|
By:
Another anomoly is Kate's washing of cuddle cat. Most mothers would surely want to keep the smell and prescence of their child on the toy as a reminder ( just as many parents keep the absent child's room exactly as it was). But Kate sticks it in the wash.
|
|
By:
I don't think that's obvious at all that you release the most recent picture to the press without knowing the context of where the photo used in the press release came from.
At some point during the initial search shortly after her disappearance presumably police who have attended would ask if they have a recent photo of the child so that officers and others searching nearby knew who they were looking for. Do you go hang on a minute we took some snaps by the pool earlier ill scroll through them on my camera, see if there is a good one of her then we can get a card reader and maybe print it off or do you reach in to your wallet pull out the photo of her you have there and give it to the police. If that photo is a good photo of her then I really don't see how it's obvious that with everything going on that in the next 24 hours before the press release either the Mcanns or the police would consider it obvious to go back and make every effort to make sure the 1st photo released was her last photo. Again what do they gain by changing the date and releasing it? |
|
By:
be interesting to know what our police think might have happened after their investigation
|
|
By:
The most recent photo would help because:
1) It could jog local peoples' memories. Many would have seen her out and about. 2) It shows her exact age. The photo they chose to release is not of her in context. It's neither her as a (nearly) 4 year old. Why would they release the 'last photo' 2 weeks later? Well maybe because it was taken much earlier in the week and they needed time to change the date on the camera before releasing it? They said it was taken the day Madeleine disappeared. If it wasn't, that prompts questions of k&G. For example.. Why do you not have photos of her every day you were on holiday? Is the reason, that Madeleine died on Monday? Shrewd, I've no idea what happened and have only just started to look at the case. I had no idea how odd it appears.. |
|
By:
Yes it would help but it's not obvious that this would be automatically the one they would release within the next 24-36 hours if they had a photo already being used in the search. They may not have even remembered they had the photo on the camera or have looked at it and known it was a good photo. If a loved one of yours went missing and the police asked you for a photo of them I think it's just as likely that you would use a recent one to hand in a frame or your wallet as you would start to trail through digital photos you had to find the last one taken.
The guy in the video is clutching at straws with this and things like the pillowcase because the facts he presents does not support his theory of them killing her any more than any other theory of why they would not use the newest photo. I still don't see what they would have gained from releasing the fabricated photo. Witnesses at the club saw her on the day she disappeared. So either two things happened 1. She was alive at this time and seen by witnesses (so why release a photo with a false date?) 2. She was dead or not seen by anyone else but the MCCanns had managed to get these witnesses to give false statements covering this up (so why release a photo with a false date?) A child disappears off the face of the earth never to be seen again without any evidence of a crime having taken place and you needed to watch these videos to realise how odd it was? |
|
By:
How do you know they don't have photos of her everyday on holiday?
|
|
By:
The police obviously know that people take photos on holiday so you'd imagine they'd ask if any had been taken in the last few days that they could use.
|
|
By:
Shrewd - by odd I mean all the contradictions. A missing child is not rare. A case that involves so many bizarre events is. Even K&G's accounts of that final day are not the same. The timings are all over the place.
Why would they produce a photo that did not resemble their missing child?? Kids that age change week by week. The police and press would have wanted a recent photo. One where the child was wearing clothing seen in the days leading up to her disappearance. That's pretty basic stuff. As for Madeleine being seen alive that week, where is the evidence for this? Re photos, NO photos apart from the 'last photo' have been released. Hence the earlier one given to the press (printed off in a large number). Why did Kate sign the children's register 'McCan' when in her book she said until her daughter disappeared she always used her maiden name? Why did the child minder lie to the police about never having been to Portugal before? (She was there in 2006). She also knew K&G and had visited their home prior to this holiday. Why did Kate refuse to answer 48 questions the police asked her. She was advised by her lawyer not to answer them but for crying out loud, do you want to find your daughter or not??!! |
|
By:
I'm agreeing it is odd. A missing child is not rare but for one to disappear without a trace or with any trace of a crime not being committed is very odd. I'm saying that I am quite surprised that it took several years and some conspiracy nuts video about people getting the colour of curtains wrong for you to realise this oddity.
Life is odd. People do unusual and unexpected things everyday in every part of their life but this video attempts to pick up on every single oddity over a period of several years to suggest that their is a cover up, the person is lying or they are guilty. Which takes it into conspiracy theory territory given there are some things which do seem to actually suggest that it wasn't an abduction (such as the cadaver dogs in places outside of the apartment) and actually have some credibility as opposed to presenting odd facts then saying they are becuase of A when they in no way support that theory more than B, C or D. I personally don't know what happened and its an interesting case because it is either way a case of the perfect murder, cover up of an accidental death or abduction. However I try to view it objectively. Whenever this gets discussed their seems to be one of two camps trying to put forward their own personal belief by either (a) taking the poirot approach that any inconsistency or diversion from the play by play book of 'how your are meant to act when your child is abducted' is a sign the person is lying, or (b) the CSI camp who blame the police because they didn't forensically seal off the hotel and lock down the borders as soon as they got a call that a child was missing. As I said not everything in this or life can be explained but I will try to answer some of your questions. Why would they produce a photo that did not resemble their missing child?? Kids that age change week by week. You would have to know the context in which the photo was produced. The photo does resemble their child. The intitial photo was released by the police it wasn't a Mccann press release, I believe, so do you know who's decision it was to release this photo? If they had killed this child already how would they benefit from not producing a recent photo? The police and press would have wanted a recent photo. One where the child was wearing clothing seen in the days leading up to her disappearance. That's pretty basic stuff. The police were in receipt of over 90 holiday images by the 8th May including a number of photos of Madeleine so I don't see how the police never got their wish. I don't see how what the press wanted is relevant to be honest. As for Madeleine being seen alive that week, where is the evidence for this? 2 witnesses that worked their with the childrens club said they saw her that day in their witness statements. Re photos, NO photos apart from the 'last photo' have been released. Hence the earlier one given to the press (printed off in a large number). So what? Everybody knows what she looks like. So when your child goes missing you can't keep some photos private you have to release them all to the Press just to prove they were taken. Think that says more about the world we live in than the Mccanns. As I've said the police were in release of holiday photos Why did Kate sign the children's register 'McCan' when in her book she said until her daughter disappeared she always used her maiden name? If the room was registered in the name of Mccann then you think when registering the child you would use the same name so that they knew it was your child. Why did the child minder lie to the police about never having been to Portugal before? (She was there in 2006). She also knew K&G and had visited their home prior to this holiday. No idea Why did Kate refuse to answer 48 questions the police asked her. She was advised by her lawyer not to answer them but for crying out loud, do you want to find your daughter or not??!! Because maybe she felt she had given a statement to the police with everything she knew, was now being treated by them as a suspect in a foreign country where she wasn't familiar with the legal system and therefore took the advice of the local legal professional acting on her behalf. |
|
By:
So your first thought is ' how is this looking for me ' ? Better get a lawyer and be uncooperative to police.
instead of, I couldn't give a FCK, just find my daughter. |
|
By:
I'm saying that I am quite surprised that it took several years and some conspiracy nuts video about people getting the colour of curtains wrong for you to realise this oddity.
Shrewd - I don't follow everything that happens in the world! Anyway, be lucky. |
|
By:
So your first thought is ' how is this looking for me ' ? Better get a lawyer and be uncooperative to police.
instead of, I couldn't give a FCK, just find my daughter. When you've already given a statement and in your view the police are now wasting time going over the same questions interviewing you whilst you are a suspect for your childs disapearance, then yes getting legal advice for a lot of people it would . Anybody who speaks to the police in a foreign country as a suspect without getting legal advice beforehand is a halfwit. |
|
By:
Did her statement address the 48 questions put to her ?
|
|
By:
Were the police treating her as a suspect when asking the 48 questions ?
|
|
By:
Did her statement address the 48 questions put to her ?
Presumably not. I can't imagine they would have been asking her how many hospitals she has worked in and whether she worked emergency shifts when they took her intitial statement. Were the police treating her as a suspect when asking the 48 questions ? Yes |
|
By:
The police have got to treat her as a suspect as they were the last to see her alive.
|
|
By:
No they don't. A suspect/arguido is a formal legal status given to a person which has legal consequnces. They weren't treated as such until 4 months after. Anyway I'm not disputing the issue of whether or not they should have been a suspect I'm simply saying at that point they were now classed with the formal status of arguido/suspect.
|
|
By:
For someone who admits to watching only 2 minutes of 4 hours video seems to me someone whos mind is already made up.
|
|
By:
Made up on what? I'm simply being objective and stating facts in response to your post. My personal view as I've said is that it being an abduction is just as likely as the Mccanns having being involved because there is simply no direct evidence of either. The video was a pile of crap though. I watched about half an hour in total and if you think I'm the one who has already made my mind up then I can only presume you have watched even less of the video than me.
|
|
By:
Yeah..my mind is made up that there was no abduction,until there is evidence of an abduction the McCanns are the logical suspects.
|
|
By:
By the way it was me who posted the videos.
|
|
By:
That's a fair enough view to take its the trying to fit inconsequential facts in to a particular agenda that the video takes that I personally think is nonsense. It's not impartial at all and seems to miss out any facts which don't fit it's view then use any unexplained facts or inconsistencies as a sign a person is lying or there is a cover up. The bit about the colour of the curtains being significant is almost laughable.
We have had these threads before on here. There is also people such as Naydam who seem to push the polar opposite of the view held on the video that it was a simple abduction but the police did everything wrong and bungled the whole investigation from the start and I think that view is also equally as unsubstantiated and have made points about that on these previous threads. |
|
By:
Fair enough.
|
|
By:
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
- The assistant chief constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court, in July 2008 |
|
By:
Is that view still held now I wonder ?
|
|
By:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
Worth a read. |
|
By:
xmoneyx
26 Feb 16 12:07 "While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance." - The assistant chief constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court, in July 2008 My only study of this case has been from leazes' videos. I've reached the same conclusion as this officer who I presume knows far more than us. The videos are all trying to pinpoint time of death which I believe is absolutely key. If there is a case for saying Madeleine was not alive before the alleged abduction, surely the parents (1 or both) should be charged. Then it would be a jury's decision. |
|
By:
Shrewd_dude
26 Feb 16 11:01 Joined: 12 May 05 The bit about the colour of the curtains being significant is almost laughable. ..then discount it. Judges often interrupt a lawyer and tell the jury to discount what he/she has just said. The journo on the films is no lawyer. It's not necessary to agree with every bit of 'evidence'. |
|
By:
..then discount it. Judges often interrupt a lawyer and tell the jury to discount what he/she has just said. The journo on the films is no lawyer. It's not necessary to agree with every bit of 'evidence'. You've totally lost me now Injera. I have no idea what relevance this has to anything. |
|
By:
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance." - The assistant chief constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court, in July 2008 My only study of this case has been from leazes' videos. I've reached the same conclusion as this officer who I presume knows far more than us. Actually I'm going to have to ask one last question. Can I just ask what exactly is it that you think this officer has concluded that makes you think he has reached the same conslusion as you have? |
|
By:
You mentioned the curtains at least twice and have derided the videos because of that 'evidence'.
Discount it if you don't agree with it as permissable. It's basic procedure in a court. No need for any dramas. When I've been in court, silly comments from lawyers are regularly picked apart by the judge. As for the Leicestershire Assistant Chief Constable's comments, I agree with them. If and it's a big if, the Portuguese equivalent of the CPS think likewise a charge against the parents is the obvious course of action. |
|
By:
As for the Leicestershire Assistant Chief Constable's comments, I agree with them. If and it's a big if, the Portuguese equivalent of the CPS think likewise a charge against the parents is the obvious course of action.
So your conclusion is that the "there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from Madeleines disapearance". I'd agree with that. Is there anybody who does think there is clear evidence that eliminates them? That seems to be a world away from your conclusion that appears to be that they did have involvement. And you think that they should be charged because no clear evidence eliminates them? Let's throw in the Tapas 7, the buffet boy and the creche workers and anyone within 5 miles of the hotel becuase no clear evidence eliminates them from any involvement as well. Of course the Portuguese police/cps at the time shared the same view that there was no clear evidence that eliminates them from her disapearance. They still had them classed as arguidos/suspects at the time. (How an officer from the UK could could actually rule out from involvement persons who were classed as suspects in another jurisdiction is another question) That quote is total non-information. It would be more persuasive if you just said "in 2008 the Potuguese police had the Mccanns classed as suspects and they know more about the case than us". That they considered them as suspects 8 years ago is at least a more substantial point than saying well 8 years ago the UK police didn't believe there was any direct evidence which ruled them out of involvement. I think you need to read Leazes 67 link to the actual evidence and history of the case rather than relying on the rambling of some conspiracy nut. |
|
By:
Why use the word 'nut'?
Why be so abusive towards him? Yes I do think they should be charged but that does not mean they are guilty. As for the tapas 7 they would not be the focus because Madeleine was in the care of her parents. There is enough to suggest that Madeleine may well have not been alive from Monday onwards and K&G would have known either way. I'm not in any way saying they are guilty of anything, because that's for a jury.. Anyway, good luck and thanks for the chat. |
|
By:
Maybe nut is a bit harsh but it wouldn't surprise me if he had similar videos on the moon landings and the assasination of JFK.
|
|
By:
to be fair he prob dresses up in a maddie outfit
|
|
By:
leazes67 26 Feb 16 17:02
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm Worth a read. Re: the blood and cadaver dogs. I found the sections relating to the Springers training, examples of their findings, and their ' spots ' in this case, particularly fascinating. And thought provoking. |
|
By:
3 members of the McCann team. The next time you have a problem on holiday give these blokes a ring. They're always there to lend a hand.
(a) Their chief public relations spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, former head of Tony Blair’s Media Monitoring Unit, who once boasted that his job was ‘to control what comes out in the media’ (b) Their ‘co-ordinating lawyer’ throughout, Edward Smethurst, a high-profile lawyer, multi-millionaire businessman and property-owner from Rochdale, high-ranking Freemason and past ‘Grand Master’, and (c) Multi-millionaire Cheshire businessman and owner of Sale Sharks Rugby club, Brian Kennedy. |