Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
why was the villa never dug up?
Show More
MONSIEUR FAURUT,put firmly in the frame by the tapas 7 long before dogs were brought in,so using your theory you could say the tapas squad were putting people in the frame long before someone thought about writing a book, LOL
mcanns playing tennis,jogging days after, strangest episode for me
That's the problem with every McCann tread...descends into unfounded oft-repeated nonsense about tennis etc.
ROBERTO MURAT , if we as we are led to believe nothing to do with the case,but gleefuly put in the frame by been picked out by the tapas squad ,for been sighted around the apartments
I know. Lets agree that the mccanns were negligent and put their own enjoyment before that of the safety of their children.
As a result of their poor parenting Madeleine has disappeared. Without evidence everything else is conjecture and serves no real purpose.
As a result of their poor parenting Madeleine has disappeared. Without evidence everything else is conjecture and serves no real purpose.
naydam, the biggest problem with your conspiracy theory as I see it is that, while it could explain the dog alerts in the apartment and in the hire car, it doesn't explain the dog alerts for certain items of Mrs McCann's clothing or the child's soft toy she carried everywhere. You'll need another far-fetched theory for that
the dogs alerted in jersey too
one of their finds was a piece of victorian coconut shell
one of their finds was a piece of victorian coconut shell
Dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for school girl ‘Shannon Mathews’ in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire in 2008. The dogs found “evidence” of dead bodies (Cadavers) but officers later discovered NO RELATION to Shannon’s disappearance, in fact she was found safe and well having been hidden by her mother. The explanation given by the forensic team was that the furniture sniffed by the dogs had been second hand and may have been owned by someone that had passed away,
oops
I know. Lets agree that the mccanns were negligent and put their own enjoyment before that of the safety of their children.
As a result of their poor parenting Madeleine has disappeared. Without evidence everything else is conjecture and serves no real purpose.
including talk of 'abduction'
I know. Lets agree that the mccanns were negligent and put their own enjoyment before that of the safety of their children.
As a result of their poor parenting Madeleine has disappeared. Without evidence everything else is conjecture and serves no real purpose.
including talk of 'abduction'
a chit chat perfect storm:
http://dailym.ai/20O7ouW
http://dailym.ai/20O7ouW
" Knowing your daughter is gone and still able to play tennis."
might be libel
Katie doesn't pull her punches
has she seen inside info?
might be libel
Katie doesn't pull her punches
has she seen inside info?
The tennis thing has been mentioned lots of times in the press.
I have to say, this is the very first article by KH that I agree with.
I have to say, this is the very first article by KH that I agree with.
Didn't Andy Murray abandon his daughter recently to play tennis in Australia?
Without evidence everything else is conjecture and serves no real purpose.
Why would that not be included Brendan. Everything was the clue.
Why would that not be included Brendan. Everything was the clue.
Of the McCanns Katie Hopkins says:
But now the faces I associate with neglect are being used to promote the Child Rescue Alert campaign.
Spot on. As is the rest of her article.
But now the faces I associate with neglect are being used to promote the Child Rescue Alert campaign.
Spot on. As is the rest of her article.
No shame for their actions and Gerry especially gets very angry when questioned on this.
A very arrogant man who's daughter deserved better.
Any decent human being would be cursing their actions in all of this very sorry affair.
A very arrogant man who's daughter deserved better.
Any decent human being would be cursing their actions in all of this very sorry affair.
Well worth a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZV9Ten-HkY
3 more episodes available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZV9Ten-HkY
3 more episodes available.
The vids are well worth a look, as you say.
Only watched the first one, and the maker has put some very interesting points across.
He's put the timeline of the events in clear order, and seems to have blown open the conflicting
statements of Gerry and Kate, and just about everyone else involved!
Will watch the remaining 3 hours later.
Only watched the first one, and the maker has put some very interesting points across.
He's put the timeline of the events in clear order, and seems to have blown open the conflicting
statements of Gerry and Kate, and just about everyone else involved!
Will watch the remaining 3 hours later.
Ms Hopkins is not a fave of mine.
But there she is spot on.
11million donated. I love to see the accounts of how much of that has been used to find the poor girl.
But there she is spot on.
11million donated. I love to see the accounts of how much of that has been used to find the poor girl.
Just one line from that Ms Hopkins' article.
Last year, a father of a two year old was arrested and prosecuted after leaving his daughter in a car for two minutes whilst he ran in to a chemist to buy Calpol.
Last year, a father of a two year old was arrested and prosecuted after leaving his daughter in a car for two minutes whilst he ran in to a chemist to buy Calpol.
It happened 12 years ago and he left a 2 year old alone in a car for five minutes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846183/Father-left-sick-toddler-daughter-car-outside-chemist-ran-buy-Calpol-charged-NEGLECT-spend-year-trying-clear-name.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2846183/Father-left-sick-toddler-daughter-car-outside-chemist-ran-buy-Calpol-charged-NEGLECT-spend-year-trying-clear-name.html
What a cretin. Why would you leave a two year old in the car alone?
Feb 23, 2016 -- 3:42PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:
What a cretin. Why would you leave a two year old in the car alone?
more importnatly why was he done for it when the mccans werent?
The Camerons left their Daughter in a pub ,DAVE pished drunk on a Sunday Afternoon IMO
more importnatly why was he done for it when the mccans werent?
It is a different country with a different legal system so not sure what relevance that has but for starters I would advise checking the law on neglect in the different jurisdictions.
seems cameron has issues after he,s eaten a satisfying well cooked meal after leaving his daughter behind after a nice lunch,on friday after a nice meal he left the deal behind, 
Thanks to leazes for the videos..
I've watched the first one and it's incredibly compelling.
I've watched the first one and it's incredibly compelling.
Wait until naydam appears; the first thing he will say is "Where's the 5th video?"
Ask several witnesses about any crime/event and there will always be inconsistencies due to different perceptions of events and time. If they were all completely consistent then it is very likely they have concocted and decided to collude in giving a particular version events.
What are you suggesting from that then? That they had just killed their child whilst leaving no evidence, swore the Tapas 7 to Omerta but never bothered to go over their story with one another to get their story together and go over it a couple of times to remember it?
Just had a bit of an accident.. only gone and killed Maddie. Still, these things happen but it doesn't look good for me, we need all need to agree to a story that she was abducted, yeah? You all in, great!
I'll just chuck the body in the car and dump it and I'll be right back.
Sounds reasonable...
I'll just chuck the body in the car and dump it and I'll be right back.
Sounds reasonable...
My youngest daughter has been taken, where is she? I need to look for her. I need to call the police I need to get help she may be abducted .God knows what could have have happened to her. This is my worst nightmare. Wait, I need to to calm down, turn off my emotions and adrenaline and speak to the police officer and describe the last couple of hours in Precise detail as if my world hasnt been turned upside down and in same the manner anyone else who may have given a statement may use otherwise several years from now some bellend on the Chit Chat Forum may suggest any inconsistencies are down to me having killed my own daughter.
Sounds reasonable
Sounds reasonable
If the Tapas 7 are lying it's probably about the amount of checks made.
I doubt they all could keep a secret as bad as has been suggested for all this time.
Someone would have broke by now.
I doubt they all could keep a secret as bad as has been suggested for all this time.
Someone would have broke by now.
Crags. It gets even worse! They didn't hire the car until three weeks later! I wonder where they put the body 'for a while'.
GoBallistic. Sorry that I haven't replied earlier to your question regarding the clothing and soft toy.
As I am unsure as to exactly WHICH clothing you mean (ie. was it three months after the event?). Was it clothing that was in police evidence or clothes that she had brought with her from England?
Also, Do you have any idea regarding the whereabouts of 'Cuddle-Cat' prior to the dogs' findings?
xxmoneyxx. I assume that you ARE kidding...but just for the record: There was no fu**ing tennis!!!
As I am unsure as to exactly WHICH clothing you mean (ie. was it three months after the event?). Was it clothing that was in police evidence or clothes that she had brought with her from England?
Also, Do you have any idea regarding the whereabouts of 'Cuddle-Cat' prior to the dogs' findings?
xxmoneyxx. I assume that you ARE kidding...but just for the record: There was no fu**ing tennis!!!
Having watched the first video there are 2 extraordinary claims.
1) On the day Maddy disappeared Kate said she went for a jog and finished up on the beach where she saw Gerry and the 3 kids. Time: 530pm.
However, Kate's signature on a form suggests she signed out the kids from their creche at 530pm. ????
Gerry's evidence said that the kids had high tea in a building away from the beach until 6pm.
Eh???
2) The Police asked K&G for anything that may carry Maddy's DNA. There was bizarely nothing in the room that had it. So Gerry travels back to England and provides a pillow case that Maddy hadn't slept on for 2 weeks.
Was Maddy's clothing/toys/bedding sterilised by the McCanns??
1) On the day Maddy disappeared Kate said she went for a jog and finished up on the beach where she saw Gerry and the 3 kids. Time: 530pm.
However, Kate's signature on a form suggests she signed out the kids from their creche at 530pm. ????
Gerry's evidence said that the kids had high tea in a building away from the beach until 6pm.
Eh???
2) The Police asked K&G for anything that may carry Maddy's DNA. There was bizarely nothing in the room that had it. So Gerry travels back to England and provides a pillow case that Maddy hadn't slept on for 2 weeks.
Was Maddy's clothing/toys/bedding sterilised by the McCanns??
Injera I haven't watched the video apart from the first 2 minutes talking about media conspiracies but if point 2 comes from it and is made to be some sort of big deal then I've made the right decision.
It's common sense that if you are attempting to create a reference sample for the purpose of DNA comparison that you don't create that sample using items which originate from the 'crime scene' and may be sources of evidence.
It's common sense that if you are attempting to create a reference sample for the purpose of DNA comparison that you don't create that sample using items which originate from the 'crime scene' and may be sources of evidence.
But there would have been clothing in the room (in a drawer for example) that would be irrelevant in terms of evidence.
Anything that was not contaminated would be suitable.
Anything that was not contaminated would be suitable.
How would you know it wasn't of evidential value if it was taken from a crime scene? You yourself have just suggested that the Mccanns may have sterilized these items to remove any evidence from them.
The suggestion on the video is that a DNA sample was not available anywhere in the appartment and had to be obtained in England.
Clean clothes would not be evidence of a cover up and certainly not admissable in court.
I totally take your point.
Clean clothes would not be evidence of a cover up and certainly not admissable in court.
I totally take your point.
The video show picture of Vivian Westwood and said she was 'Vivian Duffy' or something, then proceeded to give out some facts about 'Vivian Duffy'
for that reason im out
for that reason im out
That's why I would take the video with a pinch of salt if they have reached that conclusion solely from the fact that a pillowcase from somewhere else was used for a reference sample.
The conclusion that nothing else in the flat had her DNA that is.
What's your take on the other point?
I've not looked at this case before and I've always thought it was an abduction.
I recommend these videos. They may not be 100% but they do flag up some very obvious inconsistencies.
It was odd for example that the initial photo of Maddy presented to the police was of her as a younger child, perhaps 2 1/2.
I've not looked at this case before and I've always thought it was an abduction.
I recommend these videos. They may not be 100% but they do flag up some very obvious inconsistencies.
It was odd for example that the initial photo of Maddy presented to the police was of her as a younger child, perhaps 2 1/2.
What part of the video is that at? Watched 15 minutes and sorry but just seems utterly insignificant garbage so far. Getting the colour of the curtains of a room you've seen in to a couple of times wrong is a sign of fabrication? A quick Google and him saying they were green seems to be from his second statement which he gave 11 months later. It's pretty significant whether or not these inconsistencies they are pointing out are from a ststement given a couple of days after the event or 11 months later. How hell can a person remember with accuracy the correct colours of the curtains of a room 11 months later?
Shrewd - if you look at Video 3 from 18 mins to 21:30 ish you'll see a piece about the 'Last Photo'.
This was a photo apparently taken on the day M went missing but not released to the public for 2-3 weeks.
The suggestion is that it may have been taken much earlier in the week with the date altered.
This was a photo apparently taken on the day M went missing but not released to the public for 2-3 weeks.
The suggestion is that it may have been taken much earlier in the week with the date altered.
naydam, not sure why there could be any confusion about the clothing that the cadaver dog alerted to ?
Just to recap, the British specialist dog team is brought in to examine the resort three months after the disappearance. The only locations they alert to are in the McCann's original apartment. So a few days later after having sought a warrant they go the McCann's new apartment and examine that, with the McCanns present. Cadaver dog alerts to the stuffed toy, top and trousers belonging to Kate and t-shirt belonging to Maddie. So my point was while it is physically possible for the PJ to plant cadaver matter at the original apartment which only they had access to it doesn't possible at the new apartment under the noses of the McCanns and the British dog team. Breaking and entering maybe ? But the stuffed toy seemingly went everywhere Kate went - she was never photographed without it. In the end if it quacks...
Just to recap, the British specialist dog team is brought in to examine the resort three months after the disappearance. The only locations they alert to are in the McCann's original apartment. So a few days later after having sought a warrant they go the McCann's new apartment and examine that, with the McCanns present. Cadaver dog alerts to the stuffed toy, top and trousers belonging to Kate and t-shirt belonging to Maddie. So my point was while it is physically possible for the PJ to plant cadaver matter at the original apartment which only they had access to it doesn't possible at the new apartment under the noses of the McCanns and the British dog team. Breaking and entering maybe ? But the stuffed toy seemingly went everywhere Kate went - she was never photographed without it. In the end if it quacks...
Injera I watched a bit of that part and it was like straw clutching at its absolute best. Basically the photo is a fake because it wasn't released at the time.
Wasn't there significant discrepancy in Kate's testimony. ie she reported the window shutters had been opened and broken indicating someone had broken in to abduct Maddie, subsequent photo evidence shows shutters were undamaged.
Shrewd - no they said it was a genuine photo but were questioning the date of it.
K&G released a photo of Madeleine that was of her as a much younger child.
The so called 'last photo' which was taken in Portugal was not released to the police and media for a further 2 weeks.
The suggestion is that k&G needed to get the date changed on the photo before releasing it. Their insistence that it was taken on the thursday does not bear scrutiny.
The video suggests it was taken on the Sunday and that Madeleine was not seen alive from Monday onwards.
K&G released a photo of Madeleine that was of her as a much younger child.
The so called 'last photo' which was taken in Portugal was not released to the police and media for a further 2 weeks.
The suggestion is that k&G needed to get the date changed on the photo before releasing it. Their insistence that it was taken on the thursday does not bear scrutiny.
The video suggests it was taken on the Sunday and that Madeleine was not seen alive from Monday onwards.
How does it not bear scrutiny? All I heard was him slaver some stuff about people having differently tanned skin, her wearing unusual clothes, shadows being in the wrong place and the whether being different from weather reports. Was the kind of stuff the nutters use about the Moon landing photos. The only fact they mentioned in the whole 15 minutes or I watched on the photo was that it wasn't released until two weeks later. That's a pretty big leap to say the reason for this was because they changed the date on the photo to cover up the fact that she was killed days earlier.
What would be the point of releasing this photo and lieing about the date? If the videos position is correct that she hadn't been seen for the last few days then they had already presumably covered there tracks by getting witnesses to give false statements to the police about having seen Madeleine on since then.
What would be the point of releasing this photo and lieing about the date? If the videos position is correct that she hadn't been seen for the last few days then they had already presumably covered there tracks by getting witnesses to give false statements to the police about having seen Madeleine on since then.
I think the point is that when a child goes missing, the most obvious photo to release to the press is the most recent one.
Instead K&G released one of Madeleine as a much younger child, possibly taken 1 year previous.
So why did they not release the most recent one until 2 weeks later? I think that's a very valid question.
They didn't lie about the date. The suggestion is that it was digitally changed to cover something. Just a theory but relevant because NO other photos after this one were released to the press.
In her book, Kate says it was chilly on thursday which weather reports verify. Yet in the photo both girls were wearing sun hats and all 3 had their feet in the water which was described by Kate as cold.
Instead K&G released one of Madeleine as a much younger child, possibly taken 1 year previous.
So why did they not release the most recent one until 2 weeks later? I think that's a very valid question.
They didn't lie about the date. The suggestion is that it was digitally changed to cover something. Just a theory but relevant because NO other photos after this one were released to the press.
In her book, Kate says it was chilly on thursday which weather reports verify. Yet in the photo both girls were wearing sun hats and all 3 had their feet in the water which was described by Kate as cold.
only reason I can think of releasing younger photo,is that it shows her face close up
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.
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?
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?
be interesting to know what our police think might have happened after their investigation
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..
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..
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?
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?
How do you know they don't have photos of her everyday on holiday?
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.
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??!!
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??!!
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.
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.
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.
instead of, I couldn't give a FCK, just find my daughter.
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.
Shrewd - I don't follow everything that happens in the world!
Anyway, be lucky.
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.
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.
Did her statement address the 48 questions put to her ?
Were the police treating her as a suspect when asking the 48 questions ?
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
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
The police have got to treat her as a suspect as they were the last to see her alive.
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.
For someone who admits to watching only 2 minutes of 4 hours video seems to me someone whos mind is already made up.
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.
Yeah..my mind is made up that there was no abduction,until there is evidence of an abduction the McCanns are the logical suspects.
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.
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.
"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
- The assistant chief constable of Leicestershire, in an official submission of Leicester Police to the Family Division of the High Court, in July 2008
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
Worth a read.
Worth a read.
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
..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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539