Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - by John Wheat 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - by John Wheat 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Robert St Devil 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (20 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (8 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (5 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Time after Time: Did JtR have a watch? - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #811  
Old 01-26-2017, 01:22 PM
Batman Batman is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,854
Default

Also did you know that the apartment wasn't sealed off as a crime scene until after another occupant had rented and stayed in the place?
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 01-29-2017, 03:55 PM
Hannibal Hayes Hannibal Hayes is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 42
Default

The car wasn't hired until 25 days after she went missing.

Therefore the scenario is that they killed her, kept her body somewhere where it wouldn't be found for 25 days, hired the car, went to retrieve the body, put it in the boot & then dumped her somewhere she'll never be found.

Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The DNA in the boot, in my opinion, can only be there from contamination.

Depends how much reliability you place on the dogs .......
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 01-31-2017, 09:22 AM
miss marple miss marple is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 764
Default

Breaking News, The McCanns have lost their libel case against Amarel.

Miss Marple
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 01-31-2017, 11:39 AM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miss marple View Post
Breaking News, The McCanns have lost their libel case against Amarel.

Miss Marple

Thanks Miss Marple.


Here it is:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/275015...ered-up-death/

The editorial seems a bit biased - referring to the book as "Amaral's hurtful book"
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 01-31-2017, 11:48 AM
miss marple miss marple is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 764
Default

Its in The Independent as well. Rather less biased.

Miss Marple
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 01-31-2017, 03:02 PM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miss marple View Post
Its in The Independent as well. Rather less biased.

Miss Marple
Thanks.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 02-01-2017, 06:26 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by louisa View Post
Imo the McCanns gave all three children sedatives. Maddie had told her mother that she had woken up the previous night and cried for her mum (Kate admits this on a YouTube interview) which leads me to believe the parents were out on the razzle the night before as well.

Sedatives were given to stop the children from getting out of bed and going AWOL. Maddie may have been given a little too much.

The twins - as we know - were in such a deep sleep that they did not wake up EVEN during all the chaos that later that night and the following morning and were carried from the apartment some time during the following day and they were STILL ASLEEP!
Hi Louisa, All,

I find it instructive that nobody has ever questioned Kate's freely volunteered 'admission' that Maddie had been crying for her the previous night and they had still left all three children alone again while dining out with their friends. Why would they question this? After all, it was such a dreadful thing for any mother to do, let alone admit. So why did she admit it? There has to be a reason. Maddie was in no position to give her mum away on this sad episode of neglect and Kate herself was not there when her little girl had supposedly been crying in vain for her. So what possible advantage did Kate see in saying anything at all about it? Did she think the brownie points for her refreshing honesty would make up for her 'horrible mother of the year' award?

It would be interesting to know if Kate made this strangely incriminating admission after the woman who was living in a neighbouring apartment claimed she heard a young child crying on the night before Maddie was reported missing. It would still beg the question why Kate offered this apparent confirmation - which she could only give by saying Maddie herself had told her about it the next morning. She could have pleaded ignorance and said the children were all sound asleep on their return.

Is it possible that Kate latched onto this witness account and used it to imply that Maddie must still have been alive and safe in her bed the night before, even if she was sobbing and distressed over mummy's (and presumably daddy's) absence? Did she consider this was preferable to any awkward questions that might subsequently arise about the last 100% reliable sighting of Maddie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Hayes View Post
If you are on holiday with a few other couples & don’t spend every moment with them, would you be able to say for definite when you last saw one of their children? If for example, she died a couple of days before she went missing, with a bit of manipulation, could they have got away with no-one asking where she was?
Hi HH,

This is a very good question. None of the witness accounts of seeing Maddie alive and well and enjoying her holiday after about the first two or three days appear to have been either 100% independent or 100% verifiable.

It would have seemed unthinkable in the immediate wake of a little girl's sudden disappearance, as reported by her mother, for anyone at the resort, whether they knew the family or not, to consider the possibility that she had already been gone for two or more days and nobody had noticed.

It would have been difficult for the casual holiday maker to swear they had seen Maddie and not some other little fair girl. In my experience - even as the parent of a pretty daughter who was blonde as a child - one doesn't make a habit of looking too openly or too long at pretty children in their summer outfits or beach attire. It's better not to take photos and not to pay any special attention to an individual child who is just minding their own business.

As for those who were holidaying with the McCanns, and the creche staff, there have been question marks from the outset over the reliability of their individual claimed sightings of Maddie right up until Kate reported her missing. The McCanns did not spend much time during the day with their friends, either as a family or individually. In fact I'm not sure how many times the McCanns were seen as a family of five after their arrival at the resort. It's almost like they went out of their way not to spend time together as a family. There are discrepancies between the claims made by the McCanns as to which parent signed the kids in or out of their respective creches on any particular day and which name actually appeared on the register for that day.

Was it always one or the other who dropped them off or picked them up - never setting off all together from the apartment, never arriving at the first creche together and never returning to the apartment together? Their routine was for one to enter the apartment via the front door, the other via the patio door at the rear. Why? Anyone watching one parent and seeing only the twins, or seeing no children at all, would naturally have assumed Maddie was with the other parent.

Staging, I heard someone ask? The stage for a possible abduction was set - by accident or design - when the apartment was left unlocked on the evening Maddie was reported missing. Another sad episode of neglect to add to the one where Maddie had supposedly cried for her mum the night before. If that was true, she could have been woken by noises which frightened her and led to her calling out. Yet the apartment was left unlocked the very next night? Luckily the twins were not only left alone by Maddie's abductor, but slept so soundly they had no idea she was being taken. No whimpering roused them, no screaming for mummy. Did the twins sleep equally soundly the night before, so they never heard Maddie crying then either? Or did they sleep so soundly every night that they would not have known if she was there or not?

Were the twins busy playing in the creche one day when Maddie could have had a tantrum and refused to go to hers, resulting in parental loss of temper?

Who will ever really know?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 02-01-2017 at 06:36 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:15 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Louisa, All,

I find it instructive that nobody has ever questioned Kate's freely volunteered 'admission' that Maddie had been crying for her the previous night and they had still left all three children alone again while dining out with their friends. Why would they question this? After all, it was such a dreadful thing for any mother to do, let alone admit. So why did she admit it? There has to be a reason. Maddie was in no position to give her mum away on this sad episode of neglect and Kate herself was not there when her little girl had supposedly been crying in vain for her. So what possible advantage did Kate see in saying anything at all about it? Did she think the brownie points for her refreshing honesty would make up for her 'horrible mother of the year' award?

It would be interesting to know if Kate made this strangely incriminating admission after the woman who was living in a neighbouring apartment claimed she heard a young child crying on the night before Maddie was reported missing. It would still beg the question why Kate offered this apparent confirmation - which she could only give by saying Maddie herself had told her about it the next morning. She could have pleaded ignorance and said the children were all sound asleep on their return.

Is it possible that Kate latched onto this witness account and used it to imply that Maddie must still have been alive and safe in her bed the night before, even if she was sobbing and distressed over mummy's (and presumably daddy's) absence? Did she consider this was preferable to any awkward questions that might subsequently arise about the last 100% reliable sighting of Maddie?



Hi HH,

This is a very good question. None of the witness accounts of seeing Maddie alive and well and enjoying her holiday after about the first two or three days appear to have been either 100% independent or 100% verifiable.

It would have seemed unthinkable in the immediate wake of a little girl's sudden disappearance, as reported by her mother, for anyone at the resort, whether they knew the family or not, to consider the possibility that she had already been gone for two or more days and nobody had noticed.

It would have been difficult for the casual holiday maker to swear they had seen Maddie and not some other little fair girl. In my experience - even as the parent of a pretty daughter who was blonde as a child - one doesn't make a habit of looking too openly or too long at pretty children in their summer outfits or beach attire. It's better not to take photos and not to pay any special attention to an individual child who is just minding their own business.

As for those who were holidaying with the McCanns, and the creche staff, there have been question marks from the outset over the reliability of their individual claimed sightings of Maddie right up until Kate reported her missing. The McCanns did not spend much time during the day with their friends, either as a family or individually. In fact I'm not sure how many times the McCanns were seen as a family of five after their arrival at the resort. It's almost like they went out of their way not to spend time together as a family. There are discrepancies between the claims made by the McCanns as to which parent signed the kids in or out of their respective creches on any particular day and which name actually appeared on the register for that day.

Was it always one or the other who dropped them off or picked them up - never setting off all together from the apartment, never arriving at the first creche together and never returning to the apartment together? Their routine was for one to enter the apartment via the front door, the other via the patio door at the rear. Why? Anyone watching one parent and seeing only the twins, or seeing no children at all, would naturally have assumed Maddie was with the other parent.

Staging, I heard someone ask? The stage for a possible abduction was set - by accident or design - when the apartment was left unlocked on the evening Maddie was reported missing. Another sad episode of neglect to add to the one where Maddie had supposedly cried for her mum the night before. If that was true, she could have been woken by noises which frightened her and led to her calling out. Yet the apartment was left unlocked the very next night? Luckily the twins were not only left alone by Maddie's abductor, but slept so soundly they had no idea she was being taken. No whimpering roused them, no screaming for mummy. Did the twins sleep equally soundly the night before, so they never heard Maddie crying then either? Or did they sleep so soundly every night that they would not have known if she was there or not?

Were the twins busy playing in the creche one day when Maddie could have had a tantrum and refused to go to hers, resulting in parental loss of temper?

Who will ever really know?

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz
great post.

Quote:
I find it instructive that nobody has ever questioned Kate's freely volunteered 'admission' that Maddie had been crying for her the previous night and they had still left all three children alone again while dining out with their friends. Why would they question this? After all, it was such a dreadful thing for any mother to do, let alone admit. So why did she admit it? There has to be a reason. Maddie was in no position to give her mum away on this sad episode of neglect and Kate herself was not there when her little girl had supposedly been crying in vain for her. So what possible advantage did Kate see in saying anything at all about it? Did she think the brownie points for her refreshing honesty would make up for her 'horrible mother of the year' award?
Kate backed up this story by saying in retrospect they came to believe that an intruder tried to take her the night before, which caused her crying out. so its been said its the McCanns inventing this to back up there intruder story. and or, if she died earlier, to show(lie) that she was still alive the night before she went "missing".

but for the life of me, if this is indeed a lie, I cant envision a scenario where an intruder and would be abductor could have made such an impression on a child and yet not been able to make off with her. I mean he was able to do it apparently the next night. and wouldn't the child be even more scared the next night to be left alone--and therefore even more likely to awake and cry?

then there is Kates use of having Maddie say "..when we cried.." Does she want to show(lie) that all three kids were also awake and therefore none were giving a sleeping aid??


Quote:
This is a very good question. None of the witness accounts of seeing Maddie alive and well and enjoying her holiday after about the first two or three days appear to have been either 100% independent or 100% verifiable.
didn't the police scheck with the kids club workers to verify Kates story that she picked Maddie up from there the late afternoon she went missing?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 02-01-2017, 11:28 AM
Batman Batman is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post

Staging, I heard someone ask? The stage for a possible abduction was set - by accident or design - when the apartment was left unlocked on the evening Maddie was reported missing. Another sad episode of neglect to add to the one where Maddie had supposedly cried for her mum the night before.

Love,

Caz
X
The McCanns were alleged to have claimed that the window had been jimmied during the initial report that Maddie was gone. There was no evidence the window had been jimmied.

If they had staged everything then why did they claim the window had been forced open when.... 1) They hadn't staged it to look forced open and 2) if the staging they planned was because they left the door unlocked?

There is no evidence of staging. What there is evidence for are parents not willing to admit leaving the door unlocked was bad parenting and then later decided to fess up.

If we accept Maddie or the children cried then we should accept the report by the same apartment above the McCanns that a stranger was seen inside that apartment and chased out an open window months prior. He was never found.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 02-02-2017, 04:55 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,381
Default

From the start the McCanns appeared to be more concerned with damage limitation to themselves than with moving heaven and earth to limit the damage they had caused by leaving their children vulnerable and to do anything and everything humanly possible to get Maddie back alive.

At one point there was a promising sighting of Maddie which should have had Kate beside herself with hope, expectation and longing as she was driven to investigate, but no. Her attitude was one of annoyance and instead of being eternally grateful to those who were trying to reunite her with her missing daughter she just came across as a bad passenger who didn't really want to be there.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.