few people in the western world who was not aware of the high profile case of missing Madeleine McCann. That is if he ever actually did carry his daughter from a creche down the street.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunny Delight
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    ''Despite everything being presented to you in regards the window and the fact it did open from outside you appear totally resistant to it. That is your perogative. No point going over old ground,'

    Old ground? are you serious? Even the McCanns abandoned the window theory once it was exposed as nonsense. The window did not open from the outside anymore than the sun revolves around the earth. The window was discounted as a means of entry from day one, hence the unlocked door backup from the Tapas group. Please keep up. Whether the window was capable of being 'jemmied' or the like without leaving evidence was irrelevant in this particular case since no forensic evidence was found to support this theory. It was a dead end which led to an uncomfortable line of enquiry.

    Which takes us back to the most likely line of enquiry when a child goes missing: the parents themselves. No fairy stories about phantom abductors; no fairy stories about paedophiles or a girl who waked and wandered; just the obvious.


    The shutters could be opened from the outside. Not the whole way but far enough so that if the window was open it could be slid across and by entering ones hand through the window manipulate the shutter controls to full open. I have already posted a video showing someone doing this. You are sticking to something proven to be erroneous. Why?

    Parents will always be prime suspects and Police procedure in that instance is to investigate them first. Everyone knows that. Not one scintilla of evidence was ever produced to suspect the McCanns. With hindsight it was clearly an overworked Police force under extreme pressure fixating on the parents when all other avenues had seemingly been exhausted. There was no thought that the PJ themselves had made a complete mess of the investigation. Such a mess in fact that they claimed DNA that didn't exist and lied to journalists about the nature of their evidence against the McCanns. For goodness sake they didn't even identify the man seen by Jane Tanner when all they had to do was fully investigate everyone whose child had been at the night creche that night, meaning of course for 5 years the man seen by Tanner was the prime suspect.

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    Old ground? are you serious? Even the McCanns abandoned the window theory once it was exposed as nonsense. The window did not open from the outside anymore than the sun revolves around the earth. The window was discounted as a means of entry from day one, hence the unlocked door backup from the Tapas group. Please keep up. Whether the window was capable of being 'jemmied' or the like without leaving evidence was irrelevant in this particular case since no forensic evidence was found to support this theory. It was a dead end which led to an uncomfortable line of enquiry.
    No Cobalt, what we actually have is shutters that could be opened from the outside which would leave no trace if done with gloved hands and a back door left unlocked, the latter clearly being stated by both McCanns in their statements of May 4th. That's what we have (to deal with). All the rest is interpretation according to personal sense of logic, experience, gut feeling and what not.

    Which takes us back to the most likely line of enquiry when a child goes missing: the parents themselves. No fairy stories about phantom abductors; no fairy stories about paedophiles or a girl who waked and wandered; just the obvious.
    Which is obvious only to your personal sense of logic, experience, gut feeling and what not. It certainly isn't the obvious. Had that been the case, then we wouldn't still be discussing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



    It is obvious that the parents had no opportunity to conceal and dispose of the body.
    i dont think they did, but they had over two hours opportunity to if they did.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    ''Despite everything being presented to you in regards the window and the fact it did open from outside you appear totally resistant to it. That is your perogative. No point going over old ground,'

    Old ground? are you serious? Even the McCanns abandoned the window theory once it was exposed as nonsense. The window did not open from the outside anymore than the sun revolves around the earth. The window was discounted as a means of entry from day one, hence the unlocked door backup from the Tapas group. Please keep up. Whether the window was capable of being 'jemmied' or the like without leaving evidence was irrelevant in this particular case since no forensic evidence was found to support this theory. It was a dead end which led to an uncomfortable line of enquiry.

    Which takes us back to the most likely line of enquiry when a child goes missing: the parents themselves. No fairy stories about phantom abductors; no fairy stories about paedophiles or a girl who waked and wandered; just the obvious.




    It is obvious that the parents had no opportunity to conceal and dispose of the body.

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied

    ''Despite everything being presented to you in regards the window and the fact it did open from outside you appear totally resistant to it. That is your perogative. No point going over old ground,'

    Old ground? are you serious? Even the McCanns abandoned the window theory once it was exposed as nonsense. The window did not open from the outside anymore than the sun revolves around the earth. The window was discounted as a means of entry from day one, hence the unlocked door backup from the Tapas group. Please keep up. Whether the window was capable of being 'jemmied' or the like without leaving evidence was irrelevant in this particular case since no forensic evidence was found to support this theory. It was a dead end which led to an uncomfortable line of enquiry.

    Which takes us back to the most likely line of enquiry when a child goes missing: the parents themselves. No fairy stories about phantom abductors; no fairy stories about paedophiles or a girl who waked and wandered; just the obvious.


    Leave a comment:


  • Sunny Delight
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    'it's hardly anything untoward that someone invited their mum on holidays.'

    In UK culture I would say it was unusual to do so. No other couple apart from the Paynes invited a parent to accompany them.

    'Again this is a point that is totally illogical suggesting all the children in one room.'

    It makes sense if the adults were organising their holiday around a drinking session at the Tapas bar every evening. The Paynes' apartment was bigger than the others.

    'That's certainly a new one. Madeleine died at the hands of one of their friends.'

    She may have died when in the company of an adult but I certainly never suggested that she died 'at their hands.'

    'Surely the most obvious scenario here is the one Kate described. Madeleine was missing from the apartment when she went to check at 10pm. The window and shutter was open and she ran back to the Tapas bar in a full blown panic screaming her daughter had been taken. Why is that so difficult to believe.​'

    Because neither the window nor the shutter were open when the police arrived. It was impossible to open the shutter from outside and illogical for any intruder to do so from inside. The bed Madeleine McCann normally slept in did not seem to have been slept in, and the first police to arrive suspected that the scene had been staged. The only forensic evidence that could be retrieved showed that no one had entered or exited through the window, therefore the PJ reached the conclusion that an attempt had been made to mislead them.
    It may be a little unusual but hardly anything to write home about.

    No it makes zero sense. It is illogical and I don't recall anyone, anywhere even suggesting it as a possibility before so far out is it. I suppose the McCanns lifted the twins from the Paynes at 10pm to stage the scene only to transfer them back a few hours later during the commotion.

    Ok thanks for clarifying. So what did this person do when confronted with the fact that Madeleine was dead? Because they faced the same issues that the McCanns would have faced if they had done it. Almost impossible to overcome.

    Despite everything being presented to you in regards the window and the fact it did open from outside you appear totally resistant to it. That is your perogative. No point going over old ground.






    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

    Surely the most obvious scenario here is the one Kate described. Madeleine was missing from the apartment when she went to check at 10pm. The window and shutter was open and she ran back to the Tapas bar in a full blown panic screaming her daughter had been taken. Why is that so difficult to believe.


    For the same reason that people found it hard to believe that Lindy Chamberlain saw a dingo take her child and that Herbert Wallace innocently found his wife dead when he returned home one evening.

    There is a natural tendency to believe the worst about innocent people - and that includes Druitt, Lechmere and Kosminski - and to believe those in authority - including Goncarlo Amaral and Sir Robert Anderson - even when they are not telling the truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    'it's hardly anything untoward that someone invited their mum on holidays.'

    In UK culture I would say it was unusual to do so. No other couple apart from the Paynes invited a parent to accompany them.

    'Again this is a point that is totally illogical suggesting all the children in one room.'

    It makes sense if the adults were organising their holiday around a drinking session at the Tapas bar every evening. The Paynes' apartment was bigger than the others.

    'That's certainly a new one. Madeleine died at the hands of one of their friends.'

    She may have died when in the company of an adult but I certainly never suggested that she died 'at their hands.'

    'Surely the most obvious scenario here is the one Kate described. Madeleine was missing from the apartment when she went to check at 10pm. The window and shutter was open and she ran back to the Tapas bar in a full blown panic screaming her daughter had been taken. Why is that so difficult to believe.​'

    Because neither the window nor the shutter were open when the police arrived. It was impossible to open the shutter from outside and illogical for any intruder to do so from inside. The bed Madeleine McCann normally slept in did not seem to have been slept in, and the first police to arrive suspected that the scene had been staged. The only forensic evidence that could be retrieved showed that no one had entered or exited through the window, therefore the PJ reached the conclusion that an attempt had been made to mislead them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunny Delight
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    I take on board Caz's reluctance to be invited on a holiday to be detailed as permanent baby sitter. But very few few couples in their mid to late thirties would invite a mother along to be anything else. Why was the matronly character that was Diane Webster such an integral part of this holiday of younger couples, whose humour as recorded rarely seems to have risen above the level of puerile? Why was she there?

    The baby monitor for me is significant. Only the Payne family had such a device, which at present day prices can be had for around 30. So why did none of the other Tapas group invest in this reasonably cheap device? Could it be that all the children had been shepherded into one room and the monitor was judged sufficient? There may even have been an adult in the room as well, on a rota basis, with easy audio contact to the Tapas bar.

    The McCanns were very open about their child negligence and have ben lambasted for that naturally. But it may be they were actually guilty of no such thing, and that their daughter died when being supervised by another adult.
    What a bizarre notion. The grandmother was on holiday too, why would you pay for a holiday to be a babysitter? Of course maybe offering a night or two but come on it's hardly anything untoward that someone invited their mum on holidays. Or maybe she invited herself. Who knows? It's a completely irrelevant point anyways.

    Baby monitoring devices in 2007 were not completely reliable. Not like today's technology. One couple had a listening device. The others didn't and instead checked their respective rooms once the children were sleeping. Again this is a point that is totally illogical suggesting all the children in one room.

    That's certainly a new one. Madeleine died at the hands of one of their friends.

    Surely the most obvious scenario here is the one Kate described. Madeleine was missing from the apartment when she went to check at 10pm. The window and shutter was open and she ran back to the Tapas bar in a full blown panic screaming her daughter had been taken. Why is that so difficult to believe.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X