Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 detectives trimmed down to 4.probably getting a bit nippy in the med now,wonder if there'll be a new lead about easter time.
Show More
Because they were asleep and checked regularly
Well, that's news to the bar staff who have claimed that although the Mccanns stated they were checked regularly the truth was very different.
Also, Madelaine was crying her eyes out the night before and her parents weren't around. Of course we know even that wasn't enough to persuade the Mccanns to alter their dining arrangements! The following day the poor little myte went missing.
Well, that's news to the bar staff who have claimed that although the Mccanns stated they were checked regularly the truth was very different.
Also, Madelaine was crying her eyes out the night before and her parents weren't around. Of course we know even that wasn't enough to persuade the Mccanns to alter their dining arrangements! The following day the poor little myte went missing.
sorry shrewd i,m assuming the taps,s squad want to help and not hide things from the investigation so would want to tell the truth,if they repeat their statements under a lie detector test alot more people will be convinced about their statements and resources can be targeted elsewhere,mind you where a death, murder,abduction etc of a 4 yr old is concerned bit steep that you have to threaten a priest with a lie detector test to get him to tell you what he no,s,
like i say when people say theyve done everything they can to help the case they quite blatently havnt
like i say when people say theyve done everything they can to help the case they quite blatently havnt
This case would have been done and dusted within a week if Amaral had been allowed to operate as usual.
They still wouldn't have a body...so signed confessions would have to do! Always worked before.
They still wouldn't have a body...so signed confessions would have to do! Always worked before.
How do you know they haven't told the truth? As I asked what could a witness do to help by giving a second statement on a lie detector several years later? If they felt they had already said everything they could how could they help further by taking a polygraph test and if you were a witness to something as opposed to a suspect why would you feel you had anything to prove by taking a test which is deemed so unreliable it is not admissible as evidence in court.
Your assumptions because someone doesn't take a lie detector test are nonsense.
Your assumptions because someone doesn't take a lie detector test are nonsense.
Dude. I agree. The McCanns had nothing to gain from a lie-detector test...but everything to lose. And all without one shred of evidence.
If it had been an uncertain result to ANY degree Amaral would have made sure that the public saw it as 'Guilty'! That was his objective from square one!
If it had been an uncertain result to ANY degree Amaral would have made sure that the public saw it as 'Guilty'! That was his objective from square one!
A lie detector cannot be used as evidence Naydam
What it tells the police is that a suspect fails one or refuses one, the most likely explanation is they are guilty
But it is not 100% there is a possibility of a mistake why it cannot be used in law
Seems to work ok on the Jeremy Kyle show, many a love cheat has been exposed
What it tells the police is that a suspect fails one or refuses one, the most likely explanation is they are guilty
But it is not 100% there is a possibility of a mistake why it cannot be used in law
Seems to work ok on the Jeremy Kyle show, many a love cheat has been exposed
Whatever the result of this test even if it showed guilty, Amaral would still have to get the evidence
which he did not do
which he did not do
crags
02 Nov 15 23:57
Because they were asleep and checked regularly and nobody could ever imagine that any harm would come to them?
When my kids are asleep I could pop to the shops for half an hour. It would be a safer environment as they would be locked in my own house rather than a room in a building filled with strangers. They would be checked regularly as I'd be back in half an hour. But I don't, I never would, and nearly every parent would endorse that. That isn't how parenting works. They are called dependents for a reason.
02 Nov 15 23:57
Because they were asleep and checked regularly and nobody could ever imagine that any harm would come to them?
When my kids are asleep I could pop to the shops for half an hour. It would be a safer environment as they would be locked in my own house rather than a room in a building filled with strangers. They would be checked regularly as I'd be back in half an hour. But I don't, I never would, and nearly every parent would endorse that. That isn't how parenting works. They are called dependents for a reason.
Thousands of holiday makers in Butlins and Pontins etc. used to leave their children and babies alone in the chalets while they went on the piss all night, never bothered to check on them either. That job was left to staff who walked up and down the chalet lines, when they could be arsed, listening for a baby crying, they would then pass a message to the bar with chalet number. Not very satisfactory. The McCanns were no more careless than those parents were,less careless I would say as they checked on them themselves. They were just very unlucky. They have to live with that and I really feel for them. Nobody on holiday like them, or those thousands in the holiday camps, thinks that anything will happen to their children.
The McCanns are an easy target for a load of keyboard ****s to have a pop at, because they can.
Much of the animosity towards the mccanns & their implied guilt stems from their apparent emotional detachment & actions both before & after maddies disappearance.Iv heard it mentioned that Kate may suffer from aspbergers,if that were to be true then it would go a long way to explaining her behaviour, & may have helped their cause had it been made public.As for gerry he just comes accross as an arrogant ****.
You say u/l Crags
But they were doing this every night, this is not just u/l more downright careless
the McCanns have not admitted this...so I don't believe a word they say
Aspergers weak..?
But I have nit taken a lack of emotion as proof of guilt....one would need more than that
But they were doing this every night, this is not just u/l more downright careless
the McCanns have not admitted this...so I don't believe a word they say
Aspergers weak..?
But I have nit taken a lack of emotion as proof of guilt....one would need more than that
Look at the number of children abducted in such circumstances and then tell me they were not, tragically, unlucky. Must be a million to one. Nobody expects anything like this can happen. The McCanns are loving parents who are being slaughtered by some idiotic keyboard clowns. That's my last word on it. I try not to comment on these sort of threads as I know that the people who slag the McCanns off will always do so no matter what, so it's just a waste of time trying to reason with them.
An honest view Crags...I will accept that
Unfortunately if one leaves one's children unattended and unprotected million to one chances will happen
But I will not accept anything from the McCanns until I start to hear what I consider truth from them
Can you point me to somewhere on the Internet where the McCann's show remorse for leaving their children every night
or why no Nanny?
That would be a good thing from the McCanns, instead of always trying to project themselves as victims in this
The interview with the Portuguese police, was far too protective from the McCanns in my opinion
The prioriy there should have been co operate fully, all that matters is to find Maddie surely?
Unfortunately if one leaves one's children unattended and unprotected million to one chances will happen
But I will not accept anything from the McCanns until I start to hear what I consider truth from them
Can you point me to somewhere on the Internet where the McCann's show remorse for leaving their children every night
or why no Nanny?
That would be a good thing from the McCanns, instead of always trying to project themselves as victims in this
The interview with the Portuguese police, was far too protective from the McCanns in my opinion
The prioriy there should have been co operate fully, all that matters is to find Maddie surely?
and the most serious thing of all, why did the McCanns not agree to a lie detector test..
If the test shows the McCanns were innocent, then immediately it would show the Portuguese Police that all efforts
must be put into finding an abductor..the MCanns are in the clear
But as long as the McCanns refuse the test, the Portuguese police cannot clear the McCanns can they,
so if the McCanns were innocent, they were actually hampering the search for Maddie
If the test shows the McCanns were innocent, then immediately it would show the Portuguese Police that all efforts
must be put into finding an abductor..the MCanns are in the clear
But as long as the McCanns refuse the test, the Portuguese police cannot clear the McCanns can they,
so if the McCanns were innocent, they were actually hampering the search for Maddie
You would consider your actions and responses much more carefully when you realised that the man asking the questions was trying to prove that you killed your child! THAT is why they were defensive.
Amaral was never conducting a 'lost child' case...he set out to prove their guilt, regardless of the truth.
As soon as they realised this they ceased, upon legal advice, to fully co-operate with him.
He was STILL trying to accuse them, without evidence, by publishing everything as 'the truth' in his book. That is why it got banned. It is simply his version of what he thinks happened. He can't produce anything to support his theory, and he never will.
My personal opinion regarding the cadaver dog is that he knew that it would find 'cadaver odour' in the apartment and the car...because he supplied the 'evidence'! No wonder the dog was 'exited' when it entered the apartment. The smell was probably a few days old. NOT three months old, as it should have been.
Why did Amaral's police team take the car to be forensically inspected? That was against procedure. It should have been taped up and transported there...NOT driven there via some dodgy back street route.
Check Amaral's Google profile and you might start to see why he is/was a problem. Could have worked for The Sweeney!
Amaral was never conducting a 'lost child' case...he set out to prove their guilt, regardless of the truth.
As soon as they realised this they ceased, upon legal advice, to fully co-operate with him.
He was STILL trying to accuse them, without evidence, by publishing everything as 'the truth' in his book. That is why it got banned. It is simply his version of what he thinks happened. He can't produce anything to support his theory, and he never will.
My personal opinion regarding the cadaver dog is that he knew that it would find 'cadaver odour' in the apartment and the car...because he supplied the 'evidence'! No wonder the dog was 'exited' when it entered the apartment. The smell was probably a few days old. NOT three months old, as it should have been.
Why did Amaral's police team take the car to be forensically inspected? That was against procedure. It should have been taped up and transported there...NOT driven there via some dodgy back street route.
Check Amaral's Google profile and you might start to see why he is/was a problem. Could have worked for The Sweeney!
Can only think Naydams source for all his views on this must be a Sun article
Every thread he makes the same points ,people correct them ,and he just makes the same points again a couple of pages later.
If he bothered to read the police files ,or Amaral#s book , he would find the Portuguese Police started out treating it as a likely abduction ,thoroughly followed up all leads that seemed to point that way , and found they were dead ends .This went on for months. All the while what the parents were saying was not adding up , and they seemed to backfit their story every time a discrepancy was pointed out .Even then it was UK police advising their Portuguese colleagues who really started to home in on the parents.
Also he seems to think that Amaral has been found guilty of beating up witnesses in other cases .No he was not.
There is no point in posting links is there as Naydam ,without being able to provide any links of his own ,will still come back and say the Portuguese Police decided on Day 1 that the parents were guilty and relentlessly tried to build a case against them from the start . Well that is pretty much the opposite of what did happen. They didnt bring in dogs etc til August (at the UK police suggestion ) , 3 months after the disappearance.
Every thread he makes the same points ,people correct them ,and he just makes the same points again a couple of pages later.
If he bothered to read the police files ,or Amaral#s book , he would find the Portuguese Police started out treating it as a likely abduction ,thoroughly followed up all leads that seemed to point that way , and found they were dead ends .This went on for months. All the while what the parents were saying was not adding up , and they seemed to backfit their story every time a discrepancy was pointed out .Even then it was UK police advising their Portuguese colleagues who really started to home in on the parents.
Also he seems to think that Amaral has been found guilty of beating up witnesses in other cases .No he was not.
There is no point in posting links is there as Naydam ,without being able to provide any links of his own ,will still come back and say the Portuguese Police decided on Day 1 that the parents were guilty and relentlessly tried to build a case against them from the start . Well that is pretty much the opposite of what did happen. They didnt bring in dogs etc til August (at the UK police suggestion ) , 3 months after the disappearance.
i'm sure Naydam used to be a credible poster on here but has undone himself by allowing it to be inferred that he is not a neutral on the subject.
Naydam's vendetta against Amaral is as extreme as a lot of peoples' feeling towards the McCanns.
You can not trust the police on any investigation, and should never say anything, however innocent it may seem, do not talk to them. The problem is they are trying to find someone guilty of a crime. This mindset causes problems right from the start. The police should approach things from the perspective of trying to find someone innocent, once they have the mindset of looking to find someone guilty then all evidence is viewed through this prism and things will be ignored, even things that completely prove the innocence of an individual will, and have been ignored...they are looking to get results and further their career, and maybe write a book..they will be prepared to go to any means to find someone guilty, its all subconscious of course.
Look at the number of children abducted in such circumstances and then tell me they were not, tragically, unlucky.
how many times dos it have to be said, no evidence there was an abduction.
how many times dos it have to be said, no evidence there was an abduction.
forget about what did or didnt happen , instead ask yourself this
do you believe that the tapas squad and the priest have put in the public domain everything that they no of that night, dont think many will believe thats true,so then you ask yourself why when we,re led to believe that those closest to maddie think or let the public think she,s still out there,mind you gerry couldnt be arsed going for a mooch round on the night itself,he thought he was better off getting a priest,the pope and clarence mitchel onside,
get the mcaans on tv this afternoon and ask them about the posters they were hading round within hrs of her disapearence that would be a start for doubters like me
do you believe that the tapas squad and the priest have put in the public domain everything that they no of that night, dont think many will believe thats true,so then you ask yourself why when we,re led to believe that those closest to maddie think or let the public think she,s still out there,mind you gerry couldnt be arsed going for a mooch round on the night itself,he thought he was better off getting a priest,the pope and clarence mitchel onside,
get the mcaans on tv this afternoon and ask them about the posters they were hading round within hrs of her disapearence that would be a start for doubters like me
Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘Madeleine’, has comprehensively smeared top dog handler Martin Grime, who took his cadaver dogs out to Praia da Luz.
On pages 249-250 of ‘Madeleine’, for example, she writes:
“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of our apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site.
“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little.
This was not what I would call an exact science.”
Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise here.
In a second passage, Dr Kate McCann clearly implies that Mr Grime deliberately caused his cadaver dog to alert to their hired Renault Scenic car.
She writes:
“…we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.
“The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returned to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking When researching the validity of sniffer dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler, this certainly seemed to be what was happening here…”
Dr Kate McCann is plainly suggesting, and has done so to hundreds of thousands of readers of her book, that Mr Grime is incompetent. Not only is this suggestion libellous, it is patently ludicrous. One must ask: would a person such as Mr Grime, whose professional livelihood depended on the 100% reliability of his dogs, proceed to suggest the past presence of a corpse at locations in the McCanns’ apartment and in their hired car if Madeleine, as her parents were adamant, was still be alive somewhere?
She might have been found alive the next day and, if she had, Martin Grime’s professional credibility and his livelihood would have been ruined forever all due to his conscious/unconscious signals, amazingly, guiding these dogs so he could, for whatever reason, essentially, 'fit up' the McCanns!
Perhaps this is what a previous poster means about Mr Grime being, shall we say, discredited because of the investigation.
On pages 249-250 of ‘Madeleine’, for example, she writes:
“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of our apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site.
“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little.
This was not what I would call an exact science.”
Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise here.
In a second passage, Dr Kate McCann clearly implies that Mr Grime deliberately caused his cadaver dog to alert to their hired Renault Scenic car.
She writes:
“…we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.
“The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returned to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking When researching the validity of sniffer dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler, this certainly seemed to be what was happening here…”
Dr Kate McCann is plainly suggesting, and has done so to hundreds of thousands of readers of her book, that Mr Grime is incompetent. Not only is this suggestion libellous, it is patently ludicrous. One must ask: would a person such as Mr Grime, whose professional livelihood depended on the 100% reliability of his dogs, proceed to suggest the past presence of a corpse at locations in the McCanns’ apartment and in their hired car if Madeleine, as her parents were adamant, was still be alive somewhere?
She might have been found alive the next day and, if she had, Martin Grime’s professional credibility and his livelihood would have been ruined forever all due to his conscious/unconscious signals, amazingly, guiding these dogs so he could, for whatever reason, essentially, 'fit up' the McCanns!
Perhaps this is what a previous poster means about Mr Grime being, shall we say, discredited because of the investigation.
On the McCanns side was even the statement from Martin Grime, the dog handler.
The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and locate human remains or Human blood.
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
So I don't understand why, in her book, Kate McCann went out of her way to imply Mr Grime guided the dogs to potential, presumably planted (going by what she's saying), evidence that would be inadmissable without a body.
The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and locate human remains or Human blood.
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD’s alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is ‘cadaver scent’ contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
So I don't understand why, in her book, Kate McCann went out of her way to imply Mr Grime guided the dogs to potential, presumably planted (going by what she's saying), evidence that would be inadmissable without a body.
lfc1971 • November 4, 2015 9:16 AM GMT
The police should approach things from the perspective of trying to find someone innocent,
that is a nice thought lfc 1971
unfortunately it would make them...UTTERLY USELESS AT THEIR JOB
There job is to find someone GUILTY of the crime....finding everybody innocence it not really going to help
Of course to do this they are obligated to find the right person, and find the evidence to charge them....
and this must be done totally honestly, no fit ups please.
The police should approach things from the perspective of trying to find someone innocent,
that is a nice thought lfc 1971
unfortunately it would make them...UTTERLY USELESS AT THEIR JOB
There job is to find someone GUILTY of the crime....finding everybody innocence it not really going to help
Of course to do this they are obligated to find the right person, and find the evidence to charge them....
and this must be done totally honestly, no fit ups please.
If were saying the Police presumed someone guilty before they start their enquiries or they feel they must get someone for it
guilty or innocence that would be wrong also
The police must be looking for guilt right from the start in everyone who could have possibly committed the crime.
but should only proceed to the arrest if they believe they found the evidence to prove someone guilty
At the moment the McCanns are INNOCENT as is everybody else involved in this case, because there has been no arrest and conviction
I have not read Amaral's book, but if he is saying or implying the McCanns guilt he is flirting with LIBEL
in fact he has been found guilty of LIBEL...I hope the revenue from sales of his book cover the court costs
I also believe he is an honest man who genuinely believes in the McCanns guilt, but he cannot say this in print
Normally when people write books like this, they wait for everybody involved to be dead.
People are still writing books over 'The Red Barn Murder', everybody's a long time dead in that one
guilty or innocence that would be wrong also
The police must be looking for guilt right from the start in everyone who could have possibly committed the crime.
but should only proceed to the arrest if they believe they found the evidence to prove someone guilty
At the moment the McCanns are INNOCENT as is everybody else involved in this case, because there has been no arrest and conviction
I have not read Amaral's book, but if he is saying or implying the McCanns guilt he is flirting with LIBEL
in fact he has been found guilty of LIBEL...I hope the revenue from sales of his book cover the court costs
I also believe he is an honest man who genuinely believes in the McCanns guilt, but he cannot say this in print
Normally when people write books like this, they wait for everybody involved to be dead.
People are still writing books over 'The Red Barn Murder', everybody's a long time dead in that one
In Kate's book does she mention the pictures of Madeleine she distributed against police advice and from where she obtained them at such short notice?
Nov 4, 2015 -- 12:18PM, hitmanhearn wrote:
Anyone for tennis ?
lol, gotta work on that tenns game when ur daughter is missing, that forehand far more important imo]
So I don't understand why, in her book, Kate McCann went out of her way to imply Mr Grime guided the dogs to potential, presumably planted (going by what she's saying), evidence that would be inadmissable without a body.
And why would the dog-handler want to do this? What's in it for him?
And why would the dog-handler want to do this? What's in it for him?
Granicking. What tennis game are you referring to? The lesson that he had BEFORE the kid disappeared?
Nov 4, 2015 -- 5:38PM, naydam wrote:
Granicking. What tennis game are you referring to? The lesson that he had BEFORE the kid disappeared?
fairly sure ive read he played tennis the morning after she disappeared or am I wrong?
You've probably read it lots of times, especially on here. But no he wasn't playing tennis the next day. Just another bi of misinformation.
I believe it originates from some old lady who thought she recognized him as a man who was playing tennis the following day. This one didn't even reach the police report...but yet it abounds!
I'm sure there are others on here who can, hopefully, give you the proper details.
I believe it originates from some old lady who thought she recognized him as a man who was playing tennis the following day. This one didn't even reach the police report...but yet it abounds!
I'm sure there are others on here who can, hopefully, give you the proper details.
I agree entirely with everything Naydam says on this matter.
Who cares about playing tennis, all that jogging in colour-coordinated outfits, signing up to PR firms. It's odd behaviour perhaps, but not suspicious.
Suspicious would be deleting texts, voicemails and call histories from their mobile phones for example
Suspicious would be deleting texts, voicemails and call histories from their mobile phones for example
Buzzer I'm not sure what parts you are quoting and which parts are your own writing but how on earth is describing someone as incompetent libel?
Ozymandius 04 Nov 15 18:42 Joined: 01 Jul 11 | Topic/replies: 16,343
I agree entirely with everything Naydam says on this matter.
You can ice the cake...
I agree entirely with everything Naydam says on this matter.
You can ice the cake...
There IS reason to care about 'playing tennis'. Stupid rumours like that are enough to swing public opinion against the parents.
Why does Detective Goncalo Amaral appear to have been removed from Wiki. Did he never actually exist? Was it all just a bad dream?
I can't find him. Can anybody help? Genuine request. I was trying to find out the latest on the other case of a mother killing her child...and signing a confession! Another one of Amaral's cases. The confession was withdrawn as soon as the woman was allowed to speak to legal support. She was, apparently, battered black and blue all over after "trying to kill herself by throwing herself down the steps"! Must have had quite a few goes at it to get like SHE looked!
There were assault charges brought and, although the court decided that she had obviously been assaulted whilst in police custody, nobody was found guilty BECAUSE SHOULD DIDN'T RECOGNISE ANY OF HER ATTACKERS!!
The signed confession which was extracted during the beating was allowed to stand! Portuguese system works in strange ways. But Amaral's team got their job done and that poor woman remains(?) in prison.
I just can't figure out why his name and history seems to have been removed from Google.
Why does Detective Goncalo Amaral appear to have been removed from Wiki. Did he never actually exist? Was it all just a bad dream?
I can't find him. Can anybody help? Genuine request. I was trying to find out the latest on the other case of a mother killing her child...and signing a confession! Another one of Amaral's cases. The confession was withdrawn as soon as the woman was allowed to speak to legal support. She was, apparently, battered black and blue all over after "trying to kill herself by throwing herself down the steps"! Must have had quite a few goes at it to get like SHE looked!
There were assault charges brought and, although the court decided that she had obviously been assaulted whilst in police custody, nobody was found guilty BECAUSE SHOULD DIDN'T RECOGNISE ANY OF HER ATTACKERS!!
The signed confession which was extracted during the beating was allowed to stand! Portuguese system works in strange ways. But Amaral's team got their job done and that poor woman remains(?) in prison.
I just can't figure out why his name and history seems to have been removed from Google.
You are mud slinging Naydam............stick to this case
The McCann's were not battered black and blue over
The McCann's were not battered black and blue over
As crags wrote at 1.04 am the McCann's were tragically, unlucky. Must be a million to one.
Exactly it is highly unlikely that she was abducted by a stranger now look at the chances that she was killed by someone she knew.
Exactly it is highly unlikely that she was abducted by a stranger now look at the chances that she was killed by someone she knew.
I am not mud-slinging. I see no reason to suppose that Amaral's methodology should change. He did not conduct himself within the rules of the law. There are many ways of doing this.
I will agree with you that I have absolutely no trust in Amaral. He is supposed to solve cases...not create them.
He said from the start that the child died in the apartment...fine. He got the dogs in three months late and they find cadaver odour. Why didn't he do that three months earlier? Or six weeks earlier? And, assuming that he has now proved that there was a body there...how could he possibly not find it?? They could only have had 30 mins or so to complete the task. They had no transport. Or would he suggest that the body was hidden behind the settee like some West-End farce?
I will agree with you that I have absolutely no trust in Amaral. He is supposed to solve cases...not create them.
He said from the start that the child died in the apartment...fine. He got the dogs in three months late and they find cadaver odour. Why didn't he do that three months earlier? Or six weeks earlier? And, assuming that he has now proved that there was a body there...how could he possibly not find it?? They could only have had 30 mins or so to complete the task. They had no transport. Or would he suggest that the body was hidden behind the settee like some West-End farce?
personally I think the parents are implicated
more likely to have died in an accident earlier in the evening or the evening before in the flat - may have fallen off sofa and banged head
covered up to hide their negligence - stage a fake abduction
body hidden with help from Robert Murat then moved in rental car and buried somewhere north of the A22 expressway
thats much more likely than an abduction
more likely to have died in an accident earlier in the evening or the evening before in the flat - may have fallen off sofa and banged head
covered up to hide their negligence - stage a fake abduction
body hidden with help from Robert Murat then moved in rental car and buried somewhere north of the A22 expressway
thats much more likely than an abduction
personally I think the parents are implicated
more likely to have died in an accident earlier in the evening or the evening before in the flat - may have fallen off sofa and banged head
covered up to hide their negligence - stage a fake abduction
body hidden with help from Robert Murat then moved in rental car and buried somewhere north of the A22 expressway
thats much more likely than an abduction
more likely to have died in an accident earlier in the evening or the evening before in the flat - may have fallen off sofa and banged head
covered up to hide their negligence - stage a fake abduction
body hidden with help from Robert Murat then moved in rental car and buried somewhere north of the A22 expressway
thats much more likely than an abduction
Any idea what they did with the body in the three weeks before they hired the car?
Before you claim Amaral was not working within the rule of law Naydam
You must point to where he was breaking the law in this case
In cases such as these, Parents must be considered suspects, because sadly, often they are the guilty ones.
I cannot argue with you on the details of what happened, until I have checked this thoroughly, woeful I know
But I will tell you one thing that bothers me. Why will the MCanns not submit to a lie detector test????
Amaral is not on the case now, so why not offer themselves for a voluntary lie detector test, if they pass
it would clear them with me
If anyone refuses a lie detector, this must be considered a very strong indication of guilt
Because why would anyone innocent do this, you see the problem?
You must point to where he was breaking the law in this case
In cases such as these, Parents must be considered suspects, because sadly, often they are the guilty ones.
I cannot argue with you on the details of what happened, until I have checked this thoroughly, woeful I know
But I will tell you one thing that bothers me. Why will the MCanns not submit to a lie detector test????
Amaral is not on the case now, so why not offer themselves for a voluntary lie detector test, if they pass
it would clear them with me
If anyone refuses a lie detector, this must be considered a very strong indication of guilt
Because why would anyone innocent do this, you see the problem?
A Lie detector cannot be used in Law, but you see it can be used to reduce the list of suspects
.....to those who refuse the lie detector
The police can now focus themselves on these people, and find the evidence to convict them
it saves a lot of wasted effort, although a conviction must be supported by the normal rules of evidence
.....to those who refuse the lie detector
The police can now focus themselves on these people, and find the evidence to convict them
it saves a lot of wasted effort, although a conviction must be supported by the normal rules of evidence
Nov 5, 2015 -- 12:37AM, bigH wrote:
personally I think the parents are implicatedmore likely to have died in an accident earlier in the evening or the evening before in the flat - may have fallen off sofa and banged headcovered up to hide their negligence - stage a fake abductionbody hidden with help from Robert Murat then moved in rental car and buried somewhere north of the A22 expresswaythats much more likely than an abduction
They cannot do a lie-detector test because if the results were wrong for some reason, and they are known to be inaccurate, it could never be wrong in favour of an innocent party.
The lie detector can't prove them innocent...but it sure as hell could 'prove' them guilty!
If they were totally reliable things might be different. But they are not.
The lie detector can't prove them innocent...but it sure as hell could 'prove' them guilty!
If they were totally reliable things might be different. But they are not.
Be fair crags
It aint a bad try
At the moment
there is no evidence the McCanns were involved, there is no evidence the McCanns were not involved
there is no evidence it was an abductor, the is no evidence it was not an abductor
in fact there is NO EVIDENCE
so all bets are still on
Naydam
I accept what you say, but you see most lie-detector tests work perfectly, so I do not quite buy this
to me refusal of a lie detector test appears guilty behaviour
It aint a bad try
At the moment
there is no evidence the McCanns were involved, there is no evidence the McCanns were not involved
there is no evidence it was an abductor, the is no evidence it was not an abductor
in fact there is NO EVIDENCE
so all bets are still on
Naydam
I accept what you say, but you see most lie-detector tests work perfectly, so I do not quite buy this
to me refusal of a lie detector test appears guilty behaviour
Anyone thinking that this was an accident and that the McCanns would try to cover this up and dispose of the body is clearly not playing with a full deck.
Why oh why do I get sucked into dignifying such utter nonsense with a reply?
No more from me!
Why oh why do I get sucked into dignifying such utter nonsense with a reply?
No more from me!
Most tests work fine? That's great unless yours is on that doesn't. And you WOULD regard them as guilty if the lie-detector said so!
Amaral had months to find his evidence and totally failed...a bad indication on a lie detector would not alter that! He already thinks they're guilty...that's the problem. He's blinkered. He's obsessed with pinning something on THEM.
Amaral had months to find his evidence and totally failed...a bad indication on a lie detector would not alter that! He already thinks they're guilty...that's the problem. He's blinkered. He's obsessed with pinning something on THEM.
He must be seething that his book of the truth was banned for being a bit loose on the truth bit!!
He said from the start that the child died in the apartment...fine. He got the dogs in three months late and they find cadaver odour. Why didn't he do that three months earlier? Or six weeks earlier?
Why do you keep saying say from the start etc . The reason they didnt bring in the dogs for 3 months was because they spent 3 months looking for abductors as abduction was their main line of enquiry , (totally contrary to what you keep saying) , if she had been abducted there was no reason to suppose there would be evidence of a dead body in there as hardly likely some stranger is gonna go in there, kill her ,and then carry her corpse away.
Why do you keep saying say from the start etc . The reason they didnt bring in the dogs for 3 months was because they spent 3 months looking for abductors as abduction was their main line of enquiry , (totally contrary to what you keep saying) , if she had been abducted there was no reason to suppose there would be evidence of a dead body in there as hardly likely some stranger is gonna go in there, kill her ,and then carry her corpse away.
Anyone thinking that this was an accident and that the McCanns would try to cover this up and dispose of the body is clearly not playing with a full deck.
This is always what it comes down to with the Mccann defenders . No attempt to explain any of the holes in their version or the evidence implicating them , just 'they didn't do it because they wouldn't have'
As to having half an hour to hide the body etc , well that is what they say .There is nothing to back this up from independent witnesses .If they are guilty they are hardly gonna present a scenario where they had all day to cover it up.
This is always what it comes down to with the Mccann defenders . No attempt to explain any of the holes in their version or the evidence implicating them , just 'they didn't do it because they wouldn't have'
As to having half an hour to hide the body etc , well that is what they say .There is nothing to back this up from independent witnesses .If they are guilty they are hardly gonna present a scenario where they had all day to cover it up.
How many different people supposedly went and checked on the the kids?
Wouldnt surprise me if something happened day before when neighbours heard Madeleine screaming the house down
Wouldnt surprise me if something happened day before when neighbours heard Madeleine screaming the house down
That Crimewatch reconstruction that showed Madelaine at breakfast on the day that she was abducted asking Kate were her parents were the night before as she woke up crying. Kate and Gerry then went out later that night leaving the children again.
There is no evidence that an abduction took place which means the abductor got the correct room which had patio doors left open, he made no noise, he left no dna, he took the the child that was more likely to scream and did this within the 30 mins that the children were checked.
The above may have happened but it is more likely that something is being covered up by the McCann party. Those who think an abductor took her then please tell me the evidence.
There is no evidence that an abduction took place which means the abductor got the correct room which had patio doors left open, he made no noise, he left no dna, he took the the child that was more likely to scream and did this within the 30 mins that the children were checked.
The above may have happened but it is more likely that something is being covered up by the McCann party. Those who think an abductor took her then please tell me the evidence.
Gerry McCann has claimed that a senior Social Services official told him: "Your child care was well within the bounds of responsible parenting".
This implies that a senior Social Services official fully approved of three children under four being left in the dark well away from where their parents could hear them, and exposing them to all manner of risks, quite apart from being abducted, e.g.
(i) fire breaking out,
(ii) one of the children becoming sick, perhaps choking on their vomit,
(iii) waking up frightened or distressed,
(iv) falling over and hurting themselves in the dark,
(v) mistaking pills for sweets, or e.g. detergent or other harmful liquids for fruit juice,
(vi) cutting themselves on a sharp object,
(vii) danger form electrical appliances,
(viii) any other accident, such as falling over, hurting their heads and bleeding
(ix) wandering off, and so on.
Given that child welfare organisations like the N.S.P.C.C. and Social Services Departments say: 'Never leave young children on their own, even for a few minutes', it is important to know who made such a controversial statement. Who was it?
This implies that a senior Social Services official fully approved of three children under four being left in the dark well away from where their parents could hear them, and exposing them to all manner of risks, quite apart from being abducted, e.g.
(i) fire breaking out,
(ii) one of the children becoming sick, perhaps choking on their vomit,
(iii) waking up frightened or distressed,
(iv) falling over and hurting themselves in the dark,
(v) mistaking pills for sweets, or e.g. detergent or other harmful liquids for fruit juice,
(vi) cutting themselves on a sharp object,
(vii) danger form electrical appliances,
(viii) any other accident, such as falling over, hurting their heads and bleeding
(ix) wandering off, and so on.
Given that child welfare organisations like the N.S.P.C.C. and Social Services Departments say: 'Never leave young children on their own, even for a few minutes', it is important to know who made such a controversial statement. Who was it?
The McCann's ideas of child care is like putting a Fox in charge of the chickens xmoneyx
it is important to know who made such a controversial statement. Who was it?
Just one of his many establishment 'friends'
Just one of his many establishment 'friends'
.http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/leaving-child-home-alone/
There might not be a specific legal age to leave children alone but it’s safe to say babies, toddlers and young children should never be left alone, even if it’s just while you pop down the road. Even if they’re sleeping peacefully when you leave they could well wake up and get very upset when you’re not there to look after them. They would not be able to protect themselves in an emergency and may even try to leave the property to find you.
Our advice on leaving a child at home
# Babies, toddlers and very young children should never be left alone
# Children under the age of 12 are rarely mature enough to cope in an emergency and should not be left at home alone for a long period of time
# A child should never be left at home alone if they do not feel comfortable with this, regardless of their age
# Parents and carers can be prosecuted for neglect if it is judged that they placed a child at risk by leaving them at home alone
The law says they can be prosecuted if they left kids 'at risk', somehow its been decided that even though Maddie has not been seen since, the parents did not put her 'at risk'
There might not be a specific legal age to leave children alone but it’s safe to say babies, toddlers and young children should never be left alone, even if it’s just while you pop down the road. Even if they’re sleeping peacefully when you leave they could well wake up and get very upset when you’re not there to look after them. They would not be able to protect themselves in an emergency and may even try to leave the property to find you.
Our advice on leaving a child at home
# Babies, toddlers and very young children should never be left alone
# Children under the age of 12 are rarely mature enough to cope in an emergency and should not be left at home alone for a long period of time
# A child should never be left at home alone if they do not feel comfortable with this, regardless of their age
# Parents and carers can be prosecuted for neglect if it is judged that they placed a child at risk by leaving them at home alone
The law says they can be prosecuted if they left kids 'at risk', somehow its been decided that even though Maddie has not been seen since, the parents did not put her 'at risk'
.http://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/advice-and-info/home-alone-guide-keeping-child-safe
Parents can be prosecuted for neglect if they leave a child on their own “in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health”.
If you don’t meet your child’s basic needs, like food and warm clothing, fail to respond to their emotional needs, or constantly leave your child alone this is known as neglect.
Neglect is as serious as other forms of abuse because the effects can be damaging and long-lasting.
Parents can be prosecuted for neglect if they leave a child on their own “in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health”.
If you don’t meet your child’s basic needs, like food and warm clothing, fail to respond to their emotional needs, or constantly leave your child alone this is known as neglect.
Neglect is as serious as other forms of abuse because the effects can be damaging and long-lasting.
It does not look good does it Brendan
ad I would agree with Guiness
Just one of his many establishment 'friends'
Naydam
It is very rare that Lie Detector's do not work, and I am sure someone could ask for a retest if they failed
The only reason for refusing one, is to cover something up.....which I think the McCanns are doing
I do not know what this is?
but people are drawing the obvious conclusion here
I do not think any evidence will ever be found now. The situation will stay as it is now
ad I would agree with Guiness
Just one of his many establishment 'friends'
Naydam
It is very rare that Lie Detector's do not work, and I am sure someone could ask for a retest if they failed
The only reason for refusing one, is to cover something up.....which I think the McCanns are doing
I do not know what this is?
but people are drawing the obvious conclusion here
I do not think any evidence will ever be found now. The situation will stay as it is now
Dos'nt bear thinking about if Maddie woke up and decided to look for her parents..strange surroundings, disorientated.
Not the first time as she woke up screaming the night before.
How could they subject her to another night of this?
Not the first time as she woke up screaming the night before.
How could they subject her to another night of this?
The McCanns offered to take a lie detector test.
Then declined when the authorities said 'ok, let's do this thing'
Makes you think.......
Then declined when the authorities said 'ok, let's do this thing'
Makes you think.......
They would be mad to have done a lie detector case they way things were moving against them. No upside; pass it and everyone says they are not reliable (and they aren't) fail it and everyone is convinced they are guilty. No upside.
body hidden with help from Robert Murat t
LOL ...they just happened to co-opt a local resident. I'd be careful about making statements about this guy btw...took 600K from the tabloids.
LOL ...they just happened to co-opt a local resident. I'd be careful about making statements about this guy btw...took 600K from the tabloids.
Ozy - it was reported in the papers that Murat used to live very close to some of the Tapas 9 in the UK
so there is a chance that he wasn't just a random local resident - was he already known to certain members of the Tapas 9, maybe, who knows?
just saying.
there has been lots of "evidence" presented - all you can do is take a step back and ask yourself "how likely is that to have happened?" "does that make sense", "is that believable?"
so there is a chance that he wasn't just a random local resident - was he already known to certain members of the Tapas 9, maybe, who knows?
just saying.
there has been lots of "evidence" presented - all you can do is take a step back and ask yourself "how likely is that to have happened?" "does that make sense", "is that believable?"
take a step back and ask yourself "how likely is that to have happened?" "does that make sense", "is that believable?"
If it was a fictional book or a film you'd say it was all too far fetched and the characters weren't believable or credible.
If it was a fictional book or a film you'd say it was all too far fetched and the characters weren't believable or credible.
even now if it helped change peoples minds why wouldnt the tapas squad do a lie detector test ,seems the obvious answer to move the investigation on,unless of course the tapas squad are happy how its going
so we can put to bed any of this we,ll do anything to help find out what happened,anything that doesnt implicate or show the tapas squad in a poor light
so we can put to bed any of this we,ll do anything to help find out what happened,anything that doesnt implicate or show the tapas squad in a poor light
Perhaps the tapas squad were into wife swapping which is what they don't want to come out.
Makes as much sense as anything else.
Makes as much sense as anything else.
Think its a given that some high jinks were going on between the tapas bunch,but since some of them were doctors the cover ups are more likely to have been to protect themselves from criminal negligence charges.
yes the #1 priority for all of them from day one was to cover their own ar$es. the supposed regular checks they were doing - the night maddie vanished one of them was supposed to have checked the mccann kids and didn't notice whether or not one was missing. do the math...
they didn't do the lie-detector because they were worried the machine would overheat and break
Think it's blatently obvious they did little if any checking,havn't heard many witness's to these so called regular checks 
Major new development, probably not, just marketing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/major-madeleine-mccann-breakthrough-lauded-by-australian-current-affairs-show-sunday-night_uk_58f9b3d1e4b06b9cb9157cf8
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/major-madeleine-mccann-breakthrough-lauded-by-australian-current-affairs-show-sunday-night_uk_58f9b3d1e4b06b9cb9157cf8
Sky News Breaking
@SkyNewsBreak
Scotland Yard has asked the Home Office for another six months of funding to support its joint operation with Portuguese police in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
@SkyNewsBreak
Scotland Yard has asked the Home Office for another six months of funding to support its joint operation with Portuguese police in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Richard Hall"s documentary on this is brilliant,anyone thinking they might be innocent might what to think again
His best work on the case are his interviews with Statement Analyst Peter Hyatt. Found that fascinating.
Basically Hyatt looks at witness or suspects' statements and checks every word to see if they are lying. Often he finds people who plead not guilty incriminate themselves with the language they use.
Basically Hyatt looks at witness or suspects' statements and checks every word to see if they are lying. Often he finds people who plead not guilty incriminate themselves with the language they use.
Yes very good,they didn't pass the audition for sure
On a unrelated note the weather forecasters have predicted a very cold winter in the UK this year.
need to check the detectives golf handicaps when they get back to uk
also a liver check
also a liver check
Knifemen and Rapist types Abound in the UK ,Yet more money being spent to Find a Body that will never be found .
Investigation must continue, in order that the funds in the Maddie trust are not wound up
Would u deny the cops a ride on the dogem cars in Portugal
detectives will will be their till -maddie enters grab a gran comp
Sep 13, 2018 -- 9:43PM, casemoney wrote:
Knifemen and Rapist types Abound in the UK
I've read Tober's mind, like a psychic closing their eyes putting their hands out and pretending they can feel forces, I'm getting.....I'm getting......
"If they were just 'looking for a body' it would not be so bad. But they are looking for 'the abductor', and, as there is zero evidence there ever was one, it's like spending £15M looking for the Easter Bunny."
Is that right?
"If they were just 'looking for a body' it would not be so bad. But they are looking for 'the abductor', and, as there is zero evidence there ever was one, it's like spending £15M looking for the Easter Bunny."
Is that right?
cant believe they have the audacity to ask for another 6 months of funding ffs, wasnt the last one supposed to be def the last one?? throwing money away, they've been over the evidence thousands of times, nothing will have been missed, everyone sitting at that dinner table that night knows more than theyre letting on, simple
Why are the Mccanns not out there in Person ? If they think this further carry on is worth it, shirley they would be over there .
whatever happened to the girl one things for certain imo some or all of the tapas squad arnt telling the whole truth of what they no happened that night,some have already changed their stories, statements 2 or 3 times
if Gerry had stayed out their with plod ,he,d be playing in his 2nd or 3rd Wimbledon by now,
Shows how evil these people are,how do they sleep at night?
Sep 16, 2018 -- 2:51PM, 1st time poster wrote:
if Gerry had stayed out their with plod ,he,d be playing in his 2nd or 3rd Wimbledon by now,
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539