Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 922 comments are related to the topic:
McCanns lose court case
McCanns lose court case
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 922
|
By:
crystalhunt
"... a 3-part youtube video made by Richard Hall in which he interviews a witness statement expert in the USA. The videos are longish but compelling viewing..." At the very end of that interview with Peter Hyatt - a highly respected expert in statement analysis, Hyatt says, "If you were to ask me my conclusion, and how sure am I that the McCanns are showing guilty knowledge about the death of Madeleine, I'm certain." |
|
By:
For xtrader
10am: The sixth day of the McCanns' week-long holiday in the Algarve. The couple place their daughter, Madeleine and her twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, in the Ocean Club's Kids Club while they go for a walk. 12.30pm: After collecting the children, Kate and Gerry head to their apartment, 5a, on ground floor of block five of the Waterside Village Gardens, for lunch before going to the Ocean Club swimming pool. 2.29pm: The last photograph of Madeleine is taken at the pool. The camera clock reads 1.29pm but the family says it was out by one hour. 3.30pm: Children return to Kids Club. 5.30pm: Children eat dinner at Kids Club. 6pm: Kate takes children back to apartment while Gerry goes to an hour-long tennis lesson. 6.30pm: Gerry asks David Payne, one of the so-called "tapas seven", to check on Kate and the children at the apartment. 7pm: Gerry returns to the apartment and the children are put to bed in the front bedroom overlooking the car park and beyond it, the street. Madeleine is placed in the single bed nearest the door. There is an empty bed against the opposite wall beneath the window. Between the two beds are two travel cots containing the twins. 7.30pm: The McCanns shower and change. 8pm: The couple share a bottle of wine together. 8.35pm: The McCanns are the first of the group to arrive at the tapas restaurant, 50 yards away from their apartment. |
|
By:
CLYDEBANK29
CLYDEBANK29 03 Feb 17 12:15 Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 6,951 | Blogger: CLYDEBANK29's blog If I'm materially wrong with the timeline here let me know. 5.30 seen having high tea 8.00 McCanns go to dinner 10.00 Allegedly realise she is missing So we have a 150 minute window max for Maddy to die, to remain relatively silent during her death or discovering her death, to hatch a plan, to dispose of the body without witnesses or CCTV, such that it is never found, and remove any sign of an accident or her death, calmly go to dinner with their friends and then successfully play out their fantasy abduction scenario. Only if you dont believe the accident happened the night BEFORE like most others. |
|
By:
There would be loads of witnesses to confirm she was at Kids Club.
|
|
By:
Actually thats incorrect and there is little reason to believe she was there at all as you already know
|
|
By:
If people are coming up with theories that she died the night before, because it doesn't make sense to them if it happened on the night reported, then it just shows how ridiculous the assumption of guilt is.
|
|
By:
Have you been on the scotch already clyde.this has been done time and time again,what is the point of doing it here.
|
|
By:
put up or shut up
|
|
By:
The evidence suggests that Madeleine died in the apartment and the Mcanns facilitated the disposal of her body.
Which evidence exactly? I can't see it. My idea of compelling HARD evidence would be any of the following (none of which apply): * The blood unearthed by the sniffer dogs being conclusively that of Maddie. * Any sightings of Gerry or Kate off the complex carrying something or putting something in the bins, for example, in the relevant time frame * Any CCTV of Gerry or Kate off the complex carrying something in the relevant time frame * Regarding the time frame.....Any witness testament to the effect that she was NOT at high tea that day around 5.30ish * Again regarding the time frame....The absence of a 3rd party (David Payne) attesting to the fact he passed by and saw Maddie around 6.30 in the flat.. * Any indication or trace of sedatives found at the apartment * Anyone testifying that Gerry & Kate had ever mentioned using sedatives in the past (beyond the standard Calpol or whatever) * Blood tests on the twins at the time that indicated traces of sedatives (unfortunately not carried out) * Any mention of the strong smell of cleaning products from any of the dozens of people and police who traipsed through their apartment that night. |
|
By:
I went through all the evidence in the public domain about 3 years ago and also tried to fill in the gaps. If you want my view it is 85% certain.
|
|
By:
All those questions have been debated and answered elsewhere and I think it is wise for nobody on here to try to answer them.Look what happened to Tony Bennett
|
|
By:
“The impossible cannot have happened, therefore the impossible must be possible in spite of appearances.”
|
|
By:
All what questions? If you are talking to me, I haven't asked any questions!
Here is a question; can you pinpoint any actual hard evidence that actually exists? |
|
By:
actually that's the wrong quote
 meant to post this one: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." |
|
By:
A witness specifically identified Gerry McCann as the man he saw carrying what he thought was a sleeping child at around 10pm 500 meters from the appartment.
|
|
By:
You will have t be more specific that that KKK....I believe you are refering to the Irish witness, Martin Smith.....this was disproven because at the exact time indicted, Gerry was at the complex and not a 6 minute walk away. And he only said it might have been him...wasn;t sure.
|
|
By:
coukd the witness have seen someone else ?
|
|
By:
is the witness certain that he saw someone ?
that would be interesting , and if the McCanns were ruled out |
|
By:
There were several sightings. None of them produced definite leads.
|
|
By:
At least one sighting , Jane Tanner , of someone carrying what may have been a child at the same time as she saw Gerry talking to a friend.
|
|
By:
a man walking hurriedly, away from the apt. carrying s child in pink pyjamas.
And at the same time Jane tanner saw Gerry talking on the other side of the street. |
|
By:
So Jane Tanner had said she witnessed this, is it credible. ?
I would think so. |
|
By:
Gerry had said when he checked the apt shortly before the children were all there.
But he said the patio doors seemed to be slightly open. Was someone in the apt hiding as he checked ? The fact he said he saw the patio doors slightly open is interesting Why did he say 'slightly'. using that description has the ring of truth to me |
|
By:
He said the door was left slightly open normally, and he noticed it had been moved .
Why would he say this ? would this be something he would say if he was quilty , would he not be more likely to say the door wasn't moved when he went to check the children ? If he was guilty would he not have said that everything was normal at this time |
|
By:
I agree, it work the same here.
lfc1971 is slightly more stupid than most people on here. |
|
By:
now if he told the police that Madeline was not there , and the door had been moved that might make sense if he was guilty.
But to say that madaleine was there, and was ok, but the door had been moved Why would he have said that if he was guilty ? That doesn't make sense to say that , unless you are innocent |
|
By:
If you are guilty you either say everything was ok when you checked
or you say the child had gone and the door was moved you , if guilty , do not say that the child was ok and the door moved you would only say that if you were innocent ...that is what McCann said |
|
By:
Has anyone ever thought of this before ?
I am was thinking this through myself now |
|
By:
You aren't the fizziest can in the fridge, lfc, are you?
Saying the door was moved introduces the possibility of an intruder and adds to the abduction theory. Claiming the child was ok at that point in time...helps to makes it theoreticlly impossible for him to have disposed of her earlier. |
|
By:
You aren't the fizziest can in the fridge, lfc, are you?
Saying the door was moved introduces the possibility of an intruder and adds to the abduction theory. Claiming the child was ok at that point in time...helps to makes it theoreticlly impossible for him to have disposed of her earlier. |
|
By:
I don't agree. He would not if guilty say the door was moved and the children were ok
there is no reason to say that It doesn't make any sense. It only makes sense if he is innocent |
|
By:
Here's the 39 page chit chat thread from 2013 with some interesting discussion on the subject and reaction to what was on Crimewatch
http://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/30101441/madeleine-mccann?pg=1 |
|
By:
The strangest thing about that is noticing that the door had been moved and then going back to the party and continuing like everything was hunkydory. As if leaving the kids alone in the unlocked room wasn't bad enough before, now there's the possibility that they've tried to escape (you would likely conclude), yet you've still gone and left them alone again!
|
|
By:
At least one sighting , Jane Tanner , of someone carrying what may have been a child at the same time as she saw Gerry talking to a friend.
this man was identified by the Met and ruled out. the only thing of any substance they seem to have achieved |
|
By:
If McCann is trying to pretend there had been an abduction he would say when he checked the child was missing, and the doors were open
why would he if guilty say the children were ok and the door moved That is not something that would be said |
|
By:
I don't agree. He would not if guilty say the door was moved and the children were ok
there is no reason to say that It doesn't make any sense. It only makes sense if he is innocent I've given you the reasons at 14.25 |
|
By:
CLYDEBANK29
".....they have both done extremely well not to crack. I reckon over 90% of the time one of them would've cracked. They'd both have to be extremely mentally strong and utterly confident that their other half keeps stum." Totally agree, IF they are guilty they must both have a lot of inner strength, and you would think the strain of it all - especially on Kate - would begin to take its toll by now. Gerry just seems a very cocky sod. But then what sort of parents were they to go on holiday and dump their kids in day care and just go out in the evening and leave them. Why take the kids in the first place ?! When mine were young we went on holiday to be together. I find it impossible to understand how any parent - especially the mother - could leave a young child and two babies in their beds, in a hotel room in a foreign country, while she went out with friends, not once but repeatedly. |
|
By:
then there was the party member who checked on the McCann kids but didn't notice if Madeleine was there or not - work that one out...
the "checking" stories seem to largely a crock of it - this was certainly the conclusion of the prosecutor |
|
By:
Under what scenario would someone guilty have told the police that when they checked the children were ok
and the door was moved. Why would someone guilty say that ? It doesn't make sense It only makes sense if McCann is innocent. It is a very subtle but important thing I don't know if anyone has ever noticed it before Either the police or anyone else |
|
By:
It has the ring of truth to me. and the very fact that McCann described it this way may prove his innocence
|